Can the world of the game be compelling enough to carry the franchise on its own?

[ScorpioT]

After reading a comment from Mike Laidlaw today on BSN -

Since I'm in a sharing mood, I will put this out there: our intention is that for each major release of Dragon Age, you will take up the mantle of a new character. This does not mean your old character may never appear in future games, but as far as the core protagonist goes, if there is a DA III, it will very likely be neither Hawke nor The Warden.

We want to keep the series about the time and place, rather than about any singular character. While I know not everyone prefers that approach, I believe it's perfectly valid, especially if certain plans of ours to shore up world consistency (import bugs really bother me!) come to fruition, which I believe they will.

And that's all I can say about that.

And it got me thinking: almost every game has some central character around whom the whole games are built - Samus in Metroid, Master Chief in Halo, Shepard in Mass Effect, Guybrush Threepwood in Monkey Island, Boss in Saints Row, and the list goes on and on.

But Mike Laidlaw assumes that the world itself in Dragon Age is so interesting and unusual that you don't need one figure to guide you in that journey through it.

So here I ask you the question in the title of this thread, it's not just about Dragon Age, but about game worlds in general. Can the world of the game run on it's own?

 

[Mr Thin]

It can be, yes. I don't think the Dragon Age universe is compelling enough to carry the franchise on its own; its basically a slightly darker, slightly different take on standard Tolkien.

It'd have to be a pretty interesting universe. Very interesting. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is WH40K. And that's more to do with how hilariously over-the-top and bad-ass it is than how interesting or unusual it is. [small]Though I do find it interesting and unusual.[/small]

Edit: I should point out that I'm totally OK with them continuing to use the DA universe, I do enjoy it; but I'm not gonna buy a game purely because that's where it's set. They'll need to work their usual Bioware magic with characters & plot as well.

 

[RicoADF]

The C&C series were about the world and story and not any particular character and it's my personal favorite game series (C&C 1, Red Alert 1, Tiberian Sun only, not the later EA ones) bar none.

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

Well, the Halo series continues on without the use of Master Chief (yes, I know he's going to be the focal point of 4, but I still liked the story of Anders and Forge more) the Mass Effect series will continue on without following Shepherd. Both of these series have very good books that don't follow the main character of the game at all, but rather the world of the game. So, yes, it is completely possible.

 

[the spud]

FF6 didn't even have a main character, and it was the best in the series.

Fallout has been going for over a decade on simply the world it developed, so no, you do not need a main character.

 

[dyre]

Sure, why not. The Star Wars universe certainly has a ton of media behind it (albeit it's a bit bigger than a world). Not to mention the Forgotten Realms.

That said, I'd much rather have a DA series centered around the same protagonist (and his friends). I didn't play DAO for its generic fantasy world; I played it for the characters and the story. Change the characters and story in each game, and we have a problem.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

The Elder Scrolls and Fallout games do a great job of this.

The worlds are so deep and varied that there really is no need for an overarching plot. I'd be very happy to play an Elder Scrolls game where I can just do awesome sidequests for all eternity.

 

[ScorpioT]

The C&C series were about the world and story and not any particular character and it's my personal favorite game series (C&C 1, Red Alert 1, Tiberian Sun only, not the later EA ones) bar none.

Well I can argue that the whole C&C series are based around Kane and his quest to return home, or something...

Well, the Halo series continues on without the use of Master Chief (yes, I know he's going to be the focal point of 4, but I still liked the story of Anders and Forge more) the Mass Effect series will continue on without following Shepherd. Both of these series have very good books that don't follow the main character of the game at all, but rather the world of the game. So, yes, it is completely possible.

But those games are continuing from the previous ones, carrying the same basic story, characters and plot devices. Mass Effect wouldn't be Mass Effect without Shepard's badassery, Halo wouldn't be Halo without Master Chief and Spartans (Reach was really great, ODST... was not).

All in all I have to agree with Red Alert, Fallout and Elder Scrolls. The franchise can be carried on it's own without a central character to it, but what do those games have in them that makes it possible?

 

[NeutralDrow]

Isn't that what's making Warcraft so big?

