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?
What is written on paper on "how" something works and how it actually works once implemented are two different things. If you've ever followed the development cycle on WAR, Vanguard, CO, DF or many others, you can go into tons of Q&A about the features and how you WANT to implement them, but until its working and shown working all it is, is the devs word that it will be there. I can go into detail on how my flying chair works by floating on wind currents, with its aerodynamic arm rests both lift the chair and provide ample comfort and support, but what would it matter?
Many of the games mentioned went into detail about how they *want* to implement something, but didn't *show* it implemented. I've seen a lot of SWTOR.. I've seen all of the classes, many class abilities, I've seen combat, I've seen PvP, I've seen the world react to the player, I've seen how a flashpoint works, going into one, what happens during one, and coming out. I've seen a group flashpoint, I've seen the open world,, I've seen grouping, I've seen an instance, I've seen many different planets, I've seen the ability of combat whilst moving, I've seen items with stats, I've seen customization, I've seen different races and enemies, I've seen player stats. Theres plenty that I've seen, even more then I care to list right now, substantially more on TOR of working features than GW2.
Are these features always better then other games? No. Will this game be BETTER then GW2? I don't know. Do the games have different features? Yes. Do these games have similar features? Yes. Are either of them truly innovative? No.
I can't see how I'm hypocritical at all when it comes to these two games, I've proven what I've seen about BioWare through the videos that I've posted and links I've provided throughout this site. I have no misconceptions about what this game is and what I've seen. You on the other hand, have very few in game videos. Your "innovations" aside, you have nothing to *show* for it. So if by me providing videos and information that can be see in comparison to information and no videos on what you say a different game has, and then disregarding any information TOR has released but cannot show in detail somehow makes ME hypocritical.... then I guess I'm hypocritical.
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?
What is written on paper on "how" something works and how it actually works once implemented are two different things. If you've ever followed the development cycle on WAR, Vanguard, CO, DF or many others, you can go into tons of Q&A about the features and how you WANT to implement them, but until its working and shown working all it is, is the devs word that it will be there. I can go into detail on how my flying chair works by floating on wind currents, with its aerodynamic arm rests both lift the chair and provide ample comfort and support, but what would it matter?
Many of the games mentioned went into detail about how they *want* to implement something, but didn't *show* it implemented. I've seen a lot of SWTOR.. I've seen all of the classes, many class abilities, I've seen combat, I've seen PvP, I've seen the world react to the player, I've seen how a flashpoint works, going into one, what happens during one, and coming out. I've seen a group flashpoint, I've seen the open world,, I've seen grouping, I've seen an instance, I've seen many different planets, I've seen the ability of combat whilst moving, I've seen items with stats, I've seen customization, I've seen different races and enemies, I've seen player stats. Theres plenty that I've seen, even more then I care to list right now, substantially more on TOR of working features than GW2.
Are these features always better then other games? No. Will this game be BETTER then GW2? I don't know. Do the games have different features? Yes. Do these games have similar features? Yes. Are either of them truly innovative? No.
I can't see how I'm hypocritical at all when it comes to these two games, I've proven what I've seen about BioWare through the videos that I've posted and links I've provided throughout this site. I have no misconceptions about what this game is and what I've seen. You on the other hand, have very few in game videos. Your "innovations" aside, you have nothing to *show* for it. So if by me providing videos and information that can be see in comparison to information and no videos on what you say a different game has, and then disregarding any information TOR has released but cannot show in detail somehow makes ME hypocritical.... then I guess I'm hypocritical.
Your completely correct but the problem is your arguement for swtor is lacking... some combat, players fighting each other, flash points, and a few snippets of a story? Thats hardly much to judge even a single player game by let alone a mmo. It's bare bones at best. You can't argue about seeing is believing if we all know what they've shown is minmal at best. Nice arguement but you can't use it for swtor.
What is written on paper on "how" something works and how it actually works once implemented are two different things. If you've ever followed the development cycle on WAR, Vanguard, CO, DF or many others, you can go into tons of Q&A about the features and how you WANT to implement them, but until its working and shown working all it is, is the devs word that it will be there. I can go into detail on how my flying chair works by floating on wind currents, with its aerodynamic arm rests both lift the chair and provide ample comfort and support, but what would it matter?
Many of the games mentioned went into detail about how they *want* to implement something, but didn't *show* it implemented. I've seen a lot of SWTOR.. I've seen all of the classes, many class abilities, I've seen combat, I've seen PvP, I've seen the world react to the player, I've seen how a flashpoint works, going into one, what happens during one, and coming out. I've seen a group flashpoint, I've seen the open world,, I've seen grouping, I've seen an instance, I've seen many different planets, I've seen the ability of combat whilst moving, I've seen items with stats, I've seen customization, I've seen different races and enemies, I've seen player stats. Theres plenty that I've seen, even more then I care to list right now, substantially more on TOR of working features than GW2.
Are these features always better then other games? No. Will this game be BETTER then GW2? I don't know. Do the games have different features? Yes. Do these games have similar features? Yes. Are either of them truly innovative? No.
I can't see how I'm hypocritical at all when it comes to these two games, I've proven what I've seen about BioWare through the videos that I've posted and links I've provided throughout this site. I have no misconceptions about what this game is and what I've seen. You on the other hand, have very few in game videos. Your "innovations" aside, you have nothing to *show* for it. So if by me providing videos and information that can be see in comparison to information and no videos on what you say a different game has, and then disregarding any information TOR has released but cannot show in detail somehow makes ME hypocritical.... then I guess I'm hypocritical.
