There seems to be a lot of thought given to how DA2 failed as a sequel to DAO. I don't know if it was advertised thus, but just because there's a 2 in the title doesn't necessarily imply you'll carry on with the same character as in the original. Take Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2, or Kotor 1 and 2, or the Fallout Series (I don't know if AC is considered RPG, I don't, but if you do, remember AC1 had Altair and AC2/2.5 has Ezio). It is still the same world, yes, there may be references to the original characters, yes, but you don't carry on with the same character. On the other hand, this is the case with a lot of FPS such as Halo, or Crysis, where your main endures over time. So, for me, the 2 bit in the title didn't particularly deceive me, seeing as it was advertised you'd be using some guy named Hawke.
Having said that, it is obvious that a lot of people would have loved to play again as Revan in Kotor 2, or as the Warden in DA2. Should RPG mains carry on to sequels? Is it one of the keys to the sequel's success? Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Remember how your main was such an awesome hero in the original? Well, how come he's not such a big shot in the sequel? That's sometimes what happens when you try to keep your main, you need a new enemy that is somehow tougher than your first, and you may not be sold on that new enemy. Take Shepard in Mass Effect, he destroyed hundreds of geth, a rogue Spectre, and a Reaper, yet in ME2 everyone keeps underestimating him to his/her undoing. You'd think most people would run at the sight of him, not so. To my mind this is a very unbelievable attitude. In this case, however, Shepard's story cannot be told in a single installment, so having him as the main throughout the trilogy makes sense.
It goes without saying that a sequel needs to take place in the same world as the original. After all, if you took the trouble of creating a vast world in the first place, it would be a waste not to explore its potential. This doesn't necessarily mean you need to visit the same places as in the original, but a few nods here and there carefully placed and neatly interwoven with the main plot will add to the player's gaming experience and his/her "I'm back" feel. Same goes for the original characters. You need not use them, but we'll love it if you do, in so far as their appearances are substantial and add to the story, not just meaningless cameos that would have served the same purpose if removed. I'm sorry to say that, in my gaming experience (which is, by no means, vast), I haven't seen this device used successfully in an RPG sequel. Yes, there are such appearances in Kotor 2, but really don't deliver the effect I'm going for. Perhaps someone can think of a prime example.
A sequel needs to build on the original. Again, this point seems pretty much moot to me. Why? The sequel needs to stand out on its own to the point that you'll find youself saying "DA2 is a great game" instead of "DAO's sequel is a good game." Parallels will be drawn with the original, this much is inevitable. If you change something, you'll probably be loved and hated for it in equal measure, but sometimes this change is for the better. However, entirely revamping the sequel is a radical change, and you'll almost certainly be more hated than loved for it. If the original was successful it is because there was a core of elements that made it so, and it is this core that you need to strive to keep in the sequel, albeit in a fresh and unique approach. I'm not going to try and identify DAO's core, but I think we can all pretty much agree that DA2 maintains few to none of the elements of the original game.
Case in point, the Deep Roads had already been designed in DAO. If they were going to make an appearance in DA2, why re-design them entirely? Familiarity with one's surroundings (and I mean here as in "you've seen it in DAO," not "I've seen this level some twenty times in the same game"), nostalgia if you like, can (and I think in fact does) work towards the game and not detract from it.
For instance, let's try an RTS example. "Starcraft" was pretty successful in its day. At some point Blizzard was developing "Starcraft: Ghost," a third-person shooter set in the same world, but eventually pulled the plug. Their answer was "Starcraft II," still an RTS that kept to the tried and true elements of creating units and buildings, upgrading them, and then destroying the living s*** out of your opponent/s, all of this with improved graphics. There's also an interesting storyline but, as with most RTS, I find that my sole purpose in the game is to obliterate the enemy forces. There is a core in RTS games that is easily identified and without which an RTS isn't an RTS (furthermore, there's also a core according to the series, be it Starcraft, Generals, etc., that differences one from the other.)
