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

[tajerio]

On the point of story, I think there's a bit of a false dichotomy going on here.  Planning for a sequel does not ineluctably lead to chopping up one story into tiny bits for each game.  There's clearly tenable middle ground between a completely self-contained game and a series of episodic games.

 

As for mechanics and encounter design, I agree with Infinitron in that if the devs decide to have an import-character-from-first-game sequel, then they shouldn't have epic-level enemies in the first game.  Personally, I've never liked the ability of characters to ascend basically to godhead in cRPGs, and I'd prefer it if we didn't get to the point where a neverending stream of lich kings and great wyrms were the only way to challenge our characters.  Level 15 in 3.5 is about as high as I ever want to see my character go in this kind of game.

[Dark Elf]

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.

 

The Witcher did this well, I think. None of the factions is especially pleasing from a moral standpoint, good and evil depends entirely on your point of view. No matter which way you bake it, you're just the middle man. 

[Lephys]

@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?

With all due respect, could you please explain where I've actually missed "the" point, and/or at least where what I've said is completely subject to the constraints of your chosen point, yet nothing is subject to the consideration of mine?

 

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.

Could you please explain to me the universal force/law of physics that ferociously prevents developers from simply keeping that continuity and acknowledging those world-changing decisions from previous games, instead of simply tossing them all?

 

According to you, no story can EVER butt up against a previous story, unless the designers of a game specifically come up with a good story for one game, then intentionally shorten that first game to 1/3 of that story, then fill the whole game with completely inconsequential choices?

 

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.

Case and point: Those are all just examples of the bad way to do it. I mean, really, they're just pretending there was a significant choice there, to make the player feel better.

 

If you scale it down, it's no different from offering 2 dialogue choices in a given situation, instead of one, and having the person to which you're speaking not acknowledge the difference in the least (I mean, even in the code). You say A, they say X. You say B, they say X.

 

Just because someone does that in their game does not mean no one can put a Y in there, and have the character say Y when you say B (instead of X in response to A). Boom. Cause and effect. That's pretty much what these games are founded on, or there wouldn't be any point in all the ruleset's value variations (stats, skills, circumstances, reputation, etc.).

 

So, I agree with you, in that, if a developer cannot actually follow through with the consequences of a choice in the game's design, then they might as well not put that choice in there to begin with. But that all comes down to smart design. There's no natural force preventing a developer from putting in a "save the council" choice, then actually having that affect significant things later on.

 

In other words, the ME series and other such examples aren't bad because the developers wanted to have one big choice tree across three games. They're bad because they did it poorly.

 

If you decide to bake a cake, and you leave it in the oven too long, it burns. Doesn't mean the decision to bake a cake inherently results in a burnt, inedible cake.

 

And it is with that that I suggest that perhaps it is you who has missed "the" point, or at least the one I was trying to make. Yours is valid, too, but it doesn't supercede mine any more than mine supercedes yours. They are separate points that do not cover each other's ground.

[Jobby]

Please please please do not create a ToB for this game, if BG2 didn't end on a cliffhanger I would happily leave it there, that game was (imo) sacrelige against the greatest cRPG saga ever made. Good writing and a satisfying conclusion but godawful linear forced settings and scenarios to cope with ridiculous god like abilities (and before anyone jumps in with the obvious, only 1 out of 6 of your party could even be considered "godlike"). Not to mention the HLA's, for me the game would compare to modern day "tagged on" DLC as opposed to a fitting and appropriate conclusion to a wonderful series.

 

Sorry.. ToB upsets me lol, back on topic I woud love to see BG1 - 2 style progression within this game, and if Dragons are involved make them game beatingly hard to defeat in PoE1, requiring ridiculous amounts of planning, preperation and probabaly reloading to succeed, I hate the concept of PoE1 having low level dragons and PoE2 having high level ones. Unless a simmilar approach to BG1 is adopted where Dragons were replaced with Wyverns in order to maintain the low level D&D progression.

 

Finally I do feel that character importing should have at the very least more Drizzt style encounters where your deeds, or misdeeds , are remembered from the first game, that scene in BG2 could very well be my most fondly remembered video gaming moment of all time.

