Not even going to argue we're not going to get anyway. But seriously if you think swtor's just as innovative as gw2 then just do some simply math on the "on paper" features known and you'll quickly discover how lacking swtor is.
Seriously I doubt even hardcore swtor fans would call swtor just as innovative as gw2. Innovation isn't necessarily good or bad thing swtor could be the better game but calling something just as innovative as something else when it blatantly isn't is just bias at it's highest.
I always find it very funny when people say "Oh my god it's so blatantly obvious! You're stupid if you can't see it!"; when the guy they're speaking to has gone through the effort of explaining his points, but you yourself fail to actually put the 'blatantly obvious' into words.
If you saw someone was calling a cat a dog and you pointed out all the features that made it cat and yet they still believed it was a dog, how do you think the a far amount of people would react? Frustration.
It's the same here You could list all the "different" features swtor brings and I could name 3 times as many equally different features for gw2. What other proof does a person need? The fact the majority of people here consider gw2 more innovative and also another majority considers swtor to be far too similar to other games yet many hail gw2 ideas as "fresh and different" seriously what more proof do you need. There's arguable and then there's plain bias.
You know it I know it we all know it. How about instead of trying to make one game seem better by degrading another, how about you focus on what makes your game great. ok?
A few points
1) Just because some people haven't played it before doesn't mean something doesn't exist or hasn't been implemented before. I've stated 2 MMOs that were similar and I could name plenty more games with similar features.
2) I wasn't calling one thing anything other than what the developers have said it was. Thats not calling a cat a dog. Thats skirting the subject on your end.
3)The only proof you have is what the developers have said and not what they have shown, so we're both going on interpretations. I feel mine is much more literal an interpretation.
4) Many people still believe TOR to be a single player game with grouping added in second hand with no PvP, and that voice acting is a waste of time and money. Those same people turn around and say guild wars is more innovative. Talk about frustration...
5) I talk about the good points that have been released thus far on TOR, as I have with GW2, but I have proof of the good items that are currently in TOR. You automatically make me the biased one because I see things differently but I've said many times in many different threads I'm not against GW2 and that I'm actually a fan. People try and hype things that aren't there, and even after the devs said the game was cyclical with a pass fail objective system in the way they progress people still think dynamic means "anything can happen" and thats incorrect.
Your missing the point why I said it was "fresh and different". I never said these features haven't existed before but the fact that they're rare or obscure in current mmo's or were in far older mmo's doesn't change how different it is to "current" mmo's. I could use an ancient technique from thousands of years ago it doesn't change how "fresh or different" it is compared to things today.
The cat and the dog analogy wasn't about your view of A-net's information it's was about the the belief that Those few "innovations" to current mmo's is just as fresh as gw2 many and and equally different "innovations". It just doesn't make sense since the event system alone is about as "different" as swtors voice acting and story which was basically just a copy and paste from previous bioware games and multiplied. You could argue something similar for the event system but GW2 has many others almost equally different whereas bioware has few. Saying swtor is equally as "fresh as gw2" just doesn't make sense.
GW2 has many more different features than Swtor that's the simply fact of the matter. People moan about swtor because the story is the ONLY innovating they've shown SO FAR. Whether they have more we don't know. GW2 has shown many more different features than swtor so, so far it pretty much is the most innovating. It's pretty hard to argue against it/
I believe I see what you're getting at now... what you're saying (paraphrasing here) is that Guild Wars (in their articles) is incorporating systems that differ from the systems TOR is using. What you feel TOR is using is the standard MMO formula, which you believe they've shown up to this point. You feel that the dynamic quest system and the way GW is doing their story system is apart from the mainstream as opposed to TOR.
I can agree to that to an extent, though arena combat, and GWs story system won't be that much different then what TOR is offering. TOR is also offering open world PVP though. The main thing that I feel would stand out would be their questing system (which I've gone into detail about and don't need to do any further I think) and if most of the gameplay revolves around that system, then I can see how that differs from the main stream.
I agree that GW2 has different features then SWTOR. I don't really understand the point of them having MORE different features though, because honestly I think the feature list is more similar than people realize, but to concede a "to each their own" stance I'll just leave it at, GW2 is different than SWTOR.
Theres currently a thread going on, with a poll, whether people would prefer voice acting over alien playable races. Im fine by people discussing there opinions there, but now its becoming a thread ranting about how Bioware spent money on voice acting. This is just sad. SWTOR is going to be the first fully voice acted mmo, and people are complaining that its a bad decsion. People always say SWTOR is the same WoW formula with a new coat, blah blah ya. Well Bioware is trying to be innovative with the voice acting. Most developers aren't doing that anymore. So its a start to innovation I guess. It's also controvercial. Many people say mmos today lack innovation, they need to bring something new to the table. All that stuff. I agree, but you don't wake up one day and that mmo is born. MMOs will most likely slowly get there. I'm no SWTOR fan, I follow it but thats it, but the day when us mmoers start hating on a game for trying something new from the norm, is a sad day.
Benefit - Cost = Value
Voice acting, though awesome in adding immersion into the game, is not a reason I will play SWTOR. If they used all that money on one aspect of the game, that in the grand scheme of things, is not all that important, then it is a complete and utter waste.
Voice acting is great if all the other ESSENTIAL elements are there. Combat mechanics, progression, story, writing, etc etc. Voice acting is just a way of telling the story and expressing the writing. It's the icing on top of the cake, the other stuff I mentioned is the cake.
First off, we dont' know how much they spent on voice acting. If it's in the tens of millions, then that money could have been better spent further developing the ESSENTIAL elements of the game. But, if they can do both, then we have something here. It remains to be seen.
Both critics and fanbois have legitimate concerns and expectations. It's premature and completely wrong to think you know anything about the game at this stage of development. No alpha, no beta yet....
Not even going to argue we're not going to get anyway. But seriously if you think swtor's just as innovative as gw2 then just do some simply math on the "on paper" features known and you'll quickly discover how lacking swtor is.
Seriously I doubt even hardcore swtor fans would call swtor just as innovative as gw2. Innovation isn't necessarily good or bad thing swtor could be the better game but calling something just as innovative as something else when it blatantly isn't is just bias at it's highest.
I always find it very funny when people say "Oh my god it's so blatantly obvious! You're stupid if you can't see it!"; when the guy they're speaking to has gone through the effort of explaining his points, but you yourself fail to actually put the 'blatantly obvious' into words.
If you saw someone was calling a cat a dog and you pointed out all the features that made it cat and yet they still believed it was a dog, how do you think the a far amount of people would react? Frustration.
It's the same here You could list all the "different" features swtor brings and I could name 3 times as many equally different features for gw2. What other proof does a person need? The fact the majority of people here consider gw2 more innovative and also another majority considers swtor to be far too similar to other games yet many hail gw2 ideas as "fresh and different" seriously what more proof do you need. There's arguable and then there's plain bias.
You know it I know it we all know it. How about instead of trying to make one game seem better by degrading another, how about you focus on what makes your game great. ok?
A few points
1) Just because some people haven't played it before doesn't mean something doesn't exist or hasn't been implemented before. I've stated 2 MMOs that were similar and I could name plenty more games with similar features.
2) I wasn't calling one thing anything other than what the developers have said it was. Thats not calling a cat a dog. Thats skirting the subject on your end.
3)The only proof you have is what the developers have said and not what they have shown, so we're both going on interpretations. I feel mine is much more literal an interpretation.
4) Many people still believe TOR to be a single player game with grouping added in second hand with no PvP, and that voice acting is a waste of time and money. Those same people turn around and say guild wars is more innovative. Talk about frustration...
5) I talk about the good points that have been released thus far on TOR, as I have with GW2, but I have proof of the good items that are currently in TOR. You automatically make me the biased one because I see things differently but I've said many times in many different threads I'm not against GW2 and that I'm actually a fan. People try and hype things that aren't there, and even after the devs said the game was cyclical with a pass fail objective system in the way they progress people still think dynamic means "anything can happen" and thats incorrect.
Your missing the point why I said it was "fresh and different". I never said these features haven't existed before but the fact that they're rare or obscure in current mmo's or were in far older mmo's doesn't change how different it is to "current" mmo's. I could use an ancient technique from thousands of years ago it doesn't change how "fresh or different" it is compared to things today.
The cat and the dog analogy wasn't about your view of A-net's information it's was about the the belief that Those few "innovations" to current mmo's is just as fresh as gw2 many and and equally different "innovations". It just doesn't make sense since the event system alone is about as "different" as swtors voice acting and story which was basically just a copy and paste from previous bioware games and multiplied. You could argue something similar for the event system but GW2 has many others almost equally different whereas bioware has few. Saying swtor is equally as "fresh as gw2" just doesn't make sense.
GW2 has many more different features than Swtor that's the simply fact of the matter. People moan about swtor because the story is the ONLY innovating they've shown SO FAR. Whether they have more we don't know. GW2 has shown many more different features than swtor so, so far it pretty much is the most innovating. It's pretty hard to argue against it/
I believe I see what you're getting at now... what you're saying (paraphrasing here) is that Guild Wars (in their articles) is incorporating systems that differ from the systems TOR is using. What you feel TOR is using is the standard MMO formula, which you believe they've shown up to this point. You feel that the dynamic quest system and the way GW is doing their story system is apart from the mainstream as opposed to TOR.
I can agree to that to an extent, though arena combat, and GWs story system won't be that much different then what TOR is offering. TOR is also offering open world PVP though. The main thing that I feel would stand out would be their questing system (which I've gone into detail about and don't need to do any further I think) and if most of the gameplay revolves around that system, then I can see how that differs from the main stream.
I agree that GW2 has different features then SWTOR. I don't really understand the point of them having MORE different features though, because honestly I think the feature list is more similar than people realize, but to concede a "to each their own" stance I'll just leave it at, GW2 is different than SWTOR.
The reason I'm stressing how many diffrent features gw2 has is that most recently released mmo's have one or two "fresh" features which generally turn out to be gimmicks that have no real point or meaning, so your pretty much still playing the same game as every other game on the market. GW2's entire game is based on many different features meaning that even if some are just gimmicks the shear amount and the fact the game is based completely on them will make the game play and feel completely different to other games on the market.
Due to this I'm more inclined to to believe that gw2 will feel more fresh to mmo market than swtor because i'm not certain how amazing swtor's main "feature" is and how well a game based around it works in a mmo. If it turns out be a gimmick or just doesn't work with an mmo what are you left with. A game just like all other mmo's? God I hope not.
Both critics and fanbois have legitimate concerns and expectations. It's premature and completely wrong to think you know anything about the game at this stage of development. No alpha, no beta yet....
FYI: The full voice acting in the game IS an innovation..
Unless of course, you all can point out another MMO that has already been released that has the full voice acting in it...
Innovation Yes...
Revolutionary Doubtful, but it's sure gonna be nice not to have to read everything.
You can argue all day about it not being an innovation, but until you can covince the stewards of the english language to change the definition, you are wrong.
"If I'd asked my customers what they wanted, they'd have said a faster horse." - Henry Ford
Not even going to argue we're not going to get anyway. But seriously if you think swtor's just as innovative as gw2 then just do some simply math on the "on paper" features known and you'll quickly discover how lacking swtor is.
Seriously I doubt even hardcore swtor fans would call swtor just as innovative as gw2. Innovation isn't necessarily good or bad thing swtor could be the better game but calling something just as innovative as something else when it blatantly isn't is just bias at it's highest.
I always find it very funny when people say "Oh my god it's so blatantly obvious! You're stupid if you can't see it!"; when the guy they're speaking to has gone through the effort of explaining his points, but you yourself fail to actually put the 'blatantly obvious' into words.
If you saw someone was calling a cat a dog and you pointed out all the features that made it cat and yet they still believed it was a dog, how do you think the a far amount of people would react? Frustration.
It's the same here You could list all the "different" features swtor brings and I could name 3 times as many equally different features for gw2. What other proof does a person need? The fact the majority of people here consider gw2 more innovative and also another majority considers swtor to be far too similar to other games yet many hail gw2 ideas as "fresh and different" seriously what more proof do you need. There's arguable and then there's plain bias.
You know it I know it we all know it. How about instead of trying to make one game seem better by degrading another, how about you focus on what makes your game great. ok?
A few points
1) Just because some people haven't played it before doesn't mean something doesn't exist or hasn't been implemented before. I've stated 2 MMOs that were similar and I could name plenty more games with similar features.
2) I wasn't calling one thing anything other than what the developers have said it was. Thats not calling a cat a dog. Thats skirting the subject on your end.
3)The only proof you have is what the developers have said and not what they have shown, so we're both going on interpretations. I feel mine is much more literal an interpretation.
4) Many people still believe TOR to be a single player game with grouping added in second hand with no PvP, and that voice acting is a waste of time and money. Those same people turn around and say guild wars is more innovative. Talk about frustration...
5) I talk about the good points that have been released thus far on TOR, as I have with GW2, but I have proof of the good items that are currently in TOR. You automatically make me the biased one because I see things differently but I've said many times in many different threads I'm not against GW2 and that I'm actually a fan. People try and hype things that aren't there, and even after the devs said the game was cyclical with a pass fail objective system in the way they progress people still think dynamic means "anything can happen" and thats incorrect.
Your missing the point why I said it was "fresh and different". I never said these features haven't existed before but the fact that they're rare or obscure in current mmo's or were in far older mmo's doesn't change how different it is to "current" mmo's. I could use an ancient technique from thousands of years ago it doesn't change how "fresh or different" it is compared to things today.
The cat and the dog analogy wasn't about your view of A-net's information it's was about the the belief that Those few "innovations" to current mmo's is just as fresh as gw2 many and and equally different "innovations". It just doesn't make sense since the event system alone is about as "different" as swtors voice acting and story which was basically just a copy and paste from previous bioware games and multiplied. You could argue something similar for the event system but GW2 has many others almost equally different whereas bioware has few. Saying swtor is equally as "fresh as gw2" just doesn't make sense.
GW2 has many more different features than Swtor that's the simply fact of the matter. People moan about swtor because the story is the ONLY innovating they've shown SO FAR. Whether they have more we don't know. GW2 has shown many more different features than swtor so, so far it pretty much is the most innovating. It's pretty hard to argue against it/
I believe I see what you're getting at now... what you're saying (paraphrasing here) is that Guild Wars (in their articles) is incorporating systems that differ from the systems TOR is using. What you feel TOR is using is the standard MMO formula, which you believe they've shown up to this point. You feel that the dynamic quest system and the way GW is doing their story system is apart from the mainstream as opposed to TOR.
I can agree to that to an extent, though arena combat, and GWs story system won't be that much different then what TOR is offering. TOR is also offering open world PVP though. The main thing that I feel would stand out would be their questing system (which I've gone into detail about and don't need to do any further I think) and if most of the gameplay revolves around that system, then I can see how that differs from the main stream.
