Please make your expansion's story fit within the main one

[Bryy]

 

Did you see Captain America 2? Or do you feel that is asking for $11 for a new story?

That film was pretty amazing, by the way. Just in case anyone was curious.

 

Shut up, I'm seeing it at WonderCon with my group even though one has probably already seen it.

[Lephys]

Shut up, I'm seeing it at WonderCon with my group even though one has probably already seen it.

I only saw it in 2D. You can still 1-up me.

[Bryy]

You think I'm paying extra to see it in Peripheral Vision Mode?

[Frenzy-kun]

^ Yeah, unfortunately, Frenzy-kun, from an objective standpoint, there are only two possible ways in which the developers could satisfy your desires:

 

1) Work on the game forever, and never ever release it, because every time they thought of something extra, they'd have to delay the original game to put it in (extra races, locations, story, etc.) so as not to ever split the game into a primary game, then separate expansions.

 

2) Just never make any extra content for any games, ever. This would include sequels, if they expand upon anything from the previous game.

 

I'm not trying to judge you. It's unfortunate that you feel the need to buy expansions like that. I'm simply trying to point out that it isn't very feasible to expect them to somehow make sure you never feel that way. I'm not saying you are demanding that they do this or anything. It's just a for-what-it's-worth comment. Unless the original game includes the entire history and future of the entire fictional world, there's going to be something in the world that wasn't in the first one.

 

It's the same reason you eat only a portion of all the possible food in the world, every single night, for dinner. Maybe tonight you have a salad, and tomorrow night you have a sandwich. Why didn't you have the sandwich the previous night? Because you can only eat so much food at any given time. You can only cook so much different food in a 24-hour period, and any food you didn't get to cook must be cooked/eaten in a different session.

 

Same with a game. Or any story, really. That being said, there are many specific examples of story expansions being kinda gimmicky, and/or warranting the "why didn't you have this in the previous episode?" question. But, the sheer continuation of a story in any capacity is not a narrow enough criteria to actually specify what reasonably warrants that question and what doesn't.

I don't pretend to be that extreme. I just think that a story or campaign should be round itselft. Not saying it should explain every possible thing that happens in the game world, but the facts that are shown to the player should be closed and explained. I think that if there is any room to add extra information, it means the story is not closed, hence, uncomplete. The story has a setting, has a triggering event, has a development that triggers new events and has a closure. So I expect from a campaign or story that everything triggered reach to a conclusion. Bringing new events or changing supposedly concluded threads just makes me think that there is something wrong, uncomplete and unreliable. Even if there are good intentions.

 

I can also understand that it might be a bit utopic and that a story is always far from perfect, but i'd orbit around that idea.

 

I don't mind about having side stories based in the same setting or parallel to the main story but without interfering on it. For instance, I found super nice to hear something about the dead god Wakueen in BG2:ToB. It has nothing to do about the story of the baalspawns, but it enriches the game. But I really hated when Solar talks about your past and Sarevok's one. Hell, that should have gone to he first game, a game that was about sarevok and his retribution, and this is part of that story thread. I had to wait for the expansion of the next game in order to close the story thread of the first game. After that, it feels like the first game is uncomplete. There is relevant information missing.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Frenzy-kun

[Chippy]

So long as I'm always using the same character, it's all good.

[Bryy]

So long as I'm always using the same character, it's all good.

Unless it's an Intermission Story, for me.

[Lephys]

Frenzy-kun, I believe I get what you're saying, and forgive me if I'm not quite hitting the bulls eye with it. It's pretty reasonable. I just feel like you're unintentionally rolling with criteria that don't quite narrow the boundary down to what it is you actually hate.

 

I'm not intimately familiar with the situation you described (Solar talking about Sarevok and and the main character), but, I'll just present a hypothetical example:

 

If he's just talking about it, and it's just someone's perspective/information that your character/you as the player weren't exposed to in the original campaign, then there's really nothing wrong with that. If you expect limitations to what it is your exposed to, out of everything possible that's going on in the world, then you have to allow for unknowns, even regarding past stuff that you've been through.