 

Finally finally:

 

BG1 - Wilderness exploration, finding your feet/heritage, struggling with (fairly) mundane events and encounters but eventually overcoming all odds to achieve your goals
BG2 - Established adventurers personal tale of revenge (or the quest to rescue your childhood freind depending), finding yourself in (almost) mythological places rarely spoken of, Underdark / Sharkman land / Beholders lairs etc....

Edited January 7, 2014 by Jobby

[Plutone00]

 

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.

 

 

For what it's worth, I'm sorry for my part in what's happening to your thread, mate. However I can't take responsibility for highjacking as it takes more than one guy to do it.

 

Planning for a sequel does not ineluctably lead to chopping up one story into tiny bits for each game.  There's clearly tenable middle ground between a completely self-contained game and a series of episodic games.

 

 

There is a middle ground, of course. But you've seen the track record. Devs nowadays just take a single story and chop it into bits.

 

With all due respect, could you please explain where I've actually missed "the" point, and/or at least where what I've said is completely subject to the constraints of your chosen point, yet nothing is subject to the consideration of mine?

 

 

You did not miss "the point", you missed the point that I and others have pointed out which I have to point out to you now and repeat myself, because you did not take time to read all the previous posts (and I didn't blame you for this since it's a lot of text and kinda boring read) and you just assumed that you got the point. And now you're agry with me for pointing it out...

 

All your points bellow have already been discussed at some point or the other, but since I'm the one who made most them, it falls to me once again to take point and make program accessible to new viewers.

 

Could you please explain to me the universal force/law of physics that ferociously prevents developers from simply keeping that continuity and acknowledging those world-changing decisions from previous games, instead of simply tossing them all?

 

According to you, no story can EVER butt up against a previous story, unless the designers of a game specifically come up with a good story for one game, then intentionally shorten that first game to 1/3 of that story, then fill the whole game with completely inconsequential choices?

 

 

So, I agree with you, in that, if a developer cannot actually follow through with the consequences of a choice in the game's design, then they might as well not put that choice in there to begin with. But that all comes down to smart design. There's no natural force preventing a developer from putting in a "save the council" choice, then actually having that affect significant things later on.

 

In other words, the ME series and other such examples aren't bad because the developers wanted to have one big choice tree across three games. They're bad because they did it poorly.

 

If you decide to bake a cake, and you leave it in the oven too long, it burns. Doesn't mean the decision to bake a cake inherently results in a burnt, inedible cake.

 

 

That's what I've been talking about all along. There is no such law or commandment (that I know of at least) that prevents a proper transfer of player decisions to the sequel. Yet every time someone (and it's guys like Bioware with lots of brainpower  and big budget) attempts to do it, the whole thing gets botched. The desisions (important ones) are not aknowledged and and if they are, it's done in such a twisted way to make them meaningless in the end. You still end up with exactly the same story whether you import your save or not.

 

It just turnes into a bad TV series, only you are watching it with your hands on a keayboard. (Supernatural, which is bad example; but bad is kinda the point) In season 3 there is the drama of upcoming "important" desions, the protagonist is struggling because he sold his soul to the demons, he's got 1 year left to live so he's got to change the world before then and finally time runs out so he is "permanently" trapped in hell just to come back at the very first episode of season 4 to a world that barely chaged and the stuff from the previous season is almost never mentioned at all. (Remind you of something? - ME) 

 

Case and point: Those are all just examples of the bad way to do it. I mean, really, they're just pretending there was a significant choice there, to make the player feel better.

 

If you scale it down, it's no different from offering 2 dialogue choices in a given situation, instead of one, and having the person to which you're speaking not acknowledge the difference in the least (I mean, even in the code). You say A, they say X. You say B, they say X.

 

Just because someone does that in their game does not mean no one can put a Y in there, and have the character say Y when you say B (instead of X in response to A). Boom. Cause and effect. That's pretty much what these games are founded on, or there wouldn't be any point in all the ruleset's value variations (stats, skills, circumstances, reputation, etc.).

 

 

Once again, that's what I was talking about all along. 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. I don't want PoE to be a lab rat. Let's be realistic here if Bioware couldn't do it with their big budget, Osidian has a much lesser chance with their current crowd-funded one. Trying to be another DA would only hurt PoE at this point.

 

And it is with that that I suggest that perhaps it is you who has missed "the" point, or at least the one I was trying to make. Yours is valid, too, but it doesn't supercede mine any more than mine supercedes yours. They are separate points that do not cover each other's ground.

