Jump to content

Don't go too epic - save something for the sequels


Recommended Posts

In one interview, I think Josh Sayer talked about wanting to create some sort of yearning in the player, by emphasising that the world is bigger, much much bigger than the player characters own story and agenda. Similiar to the spawn of Baal in the Forgotten Realms Multiverse. I think if you can pull this of, to make a story that is awesome, but doesn't "posess" the world because the world is even much more full of awesome, you're getting a great adventerous atmosphere and are up for a great series.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

They shouldn't focus on continuation of the story or they risk turning PoE into DA episodic type thing. As long as they do not destroy the world at the end of PoE, they can keep all lore and do a story for a different character in another part of the world past, present or future.

 

Let's face it, as I've said before, episodic stories with savegame imports have never been done right. Because there's a limit placed in both the original game and the sequel from the get-go. In the end the choices you make don't matter and you pretty much follow the same path and arrive at the same destination no matter if you are a hero or villain across multiple games. Look at  Witcher or ME. It's almost like you are watching TV series, only you are sitting behind a keyboard and not on your couch.

 

It would make sense if PoE protagonist's story continued in expansion if developers aknowledged all the choices protagonist made and went from there: good guy continues hero story arc and evil guy his own. But there is no need for DA-type world state save from game to game (and it did not work right with DA2 anyway). It's not doing devs or the games themselves any favors. Aside from the shared lore, the games should be independent.

I just disagree. I would rather have a continuing sequel where the character grows in power and continues to explore the depths of the realm.

The lack of transferred choices really doesn't bother me as much as starting a new character from beginning every single time.

The way you feel about lack of transferred choice is the way i feel about starting a new character: "what was the point of me playing the prequel?"

 

Asking for the transfer of every single choice you make in the previous games is simply asking too much. It's impossible.

It can't be done unless you have an unlimited budget and make a game twice as long as any of the IE series.

However at least in the sequels you have "some" transferable options. In stand alone games you already have none.

 

People who criticize ME ending and praise Planescape Torment really contradict themselves. (Talking about Wolfenbarg here, who agreed to your post.)

If you look at Planescape objectively you can see that it really has only 1 ending:

You getting thrown in to the abyss. The only difference is how you came to terms with that. It doesn't matter if you played the hero or the villain through the game, the ending was the same no matter what choices you made.

So whether or not it's a sequel or a stand alone game doesn't have much to do with it, it's really all just how the story is told.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Be it story or gameplay, this is kind of their make or brake moment, if they don't pull out all the stops on this one there won't be a sequel. This game is not an instant classic as everyone here seems to think, it has yet to prove it self.

 

So go all out on this game, don't hold anything back and even if it doesn't do well then at least you can say that you gave it your all.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

People who criticize ME ending and praise Planescape Torment really contradict themselves. (Talking about Wolfenbarg here, who agreed to your post.)

If you look at Planescape objectively you can see that it really has only 1 ending:

You getting thrown in to the abyss. The only difference is how you came to terms with that. It doesn't matter if you played the hero or the villain through the game, the ending was the same no matter what choices you made.

So whether or not it's a sequel or a stand alone game doesn't have much to do with it, it's really all just how the story is told.

 

For clarifications sake you can also end your existence in Torment as well as return to pay your debt in the Blood War, though I believe that that is Khin Oin in the background, making that plane the Grey Waste not the Abyss.

 

Personally I find the various endings in Torment to be very satisfying, they were hinted at and alluded to throughout the game and makes sense within the terms of the narrative, after all your immortality was bought at the price of others souls. The various methods of dealing with the Transcendant One, that are gathered from throughout the game I also find very satisfying, it really felt like all of my actions and questions were being referenced, answered and acknowledged. Of course the goal remains to reconcile yourself with your mortality, but that does not invalidate any of the choices you made in the game.

 

I was not playing a chosen one like Shepard, the Nameless Ones situation all derived from his own doing, in fact I would call him a testament of free will and ultimately personal responsibility. I was not facing an ancient destructive evil, merely my own limitless ambition and ruthlessness. The antagonist was not revealed in the last few seconds of the game, he was a shadow nipping at your heels and pursuing you through countless lives. Thus I can see why Wolfenbarg would want such an Odyssey and an ending again, it beats primary colours without a doubt.

 

I enjoyed the first two Mass Effects as silly enjoyable fun however.

 

Edit: On topic. I think that just because there have been numerous examples of poor save imports does not mean that one should abandon them, simply refine and limit them. After all what can one person do to affect the world at large, and how many nods to our littlest actions do we expect to be present? For me most games have a little too much protagonist empowerment at the sake of the internal consistency of the world, I do not expect my actions to change everything merely the few situations that make sense within the narrative.