I agree that GW2 has different features then SWTOR. I don't really understand the point of them having MORE different features though, because honestly I think the feature list is more similar than people realize, but to concede a "to each their own" stance I'll just leave it at, GW2 is different than SWTOR.
The reason I'm stressing how many diffrent features gw2 has is that most recently released mmo's have one or two "fresh" features which generally turn out to be gimmicks that have no real point or meaning, so your pretty much still playing the same game as every other game on the market. GW2's entire game is based on many different features meaning that even if some are just gimmicks the shear amount and the fact the game is based completely on them will make the game play and feel completely different to other games on the market.
Due to this I'm more inclined to to believe that gw2 will feel more fresh to mmo market than swtor because i'm not certain how amazing swtor's main "feature" is and how well a game based around it works in a mmo. If it turns out be a gimmick or just doesn't work with an mmo what are you left with. A game just like all other mmo's? God I hope not.
I don't think anyone is expecting this game to be like other MMOs, on the contrary people believe TOR is going to be more like a single player game then anything else.
Now I don't know all the features GW2 is going to have but there are a lot of similarities and some features that we still just don't know between the two.
TOR - Action based gameplay, no auto attack, skills are determined by class, sub class, alignment and weapon choices
GW - Skill based (game uses particular skills) auto attack? not sure. Perks (maybe skills maybe not) depending on personality.
GW - Event system, open world PQ style with Dynamic events happening at any time. Cyclical in nature, that interact with eachother. You can choose to do quests or not to do quests and see how the world pans out.
TOR - Quest based single and group quests. Players choose their own path which dictates what other quests they receive, and play out an intricate storyline that will progress based on the choices made by the players actions. (sounds somewhat dynamic too)
TOR - Group Based PvP/RvR as well as structured PvP environments
GW2 - will have structured PvP environments and the possibility of some kind of open world PvP
GW2 - Story based in instances, you choose your personality on a 10 question quiz before you start the game and play from there. This will determine what items you may receive or how people perceive you in game.
TOR - Story is based on the original class you choose and your decisions as you progress. As you progress your alignment will depend on how other view you.
I mean there are subtle differences but they sound very similar in some areas. These are just some example on what you said earlier.
FYI: The full voice acting in the game IS an innovation..
Unless of course, you all can point out another MMO that has already been released that has the full voice acting in it...
Innovation Yes...
Revolutionary Doubtful, but it's sure gonna be nice not to have to read everything.
You can argue all day about it not being an innovation, but until you can covince the stewards of the english language to change the definition, you are wrong.
Voice acting isn't new. And having the entire game voice acted isn't innovative. It's more of the same thing, but on a grander scale. I guess we're arguing somantics. The more important issue whether the money put into voice acting is enough to make people buy the game. I would argue that fully voice acted mmo is one of the last things I would consider when deciding to play an mmo.
And guess what, that fully voiced mmo will no longer feel innovated after a week or two when you get used to the voice acting. Voice acting is not a self-sustaining aspect of a game to make people subscribe for a long time.
I played Mass Effect 1 and 2, I played Dragon's Age, the Voice acting became completely inconsequentlal 5 hours into the game. To each his own.
FYI: The full voice acting in the game IS an innovation..
Unless of course, you all can point out another MMO that has already been released that has the full voice acting in it...
Innovation Yes...
Revolutionary Doubtful, but it's sure gonna be nice not to have to read everything.
You can argue all day about it not being an innovation, but until you can covince the stewards of the english language to change the definition, you are wrong.
Voice acting isn't new. And having the entire game voice acted isn't innovative. It's more of the same thing, but on a grander scale. I guess we're arguing somantics. The more important issue whether the money put into voice acting is enough to make people buy the game. I would argue that fully voice acted mmo is one of the last things I would consider when deciding to play an mmo.
And guess what, that fully voiced mmo will no longer feel innovated after a week or two when you get used to the voice acting. Voice acting is not a self-sustaining aspect of a game to make people subscribe for a long time.
I played Mass Effect 1 and 2, I played Dragon's Age, the Voice acting became completely inconsequentlal 5 hours into the game. To each his own.
Very true, its not the voice acting that BioWare is showcasing, its their storytelling system thats been prevalent in many of their games. People don't buy BioWare games specifically for the voice acting, they buy it for the stories, and the game aspects. People are taking this whole voice acting thing too far. Voice acting brings feelings and emotion to the game, which is a perk, but its not the sole reason to play the game.
Not even going to argue we're not going to get anyway. But seriously if you think swtor's just as innovative as gw2 then just do some simply math on the "on paper" features known and you'll quickly discover how lacking swtor is.
Seriously I doubt even hardcore swtor fans would call swtor just as innovative as gw2. Innovation isn't necessarily good or bad thing swtor could be the better game but calling something just as innovative as something else when it blatantly isn't is just bias at it's highest.
I always find it very funny when people say "Oh my god it's so blatantly obvious! You're stupid if you can't see it!"; when the guy they're speaking to has gone through the effort of explaining his points, but you yourself fail to actually put the 'blatantly obvious' into words.
If you saw someone was calling a cat a dog and you pointed out all the features that made it cat and yet they still believed it was a dog, how do you think the a far amount of people would react? Frustration.
It's the same here You could list all the "different" features swtor brings and I could name 3 times as many equally different features for gw2. What other proof does a person need? The fact the majority of people here consider gw2 more innovative and also another majority considers swtor to be far too similar to other games yet many hail gw2 ideas as "fresh and different" seriously what more proof do you need. There's arguable and then there's plain bias.
You know it I know it we all know it. How about instead of trying to make one game seem better by degrading another, how about you focus on what makes your game great. ok?
A few points
1) Just because some people haven't played it before doesn't mean something doesn't exist or hasn't been implemented before. I've stated 2 MMOs that were similar and I could name plenty more games with similar features.
2) I wasn't calling one thing anything other than what the developers have said it was. Thats not calling a cat a dog. Thats skirting the subject on your end.
3)The only proof you have is what the developers have said and not what they have shown, so we're both going on interpretations. I feel mine is much more literal an interpretation.
4) Many people still believe TOR to be a single player game with grouping added in second hand with no PvP, and that voice acting is a waste of time and money. Those same people turn around and say guild wars is more innovative. Talk about frustration...
5) I talk about the good points that have been released thus far on TOR, as I have with GW2, but I have proof of the good items that are currently in TOR. You automatically make me the biased one because I see things differently but I've said many times in many different threads I'm not against GW2 and that I'm actually a fan. People try and hype things that aren't there, and even after the devs said the game was cyclical with a pass fail objective system in the way they progress people still think dynamic means "anything can happen" and thats incorrect.
Your missing the point why I said it was "fresh and different". I never said these features haven't existed before but the fact that they're rare or obscure in current mmo's or were in far older mmo's doesn't change how different it is to "current" mmo's. I could use an ancient technique from thousands of years ago it doesn't change how "fresh or different" it is compared to things today.
The cat and the dog analogy wasn't about your view of A-net's information it's was about the the belief that Those few "innovations" to current mmo's is just as fresh as gw2 many and and equally different "innovations". It just doesn't make sense since the event system alone is about as "different" as swtors voice acting and story which was basically just a copy and paste from previous bioware games and multiplied. You could argue something similar for the event system but GW2 has many others almost equally different whereas bioware has few. Saying swtor is equally as "fresh as gw2" just doesn't make sense.
GW2 has many more different features than Swtor that's the simply fact of the matter. People moan about swtor because the story is the ONLY innovating they've shown SO FAR. Whether they have more we don't know. GW2 has shown many more different features than swtor so, so far it pretty much is the most innovating. It's pretty hard to argue against it/
I believe I see what you're getting at now... what you're saying (paraphrasing here) is that Guild Wars (in their articles) is incorporating systems that differ from the systems TOR is using. What you feel TOR is using is the standard MMO formula, which you believe they've shown up to this point. You feel that the dynamic quest system and the way GW is doing their story system is apart from the mainstream as opposed to TOR.
I can agree to that to an extent, though arena combat, and GWs story system won't be that much different then what TOR is offering. TOR is also offering open world PVP though. The main thing that I feel would stand out would be their questing system (which I've gone into detail about and don't need to do any further I think) and if most of the gameplay revolves around that system, then I can see how that differs from the main stream.
I agree that GW2 has different features then SWTOR. I don't really understand the point of them having MORE different features though, because honestly I think the feature list is more similar than people realize, but to concede a "to each their own" stance I'll just leave it at, GW2 is different than SWTOR.
The reason I'm stressing how many diffrent features gw2 has is that most recently released mmo's have one or two "fresh" features which generally turn out to be gimmicks that have no real point or meaning, so your pretty much still playing the same game as every other game on the market. GW2's entire game is based on many different features meaning that even if some are just gimmicks the shear amount and the fact the game is based completely on them will make the game play and feel completely different to other games on the market.
Due to this I'm more inclined to to believe that gw2 will feel more fresh to mmo market than swtor because i'm not certain how amazing swtor's main "feature" is and how well a game based around it works in a mmo. If it turns out be a gimmick or just doesn't work with an mmo what are you left with. A game just like all other mmo's? God I hope not.
I don't think anyone is expecting this game to be like other MMOs, on the contrary people believe TOR is going to be more like a single player game then anything else.
Now I don't know all the features GW2 is going to have but there are a lot of similarities and some features that we still just don't know between the two.
TOR - Action based gameplay, no auto attack, skills are determined by class, sub class, alignment and weapon choices
GW - Skill based (game uses particular skills) auto attack? not sure. Perks (maybe skills maybe not) depending on personality.
GW - Event system, open world PQ style with Dynamic events happening at any time. Cyclical in nature, that interact with eachother. You can choose to do quests or not to do quests and see how the world pans out.
TOR - Quest based single and group quests. Players choose their own path which dictates what other quests they receive, and play out an intricate storyline that will progress based on the choices made by the players actions. (sounds somewhat dynamic too)
TOR - Group Based PvP/RvR as well as structured PvP environments
GW2 - will have structured PvP environments and the possibility of some kind of open world PvP
GW2 - Story based in instances, you choose your personality on a 10 question quiz before you start the game and play from there. This will determine what items you may receive or how people perceive you in game.
TOR - Story is based on the original class you choose and your decisions as you progress. As you progress your alignment will depend on how other view you.
I mean there are subtle differences but they sound very similar in some areas. These are just some example on what you said earlier.
Similarities? Emphasis on story more like an rpg, yes everything else not so much. The personal story is like swtor story system. Thats about it. Also you seem to be forgetting the choices you choose ALSO affect your story in gw2 so it's biography and choices.
The event system is nothing like swtor's story system how are they even comparable? Swtor RvR we know nothing about so why is that even considered a similarity? It's like comparing arena's in gw to wow. Sure their both arena's but the similarities stop there.
Most of your similarities would be true for any AAA mmo excluding the story ones.
Plus gw2 has many features that diffientiate it such as expanisve underwater content, skill damage/effects depending on position such as flanking increasing damage etc. Home instances that can be customised and where achievements trophies etc can be shown to other players. Enviornment weapons such as picking up sticks rocks etc. Balanced hot-joinable pvp matches with everything unlocked putting everyone on a even footing as well as game lobbies like a fps. Mini-games such as shooting gallery bar fights etc, RvR based around a RTS with gathering of resources to improve equipment being a major factor and many others.
The similarities in story are so insignificant compared to the rest of the game which is nothing like swtor's.
Voice acting is nice, it adds to immersion. It's also Bioware's calling card, of sorts. Their last few major titles have heavily featured voice acting. Its only logical that they would bring similar ethics and ideas over to the other half of everybody's favorite acronym. (for those of you who are a little slow, MMORPG)
Innovative, eh, its unusual, not something done in most MMOs. GW2 will also be having alot of voice acting, though I'm not sure if its going to be on the same scale. What I am more interestid in seeing, is how does this translate over to MMO's? ArenaNet has stated GW2 won't have a single quest box for you to read through, how will regular people react to that? Will SWTOR have text with voice overs? How will players react to these ideas and changes?
One thing can be said about both SWTOR and GW2, they are a step, no matter how large, in a different direction for MMO's. They are both going to be story laden, and very interesting. I plan on playing both (long time GW player, recently started getting interestid in SWTOR) because they both sound and look fun at this point. No one can tell how truly innovating either of these games may be until they are released. Up until then, its all hype and developer here-say.
Oh, and a slight correction to your conception of the dynamic events in GW2, cyclical yes, some players have to start an event, but they are not all purely pass fail. There are shades of gray in them, where they might branch. They are still technically in a closed system, of course. They could be compared to PQs, but they have changed greatly from that WAR concept. They scale based on participation, they are mostly not set on a specific timer (the same event doesn't always happen at 5 P.M EST or dusk in game) Sure, the basic idea was there before, but these appear to be the next iteration, the next evolution of this particular type of content.
Not even going to argue we're not going to get anyway. But seriously if you think swtor's just as innovative as gw2 then just do some simply math on the "on paper" features known and you'll quickly discover how lacking swtor is.
Seriously I doubt even hardcore swtor fans would call swtor just as innovative as gw2. Innovation isn't necessarily good or bad thing swtor could be the better game but calling something just as innovative as something else when it blatantly isn't is just bias at it's highest.
I always find it very funny when people say "Oh my god it's so blatantly obvious! You're stupid if you can't see it!"; when the guy they're speaking to has gone through the effort of explaining his points, but you yourself fail to actually put the 'blatantly obvious' into words.
If you saw someone was calling a cat a dog and you pointed out all the features that made it cat and yet they still believed it was a dog, how do you think the a far amount of people would react? Frustration.
It's the same here You could list all the "different" features swtor brings and I could name 3 times as many equally different features for gw2. What other proof does a person need? The fact the majority of people here consider gw2 more innovative and also another majority considers swtor to be far too similar to other games yet many hail gw2 ideas as "fresh and different" seriously what more proof do you need. There's arguable and then there's plain bias.
You know it I know it we all know it. How about instead of trying to make one game seem better by degrading another, how about you focus on what makes your game great. ok?
A few points
1) Just because some people haven't played it before doesn't mean something doesn't exist or hasn't been implemented before. I've stated 2 MMOs that were similar and I could name plenty more games with similar features.
2) I wasn't calling one thing anything other than what the developers have said it was. Thats not calling a cat a dog. Thats skirting the subject on your end.
3)The only proof you have is what the developers have said and not what they have shown, so we're both going on interpretations. I feel mine is much more literal an interpretation.
4) Many people still believe TOR to be a single player game with grouping added in second hand with no PvP, and that voice acting is a waste of time and money. Those same people turn around and say guild wars is more innovative. Talk about frustration...
