On sequels and the plotting thereof

[Death Machine Miyagi]

Of the Infinity Engine games, only Baldur's Gate was planned from word 'go' to be the first installment in an overarching plot line The Nameless One's story ends with PS:T (barring a massive cop-out) and Icewind Dale...well, not qualified to talk much about Icewind Dale, having never finished it, but my understanding is the story told begins and ends in the game itself.

 

MCA seems to suggest they're going for the Baldur's Gate approach. They fully intend to make sequels, if the game is profitable, and expand the world. Makes perfect sense, really.

 

What isn't quite as clear is how your character's story fits into this. The world may expand, but that says nothing about the story. Will we have a character who makes the jump to the sequel, as in the BG series, continuing along a massive story that bridges two or more games? Would we find ourselves importing characters and dealing with level caps and all the rest of the things that made it possible to play BG from the first game to Throne of Bhaal? Or will the second game have your character be the Chosen One to P:E's Vault Dweller, or the Exile to P:E's Revan, a spiritual successor at best?

 

Perhaps a better question: which approach do you guys prefer? Massive game bridging story or each game a self-contained entity, with the world being the constant rather than the plot and the character?

[Ieo]

I'd like a cohesive world and characters like in the BG series myself (importing and everything), with independent storylines in the sequels. So my main concern is how each of the games' endings will be handled--I definitely want closure for each, that is. It would be hard to plan for a 2-parter or trilogy or even more without taking that into account.

[Sensuki]

I think many people are jumping the gun here. I don't even think they have the story planned yet, how about let them finish the story, then talk about it.

 

I'm pretty sure they're going to go with the BG1-> BG2 approach. But I don't even think they know how they're going to handle it yet, so besides this post i'm not even going to concern myself about it as it's likely over 3 years away ... hahah.

[Death Machine Miyagi]

I'd like a cohesive world and characters like in the BG series myself (importing and everything), with independent storylines in the sequels. So my main concern is how each of the games' endings will be handled--I definitely want closure for each, that is. It would be hard to plan for a 2-parter or trilogy or even more without taking that into account.

 

Closure is important. For example, I think killing Sarevok in BG1 was a good point of closure. The Bhaalspawn plot is just beginning, really, but that entry point to it is sealed in a satisfactory manner when you finish him off. One story ends and, it suggests, the greater plot begins.

 

Ideally, anyway.

[Utukka]

Either way can be good it appears, loved the BG series, loved Diablo 1 & 2....not a fan of d3. I assume you know the story of both series. I think I would prefer a BG style in this type of game, progress from start to finish with the same guy as long as power doesn't become out of hand too early.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Utukka

[Death Machine Miyagi]

I think many people are jumping the gun here. I don't even think they have the story planned yet, how about let them finish the story, then talk about it.

 

I'm pretty sure they're going to go with the BG1-> BG2 approach. But I don't even think they know how they're going to handle it yet, so besides this post i'm not even going to concern myself about it as it's likely over 3 years away ... hahah.

 

I was suspecting someone would say something to this effect, but I really hope Obsidian isn't thinking this way.

 

The most infuriating thing to me about how the whole 'one part in a trilogy' routine has played out in CRPGs, in practice, has been how little planning seems to be involved. I've bitched about this in other threads, I believe, but I shall bitch again because it deserves to be bitched about and I enjoy bitching about it.

 

Take the transition from BG2 to Throne of Bhaal. They end BG2 with an ominous council of green-robed guys who speak about how 'Gorion's ward is too powerful' and they 'should have acted long before now' and so forth, ending with a menacing declaration that 'the Bhaalspawn is doomed, there is no escape!' and a scroll up to reveal a symbol of Bhaal on the table. Spooky foreshadowing. I'm sure anyone who has played BG2 remembers it.