 

Now, if it's "Ha-HAH! We told you the big baddie was gone and dealt with, but now he's been resurrected through means we've just whipped out of our arses!" or something, then yeah, that's bad form.

 

Basically, we might be on the same page, but I'm not seeing the specifics from you that suggest that. There are definitely wrong ways to do it, and plenty of them, but simply continuing something, or having separate content that happens to take place at the same time as some "past" event from the original campaign... that's not really wrong or suggestive that the original campaign was "incomplete." It's just those unknowns I mentioned above.

 

Put simply, it takes more specifics than that to make it a faulty/bad approach. More than sheerly continuting, or tying in somehow to the existing story/lore, is all. And, again, I'm not trying to say you definitely don't agree with that. It just seems like you might not, so I'm trying to clarify, in the event that's the case.

[Messier-31]

For instance, I found super nice to hear something about the dead god Wakueen in BG2:ToB. It has nothing to do about the story of the baalspawns, but it enriches the game. But I really hated when Solar talks about your past and Sarevok's one. Hell, that should have gone to he first game, a game that was about sarevok and his retribution, and this is part of that story thread. I had to wait for the expansion of the next game in order to close the story thread of the first game. After that, it feels like the first game is uncomplete. There is relevant information missing.

 

I strongly disagree. What stands in the way of story being revealed in an expansion and/or a sequel? Some supernatural force that says "there is nothing more to tell, no, you guys, seriously" ? That just is against logic. There are no borders for keeping and receiving information, so maybe 10 years from now some kid out there in the world will find out that he's adopted - how come? After all he knew all there is about his family, right? Surprise, surprise.

 

Sarevok thread is closed so don't you dare mention him ever again? Don't get me wrong, but what you say is good for a goodnight fairy tale, not a deep and complex story.

 

No offence.

[Silent Winter]

I got the impression from TOB that this wasn't so much a part of the story that they'd held back, but rather new stuff they made up to make it more epic.

There are a couple of contradictions in the story from BG1 to TOB - though you could argue that Gorion lied to you to spare you from the truth.

 

There's only so much they can put into PoE1 before they run out of budget.  It should be a story with a beginning and an end, but that doesn't mean there can't be more than is revealed.  You just don't know you're missing anything until the sequel.

 

Still, I stand by my preference for side-story in the expansion and continuation of main plot in sequel (or new story in sequel).

[Frenzy-kun]

@Meisser. None taken. But I think the stories should be autoconclusive. I wouldn't mind on Sarevok doing something else. I dislike that a piece of the story was taken out of the game where it belongs, purposedly or not.

 

@Lephys. If something was never exposed in the original campaign then I cannot imagine how it can be related to that, unless it's an unclosed thread, which is bad as well. I disliked it because Sarevok ends up in the first game being the absolute evil who wanted to claim his murder heritage by forcing a war. After ToB, Sarevok was a little poor little boy who was abandoned and destiny made him like that. The whole Sarevok's plot was spoiled because they wanted to extend a supposedly closed story. If Sarevok was at first a victim of circumstances that's how he should have been presented in the first place.

 

That's just one example of why I don't like stories to be extended. If we go to TV shows or movies we have endless examples of how stretching the plot ends up in screwing the original idea. So I firmly believe that a plot must be autoconclusive. There is plenty of ways to approach a expansion without having to touch something that is round already.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Frenzy-kun

[Hassat Hunter]

I think what comes to mind now is KOTOR2, who told Revans story much better than his own game KOTOR1.

And that... is not a bad thing.

[Valci]

If something was never exposed in the original campaign then I cannot imagine how it can be related to that, unless it's an unclosed thread, which is bad as well. I disliked it because Sarevok ends up in the first game being the absolute evil who wanted to claim his murder heritage by forcing a war. After ToB, Sarevok was a little poor little boy who was abandoned and destiny made him like that. The whole Sarevok's plot was spoiled because they wanted to extend a supposedly closed story. If Sarevok was at first a victim of circumstances that's how he should have been presented in the first place.