5) I talk about the good points that have been released thus far on TOR, as I have with GW2, but I have proof of the good items that are currently in TOR. You automatically make me the biased one because I see things differently but I've said many times in many different threads I'm not against GW2 and that I'm actually a fan. People try and hype things that aren't there, and even after the devs said the game was cyclical with a pass fail objective system in the way they progress people still think dynamic means "anything can happen" and thats incorrect.
Your missing the point why I said it was "fresh and different". I never said these features haven't existed before but the fact that they're rare or obscure in current mmo's or were in far older mmo's doesn't change how different it is to "current" mmo's. I could use an ancient technique from thousands of years ago it doesn't change how "fresh or different" it is compared to things today.
The cat and the dog analogy wasn't about your view of A-net's information it's was about the the belief that Those few "innovations" to current mmo's is just as fresh as gw2 many and and equally different "innovations". It just doesn't make sense since the event system alone is about as "different" as swtors voice acting and story which was basically just a copy and paste from previous bioware games and multiplied. You could argue something similar for the event system but GW2 has many others almost equally different whereas bioware has few. Saying swtor is equally as "fresh as gw2" just doesn't make sense.
GW2 has many more different features than Swtor that's the simply fact of the matter. People moan about swtor because the story is the ONLY innovating they've shown SO FAR. Whether they have more we don't know. GW2 has shown many more different features than swtor so, so far it pretty much is the most innovating. It's pretty hard to argue against it/
I believe I see what you're getting at now... what you're saying (paraphrasing here) is that Guild Wars (in their articles) is incorporating systems that differ from the systems TOR is using. What you feel TOR is using is the standard MMO formula, which you believe they've shown up to this point. You feel that the dynamic quest system and the way GW is doing their story system is apart from the mainstream as opposed to TOR.
I can agree to that to an extent, though arena combat, and GWs story system won't be that much different then what TOR is offering. TOR is also offering open world PVP though. The main thing that I feel would stand out would be their questing system (which I've gone into detail about and don't need to do any further I think) and if most of the gameplay revolves around that system, then I can see how that differs from the main stream.
I agree that GW2 has different features then SWTOR. I don't really understand the point of them having MORE different features though, because honestly I think the feature list is more similar than people realize, but to concede a "to each their own" stance I'll just leave it at, GW2 is different than SWTOR.
The reason I'm stressing how many diffrent features gw2 has is that most recently released mmo's have one or two "fresh" features which generally turn out to be gimmicks that have no real point or meaning, so your pretty much still playing the same game as every other game on the market. GW2's entire game is based on many different features meaning that even if some are just gimmicks the shear amount and the fact the game is based completely on them will make the game play and feel completely different to other games on the market.
Due to this I'm more inclined to to believe that gw2 will feel more fresh to mmo market than swtor because i'm not certain how amazing swtor's main "feature" is and how well a game based around it works in a mmo. If it turns out be a gimmick or just doesn't work with an mmo what are you left with. A game just like all other mmo's? God I hope not.
I don't think anyone is expecting this game to be like other MMOs, on the contrary people believe TOR is going to be more like a single player game then anything else.
Now I don't know all the features GW2 is going to have but there are a lot of similarities and some features that we still just don't know between the two.
TOR - Action based gameplay, no auto attack, skills are determined by class, sub class, alignment and weapon choices
GW - Skill based (game uses particular skills) auto attack? not sure. Perks (maybe skills maybe not) depending on personality.
GW - Event system, open world PQ style with Dynamic events happening at any time. Cyclical in nature, that interact with eachother. You can choose to do quests or not to do quests and see how the world pans out.
TOR - Quest based single and group quests. Players choose their own path which dictates what other quests they receive, and play out an intricate storyline that will progress based on the choices made by the players actions. (sounds somewhat dynamic too)
TOR - Group Based PvP/RvR as well as structured PvP environments
GW2 - will have structured PvP environments and the possibility of some kind of open world PvP
GW2 - Story based in instances, you choose your personality on a 10 question quiz before you start the game and play from there. This will determine what items you may receive or how people perceive you in game.
TOR - Story is based on the original class you choose and your decisions as you progress. As you progress your alignment will depend on how other view you.
I mean there are subtle differences but they sound very similar in some areas. These are just some example on what you said earlier.
Similarities? Emphasis on story more like an rpg, yes everything else not so much. The personal story is like swtor story system. Thats about it. Also you seem to be forgetting the choices you choose ALSO affect your story in gw2 so it's biography and choices.
The event system is nothing like swtor's story system how are they even comparable? Swtor RvR we know nothing about so why is that even considered a similarity? It's like comparing arena's in gw to wow. Sure their both arena's but the similarities stop there.
Most of your similarities would be true for any AAA mmo excluding the story ones.
Plus gw2 has many features that diffientiate it such as expanisve underwater content, skill damage/effects depending on position such as flanking increasing damage etc. Home instances that can be customised and where achievements trophies etc can be shown to other players. Enviornment weapons such as picking up sticks rocks etc. Balanced hot-joinable pvp matches with everything unlocked putting everyone on a even footing as well as game lobbies like a fps. Mini-games such as shooting gallery bar fights etc, RvR based around a RTS with gathering of resources to improve equipment being a major factor and many others.
The similarities in story are so insignificant compared to the rest of the game which is nothing like swtor's.
They haven't talked about player housing or underwater cities although some planets have vast seas and oceans, and space content has been confirmed in TOR.
You can interact with the environment with most classes in TOR, some classes will be able to use a cover system more effectively to either mitigate or parry much of the damage.
Scaling of arena missions has not been confirmed but high level restricted PVP has been confirmed.
No mini games have been confirmed yet for TOR but they have been spoken about recently.
RVR based around gathering resources is basically a capture the flag game, objective based PvP is also in TOR, though how they plan on utilizing the RTS is a different thing entirely.
As for the story, TOR bases a lot of your character progression on the way your character acts in their story. You make your choices throughout the entirety of your character story, making a choice to do something, or not do something, that sounds similar to a pass fail mechanic. Kill the captain or don't kill the captain. Kill the orcs in the village or don't kill the orcs in the village? Sounds very similar....
The only difference is TOR isn't cyclical, once you've done that mission, you don't have to go back to it.
I guess the big difference between the two games is that I've seen most of what TOR has to offer, I've only heard about GW2.
A lot of games can be written to sound a lot like what GW2 has to offer, currently. Maybe they need to start showing us what they have for it to seem different to me, because right now, all they have to say are words... words that sound very similar to what other games already offer.
Not even going to argue we're not going to get anyway. But seriously if you think swtor's just as innovative as gw2 then just do some simply math on the "on paper" features known and you'll quickly discover how lacking swtor is.
Seriously I doubt even hardcore swtor fans would call swtor just as innovative as gw2. Innovation isn't necessarily good or bad thing swtor could be the better game but calling something just as innovative as something else when it blatantly isn't is just bias at it's highest.
I always find it very funny when people say "Oh my god it's so blatantly obvious! You're stupid if you can't see it!"; when the guy they're speaking to has gone through the effort of explaining his points, but you yourself fail to actually put the 'blatantly obvious' into words.
If you saw someone was calling a cat a dog and you pointed out all the features that made it cat and yet they still believed it was a dog, how do you think the a far amount of people would react? Frustration.
It's the same here You could list all the "different" features swtor brings and I could name 3 times as many equally different features for gw2. What other proof does a person need? The fact the majority of people here consider gw2 more innovative and also another majority considers swtor to be far too similar to other games yet many hail gw2 ideas as "fresh and different" seriously what more proof do you need. There's arguable and then there's plain bias.
You know it I know it we all know it. How about instead of trying to make one game seem better by degrading another, how about you focus on what makes your game great. ok?
A few points
1) Just because some people haven't played it before doesn't mean something doesn't exist or hasn't been implemented before. I've stated 2 MMOs that were similar and I could name plenty more games with similar features.
2) I wasn't calling one thing anything other than what the developers have said it was. Thats not calling a cat a dog. Thats skirting the subject on your end.
3)The only proof you have is what the developers have said and not what they have shown, so we're both going on interpretations. I feel mine is much more literal an interpretation.
4) Many people still believe TOR to be a single player game with grouping added in second hand with no PvP, and that voice acting is a waste of time and money. Those same people turn around and say guild wars is more innovative. Talk about frustration...
5) I talk about the good points that have been released thus far on TOR, as I have with GW2, but I have proof of the good items that are currently in TOR. You automatically make me the biased one because I see things differently but I've said many times in many different threads I'm not against GW2 and that I'm actually a fan. People try and hype things that aren't there, and even after the devs said the game was cyclical with a pass fail objective system in the way they progress people still think dynamic means "anything can happen" and thats incorrect.
Your missing the point why I said it was "fresh and different". I never said these features haven't existed before but the fact that they're rare or obscure in current mmo's or were in far older mmo's doesn't change how different it is to "current" mmo's. I could use an ancient technique from thousands of years ago it doesn't change how "fresh or different" it is compared to things today.
The cat and the dog analogy wasn't about your view of A-net's information it's was about the the belief that Those few "innovations" to current mmo's is just as fresh as gw2 many and and equally different "innovations". It just doesn't make sense since the event system alone is about as "different" as swtors voice acting and story which was basically just a copy and paste from previous bioware games and multiplied. You could argue something similar for the event system but GW2 has many others almost equally different whereas bioware has few. Saying swtor is equally as "fresh as gw2" just doesn't make sense.
GW2 has many more different features than Swtor that's the simply fact of the matter. People moan about swtor because the story is the ONLY innovating they've shown SO FAR. Whether they have more we don't know. GW2 has shown many more different features than swtor so, so far it pretty much is the most innovating. It's pretty hard to argue against it/
I believe I see what you're getting at now... what you're saying (paraphrasing here) is that Guild Wars (in their articles) is incorporating systems that differ from the systems TOR is using. What you feel TOR is using is the standard MMO formula, which you believe they've shown up to this point. You feel that the dynamic quest system and the way GW is doing their story system is apart from the mainstream as opposed to TOR.
I can agree to that to an extent, though arena combat, and GWs story system won't be that much different then what TOR is offering. TOR is also offering open world PVP though. The main thing that I feel would stand out would be their questing system (which I've gone into detail about and don't need to do any further I think) and if most of the gameplay revolves around that system, then I can see how that differs from the main stream.
I agree that GW2 has different features then SWTOR. I don't really understand the point of them having MORE different features though, because honestly I think the feature list is more similar than people realize, but to concede a "to each their own" stance I'll just leave it at, GW2 is different than SWTOR.
The reason I'm stressing how many diffrent features gw2 has is that most recently released mmo's have one or two "fresh" features which generally turn out to be gimmicks that have no real point or meaning, so your pretty much still playing the same game as every other game on the market. GW2's entire game is based on many different features meaning that even if some are just gimmicks the shear amount and the fact the game is based completely on them will make the game play and feel completely different to other games on the market.
Due to this I'm more inclined to to believe that gw2 will feel more fresh to mmo market than swtor because i'm not certain how amazing swtor's main "feature" is and how well a game based around it works in a mmo. If it turns out be a gimmick or just doesn't work with an mmo what are you left with. A game just like all other mmo's? God I hope not.
I don't think anyone is expecting this game to be like other MMOs, on the contrary people believe TOR is going to be more like a single player game then anything else.
Now I don't know all the features GW2 is going to have but there are a lot of similarities and some features that we still just don't know between the two.
TOR - Action based gameplay, no auto attack, skills are determined by class, sub class, alignment and weapon choices
GW - Skill based (game uses particular skills) auto attack? not sure. Perks (maybe skills maybe not) depending on personality.
GW - Event system, open world PQ style with Dynamic events happening at any time. Cyclical in nature, that interact with eachother. You can choose to do quests or not to do quests and see how the world pans out.
TOR - Quest based single and group quests. Players choose their own path which dictates what other quests they receive, and play out an intricate storyline that will progress based on the choices made by the players actions. (sounds somewhat dynamic too)
TOR - Group Based PvP/RvR as well as structured PvP environments
GW2 - will have structured PvP environments and the possibility of some kind of open world PvP
GW2 - Story based in instances, you choose your personality on a 10 question quiz before you start the game and play from there. This will determine what items you may receive or how people perceive you in game.
TOR - Story is based on the original class you choose and your decisions as you progress. As you progress your alignment will depend on how other view you.
I mean there are subtle differences but they sound very similar in some areas. These are just some example on what you said earlier.
Similarities? Emphasis on story more like an rpg, yes everything else not so much. The personal story is like swtor story system. Thats about it. Also you seem to be forgetting the choices you choose ALSO affect your story in gw2 so it's biography and choices.
The event system is nothing like swtor's story system how are they even comparable? Swtor RvR we know nothing about so why is that even considered a similarity? It's like comparing arena's in gw to wow. Sure their both arena's but the similarities stop there.
Most of your similarities would be true for any AAA mmo excluding the story ones.
Plus gw2 has many features that diffientiate it such as expanisve underwater content, skill damage/effects depending on position such as flanking increasing damage etc. Home instances that can be customised and where achievements trophies etc can be shown to other players. Enviornment weapons such as picking up sticks rocks etc. Balanced hot-joinable pvp matches with everything unlocked putting everyone on a even footing as well as game lobbies like a fps. Mini-games such as shooting gallery bar fights etc, RvR based around a RTS with gathering of resources to improve equipment being a major factor and many others.
The similarities in story are so insignificant compared to the rest of the game which is nothing like swtor's.
They haven't talked about player housing or underwater cities although some planets have vast seas and oceans, and space content has been confirmed in TOR.
You can interact with the environment with most classes in TOR, some classes will be able to use a cover system more effectively to either mitigate or parry much of the damage.
Scaling of arena missions has not been confirmed but high level restricted PVP has been confirmed.
No mini games have been confirmed yet for TOR but they have been spoken about recently.
RVR based around gathering resources is basically a capture the flag game, objective based PvP is also in TOR, though how they plan on utilizing the RTS is a different thing entirely.
As for the story, TOR bases a lot of your character progression on the way your character acts in their story. You make your choices throughout the entirety of your character story, making a choice to do something, or not do something, that sounds similar to a pass fail mechanic. Kill the captain or don't kill the captain. Kill the orcs in the village or don't kill the orcs in the village? Sounds very similar....
The only difference is TOR isn't cyclical, once you've done that mission, you don't have to go back to it.
I guess the big difference between the two games is that I've seen most of what TOR has to offer, I've only heard about GW2.
A lot of games can be written to sound a lot like what GW2 has to offer, currently. Maybe they need to start showing us what they have for it to seem different to me, because right now, all they have to say are words... words that sound very similar to what other games already offer.
Actually, the storyline in GW2 isn't cyclical, that is only the dynamic events. They run entirely seperate from eachother and the storyline is non-repeatable. The storylines in GW2 start with your race, profession, and the 10 questions. After that the story has been confirmed to change and alter in addition while you are going through it. Two people could make the exact same race, profession, and questings, and STILL end up with different stories as they progress. While I am a fan of GW2, I try to keep my skepticals on as I read, so the real proof in this will be how different the stories are.
