By choosing to do a sequel a publisher is using an existing fan base to sell their new game. No one wants to pay to have the same exact experience rehashed, but if you stray too far from the formula you will alienate the existing fan base.
A spin-off series or side story can be done in the same universe that sets far less expectations, but I stand by my statement that a direct sequel will always carry expectations of being somewhat similar to what came before it. These expectations are not the fault of the fans and they are not stupid for having them. The expectations are implicitly set by the publisher who is using them to sell their games.
This.
Please excuse the following wall of text - felt like writing my own op-ed on this
I believe the article has some good points about what being a sequel means and where that meaning comes from. I do think that they are in error when they attempt to view the reaction to this game in terms of its success at filling the role of a sequel and the reaction in terms to its overall quality as wholly separate. The game was both flawed as a product of that company in general and too incongruous with the experience of the first to be appropriately called a sequel.
Though it is insufficient to simply call the game bad, it is also insufficient to simply consider as a good game poorly named as worthiness as a sequel and overall quality suffered from the same mistake throughout the process of creating it. I did enjoy it myself, but that enjoyment does not preclude the possibility of considering the whole of it as it was. The game design flaws such as heavily reused area maps and marketing/branding missteps such as presenting this as a sequel are all at least partially the result of insufficient time and effort allotted to the tasks rather than the mistaken belief that these were good choices to make under more normal circumstances. These two modes of criticism are ultimately fueled by a single original and significant error in judgment - to propose, design, develop, and market this game on the sort of schedule normally reserved for EA Sports yearly titles
Producing something as a sequel is interpreted by many gamers, as is clearly evident from some of the fan reactions, that the title is to represent refinement and elaboration of what its predecessor did. It should answer the question "What kind of experience does the game attempt to provide?" similarly but more completely than the preceding installment. When the answer to this very basic question is fundamentally different - such as they were with DA:O and DA2, a spinoff is often more appropriate. Spin-offs allow the developers to contemplate a different answer to this question - provide a different experience - and use its relationship with the existing property to give perspective and insight to this new experience. Titling it as an helps gamers expect and appreciate these differences. This also requires more marketing time and research as a shifted target audience and new branding, logos, and advertising can not rely wholly on the work done for the first game; this time and effort was not budgeted and so a more carefully considered approach in this regard was not practical even though it was most likely considered.
Consumers would be justifiably disappointed if a KOTOR 3 were made and took place entirely on a single space station in which in which your grandest immediate accomplishments were saving said space station multiple times. Oh and lets say you weren't a Jedi but a particularly impressive bounty hunter instead who, while quite a potent force, found themselves noticeably less able to change the outcomes of the various crises you faced or the attitudes of your companions. Call it Star Wars Old Republic: Bounty Hunter and execute it well and it might still be a great game. Call it KOTOR 3:We Couldn't Think of a Subtitle and people would be annoyed and accuse you of being doubly lazy for not bothering to think of either a spinoff title nor a descriptive subtitle which might help to prepare people to accept such significant changes compared to the previous installment.
Such a game, or any spinoff utilizing an existing richly developed lore base, can be done well. Developers do this quite often to utilize the worlds they spent time creating and writing on and which players have become intimately familiar with. Heck, Bioware is doing it right now even with Star Wars the Old Republic. They're not going to call it KOTOR 3 because calling it that would fail to encapsulate the significant truth that it is a very different game even if it is the sequel chapter in the same story. Labelling it differently allows them to more easily market it as what it is while still conveying that it builds upon the Old Republic story and setting.
Of course if a spin-off has significant shortcomings in aspects of gameplay, design, story, or theme then it will probably be received by gamers and reviewers as flawed. At worst this will likely kill any plans to make the spinoff a series in and of itself, but it also isolates the original games and any of its future sequels from loss of enthusiasm generated by said shoddy spinoff. Many successful series have had short-lived spinoffs with luke-warm receptions without loss of prestige to the core property. Halo Wars can give a modern example of the insulation provided by spinning off the game; much of the history of Nintendo and its use of Mario serves as another. In this way I believe Bioware and EA also screwed themselves by calling this game Dragon Age 2 - by attaching the core brand to this game its flaws will not be forgotten as they are more easily with spin-offs.
There is no clear guideline for what should be a sequel and what should be a spin-off. You must be willing to accept that the subjective evaluations in making this call is going to lead to differences of opinion developers, publishers, and gamers. In this case I do feel that the naming suggests a lack of effort and time being spent on the decision. That is also how I feel about the largest of the flaws which can be criticized in absence of comparison with Dragon Age:Origins; level reuse, anti-climactic ending, and the feeling of choice in later quests being pruned to a minimum suggest a lack of time and effort being spent (or allotted by budget) in the development.
I think that suggesting criticism of the decision to call this game a sequel and the decisions related to the flaws pointed out even by many enthusiastic reviewers should be seen as separate complaints causes one to miss the point. Sure a game can be great while not be appropriate as a straight sequel. That's not the important lesson of all of this. Dragon Age 2 answers the question of whether a Bioware title should be put on a similar development time-frame as a yearly EA Sports installment. Someone at EA clearly thought the answer was something other than 'no.'