 

Though I would like to be brought to book for certain actions or reputations in a game, there is a lot of catering to the player but not very much punishment. I think this would be a very risky but satisfying addition to an expansion or sequel, to have the protagonist be held accountable for his noteworthy previous actions, if he was caught or witnessed commiting them.

Edited by Nonek
  • Like 2

Quite an experience to live in misery isn't it? That's what it is to be married with children.

I've seen things you people can't even imagine. Pearly Kings glittering on the Elephant and Castle, Morris Men dancing 'til the last light of midsummer. I watched Druid fires burning in the ruins of Stonehenge, and Yorkshiremen gurning for prizes. All these things will be lost in time, like alopecia on a skinhead. Time for tiffin.

 

Tea for the teapot!

Link to post
Share on other sites

While playing the same character through multiple games does bring something, I don't think it's at all necessary for an enjoyable sequel experience. Take MotB, the game could have easily been made around the player using a completely new lv1 character instead of using the person from NWN2 OC. Or heck, take PS:T, you're basically playing a sequel with a different character there as well (previous incarnations). In Divinity 2 you're also a new hero.

In a sequel, the world and character building can still matter. Doesn't it make you feel good when you hear about places that you've visited and hear stories about events that you've been involved in, or even just witnessed? Some good and well placed references can really breathe extra life into a world.

 

As for the epicness, I don't think that's necessary to take into account in relation to a sequel. First and foremost I'd really appreciate a solid and enclosed experience, not an "intro" to the world. We have enough franchises that just use different assets in the "sequels" and don't really change anything.

This kind of goes with my previous thoughts, but having the same character can sort of box you in on what you can do and show. There's only so far you can go with "bigger is better" before your world and systems start breaking down (look at any longer lived MMO and their contrivances born from power creep). In addition if you're boasting decisions and consequences you can fast get entangled in your own story lines. Bioware tried this and they did not come out unscathed. But with a new character you can go as epic as you want in the first game. The deeds and heroics of the previous game simply go into legend or something

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of a sequel having the choice being either the further adventures of your character or the completely new adventures of someone else.

 

It could be a separate story in a different location, rather then trying to account for every different choice you made. This makes it accessible to new players while allowing  original players to import their character.

 

But as for going too epic, I don't want them to do that anyway, being able to kick a dragons ass doesn't make me feel epic in games, it just makes the dragons seem weak. (see skyrim for example).. That's just my opinion though, yours may vary....

Link to post
Share on other sites

People who criticize ME ending and praise Planescape Torment really contradict themselves. (Talking about Wolfenbarg here, who agreed to your post.)

If you look at Planescape objectively you can see that it really has only 1 ending:

You getting thrown in to the abyss. The only difference is how you came to terms with that. It doesn't matter if you played the hero or the villain through the game, the ending was the same no matter what choices you made.

So whether or not it's a sequel or a stand alone game doesn't have much to do with it, it's really all just how the story is told.

 

 

No one was talking about Planescape's ending, just Planescape as a game. As an individual title, it's exceptional. It doesn't have expansions or sequels, it wasn't built with franchise ambitions, and its title character wasn't ever supposed to be the hub for a large number of adventures. It was a solitary title, and yet it's still remembered very fondly by a lot of people. That's really what Pillars of Eternity should be. There really are no guarantees that we will ever get another game in this world. What if the game has problems launching? What if it isn't very good? What if it doesn't sell enough and they have to go back to Kickstarter? Will the next Kickstarter be as successful without a strong proof of concept? Shelving higher level content for a sequel when you know there's going to be a sequel is fine, but they really don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No one was talking about Planescape's ending, just Planescape as a game. As an individual title, it's exceptional. It doesn't have expansions or sequels, it wasn't built with franchise ambitions, and its title character wasn't ever supposed to be the hub for a large number of adventures. It was a solitary title, and yet it's still remembered very fondly by a lot of people. That's really what Pillars of Eternity should be. There really are no guarantees that we will ever get another game in this world. What if the game has problems launching? What if it isn't very good? What if it doesn't sell enough and they have to go back to Kickstarter? Will the next Kickstarter be as successful without a strong proof of concept? Shelving higher level content for a sequel when you know there's going to be a sequel is fine, but they really don't.

I had a really really long post replying to 3 people and then i lost it because of a copy paste error. So i'm just going to make a quick reply, as i really really don't have the willpower to write all that again.