Not even going to argue we're not going to get anyway. But seriously if you think swtor's just as innovative as gw2 then just do some simply math on the "on paper" features known and you'll quickly discover how lacking swtor is.
Seriously I doubt even hardcore swtor fans would call swtor just as innovative as gw2. Innovation isn't necessarily good or bad thing swtor could be the better game but calling something just as innovative as something else when it blatantly isn't is just bias at it's highest.
I always find it very funny when people say "Oh my god it's so blatantly obvious! You're stupid if you can't see it!"; when the guy they're speaking to has gone through the effort of explaining his points, but you yourself fail to actually put the 'blatantly obvious' into words.
If you saw someone was calling a cat a dog and you pointed out all the features that made it cat and yet they still believed it was a dog, how do you think the a far amount of people would react? Frustration.
It's the same here You could list all the "different" features swtor brings and I could name 3 times as many equally different features for gw2. What other proof does a person need? The fact the majority of people here consider gw2 more innovative and also another majority considers swtor to be far too similar to other games yet many hail gw2 ideas as "fresh and different" seriously what more proof do you need. There's arguable and then there's plain bias.
You know it I know it we all know it. How about instead of trying to make one game seem better by degrading another, how about you focus on what makes your game great. ok?
A few points
1) Just because some people haven't played it before doesn't mean something doesn't exist or hasn't been implemented before. I've stated 2 MMOs that were similar and I could name plenty more games with similar features.
2) I wasn't calling one thing anything other than what the developers have said it was. Thats not calling a cat a dog. Thats skirting the subject on your end.
3)The only proof you have is what the developers have said and not what they have shown, so we're both going on interpretations. I feel mine is much more literal an interpretation.
4) Many people still believe TOR to be a single player game with grouping added in second hand with no PvP, and that voice acting is a waste of time and money. Those same people turn around and say guild wars is more innovative. Talk about frustration...
5) I talk about the good points that have been released thus far on TOR, as I have with GW2, but I have proof of the good items that are currently in TOR. You automatically make me the biased one because I see things differently but I've said many times in many different threads I'm not against GW2 and that I'm actually a fan. People try and hype things that aren't there, and even after the devs said the game was cyclical with a pass fail objective system in the way they progress people still think dynamic means "anything can happen" and thats incorrect.
Your missing the point why I said it was "fresh and different". I never said these features haven't existed before but the fact that they're rare or obscure in current mmo's or were in far older mmo's doesn't change how different it is to "current" mmo's. I could use an ancient technique from thousands of years ago it doesn't change how "fresh or different" it is compared to things today.
The cat and the dog analogy wasn't about your view of A-net's information it's was about the the belief that Those few "innovations" to current mmo's is just as fresh as gw2 many and and equally different "innovations". It just doesn't make sense since the event system alone is about as "different" as swtors voice acting and story which was basically just a copy and paste from previous bioware games and multiplied. You could argue something similar for the event system but GW2 has many others almost equally different whereas bioware has few. Saying swtor is equally as "fresh as gw2" just doesn't make sense.
GW2 has many more different features than Swtor that's the simply fact of the matter. People moan about swtor because the story is the ONLY innovating they've shown SO FAR. Whether they have more we don't know. GW2 has shown many more different features than swtor so, so far it pretty much is the most innovating. It's pretty hard to argue against it/
I believe I see what you're getting at now... what you're saying (paraphrasing here) is that Guild Wars (in their articles) is incorporating systems that differ from the systems TOR is using. What you feel TOR is using is the standard MMO formula, which you believe they've shown up to this point. You feel that the dynamic quest system and the way GW is doing their story system is apart from the mainstream as opposed to TOR.
I can agree to that to an extent, though arena combat, and GWs story system won't be that much different then what TOR is offering. TOR is also offering open world PVP though. The main thing that I feel would stand out would be their questing system (which I've gone into detail about and don't need to do any further I think) and if most of the gameplay revolves around that system, then I can see how that differs from the main stream.
I agree that GW2 has different features then SWTOR. I don't really understand the point of them having MORE different features though, because honestly I think the feature list is more similar than people realize, but to concede a "to each their own" stance I'll just leave it at, GW2 is different than SWTOR.
The reason I'm stressing how many diffrent features gw2 has is that most recently released mmo's have one or two "fresh" features which generally turn out to be gimmicks that have no real point or meaning, so your pretty much still playing the same game as every other game on the market. GW2's entire game is based on many different features meaning that even if some are just gimmicks the shear amount and the fact the game is based completely on them will make the game play and feel completely different to other games on the market.
Due to this I'm more inclined to to believe that gw2 will feel more fresh to mmo market than swtor because i'm not certain how amazing swtor's main "feature" is and how well a game based around it works in a mmo. If it turns out be a gimmick or just doesn't work with an mmo what are you left with. A game just like all other mmo's? God I hope not.
I don't think anyone is expecting this game to be like other MMOs, on the contrary people believe TOR is going to be more like a single player game then anything else.
Now I don't know all the features GW2 is going to have but there are a lot of similarities and some features that we still just don't know between the two.
TOR - Action based gameplay, no auto attack, skills are determined by class, sub class, alignment and weapon choices
GW - Skill based (game uses particular skills) auto attack? not sure. Perks (maybe skills maybe not) depending on personality.
GW - Event system, open world PQ style with Dynamic events happening at any time. Cyclical in nature, that interact with eachother. You can choose to do quests or not to do quests and see how the world pans out.
TOR - Quest based single and group quests. Players choose their own path which dictates what other quests they receive, and play out an intricate storyline that will progress based on the choices made by the players actions. (sounds somewhat dynamic too)
TOR - Group Based PvP/RvR as well as structured PvP environments
GW2 - will have structured PvP environments and the possibility of some kind of open world PvP
GW2 - Story based in instances, you choose your personality on a 10 question quiz before you start the game and play from there. This will determine what items you may receive or how people perceive you in game.
TOR - Story is based on the original class you choose and your decisions as you progress. As you progress your alignment will depend on how other view you.
I mean there are subtle differences but they sound very similar in some areas. These are just some example on what you said earlier.
Similarities? Emphasis on story more like an rpg, yes everything else not so much. The personal story is like swtor story system. Thats about it. Also you seem to be forgetting the choices you choose ALSO affect your story in gw2 so it's biography and choices.
The event system is nothing like swtor's story system how are they even comparable? Swtor RvR we know nothing about so why is that even considered a similarity? It's like comparing arena's in gw to wow. Sure their both arena's but the similarities stop there.
Most of your similarities would be true for any AAA mmo excluding the story ones.
Plus gw2 has many features that diffientiate it such as expanisve underwater content, skill damage/effects depending on position such as flanking increasing damage etc. Home instances that can be customised and where achievements trophies etc can be shown to other players. Enviornment weapons such as picking up sticks rocks etc. Balanced hot-joinable pvp matches with everything unlocked putting everyone on a even footing as well as game lobbies like a fps. Mini-games such as shooting gallery bar fights etc, RvR based around a RTS with gathering of resources to improve equipment being a major factor and many others.
The similarities in story are so insignificant compared to the rest of the game which is nothing like swtor's.
They haven't talked about player housing or underwater cities although some planets have vast seas and oceans, and space content has been confirmed in TOR.
You can interact with the environment with most classes in TOR, some classes will be able to use a cover system more effectively to either mitigate or parry much of the damage.
Scaling of arena missions has not been confirmed but high level restricted PVP has been confirmed.
No mini games have been confirmed yet for TOR but they have been spoken about recently.
RVR based around gathering resources is basically a capture the flag game, objective based PvP is also in TOR, though how they plan on utilizing the RTS is a different thing entirely.
As for the story, TOR bases a lot of your character progression on the way your character acts in their story. You make your choices throughout the entirety of your character story, making a choice to do something, or not do something, that sounds similar to a pass fail mechanic. Kill the captain or don't kill the captain. Kill the orcs in the village or don't kill the orcs in the village? Sounds very similar....
The only difference is TOR isn't cyclical, once you've done that mission, you don't have to go back to it.
I guess the big difference between the two games is that I've seen most of what TOR has to offer, I've only heard about GW2.
A lot of games can be written to sound a lot like what GW2 has to offer, currently. Maybe they need to start showing us what they have for it to seem different to me, because right now, all they have to say are words... words that sound very similar to what other games already offer.
Lol so an RTS is basically capture the flag? Seriously can't tell if your serious or not because if you are god help you.... Seriously no offence but thats a face palm moment right there. What capture the flag RvR improves your walls equipment and fortifications as you gather more resources giving a lot more strategic options common in most rts?
Interacting with the environment is not just clinging to walls and producing "walls" i'm talking about actual picking stuff up like an action rpg none of that I seen in swtor. The personal story isn't cyclical story and oh yes you actually have real choices.
Not "I really want that nice light side skill but this npc is a douche and I don't want to help him but if I don't I won't be able to get it". Seriously linking story choices to skills was a terrible idea by bioware. Imagine playing through the game only to realise all the "skills" you acquired and the subclass you chose were completely worthless in group pve. Getting the ideal skills would result in a linear story. I'm sorry but that choice was mind numblingly bad idea for an mmo.
Come on......... I've already said the personal sory is similar to story in swtor. Beating a dead horse now are we?
In gw2 you have stats tracking effectiveness in pvp like a fps, e.g kill to death ratio etc. Market place and guild chat accessible by an extrenal website. All content is completeable at higher levels due to levels scalling down by sidekick system meaning the entire game becomes endgame content. underwater content as large as those on land not just big but equally big to land content,
And lol SWTOR has shown nothing barely anything. We've seen some combat and some story thats it. How about SWToR starts showing things. in fact we know more about the gw2 world in general than that of swtor and thats saying something.
Seriously apart from story choices and companions, "worlds" and combat we know nothing of that game. Moaning about gw2 not showing anything is like laughing at a blind man for being blind when you are also blind. They've shown more "gameplay" but that told us nothing about how the rest of game works and most importantly the mmo part. Hows does the player interact with outside world excluding instanced story missions? What exactly is the endgame is it just grind for gear. How supported is competitive pvp is the game designed for it or is a piss poor joke like wow?
Oh, and a slight correction to your conception of the dynamic events in GW2, cyclical yes, some players have to start an event, but they are not all purely pass fail. There are shades of gray in them, where they might branch. They are still technically in a closed system, of course. They could be compared to PQs, but they have changed greatly from that WAR concept. They scale based on participation, they are mostly not set on a specific timer (the same event doesn't always happen at 5 P.M EST or dusk in game) Sure, the basic idea was there before, but these appear to be the next iteration, the next evolution of this particular type of content.
"Colin: Dynamic event chains can reset. As chains, they move along paths based on player participation and event outcome. If an NPC dies in a dynamic event, their corpse might sit there waiting for players to come resurrect it and kick-start the event chain again, or it may re-spawn some time later."
"Colin: Each event has a clear-cut end point of reward distribution, in which event success or failure is determined and the players who participated are rewarded. The event will then branch based on the outcome and cascade out to change various parts of the world, kicking off other events in the zone."
They are not on a specific timer, supposedly however, each event has a clear cut end point for reward distribution. Its an event where theres a success or failure. That means Success = A and Fail = B. Theres no partial success or partial fail, its A or B. B = Next chain, A = Next chain.
In WAR the concept was, Complete A then B then C then D. If B fails, restart at A, of C fails restart at A etc.
In CoX it was Monsters Attack, if you don't kill them they hang out there until someone does and kill some NPCs.
No shades of gray, just win or lose and then chain according to the devs. Its just like WAR just they chain the PQs together.
"Colin: If the event chain branches to the point that the event occurs again or the player triggers the event, you could absolutely experience that event in the future! "
Event chains cycle, if an event chain reaches point C then you experience it again.
Chains are cyclical in that when they are brought to 0 they restart or when the chain has completed they can restart based on how the developers have the chain set to start. It could be based on a day/night cycle, or a player cycle. (player must interact with X to start it)
On personal storylines "The storylines are personal, individual acts of heroism, while dynamic events are designed to be larger, multi-player activities that allow everyone to get involved. Events do not impact story, either, although you may have to participate in an event on the way to a story step in order to reach your goal."
You may need to complete something in an event in order to reach the goal of your story, sounds like a world based quest. You need to complete a dynamic event to progress your story. (or perhaps not complete it) in a pass or fail instance. Similar to how TOR does it.
The story just gives you particular guides in the open world that you must achieve or not achieve in GW2. As there are no "quests" yet its not by chance that you must complete these things, how do you expect them to be prevalent in GW2? Everything is predetermined. Your story is affected by certain actions taken in the world, how much of that is choices and how that builds on what your character can or can't accomplish is yet to be seen or spoken about.
In TOR its confirmed that how you handle your story can affect everything from your characters looks and abilities to the way other characters perceive you both PCs and NPCs.
Now I don't know all the features GW2 is going to have but there are a lot of similarities and some features that we still just don't know between the two.
TOR - Action based gameplay, no auto attack, skills are determined by class, sub class, alignment and weapon choices
GW - Skill based (game uses particular skills) auto attack? not sure. Perks (maybe skills maybe not) depending on personality.
GW - Event system, open world PQ style with Dynamic events happening at any time. Cyclical in nature, that interact with eachother. You can choose to do quests or not to do quests and see how the world pans out.
TOR - Quest based single and group quests. Players choose their own path which dictates what other quests they receive, and play out an intricate storyline that will progress based on the choices made by the players actions. (sounds somewhat dynamic too)
TOR - Group Based PvP/RvR as well as structured PvP environments
GW2 - will have structured PvP environments and the possibility of some kind of open world PvP
GW2 - Story based in instances, you choose your personality on a 10 question quiz before you start the game and play from there. This will determine what items you may receive or how people perceive you in game.
TOR - Story is based on the original class you choose and your decisions as you progress. As you progress your alignment will depend on how other view you.
I mean there are subtle differences but they sound very similar in some areas. These are just some example on what you said earlier.
Similarities? Emphasis on story more like an rpg, yes everything else not so much. The personal story is like swtor story system. Thats about it. Also you seem to be forgetting the choices you choose ALSO affect your story in gw2 so it's biography and choices.
The event system is nothing like swtor's story system how are they even comparable? Swtor RvR we know nothing about so why is that even considered a similarity? It's like comparing arena's in gw to wow. Sure their both arena's but the similarities stop there.
Most of your similarities would be true for any AAA mmo excluding the story ones.