 

But apparently the developers didn't. Those five white guys in green robes? Supposed to be the Five, a group that includes a dragon, a female, a female drow, a fire giant...Oy! They apparently made them generic in the ending video because they hadn't decided what the Five would actually look like at that point. They, of course, never even bother to stop a half second and explain why the actual Five are about as wildly different from the guys you see in the cinematic as you can get. They just shrug it off and push on forward.

 

And that seems to be the unofficial mantra of waaayyy too many video game writers: don't even bother to check what you said or showed about a subject in your earlier games. if you introduce something and its either a complete Deus Ex Machina or wildly contradicts something that came before, just shrug it off and push forward. Planning ahead is unnecessary and you can play it by ear when the time comes. Only a few whiny fans will care.

 

By contrast, consider that there are writers today, authors of book series and the like, who have major events they've been working up to planned out several books in advance. Years and years before a character is first seen by the reading public or a major event unfolds, there are hints and suggestions and implications, foreshadowing of all sorts building up to that unveiling. As a result, when the event occurs or the character appears, it is that much more satisfactory and what came before becomes that much richer in hindsight.

 

I want to see long-term storytelling in P:E that bridges games, but just as important I would love to see long term planning in P:E, planning in which a good number of important plot points and ideas for the series are dreamed up years and years before we may actually see them. To use a comparison, if this were Fallout 1 in development right now, I would love to see subtle clues lying around hinting at the existence of the Enclave and the actual purpose of the vaults, years before their first official introduction in Fallout 2. Let major points of the series be understood by the developers from the very start and given the appropriate foreshadowing and the storyline will be better for it..

Edited November 2, 2012 by Death Machine Miyagi

[Sensuki]

Perhaps you will get what you want as there's no publisher deciding on whether or not there will be a sequel, Obsidian are deciding. I'm sure *some* form of planning will be put into it at least. But hey I'm not as bothered by it as you are, i'm waaaaaaaaaaay more concerned about the gameplay as that was the thing that made the IE games for me.

 

I still play BG and IWD to this day, but I don't read the dialogue anymore because I've played the games so many times that I don't need to, the gameplay outlasts the story.

[Death Machine Miyagi]

I still play BG and IWD to this day, but I don't read the dialogue anymore because I've played the games so many times that I don't need to, the gameplay outlasts the story.

 

That's perfectly alright. To each their own and all, and I hope P:E has the great gameplay of the Infinity engine as well.

 

I don't agree, though; I love the gameplay, but I love the gameplay more when there's an interesting story behind it, and on the whole video game stories suck the big one precisely because you can get away with having an awful story in a game so long as you have great gameplay.

 

I gave money to Obsidian largely because they tend to be the exception to that rule. They like telling good stories. Here is their chance to tell a great one, and it will be all the greater with a little forethought.

[Sensuki]

On the first few play through's I would agree. After that though.

 

I think I once cared about the Baldur's Gate storyline, but that would have been like 10 years ago or more.

[Ieo]

The most infuriating thing to me about how the whole 'one part in a trilogy' routine has played out in CRPGs, in practice, has been how little planning seems to be involved. I've bitched about this in other threads, I believe, but I shall bitch again because it deserves to be bitched about and I enjoy bitching about it.

 

Take the transition from BG2 to Throne of Bhaal. They end BG2 with an ominous council of green-robed guys who speak about how 'Gorion's ward is too powerful' and they 'should have acted long before now' and so forth, ending with a menacing declaration that 'the Bhaalspawn is doomed, there is no escape!' and a scroll up to reveal a symbol of Bhaal on the table. Spooky foreshadowing. I'm sure anyone who has played BG2 remembers it.

 

But apparently the developers didn't. Those five white guys in green robes? Supposed to be the Five, a group that includes a dragon, a female, a female drow, a fire giant...Oy! They apparently made them generic in the ending video because they hadn't decided what the Five would actually look like at that point. They, of course, never even bother to stop a half second and explain why the actual Five are about as wildly different from the guys you see in the cinematic as you can get. They just shrug it off and push on forward.