 

Firstly Planescape is a one of a kind, it sacrificed combat for more story telling, which is why they were able to fit so much in, so it's not really a good comparison. It's nearly like comparing a book to a film.

 

Second of all as Sabotin mentioned the game already put you in the story like being in a sequel of one of the previous characters, which i believe also helped in it's epicness and reinforces my point.

 

Thirdly, i don't think you can fit such a huge story in to a single game with the budget they are working with, or without sacrificing most of the combat.

 

Forth, I remind you that you can easily make a sequel of Planescape with the way it ended (you can even promise your companions you will see them again at the end), yet people didn't have an issue with that. So whether or not the first game succeeds doesn't have an effect on how they chose to end it.

Edited by Cubiq
Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely not!!! F*** that!! Deliberately lowering the scope of the game or dumbing it down because of sequels is f****** idiotic....it would cheapen and diminish the experience for everyone. I couldn't give a s*** less about sequels, f*** sequels....just make this game the best it can be and that's it. I don't care if it's the best thing since Jesus and walks on water, leave it alone. Make another grand and amazing game that's even better under a new IP.

 

What's all the obsession with sequels? Now gamer are only asking for games to be cheapened and dumbed down.....have you lost your minds? There is NO excuse for threads like this, NO acceptable reasoning or explanation for this crap.

1zq6793.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just disagree. I would rather have a continuing sequel where the character grows in power and continues to explore the depths of the realm.

The lack of transferred choices really doesn't bother me as much as starting a new character from beginning every single time.

The way you feel about lack of transferred choice is the way i feel about starting a new character: "what was the point of me playing the prequel?"

 

 

In every game with save transfer you practically start from beginning with almost none of your progression recognised and it's not recognised in the sequel either. So you basically start  new character and new story everytime anyway. So there is no point anyway.

 

Asking for the transfer of every single choice you make in the previous games is simply asking too much. It's impossible.

It can't be done unless you have an unlimited budget and make a game twice as long as any of the IE series.

However at least in the sequels you have "some" transferable options. In stand alone games you already have none.

 

 

Exactly. Do it right or don't do it at all. It will just create more headache for the devs and render most of player's choices meaningless which renders the whole choice-and-consequence system meaningless and therefore the prequel game itself is meaningless.  Every game in PoE universe should be independant and have a complete story. That way we'll get at least a single great game instead of many decent (or not so decent) ones.

 

People who criticize ME ending and praise Planescape Torment really contradict themselves.

 

 

No, they don't. Torment was a game from a whole different gaming generation and delivered everything it promised. But it's another example why constraints of franchise are harmful to this type of games. Devs at the time had to work within limits of existing Forgotten Realms lore so they could not give total freedom to player.

 

ME on another hand was a new IP. Bioware had the power and budget to shape the trilogy however they wanted without any limitations.  And in the end they did what they did... They failed to deliver promised expanding interactive universe that changed from game to game according to to player's choices and gave a Deus Ex rip-off ending on top of that adding insult to injury.

 

 

i don't think you can fit such a huge story in to a single game with the budget they are working with, or without sacrificing most of the combat.

 

 

The point of new IP is Obsidian can do whatever they want without any preexisting constraints. Holding back for sequels hurt ME and it's going to hurt PoE much more because of the tight budget. What truly matters is making a great game and chances of that happening are much higher if devs are completely focused on the current project instead of worriing about what they are gonna do in the future.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

it would cheapen and diminish the experience for everyone

+_2b149bbca390205fea18781823d35fb4.gif

your opinion

 

Yes it would. The second that the statement "This would be more epic executed this way." is followed by "Let's not go there because we need the sequel to appear better or at least equal." the experience has just been cheapened.

 

That is as absolute a fact as you can get. We've seen this bulls*** again and again.....more popularly with BioWare who made all choices inconsequential in their games because of sequel considerations. The best thing about Obsidian is that they never work considering sequels.....they do not fear branching the ending in so many directions that a proper sequel would literally require different games to properly accommodate player choice. So don't give me that bulls*** that it wouldn't cheapen the experience or that it's "opinion"

 

It's not opinion, it HARD F****** FACT.

1zq6793.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I just disagree. I would rather have a continuing sequel where the character grows in power and continues to explore the depths of the realm.

The lack of transferred choices really doesn't bother me as much as starting a new character from beginning every single time.

The way you feel about lack of transferred choice is the way i feel about starting a new character: "what was the point of me playing the prequel?"