Plus gw2 has many features that diffientiate it such as expanisve underwater content, skill damage/effects depending on position such as flanking increasing damage etc. Home instances that can be customised and where achievements trophies etc can be shown to other players. Enviornment weapons such as picking up sticks rocks etc. Balanced hot-joinable pvp matches with everything unlocked putting everyone on a even footing as well as game lobbies like a fps. Mini-games such as shooting gallery bar fights etc, RvR based around a RTS with gathering of resources to improve equipment being a major factor and many others.
The similarities in story are so insignificant compared to the rest of the game which is nothing like swtor's.
They haven't talked about player housing or underwater cities although some planets have vast seas and oceans, and space content has been confirmed in TOR.
You can interact with the environment with most classes in TOR, some classes will be able to use a cover system more effectively to either mitigate or parry much of the damage.
Scaling of arena missions has not been confirmed but high level restricted PVP has been confirmed.
No mini games have been confirmed yet for TOR but they have been spoken about recently.
RVR based around gathering resources is basically a capture the flag game, objective based PvP is also in TOR, though how they plan on utilizing the RTS is a different thing entirely.
As for the story, TOR bases a lot of your character progression on the way your character acts in their story. You make your choices throughout the entirety of your character story, making a choice to do something, or not do something, that sounds similar to a pass fail mechanic. Kill the captain or don't kill the captain. Kill the orcs in the village or don't kill the orcs in the village? Sounds very similar....
The only difference is TOR isn't cyclical, once you've done that mission, you don't have to go back to it.
I guess the big difference between the two games is that I've seen most of what TOR has to offer, I've only heard about GW2.
A lot of games can be written to sound a lot like what GW2 has to offer, currently. Maybe they need to start showing us what they have for it to seem different to me, because right now, all they have to say are words... words that sound very similar to what other games already offer.
Lol so an RTS is basically capture the flag? Seriously can't tell if your serious or not because if you are god help you.... Seriously no offence but thats a face palm moment right there. What capture the flag RvR improves your walls equipment and fortifications as you gather more resources giving a lot more strategic options common in most rts?
Interacting with the environment is not just clinging to walls and producing "walls" i'm talking about actual picking stuff up like an action rpg none of that I seen in swtor. The personal story isn't cyclical story and oh yes you actually have real choices.
Not "I really want that nice light side skill but this npc is a douche and I don't want to help him but if I don't I won't be able to get it". Seriously linking story choices to skills was a terrible idea by bioware. Imagine playing through the game only to realise all the "skills" you acquired and the subclass you chose were completely worthless in group pve. Getting the ideal skills would result in a linear story. I'm sorry but that choice was mind numblingly bad idea for an mmo.
Come on......... I've already said the personal sory is similar to story in swtor. Beating a dead horse now are we?
In gw2 you have stats tracking effectiveness in pvp like a fps, e.g kill to death ratio etc. Market place and guild chat accessible by an extrenal website. All content is completeable at higher levels due to levels scalling down by sidekick system meaning the entire game becomes endgame content. underwater content as large as those on land not just big but equally big to land content,
And lol SWTOR has shown nothing barely anything. We've seen some combat and some story thats it. How about SWToR starts showing things. in fact we know more about the gw2 world in general than that of swtor and thats saying something.
Seriously apart from story choices and companions, "worlds" and combat we know nothing of that game. Moaning about gw2 not showing anything is like laughing at a blind man for being blind when you are also blind. They've shown more "gameplay" but that told us nothing about how the rest of game works and most importantly the mmo part. Hows does the player interact with outside world excluding instanced story missions? What exactly is the endgame is it just grind for gear. How supported is competitive pvp is the game designed for it or is a piss poor joke like wow?
1) You haven't seen any of what GW2 has to offer WORKING.
2) All your doing is grabbing resources before another team is, thats capture the flag. Sorry to simplify it in a way you don't like but thats literally what it is. RTS is a gameplay style, show me it in practice and I'll tell you what it really looks like.
3) Picking up sticks is action RPG style now? Do you know what you can and can't pick up? Is it stat based? Can you Show me? Is it like Champions Online?
4)What kind of choices can you make in the story? Is it anything like what BioWare has produced in the past? Can you give me some examples directly from the game?
5)Personal story in GW2 isn't like the story in TOR in the sense that the story in TOR is the progression, what exactly is it in GW2? Its a questing system in GW2 all the same
"Will actions I take in the dynamic events system affect or interact with my personal story?
There may be events to drive off the centaurs from Nebo Terrace, or to attack the centaur camp and kill a leader in their army. Separately, there may be a storyline that follows the path of a lost soldier, tracking him through said centaur camp to find clues as to his whereabouts. Those are interlinked, but they do not directly affect each other. Our intention with this is to make the world real and to show that the things happening all over the world are not isolated or self-contained incidents; they affect everyone in the area, both in large and small-scale ways.
Mechanically, a personal story will never change the outcome of an event. The storylines are personal, individual acts of heroism, while dynamic events are designed to be larger, multi-player activities that allow everyone to get involved. Events do not impact story, either, although you may have to participate in an event on the way to a story step in order to reach your goal."
Sounds like a glorified questing system based in a "dynamic world." Thats straight from the devs. Not to mention events do not impact the story, whereas what you do in the world in TOR will impact your story.
Sounds like a glorified questing system based in a "dynamic world." Thats straight from the devs. Not to mention events do not impact the story, whereas what you do in the world in TOR will impact your story.
Sounds like a glorified questing system based in a "dynamic world." Thats straight from the devs. Not to mention events do not impact the story, whereas what you do in the world in TOR will impact your story. Thats a big part of how alignment systems work as well.
6) We know only what they have said, we've been shown absolutely nothing on guild wars 2. Do you really think they've implemented all of what they've said? At least what BioWare has said they have confirmed at least in the simplest of fashions. We haven't even seen a single event chain from ArenaNet.
7) The classes are balanced around PvP, or didn't you read that part of TOR interviews.
I see that the major problem is that you want to look at GW as a big complex game, but straight from what GWs has said, its starting to unravel similar to every other game on the market save for what you would call "gimmicks" in any other sense of the word.
I'll be happy to play both games, but its time you wake up and read what the developers are actually saying rather then putting words in their mouth. They deny themselves quests, yet they give you quest objectives to fulfill in the open world? Who are we kidding here?
Oh, and a slight correction to your conception of the dynamic events in GW2, cyclical yes, some players have to start an event, but they are not all purely pass fail. There are shades of gray in them, where they might branch. They are still technically in a closed system, of course. They could be compared to PQs, but they have changed greatly from that WAR concept. They scale based on participation, they are mostly not set on a specific timer (the same event doesn't always happen at 5 P.M EST or dusk in game) Sure, the basic idea was there before, but these appear to be the next iteration, the next evolution of this particular type of content.
"Colin: Dynamic event chains can reset. As chains, they move along paths based on player participation and event outcome. If an NPC dies in a dynamic event, their corpse might sit there waiting for players to come resurrect it and kick-start the event chain again, or it may re-spawn some time later."
"Colin: Each event has a clear-cut end point of reward distribution, in which event success or failure is determined and the players who participated are rewarded. The event will then branch based on the outcome and cascade out to change various parts of the world, kicking off other events in the zone."
They are not on a specific timer, supposedly however, each event has a clear cut end point for reward distribution. Its an event where theres a success or failure. That means Success = A and Fail = B. Theres no partial success or partial fail, its A or B. B = Next chain, A = Next chain.
In WAR the concept was, Complete A then B then C then D. If B fails, restart at A, of C fails restart at A etc.
In CoX it was Monsters Attack, if you don't kill them they hang out there until someone does and kill some NPCs.
No shades of gray, just win or lose and then chain according to the devs. Its just like WAR just they chain the PQs together.
"Colin: If the event chain branches to the point that the event occurs again or the player triggers the event, you could absolutely experience that event in the future! "
Event chains cycle, if an event chain reaches point C then you experience it again.
Chains are cyclical in that when they are brought to 0 they restart or when the chain has completed they can restart based on how the developers have the chain set to start. It could be based on a day/night cycle, or a player cycle. (player must interact with X to start it)
On personal storylines "The storylines are personal, individual acts of heroism, while dynamic events are designed to be larger, multi-player activities that allow everyone to get involved. Events do not impact story, either, although you may have to participate in an event on the way to a story step in order to reach your goal."
You may need to complete something in an event in order to reach the goal of your story, sounds like a world based quest. You need to complete a dynamic event to progress your story. (or perhaps not complete it) in a pass or fail instance. Similar to how TOR does it.
The story just gives you particular guides in the open world that you must achieve or not achieve in GW2. As there are no "quests" yet its not by chance that you must complete these things, how do you expect them to be prevalent in GW2? Everything is predetermined. Your story is affected by certain actions taken in the world, how much of that is choices and how that builds on what your character can or can't accomplish is yet to be seen or spoken about.
In TOR its confirmed that how you handle your story can affect everything from your characters looks and abilities to the way other characters perceive you both PCs and NPCs.
Completely wrong events are separate from personal story they do not affect it in any way. Thus assumptions are incorrect again. Read the personal story Q and A.
"Will actions I take in the dynamic events system affect or interact with my personal story?
Affect, no. Interact with, yes. Sometimes, your personal story is taken from the same point of plot. “…the things happening all over the world are not isolated or self-contained incidents; they affect everyone in the area, both in large and small-scale ways.The centaurs are attacking human lands, for example. There may be events to drive off the centaurs from Nebo Terrace, or to attack the centaur camp and kill a leader in their army. Separately, there may be a storyline that follows the path of a lost soldier, tracking him through said centaur camp to find clues as to his whereabouts. Those are interlinked, but they do not directly affect each other. Our intention with this is to make the world real and to show that the things happening all over the world are not isolated or self-contained incidents; they affect everyone in the area, both in large and small-scale ways."
Oh, and a slight correction to your conception of the dynamic events in GW2, cyclical yes, some players have to start an event, but they are not all purely pass fail. There are shades of gray in them, where they might branch. They are still technically in a closed system, of course. They could be compared to PQs, but they have changed greatly from that WAR concept. They scale based on participation, they are mostly not set on a specific timer (the same event doesn't always happen at 5 P.M EST or dusk in game) Sure, the basic idea was there before, but these appear to be the next iteration, the next evolution of this particular type of content.
"Colin: Dynamic event chains can reset. As chains, they move along paths based on player participation and event outcome. If an NPC dies in a dynamic event, their corpse might sit there waiting for players to come resurrect it and kick-start the event chain again, or it may re-spawn some time later."
"Colin: Each event has a clear-cut end point of reward distribution, in which event success or failure is determined and the players who participated are rewarded. The event will then branch based on the outcome and cascade out to change various parts of the world, kicking off other events in the zone."
They are not on a specific timer, supposedly however, each event has a clear cut end point for reward distribution. Its an event where theres a success or failure. That means Success = A and Fail = B. Theres no partial success or partial fail, its A or B. B = Next chain, A = Next chain.
In WAR the concept was, Complete A then B then C then D. If B fails, restart at A, of C fails restart at A etc.
In CoX it was Monsters Attack, if you don't kill them they hang out there until someone does and kill some NPCs.
No shades of gray, just win or lose and then chain according to the devs. Its just like WAR just they chain the PQs together.
"Colin: If the event chain branches to the point that the event occurs again or the player triggers the event, you could absolutely experience that event in the future! "
Event chains cycle, if an event chain reaches point C then you experience it again.
Chains are cyclical in that when they are brought to 0 they restart or when the chain has completed they can restart based on how the developers have the chain set to start. It could be based on a day/night cycle, or a player cycle. (player must interact with X to start it)
On personal storylines "The storylines are personal, individual acts of heroism, while dynamic events are designed to be larger, multi-player activities that allow everyone to get involved. Events do not impact story, either, although you may have to participate in an event on the way to a story step in order to reach your goal."
You may need to complete something in an event in order to reach the goal of your story, sounds like a world based quest. You need to complete a dynamic event to progress your story. (or perhaps not complete it) in a pass or fail instance. Similar to how TOR does it.
The story just gives you particular guides in the open world that you must achieve or not achieve in GW2. As there are no "quests" yet its not by chance that you must complete these things, how do you expect them to be prevalent in GW2? Everything is predetermined. Your story is affected by certain actions taken in the world, how much of that is choices and how that builds on what your character can or can't accomplish is yet to be seen or spoken about.
In TOR its confirmed that how you handle your story can affect everything from your characters looks and abilities to the way other characters perceive you both PCs and NPCs.
Completely wrong events are separate from personal story they do not affect it in any way. Thus assumptions are incorrect again. Read the personal story Q and A.
"Will actions I take in the dynamic events system affect or interact with my personal story?
Affect, no. Interact with, yes. Sometimes, your personal story is taken from the same point of plot. “…the things happening all over the world are not isolated or self-contained incidents; they affect everyone in the area, both in large and small-scale ways.The centaurs are attacking human lands, for example. There may be events to drive off the centaurs from Nebo Terrace, or to attack the centaur camp and kill a leader in their army. Separately, there may be a storyline that follows the path of a lost soldier, tracking him through said centaur camp to find clues as to his whereabouts. Those are interlinked, but they do not directly affect each other. Our intention with this is to make the world real and to show that the things happening all over the world are not isolated or self-contained incidents; they affect everyone in the area, both in large and small-scale ways."
Congratulations you just posted exactly what I just posted! again,
"Mechanically, a personal story will never change the outcome of an event. The storylines are personal, individual acts of heroism, while dynamic events are designed to be larger, multi-player activities that allow everyone to get involved. Events do not impact story, either, although you may have to participate in an event on the way to a story step in order to reach your goal."
You may have to participate in a story step in order to reach your goal? Sounds like something might be required there. Do we know? Well I certainly don't, theres a good chance you don't either, but it sounds like they are planning on some parts of the story being dependent on the completion of an event eventhough it doesn't effect that event. (meaning the outcome)
It doesn't impact the story, though the events may be required. Interesting take on a not-quest. But I guess thats another agree to disagree there.
Now I don't know all the features GW2 is going to have but there are a lot of similarities and some features that we still just don't know between the two.
TOR - Action based gameplay, no auto attack, skills are determined by class, sub class, alignment and weapon choices
GW - Skill based (game uses particular skills) auto attack? not sure. Perks (maybe skills maybe not) depending on personality.
GW - Event system, open world PQ style with Dynamic events happening at any time. Cyclical in nature, that interact with eachother. You can choose to do quests or not to do quests and see how the world pans out.
TOR - Quest based single and group quests. Players choose their own path which dictates what other quests they receive, and play out an intricate storyline that will progress based on the choices made by the players actions. (sounds somewhat dynamic too)
TOR - Group Based PvP/RvR as well as structured PvP environments
GW2 - will have structured PvP environments and the possibility of some kind of open world PvP
GW2 - Story based in instances, you choose your personality on a 10 question quiz before you start the game and play from there. This will determine what items you may receive or how people perceive you in game.