 

And that seems to be the unofficial mantra of waaayyy too many video game writers: don't even bother to check what you said or showed about a subject in your earlier games. if you introduce something and its either a complete Deus Ex Machina or wildly contradicts something that came before, just shrug it off and push forward. Planning ahead is unnecessary and you can play it by ear when the time comes. Only a few whiny fans will care.

 

Wow, I completely forgot about that cutscene. (edit) Though I suppose even when I did play SoA->ToB, that never occurred to me probably because I just thought they were other high-ranking Bhaal followers at the time. Or something.

 

By contrast, consider that there are writers today, authors of book series and the like, who have major events they've been working up to planned out several books in advance. Years and years before a character is first seen by the reading public or a major event unfolds, there are hints and suggestions and implications, foreshadowing of all sorts building up to that unveiling. As a result, when the event occurs or the character appears, it is that much more satisfactory and what came before becomes that much richer in hindsight.

 

I want to see long-term storytelling in P:E that bridges games, but just as important I would love to see long term planning in P:E, planning in which a good number of important plot points and ideas for the series are dreamed up years and years before we may actually see them. To use a comparison, if this were Fallout 1 in development right now, I would love to see subtle clues lying around hinting at the existence of the Enclave and the actual purpose of the vaults, years before their first official introduction in Fallout 2. Let major points of the series be understood by the developers from the very start and given the appropriate foreshadowing and the storyline will be better for it..

 

I love foreshadowing; I think it's one of the best literary devices in existence and tells me the author knows what s/he is doing for an intellectually complex tale, and I appreciate that.

 

That said, for games, I think it's better to build storyline narratives that don't follow the book series model too closely: It's great to have the same world, close time periods (no "50 years later!" things), your same character, at least some same NPCs, same lore and historical memory built upon character actions, but a completely contained storyline within the body of the game itself.

 

The problem we have here is that absolutely no one knows just how successful PE will be at retail to fund a quality franchise. You cannot efficiently plan across sequels with that kind of restraint--authors don't have this problem anymore because everyone can easily self-publish literature these days. If Obsidian can avoid overt foreshadowing in a given game and then maintain and respect "memory" in future sequels and expansions, I think it'll be fine.

 

 

*By "respect memory," I mean the author(s) must not do the Evil Retcon upon major story and lore elements. That immediately destroys credibility and cheapens the entire narrative quality.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Ieo

[Death Machine Miyagi]

I love foreshadowing; I think it's one of the best literary devices in existence and tells me the author knows what s/he is doing for an intellectually complex tale, and I appreciate that.

 

That said, for games, I think it's better to build storyline narratives that don't follow the book series model too closely: It's great to have the same world, close time periods (no "50 years later!" things), your same character, at least some same NPCs, same lore and historical memory built upon character actions, but a completely contained storyline within the body of the game itself.

 

Well...yeah. I don't think the book model is exactly what they should do either and I agree a game should be primarily self-contained plot-wise.

 

But I think Obsidian's own KOTOR2 provided a fairly good example of how foreshadowing in a game can be cool while still containing the plot to that one game. There's a lot of foreshadowing throughout about some unnamed evil that Revan went off to fight and felt was such a terrible danger that he took truly extreme measures to prepare for it. Yet, aside from those ominous hints, there is still no doubt Darth Nihilus, Darth Sion, and Darth Traya are the main enemies of the game. The future is suggested but the present plotline is still most important.

 

A pity the people developing TOR had very little idea as to what to do with all that foreshadowing. Ah well.

 

The problem we have here is that absolutely no one knows just how successful PE will be at retail to fund a quality franchise. You cannot efficiently plan across sequels with that kind of restraint--authors don't have this problem anymore because everyone can easily self-publish literature these days. If Obsidian can avoid overt foreshadowing in a given game and then maintain and respect "memory" in future sequels and expansions, I think it'll be fine.

 

*By "respect memory," I mean the author(s) must not do the Evil Retcon upon major story and lore elements. That immediately destroys credibility and cheapens the entire narrative quality.