Your completely correct but the problem is your arguement for swtor is lacking... some combat, players fighting each other, flash points, and a few snippets of a story? Thats hardly much to judge even a single player game by let alone a mmo. It's bare bones at best. You can't argue about seeing is believing if we all know what they've shown is minmal at best. Nice arguement but you can't use it for swtor.
I don't see how I can't use the actual features seen in game as a guide for the features I expect to see in game, but I guess you make the rules. I mean it doesn't matter that I've seen at least if not more than an hour of game play, all that footage might as well just be thrown out of the window. We shouldn't take into account that in game footage of features is exactly what we've been talking about this whole time. The implementation of them, the showing of them, but my argument must be baseless. The real thing is here, is that you're right that what they've shown is minimal in comparison with the entirety of the features TOR will have in game. But what they've shown in game currently speaks volumes in comparison with the little we've seen from Guild Wars.
I don't have to prove that I've seen it all from SWTOR, all I need to prove was that I've seen more in game footage of current in game features then what GW2 has to offer. Maybe in the future this conversation will be very different, but I think its best just to live in the moment.
Most people are just looking for something new to bitch about, because, that is what they do. They play the forums.
Mmorpg gamers need to go back to being gamers and stop being critics.
Some of us like games that don't end, we don't like seeing credits roll after a big thing hapens in the game. We like to get to that point and live there for a while. I think we need to get back into doing that instead of worrying our little minds about every little mechanic or system in the game.
Don't play something for the sake of doing so. If you are not having fun in whatever it is you are doing then you are wasting your life.
What is written on paper on "how" something works and how it actually works once implemented are two different things. If you've ever followed the development cycle on WAR, Vanguard, CO, DF or many others, you can go into tons of Q&A about the features and how you WANT to implement them, but until its working and shown working all it is, is the devs word that it will be there. I can go into detail on how my flying chair works by floating on wind currents, with its aerodynamic arm rests both lift the chair and provide ample comfort and support, but what would it matter?
Many of the games mentioned went into detail about how they *want* to implement something, but didn't *show* it implemented. I've seen a lot of SWTOR.. I've seen all of the classes, many class abilities, I've seen combat, I've seen PvP, I've seen the world react to the player, I've seen how a flashpoint works, going into one, what happens during one, and coming out. I've seen a group flashpoint, I've seen the open world,, I've seen grouping, I've seen an instance, I've seen many different planets, I've seen the ability of combat whilst moving, I've seen items with stats, I've seen customization, I've seen different races and enemies, I've seen player stats. Theres plenty that I've seen, even more then I care to list right now, substantially more on TOR of working features than GW2.
Are these features always better then other games? No. Will this game be BETTER then GW2? I don't know. Do the games have different features? Yes. Do these games have similar features? Yes. Are either of them truly innovative? No.
I can't see how I'm hypocritical at all when it comes to these two games, I've proven what I've seen about BioWare through the videos that I've posted and links I've provided throughout this site. I have no misconceptions about what this game is and what I've seen. You on the other hand, have very few in game videos. Your "innovations" aside, you have nothing to *show* for it. So if by me providing videos and information that can be see in comparison to information and no videos on what you say a different game has, and then disregarding any information TOR has released but cannot show in detail somehow makes ME hypocritical.... then I guess I'm hypocritical.
Your completely correct but the problem is your arguement for swtor is lacking... some combat, players fighting each other, flash points, and a few snippets of a story? Thats hardly much to judge even a single player game by let alone a mmo. It's bare bones at best. You can't argue about seeing is believing if we all know what they've shown is minmal at best. Nice arguement but you can't use it for swtor.
I don't see how I can't use the actual features seen in game as a guide for the features I expect to see in game, but I guess you make the rules. I mean it doesn't matter that I've seen at least if not more than an hour of game play, all that footage might as well just be thrown out of the window. We shouldn't take into account that in game footage of features is exactly what we've been talking about this whole time. The implementation of them, the showing of them, but my argument must be baseless. The real thing is here, is that you're right that what they've shown is minimal in comparison with the entirety of the features TOR will have in game. But what they've shown in game currently speaks volumes in comparison with the little we've seen from Guild Wars.
I don't have to prove that I've seen it all from SWTOR, all I need to prove was that I've seen more in game footage of current in game features then what GW2 has to offer. Maybe in the future this conversation will be very different, but I think its best just to live in the moment.
But that's the thing it's completely pointless talking about it now. We haven't seen enough of either game to make a valid judgement. We may have "seen" more from swtor but compared to the entirity of the game it is pointless. With mmo's you spend hundreds of hours playing. Within that time the majority of the games problems become very apparent. Comparing a few minutes to what some may play for a few thousands hours is meaningless. You can't even scratch the amount of problems in-game with that amount.
Thats why swtor may have shown a bit more than gw2 but in the grand scheme of both games it's such a small amount it might as be considered the same amount. Thus it's compleetly pointless arguing over features now.
What is written on paper on "how" something works and how it actually works once implemented are two different things. If you've ever followed the development cycle on WAR, Vanguard, CO, DF or many others, you can go into tons of Q&A about the features and how you WANT to implement them, but until its working and shown working all it is, is the devs word that it will be there. I can go into detail on how my flying chair works by floating on wind currents, with its aerodynamic arm rests both lift the chair and provide ample comfort and support, but what would it matter?
