Actually, I would say that GW2 is doing a LOT better job with the lore than most MMORPGs. You might not be familiar with it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. They've done all kinds of interesting things with the lore too, like putting secret references to GW1, hiding information and secret events, and even writing signs all over the game using different alphabets that are actually translatable.
In fact, just offhand, I can't think of anything that actually is inconsistent. Just because nobody knows why people are fighting in the Mists yet doesn't mean it's inconsistent, it just means we have insufficient information to judge one way or the other.
Is there any place I can read about it? Also, is there some kind of driving force for the game? Like, some progression?
I can't help but think that all these things were thought as "something cool we could do", and then the lore was implemented for them afterwards to justify their existence.
I dunno, one of darkponies thorns in the side is the fact that there is not open world PVP. It has been centuries since Guildwars and there is a common enemy, but I do think there was more Lore being manipulated to justify their *everyone loves each other* PVE worlds, then gameplay reflecting the reality they're trying to push on us.
While I see the above, I also don't see them doing something just for it's coolness factor. They have done a lot of work on the story side, and I don't see them being the kind of people that would do that very often.
This is probably the single biggest mischaracterization of the game I've seen, yet it's one that is continually trotted out by folks who generally want to play another game.
This everyone loves each other nonesense is pure hyperbole. There is no love between the humans and charr, there's a barely maintained peace. There is no love between charr and norn, there's grudging respect. There's no love between the norn and the sylvari, just a lot of head scratching. And finally, there is no love between the asura and ANYONE, but there is a lot of dismissiveness, arrogance, ridicule and poorly masked derision.
Because every race isn't at every other race's throats, isn't as a result of love. Try pragmatism, logic and survival instinct. Hell, the races sometimes can barely keep their weapons sheathed over internal conflicts. Yet the erroneous accusations that Tyria is actually a fantasy version of Haight Ashbury, circa 1967, persist. Give it up.
By the way, this is all based on Tyrian lore.
You'll notice that I put it into *.* It's ridiculous to think that there is absolutely no PvP going on in the open world and that there is only Mists fighting between (edit: playable) races. Plain and simple. They're forcing people to play friends with a race that, lore wise, this type of behavior would be normal, even with an alliance IMO. Now like I said in previous posts in this very convo, it's not all about Rainbow and Butterflies, but it is a little nonsensical to believe that there is no PvP in Tyria.
So would you prefer the lore to have been much more Rainbows and Butterflies so that the rationale for cooperative PvE is stronger? I'm guessing no. And the reason I think is because it's not the lore that bothers you, it's the game's cooperative nature. Which is why I wrote that 'lovefest' comments are often made by people who are wanting to play a different game.
I think it's safe to assume that it doesn't matter how fleshed out the storyline is, how intricately woven and detailed it is, how grounded in logic it is, some people just won't accept it because it doesn't support the game mechanics they want. I mean, using your rationale, there really can be no such thing as a game without open-world PvP because it's a little nonsensical to believe that there is no conflict between players in *any world*. If a game doesn't reflect that (like GW2), then it's doing something wrong. No amount of prose or poetry will change that, so why even bother complaining about the lore? The beef is with the lack of open-world PvP.
...?
I like GW2, but I'm not going to just blindly defend against a valid point someone else brings up. You must have me confused with someone else or happen to be raging at the moment, because your whole response to me is completely off almost everything I've written about GW2 on here.
I really don't mind that it won't have open-world PvP, I think most of the time that kind of combat is worthless and tends to only involve greifers. What I don't agree with is people coming onto the forums and defending GW2's no open world PvP as making complete sense when you bring in Lore, it just doesn't. Not saying it's a bad game or people are retarded, it just deosn't make sense, but that's how it is.
Better than coming up with lore, then shoddily slapping gameplay mechanisms on to try and match it.
There's not an MMO in the world that has lore even approaching a good book. Gameplay is really, really, really important in an MMORPG. I mean, that's what you're doing. Gameplay. You don't think there's any game out there that occupies people for thousands of hours purely off of the value of the lore, do you?
I actually wonder about that.
I don't think there's ever been a game that really put lore on the #1 seat.
The mindset has generally been:
Rape the lore without using any lube.
Rape the lore with lube first and then rape the gameplay with lube.
#1 is what most games do and has worked pretty damn well for some fun games, but as you say there's been nothing approaching book quality.
#2 has been tried a few times but generally hasn't been very succesful at all.
I'd like to see how a game that rapes the gameplay without lube but does have a truly brilliant, interactive story in it ( interactive meaning that it's still a game with choices and such, not a movie with WASD controls. ) A game that doesn't rely on moment-to-moment gameplay. Actually has boring moment-to-moment gameplay but has such an amazing story that you keep playing just to find out what happens next. And then replaying again and again to find out what happens if you just did something slightly diffirent.
We are the bunny. Resistance is futile. ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\ ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o) (")("),,(")("),(")(")
I'd like to see how a game that rapes the gameplay without lube but does have a truly brilliant, interactive story in it ( interactive meaning that it's still a game with choices and such, not a movie with WASD controls. ) A game that doesn't rely on moment-to-moment gameplay. Actually has boring moment-to-moment gameplay but has such an amazing story that you keep playing just to find out what happens next. And then replaying again and again to find out what happens if you just did something slightly diffirent.
I actually thought that's what most RPGs are. (Note, I didn't say MMORPGs)
I mean, who plays an RPG for the combat system? I'd say most RPGs have pretty much completely crappy game systems.
I've been told Bioware fixed Mass Effect 2, but Mass Effect and Dragon Age Origins just didn't do it for me gameplay wise. The gameplay was there, it was strictly functional, but it wasn't... good.
... and JRPGs are even more so story over gameplay. (Though not many of them boast about you having a lot of choices, and a lot of people dont' like the story, that doesn't mean that isn't the focus...) I mean, the combat system in 95% of them is 'attack, magic, item, run', and is completely interchangable with other games.
The concept of fighting in the mist began in the original gw. It started with people from different alternate reality trying to prove their worthiness to the god of tyria. By dominating for your server you'll get server wide buff and access to certain dungeon for your server.
I don't know how it fits in with lore and I don't think 90% of players care. We only care that it's fun.
Exactly. As long as it's fun and involving PvP then I could give a rat's a$$ about the lore surrounding the Mist. If they explain it within the game then that would be great but the fact that I would be able to kill 100s of players, from 2 other servers at a time, is more important that the reasons why.
I think when they release all the info on the WvW pvp if the lore they provvide isn't good enough for you then you can either not do it or you can just make something up if you really need a reason to go kill other players.
I'm hoping it's really fun because no amount of lore is going to get me to pvp if it isn't.
Actually, I would say that GW2 is doing a LOT better job with the lore than most MMORPGs. You might not be familiar with it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. They've done all kinds of interesting things with the lore too, like putting secret references to GW1, hiding information and secret events, and even writing signs all over the game using different alphabets that are actually translatable.
In fact, just offhand, I can't think of anything that actually is inconsistent. Just because nobody knows why people are fighting in the Mists yet doesn't mean it's inconsistent, it just means we have insufficient information to judge one way or the other.
Is there any place I can read about it? Also, is there some kind of driving force for the game? Like, some progression?
I can't help but think that all these things were thought as "something cool we could do", and then the lore was implemented for them afterwards to justify their existence.
I dunno, one of darkponies thorns in the side is the fact that there is not open world PVP. It has been centuries since Guildwars and there is a common enemy, but I do think there was more Lore being manipulated to justify their *everyone loves each other* PVE worlds, then gameplay reflecting the reality they're trying to push on us.
While I see the above, I also don't see them doing something just for it's coolness factor. They have done a lot of work on the story side, and I don't see them being the kind of people that would do that very often.
This is probably the single biggest mischaracterization of the game I've seen, yet it's one that is continually trotted out by folks who generally want to play another game.
This everyone loves each other nonesense is pure hyperbole. There is no love between the humans and charr, there's a barely maintained peace. There is no love between charr and norn, there's grudging respect. There's no love between the norn and the sylvari, just a lot of head scratching. And finally, there is no love between the asura and ANYONE, but there is a lot of dismissiveness, arrogance, ridicule and poorly masked derision.
Because every race isn't at every other race's throats, isn't as a result of love. Try pragmatism, logic and survival instinct. Hell, the races sometimes can barely keep their weapons sheathed over internal conflicts. Yet the erroneous accusations that Tyria is actually a fantasy version of Haight Ashbury, circa 1967, persist. Give it up.
By the way, this is all based on Tyrian lore.
You'll notice that I put it into *.* It's ridiculous to think that there is absolutely no PvP going on in the open world and that there is only Mists fighting between (edit: playable) races. Plain and simple. They're forcing people to play friends with a race that, lore wise, this type of behavior would be normal, even with an alliance IMO. Now like I said in previous posts in this very convo, it's not all about Rainbow and Butterflies, but it is a little nonsensical to believe that there is no PvP in Tyria.
So would you prefer the lore to have been much more Rainbows and Butterflies so that the rationale for cooperative PvE is stronger? I'm guessing no. And the reason I think is because it's not the lore that bothers you, it's the game's cooperative nature. Which is why I wrote that 'lovefest' comments are often made by people who are wanting to play a different game.
I think it's safe to assume that it doesn't matter how fleshed out the storyline is, how intricately woven and detailed it is, how grounded in logic it is, some people just won't accept it because it doesn't support the game mechanics they want. I mean, using your rationale, there really can be no such thing as a game without open-world PvP because it's a little nonsensical to believe that there is no conflict between players in *any world*. If a game doesn't reflect that (like GW2), then it's doing something wrong. No amount of prose or poetry will change that, so why even bother complaining about the lore? The beef is with the lack of open-world PvP.
...?
I like GW2, but I'm not going to just blindly defend against a valid point someone else brings up. You must have me confused with someone else or happen to be raging at the moment, because your whole response to me is completely off almost everything I've written about GW2 on here.
I really don't mind that it won't have open-world PvP, I think most of the time that kind of combat is worthless and tends to only involve greifers. What I don't agree with is people coming onto the forums and defending GW2's no open world PvP as making complete sense when you bring in Lore, it just doesn't. Not saying it's a bad game or people are retarded, it just deosn't make sense, but that's how it is.
GW2 does have open world PVP,the mists are open world they are not an instance,anyone can travel to them at any level.
“The other thing that I think is important and this is not a direct answer, but we have World vs. World PvP in Guild Wars 2. I think that will impact PvE as well. Which is your server shard matched up against two other servers in open world PvP. If you like Dark Age of Camelot, this is, in our minds the next evolution of that. It is something that really drove community and you care about what you are doing on a PVE and PvP side. You care about the people on the server. We think we will have those bonds because your server is matched up against two other servers. So it is just that much more important that you become friends and you bond with the players on your server. So the friends you make through PvE and Dynamic Events, those friends will carry over into World vs. World PvP. You may get out of World vs. World PvP and go back to early zones to do events with new people and help encourage them to join you in the fight for your server to take part in battles and beat the other two. We expect large strong communities on each server and I think PvP will end up affecting PvE because people will work together.” -Colin Johanson (Lead Content Designer)
To me, it makes perfect sense that people do not war against each other in Tyria. The missing component is "Wtf are the other worlds?"
Why would these races who have come to be allies, even if they are shaky, constantly battle with each other when the choices are "Annihilation by Dragon or Teamwork" in the face of the greatest threat the world has even known? There is most certainly a lore reason for restricting combat to arena and the Mists. It is likely a crime to attack one another, though I will agree you should be able to make the choice to break the law or not. Fact is, your character isn't crafted from an infant to an adult - they already have things pre-programmed into them, some of these things - can and probably do follow the laws your character abides by.
But that leaves the question... who are the other people you are warring with? Are they technically running under the guise of people from other places in the world? Or are they really "Dimensional Travelers warring against your fort in the mists"
People think it's fun to pretend your a monster. Me I spend my life pretending I'm not. - Dexter Morgan
About 30 years or so ago a great wizard found a way to look into other worlds. During this time, his only son became sick and died. He was so grief stricken that he used his device to cross over into one of the other worlds and took that world's version of his son. Unfortunantly he did not understand what would happen by doing this and set into motion events that would eventually destroy all of the worlds. At first nothing happened, and then over time the worlds start seeing glimpses of each other, and eventually the mists opened. Periodically, three worlds will connect to each other through the mists. Each side believes that the only way to save their world is to destroy the others, so they go to war. What they don't realize is that destroying the other worlds will do nothing, and in fact will destroy all of the worlds.
About 30 years or so ago a great wizard found a way to look into other worlds. During this time, his only son became sick and died. He was so grief stricken that he used his device to cross over into one of the other worlds and took that world's version of his son. Unfortunantly he did not understand what would happen by doing this and set into motion events that would eventually destroy all of the worlds. At first nothing happened, and then over time the worlds start seeing glimpses of each other, and eventually the mists opened. Periodically, three worlds will connect to each other through the mists. Each side believes that the only way to save their world is to destroy the others, so they go to war. What they don't realize is that destroying the other worlds will do nothing, and in fact will destroy all of the worlds.
Haha at first I thought you were talking about Fringe. Except for the wizard.
The only reason is to obtain great rewards/blessings of the gods in GW1.
Since all races are fighting for survival in GW2, it makes a lot less sense to be fighting.
Basically, I'll use the WoW term for it.
LoLore. There is no real reason that fits in with GW2.
At certain points, you just have to suspend the lore for gameplay. Getting bent out of shape trying to defend a game about a certain area is silly.
Hey guys, I have a lightsaber, it one shots people IRL. Why can't it do that in the game?
Hey, I shot that guy with an arrow in the chest. I hurled a giant meteor from the sky on that dude. I shot that guy four times in the chest and he hit me in the head once and I died first.
Comments
...?
I like GW2, but I'm not going to just blindly defend against a valid point someone else brings up. You must have me confused with someone else or happen to be raging at the moment, because your whole response to me is completely off almost everything I've written about GW2 on here.
I really don't mind that it won't have open-world PvP, I think most of the time that kind of combat is worthless and tends to only involve greifers. What I don't agree with is people coming onto the forums and defending GW2's no open world PvP as making complete sense when you bring in Lore, it just doesn't. Not saying it's a bad game or people are retarded, it just deosn't make sense, but that's how it is.
I actually wonder about that.
I don't think there's ever been a game that really put lore on the #1 seat.
The mindset has generally been:
Rape the lore without using any lube.
Rape the lore with lube first and then rape the gameplay with lube.
#1 is what most games do and has worked pretty damn well for some fun games, but as you say there's been nothing approaching book quality.
#2 has been tried a few times but generally hasn't been very succesful at all.
I'd like to see how a game that rapes the gameplay without lube but does have a truly brilliant, interactive story in it ( interactive meaning that it's still a game with choices and such, not a movie with WASD controls. ) A game that doesn't rely on moment-to-moment gameplay. Actually has boring moment-to-moment gameplay but has such an amazing story that you keep playing just to find out what happens next. And then replaying again and again to find out what happens if you just did something slightly diffirent.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
Pretty much. Don't want to? He won't force you.
I actually thought that's what most RPGs are. (Note, I didn't say MMORPGs)
I mean, who plays an RPG for the combat system? I'd say most RPGs have pretty much completely crappy game systems.
I've been told Bioware fixed Mass Effect 2, but Mass Effect and Dragon Age Origins just didn't do it for me gameplay wise. The gameplay was there, it was strictly functional, but it wasn't... good.
... and JRPGs are even more so story over gameplay. (Though not many of them boast about you having a lot of choices, and a lot of people dont' like the story, that doesn't mean that isn't the focus...) I mean, the combat system in 95% of them is 'attack, magic, item, run', and is completely interchangable with other games.
The concept of fighting in the mist began in the original gw. It started with people from different alternate reality trying to prove their worthiness to the god of tyria. By dominating for your server you'll get server wide buff and access to certain dungeon for your server.
I don't know how it fits in with lore and I don't think 90% of players care. We only care that it's fun.
Exactly. As long as it's fun and involving PvP then I could give a rat's a$$ about the lore surrounding the Mist. If they explain it within the game then that would be great but the fact that I would be able to kill 100s of players, from 2 other servers at a time, is more important that the reasons why.
I think when they release all the info on the WvW pvp if the lore they provvide isn't good enough for you then you can either not do it or you can just make something up if you really need a reason to go kill other players.
I'm hoping it's really fun because no amount of lore is going to get me to pvp if it isn't.
GW2 does have open world PVP,the mists are open world they are not an instance,anyone can travel to them at any level.
“The other thing that I think is important and this is not a direct answer, but we have World vs. World PvP in Guild Wars 2. I think that will impact PvE as well. Which is your server shard matched up against two other servers in open world PvP. If you like Dark Age of Camelot, this is, in our minds the next evolution of that. It is something that really drove community and you care about what you are doing on a PVE and PvP side. You care about the people on the server. We think we will have those bonds because your server is matched up against two other servers. So it is just that much more important that you become friends and you bond with the players on your server. So the friends you make through PvE and Dynamic Events, those friends will carry over into World vs. World PvP. You may get out of World vs. World PvP and go back to early zones to do events with new people and help encourage them to join you in the fight for your server to take part in battles and beat the other two. We expect large strong communities on each server and I think PvP will end up affecting PvE because people will work together.” -Colin Johanson (Lead Content Designer)
http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Jesus/Jesus.htm
To me, it makes perfect sense that people do not war against each other in Tyria. The missing component is "Wtf are the other worlds?"
Why would these races who have come to be allies, even if they are shaky, constantly battle with each other when the choices are "Annihilation by Dragon or Teamwork" in the face of the greatest threat the world has even known? There is most certainly a lore reason for restricting combat to arena and the Mists. It is likely a crime to attack one another, though I will agree you should be able to make the choice to break the law or not. Fact is, your character isn't crafted from an infant to an adult - they already have things pre-programmed into them, some of these things - can and probably do follow the laws your character abides by.
But that leaves the question... who are the other people you are warring with? Are they technically running under the guise of people from other places in the world? Or are they really "Dimensional Travelers warring against your fort in the mists"
People think it's fun to pretend your a monster. Me I spend my life pretending I'm not. - Dexter Morgan
Let me try to explain it as I understand it.
About 30 years or so ago a great wizard found a way to look into other worlds. During this time, his only son became sick and died. He was so grief stricken that he used his device to cross over into one of the other worlds and took that world's version of his son. Unfortunantly he did not understand what would happen by doing this and set into motion events that would eventually destroy all of the worlds. At first nothing happened, and then over time the worlds start seeing glimpses of each other, and eventually the mists opened. Periodically, three worlds will connect to each other through the mists. Each side believes that the only way to save their world is to destroy the others, so they go to war. What they don't realize is that destroying the other worlds will do nothing, and in fact will destroy all of the worlds.
Haha at first I thought you were talking about Fringe. Except for the wizard.
The only reason is to obtain great rewards/blessings of the gods in GW1.
Since all races are fighting for survival in GW2, it makes a lot less sense to be fighting.
Basically, I'll use the WoW term for it.
LoLore. There is no real reason that fits in with GW2.
At certain points, you just have to suspend the lore for gameplay. Getting bent out of shape trying to defend a game about a certain area is silly.
Hey guys, I have a lightsaber, it one shots people IRL. Why can't it do that in the game?
Hey, I shot that guy with an arrow in the chest. I hurled a giant meteor from the sky on that dude. I shot that guy four times in the chest and he hit me in the head once and I died first.
Calm down or get over it YO.
Screw lore, just gimme some faces to melt.