 

 

In every game with save transfer you practically start from beginning with almost none of your progression recognised and it's not recognised in the sequel either. So you basically start  new character and new story everytime anyway. So there is no point anyway.

 

Asking for the transfer of every single choice you make in the previous games is simply asking too much. It's impossible.

It can't be done unless you have an unlimited budget and make a game twice as long as any of the IE series.

However at least in the sequels you have "some" transferable options. In stand alone games you already have none.

 

 

Exactly. Do it right or don't do it at all. It will just create more headache for the devs and render most of player's choices meaningless which renders the whole choice-and-consequence system meaningless and therefore the prequel game itself is meaningless.  Every game in PoE universe should be independant and have a complete story. That way we'll get at least a single great game instead of many decent (or not so decent) ones.

 

People who criticize ME ending and praise Planescape Torment really contradict themselves.

 

 

No, they don't. Torment was a game from a whole different gaming generation and delivered everything it promised. But it's another example why constraints of franchise are harmful to this type of games. Devs at the time had to work within limits of existing Forgotten Realms lore so they could not give total freedom to player.

 

ME on another hand was a new IP. Bioware had the power and budget to shape the trilogy however they wanted without any limitations.  And in the end they did what they did... They failed to deliver promised expanding interactive universe that changed from game to game according to to player's choices and gave a Deus Ex rip-off ending on top of that adding insult to injury.

 

 

i don't think you can fit such a huge story in to a single game with the budget they are working with, or without sacrificing most of the combat.

 

 

The point of new IP is Obsidian can do whatever they want without any preexisting constraints. Holding back for sequels hurt ME and it's going to hurt PoE much more because of the tight budget. What truly matters is making a great game and chances of that happening are much higher if devs are completely focused on the current project instead of worriing about what they are gonna do in the future.

 

THIS^^^

 

The very idea that a game would have any bit held back because of sequel considerations sickens me. The ONLY reason I love Obsidian is because they don't play the sequel bulls*** game and they deliver the best branching experiences, meaningful choices and epic stories in single games.

1zq6793.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would a sequel diminish the first game in any way? Doesn't it stand on its own?

I don't believe Obsidian will have to sacrifice anything in order to leave room for a sequel.

 

And that's an opinion, not a fact.

  • Like 1

Remember: Argue the point, not the person. Remain polite and constructive. Friendly forums have friendly debate. There's no shame in being wrong. If you don't have something to add, don't post for the sake of it. And don't be afraid to post thoughts you are uncertain about, that's what discussion is for.
---
Pet threads, everyone has them. I love imagining Gods, Monsters, Factions and Weapons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why would a sequel diminish the first game in any way?

 

Read all of the above. Short version: look at ME or Witcher and see how the choices that were supposed to have a big impact on the world were made almost meaningless in sequels despite world state save transfer.

 

Doesn't it stand on its own?

I don't believe Obsidian will have to sacrifice anything in order to leave room for a sequel.

 

 

I hope they don't. I hope they make PoE a stand alone title and don't try to be an isometric version of DA (cause the Bioware's version worked out "so well").

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want this to be an "Epic" in the traditional gaming sense. I don't want the world saved from an evil horde. *Yawn*. Those kinds of plots are almost never intriguing, have a kind of child-like plot polarization that allows for almost no complexity, and really serve only to stroke the ego of the player. "Only you can save the WHOLE WORLD. Look how powerful you are!" Blah blah blah.

 

Pillars of Eternity's scope should establish the setting, and the gameplay style. A plot that focuses on regional intrigue between factions should really be the kind of story to be told. It allows for every manner of motivation and diversion while (more importantly) introducing the major populations, cultures, and locations of their brand new world. D&D's long and painful death had as much to do with Wizard of the Coast nuking The Forgotten Realms setting as it did by switching the rules on players. To hell with epic scopes. Big Pictures only look good from afar, and generally make poor stories. It's the intrigues, the personalities, and the ability to connect with that makes a story memorable. The same applies to a setting.

 

For better or worse, gameplay will be different across iterations of the game. Gamplay will not be static, nor should it be. To a cRPG, it is ultimately secondary. Story and setting are paramount beyond anything else for a legacy cRPG. If those are good, people will want more no matter what. People will forgive most anything. Therefore; the story should introduce people to the world. It should make people want more of the world. The story should weave the character into its tapestry and make the player feel that it has something to offer.

 

Obsidian is in a very unique position right now. Several legacy IPs have imploded, and many fans are in the doldrums. Just as importantly, Obsidian as the gaming world's attention at this moment. If they can get their setting correct, if they can make people want to know more and explore more of their world--this could make them wildly successful.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

PoE should concentrate on being the best game PoE can be, not on how to set up direct sequels. Have expansion packs that add considerable amounts of content to the game and let the PoE PC's story wrap up there.