TOR - Story is based on the original class you choose and your decisions as you progress. As you progress your alignment will depend on how other view you.
I mean there are subtle differences but they sound very similar in some areas. These are just some example on what you said earlier.
Similarities? Emphasis on story more like an rpg, yes everything else not so much. The personal story is like swtor story system. Thats about it. Also you seem to be forgetting the choices you choose ALSO affect your story in gw2 so it's biography and choices.
The event system is nothing like swtor's story system how are they even comparable? Swtor RvR we know nothing about so why is that even considered a similarity? It's like comparing arena's in gw to wow. Sure their both arena's but the similarities stop there.
Most of your similarities would be true for any AAA mmo excluding the story ones.
Plus gw2 has many features that diffientiate it such as expanisve underwater content, skill damage/effects depending on position such as flanking increasing damage etc. Home instances that can be customised and where achievements trophies etc can be shown to other players. Enviornment weapons such as picking up sticks rocks etc. Balanced hot-joinable pvp matches with everything unlocked putting everyone on a even footing as well as game lobbies like a fps. Mini-games such as shooting gallery bar fights etc, RvR based around a RTS with gathering of resources to improve equipment being a major factor and many others.
The similarities in story are so insignificant compared to the rest of the game which is nothing like swtor's.
They haven't talked about player housing or underwater cities although some planets have vast seas and oceans, and space content has been confirmed in TOR.
You can interact with the environment with most classes in TOR, some classes will be able to use a cover system more effectively to either mitigate or parry much of the damage.
Scaling of arena missions has not been confirmed but high level restricted PVP has been confirmed.
No mini games have been confirmed yet for TOR but they have been spoken about recently.
RVR based around gathering resources is basically a capture the flag game, objective based PvP is also in TOR, though how they plan on utilizing the RTS is a different thing entirely.
As for the story, TOR bases a lot of your character progression on the way your character acts in their story. You make your choices throughout the entirety of your character story, making a choice to do something, or not do something, that sounds similar to a pass fail mechanic. Kill the captain or don't kill the captain. Kill the orcs in the village or don't kill the orcs in the village? Sounds very similar....
The only difference is TOR isn't cyclical, once you've done that mission, you don't have to go back to it.
I guess the big difference between the two games is that I've seen most of what TOR has to offer, I've only heard about GW2.
A lot of games can be written to sound a lot like what GW2 has to offer, currently. Maybe they need to start showing us what they have for it to seem different to me, because right now, all they have to say are words... words that sound very similar to what other games already offer.
Lol so an RTS is basically capture the flag? Seriously can't tell if your serious or not because if you are god help you.... Seriously no offence but thats a face palm moment right there. What capture the flag RvR improves your walls equipment and fortifications as you gather more resources giving a lot more strategic options common in most rts?
Interacting with the environment is not just clinging to walls and producing "walls" i'm talking about actual picking stuff up like an action rpg none of that I seen in swtor. The personal story isn't cyclical story and oh yes you actually have real choices.
Not "I really want that nice light side skill but this npc is a douche and I don't want to help him but if I don't I won't be able to get it". Seriously linking story choices to skills was a terrible idea by bioware. Imagine playing through the game only to realise all the "skills" you acquired and the subclass you chose were completely worthless in group pve. Getting the ideal skills would result in a linear story. I'm sorry but that choice was mind numblingly bad idea for an mmo.
Come on......... I've already said the personal sory is similar to story in swtor. Beating a dead horse now are we?
In gw2 you have stats tracking effectiveness in pvp like a fps, e.g kill to death ratio etc. Market place and guild chat accessible by an extrenal website. All content is completeable at higher levels due to levels scalling down by sidekick system meaning the entire game becomes endgame content. underwater content as large as those on land not just big but equally big to land content,
And lol SWTOR has shown nothing barely anything. We've seen some combat and some story thats it. How about SWToR starts showing things. in fact we know more about the gw2 world in general than that of swtor and thats saying something.
Seriously apart from story choices and companions, "worlds" and combat we know nothing of that game. Moaning about gw2 not showing anything is like laughing at a blind man for being blind when you are also blind. They've shown more "gameplay" but that told us nothing about how the rest of game works and most importantly the mmo part. Hows does the player interact with outside world excluding instanced story missions? What exactly is the endgame is it just grind for gear. How supported is competitive pvp is the game designed for it or is a piss poor joke like wow?
1) You haven't seen any of what GW2 has to offer WORKING.
2) All your doing is grabbing resources before another team is, thats capture the flag. Sorry to simplify it in a way you don't like but thats literally what it is. RTS is a gameplay style, show me it in practice and I'll tell you what it really looks like.
3) Picking up sticks is action RPG style now? Do you know what you can and can't pick up? Is it stat based? Can you Show me? Is it like Champions Online?
4)What kind of choices can you make in the story? Is it anything like what BioWare has produced in the past? Can you give me some examples directly from the game?
5)Personal story in GW2 isn't like the story in TOR in the sense that the story in TOR is the progression, what exactly is it in GW2? Its a questing system in GW2 all the same
"Will actions I take in the dynamic events system affect or interact with my personal story?
There may be events to drive off the centaurs from Nebo Terrace, or to attack the centaur camp and kill a leader in their army. Separately, there may be a storyline that follows the path of a lost soldier, tracking him through said centaur camp to find clues as to his whereabouts. Those are interlinked, but they do not directly affect each other. Our intention with this is to make the world real and to show that the things happening all over the world are not isolated or self-contained incidents; they affect everyone in the area, both in large and small-scale ways.
Mechanically, a personal story will never change the outcome of an event. The storylines are personal, individual acts of heroism, while dynamic events are designed to be larger, multi-player activities that allow everyone to get involved. Events do not impact story, either, although you may have to participate in an event on the way to a story step in order to reach your goal."
Sounds like a glorified questing system based in a "dynamic world." Thats straight from the devs. Not to mention events do not impact the story, whereas what you do in the world in TOR will impact your story.
Rofl this is getting ridiculous bad. You can't defend a game so you make insults to another game to make your game sound better.
Your progress, it doesn't affect anyone else thats the point. It's completely isolated to you. Your progression is a overglorified questing system with missions much like the original gw. What you do in an event system can last for weeks and can affect other players thats the difference.
You cannot even affect the outcome in a group mission in swtor it's all down to luck. Whats the point in it. The personal story is completely separate to events system it's been mentioned from day one your acting as this is some massive truth when it's ALWAYS been known. The nature of swtor personal story is cooperative it's unlikely they'll be 20 or more vs an instance unless it's a raid. GW" events make such occurence a common thing spread out persistantly throughout the entire world. The events system can have large scale battles regularly it scales. Your not pigeon holed by "quests" and instances you interact with the world thats the point. In swtor you interact with your story not the world
Originally posted by maskedweasel
"Mechanically, a personal story will never change the outcome of an event. The storylines are personal, individual acts of heroism, while dynamic events are designed to be larger, multi-player activities that allow everyone to get involved. Events do not impact story, either, although you may have to participate in an event on the way to a story step in order to reach your goal."
You may have to participate in a story step in order to reach your goal? Sounds like something might be required there. Do we know? Well I certainly don't, theres a good chance you don't either, but it sounds like they are planning on some parts of the story being dependent on the completion of an event eventhough it doesn't effect that event. (meaning the outcome)
It doesn't impact the story, though the events may be required. Interesting take on a not-quest. But I guess thats another agree to disagree there.
Terrible do you lack reading comprehension? This has been known from the start. Your story doesn't affect the world it just affects your story like the personal story in gw2 it's exactly the same. Making the events system far superior to purely a story as you can actually interact with it. You cannot seem to understand you point. The story in swtor is just can overgloried personal story of gw2 except thats it for the entire game. It's a BAD thing because not everyone wants to play lie that.
Oh, and a slight correction to your conception of the dynamic events in GW2, cyclical yes, some players have to start an event, but they are not all purely pass fail. There are shades of gray in them, where they might branch. They are still technically in a closed system, of course. They could be compared to PQs, but they have changed greatly from that WAR concept. They scale based on participation, they are mostly not set on a specific timer (the same event doesn't always happen at 5 P.M EST or dusk in game) Sure, the basic idea was there before, but these appear to be the next iteration, the next evolution of this particular type of content.
"Colin: Dynamic event chains can reset. As chains, they move along paths based on player participation and event outcome. If an NPC dies in a dynamic event, their corpse might sit there waiting for players to come resurrect it and kick-start the event chain again, or it may re-spawn some time later."
"Colin: Each event has a clear-cut end point of reward distribution, in which event success or failure is determined and the players who participated are rewarded. The event will then branch based on the outcome and cascade out to change various parts of the world, kicking off other events in the zone."
They are not on a specific timer, supposedly however, each event has a clear cut end point for reward distribution. Its an event where theres a success or failure. That means Success = A and Fail = B. Theres no partial success or partial fail, its A or B. B = Next chain, A = Next chain.
In WAR the concept was, Complete A then B then C then D. If B fails, restart at A, of C fails restart at A etc.
In CoX it was Monsters Attack, if you don't kill them they hang out there until someone does and kill some NPCs.
No shades of gray, just win or lose and then chain according to the devs. Its just like WAR just they chain the PQs together.
"Colin: If the event chain branches to the point that the event occurs again or the player triggers the event, you could absolutely experience that event in the future! "
Event chains cycle, if an event chain reaches point C then you experience it again.
Chains are cyclical in that when they are brought to 0 they restart or when the chain has completed they can restart based on how the developers have the chain set to start. It could be based on a day/night cycle, or a player cycle. (player must interact with X to start it)
On personal storylines "The storylines are personal, individual acts of heroism, while dynamic events are designed to be larger, multi-player activities that allow everyone to get involved. Events do not impact story, either, although you may have to participate in an event on the way to a story step in order to reach your goal."
You may need to complete something in an event in order to reach the goal of your story, sounds like a world based quest. You need to complete a dynamic event to progress your story. (or perhaps not complete it) in a pass or fail instance. Similar to how TOR does it.
The story just gives you particular guides in the open world that you must achieve or not achieve in GW2. As there are no "quests" yet its not by chance that you must complete these things, how do you expect them to be prevalent in GW2? Everything is predetermined. Your story is affected by certain actions taken in the world, how much of that is choices and how that builds on what your character can or can't accomplish is yet to be seen or spoken about.
In TOR its confirmed that how you handle your story can affect everything from your characters looks and abilities to the way other characters perceive you both PCs and NPCs.
Has it ever occured to you, we may have more than 1 source on this particular subject?
If you fail a an event, they don't neceserrily start over, they would just bet pushed back one step, think of it like tug o war. Using the storming the shores of Orr example, you fail that one, you get pushed off the beaches, you succeed, you build a foreward base on the shore and start pushing inwards. (this example is either in the first quesitons on dynamic events, or the more questions, i forget)
"Events do not impact story, either, although you may have to participate in an event on the way to a story step in order to reach your goal."
This states, they are not connected, you may have to participate on your way to the next part of your story, but they are otherwise seperate entities. I'm certain these could be bypassed, unless they actually block pathes through the world. Combine this with other interviews and the update to guildwars2.com and we have a fairly good idea of how the personal story is going to work.
I may be wrong on the shades of gray, I remember reading it in one of the many interviews on places much like this. Or perhaps something said on GW2G forums, they mingle with us a lot there.
Oh, and a slight correction to your conception of the dynamic events in GW2, cyclical yes, some players have to start an event, but they are not all purely pass fail. There are shades of gray in them, where they might branch. They are still technically in a closed system, of course. They could be compared to PQs, but they have changed greatly from that WAR concept. They scale based on participation, they are mostly not set on a specific timer (the same event doesn't always happen at 5 P.M EST or dusk in game) Sure, the basic idea was there before, but these appear to be the next iteration, the next evolution of this particular type of content.
"Colin: Dynamic event chains can reset. As chains, they move along paths based on player participation and event outcome. If an NPC dies in a dynamic event, their corpse might sit there waiting for players to come resurrect it and kick-start the event chain again, or it may re-spawn some time later."
"Colin: Each event has a clear-cut end point of reward distribution, in which event success or failure is determined and the players who participated are rewarded. The event will then branch based on the outcome and cascade out to change various parts of the world, kicking off other events in the zone."
They are not on a specific timer, supposedly however, each event has a clear cut end point for reward distribution. Its an event where theres a success or failure. That means Success = A and Fail = B. Theres no partial success or partial fail, its A or B. B = Next chain, A = Next chain.
In WAR the concept was, Complete A then B then C then D. If B fails, restart at A, of C fails restart at A etc.
In CoX it was Monsters Attack, if you don't kill them they hang out there until someone does and kill some NPCs.
No shades of gray, just win or lose and then chain according to the devs. Its just like WAR just they chain the PQs together.
"Colin: If the event chain branches to the point that the event occurs again or the player triggers the event, you could absolutely experience that event in the future! "
Event chains cycle, if an event chain reaches point C then you experience it again.
Chains are cyclical in that when they are brought to 0 they restart or when the chain has completed they can restart based on how the developers have the chain set to start. It could be based on a day/night cycle, or a player cycle. (player must interact with X to start it)
On personal storylines "The storylines are personal, individual acts of heroism, while dynamic events are designed to be larger, multi-player activities that allow everyone to get involved. Events do not impact story, either, although you may have to participate in an event on the way to a story step in order to reach your goal."
You may need to complete something in an event in order to reach the goal of your story, sounds like a world based quest. You need to complete a dynamic event to progress your story. (or perhaps not complete it) in a pass or fail instance. Similar to how TOR does it.
The story just gives you particular guides in the open world that you must achieve or not achieve in GW2. As there are no "quests" yet its not by chance that you must complete these things, how do you expect them to be prevalent in GW2? Everything is predetermined. Your story is affected by certain actions taken in the world, how much of that is choices and how that builds on what your character can or can't accomplish is yet to be seen or spoken about.
In TOR its confirmed that how you handle your story can affect everything from your characters looks and abilities to the way other characters perceive you both PCs and NPCs.
Has it ever occured to you, we may have more than 1 source on this particular subject?
If you fail a an event, they don't neceserrily start over, they would just bet pushed back one step, think of it like tug o war. Using the storming the shores of Orr example, you fail that one, you get pushed off the beaches, you succeed, you build a foreward base on the shore and start pushing inwards. (this example is either in the first quesitons on dynamic events, or the more questions, i forget)
"Events do not impact story, either, although you may have to participate in an event on the way to a story step in order to reach your goal."
This states, they are not connected, you may have to participate on your way to the next part of your story, but they are otherwise seperate entities. I'm certain these could be bypassed, unless they actually block pathes through the world. Combine this with other interviews and the update to guildwars2.com and we have a fairly good idea of how the personal story is going to work.
