In the generally accepted terms of the industry (i.e. I'm interpreting it my way so I win teh argument), you're more referring to an expansion than a sequel. There has been no DAoC2 sequel yet.

There won't be a DAOC 2, that's been said by management more than once.

What I tried to say in true SomethingAwful style with a pithy picture is that you don't need to call it a sequel to introduce new content, art, and graphic engines. And in so doing you leverage the not insignificant investment in the work you already have done and the attachment your players have to the game world.

True enough Lum, but so far the trend in sequels has been to create entirely new content expressly for the purpose of getting entirely new players (or have your existing players play both games).

Re-using content for an expansion, sure. Makes sense. A sequel seems to demand entirely new content, it offers different and hopefully improved gameplay.

The main reason why MMOG sequels are dumb is that they require all those fans of the original game to start all over again in a new world that reflects the old one. This runs contrary to the main reason why game sequels are done at all, which is to capitalize on the brand and loyalty that customers have to it. By putting out a "sequel" world and telling all the original fans that they can now leave the old world behind, developers are saying that everything that was enjoyed about the original game, doesn't matter and probably never did.

Notice that the 3 big, well-known sequel MMOG's are not being touted as doing better than their successful forbears. AC2 = on life support, EQ2 = not promising numbers (in the sense that no one is talking about numbers that mean a damn), and Lineage 2 = about half the population of the original. I don't think even ATITD 2 got as many as the first one.

MMOG sequels are mucho stupido. The DAoC way of updating artwork seems a much more logical approach.

I disagree on Lineage2. The game is a huge success.

To bring things back to Shadowbane (sorry), would the need for a new game engine count as a fundamental enough flaw to call for a sequel? Or do you think a change that big would still be manageable in an expansion?

It wouldn't have to be a true sequel. I'm pretty sure Ubiq could come up with quite a good game based on SB.

Is it possible, however, to introduce competitive graphical updates to your game on a regular basis without screwing over a good portion of your playerbase who can't/won't update their systems to run your game?

I ask because I can't remember whether or not DAoC's first graphics upgrade was 'optional', like EQ's and UO's. Heh.

All the graphics upgrades were optional until the latest patch, when the minimum supported engine became the (now free) Shrouded Isles version which was released in 2002.

Like if God should shut down this world to make a better version.

...Wait, that's not a bad idea.

(but my opinion on this is that we still deal with a 'world'. The effort isn't just about the players starting again from zero, but also the devs. Since a mmorpg isn't anymore a 'closed' product with a beginning and a gameover there isn't anymore a need for a sequel. Instead I'd like to see the devs daring more and keeping evolving the game-layer instead just extending it horizontally. Aside this I'd like to see different worlds and settings, not new versions of what we already have.)

Yes, but that's fluff.

Without dealing with WoW again and the design of its zones, in particular when dealing with PvP, even in DAoC you have a perfect example about how the graphic ISN'T fluff. What I mean is that there's a separation between just a different (new) "skin" and the real level design.

You can keep adding more fancy skins to EQ or DAoC but they aren't better or improved games. They aren't on par with WoW just because you could try to compare the screenshots and consider both not outdated.

The example is the RvR expansion of DAoC. The keeps don't have just high resolution textures applied, they don't have just an higher polycount. They are a different environment offering different possibilities for the gameplay.

THIS is what is relevant. An interesting and deep gameworld isn't just about how many leaves are on your trees and if you keep building better models each year. This is surely good but it's just a new dress.

The graphic is a lot more than that and I don't find useful to always look at this in a superficial way. The point is how much can be done to really shake things up and not just trivializing the graphic as something there just to please the eyes.

There's a lot, a lot more.

As another example there's SWG. They have an incredible character creation and with this expansion they offered two new races. It seems ten times better then the limited choices of WoW. But from my point of view this is utterly false and partial.

In WoW each race has a complete different feeling. They have homelands zones, they vary in height and the 'feel' is completely different. Concretely. Why? Because each race (and even the male/female) has *unique* animations. Not only the dance in a different way, but they walk they swing the weapons, they jump, they emote etc... in completely different ways. In SWG each race shares exactly the same animations. You have a lot more choices during char creation but you are just choosing your skin, the rest is faked. A wookie dances, runs, walks and shoots like an human, often producing a bunch of horrible graphical glitches like polygons compenetration.

The graphic is an important part of the game but often it is trivialized as something superficial and irrelevant when, instead, it has a strong role even in the gameplay, including level design, animations, customizations, interactivity and a lot more.

There's a museum in Illinios (I think) that boasts an "axe that Abe Lincoln used".

Since Abe used it it's had a the handle replaced 5 times, and axehead replace twice, but it's still the "axe that Abe Lincoln used"...

I suppose instead of making a sequal, game companies could incrementally change the game until they have a whole new game, while still calling it the original game.

That's also what I mean. The problem is that it won't happen easily. It's a risk, whenever you radically change something you are taking an huge risk. And you'll never see it happen.

It's also true that there are two paths. One is where the game is already, the other is a possible evolution. It is natural that if you start to move you'll find many problems and difficulties but those aren't 'naturally' negative. They are occasions to really understand and improve. "Failing" isn't a full stop, it's a transition.

But the whole environment, as the mmorpg industry in general, is already highly risky. Game companies try a lot more to consolidate and survive, trying to do the less possible. Trying to be overly careful because the situation is everything but reassuring. It's exactly this that makes the games old and obsolete. They loose more and more the ambition (completely different from the survival instinct), the possibility to 'reheat' the hearts.

From the human point of view it's a stressful situation where it's hard to draw out the creativity. To lead instead of being subdued.

The only thing that needs to be salvaged from SB is the combination of open pvp and the reliance on other players for city building and the way that some in-game guild politics are set up.

The class/profession/discipline system is cute, but really-virtually everything outside of the siege could easily be scrapped and nobody will miss it.

Yet again, another pre-ordered expansion to a MMOG I just cancelled arrived at my doorstep. How many bodies are in playing Throne of Oblivion now?

UO is a sterling example. I'd probably have a hard time recognizing Asheron's Call 1 if I went back to it, too.

Which is great, but what you really need is a reusable community. ie. One where new players can join from scratch and have fun without bringing an entire guild with them, even 12-24 months after the game's inception (or even one where poeple are comfortable rerolling without powerlevelling).

EQ could have released a million expansion packs, but the only thing that they could think of to create a usable low level community was to make a whole new game.

This is the problem though - calling it the original game is why you don't get so many box sales.

Cryptic have the right idea in this area.

CoV is always referred to as 'the sequel to CoH' in all press documentation. CoV will be a standalone game. Buy CoV, you get access to Villians, buy CoH, you get access to Heroes. One subscription covers both.

This is very insightful. A perfect game design would actually encourage established guilds to treat new players as a commodity and woo them into their playstyle as a valued cog.

I don't think any game has gotten this right, yet. And certainly no MMO.

-Walt

Still pointless and clueless. But EQ is facing a similar situation:
http://mobhunter.com/000044.html

I have archived a few letters between me and Ola on MUD-dev discussing the problem of old players ruining the experience of new players:


And more.

My solution is still the "flat power treadmill project". You give old player access to new roles (PvP in particular). Where new ranks are equal to new roles in a battle but NOT more power.

Ola in the letters started to suggest ways to segregate the old players from the new players. The most possible so that one group wouldn't ruin the other. My opinion is exactly the opposite. The key is about having the players have differenty roles but in the SAME situation.

So that new players do different things from old players. But playing SIDE BY SIDE.

"/level 20" is exactly how you destroy this concept.