  • Like 1

"I am the expert, asshat." - Hurlshot

"I'm fine with humanity being wiped out" - majestic

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ People super worried about Obsidian "deliberately lowering the scope of the game"...

 

Lowering it from what point of reference?

 

How can you say "less than X is WAY too little!"? X is undefined.

 

Besides, they can only produce SO much content no matter what.

 

Cramming all the stuff in the three Mass Effect games into a single game wouldn't have made it any better.

 

I mean, obviously you can't make a 50-hour game about leaving Candlekeep and getting to the Friendly Arm Inn. But, seriously... how can it be inherently bad to simply set the scope of your game, in your freshly created entire world/loreset, as small-ER than just the largest possible scope they can make?

 

Is a game that forces the story to cover about 90% of the world and such not be just as silly as one that ONLY covers about 5% of it?

 

How silly is it, really, to say "Hey, it's probably reasonable for a whole friggin' world to provide a few stories' worth of gameplay."?

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lephys

 

You totally missed our point. I know it's a lot to ask, especially with large topics like this, but please read everything carefully before rushing in to make a post. I know you probably have more important things to do with your time but don't we all?

 

@ People super worried about Obsidian "deliberately lowering the scope of the game"...

Lowering it from what point of reference?

How can you say "less than X is WAY too little!"? X is undefined.

Besides, they can only produce SO much content no matter what.

 

 

The issue discussed was the story continuity which when spread across multiple games not only limits what devs are able to do in order to keep everything within continuity, but the continuity itself not being kept most of the time: major world-changing desisions from previous games are heavily downplayed or even ignored.

 

Example: even if you sided with the order at the end of witcher 1 and they pledged service to the king, they are still kicked out of Temeria in witcher 2 as if they were traitors. Another example: If you sacrificed galactic council at the end of ME1, which was supposed to let humanity take control of the galaxy by replacing other vacant council seats with represantatives from "lesser races", the whole thing gets totally botched and by ME3 it's the same old council races (albeit different represantatives) again and the story is not affected at all.

 

Cramming all the stuff in the three Mass Effect games into a single game wouldn't have made it any better.

 

 

Obviously not beacuse of the way they are now. But they were made that way to  stay within the constraints of the trilogy. If ME was planned as a single stand alone title, it would be completely different (and much better) game in the end.

 

I mean, obviously you can't make a 50-hour game about leaving Candlekeep and getting to the Friendly Arm Inn. But, seriously... how can it be inherently bad to simply set the scope of your game, in your freshly created entire world/loreset, as small-ER than just the largest possible scope they can make?

Is a game that forces the story to cover about 90% of the world and such not be just as silly as one that ONLY covers about 5% of it?

How silly is it, really, to say "Hey, it's probably reasonable for a whole friggin' world to provide a few stories' worth of gameplay."?

 

Exactly. Few different stories, not a single story butchered into pieces and spread across multiple games, that do not keep track of it anyway.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ People super worried about Obsidian "deliberately lowering the scope of the game"...

 

Lowering it from what point of reference?

 

How can you say "less than X is WAY too little!"? X is undefined.

 

Besides, they can only produce SO much content no matter what.

 

Cramming all the stuff in the three Mass Effect games into a single game wouldn't have made it any better.

 

I mean, obviously you can't make a 50-hour game about leaving Candlekeep and getting to the Friendly Arm Inn. But, seriously... how can it be inherently bad to simply set the scope of your game, in your freshly created entire world/loreset, as small-ER than just the largest possible scope they can make?

 

Is a game that forces the story to cover about 90% of the world and such not be just as silly as one that ONLY covers about 5% of it?

 

How silly is it, really, to say "Hey, it's probably reasonable for a whole friggin' world to provide a few stories' worth of gameplay."?

 

It's not about cramming too many games into one, it's about the kinds of decisions developers have to make. If they run into a situation where the party encounters and resolves a scenario with something truly divine or supernatural and they decide to back out because that kind of escalation of scope would rob from a sequel, which is meant to ramp up the scope, it just kind of steals from the game. Baldur's Gate was a publisher backed title planned as a series. It's perfectly fine that they didn't have Githyanki or Beholders running around in a low level campaign while they were more liberally introduced in the later games. However, for a single title that isn't guaranteed to even be a minor success, the idea of making those same kinds of decisions doesn't seem very wise. This isn't a DnD campaign. Everything has been designed with this title in mind, so hording those things away unless they really just don't fit is just sequel whoring for the sake of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In every game with save transfer you practically start from beginning with almost none of your progression recognised and it's not recognised in the sequel either. So you basically start  new character and new story everytime anyway. So there is no point anyway.