I may be wrong on the shades of gray, I remember reading it in one of the many interviews on places much like this. Or perhaps something said on GW2G forums, they mingle with us a lot there.
It seems that the whole needing to participate in an event in order to get to th enext step in the story is being misinterpreted, not by you, but by others. If you read through the dynamic events interviews, they mention about the world changing due to events and stuff. Rathe rthan taking the 2 things as seperate entities, youve got to look at the whole picture.
A world impacting event may prevent you from being able to access a certain NPC, or an entire city/area of the game until the event is completed/changed. So in order to advance, or get to the next step in your story, which may require getting to that city, then yes you (not specifically you, but someone) must complete the event in order for you to get to that city. In that way, yes you may be "required" to complete an event to advance teh story, but the event itself does not have an actual impact on your personal story, seeing a show the personal stories are instanced adn seperate from the open world events.
Think of it like say IRL, you needed to travel to New York to meet with a client or perform some task for your job. On your way to New York, some enemy force takes control of New York City (aka, one of the events in GW2), and you can no longer get into the city to accomplish your goal and do your job (aka, advance your story). Only way to get to where you need to be to do your job is for someone (you, or anyone else) to take out the enemies and gain control of the city returning it back to normal. Killing the enemy army is not a required part of your job (aka required as a part of the story), however you cant simply choose to ignore whats happening in the city and skip right to doing your job. The world/city needs to change in order for you to get to the next step in doing your job.
At about 4:30 or so they talk about players interacting and changing the world.
Oy, everything else is pointless to me right now, my animosity has subsided some and on a more reasonable tone I'm just going to say simply that we'll see what happens as more information can be SEEN or PLAYED.
I don't want to fight about features in 2 games that I'm still going to play.
At about 4:30 or so they talk about players interacting and changing the world.
Oy, everything else is pointless to me right now, my animosity has subsided some and on a more reasonable tone I'm just going to say simply that we'll see what happens as more information can be SEEN or PLAYED.
I don't want to fight about features in 2 games that I'm still going to play.
*slow clap* They didn't even say "how" you would make a difference.... how is that proof, thats about the same as every other dev.... they'll probably just use phasing and call it a day. If that place is persitant how do you expect "every player to make a difference" without some massive clause attached to it. Anyway this "arguement" has gone on long enough... massive waste of time lol.
At about 4:30 or so they talk about players interacting and changing the world.
Oy, everything else is pointless to me right now, my animosity has subsided some and on a more reasonable tone I'm just going to say simply that we'll see what happens as more information can be SEEN or PLAYED.
I don't want to fight about features in 2 games that I'm still going to play.
*slow clap* They didn't even say "how" you would make a difference.... how is that proof, thats about the same as every other dev.... they'll probably just use phasing and call it a day. If that place is persitant how do you expect "every player to make a difference" without some massive clause attached to it. Anyway this "arguement" has gone on long enough... massive waste of time lol.
If that is what they said, then that is what they hope to/will try to do.
Don't expect them to back up everything they are saying now in Alpha stage. That's just foolish. The bread isn't ready yet, all your going to get is flour.
Longing for Skyrim, The Old Republic and Mass Effect 3
At about 4:30 or so they talk about players interacting and changing the world.
Oy, everything else is pointless to me right now, my animosity has subsided some and on a more reasonable tone I'm just going to say simply that we'll see what happens as more information can be SEEN or PLAYED.
I don't want to fight about features in 2 games that I'm still going to play.
*slow clap* They didn't even say "how" you would make a difference.... how is that proof, thats about the same as every other dev.... they'll probably just use phasing and call it a day. If that place is persitant how do you expect "every player to make a difference" without some massive clause attached to it. Anyway this "arguement" has gone on long enough... massive waste of time lol.
You fail to realize that everything you've posted is something the devs had "said" EVERYTHING you've posted. not a single thing they've "said" you've shown me. Yet you can criticize me for what the devs say about TOR. You sir, are hypocritical, and are holding this game to a double standard simply to make your "point" which is of course biased and incorrect.
I can tell you how any system that I make up works, it doesn't mean that it will be applied to the game. BioWare releases information when it is IN game and they've showed most of what they've claimed. Guild wars has shown nothing of what they claim, yet BioWare shouldn't be trusted. This is a joke now. You refuse to read what the guild wars devs say because you don't like its implications, and then you hold other games to a double standard.
Come back when you have some real solid proof instead of "what the devs say" for your game. Maybe I should hold GW2 to a double standard and see how that defense works for me. I'm sure ears closed mouth open is a lot more fun, or it seems to be for you anyways.
At about 4:30 or so they talk about players interacting and changing the world.
Oy, everything else is pointless to me right now, my animosity has subsided some and on a more reasonable tone I'm just going to say simply that we'll see what happens as more information can be SEEN or PLAYED.
I don't want to fight about features in 2 games that I'm still going to play.
*slow clap* They didn't even say "how" you would make a difference.... how is that proof, thats about the same as every other dev.... they'll probably just use phasing and call it a day. If that place is persitant how do you expect "every player to make a difference" without some massive clause attached to it. Anyway this "arguement" has gone on long enough... massive waste of time lol.
You fail to realize that everything you've posted is something the devs had "said" EVERYTHING you've posted. not a single thing they've "said" you've shown me. Yet you can criticize me for what the devs say about TOR. You sir, are hypocritical, and are holding this game to a double standard simply to make your "point" which is of course biased and incorrect.
I can tell you how any system that I make up works, it doesn't mean that it will be applied to the game. BioWare releases information when it is IN game and they've showed most of what they've claimed. Guild wars has shown nothing of what they claim, yet BioWare shouldn't be trusted. This is a joke now. You refuse to read what the guild wars devs say because you don't like its implications, and then you hold other games to a double standard.
Come back when you have some real solid proof instead of "what the devs say" for your game. Maybe I should hold GW2 to a double standard and see how that defense works for me. I'm sure ears closed mouth open is a lot more fun, or it seems to be for you anyways.
Your missing the point entirely. It's not about the fact the dev said it, it's about how they said they were going to implement it. We pretty much know how A-net is going to implement the event system. We can analyse the benefits and the pitfalls of such a system and they have give Q & A about common questions. It may not be the whole picture but we have a rough idea. Merely saying players can affect the world and not explaining how exactly is bullshit hyping and you know it.
It leaves everything to the player's imaginations and breeds misconception which is ultimately a bad thing. We've seen combat and story thats about it. Everything else in unexplained hype. We really haven't seen anything about swtor we've seen slightly more than gw2 but nothing substanial. They're in the exact same boat.
Using seeing is believing as an arguement against gw2 for swtor is terrible because you haven't truly "seen" anything from swtor either. All the hands on and "previews" have been short starter areas that tell you very little about the whole game.
Asking for me about proof from developer's when you have very little from bioware is hypocritical at best. How about we restart this arguement when both games have "shown" a fair amount ok?
Comments
I believe I see what you're getting at now... what you're saying (paraphrasing here) is that Guild Wars (in their articles) is incorporating systems that differ from the systems TOR is using. What you feel TOR is using is the standard MMO formula, which you believe they've shown up to this point. You feel that the dynamic quest system and the way GW is doing their story system is apart from the mainstream as opposed to TOR.
I can agree to that to an extent, though arena combat, and GWs story system won't be that much different then what TOR is offering. TOR is also offering open world PVP though. The main thing that I feel would stand out would be their questing system (which I've gone into detail about and don't need to do any further I think) and if most of the gameplay revolves around that system, then I can see how that differs from the main stream.
I agree that GW2 has different features then SWTOR. I don't really understand the point of them having MORE different features though, because honestly I think the feature list is more similar than people realize, but to concede a "to each their own" stance I'll just leave it at, GW2 is different than SWTOR.
Benefit - Cost = Value
Voice acting, though awesome in adding immersion into the game, is not a reason I will play SWTOR. If they used all that money on one aspect of the game, that in the grand scheme of things, is not all that important, then it is a complete and utter waste.
Voice acting is great if all the other ESSENTIAL elements are there. Combat mechanics, progression, story, writing, etc etc. Voice acting is just a way of telling the story and expressing the writing. It's the icing on top of the cake, the other stuff I mentioned is the cake.
First off, we dont' know how much they spent on voice acting. If it's in the tens of millions, then that money could have been better spent further developing the ESSENTIAL elements of the game. But, if they can do both, then we have something here. It remains to be seen.
Both critics and fanbois have legitimate concerns and expectations. It's premature and completely wrong to think you know anything about the game at this stage of development. No alpha, no beta yet....
It's just opinion with no underlying foundation.
The reason I'm stressing how many diffrent features gw2 has is that most recently released mmo's have one or two "fresh" features which generally turn out to be gimmicks that have no real point or meaning, so your pretty much still playing the same game as every other game on the market. GW2's entire game is based on many different features meaning that even if some are just gimmicks the shear amount and the fact the game is based completely on them will make the game play and feel completely different to other games on the market.
Due to this I'm more inclined to to believe that gw2 will feel more fresh to mmo market than swtor because i'm not certain how amazing swtor's main "feature" is and how well a game based around it works in a mmo. If it turns out be a gimmick or just doesn't work with an mmo what are you left with. A game just like all other mmo's? God I hope not.
My thoughts exactly.
FYI: The full voice acting in the game IS an innovation..
Unless of course, you all can point out another MMO that has already been released that has the full voice acting in it...
Innovation Yes...
Revolutionary Doubtful, but it's sure gonna be nice not to have to read everything.
You can argue all day about it not being an innovation, but until you can covince the stewards of the english language to change the definition, you are wrong.
"If I'd asked my customers what they wanted, they'd have said a faster horse." - Henry Ford
I don't think anyone is expecting this game to be like other MMOs, on the contrary people believe TOR is going to be more like a single player game then anything else.
Now I don't know all the features GW2 is going to have but there are a lot of similarities and some features that we still just don't know between the two.
TOR - Action based gameplay, no auto attack, skills are determined by class, sub class, alignment and weapon choices
GW - Skill based (game uses particular skills) auto attack? not sure. Perks (maybe skills maybe not) depending on personality.
GW - Event system, open world PQ style with Dynamic events happening at any time. Cyclical in nature, that interact with eachother. You can choose to do quests or not to do quests and see how the world pans out.
TOR - Quest based single and group quests. Players choose their own path which dictates what other quests they receive, and play out an intricate storyline that will progress based on the choices made by the players actions. (sounds somewhat dynamic too)
TOR - Group Based PvP/RvR as well as structured PvP environments
GW2 - will have structured PvP environments and the possibility of some kind of open world PvP
GW2 - Story based in instances, you choose your personality on a 10 question quiz before you start the game and play from there. This will determine what items you may receive or how people perceive you in game.
TOR - Story is based on the original class you choose and your decisions as you progress. As you progress your alignment will depend on how other view you.
I mean there are subtle differences but they sound very similar in some areas. These are just some example on what you said earlier.
Main Entry: in·no·va·tion
Pronunciation: ?i-n?-?v?-sh?n
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 : the introduction of something new
2 : a new idea, method, or device : novelty
— in·no·va·tion·al -shn?l, -sh?-n?l adjective
Voice acting isn't new. And having the entire game voice acted isn't innovative. It's more of the same thing, but on a grander scale. I guess we're arguing somantics. The more important issue whether the money put into voice acting is enough to make people buy the game. I would argue that fully voice acted mmo is one of the last things I would consider when deciding to play an mmo.
And guess what, that fully voiced mmo will no longer feel innovated after a week or two when you get used to the voice acting. Voice acting is not a self-sustaining aspect of a game to make people subscribe for a long time.
I played Mass Effect 1 and 2, I played Dragon's Age, the Voice acting became completely inconsequentlal 5 hours into the game. To each his own.
Very true, its not the voice acting that BioWare is showcasing, its their storytelling system thats been prevalent in many of their games. People don't buy BioWare games specifically for the voice acting, they buy it for the stories, and the game aspects. People are taking this whole voice acting thing too far. Voice acting brings feelings and emotion to the game, which is a perk, but its not the sole reason to play the game.
Similarities? Emphasis on story more like an rpg, yes everything else not so much. The personal story is like swtor story system. Thats about it. Also you seem to be forgetting the choices you choose ALSO affect your story in gw2 so it's biography and choices.
The event system is nothing like swtor's story system how are they even comparable? Swtor RvR we know nothing about so why is that even considered a similarity? It's like comparing arena's in gw to wow. Sure their both arena's but the similarities stop there.
Most of your similarities would be true for any AAA mmo excluding the story ones.
Plus gw2 has many features that diffientiate it such as expanisve underwater content, skill damage/effects depending on position such as flanking increasing damage etc. Home instances that can be customised and where achievements trophies etc can be shown to other players. Enviornment weapons such as picking up sticks rocks etc. Balanced hot-joinable pvp matches with everything unlocked putting everyone on a even footing as well as game lobbies like a fps. Mini-games such as shooting gallery bar fights etc, RvR based around a RTS with gathering of resources to improve equipment being a major factor and many others.
The similarities in story are so insignificant compared to the rest of the game which is nothing like swtor's.
Voice acting is nice, it adds to immersion. It's also Bioware's calling card, of sorts. Their last few major titles have heavily featured voice acting. Its only logical that they would bring similar ethics and ideas over to the other half of everybody's favorite acronym. (for those of you who are a little slow, MMORPG)
Innovative, eh, its unusual, not something done in most MMOs. GW2 will also be having alot of voice acting, though I'm not sure if its going to be on the same scale. What I am more interestid in seeing, is how does this translate over to MMO's? ArenaNet has stated GW2 won't have a single quest box for you to read through, how will regular people react to that? Will SWTOR have text with voice overs? How will players react to these ideas and changes?
One thing can be said about both SWTOR and GW2, they are a step, no matter how large, in a different direction for MMO's. They are both going to be story laden, and very interesting. I plan on playing both (long time GW player, recently started getting interestid in SWTOR) because they both sound and look fun at this point. No one can tell how truly innovating either of these games may be until they are released. Up until then, its all hype and developer here-say.
Oh, and a slight correction to your conception of the dynamic events in GW2, cyclical yes, some players have to start an event, but they are not all purely pass fail. There are shades of gray in them, where they might branch. They are still technically in a closed system, of course. They could be compared to PQs, but they have changed greatly from that WAR concept. They scale based on participation, they are mostly not set on a specific timer (the same event doesn't always happen at 5 P.M EST or dusk in game) Sure, the basic idea was there before, but these appear to be the next iteration, the next evolution of this particular type of content.
Disagreement Heirarchy
They haven't talked about player housing or underwater cities although some planets have vast seas and oceans, and space content has been confirmed in TOR.
You can interact with the environment with most classes in TOR, some classes will be able to use a cover system more effectively to either mitigate or parry much of the damage.
Scaling of arena missions has not been confirmed but high level restricted PVP has been confirmed.