 

 

I hope you understood now that you've been preaching to choir. Please take time to read the whole topic carefully before posting from now on. I say that without any malice. Thank you.

Edited January 7, 2014 by Plutone00

[Lephys]

@Plutone00:

 

I wasn't angry with you for anything. I was just honestly trying to figure out what I had missed.

 

As far as I can tell, I did get the point. I realize I didn't read every single post in this whole thread, but, as far as I can tell, the gist of what you're saying is in bold.

 

"I don't want PoE to be a lab rat."

 

And that's exactly what I was making a point in response to. You're failing to see what it is I'm saying, in all of its accurate entirety.

 

You say that if Bioware couldn't do it with its big budget, then how can PoE with it's small one? But, the entire point is that Bioware could've done it, but simply didn't.

 

The only arguments I've seen (and that you've even reiterated so far) have to do with "Here are some instances of failure, thus it's not prudent to make any more attempts." Which would be perfectly logical if it all the examples were made by the same people, and wasn't the exact same mistake made by several different developers in several different instances with completely varied circumstances.

 

Now, thatbeing said, NEITHER am I saying that "No matter what, I just want PoE to arbitrarily do this with their design."

 

But, here's the thing. What's the difference between making a standalone game, which then has a sequel made afterward that takes place in the same world, and planning the two parts from the get-go?

 

J.K. Rowling came up with the entire idea for Harry Potter on a single train ride. Sure, she had to hash it all out, but she knew what she wanted the world to be like, and the skeleton of the story, etc. You think authors just write a book, then begin thinking about anything at all outside the specific scope of that book's story? Of course not.

 

If they make PoE, THEN decide they want to make a sequel, or even just another game set in the same world that doesn't take place 7 bajillion years later or something, then it seems ludicrously feasible to have a couple of different variables at play, based on things that happened in the previous game. And actually have it affect a significant difference.

 

If you agree that nothing's actually inherently preventing these attempts from succeeding in these other games and referenced examples, then I don't understand how anything you're saying is contradictory to anything I'm saying.

 

I don't want PoE to be a lab rat, either, but I also don't want it to arbitrarily refrain from attempting anything unique in its design.

 

You say I'm preaching to the choir, but you're still suggesting that the only two options are "be a ME-like trilogy, designed exactly like ME, or don't even try to design like that at all."

 

This isn't a binary discussion. I can say any number of things on the matter, and not just agree or disagree with specifically whatever's been said by the majority of people. Again, none of this is angry typing, so I apologize if it reads that way. But, I'm respectfully disagreeing with what it is you're saying, so I don't know how I'm saying the same thing you are (aka "preaching to the choir.")

 

I dare say I can believe that PoE could very well utilize some carried-over-between-games choice consequences, AND still not really resemble ME's structure at all, for example. Or any of the other examples, for that matter. I'm not saying "They should plan their game just like Bioware planned ME, but THIS TIME IT'LL WORK!"

 

And, for the record, Bioware had PLENTY of opportunities to make most of those choices much more impactful than they did. Saving the Rachni, for example? That wasn't bad because "Oh no, it has to impact the story in a huge way, but we can't do that." It was bad because all they did was contribute to a big "here are your final total forces" bar at the end of the third installment.

 

Anywho... I could ramble about all this all day long, but I don't think that would do us any good. The fact remains that PoE COULD utilize choice-and-consequence carry-over between games without failing or "burning the cake," so to speak. I don't know whether or not they should. That's up to the devs, really. They know what they're working with, and whether or not its feasible with their tools and resources and their lore/story plan.

Edited January 7, 2014 by Lephys

[Plutone00]

I wasn't angry with you for anything. I was just honestly trying to figure out what I had missed.

 

 

Good to know.

 

I realize I didn't read every single post in this whole thread

 

 

So forgive me if I'm a little frustrated if I see that people (not just you) don't read my previous posts cause I'm tired of reapeting myself to everyone like a parrot and Infinitron claiming that I'm highjacking his thread.

 

but, as far as I can tell, the gist of what you're saying is in bold.

 

"I don't want PoE to be a lab rat."

 

And that's exactly what I was making a point in response to. You're failing to see what it is I'm saying, in all of its accurate entirety.

 

You say that if Bioware couldn't do it with its big budget, then how can PoE with it's small one? But, the entire point is that Bioware could've done it, but simply didn't.