 

True, we don't know if there will be a P:E 2. We don't know whether the game will sell well enough to warrant one. I don't think that's any reason to hold off in preparing for the possibility of it, though. Baldur's Gate had its level cap and its unfinished Bhaalspawn storyline that was just begging for a sequel and a more definitive ending...but if it had tanked in sales and there had been no BG2, would that have been reason to consider preparing for it a mistake? I don't think so.

[Death Machine Miyagi]

Anyway, the direction this has gone is slightly beside the point. Whatever planning they do for a hypothetical sequel years and years away, they will have to make one decision now: whether to design the game with a self-contained character arc ala the Vault Dweller or design it with the expectation that that character and at least some of his companions will still be adventuring in any potential sequel.

 

I personally prefer the latter for this kind of game, but the former has been done extremely well by Obsidian before, so I won't offer any complaints if that's the road they choose.

[Ieo]

Well...yeah. I don't think the book model is exactly what they should do either and I agree a game should be primarily self-contained plot-wise.

 

But I think Obsidian's own KOTOR2 provided a fairly good example of how foreshadowing in a game can be cool while still containing the plot to that one game. There's a lot of foreshadowing throughout about some unnamed evil that Revan went off to fight and felt was such a terrible danger that he took truly extreme measures to prepare for it. Yet, aside from those ominous hints, there is still no doubt Darth Nihilus, Darth Sion, and Darth Traya are the main enemies of the game. The future is suggested but the present plotline is still most important.

 

A pity the people developing TOR had very little idea as to what to do with all that foreshadowing. Ah well.

 

Oh, I only played KotOR1. Sacrilegious, I know... I liked the KotOR1 ending just fine; actually the reason why I didn't play KotOR2 was because a friend described how your KotOR2 character ended up being shoehorn-retcon-blah (I don't know the exact literary term for what they did, if there is one) for SWTOR, which ended up being a spoiler for me so I couldn't bring myself to become invested in something that's canonically destroyed... (I had the same feelings for Divine Divinity and Divinity 2---I only played Divinity 2 and then found out that the creators decided the main character from Divine Divinity would be canonically male or something, I don't remember. It was messy to me, so I just didn't bother.)

 

Also, I should qualify my original statement on how foreshadowing is my favorite literary device---it's my favorite only if it comes to proper fruition. There are certainly examples of great foreshadowing in various media because those hints came full circle, but the mere addition of foreshadowing is half the dance, and failure to follow through immediately drops that implementation to hateful half-assery. That's why I think it should be as minimal as possible in a game with iffy franchise prospects.

 

The problem we have here is that absolutely no one knows just how successful PE will be at retail to fund a quality franchise. You cannot efficiently plan across sequels with that kind of restraint--authors don't have this problem anymore because everyone can easily self-publish literature these days. If Obsidian can avoid overt foreshadowing in a given game and then maintain and respect "memory" in future sequels and expansions, I think it'll be fine.

 

*By "respect memory," I mean the author(s) must not do the Evil Retcon upon major story and lore elements. That immediately destroys credibility and cheapens the entire narrative quality.

 

True, we don't know if there will be a P:E 2. We don't know whether the game will sell well enough to warrant one. I don't think that's any reason to hold off in preparing for the possibility of it, though. Baldur's Gate had its level cap and its unfinished Bhaalspawn storyline that was just begging for a sequel and a more definitive ending...but if it had tanked in sales and there had been no BG2, would that have been reason to consider preparing for it a mistake? I don't think so.

There are certainly different levels of closure that any author/creator can implement. "Open-ended" closure where the adventurer is still capable of going forward is the best for a franchise without the giant arc. I think BG1 had the perfect open-ended solid closure cutscene. BG2:ToB is truly closed closure.

 

By the way, I just checked on Youtube about BG2:SoA's foreshadow cutscene--you're wrong. The table showed 7 hooded figures.

