The Grand Adventure between Two Major Cities

[Hellfell]

One of the best feelings I had while playing Baldur's gate 2 was the sense of a grand yet linear adventure after chapter 2. You could spend hours and hours of gameplay in chapter 2 preparing for this important adventure to save Imoen and punish Irenicus. After departing from Athkatla, it was like a roller coaster - Brynnlaw, spell hold, fish town, Underdark and climbing to surface, it was really awesome feeling of pursuit and struggle.

 

Project Eternity will feature two major cities. We don't know anything about them yet, but I already have some thoughts about them.

 

Essentially, the first city is like The first part of the game with multiple factions, side quests, NPC companions and their quests, the city's outskirts and distant locations of the realm where you solve their problems and "get to know" the story and the game's systems. You are in the state of preparing for the grand adventure, which is a linear Mid-game with an epic climax.

 

After the "midgame climax" (boss battle, important plot twist etc), you turn up at the "other side", the second major city and a completely new setting with new characters, locations, plot and history. How awesome would that be, right?

 

Its like playing two games within one. (baldurs gate trilogy, anyone?)

Edited November 11, 2012 by Hellfell

[Sacred_Path]

Don't make one of the cities redundant, plz. Not like hub 2 replaces hub 1 at some point in the game and there's no reason to ever return to 1.

[rjshae]

I always get a hollow feeling when I return to a settlement later in the game, only to find that everything is exactly the same. I think I'd prefer seeing both cities progress over the course of the game, which would require that you return to the first city and find that some things have changed and the conversations have altered.

 

If the designers can't do that, then I'd almost prefer that the party be banished from the first city.

[Jojobobo]

I think it would be interesting to have complete free choice as to which one you go to first, but have both being important in the main quest. It might mess with quest states a lot, but it would be very interesting.

[Sacred_Path]

If the designers can't do that, then I'd almost prefer that the party be banished from the first city.

 

Speaking of banishment...

 

Maybe make at least one city not so easy to enter/ re-enter. I remember being so baffled when (without reading the tutorial) I walked up to the first town's gates in U7: Serpent Isle and wasn't allowed in (hey I was 13). I had expected the game world to be as lenient as in U7/1. Also Darklands. I also remember how many were commenting on how lame it was to get into Barcelona in Lionheart (no matter what you said to the guard the gate always opens).

Don't make the world the gamer's oyster. This would be especially cool if getting into a city was a really pressing concern (because camping outside is v. dangerous, for example).

It could be something as simple as charging the player to get into the city.

[Ieo]

I think I'd prefer seeing both cities progress over the course of the game, which would require that you return to the first city and find that some things have changed and the conversations have altered.

 

I'd really like this. It'd be interesting if certain factions are more far-reaching and may have different footholds into either city, with some factions only existing in one or the other. Longer quest chains may end up covering both, preferably indirectly. Maybe you help with possible trade agreements, politics. Or break them.

 

As a side note, I liked the city of Baldur's Gate more than Athkatla because it was designed contiguously, but the intra-city travel in Baldur's Gate was awful compared to Athkatla's discrete maps (you had to leave a map at an edge just so to get where you wanted to go).

 

News of my character's worldly events reaching either place first could have interesting effects as well, both pre/post.

[Malkin]

With the 2 hubs I would almost want to see a faction system where your actions affect how 1 or both cities perceive you. This could be related to your stronghold where you swear allegiance to one faction to gain benefits, and or build a powerful stronghold to maintain neutrality.

 

 

Also as far as hubs I agree that there should be some changes depending on how far along in the game you are, and what choices you have made. I think with the thoughts behind limited medicine in the game you could have events like plague, or other diseases that could sweep through the cities/ make the inaccessible due to quarantine.

[mcmanusaur]

The worst thing would probably be for one of the cities to become no longer relevant at some point as the plot develops.

Edited November 11, 2012 by mcmanusaur

[Osvir]

Could one mega city be two mega cities in one? Now, what I'm suggesting is that a catastrophic event could happen in the middle of the game, again after the first one in the beginning. S.T.A.L.K.E.R is an awesome example, when a Storm hits you got to find shelter, what if this morphs the Mega City into something different into a parallel universe type of thing?

 

Enough of that though, to be honest I'd simply want 2 different cities (just playing with the thought/brainstorming above).

Edited November 11, 2012 by Osvir

[Hassat Hunter]

Yup, 2 similtanious cities is best. Not one replacing the other.

 

I do think having them on the same power level would be bad though. More have one first, then the other, but you are send back on occassions to places you couldn't visit before (think revisit of Athklata in BG2, but grander).

 

Also have to say I think BG2 got progressively worse after Athklata, not better, as is the OP's opinion...