You know that's not true. Mass Effect did transfer the choices you made in the previous games (so did witcher). It may not be everything you did but it was for some of the things at least. It's really a matter of whether the developers try to do it or not. It's not an automatic NO.

And like i said, the lack of transfer choices doesn't really bother me, what bother's me is that you start as a nobody every time. And they need to quickly rush the progression again so that the nobody can reach epic level story telling at the end of it again.

 

Exactly. Do it right or don't do it at all. It will just create more headache for the devs and render most of player's choices meaningless which renders the whole choice-and-consequence system meaningless and therefore the prequel game itself is meaningless.  Every game in PoE universe should be independant and have a complete story. That way we'll get at least a single great game instead of many decent (or not so decent) ones.

 

I don't think that's the reason you should discard sequels. By your logic there shouldn't ever be any game with a sequel, just because you can't transfer all the choices.

I can easily argue that Planescape didn't have a complete story with the way it ended, so i don't think it really depends on how great a game will be based on it ending with a sequel in mind.

 

No, they don't. Torment was a game from a whole different gaming generation and delivered everything it promised. But it's another example why constraints of franchise are harmful to this type of games. Devs at the time had to work within limits of existing Forgotten Realms lore so they could not give total freedom to player.

 

ME on another hand was a new IP. Bioware had the power and budget to shape the trilogy however they wanted without any limitations.  And in the end they did what they did... They failed to deliver promised expanding interactive universe that changed from game to game according to to player's choices and gave a Deus Ex rip-off ending on top of that adding insult to injury.

When you create a new character in every new game you are pretty much forced in to not changing the world completely, because it doesn't follow only one protagonist, it needs to stay consistent or risk affecting or even constraining other protagonists. This is exactly how D&D constriction came to be in the first place. It's a universe which has multiple protagonist and thus must not allow one story to change the world too much.

If the story follows only 1 protagonist it can take the story in whatever direction they want. However with multiple protagonists you just have an MMO effect.

 

And you're completely being bias, Planescape didn't deliver everything it promised. The fact that your interactions with your companions had zero to do with how the story ended has nothing to do with D&D constraints. The 3 things that affected it, out of ALL the choices you made in the game, were Blade of the Immortal, Bronze sphere, and your stats (which don't even have anything to do with the story).

The game had a lot of story which was optional but wasn't as interactive as you claim it was (since you are comparing it to ME). Not in the end at least.

As for during the gameplay, that's really just sacrificing combat for storytelling.

That would be like me comparing Icewind dale with Baldur's gate. One is a stand alone game the other is a sequel and guess which one was more interactive.

 

The point of new IP is Obsidian can do whatever they want without any preexisting constraints. Holding back for sequels hurt ME and it's going to hurt PoE much more because of the tight budget. What truly matters is making a great game and chances of that happening are much higher if devs are completely focused on the current project instead of worriing about what they are gonna do in the future.

Your comment doesn't make sense because like i said Planescape was written where you can easily continue the story. It even had only 1 true end, from which it could continue.

I know you're hoping for another Planescape like game, but it's already been confirmed that the game will be a lot more combat driven than Planescape was, which means it won't be able to tell such a complete story on such a small budget no matter how you look at it.

 

 

 

Yes it would. The second that the statement "This would be more epic executed this way." is followed by "Let's not go there because we need the sequel to appear better or at least equal." the experience has just been cheapened.

 

That is as absolute a fact as you can get. We've seen this bulls*** again and again.....more popularly with BioWare who made all choices inconsequential in their games because of sequel considerations. The best thing about Obsidian is that they never work considering sequels.....they do not fear branching the ending in so many directions that a proper sequel would literally require different games to properly accommodate player choice. So don't give me that bulls*** that it wouldn't cheapen the experience or that it's "opinion"

 

It's not opinion, it HARD F****** FACT.

Yeahhhh..... you're clearly over-emotional to do any rational thinking.

I'm just gonna have to ignore you from now on.

Oh and Neverwinter nights 2 says hi.

Edited by Cubiq
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Cubiq

 

I get where you're coming from with the "MMO effect", but the issue has many degrees. It's a float, not a boolean. Well, you know what I mean. It's not a cosmic manichaeistic debate between myriad meaningless characters on one side and The Immortal Savior Of The Damned on the other. If you're not content with anything less than the latter, I feel justified in saying that your opinion is extreme and would be just as damaging to the game's storytelling as making an MMO out of it.