[Utukka]

I imagine as long as PE doesn't sell the story short and has fun gameplay, they will do just fine and would lead to a bigger 2nd kickstarter in the future. If they decide to do another(I know they said they'd fund game 2 off of the first game sales).

 

As for story, the more in-depth, the better. I'd love a long term story to unfold throughout multiple games/expansions. BG series is 1 of my favorites, played it countless times. As for "closure" or foreshadowing....both are good but not entirely necessary in my opinion. For example, a first game in a series ending on a cliff hanger doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing. I'm not saying leave it like diablo 2 did so actiblizz can ruin a great series, in short, a d1 to d2 type ending would suffice. I suppose diablo being killed could be seen as closure but hey, it leaves some questions at the end. Also, if the enemy has a secret plan that they've been working on for a long time, I'd rather them not leave clues all over the place and potentially just blow my mind when the enemy sets it off. Perhaps he even leaves clues that lead me to a wrong conclusion.....

Edited November 2, 2012 by Utukka

[Death Machine Miyagi]

By the way, I just checked on Youtube about BG2:SoA's foreshadow cutscene--you're wrong. The table showed 7 hooded figures.

 

Which actually makes it even worse. You see, it isn't just my assumption that they were meant to be the Five; my understanding is that the developers, when the question was put to them by a confused fan after ToB was released, claimed they were meant to be the Five and were left generic because the design of the Five hadn't been determined yet.

 

I don't have a direct quote, though. Just what I've heard when the question came up previously. I suppose I could be wrong, but given how sloppy the design of ToB was in general I doubt it.

[Ieo]

Anyway, the direction this has gone is slightly beside the point. Whatever planning they do for a hypothetical sequel years and years away, they will have to make one decision now: whether to design the game with a self-contained character arc ala the Vault Dweller or design it with the expectation that that character and at least some of his companions will still be adventuring in any potential sequel.

 

I personally prefer the latter for this kind of game, but the former has been done extremely well by Obsidian before, so I won't offer any complaints if that's the road they choose.

 

A contained game narrative with character arc doesn't necessarily preclude inheriting at least some of the same companions and NPCs; I'd definitely want to see some familiar faces available for continuing play... out of 8 companions, if Obsidian chose to only allow 4 to "return," I'd be annoyed if my favorite companion wasn't among them, but so long as they were all in the sequels and available for chatting (maybe as quest givers or whatever), I'd still be fine with it.

 

 

By the way, I just checked on Youtube about BG2:SoA's foreshadow cutscene--you're wrong. The table showed 7 hooded figures.

 

Which actually makes it even worse. You see, it isn't just my assumption that they were meant to be the Five; my understanding is that the developers, when the question was put to them by a confused fan after ToB was released, claimed they were meant to be the Five and were left generic because the design of the Five hadn't been determined yet.

 

I don't have a direct quote, though. Just what I've heard when the question came up previously. I suppose I could be wrong, but given how sloppy the design of ToB was in general I doubt it.

 

I played SoA+ToB well after the final release date and I wasn't active in the gaming community in any capacity at the time, so I definitely haven't heard of that. Meh, I'll stick with my generic interpretation, I guess. Of course, your feelings on that illustrates perfectly why there shouldn't be much foreshadowing in games. It's risky and can lead to sloppy implementation later. And in the great tradition of psychological serial position effect in linear storytelling, any foreshadowing is best left within the game body and not dangling off a final end-game cinematic. IMO.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Ieo

[GhostofAnakin]

I think I'd be more in favor of a sequel that's not necessarily dependent on the PC or his continuing story, but rather just a continuation of the world as a whole after the events of the first game. I'd rather see the consequences of the PC's actions in the first be seen in the sequel, with his actions shaping the world we encounter when we play the second game, but not necessarily a continuation of the PC's story.

