I've been reading a thread in bioware's forum about people complaining about the fact that Warden is not the PC in DA2. It's quite interesting read, and spawns a few questions.

What do you think, If a game X has a good story, great characters and the main character's story was not "completely" concluded, should the sequel continue the story?

I think that it would be nice, if there is a good way for it to keep going without being "forced". I also have no problem with the concept that the sequel could happen in the same setting as the first game, but with a different "angle". You know, play as a different character while the actions in the first game happen as you play your own story. You know, stories going "side by side"

What do you think?

Ideally there should be as much continuity as possible. But I'd rather have a sequel that had a deep and engaging storyline of its own than a weak, yet faithful continuation of the series that picks up exactly where the last one left off.

In my opinion it is better for the believability of the setting if you can tell more than one story in it. For me a good sequel is the one in that I can see consequences of my actions in previous game, but I can still rediscover it trough actions of another hero.
As a rule, story should be concluded (one way or another) in one game or a game and it`s expansion.

I think it may have helped if they'd called it Dragon Age: Something Else.

That way, you have "origins" and "something else", and less people would expect anything but world similarity.

Similarly to Fallout and Fallout 3, where Fallout 4 is "New Vegas" but wasn't called FO4 for some reason (perhaps because other folks might prefer to regard it as the third in the series and forget about FO3?)

Sierra certainly showed that people don't necessarily require a lot of similarity in sequels, as the King's Quest series features different protagonists, different settings and a few changes in style.

How exactly would they have put the Warden in DA2 anyway? Due to the slight variations in the ending, it would be quite hard to have an adequate direct continuation of that story.

Unless the story was designed to center around one character over numerous sequels like James Bond, Doctor Who or Commander Shepherd I would rather sequels took place in the same world but not with the same people. Unless they were designed to carry over multiple stories a sequel with the same characters usually weakens the original story and the character's story.

Fallout does it perfect if you ask me... some characters repeat when it makes sense, and the world and factions have continuity, but every story stands on its own and has a different character.

If it was done properly, yes.

Blizzard has never failed me so far with the stories in their games. Always perfect quality. :)

I believe that, Fallout New Vegas was more like a Spin-off to Fallout 3, I mean, it used the same engine, it had the same exact feeling, the enviroment was like the one in FO3 but it had some changes...

No, yes, maybe. It really depends on the story, the character, and whether the character can work in multiple kinds of stories.