 

The only arguments I've seen (and that you've even reiterated so far) have to do with "Here are some instances of failure, thus it's not prudent to make any more attempts." Which would be perfectly logical if it all the examples were made by the same people, and wasn't the exact same mistake made by several different developers in several different instances with completely varied circumstances.

 

Now, thatbeing said, NEITHER am I saying that "No matter what, I just want PoE to arbitrarily do this with their design."

 

But, here's the thing. What's the difference between making a standalone game, which then has a sequel made afterward that takes place in the same world, and planning the two parts from the get-go?

 

J.K. Rowling came up with the entire idea for Harry Potter on a single train ride. Sure, she had to hash it all out, but she knew what she wanted the world to be like, and the skeleton of the story, etc. You think authors just write a book, then begin thinking about anything at all outside the specific scope of that book's story? Of course not.

 

If they make PoE, THEN decide they want to make a sequel, or even just another game set in the same world that doesn't take place 7 bajillion years later or something, then it seems ludicrously feasible to have a couple of different variables at play, based on things that happened in the previous game. And actually have it affect a significant difference.

 

If you agree that nothing's actually inherently preventing these attempts from succeeding in these other games and referenced examples, then I don't understand how anything you're saying is contradictory to anything I'm saying.

 

I don't want PoE to be a lab rat, either, but I also don't want it to arbitrarily refrain from attempting anything unique in its design.

 

I bet I could come up with some terrible examples of something similar to the Scripted Interactions idea they're rolling with, if I really dug. Doesn't mean they shouldn't rock those Scripted Interactions.

 

 

You keep preaching to choir. I'm not in the mood to go through this whole thing again, so I'll just copy some stuff from my previous posts.

 

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: sequels simlpy must happen and for that to be, all pieces of trilogy have to be built a certain way. 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.

 

Let's be ralistic here - nothing hurts more the freedom of choice in games, than the sequels and the more seqeuels there are gonna be, the more those games will look like a bad TV series. It's a simple geometric progression.Sequels can still be done with different stories, but not a single story butchered into pieces and spread across multiple games, that do not keep track of it anyway.

 

And I would really like to wrap this whole thing here if you don't mind. This whole disscussion has ran full circle about 5 times.

Edited January 7, 2014 by Plutone00

[Lephys]

@Plutone00:

 

I apologize for causing you to feel the need to go through this so many times, but I feel I owe it to you to to try my best to point out that that isn't what I'm arguing against. What you're re-iterating is glancing past its target, because my point is a small and simple one that co-exists with all that.

 

To put it simply, all referenced examples are the worst examples of such attempts, ever (at least, factoring in game "size"/success/media attention). So, I'd agree with you exactly in regard to all the worst examples of choice/consequence carry-over. However, that does not make choice/consequence carry-over, itself, a bad or problematic thing.

 

You don't have to plan out a trilogy just to have something carry over.

 

Here is an example:

 

In PoE, you could have the option of heavily influencing someone's life/situation, only to not see any significant result of that on the world by the end of the game. Boom... no crazy extra work done there. Then, if it's quite successful, and they decide to make a 2nd game (not "PoE, PART TWO OUT OF THREE!", but simply another game in the same world that continues the story of the world, if not the exact same characters that were in your party in the first game), then your data from the first game could be imported into that game. Then, if you influenced that character to, say, reclaim their birthright of rule in some particular city, then that city could be a completely different place (figuratively speaking -- in a far different state than it otherwise would be in) than if you didn't do so, or influenced that person to do something else, etc. I realize that's a bad example, because "Why should you have so much influence over a person?" is going to come up, but, that's completely irrelevant to the point of the example. The point is, the second game can be designed to actually take that data and make a significant alteration to the state of the world (in this case, a city) with it.

 

Yes, at a certain point, you reach the boundary of limitation. You can't have one choice have all the citizens of the entire planet pack up and start civilizations on the moon, and the other choice have them all just continue on that planet, for instance. The 2nd game would essentially have two entire worlds designed, only one of which would be used by any given player. That's probably infeasible, resource-wise. However, you can still have things actually be significant, and not be forcibly episodically restricted like all the terrible examples that keep being pointed to.

 

In other words, have choices then design the consequences accordingly. Instead of designing the consequences (especially not the specifics of several games at once), then just forcing the design of the choices to fit all that.