Many of the games mentioned went into detail about how they *want* to implement something, but didn't *show* it implemented. I've seen a lot of SWTOR.. I've seen all of the classes, many class abilities, I've seen combat, I've seen PvP, I've seen the world react to the player, I've seen how a flashpoint works, going into one, what happens during one, and coming out. I've seen a group flashpoint, I've seen the open world,, I've seen grouping, I've seen an instance, I've seen many different planets, I've seen the ability of combat whilst moving, I've seen items with stats, I've seen customization, I've seen different races and enemies, I've seen player stats. Theres plenty that I've seen, even more then I care to list right now, substantially more on TOR of working features than GW2.
Are these features always better then other games? No. Will this game be BETTER then GW2? I don't know. Do the games have different features? Yes. Do these games have similar features? Yes. Are either of them truly innovative? No.
I can't see how I'm hypocritical at all when it comes to these two games, I've proven what I've seen about BioWare through the videos that I've posted and links I've provided throughout this site. I have no misconceptions about what this game is and what I've seen. You on the other hand, have very few in game videos. Your "innovations" aside, you have nothing to *show* for it. So if by me providing videos and information that can be see in comparison to information and no videos on what you say a different game has, and then disregarding any information TOR has released but cannot show in detail somehow makes ME hypocritical.... then I guess I'm hypocritical.
Your completely correct but the problem is your arguement for swtor is lacking... some combat, players fighting each other, flash points, and a few snippets of a story? Thats hardly much to judge even a single player game by let alone a mmo. It's bare bones at best. You can't argue about seeing is believing if we all know what they've shown is minmal at best. Nice arguement but you can't use it for swtor.
I don't see how I can't use the actual features seen in game as a guide for the features I expect to see in game, but I guess you make the rules. I mean it doesn't matter that I've seen at least if not more than an hour of game play, all that footage might as well just be thrown out of the window. We shouldn't take into account that in game footage of features is exactly what we've been talking about this whole time. The implementation of them, the showing of them, but my argument must be baseless. The real thing is here, is that you're right that what they've shown is minimal in comparison with the entirety of the features TOR will have in game. But what they've shown in game currently speaks volumes in comparison with the little we've seen from Guild Wars.
I don't have to prove that I've seen it all from SWTOR, all I need to prove was that I've seen more in game footage of current in game features then what GW2 has to offer. Maybe in the future this conversation will be very different, but I think its best just to live in the moment.
But that's the thing it's completely pointless talking about it now. We haven't seen enough of either game to make a valid judgement. We may have "seen" more from swtor but compared to the entirity of the game it is pointless. With mmo's you spend hundreds of hours playing. Within that time the majority of the games problems become very apparent. Comparing a few minutes to what some may play for a few thousands hours is meaningless. You can't even scratch the amount of problems in-game with that amount.
Thats why swtor may have shown a bit more than gw2 but in the grand scheme of both games it's such a small amount it might as be considered the same amount. Thus it's compleetly pointless arguing over features now.
Then I concede, and agree. In that respect you are correct.
The companion system they are implementing seems pretty innovative to me, from a MMO perspective atleast(obviously they are just borrowing it from single player games). I can't think of another MMO where you have companions that are anything deeper than point & click pets. What other MMO can you have a romance with your companions? Or have one of them turn on you and become your enemy? Pretty cool stuff.
The combination of voice-overs, branching decisions, multiple user inputs into dialogue, and an actual "light/dark" alignment system seems pretty damn innovative to me.
Again, its just taking stuff from their single player franchises, but its certainly innovative to the MMO market. I think if anyone is expecting them to redesign the wheel, they are being naive.
What is written on paper on "how" something works and how it actually works once implemented are two different things. If you've ever followed the development cycle on WAR, Vanguard, CO, DF or many others, you can go into tons of Q&A about the features and how you WANT to implement them, but until its working and shown working all it is, is the devs word that it will be there.
Their is a huge difference, which is this is a Bioware game(financed by EA non-the-less). Look no farther than Mass Effect or Dragon's Age to get a very good idea of how they are going to implement these systems. It's not going to be radically different, because it doesn't have to be. They have a working design model, and just because this is an MMO doesn't mean that the particular portions they have shown up to this point need deviate to a great extent.
The companion system they are implementing seems pretty innovative to me, from a MMO perspective atleast(obviously they are just borrowing it from single player games). I can't think of another MMO where you have companions that are anything deeper than point & click pets. What other MMO can you have a romance with your companions? Or have one of them turn on you and become your enemy? Pretty cool stuff.
The combination of voice-overs, branching decisions, multiple user inputs into dialogue, and an actual "light/dark" alignment system seems pretty damn innovative to me.
Again, its just taking stuff from their single player franchises, but its certainly innovative to the MMO market. I think if anyone is expecting them to redesign the wheel, they are being naive.