 

Good stories NEED to have a beginning and an end, or else things just begin to unravel. There's a limit to how many variables a storyteller can juggle and a player can keep track of. Besides, the longer a story goes on, the greater the strain on the suspense of disbelief. Like the saying goes, nothing lasts forever.

 

 

I think making decisions based on a potential franchise in this first game would be a massive mistake. They've already said it's going to try to match the scale and tactics of Baldur's Gate 2 with the storytelling of Planescape: Torment, so I'd be pretty disappointed if it's just some low level adventure like Baldur's Gate (and I loved Baldur's Gate). They should do whatever is necessary to make this the best it can possibly be as its own self-contained adventure. Thinking of the overall franchise when designing titles is why Dragon Age has really failed to live up to its full potential.

 

If people are afraid of them showing all of their tricks in the first game, they can just make the quest in Eternity 2 of a different type. If the first is about a change you undergo and the ramifications of it, then a sequel could have stories about warring factions, being trapped in a strange world, something distinctly extra-planar like PS:T, or any number of things. Knights of the Old Republic is a good example of how having a different type of goal with a different character can make for a good sequel. Both games throw out everything necessary to tell their story as well as they can. 

 

Also, keep in mind that we didn't back a trilogy or anything. We backed a single game and an expansion. Restricting encounter design could just hold this game back.

 

KOTOR 1 vs 2 is a great example. In fact, KOTOR within the greater SW universe is a great example. The original SW timeline is already crowded, to the point that it was probably a mistake to try and make the 3 prequels into full movies. However, travel back in time several thousand years, and dayum, everything suddenly feels fresh and promising and meaningful.

 

KOTOR carved a mighty niche for itself even though "everyone knows" that Revan isn't the final word on the fate of the universe. KOTOR 2 told an incredible story that pierced the heart of the Star Wars mythos even though the Exile is "just" a sidekick to Revan. Heck, for all we know, PoE2 might go back to the early days of the empires that, as of PoE, are crumbling.

 

So don't come telling me that it has to be "my character does it all or bust" in order for a series to be successful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you create a new character in every new game you are pretty much forced in to not changing the world completely, because it doesn't follow only one protagonist, it needs to stay consistent or risk affecting or even constraining other protagonists. This is exactly how D&D constriction came to be in the first place. It's a universe which has multiple protagonist and thus must not allow one story to change the world too much.

If the story follows only 1 protagonist it can take the story in whatever direction they want. However with multiple protagonists you just have an MMO effect.

 That's... not true. You're blaming a problem from all choice based games on one type of that category. For example, in Mass Effect you have Shepard in all 3 games, but that doesn't stop the fact that in order to keep endings from spiraling out of control that consequences are basically removed from a lot of your actions. When you start a new game, everything is still in the same template. In Knights of the Old Republic, you can choose whatever you want but are left with a canon ending in the sequel. Choices carrying over means both an ending and the beginning of the next game have to retain as much continuity as possible. Choices not carrying over gives you the freedom to have more options in an endings while needing a canon ending for a sequel. Both Dragon Age and Mass Effect have choices carrying over to a similar effect while one has the same protagonist and the other does not.

 

I really don't see how you came to this conclusion. Baldur's Gate isn't more interactive than Fallout because it has one protagonist. It's actually LESS interactive, because each game has to lead into the next instead of each one being its own contained unit. In my first Fallout playthrough most of the settlements were wiped out by mutants. That may not have carried over in a sequel, but it doesn't matter because the effect and its impact on me still happened. Games with continuity have to retain continuity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know that's not true. Mass Effect did transfer the choices you made in the previous games (so did witcher). It may not be everything you did but it was for some of the things at least. It's really a matter of whether the developers try to do it or not. It's not an automatic NO.

And like i said, the lack of transfer choices doesn't really bother me, what bother's me is that you start as a nobody every time. And they need to quickly rush the progression again so that the nobody can reach epic level story telling at the end of it again.

 

 

And you know I'm right. It doesn't even matter what order do you play ME games in or even if you skip everything and just play ME3. The story itself won't chage at all. Shepard starts as level 1 character every time and all his acomplishments are the same whether you imported save or not. So he starts fresh everytime, a "nobody" you could say.

 

I don't think that's the reason you should discard sequels. By your logic there shouldn't ever be any game with a sequel, just because you can't transfer all the choices.