 

I disagree. I think the presentation of Sarevok was well done in BG1 and continued in ToB perspective-wise. In BG1 you get to know Sarevok as is, it's your first hand experience with the power-hungry god wannabe. All the information you get about him is more or less first hand whereas in ToB you gain access to information the past, the way his destiny was shaped etc. via the divine presence of the Solar.

 

There is know way you (as in your character since its an RPG) could have found out all that information except maybe from someone like Railtar who had been with Sarevok all his life (though from what i can remember he was unaware of Sarevok's divine herate himself). By the time you meet Railtar though you'd have already destroyed his plans in the Naskhel and Cloakwood mines and having a heart to heart with him wouldnt really have made much sense. So basically, in ToB you access the pool of divine/universal knowledge via the Solar...and it makes perfect sense.

 

This information is meant to help you deal with what Sarevok is in his current incarnation and influences your own fate (towards darkness or light). So it's not so much a continuation of Sarevok's story as much as a means for you (the protagonist) to reflect on your life, your actions and where they might take. The fact that the moral dilemma that is presented is tied into your half-brother is just a way to give it more depth.

 

Anyway...regarding the topic itself... personally i prefer expansions to be continuations of the story. Like in a TV show with episodes. Personally, if i like a show i look forward to see what happens next and if this game is as good as i hope it will be then you can bet i'll want to find out what happened to my character afterwards (as opposed to seeing a big "THE END" sign). I dont mind expansions that have a different protagonist and different story then the first game, in a different time or that happened in parallel to the events of the first game.... it's just that i prefer the other kind.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Valci

[Lephys]

@Lephys. If something was never exposed in the original campaign then I cannot imagine how it can be related to that, unless it's an unclosed thread, which is bad as well. I disliked it because Sarevok ends up in the first game being the absolute evil who wanted to claim his murder heritage by forcing a war. After ToB, Sarevok was a little poor little boy who was abandoned and destiny made him like that. The whole Sarevok's plot was spoiled because they wanted to extend a supposedly closed story. If Sarevok was at first a victim of circumstances that's how he should have been presented in the first place.

I realize that you dislike that particular example, and that's fine. I'm not trying to judge or condemn your personal preferences here.

 

However, I just feel as though you're calling out a pattern where there is none, or extending a conclusion past its actual application. "Futher information about Sarevok wasn't done very well and/or I felt it ruined things in a way, therefore any information that's ever kept a mystery about something, then revealed in a different 'episode' is inherently terrible and wrong."

 

Does that make sense? I ask you this, honestly: Can you think of anything that was ever revealed later on in a story (in a different part of a multi-part story -- book series, game series, etc.) that was acceptable or not problematic? Anything at all?

 

Or, another question would be, if opening an "unclosed thread" is bad, what makes leading you to believe something for 90% of a game, then revealing a bunch of undisclosed information in that last 10% that blows your mind, completely okay, but completely wrong if simply done within a continuation of the story? For example, why is it bad to find out you're adopted after the end of the first game, but totally fine to suddenly find out you're adopted before the end of the first game? What if your being adopted doesn't have much to do with the original story?

 

I realize my text doesn't always come across with the tone I want it to, so I just want to re-iterate that I'm genuinely curious.

[Bryy]

@Meisser. None taken. But I think the stories should be autoconclusive. I wouldn't mind on Sarevok doing something else. I dislike that a piece of the story was taken out of the game where it belongs, purposedly or not.

 

@Lephys. If something was never exposed in the original campaign then I cannot imagine how it can be related to that, unless it's an unclosed thread, which is bad as well. I disliked it because Sarevok ends up in the first game being the absolute evil who wanted to claim his murder heritage by forcing a war. After ToB, Sarevok was a little poor little boy who was abandoned and destiny made him like that. The whole Sarevok's plot was spoiled because they wanted to extend a supposedly closed story. If Sarevok was at first a victim of circumstances that's how he should have been presented in the first place.

 

That's just one example of why I don't like stories to be extended. If we go to TV shows or movies we have endless examples of how stretching the plot ends up in screwing the original idea. So I firmly believe that a plot must be autoconclusive. There is plenty of ways to approach a expansion without having to touch something that is round already.

May I ask what TV shows you watch?