This thread had actual started up before the companion details were released, and was focused more on stuf flike the voice acting. But yeah you do make a good point. However, i also made a post in the thread about the Companion System Details, regarding pets/companions that vary from the typical "point & click" pet as you put it. I used Phantasy Star Universe for my example. The pets, which were robotic in nature, started as small little orb like NPCs in your personal room aka house. They offered various functions such as storage, crafting, acting as your store/Auction House, and a few other features. The pets evolved through feeding them items/equipment, and what you fed them over time caused them to transform into various forms/stages which had various effects like improving crafting in certain areas/types (depending on what it was fed). Upon getting it to the final stage of evolution, it transformed into an actual companion (in the form of a little robotic person), which had various looks, fighting styles, equipment, personalities/conversations, etc depending on what you fed it and which forms you made it take during the evolution. You could then take the pet with you on missions and it fought alongside you and as i mentioned, acted/fought according to how you raised it (multiple types for each of ranged dps, melee dps, magic dps, and support). In the end, you generally focused on making a companion which suited your class/playstyle, though it was not strictly limited to X class can only have X pet (which is what they are doing in SWTOR), any class could create and use any type of pet, it was a matter of preference. Also, just like with SWTOR, everyone could bring them into battle regardless of class.
In PSU, along with your pets, there were also NPCs which were also a part of the story (both in the single player story and the online story), which after you met them online and completed usually your first mission with them, you could then summon them to come with you into missions and take the place of another players, similar to companions in SWTOR.
While the method is different, as well as the fine details of what they do as pets/companions, they are both drastically different overall compared to your usual pets, such as in WoW. So IMO, just as with everything else discussed in this thread... The companion does have some nice points/features which make it seem innovative, overall it's not very innovative at all. That doesn't make it bad by any means, but im just pointing at that things like having more than 1 function, as well as being a part of the story, etc, etc arent anywhere near new or innovative.
The companion system they are implementing seems pretty innovative to me, from a MMO perspective atleast(obviously they are just borrowing it from single player games). I can't think of another MMO where you have companions that are anything deeper than point & click pets. What other MMO can you have a romance with your companions? Or have one of them turn on you and become your enemy? Pretty cool stuff.
The combination of voice-overs, branching decisions, multiple user inputs into dialogue, and an actual "light/dark" alignment system seems pretty damn innovative to me.
Again, its just taking stuff from their single player franchises, but its certainly innovative to the MMO market. I think if anyone is expecting them to redesign the wheel, they are being naive.
This thread had actual started up before the companion details were released, and was focused more on stuf flike the voice acting. But yeah you do make a good point. However, i also made a post in the thread about the Companion System Details, regarding pets/companions that vary from the typical "point & click" pet as you put it. I used Phantasy Star Universe for my example. The pets, which were robotic in nature, started as small little orb like NPCs in your personal room aka house. They offered various functions such as storage, crafting, acting as your store/Auction House, and a few other features. The pets evolved through feeding them items/equipment, and what you fed them over time caused them to transform into various forms/stages which had various effects like improving crafting in certain areas/types (depending on what it was fed). Upon getting it to the final stage of evolution, it transformed into an actual companion (in the form of a little robotic person), which had various looks, fighting styles, equipment, personalities/conversations, etc depending on what you fed it and which forms you made it take during the evolution. You could then take the pet with you on missions and it fought alongside you and as i mentioned, acted/fought according to how you raised it (multiple types for each of ranged dps, melee dps, magic dps, and support). In the end, you generally focused on making a companion which suited your class/playstyle, though it was not strictly limited to X class can only have X pet (which is what they are doing in SWTOR), any class could create and use any type of pet, it was a matter of preference. Also, just like with SWTOR, everyone could bring them into battle regardless of class.
In PSU, along with your pets, there were also NPCs which were also a part of the story (both in the single player story and the online story), which after you met them online and completed usually your first mission with them, you could then summon them to come with you into missions and take the place of another players, similar to companions in SWTOR.
While the method is different, as well as the fine details of what they do as pets/companions, they are both drastically different overall compared to your usual pets, such as in WoW. So IMO, just as with everything else discussed in this thread... The companion does have some nice points/features which make it seem innovative, overall it's not very innovative at all. That doesn't make it bad by any means, but im just pointing at that things like having more than 1 function, as well as being a part of the story, etc, etc arent anywhere near new or innovative.
I agree that I don't find that innovative, but I like your post especially because you brought up PSU which I loved.the way the PMs worked in that game, (MAGs from PSOBB)
It was an awesome system, not exactly the same, but comparable in a sense. That is a good description of a game where you just about always had a sort of "companion" with you eventhough at the early stages they didn't always directly attack foes... (at least, not that I could remember)
The companion system they are implementing seems pretty innovative to me, from a MMO perspective atleast(obviously they are just borrowing it from single player games). I can't think of another MMO where you have companions that are anything deeper than point & click pets. What other MMO can you have a romance with your companions? Or have one of them turn on you and become your enemy? Pretty cool stuff.
The combination of voice-overs, branching decisions, multiple user inputs into dialogue, and an actual "light/dark" alignment system seems pretty damn innovative to me.
Again, its just taking stuff from their single player franchises, but its certainly innovative to the MMO market. I think if anyone is expecting them to redesign the wheel, they are being naive.