 

If you'd like to just cease this, then I'll gladly do so. But, I hope you understand what it is I'm saying, exactly, and that "if you do things like these other games did, it's not going to work" simply isn't obstructing my point, since I, myself, am acknowledging the faults of those examples. I simply believe there to be more possibilities than:

 

1) The faults of ME and the Witcher, and

2) The complete avoidance of carrying over consequences into another storyline/lore/world state.

Edited January 7, 2014 by Lephys

[Plutone00]

To put it simply, all referenced examples are the worst examples of such attempts, ever (at least, factoring in game "size"/success/media attention). So, I'd agree with you exactly in regard to all the worst examples of choice/consequence carry-over. However, that does not make choice/consequence carry-over, itself, a bad or problematic thing.

 

 

It's a good thing in itself, of course. I would gladly give a good example of carry over done right if there was one. Many RPGs with choice-and-consequence system besides ME, DA and Witcher attempted that challenge:  SMT (original + spin-offs Devil Summoner and Avatar Tuner), Suikoden (original trilogy), Growlanser (original trilogy), Galaxy Angel (original trilogy), even Fable (Which in the end didn't carry over anything besides previous protagonist's gender and kingdom flag. But Peter Molyneux breaking promises won't suprise anyone anymore) and they all failed to deliver turning into TV series so they've changed gears and future installements became stand alone titles still utilising choice-and-consequence system. Most of them turned out for the better, because of it. Once again, I'll give Growlanser 4 a plug here. So obviously making a trilogy that keeps track of player's world changing desisions and truly changes in reaction to them is problematic to say the least.

 

 

In PoE, you could have the option of heavily influencing someone's life/situation, only to not see any significant result of that on the world by the end of the game. Boom... no crazy extra work done there. Then, if it's quite successful, and they decide to make a 2nd game (not "PoE, PART TWO OUT OF THREE!", but simply another game in the same world that continues the story of the world, if not the exact same characters that were in your party in the first game), then your data from the first game could be imported into that game. Then, if you influenced that character to, say, reclaim their birthright of rule in some particular city, then that city could be a completely different place (figuratively speaking -- in a far different state than it otherwise would be in) than if you didn't do so, or influenced that person to do something else, etc. I realize that's a bad example, because "Why should you have so much influence over a person?" is going to come up, but, that's completely irrelevant to the point of the example. The point is, the second game can be designed to actually take that data and make a significant alteration to the state of the world (in this case, a city) with it.

 

 

Been done in Avatar Tuner. As a matter of fact it almost turned out exactly the way you describe, but that particular part (and every "affectable" part for that matter) did not affect the world as a whole, there wasn't even a slightest change in the story itself. And that was not even a trilogy, just a duology with supposedly much less limitations of choice.

 

Yes, at a certain point, you reach the boundary of limitation. You can't have one choice have all the citizens of the entire planet pack up and start civilizations on the moon, and the other choice have them all just continue on that planet, for instance. The 2nd game would essentially have two entire worlds designed, only one of which would be used by any given player. That's probably infeasible, resource-wise. However, you can still have things actually be significant, and not be forcibly episodically restricted like all the terrible examples that keep being pointed to.

 

In other words, have choices then design the consequences accordingly. Instead of designing the consequences (especially not the specifics of several games at once), then just forcing the design of the choices to fit all that.

 

 

That's exacly the problem with every game of this type. They offer decisions that they can't follow up on. Then they start downplaying them or downright ignoring them so choice-and-consequence system loses meaning and a whole thing just turns into a TV series: season 1, season 2, season 3... Do it right or don't do it at all. Design decisions that can be carried over and followed up on, but do not make them such small scale that they do not affect the story at all.

 

But, I hope you understand what it is I'm saying, exactly, and that "if you do things like these other games did, it's not going to work" simply isn't obstructing my point, since I, myself, am acknowledging the faults of those examples. I simply believe there to be more possibilities than:

 

1) The faults of ME and the Witcher, and

2) The complete avoidance of carrying over consequences into another storyline/lore/world state.

 

 

Nobel comitee should take notice and put up a bounty for this. Though I doubt it would be claimed in near future as this kind of RPG trilogy is very hard to do, it's uncharted territory, a no man's land.

 

If you'd like to just cease this, then I'll gladly do so.