No mini games have been confirmed yet for TOR but they have been spoken about recently.
RVR based around gathering resources is basically a capture the flag game, objective based PvP is also in TOR, though how they plan on utilizing the RTS is a different thing entirely.
As for the story, TOR bases a lot of your character progression on the way your character acts in their story. You make your choices throughout the entirety of your character story, making a choice to do something, or not do something, that sounds similar to a pass fail mechanic. Kill the captain or don't kill the captain. Kill the orcs in the village or don't kill the orcs in the village? Sounds very similar....
The only difference is TOR isn't cyclical, once you've done that mission, you don't have to go back to it.
I guess the big difference between the two games is that I've seen most of what TOR has to offer, I've only heard about GW2.
A lot of games can be written to sound a lot like what GW2 has to offer, currently. Maybe they need to start showing us what they have for it to seem different to me, because right now, all they have to say are words... words that sound very similar to what other games already offer.
Actually, the storyline in GW2 isn't cyclical, that is only the dynamic events. They run entirely seperate from eachother and the storyline is non-repeatable. The storylines in GW2 start with your race, profession, and the 10 questions. After that the story has been confirmed to change and alter in addition while you are going through it. Two people could make the exact same race, profession, and questings, and STILL end up with different stories as they progress. While I am a fan of GW2, I try to keep my skepticals on as I read, so the real proof in this will be how different the stories are.
Disagreement Heirarchy
Lol so an RTS is basically capture the flag? Seriously can't tell if your serious or not because if you are god help you.... Seriously no offence but thats a face palm moment right there. What capture the flag RvR improves your walls equipment and fortifications as you gather more resources giving a lot more strategic options common in most rts?
Interacting with the environment is not just clinging to walls and producing "walls" i'm talking about actual picking stuff up like an action rpg none of that I seen in swtor. The personal story isn't cyclical story and oh yes you actually have real choices.
Not "I really want that nice light side skill but this npc is a douche and I don't want to help him but if I don't I won't be able to get it". Seriously linking story choices to skills was a terrible idea by bioware. Imagine playing through the game only to realise all the "skills" you acquired and the subclass you chose were completely worthless in group pve. Getting the ideal skills would result in a linear story. I'm sorry but that choice was mind numblingly bad idea for an mmo.
Come on......... I've already said the personal sory is similar to story in swtor. Beating a dead horse now are we?
In gw2 you have stats tracking effectiveness in pvp like a fps, e.g kill to death ratio etc. Market place and guild chat accessible by an extrenal website. All content is completeable at higher levels due to levels scalling down by sidekick system meaning the entire game becomes endgame content. underwater content as large as those on land not just big but equally big to land content,
And lol SWTOR has shown nothing barely anything. We've seen some combat and some story thats it. How about SWToR starts showing things. in fact we know more about the gw2 world in general than that of swtor and thats saying something.
Seriously apart from story choices and companions, "worlds" and combat we know nothing of that game. Moaning about gw2 not showing anything is like laughing at a blind man for being blind when you are also blind. They've shown more "gameplay" but that told us nothing about how the rest of game works and most importantly the mmo part. Hows does the player interact with outside world excluding instanced story missions? What exactly is the endgame is it just grind for gear. How supported is competitive pvp is the game designed for it or is a piss poor joke like wow?
Lets take a look together shall we?
http://www.arena.net/blog/colin-johanson-answers-your-dynamic-event-questions
"Colin: Dynamic event chains can reset. As chains, they move along paths based on player participation and event outcome. If an NPC dies in a dynamic event, their corpse might sit there waiting for players to come resurrect it and kick-start the event chain again, or it may re-spawn some time later."
"Colin: Each event has a clear-cut end point of reward distribution, in which event success or failure is determined and the players who participated are rewarded. The event will then branch based on the outcome and cascade out to change various parts of the world, kicking off other events in the zone."
They are not on a specific timer, supposedly however, each event has a clear cut end point for reward distribution. Its an event where theres a success or failure. That means Success = A and Fail = B. Theres no partial success or partial fail, its A or B. B = Next chain, A = Next chain.
In WAR the concept was, Complete A then B then C then D. If B fails, restart at A, of C fails restart at A etc.
In CoX it was Monsters Attack, if you don't kill them they hang out there until someone does and kill some NPCs.
No shades of gray, just win or lose and then chain according to the devs. Its just like WAR just they chain the PQs together.
"Colin: If the event chain branches to the point that the event occurs again or the player triggers the event, you could absolutely experience that event in the future! "
Event chains cycle, if an event chain reaches point C then you experience it again.
Chains are cyclical in that when they are brought to 0 they restart or when the chain has completed they can restart based on how the developers have the chain set to start. It could be based on a day/night cycle, or a player cycle. (player must interact with X to start it)
On personal storylines "The storylines are personal, individual acts of heroism, while dynamic events are designed to be larger, multi-player activities that allow everyone to get involved. Events do not impact story, either, although you may have to participate in an event on the way to a story step in order to reach your goal."
You may need to complete something in an event in order to reach the goal of your story, sounds like a world based quest. You need to complete a dynamic event to progress your story. (or perhaps not complete it) in a pass or fail instance. Similar to how TOR does it.
The story just gives you particular guides in the open world that you must achieve or not achieve in GW2. As there are no "quests" yet its not by chance that you must complete these things, how do you expect them to be prevalent in GW2? Everything is predetermined. Your story is affected by certain actions taken in the world, how much of that is choices and how that builds on what your character can or can't accomplish is yet to be seen or spoken about.
In TOR its confirmed that how you handle your story can affect everything from your characters looks and abilities to the way other characters perceive you both PCs and NPCs.
1) You haven't seen any of what GW2 has to offer WORKING.
2) All your doing is grabbing resources before another team is, thats capture the flag. Sorry to simplify it in a way you don't like but thats literally what it is. RTS is a gameplay style, show me it in practice and I'll tell you what it really looks like.
3) Picking up sticks is action RPG style now? Do you know what you can and can't pick up? Is it stat based? Can you Show me? Is it like Champions Online?
4)What kind of choices can you make in the story? Is it anything like what BioWare has produced in the past? Can you give me some examples directly from the game?
5)Personal story in GW2 isn't like the story in TOR in the sense that the story in TOR is the progression, what exactly is it in GW2? Its a questing system in GW2 all the same
"Will actions I take in the dynamic events system affect or interact with my personal story?
There may be events to drive off the centaurs from Nebo Terrace, or to attack the centaur camp and kill a leader in their army. Separately, there may be a storyline that follows the path of a lost soldier, tracking him through said centaur camp to find clues as to his whereabouts. Those are interlinked, but they do not directly affect each other. Our intention with this is to make the world real and to show that the things happening all over the world are not isolated or self-contained incidents; they affect everyone in the area, both in large and small-scale ways.
Mechanically, a personal story will never change the outcome of an event. The storylines are personal, individual acts of heroism, while dynamic events are designed to be larger, multi-player activities that allow everyone to get involved. Events do not impact story, either, although you may have to participate in an event on the way to a story step in order to reach your goal."
Sounds like a glorified questing system based in a "dynamic world." Thats straight from the devs. Not to mention events do not impact the story, whereas what you do in the world in TOR will impact your story.
Sounds like a glorified questing system based in a "dynamic world." Thats straight from the devs. Not to mention events do not impact the story, whereas what you do in the world in TOR will impact your story.
Sounds like a glorified questing system based in a "dynamic world." Thats straight from the devs. Not to mention events do not impact the story, whereas what you do in the world in TOR will impact your story. Thats a big part of how alignment systems work as well.
6) We know only what they have said, we've been shown absolutely nothing on guild wars 2. Do you really think they've implemented all of what they've said? At least what BioWare has said they have confirmed at least in the simplest of fashions. We haven't even seen a single event chain from ArenaNet.
7) The classes are balanced around PvP, or didn't you read that part of TOR interviews.
I see that the major problem is that you want to look at GW as a big complex game, but straight from what GWs has said, its starting to unravel similar to every other game on the market save for what you would call "gimmicks" in any other sense of the word.
I'll be happy to play both games, but its time you wake up and read what the developers are actually saying rather then putting words in their mouth. They deny themselves quests, yet they give you quest objectives to fulfill in the open world? Who are we kidding here?
Completely wrong events are separate from personal story they do not affect it in any way. Thus assumptions are incorrect again. Read the personal story Q and A.
"Will actions I take in the dynamic events system affect or interact with my personal story?
Affect, no. Interact with, yes. Sometimes, your personal story is taken from the same point of plot. “…the things happening all over the world are not isolated or self-contained incidents; they affect everyone in the area, both in large and small-scale ways.The centaurs are attacking human lands, for example. There may be events to drive off the centaurs from Nebo Terrace, or to attack the centaur camp and kill a leader in their army. Separately, there may be a storyline that follows the path of a lost soldier, tracking him through said centaur camp to find clues as to his whereabouts. Those are interlinked, but they do not directly affect each other. Our intention with this is to make the world real and to show that the things happening all over the world are not isolated or self-contained incidents; they affect everyone in the area, both in large and small-scale ways."
http://www.arena.net/blog/ree-soesbee-answers-your-questions-about-gw2-personal-storylines
Congratulations you just posted exactly what I just posted! again,
"Mechanically, a personal story will never change the outcome of an event. The storylines are personal, individual acts of heroism, while dynamic events are designed to be larger, multi-player activities that allow everyone to get involved. Events do not impact story, either, although you may have to participate in an event on the way to a story step in order to reach your goal."
You may have to participate in a story step in order to reach your goal? Sounds like something might be required there. Do we know? Well I certainly don't, theres a good chance you don't either, but it sounds like they are planning on some parts of the story being dependent on the completion of an event eventhough it doesn't effect that event. (meaning the outcome)
It doesn't impact the story, though the events may be required. Interesting take on a not-quest. But I guess thats another agree to disagree there.
Has it ever occured to you, we may have more than 1 source on this particular subject?
If you fail a an event, they don't neceserrily start over, they would just bet pushed back one step, think of it like tug o war. Using the storming the shores of Orr example, you fail that one, you get pushed off the beaches, you succeed, you build a foreward base on the shore and start pushing inwards. (this example is either in the first quesitons on dynamic events, or the more questions, i forget)
http://www.arena.net/blog/ree-soesbee-answers-your-questions-about-gw2-personal-storylines
"Events do not impact story, either, although you may have to participate in an event on the way to a story step in order to reach your goal."
This states, they are not connected, you may have to participate on your way to the next part of your story, but they are otherwise seperate entities. I'm certain these could be bypassed, unless they actually block pathes through the world. Combine this with other interviews and the update to guildwars2.com and we have a fairly good idea of how the personal story is going to work.
I may be wrong on the shades of gray, I remember reading it in one of the many interviews on places much like this. Or perhaps something said on GW2G forums, they mingle with us a lot there.
Disagreement Heirarchy
It seems that the whole needing to participate in an event in order to get to th enext step in the story is being misinterpreted, not by you, but by others. If you read through the dynamic events interviews, they mention about the world changing due to events and stuff. Rathe rthan taking the 2 things as seperate entities, youve got to look at the whole picture.
A world impacting event may prevent you from being able to access a certain NPC, or an entire city/area of the game until the event is completed/changed. So in order to advance, or get to the next step in your story, which may require getting to that city, then yes you (not specifically you, but someone) must complete the event in order for you to get to that city. In that way, yes you may be "required" to complete an event to advance teh story, but the event itself does not have an actual impact on your personal story, seeing a show the personal stories are instanced adn seperate from the open world events.
Think of it like say IRL, you needed to travel to New York to meet with a client or perform some task for your job. On your way to New York, some enemy force takes control of New York City (aka, one of the events in GW2), and you can no longer get into the city to accomplish your goal and do your job (aka, advance your story). Only way to get to where you need to be to do your job is for someone (you, or anyone else) to take out the enemies and gain control of the city returning it back to normal. Killing the enemy army is not a required part of your job (aka required as a part of the story), however you cant simply choose to ignore whats happening in the city and skip right to doing your job. The world/city needs to change in order for you to get to the next step in doing your job.
I wrote an abnormally long post in reply to Warband and the site messed it up and now I'm not typing it again.
Just going to post 1 thing and then call it a night.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03V7s6usPR4
At about 4:30 or so they talk about players interacting and changing the world.
Oy, everything else is pointless to me right now, my animosity has subsided some and on a more reasonable tone I'm just going to say simply that we'll see what happens as more information can be SEEN or PLAYED.
I don't want to fight about features in 2 games that I'm still going to play.
*slow clap* They didn't even say "how" you would make a difference.... how is that proof, thats about the same as every other dev.... they'll probably just use phasing and call it a day. If that place is persitant how do you expect "every player to make a difference" without some massive clause attached to it. Anyway this "arguement" has gone on long enough... massive waste of time lol.
If that is what they said, then that is what they hope to/will try to do.
Don't expect them to back up everything they are saying now in Alpha stage. That's just foolish. The bread isn't ready yet, all your going to get is flour.
Longing for Skyrim, The Old Republic and Mass Effect 3
You fail to realize that everything you've posted is something the devs had "said" EVERYTHING you've posted. not a single thing they've "said" you've shown me. Yet you can criticize me for what the devs say about TOR. You sir, are hypocritical, and are holding this game to a double standard simply to make your "point" which is of course biased and incorrect.
I can tell you how any system that I make up works, it doesn't mean that it will be applied to the game. BioWare releases information when it is IN game and they've showed most of what they've claimed. Guild wars has shown nothing of what they claim, yet BioWare shouldn't be trusted. This is a joke now. You refuse to read what the guild wars devs say because you don't like its implications, and then you hold other games to a double standard.
Come back when you have some real solid proof instead of "what the devs say" for your game. Maybe I should hold GW2 to a double standard and see how that defense works for me. I'm sure ears closed mouth open is a lot more fun, or it seems to be for you anyways.
Your missing the point entirely. It's not about the fact the dev said it, it's about how they said they were going to implement it. We pretty much know how A-net is going to implement the event system. We can analyse the benefits and the pitfalls of such a system and they have give Q & A about common questions. It may not be the whole picture but we have a rough idea. Merely saying players can affect the world and not explaining how exactly is bullshit hyping and you know it.
It leaves everything to the player's imaginations and breeds misconception which is ultimately a bad thing. We've seen combat and story thats about it. Everything else in unexplained hype. We really haven't seen anything about swtor we've seen slightly more than gw2 but nothing substanial. They're in the exact same boat.
Using seeing is believing as an arguement against gw2 for swtor is terrible because you haven't truly "seen" anything from swtor either. All the hands on and "previews" have been short starter areas that tell you very little about the whole game.
Asking for me about proof from developer's when you have very little from bioware is hypocritical at best. How about we restart this arguement when both games have "shown" a fair amount ok?