This thread had actual started up before the companion details were released, and was focused more on stuf flike the voice acting. But yeah you do make a good point. However, i also made a post in the thread about the Companion System Details, regarding pets/companions that vary from the typical "point & click" pet as you put it. I used Phantasy Star Universe for my example. The pets, which were robotic in nature, started as small little orb like NPCs in your personal room aka house. They offered various functions such as storage, crafting, acting as your store/Auction House, and a few other features. The pets evolved through feeding them items/equipment, and what you fed them over time caused them to transform into various forms/stages which had various effects like improving crafting in certain areas/types (depending on what it was fed). Upon getting it to the final stage of evolution, it transformed into an actual companion (in the form of a little robotic person), which had various looks, fighting styles, equipment, personalities/conversations, etc depending on what you fed it and which forms you made it take during the evolution. You could then take the pet with you on missions and it fought alongside you and as i mentioned, acted/fought according to how you raised it (multiple types for each of ranged dps, melee dps, magic dps, and support). In the end, you generally focused on making a companion which suited your class/playstyle, though it was not strictly limited to X class can only have X pet (which is what they are doing in SWTOR), any class could create and use any type of pet, it was a matter of preference. Also, just like with SWTOR, everyone could bring them into battle regardless of class.
In PSU, along with your pets, there were also NPCs which were also a part of the story (both in the single player story and the online story), which after you met them online and completed usually your first mission with them, you could then summon them to come with you into missions and take the place of another players, similar to companions in SWTOR.
While the method is different, as well as the fine details of what they do as pets/companions, they are both drastically different overall compared to your usual pets, such as in WoW. So IMO, just as with everything else discussed in this thread... The companion does have some nice points/features which make it seem innovative, overall it's not very innovative at all. That doesn't make it bad by any means, but im just pointing at that things like having more than 1 function, as well as being a part of the story, etc, etc arent anywhere near new or innovative.
I agree that I don't find that innovative, but I like your post especially because you brought up PSU which I loved.the way the PMs worked in that game, (MAGs from PSOBB)
It was an awesome system, not exactly the same, but comparable in a sense. That is a good description of a game where you just about always had a sort of "companion" with you eventhough at the early stages they didn't always directly attack foes... (at least, not that I could remember)
Yeah, they didn't (at least in PSU, not sure about PSO) even go with you until you got them to the higher evolutions. They were basically just NPCs in your room with a lot fo functions, but once you got them strong enough and they transformed into little robotic humanoids they came with you on missions and stuff.
edit: for those who don't have a clue what me and him are talking about, that was in reference to your pets, which as he pointed out are referred to as PMs in PSU. the other NPCs/companions which were involved in the story could be used from the time you "unlocked" them (basically they added them to a sort of friends list). the 1st of them you actually meet in your tutorial/intro mission, and varies based on class/race, and then as you rogress through the story missions you unlock more and more.
@ maskedweasel: I tried to follow your arguments, and agree there is a difference between having seen the features in gameplay footage and having things described by devs. However, I feel you are being too dismissive of the dynamic quest system in concept. Don't you realise this means NO BLOODY EXCLAMATION POINTS. The game =/= running around clicking on NPCs that are always standing exactly where they always stand, and then going out into a world that is always the same. Instead, the game is exploring the world, seeing or hearing that something is going on and reacting.
This just hits my buttons in a way that SWTOR hasn't, and I know there are lots of people feeling the same way.
So, you or someone else, will have to explain to me - and type slowly - why this is not new. And even if it is not new, exactly why perceiving the concept as fresh and exciting is going to end in tears.
One thing that is admittedly not so clear yet is the extent to which states of chains affects states in neighbouring chains. Mathematically, if there is interaction between chains, the complexity that can arise is astounding. For example, cellular automata models for hosts of infectious disease where individual hosts follow the chain susceptible -> infectious -> recovered -> susceptible can give very complex behaviour in time and space, e.g. when cycles (epidemics) appear. At a basic level I can see how if we replace infectious disease with centaur invasion we could create a dynamic world that is cyclical in nature (at one particular location) but extremely complex at the broader landscape level. For players, complexity means a world that feels more and more alive and dynamic.
So, you or someone else, will have to explain to me - and type slowly - why this is not new. And even if it is not new, exactly why perceiving the concept as fresh and exciting is going to end in tears.
Because it's basically a whole lot of public quests organised into a branching schema.
Whether it will end in tears if you perceive it as new, that's up to you; it's certainly not neccesarily so.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
So, you or someone else, will have to explain to me - and type slowly - why this is not new. And even if it is not new, exactly why perceiving the concept as fresh and exciting is going to end in tears.
Because it's basically a whole lot of public quests organised into a branching schema.
Whether it will end in tears if you perceive it as new, that's up to you; it's certainly not neccesarily so.
Ok, I get that you can relate it to public quests in WAR, but as I understand it, dynamic questing isn't a branching process. If there is any interaction at all between states of the chains then the branching behaviours of chains of events aren't independent. So mathematically then, this is not a branching process or schema and with enough interaction and enough chains it ought to be possible to see multiple cycles, chaos and other complex behaviour, i.e. a dynamic world feel in terms of what and who is where and doing what. In terms of world design this is conceptually and mechanically quite different to certainly anything I've seen in an MMO, even Ryzom. Add some stochasticity (such as having an item drop that triggers the beginning of a chain) and players and while certain events will repeat and be repeatable, the world as a whole will not be predictable.
I've read a bit about the public quests in WAR now, but I haven't played the game. In concept though, they are not even a branching process because it is either proceed from A to B to C and win and quest is reset, or fail at some point and quest is reset.