 

Because it is awfully hard to avoid this style of writing.

[Silent Winter]

@Meisser. None taken. But I think the stories should be autoconclusive. I wouldn't mind on Sarevok doing something else. I dislike that a piece of the story was taken out of the game where it belongs, purposedly or not.

That's just it - it wasn't taken out, it was made up and added later.  (which, see below, adds it's own problems)

 

That's just one example of why I don't like stories to be extended. If we go to TV shows or movies we have endless examples of how stretching the plot ends up in screwing the original idea. So I firmly believe that a plot must be autoconclusive. There is plenty of ways to approach a expansion without having to touch something that is round already.

I like when a good story arc, with secret revelations coming later, is made from the get-go.  So a TV-show that only reveals something in series 3 or a movie that's part of a trilogy (see Empire Strikes Back) or whatever is great.

But there are also examples of tv-shows/movies that should have quit but just had to get one more series/sequel for the money and so ended up screwing with a good story because they'd run out of ideas.

So my POV is that they should continue the story only if (a) they had a great longer story to begin with or (b) have a great idea for how it could go.  (for (b) see NWN2 OC-> MOTB, it's a new story that incidentally extends the story of the original, or see Aliens, which took a good premise and ran with it. ... not so much Alien 3).

[JFSOCC]

Things I think would benefit an expansion:

Don't raise the level cap with the expansion.

Rewards offered by playing the expansion aren't better, but add diversity of options. (new skills and abilities, not strictly more powerful or more numerous than would otherwise be available) A player gets new/different options, not better options.

Have part of the expansion overlap with the current game world, and part draw you away to new locales.

interweave new factions and old factions in both the old and new locales, so as to not have the expansion be a completely isolated from the vanilla game. If I do something in the expansion, it could affect the game in vanilla.

 

It is important to me that the expansion interweaves with the vanilla game, otherwise it's not really an expansion as much as a sequel.

Edited April 11, 2014 by JFSOCC

[hollowcrown]

Things I think would benefit an expansion:

Don't raise the level cap with the expansion.

Rewards offered by playing the expansion aren't better, but add diversity of options. (new skills and abilities, not strictly more powerful or more numerous than would otherwise be available) A player gets new/different options, not better options.

Have part of the expansion overlap with the current game world, and part draw you away to new locales.

interweave new factions and old factions in both the old and new locales, so as to not have the expansion be a completely isolated from the vanilla game. If I do something in the expansion, it could affect the game in vanilla.

 

It is important to me that the expansion interweaves with the vanilla game, otherwise it's not really an expansion as much as a sequel.

The danger in this is people like to do blind runthroughs with 1 character, and then maybe metagame with further characters. My "canon" play throughs are always my first runs through the game. However when you have to go back and replay the game with a new character to experience the new content, rather than continuing the new content with your first character, it just doesn't feel as genuine. Your first character has his story shut without experiencing for example...Durlag's Tower so it's simply just not as magical.

[Hormalakh]

 

Things I think would benefit an expansion:

Don't raise the level cap with the expansion.

Rewards offered by playing the expansion aren't better, but add diversity of options. (new skills and abilities, not strictly more powerful or more numerous than would otherwise be available) A player gets new/different options, not better options.

Have part of the expansion overlap with the current game world, and part draw you away to new locales.

interweave new factions and old factions in both the old and new locales, so as to not have the expansion be a completely isolated from the vanilla game. If I do something in the expansion, it could affect the game in vanilla.

 

It is important to me that the expansion interweaves with the vanilla game, otherwise it's not really an expansion as much as a sequel.

 

The danger in this is people like to do blind runthroughs with 1 character, and then maybe metagame with further characters. My "canon" play throughs are always my first runs through the game. However when you have to go back and replay the game with a new character to experience the new content, rather than continuing the new content with your first character, it just doesn't feel as genuine. Your first character has his story shut without experiencing for example...Durlag's Tower so it's simply just not as magical.

Not to mention all the issues I mentioned in op. Balancing, story continuation, etc

[Bryy]

Don't raise the level cap with the expansion.

This could both be good and bad, depending on how they intend to do the sequel.