 

Each game should be a self contained story, with a resolution at the end that leaves no cliff hangers. One of the main reasons I'd prefer this is because you just never know what will happen over that time. Planning a game's story over multiple games doesn't always pan out, and often times the individual games suffer for it.

 

A perfect recent example of this is the Mass Effect trilogy. The main plot for each game was supposed to build on the previous, but in actuality it was like when it came time to develop each new installment, they decided to change the story. The result was three games whose main story arc is only loosely related, with plot holes and inconsistencies galore.

 

Another example that hits closer to home is the KOTOR series. Obsidian made a great sequel, IMO, but the ending was just crying out for a KOTOR III. But that never happened, so the series kind of got stuck in limbo until a novel came along to tie up (rather poorly, IMO) the story.

 

So I'd rather see PE and its sequels focus more on the continuation of the world based on the actions of the player in each game, but not necessarily a continuation of the player's story from one game to the next. If that makes sense.

[Corvus Metus]

If the world of P:E is developed enough, they can have a lot of hooks, without promising anything.

 

In the Hobbit, you hear about the Necromancer, which Gandolf goes off to deal with. In Lord of the Rings, you learn that the Necromancer is Sauron. Tolkien never planned the connection, but when writing a sequel to his own story - he discovered a little plot point he could use.

 

P:E can do that, easily, I'd say. Maybe not have any real plan for a sequel but leave little tidbits they can pick up on even if they don't have plans for it.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Corvus Metus

[Sacred_Path]

Too much foreshadowing is annoying and makes it feel like you're playing an incomplete game. Instead of hinting at the continuation of the main storyline, it's better to be a little vague overall. Will the war between two races be ended in time? Will a powerful artifact recovered by the party have any influence on the world (think the removal of the Codex of Ultimate Wisdom in Ultima)? These are things that tickle your imagination and make me want to play a sequel.

[FlintlockJazz]

They have said that PE will end with PC at the DnD equivalent of level 12, which indicates to me a deliberate attempt at leaving room for further growth in expansions and sequels without getting too high.

[JOG]

I always prefered carrying my character(s) over to sequels. While I like to finish a story, I don't need to "max out" my character.

 

This is something the industry has forgotten, today most "RPGs" just aim at maxing out a character, the target audience even seems to be demanding it, a game that doesn't allow you to gain at least 30-40 levels is not worth playing. When there isn't enough story to max out your character you get some pointless grinding levels with silly groups of high-level opponents where you can quickly gain a level or ten before the endgame. (Yes, NWN2. I'm also pointing at you here.)

 

A sequel then either features all-new characters, completely overhauls the character system and makes your previous accomplishments irrelevant, or is an epic campaign, where you jump from one legendary place to the other to find suitable opposition. I for one prefer the old-school approach like in the old SSI games, Bard's Tale, Realms of Arkania, and "lately" Baldur's Gate: 2-4 games with an increasing level span, where you could play each game individually with new characters or bring your old characters to the next chapter of a truly epic story.

[Juneau]

As much as I prefer arcing storylines ala Mass Effect when it comes to an RPG like this I very much want the game to be a full story in its own right.

 

If there is a main protagonist I want to deal with said protagonist. If it so happens when the sequel comes out that said protagonist was working for even-worse-protagonist then so be it. I really don't want to be "finishing" a game which story wise doesn't close.

 

Personally, I've been reading the Honorverse books lately and thats about 16 books (guess) and the storyline is one massive arcing story spanning so far 20 odd years of her life and even though each book hints at a larger ongoing conflict with side stories and the works each book deals with the main plot and the main side stories and the stuff that 'gets mentioned' is fleshed out as the plot for the next book and so on.

 

What I don't like is how in some other 'nameless' books is how the main plot isn't fully finished and we're left with a cliffhanger - In games I HATE THIS. Especially in terms of replayability. Once you at the cliff hanger you can't just play on. It makes no sense.

 

Still, if the game is amazing I'll cope with an arcing storyline though I hope they don't make it so that if you want to finish it properly you have to buy expansions.