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

The C&C series were about the world and story and not any particular character and it's my personal favorite game series (C&C 1, Red Alert 1, Tiberian Sun only, not the later EA ones) bar none.

Well I can argue that the whole C&C series are based around Kane and his quest to return home, or something...

Well, the Halo series continues on without the use of Master Chief (yes, I know he's going to be the focal point of 4, but I still liked the story of Anders and Forge more) the Mass Effect series will continue on without following Shepherd. Both of these series have very good books that don't follow the main character of the game at all, but rather the world of the game. So, yes, it is completely possible.

But those games are continuing from the previous ones, carrying the same basic story, characters and plot devices. Mass Effect wouldn't be Mass Effect without Shepard's badassery, Halo wouldn't be Halo without Master Chief and Spartans (Reach was really great, ODST... was not).

All in all I have to agree with Red Alert, Fallout and Elder Scrolls. The franchise can be carried on it's own without a central character to it, but what do those games have in them that makes it possible?

Actually, the Mass Effect book series had nothing to do with Shepherd, and barely even mentions him. The Halo books only carry a similarity with the game by including Spartans, a war against the Covenant, and the name. And I wasn't really just talking about the games. Series can be coontinued without staying inside of one media. Hell, the Star Wars series changed from movies to books AND games, carrying on the franchise and even adding more supporters. The books didn't really continue on the series rather they branched out. The Mass Effect books showed a different side of the whole galaxy as w.ell as bringing to light much of what is told in the codex of Mass Effect about Cerberus, and even adding to what they've done.

 

[nukethetuna]

Indeed, if a world is REALLY well-written and well-created, then it can be a huge draw, even without a group of consistent characters throughout the franchise.

Though in Dragon Age's case, I'm pretty sure they're just going to let you use your Warden, Champion, Arbiter, and Saint (the last two are just guesses) in the same party in order to make the Fifth installment feel more epic. To be fair though, there is a lot of interesting lore in the Dragon Age world, what with the distinctly different countries and races, and the Darkspawn/Black City looming all along.

 

[ScorpioT]

The C&C series were about the world and story and not any particular character and it's my personal favorite game series (C&C 1, Red Alert 1, Tiberian Sun only, not the later EA ones) bar none.

Well I can argue that the whole C&C series are based around Kane and his quest to return home, or something...

Well, the Halo series continues on without the use of Master Chief (yes, I know he's going to be the focal point of 4, but I still liked the story of Anders and Forge more) the Mass Effect series will continue on without following Shepherd. Both of these series have very good books that don't follow the main character of the game at all, but rather the world of the game. So, yes, it is completely possible.

But those games are continuing from the previous ones, carrying the same basic story, characters and plot devices. Mass Effect wouldn't be Mass Effect without Shepard's badassery, Halo wouldn't be Halo without Master Chief and Spartans (Reach was really great, ODST... was not).

All in all I have to agree with Red Alert, Fallout and Elder Scrolls. The franchise can be carried on it's own without a central character to it, but what do those games have in them that makes it possible?

Actually, the Mass Effect book series had nothing to do with Shepherd, and barely even mentions him. The Halo books only carry a similarity with the game by including Spartans, a war against the Covenant, and the name. And I wasn't really just talking about the games. Series can be coontinued without staying inside of one media. Hell, the Star Wars series changed from movies to books AND games, carrying on the franchise and even adding more supporters. The books didn't really continue on the series rather they branched out. The Mass Effect books showed a different side of the whole galaxy as w.ell as bringing to light much of what is told in the codex of Mass Effect about Cerberus, and even adding to what they've done.

Well, but those Mass Effect and Halo books are just supplementary material. They are there to add some fluff to the main part of the series - the games. Some of them even contradict what was said in those very games, take a novel about Reach, for example, and then play the game, the difference is kinda big. I'm not saying that they do not add anything to the franchise, but really, they are like a sidequests in rpg, you do them - good, here is a little xp and a cool new gun, you don't - well, who cares, on with the main story.

And really, what do an average person thinks about when someone mentions Star Wars - the movies or some obscure books in the ExpandedUniverse(tm) even if they are written by Timothy Zahn?