GW2 is (and again, at the conceptual level and as I have understood it so far) more like
chain 1: A -> B -> C -> B -> D ->
/
chain 2: ...................X -> Y -> Z ->
chain 3: P -> Q -> P -> R -> S ->
chain 4: F -> G -> E -> ...............
etc. where the "/" implies that chain 2 having state Y has kicked chain 1 out of its BCBCB loop into state D, and the "" indicates chain 2 starting has kicked chain 3 out of its PQPQPQPQ loop.
The innovation at the conceptual level is not so much in the questing (though certainly that is part of what keeps the world dynamic) but more in the world design.
Even if GW2 doesn't get it exactly how I hope it to be, it is definitely a step in the right direction at the conceptual level and that is worth cheering about.
Ok, I get that you can relate it to public quests in WAR, but as I understand it, dynamic questing isn't a branching process. If there is any interaction at all between states of the chains then the branching behaviours of chains of events aren't independent. So mathematically then, this is not a branching process or schema and with enough interaction and enough chains it ought to be possible to see multiple cycles, chaos and other complex behaviour, i.e. a dynamic world feel in terms of what and who is where and doing what. In terms of world design this is conceptually and mechanically quite different to certainly anything I've seen in an MMO, even Ryzom. Add some stochasticity (such as having an item drop that triggers the beginning of a chain) and players and while certain events will repeat and be repeatable, the world as a whole will not be predictable.
I've read a bit about the public quests in WAR now, but I haven't played the game. In concept though, they are not even a branching process because it is either proceed from A to B to C and win and quest is reset, or fail at some point and quest is reset.
GW2 is (and again, at the conceptual level and as I have understood it so far) more like
chain 1: A -> B -> C -> B -> D ->
/
chain 2: ...................X -> Y -> Z ->
chain 3: P -> Q -> P -> R -> S ->
chain 4: F -> G -> E -> ...............
etc. where the "/" implies that chain 2 having state Y has kicked chain 1 out of its BCBCB loop into state D, and the "" indicates chain 2 starting has kicked chain 3 out of its PQPQPQPQ loop.
The innovation at the conceptual level is not so much in the questing (though certainly that is part of what keeps the world dynamic) but more in the world design.
Even if GW2 doesn't get it exactly how I hope it to be, it is definitely a step in the right direction at the conceptual level and that is worth cheering about.
Public quests in WAR were unrelated to eachother, you did them and then they started over again after a certain time.
Basically if I get it right, a quest chain in GW2 can lead into two of these quests having the same next one as a result; in other words two branches come together.
This is still called branching though, I think, it's two of them coming together instead of going away from eachother.
In essence, you make these things by writing a quest, which has a couple of possible results, which you connect to a resulting quest and so on and so forth.
Quests that are the result of a chain of previous ones can have the same one as a result like you said, which is the supposed 'interacting'; though they do not interact in practice, they just have the same result.
Or maybe that means that a quest has partially overlapping objectives with another one...
In any case it isn't 100% clear what they mean by that.
In the end, you just make public quests, and organise them in a schema; 'chaos' can never exist, except if they introduce random results (quest A has 1/3 chance at result B / C / D when condition X is met), but I believe this will be limited for the sake of the game.
Whether you can call this 'innovative' is a matter of opinion, going by the definitions of some people here it doesn't seem to be the case, but you can believe whatever you want of course; it's not like innovation is a requirement for a game to be good.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
To me, innovative would be actually doing something unique and never used before, not copying exisiting things.
That is exactly why I will forever be an Arenanet fan. Before them innovation came in midget baby steps - not normal baby-steps midget baby-steps. It was like watching biological evolution happen... in real time. Well, that's not entirely true, some games like DAoC had some fairly major innovations (RvR in their case). But that was it, everything else was pretty status-quo about it. I think/hope that era is over now and we will see games not with one major evolutionary step but several at a time.
Comments
What is written on paper on "how" something works and how it actually works once implemented are two different things. If you've ever followed the development cycle on WAR, Vanguard, CO, DF or many others, you can go into tons of Q&A about the features and how you WANT to implement them, but until its working and shown working all it is, is the devs word that it will be there. I can go into detail on how my flying chair works by floating on wind currents, with its aerodynamic arm rests both lift the chair and provide ample comfort and support, but what would it matter?
Many of the games mentioned went into detail about how they *want* to implement something, but didn't *show* it implemented. I've seen a lot of SWTOR.. I've seen all of the classes, many class abilities, I've seen combat, I've seen PvP, I've seen the world react to the player, I've seen how a flashpoint works, going into one, what happens during one, and coming out. I've seen a group flashpoint, I've seen the open world,, I've seen grouping, I've seen an instance, I've seen many different planets, I've seen the ability of combat whilst moving, I've seen items with stats, I've seen customization, I've seen different races and enemies, I've seen player stats. Theres plenty that I've seen, even more then I care to list right now, substantially more on TOR of working features than GW2.
Are these features always better then other games? No. Will this game be BETTER then GW2? I don't know. Do the games have different features? Yes. Do these games have similar features? Yes. Are either of them truly innovative? No.
I can't see how I'm hypocritical at all when it comes to these two games, I've proven what I've seen about BioWare through the videos that I've posted and links I've provided throughout this site. I have no misconceptions about what this game is and what I've seen. You on the other hand, have very few in game videos. Your "innovations" aside, you have nothing to *show* for it. So if by me providing videos and information that can be see in comparison to information and no videos on what you say a different game has, and then disregarding any information TOR has released but cannot show in detail somehow makes ME hypocritical.... then I guess I'm hypocritical.