Story. Story, story, story. The story is not just important in an RPG, it's VITAL, whether we're talking about the first, second, or a hundred-and-nineteenth game of the series. Why do we play RPGs? Well, we want to be different people, be it heros, villains, or something in between. We want to be mages, rogues, warriors, elves, dwarves, humans, halflings, ogres, orcs, etc. But once we've chosen who we want to be, we need a drive, a plot, something that urges us to reach the game's end and quickly. I think a good game is like a good book in the sense that I can't put it down until I know how it all ends. After this, I can play again at my leisure. What is it that keeps you going in a game, or a book, or a movie? The plot, the characters. I think there's people out there who believe an RPG should be more like real life. I disagree, fantasy RPGs have "fantasy" before the RPGs bit for a reason. If you want a game more like real life, you could try Sims or any of the dozen games out there that fit this genre. The drive of a fantasy RPG (any RPG for that matter) can't be "I just want to live," it must be something more like "I need to find out/destroy something/someone to prevent something bad from happening." You can add a twist to it like in Jade Empire, to keep the player enthralled, but the story can't be "I just go through life and things happen." The hero/villain's journey in an RPG game always has an endgame. This is something that is, to my mind, missing altogether in DA2, probably due to the time skips, but this needn't have happened. The hero/villain's journey can span several years, but the ultimate objective needs to be there, it is what drives us, that singular notion that only you stand between light and darkness. Even ME2 had an endgame, you knew even before you played the game that you were going on a sucide mission to stop the collectors. Why something like this is absent in DA2 I do not understand.
Inventory. Not just that but control over both your and your companions' inventory. This seems to me to be a given in any RPG game. One of the things that drives us to explore a game's world is finding new and potentially-powerful items for you and your companions, though you almost certainly always come first when you find some priceless goodie like a sword or a new suit of armor. You buy, sell, trade things for new items, a gameplay mechanic that demands your attention if only to ensure you don't get swindled by the merchants and their prices. This, however, requires that items be colourful (don't mean rainbow-like but appealing), distinct in both their look and properties, and worth something in the event you decide to sell them. class/ability restrictions are also a good way to ensure your main doesn't always get to keep the cool stuff. But don't panic, someone will eventually develop a mod to rob your companions of their belongings. The objections I've read against party inventory control in DA2 seems to stem from the notion that, if you had said control, you would always equip your companions with the toughest gear and they'd eventually look all the same. First, this is by no means necessarily true, and you may very well equip them with different-looking armour for variety's sake and take it upon yourself to obliterate any enemy in your path should your companions fall. Second, even if that's the case, that's the point of RPGs, YOU get to make that choice and nobody else.
Inventory, together with class/ability/skill/talent, are aspects that can be revamped in a sequel. After all, a sequel will take place in developing time later than the original game, so it is safe to assume technology has evolved somewhat. You should take advantage of this to the best of your abilities and funds to deliver a more compelling game.
Last but definitely not least (in fact, I should've mentioned it further back when I wrote about a game's world) has to do with your involvement in the game. Are you truly immersed in it, do you feel yourself a part of it? The answer to this is twofold. The first part has to do with how believable the world around you is in terms of bots or NPCs, how populated is, how people react to their surroundings. In short, NPCs most move, talk, and act like real people would according to their background, location, etc. The second part has to do with how your words and deeds affect those around you. Do you notice an impact, some change, however subtle, according to what you do and don't do? Have your companions noticed? Have they brought it to your attention? Can you discuss it with them whenever you feel like it? The hero/villain's journey may ultimately be a lonely road, but you must have companions around you that will notice and comment upon the changes that they themselves go through, that you go through, and that the world goes through. These shouldn't be things like, "You killed that monster, cool!" but rather more like, "Why are you doing this? Would you do it otherwise?" The hero needs to reflect upon what he's doing and why he's doing it, and having companions around to bring it to your attention is a nice way to achieve that. What drives the hero? If a villain, what turned him from hero to villain? Why does he help people? Doesn't he trust them to solve their own problems? There's a wealth of material that can be crafted into dialogue in a fantasy RPG so that you become the hero/villain you want to be. Dialogue must also be used to drive the story forwards and should also serve to explore those of your companions. After all, they're following you. Why is that? Do they have a secret agenda? Perhaps they agree with your ideals? Maybe they made a promise to protect you? Again, the only limit here is your own imagination.
So, yeah, a fantasy RPG must take the following cue from the real world (eating my own words here):
"Actions do have consequences."
A fantasy RPG that can convince you of this, and that incorporates the above elements, is destined to become a truly great RPG.
Modifié par OdanUrr, 01 mai 2011 - 04:07 .
Retour en haut