[quechn1tlan]

I prefer the KotOR way. I really like to try myself in the shoes of a new protagonist, travelling closely(or maybe not so closely) to where the original took place. Seeing all the consequences and the impact of the first installation, gathering bits and pieces of data regarding what happend after. Like T3's secret recording in KotOR2 or Vault Dveller's jumpsiut being worshiped as tribe's relic in FO2.

 

And contrary to what people here express I do enjoy open endings and cliffhangers. This way there's an endless posibility to what might have happened next. Sparks my imagination. Probably another reason I hated TOR so much.

[Death Machine Miyagi]

Each game should be a self contained story, with a resolution at the end that leaves no cliff hangers. One of the main reasons I'd prefer this is because you just never know what will happen over that time. Planning a game's story over multiple games doesn't always pan out, and often times the individual games suffer for it.

 

A perfect recent example of this is the Mass Effect trilogy. The main plot for each game was supposed to build on the previous, but in actuality it was like when it came time to develop each new installment, they decided to change the story. The result was three games whose main story arc is only loosely related, with plot holes and inconsistencies galore.

 

But this isn't an indictment of good planning. Its an indictment of bad planning. Its an indictment of coming up with a well-realized plan and then throwing it all out and coming up with a completely incompatible plan when the time comes to start. All would have been well if they hadn't decide to change the story for each installment and instead figured out a rough trajectory as to where they were going.

 

This doesn't mean they need to sit down and plan out all the sequels in excruciating detail before planning for the first game even begins. All they need is a few rough goalposts of what they intend to happen in the future, major events they want to see happen and major things that are going on behind the scenes. George RR Martin always talks about it like this: its like a cross-country trip (ehhh...speaking as an American); you know you're starting in, say, Los Angeles and ending up in, say, New York. You know along the way you'll be visiting the Grand Canyon or Mount Rushmore or stopping in to see relatives in Chicago or Atlanta or wherever, but you don't know every restaurant you'll stop at or hotel you'll be staying at. You establish a few big things you know are coming and plan for and allow a ton of flexibility for little things so you aren't crippled in regards to creativity down the line.

 

But you stick to the plan. And if you don't, you shouldn't blame the plan you didn't stick to.

 

Another example that hits closer to home is the KOTOR series. Obsidian made a great sequel, IMO, but the ending was just crying out for a KOTOR III. But that never happened, so the series kind of got stuck in limbo until a novel came along to tie up (rather poorly, IMO) the story.

 

Here you and I differ strongly. I think KOTOR II would have been a worse game without all the clues hinting at the 'True Sith' and what actually happened to Revan, even with the reality that we never got a KOTOR III and what we did get in the way of a KOTOR continuation was lamely executed on all levels. It was precisely the fact that KOTOR II felt less self-contained than the original KOTOR that made it feel like a richer and more involving game to me, even if it all came apart at the seams in Act 3.

 

Just after you posted, Corvus Metus said this:

 

In the Hobbit, you hear about the Necromancer, which Gandolf goes off to deal with. In Lord of the Rings, you learn that the Necromancer is Sauron. Tolkien never planned the connection, but when writing a sequel to his own story - he discovered a little plot point he could use.

 

When Tolkien started dropping references to the Necromancer in the Hobbit, he did so with no clue whatsoever that he was going to write Lord of the Rings. He referenced the Necromancer, a villain implied to be far greater and more threatening than Smaug, with no intention of wrapping up that storyline. Later, in Lord of the Rings itself, he references Morgoth as a greater evil than Sauron with no intention of explaining or wrapping up that storyline either. It was only years or decades later that the Silmarillion was released and explained that little plot thread a bit.

 

Perhaps to some people such connections are frustrating when there is obviously no intent to give them immediate resolution...or even explanation. For me, they're great because they help make it clear there is a greater world out there beyond what you are currently seeing, greater threats beyond what you are currently facing, and yet because the world is larger than your problems there is no need to get into that just yet.