Your completely correct but the problem is your arguement for swtor is lacking... some combat, players fighting each other, flash points, and a few snippets of a story? Thats hardly much to judge even a single player game by let alone a mmo. It's bare bones at best. You can't argue about seeing is believing if we all know what they've shown is minmal at best. Nice arguement but you can't use it for swtor.
I don't see how I can't use the actual features seen in game as a guide for the features I expect to see in game, but I guess you make the rules. I mean it doesn't matter that I've seen at least if not more than an hour of game play, all that footage might as well just be thrown out of the window. We shouldn't take into account that in game footage of features is exactly what we've been talking about this whole time. The implementation of them, the showing of them, but my argument must be baseless. The real thing is here, is that you're right that what they've shown is minimal in comparison with the entirety of the features TOR will have in game. But what they've shown in game currently speaks volumes in comparison with the little we've seen from Guild Wars.
I don't have to prove that I've seen it all from SWTOR, all I need to prove was that I've seen more in game footage of current in game features then what GW2 has to offer. Maybe in the future this conversation will be very different, but I think its best just to live in the moment.
Most people are just looking for something new to bitch about, because, that is what they do. They play the forums.
Mmorpg gamers need to go back to being gamers and stop being critics.
Some of us like games that don't end, we don't like seeing credits roll after a big thing hapens in the game. We like to get to that point and live there for a while. I think we need to get back into doing that instead of worrying our little minds about every little mechanic or system in the game.
Don't play something for the sake of doing so. If you are not having fun in whatever it is you are doing then you are wasting your life.
But that's the thing it's completely pointless talking about it now. We haven't seen enough of either game to make a valid judgement. We may have "seen" more from swtor but compared to the entirity of the game it is pointless. With mmo's you spend hundreds of hours playing. Within that time the majority of the games problems become very apparent. Comparing a few minutes to what some may play for a few thousands hours is meaningless. You can't even scratch the amount of problems in-game with that amount.
Thats why swtor may have shown a bit more than gw2 but in the grand scheme of both games it's such a small amount it might as be considered the same amount. Thus it's compleetly pointless arguing over features now.
Then I concede, and agree. In that respect you are correct.
The companion system they are implementing seems pretty innovative to me, from a MMO perspective atleast(obviously they are just borrowing it from single player games). I can't think of another MMO where you have companions that are anything deeper than point & click pets. What other MMO can you have a romance with your companions? Or have one of them turn on you and become your enemy? Pretty cool stuff.
The combination of voice-overs, branching decisions, multiple user inputs into dialogue, and an actual "light/dark" alignment system seems pretty damn innovative to me.
Again, its just taking stuff from their single player franchises, but its certainly innovative to the MMO market. I think if anyone is expecting them to redesign the wheel, they are being naive.
Their is a huge difference, which is this is a Bioware game(financed by EA non-the-less). Look no farther than Mass Effect or Dragon's Age to get a very good idea of how they are going to implement these systems. It's not going to be radically different, because it doesn't have to be. They have a working design model, and just because this is an MMO doesn't mean that the particular portions they have shown up to this point need deviate to a great extent.
This thread had actual started up before the companion details were released, and was focused more on stuf flike the voice acting. But yeah you do make a good point. However, i also made a post in the thread about the Companion System Details, regarding pets/companions that vary from the typical "point & click" pet as you put it. I used Phantasy Star Universe for my example. The pets, which were robotic in nature, started as small little orb like NPCs in your personal room aka house. They offered various functions such as storage, crafting, acting as your store/Auction House, and a few other features. The pets evolved through feeding them items/equipment, and what you fed them over time caused them to transform into various forms/stages which had various effects like improving crafting in certain areas/types (depending on what it was fed). Upon getting it to the final stage of evolution, it transformed into an actual companion (in the form of a little robotic person), which had various looks, fighting styles, equipment, personalities/conversations, etc depending on what you fed it and which forms you made it take during the evolution. You could then take the pet with you on missions and it fought alongside you and as i mentioned, acted/fought according to how you raised it (multiple types for each of ranged dps, melee dps, magic dps, and support). In the end, you generally focused on making a companion which suited your class/playstyle, though it was not strictly limited to X class can only have X pet (which is what they are doing in SWTOR), any class could create and use any type of pet, it was a matter of preference. Also, just like with SWTOR, everyone could bring them into battle regardless of class.
In PSU, along with your pets, there were also NPCs which were also a part of the story (both in the single player story and the online story), which after you met them online and completed usually your first mission with them, you could then summon them to come with you into missions and take the place of another players, similar to companions in SWTOR.
While the method is different, as well as the fine details of what they do as pets/companions, they are both drastically different overall compared to your usual pets, such as in WoW. So IMO, just as with everything else discussed in this thread... The companion does have some nice points/features which make it seem innovative, overall it's not very innovative at all. That doesn't make it bad by any means, but im just pointing at that things like having more than 1 function, as well as being a part of the story, etc, etc arent anywhere near new or innovative.