 

 

Yes.

Edited January 7, 2014 by Plutone00

[neo6874]

 

Sorry.. ToB upsets me lol, back on topic I woud love to see BG1 - 2 style progression within this game, and if Dragons are involved make them game beatingly hard to defeat in PoE1, requiring ridiculous amounts of planning, preperation and probabaly reloading to succeed, I hate the concept of PoE1 having low level dragons and PoE2 having high level ones. Unless a simmilar approach to BG1 is adopted where Dragons were replaced with Wyverns in order to maintain the low level D&D progression.

 

They could always use "Wyrmlings" in PE1, and "Adults" in PE2 (replace with level-appropriate CR ages as necessary).  Hell, that happened in PnP games all the time ... CR2 encounter would be a Wyrmling Black Dragon (0-5 years old), but a CR 13 is Mature Adult(201-400).  

 

Note that due to ability progression, colors change pretty often (I just found 2 "black dragon" encounters where the dragon CR matches the party level).  Going with straight white dragon:

 

L1 - Wyrmling (CR = Party)

L2 - V. Young (CR = Party)

L3 - Young (CR = Party)

L4 - Juvenile (CR > Party)

L5 - Juvenile (CR = Party)

L6 - Y. Adult (CR > Party)

L7 - Y. Adult (CR = Party)

L8 onwards follows the 4,5,6,7 progression with the even level encounters having Dragon CR > Party, and the odd level encounters having CR = Party. 

[Jobby]

 

 

Sorry.. ToB upsets me lol, back on topic I woud love to see BG1 - 2 style progression within this game, and if Dragons are involved make them game beatingly hard to defeat in PoE1, requiring ridiculous amounts of planning, preperation and probabaly reloading to succeed, I hate the concept of PoE1 having low level dragons and PoE2 having high level ones. Unless a simmilar approach to BG1 is adopted where Dragons were replaced with Wyverns in order to maintain the low level D&D progression.

 

They could always use "Wyrmlings" in PE1, and "Adults" in PE2 (replace with level-appropriate CR ages as necessary).  Hell, that happened in PnP games all the time ... CR2 encounter would be a Wyrmling Black Dragon (0-5 years old), but a CR 13 is Mature Adult(201-400).  

 

Note that due to ability progression, colors change pretty often (I just found 2 "black dragon" encounters where the dragon CR matches the party level).  Going with straight white dragon:

 

L1 - Wyrmling (CR = Party)

L2 - V. Young (CR = Party)

L3 - Young (CR = Party)

L4 - Juvenile (CR > Party)

L5 - Juvenile (CR = Party)

L6 - Y. Adult (CR > Party)

L7 - Y. Adult (CR = Party)

L8 onwards follows the 4,5,6,7 progression with the even level encounters having Dragon CR > Party, and the odd level encounters having CR = Party. 

 

 

Yeah I could live with that however they would need to be clearly defined as "baby dragons" (i.e. size and personality) as opposed to just a different level, and whilst i accept that there can be a few different colours with distinct personalities and levels of strength lets not get into Diablo re-colour territory here shall we?

[neo6874]

 

(stuff)

 

Yeah I could live with that however they would need to be clearly defined as "baby dragons" (i.e. size and personality) as opposed to just a different level, and whilst i accept that there can be a few different colours with distinct personalities and levels of strength lets not get into Diablo re-colour territory here shall we?

 

Agreed, and I figure Obsidian is good enough to be able to do that.

 

As for the colors -> I was just pulling things outta the D&D books for example. It's been ages since I've played Diablo(II), so I can't really recall what they did with dragons.

[Jobby]

My reference was more regarding the general re-colours you see throughout that game, they're fine in a limited and logical fashion but it gets a bit tedious when you feel like your only levelling up so you can kill red goblins as opposed to green ones and yes I'm sure Obsidian are more than capable

[neo6874]

oh right - the "and now fight these goblins, which are exactly like the last goblins, except they're red and hit a little harder" stuff ...

[Lephys]

Woe be to the color-blind adventurer, u_u...

 

 

"This'll be a CINCH! *charges into battle*"

 

"Wait, Steve! NO! THOSE ARE RED, NOT BLUE!!!"

[Nihiliste]

I just hope they really nail down the engine and mechanics so that the next game they can just focus on making a ****ton of content.