 

And yes, that even holds true when they can't finish it properly, IMHO. If there had never been a Lord of the Rings, the references to the Necromancer would still have made the Hobbit a richer book. Even without a KOTOR III, I actually prefer to pretend all the 'revelations' TOR had about the KOTOR plotline didn't happen and just use my imagination to picture what was planned. Certainly I don't think KOTOR II is a lesser game for its implied menace lurking beyond the horizon without ever being seen. Just the opposite, in fact.

[GhostofAnakin]

But this isn't an indictment of good planning. Its an indictment of bad planning. Its an indictment of coming up with a well-realized plan and then throwing it all out and coming up with a completely incompatible plan when the time comes to start. All would have been well if they hadn't decide to change the story for each installment and instead figured out a rough trajectory as to where they were going.

 

This doesn't mean they need to sit down and plan out all the sequels in excruciating detail before planning for the first game even begins. All they need is a few rough goalposts of what they intend to happen in the future, major events they want to see happen and major things that are going on behind the scenes. George RR Martin always talks about it like this: its like a cross-country trip (ehhh...speaking as an American); you know you're starting in, say, Los Angeles and ending up in, say, New York. You know along the way you'll be visiting the Grand Canyon or Mount Rushmore or stopping in to see relatives in Chicago or Atlanta or wherever, but you don't know every restaurant you'll stop at or hotel you'll be staying at. You establish a few big things you know are coming and plan for and allow a ton of flexibility for little things so you aren't crippled in regards to creativity down the line.

 

But you stick to the plan. And if you don't, you shouldn't blame the plan you didn't stick to.

 

My point was less that continuing story arcs are impossible to make, and more that it seems like too often it ends up resulting in a mess. You're 100% correct that it stems from bad planning, but that's what I was alluding to.

 

I just think that planning for a sequel (or a trilogy) when the games are likely to be spread out over 4 to 6 years ends up causing all sorts of issues, whether that be due to bad planning from the start, or from coming across issues along the way that they didn't anticipate when they first laid out their plans for the series.

 

So doing self-contained stories, with only the world as a whole changing (as opposed to necessarily carrying over the PC's story over multiple games), avoids this because if something doesn't work after the first game, or if they want to move the overall story of the game in a different direction in the sequel, they can do so without having to be constrained by carrying over the PC and his story as well.

 

 

Here you and I differ strongly. I think KOTOR II would have been a worse game without all the clues hinting at the 'True Sith' and what actually happened to Revan, even with the reality that we never got a KOTOR III and what we did get in the way of a KOTOR continuation was lamely executed on all levels. It was precisely the fact that KOTOR II felt less self-contained than the original KOTOR that made it feel like a richer and more involving game to me, even if it all came apart at the seams in Act 3.

---

 

And yes, that even holds true when they can't finish it properly, IMHO. If there had never been a Lord of the Rings, the references to the Necromancer would still have made the Hobbit a richer book. Even without a KOTOR III, I actually prefer to pretend all the 'revelations' TOR had about the KOTOR plotline didn't happen and just use my imagination to picture what was planned. Certainly I don't think KOTOR II is a lesser game for its implied menace lurking beyond the horizon without ever being seen. Just the opposite, in fact.

 

I disagree. I think the reason KOTOR II felt richer was because of Obsidian's ability to tell a deeper, more thought provoking story. KOTOR II could have had proper closure with no real cliff hanger, and it still would have felt like a rich story because of Obsidian's skill. The ending didn't detract from KOTOR II's greatness, but it did leave me waiting for an actual ending to that story that never came (until Karpshyshyn's novel, which sucked).

 

Besides which, my point with this example was more a continuation of my above point, that when you write a story that involves an assumption or a suggestion that another game is to follow to wrap it up, then expectations of that next story are there and disappointment arises when that story doesn't come. Which falls under the whole planning for a multiple game story arc and the issues that arise with doing so.