I agree that I don't find that innovative, but I like your post especially because you brought up PSU which I loved.the way the PMs worked in that game, (MAGs from PSOBB)
It was an awesome system, not exactly the same, but comparable in a sense. That is a good description of a game where you just about always had a sort of "companion" with you eventhough at the early stages they didn't always directly attack foes... (at least, not that I could remember)
Yeah, they didn't (at least in PSU, not sure about PSO) even go with you until you got them to the higher evolutions. They were basically just NPCs in your room with a lot fo functions, but once you got them strong enough and they transformed into little robotic humanoids they came with you on missions and stuff.
edit: for those who don't have a clue what me and him are talking about, that was in reference to your pets, which as he pointed out are referred to as PMs in PSU. the other NPCs/companions which were involved in the story could be used from the time you "unlocked" them (basically they added them to a sort of friends list). the 1st of them you actually meet in your tutorial/intro mission, and varies based on class/race, and then as you rogress through the story missions you unlock more and more.
@ maskedweasel: I tried to follow your arguments, and agree there is a difference between having seen the features in gameplay footage and having things described by devs. However, I feel you are being too dismissive of the dynamic quest system in concept. Don't you realise this means NO BLOODY EXCLAMATION POINTS. The game =/= running around clicking on NPCs that are always standing exactly where they always stand, and then going out into a world that is always the same. Instead, the game is exploring the world, seeing or hearing that something is going on and reacting.
This just hits my buttons in a way that SWTOR hasn't, and I know there are lots of people feeling the same way.
So, you or someone else, will have to explain to me - and type slowly - why this is not new. And even if it is not new, exactly why perceiving the concept as fresh and exciting is going to end in tears.
One thing that is admittedly not so clear yet is the extent to which states of chains affects states in neighbouring chains. Mathematically, if there is interaction between chains, the complexity that can arise is astounding. For example, cellular automata models for hosts of infectious disease where individual hosts follow the chain susceptible -> infectious -> recovered -> susceptible can give very complex behaviour in time and space, e.g. when cycles (epidemics) appear. At a basic level I can see how if we replace infectious disease with centaur invasion we could create a dynamic world that is cyclical in nature (at one particular location) but extremely complex at the broader landscape level. For players, complexity means a world that feels more and more alive and dynamic.
Because it's basically a whole lot of public quests organised into a branching schema.
Whether it will end in tears if you perceive it as new, that's up to you; it's certainly not neccesarily so.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
Ok, I get that you can relate it to public quests in WAR, but as I understand it, dynamic questing isn't a branching process. If there is any interaction at all between states of the chains then the branching behaviours of chains of events aren't independent. So mathematically then, this is not a branching process or schema and with enough interaction and enough chains it ought to be possible to see multiple cycles, chaos and other complex behaviour, i.e. a dynamic world feel in terms of what and who is where and doing what. In terms of world design this is conceptually and mechanically quite different to certainly anything I've seen in an MMO, even Ryzom. Add some stochasticity (such as having an item drop that triggers the beginning of a chain) and players and while certain events will repeat and be repeatable, the world as a whole will not be predictable.
I've read a bit about the public quests in WAR now, but I haven't played the game. In concept though, they are not even a branching process because it is either proceed from A to B to C and win and quest is reset, or fail at some point and quest is reset.
GW2 is (and again, at the conceptual level and as I have understood it so far) more like
chain 1: A -> B -> C -> B -> D ->
/
chain 2: ...................X -> Y -> Z ->
chain 3: P -> Q -> P -> R -> S ->
chain 4: F -> G -> E -> ...............
etc. where the "/" implies that chain 2 having state Y has kicked chain 1 out of its BCBCB loop into state D, and the "" indicates chain 2 starting has kicked chain 3 out of its PQPQPQPQ loop.
The innovation at the conceptual level is not so much in the questing (though certainly that is part of what keeps the world dynamic) but more in the world design.
Even if GW2 doesn't get it exactly how I hope it to be, it is definitely a step in the right direction at the conceptual level and that is worth cheering about.
Public quests in WAR were unrelated to eachother, you did them and then they started over again after a certain time.
Basically if I get it right, a quest chain in GW2 can lead into two of these quests having the same next one as a result; in other words two branches come together.
This is still called branching though, I think, it's two of them coming together instead of going away from eachother.
In essence, you make these things by writing a quest, which has a couple of possible results, which you connect to a resulting quest and so on and so forth.
Quests that are the result of a chain of previous ones can have the same one as a result like you said, which is the supposed 'interacting'; though they do not interact in practice, they just have the same result.
Or maybe that means that a quest has partially overlapping objectives with another one...
In any case it isn't 100% clear what they mean by that.
In the end, you just make public quests, and organise them in a schema; 'chaos' can never exist, except if they introduce random results (quest A has 1/3 chance at result B / C / D when condition X is met), but I believe this will be limited for the sake of the game.
Whether you can call this 'innovative' is a matter of opinion, going by the definitions of some people here it doesn't seem to be the case, but you can believe whatever you want of course; it's not like innovation is a requirement for a game to be good.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
That is exactly why I will forever be an Arenanet fan. Before them innovation came in midget baby steps - not normal baby-steps midget baby-steps. It was like watching biological evolution happen... in real time. Well, that's not entirely true, some games like DAoC had some fairly major innovations (RvR in their case). But that was it, everything else was pretty status-quo about it. I think/hope that era is over now and we will see games not with one major evolutionary step but several at a time.
Innovation can be incremental or a radical change. Innovation doesn't have to be unique, it is just change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovation