Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Guild Wars 2: Injecting Role-Playing into Tyria
SBFord
Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
MMORPG.com writer Bill Murphy has some interesting observations about how role-playing, arguably missing from many MMORPGs these days, will actually have a fighting chance of success in Guild Wars 2. ArenaNet is giving players the chance to breathe life into their characters and to meaningfully alter the world around them. Read it and then give us your thoughts.
BioWare has long been considered the leader in creating personality for the player-character in its single-player games. Through dialog choices and actions, games like Mass Effect and Dragon Age let you interact with the world and shape how the NPC inhabitants will see you. None of this ever really has a huge effect on the game’s outcome, but it allows a certain level of player-driven character building that’s welcome and indeed an integral part of an RPG. It’s not surprising then that BioWare hopes to bring this to its forthcoming MMORPG. What is more surprising however is that ArenaNet seems to be taking a stab at it themselves in the forthcoming sequel to Guild Wars.
Read more Injecting Role Playing into Tyria.
Comments
I think storyline MMOs are a step backwards after all in terms of gameplay. They enforce instancing and linear path even more than quests do. I disagree with the whole "everyone wants to be a hero" mentality, because if everyone is a hero, no one is. If GW2 storyline can be finished in three days, and there's nothing left to do, bleh, I'd really prefer it to have kill x quests (no, having a quest to kill 10 mobs ISN'T grind).
Roleplaying should be made by players, not forced upon you by your character creation and "choices" (yeah, what choice is it, be good guy and take the reward or be a bad guy and get no reward and you lose the chances to follow up the quest chain)
I think this is excellent as long as it is optional. You shouldn't really force players to roleplay and do similar things but it is great if those who wants to have the options.
If on the other hand someone just want to PvP or group play instead that should also be an option. MMOs should be all about freedom and while you can argue that a Dragon age styled campaign isn't freedom it really is if you can choose not to.
I hope GW2 walk that way unlike TOR who forces this kind of plot.
I will play this campaign at least with my first character but I am not sure I will with several alts, if I have the option to ignore it, that is.
I really would like to hear something official about this even though what I seen so far suggest that most of this is optional, 'cept that centaur tutorial.
I really don't see how you are forced into the type of choices that are presented to you. It would be impossible to roleplay with the NPCs, to have them react to the choices you've made. I think they've made it clear it is not black and white, no definite good guy or absolute bad guy. Unlike WoW, when you choose your race, you are not split between two sides. You do not have to follow your " personal storyline". You've go the freedom to roam around the world. This is something they mentioned in the demo.
Playing now: Cities: Skyline / Ori and the Blind Forest / Banished
I don't think it's as much 'roleplay' as it is added story/quest immersion by adding (singleplayer) RPG elements.
Because that's what's being done, in SW:TOR as well as in GW2 and other story quest-heavy MMO's.
Besides that, it's the eternal argument between the people who see quests as nothing but a means to reach level cap, and the people who see quests as a means for added immersion and connection with the MMO world.
You see now a number of MMO companies who're investing in that connection by deepening and personalising the quest component and in an extended way the story they're telling with it: by nature the second group of MMO gamers will be more happy with this than the first group.
If it's successful depends on a lot of factors, but especially how free you are in your choices to play the MMO.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
In some ways the back story goes against RP as does the personal storyline, true RP is about the freedom to be who you really want to be with no constraints. The personal storyline and back story will force a story on you, one that may not suit how you envision your character in the world.
For people who like RP in smaller doses (like myself) it's a good kick start in to developing a character, I think a lot of people who normally wouldn't have bothered will find themselves becoming attached to their characters place in the world and choose to expand on it.
It has been stated that choices with your characters personality will NOT exclude you from any content, it is only about how NPC's react, they'll still give you that quest, sell you that armour but they aren't going to do it with a smile if you've arrived in town with a bad reputation.
It's unfortunate that people believe the level grind is the correct way to go. I feel disconnected to all MMOs so far, but everytime I play say Fallout 3 I can feel my heart beating faster and faster as the enemy sounds like it's getting closer and closer. I get chills from looking at it just because the storyline and lore and just so well thought out. MMO's could use a dose of story. They're not just a chain of quests but instead it feels like there is a reason to do it. I don't even stay to listen to the quests in any game but well thought out quests also mean that the world is more fleshed out and can be seen in the graphical details placed through out the world. Those that are only providing a world in which to kill x monsters for no good reason shows a huge lack of world detail.