 

 

Correct, there shouldn't be. Clarification: talking about games whith choice-and-consequence system exclusively. As I've said before, do it right or don't do it at all. It will just create more headache for the devs and render most of player's choices meaningless which renders the whole choice-and-consequence system meaningless and therefore the prequel game itself is meaningless. They can do  different stories with other protagonists on a different plane/timeline/whatever but taking a single story and butchering it into pieces to spread across sequels and dlcs is an absolute no-no.

 

 

I can easily argue that Planescape didn't have a complete story with the way it ended, so i don't think it really depends on how great a game will be based on it ending with a sequel in mind.

 

 

You can attempt to argue anything you want, which is pretty much what you are already doing. Just be careful that I does not turn into arguement for the sake of one, as it stands rather close now.

 

When you create a new character in every new game you are pretty much forced in to not changing the world completely, because it doesn't follow only one protagonist, it needs to stay consistent or risk affecting or even constraining other protagonists. This is exactly how D&D constriction came to be in the first place. It's a universe which has multiple protagonist and thus must not allow one story to change the world too much.

If the story follows only 1 protagonist it can take the story in whatever direction they want. However with multiple protagonists you just have an MMO effect.

 

That is what I was telling all along. Established franchises like D&D have their own lore which significatly limits what can happen in the game and there is nothing more harmful to choice-and-consequence system than that. With new IP Bioware operated without such limits and they blew it twice (I know they are trying to fix DA with the keep system, let's see what comes of it) And I don't want Obsidian to repeat the same mistake.

 

And you're completely being bias

 

 

And you are not? Let's not start finger pointing on top of everything.

 

Planescape didn't deliver everything it promised. The fact that your interactions with your companions had zero to do with how the story ended has nothing to do with D&D constraints. The 3 things that affected it, out of ALL the choices you made in the game, were Blade of the Immortal, Bronze sphere, and your stats (which don't even have anything to do with the story).

 

 

We see such neglections in every IE game except Fallouts. But as I've said before, besides being under D&D restrictions, Torment was a game from another era and today's standarts do not apply to it.

 

The game had a lot of story which was optional but wasn't as interactive as you claim it was

 

 

I do? Where? I know it's easy to get confused with large topics like this, so please read whole thread carefully before posting.

 

(since you are comparing it to ME)

 

 

No, you are comparing them. If I was doing the comparing it would be to Growlanser 1 or Star Ocean 2 (they both came out in the same year as Torment in fact) which are much better as far as choice-and-consequence goes and set an example how it should be done.

 

Your comment doesn't make sense because like i said Planescape was written where you can easily continue the story. It even had only 1 true end, from which it could continue.

 

 

What truly does not make sense is me talking about Obsidian focusing on their new IP without worring about what may or may not come in the future and you replying with this... Troll much?

 

I know you're hoping for another Planescape like game, but it's already been confirmed that the game will be a lot more combat driven than Planescape was, which means it won't be able to tell such a complete story on such a small budget no matter how you look at it.

 

 

No, I'm hoping for another Growlanser 4-like game. It had lots of combat, but a solid plot with choice-and-consequence system  and branching story arcs. It's an example how such games should be done. But since devs most likely do not pay much attention to japanese stuff, I'll settle for Fallout 2-like as far as choice-and-consequence is conserned.

 

Your problem is you assume too much about your interlocutors and devs both. As a backer I have a right to voice what I want in the game. But I have no illusions. I have not asked for anything unreasonable that haven't been done before. In fact I'm making their work easier by saying not to try to be another ME or DA, cause even the originals with big budgets have not worked out. There are many successful examples of stand alone titles with choice-and-consequence system, but there no examples of successful choice-and-consequence system in trilogies.

Edited by Plutone00
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me clarify, my post is primarily about game mechanics and encounter design, not story. They can make the story as "complete" as they want, but if J.E. Sawyer is designing a fully fledged character system then he needs to think about what he's leaving for the high levels, because AFAIK PoE is NOT going to reach the high levels.

 

Dammit you guys :(

 

Don't you see? If it takes a high level character to fight dragons in Pillars of Eternity's system, then that means that, like it or not, you are not going to fight a dragon in this game's story.

 

By defining the game as a low-to-mid level experience, they're already excluding certain types of quests and storylines and making the experience "incomplete" by a certain definition. You'll HAVE to import your character to the sequel to do those sorts of things.

 

What Mass Effect did isn't relevant here because ME rebooted its character system for each game and there was no common frame of reference for Shepard's power between the games.

Edited by Infinitron
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...