 

[ScorpioT]

Indeed, if a world is REALLY well-written and well-created, then it can be a huge draw, even without a group of consistent characters throughout the franchise.

Though in Dragon Age's case, I'm pretty sure they're just going to let you use your Warden, Champion, Arbiter, and Saint (the last two are just guesses) in the same party in order to make the Fifth installment feel more epic. To be fair though, there is a lot of interesting lore in the Dragon Age world, what with the distinctly different countries and races, and the Darkspawn/Black City looming all along.

But here lies the problem, there is some interesting lore in DA universe yes, but there is no goal in the narrative of Dragon Age series. They have darkspawn, mages, idols, flemeths, templars and a hundred others plot threads without some single line unifying them all.

In the case of Fallout and it's lack of central character or characters I can say that all the games tell the story of Post-Apocalyptic revival of humankind. In the case of Warcraft I can say that it's about an ongoing war between Titans and Sargeras, and Azeroth is just one of many playgrounds of war. Elder Scrolls is about the history of a troubled world that was created through deceit and trickery. Yeah the verse can be compelling on it's own, but you have to put a LOT of work into it.

 

[nukethetuna]

But here lies the problem, there is some interesting lore in DA universe yes, but there is no goal in the narrative of Dragon Age series. They have darkspawn, mages, idols, flemeths, templars and a hundred others plot threads without some single line unifying them all.

In the case of Fallout and it's lack of central character or characters I can say that all the games tell the story of Post-Apocalyptic revival of humankind. In the case of Warcraft I can say that it's about an ongoing war between Titans and Sargeras, and Azeroth is just one of many playgrounds of war. Elder Scrolls is about the history of a troubled world that was created through deceit and trickery. Yeah the verse can be compelling on it's own, but you have to put a LOT of work into it.

Yeah, I'm not saying it has an overarching theme like those games, or even that in its current form it is interesting enough to hold up without characters from previous entries. I think I was a bit unclear, but I meant more that the Dragon Age lore and universe does have a lot of room for self-contained stories within it, which is what they're seemingly planning on doing. There are a lot of events, places, and people that are referenced within the game, which leaves a lot of room to expand.

Certainly my idea of putting all the player characters into one party would benefit from some overarching threat and cohesion among the games, though.

 

[RicoADF]

The C&C series were about the world and story and not any particular character and it's my personal favorite game series (C&C 1, Red Alert 1, Tiberian Sun only, not the later EA ones) bar none.

Well I can argue that the whole C&C series are based around Kane and his quest to return home, or something...
*snip*

I dont really consider C&C4 as cannon, for more reasons than I'd care to post. However I will agree Kane is a character that the series revolved around, being linked to tiberium and all.

 

[IBlackKiteI]

It can be, yes. I don't think the Dragon Age universe is compelling enough to carry the franchise on its own; its basically a slightly darker, slightly different take on standard Tolkien.

It'd have to be a pretty interesting universe. Very interesting. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is WH40K. And that's more to do with how hilariously over-the-top and bad-ass it is than how interesting or unusual it is. [small]Though I do find it interesting and unusual.[/small]

Edit: I should point out that I'm totally OK with them continuing to use the DA universe, I do enjoy it; but I'm not gonna buy a game purely because that's where it's set. They'll need to work their usual Bioware magic with characters & plot as well.

No way I coulda said it better, pretty much this.

Aside from 40k and maybe S.T.A.L.K.E.R., the only game where I'd really like to see a different part of it's world ingame would be Halo. But of course we all know that we're not going to get anything more than shitty plots, boring characters and repetitive gameplay for the next 3 installments, so basically the same thing we've already gotten, again.
Which totally sucks considering there's a fair shitload of potential in Halo's universe, which will probably never be acted on.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'd say it could. For me, the world the game is set in is a very important part of the game, something that should be able to carry it if the otehr parts falter.

 

[Rawne1980]

The Elder Scrolls and Fallout games do a great job of this.

The worlds are so deep and varied that there really is no need for an overarching plot. I'd be very happy to play an Elder Scrolls game where I can just do awesome sidequests for all eternity.

Pretty much this.

The world around those free roam RPG's is enough to keep me playing while the character you control is rather anonymous to an extent.