Also remember, this is completely my point of view and I will not ever look in these comments again so anything said to me will be for all intents and purposes will be ignored.
I rather agree with this. (Edit- with the linear progression somethign has been lost, however, storylines are good).
Interestingly, GW2 has some open world story tellign via its dynamic quest line. While some maysay this is not real story line, they would be correct as its not a line but a cause and effect open world experience. I think more questing/storyline in mmos should occur as such. ATM it seems beyond dev.s abilities but in the future i can see it happening (just takes someone with the correct vision and know how to make a presitant world that tells a story area by area without the traditional themepark quest list).
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
RPGs have lost multiplayer functionality, whilst MMORPGs keep roleplaying as far away as possible, under the cheers of approval from their audience.
Good times, good times.
I do not play single player RPGS but the way characters are developed in that manner does interest me. I hope Guild Wars 2 can do it well and fit it with the MMO mechanic.
It's entirely OPTIONAL!
It has been said that you can level to 80 without touching the personal story aspect of the game at all! You can stick to the persistent world's dynamic events or even fight in World vs World PvP battles from the start and for infinity. The storyline and RPG aspects just make the entire game much more rich and deep. You can play however you want, ignore some aspects of the game and still have a lot of stuff to do. This is what makes GW2 sooo good.
Cant wait to play the personal story. But i think i even may try out Role-Playing too.
Agreed. Mixing things isn't bad as long as it doesn't force you to do certain things. Don't want it just play in the dynamic world or the mists instead.
TOR is aiming a lot more on this and less on group actions/open world and that is rather dangerous. That is a big risk to turn the game into a sologame only.
A good MMO have always have solo and group play. Open world and instances have also been included even if not as long and I think a good MMO needs a bit of all those things.
No soloplay and you turn off many players and make certain hours hard, I work night and at times I just can't get any players for a PUG or something. On the other hand do too much soloplay turn the game away from that MMO part and turn the game into Dragon age or Diablo instead. No instances means that if you play top hours dungeons will be overcrowded while too many instances also take away the massive from the game.
I see it as 2 different sliders. Solo-Group (I want about 60-70% group action in a game). open world-Instances (I want 70-80% open world and the rest instances). GW2 seems to be about right to my taste. Not all will be happy with that, FF XI have almost no soloplay. GW have no open zones.
You can't please everyone but this seems good to me at least.
I sense your positive marketing spin. How is this different from standard faction point mechanics? Didn't for example EverQuest 2 have the same global good/evil setup?
Because merchants will run and hide behind their shops if you are barbaric. Nothing innovative, but still a nice touch. Also, if you have done something REALLY great, like taking back a city single-handedly, the city folk will adress you as such. "That's the fella who took back BlahCity" They point and praise you as you walk by. Just a nice touch IMO.
Fitting that they included a picture of a minotaur looking thing enjoying some Goldshire level 'roleplay' with one of those shambling flesh and skulls creatures in an article talking about the state of roleplay these days.
It's obvious you know little about GW2 and its development. Fact is, GW2 is doing what other MMO's have wanted to do, tried and failed.
GW2 does to not force a storyline upon you. You can chose to play it like your "traditional MMO" and skip the storyline completely. You won't be penilized.
GW2 offers a storyline that many, many people have been craving for years in MMOs.
Also to presume their will be no content post-storyline is ludicrous.
It's a game of leveling, zoning, and instances. While this idea is a good one, it won't overcome that game design. It would have been great in a "Sandbox" game without extremes in power gaps such as the class movies show will be "in", where there's one world that players interact in instead of instances, and where you aren't driven from zone to zone.
Once upon a time....
Diablo is more of a multiplayer experience than half the MMORPGs out there where you just grind to max level alone just because it's more efficient. Grouping in MMOs before cap has become a royal pain in the a**. I don't see why not get a proper story cause I will be soloing to cap anyway as will most MMO players.
WoW has servers devoted to Role Playing...i am not really sure how they do...
EVe has a dedicated system that people enjoy Roleplaying in...and they also have Active Newscasts..and great fan fiction
In both of these cases I would assume that their success is determined by the players want and or need to RP, not Blizz or CCP
Currently Play: ?
Occasionally Play: Champions, Pirates of the Burning Sea, WOW, EVE ONLINE
I agree with most of what you're saying. I believe these games need to become much more actively immersive. The world has to be affected by players, not this typcal spawn points that re-spawn within X-minutes. The npc critter populations need to be affected by player action/in-action. This opens up a whole possible system of quests that makes people more responsible for whats going on in the world. I know there was (?) a company working on a title that would have this kind of system. npc in x village wants you to go kill off some undead, if no one killed them off (or not enough) the population would grow and they would eventually come attack (possibly even destroy) the town. Play actions/in-actions would have real consequences. This makes things alot more interesting in my opinion. I don't want to follow the same linear quest line as everyone else, or even all my "class"/race, etc. Things need to be individual, personal.
The WoW servers for RP are just the same as non RP servers to be honest.
I think this is great and it doesn't make the MMO anymore linear than leveling up. It just adds a story to it. Throwing in dynamic events also proves that it will not be too linear so there is plenty of MMO stuff to do. This is just another of the many layers of Guild Wars 2.
It's a step forward for sure.
Saker, I encourage you to read up on ArenaNet's Dynamic Event system. Most of what you are requesting for an MMO experience is in place (no "typical spawn points that respawn in X minutes", if nobody kills the creatures attacking a village, the village will be lost, etc.) in Guild Wars 2. I also encourage you to read about the Personal Storyline system in GW2. These are both readily available from the Guild Wars 2 website.
There is no single race storyline, no single class storyline in Guild Wars 2. Two Norn Warriors can have two wildly branching storylines based on the choices the player makes at character creation and beyond.
As for whether there should be a dev-imposed storyline in MMORPGS or not, I think there's room for both options, as there's nothing in the acronym that designates how the RPG experience need be delivered. I don't like single-player RPGs because I want to play with my friends, but I do like the story experience that can be found in single-player RPGs. So if ArenaNet (and BioWare) want to bring that experience to a multi-player vehicle, they speak to my heart and I am all for trying out their titles. What they propose is exactly what I want in a game.
I love chocolate cake without chocolate. I like my macroni and cheese with no cheese. How stupid does that sound? Thats about as crazy as a few people on here sound. MMO... RPG. You can shorten it all day long but like your litle brother its still going to follow.
The early MMOs, based on HUDs, had really good amounts of role playing, and for some reason it was all but abandoned as the genre only adhered to a specific type of gamer. A type of gamer too unforseeing that they dont realize that a game without story will quickly tire. You want to know why there are so many people who just jump from MMO, to MMO, its because the game does not sustain them anymore. There's no reason to play.
GW2 and Old Republic has revised a lot of real role players interests in checking them out.
Story optional? I hope not. IT's far too easy to make it option for the player who doesnt care. Just forward through the cut scenes or go back to the game and grind away at x things all day.
Also, I think many of you are failing to understand wht the efintion of role playing is in a console/computer game. It is not like tabletop role playing (which role playing servers attempt to do, and do poorly in every mmo i've ever tried). Console rpging is what the article said, its not "pretending" you are the player. It is being immersed in that players story and making choices for that player that effect his life or adventure. These choices are limited, because its a game with a finite amount of options. It's these choices that creates the "RPG" computer or console game.
In modern MMOs, there is no choice. Your weapon and armor choice is usually chosen by what is "best", not what is best for the situation. Everyone has the same quests, and there's a lack of reaility as to why in my RPG world I have killed the centaur village and yet they still exist 10 minutes later because it must respawn for the next player.
If anything pvp should be optional. It's areal silly part of mmos that only relates to a certain type of gamer that would probably be beter off playing a first person shooter than a... wait for it... role playing game. This above all is the most non-rpging thing games include. I've never read 1 book, out of the 100s of fantasy books i've read, where one supposed good adventuring party or person would ever attack or kill another. This should be relagated to minigames and selected instances.
I'm of the complete opposite spectrum, I think more needs to be forced on me during my MMO experience. That's what separates an MMO from an RPG to me, at least the biggest underlining factor behind the separation. Forced scenarios create more tension as well as a greater scense of immersion (at least IMO). Forced PVP as an example, without forced PVP, I get very little thrill out of current MMO models. It just doesn't feel like there is anything to fear within the game world.
Where TOR and GW will possibly change that, is by forcing me to care about what's happening on the PVE side of things. As it can have an effect on my overall experience. I just hope they succeed in making me care.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson