Based on EVERYTHING I have seen about them they are BARELY different than Public Quests.
your everything is nothing really. DE's scale and are spawned randomly. once the chain of one event begins, it links into other chains. did i mention they scale?
How do they scale?
More mobs? Tougher mobs? Better rewards?
Guess what?
WAR's PQ's do that too.
Anything else?
GW2 DE's do get more mobs, tougher mobs and give you better rewards.
Your comment on PQ's in WAR scaling is complete BS and was pulled out of your ass. PQ's are completely static in nature. No scaling whatsoever.
Could be wrong, but I was certain Mythic had patched PQ's to be more dynamic.
Even then - Heloooo Rift! Rifts scale? Yep! Are they boring after a while? Sure.
But...wait a sec...there's those whole Zone Quests thing that Rift has too....hmmm, those scale as well? What's this? GW 2 isn't doing anything special! Gasp!
And even then these things are never actually dynamic. They set PC thresholds and when a certain threshold is crossed, the difficulty increases. But...wait a sec, what's this I'm sensing?
GW 2 doesn't have tanks or healers? Then how are elite and boss mobs going to work? They aren't or Anet is lying about dedicated healers? Gasp!
Really pay attention to this last part while watching the DE video on youtube. That thief is destroyed constantly by what are supposedly elite mobs. Either they didn't have a tank or the game just doesn't have any. So if they DO have tanks then said tanks had better be able to withstand CRAP loads of damage since there aren't any dedicated healers.
Wait a sec...what's that? That would horribly unbalance PvP? Nahhh....tanks that can self healer and tank crap loads of damage couldn't possibly unbalance pvp.....
Wow you obviously, obviously, and again obviously are not informed on what you speak of. First of all, PQ's did not scale in WAR. Second of all you keep comparing GW2 DE's to Rift's Rifts. However, Rift is limited to the elements, and the elements are limited to the elemental type of mobs they spawn per stage. These do not change at all, if you have a certain invasion, you are going to see the same types of mobs all over the zone from that element. Yet, in GW2 each DE is gonna have story going along with it, there will be measures of lore going on depending on races and zones. The whole event will change and actually ripple out into the world if you fail or succeed, when in Rift or WAR if you fail you fail. There will be differing encounters all over that constantly change so it will be completely different. Also, the more players that come, the bosses don't just up in dmg, not all difficulty is just scaled in dmg..... That is just the way things are scaled in a tank and healer's world... In GW2 the bosses will gain new abilities that they can use when there are more players present, that make them harder to handle, and there isn't one character in the game that can sit there and take a bosses dmg. If anyone tries to tank a boss for a full fight, they will die. People are going to have to coordinate together and switch off being in the line of fire, use support abilities to block boss attacks, be careful about when they go in to take dmg., keep an eye on their own health, maybe use a group regenerative ability. There will be no tanks, and no dedicated healers. It will be a group coordinated event, with people changes roles on the fly. Not inbetween combat like in Rift, but in combat at all times... Go read some more before you spew nonsense as fact. You don't see me talking up a storm about SWTOR's mechanics when I know little to none.
So...let me tell those out there who don't have perspective exactly why WAR PQs are different from GW2 DEs:
The are secondary to questing, where as DEs ARE the questing...there is no other form of questing in GW2.
They are competitive in nature...you compete to do better than the others so that you can get the better reward. GW2 rewards scale as well, but the reward is based on the amount of participation. You do a little bit you get a bronze medal, you do most of the event or space out a little in the middle and you get a silver, you pllay through the whole thing you get a gold. It is easy to get a gold medal.
PQs were on timers and you could watch the countdown until the next time the PQ showed up. DEs are more random because they can be triggered by other events being finished or by players entering a certain area, or some other condition such as time 9but there is no countdown.
DEs can chain into other DEs, which one depend upon the outcome of the first DE. If you fail to help some poor farmer save his crops from flames, logical consequenses of that event take place. There isn't enough food to feed the cows...some cows die...a merchant can't ssell milk anymore...stuff like that.
DEs are meant to be done by whoever shows up, whether that be one person or a group of 10 people or even more for the bigger DEs. There ARE SOME DEs that REQUIRE a small group to complete...PQs didn't scale and couldn't really allow for this kind of thing to happen, so when a PQ was abandoned, people usually left the area.
There are about 1600 DEs in GW2...how many PQs are there in WAR?
For those who want to compare to rifts in Rift, consider that the basic rift was VERY similar to EVERY other rift out there...its not really about different types of mobs or stuff like that...they are all trying to do the same thing and for the most part you deal with is the same way. If left unattended, rifts would grow into the next stage and would be more fun...so people would just leave the basic type alone and do the second type...or so I have read. Lack of variety and lack of incentive to do these rifts meant that they were ignored so that they could grow. DEs are basically everything in the open world PvE of GW2...are you going to ignore them in favor of hunting random mobs? you could...are you going to ignore them to go exploring? By all means! you might find some hidden DEs. Are you going to ignore them because you are done with that kind of PvE content? sure...but then you would be in PvP where the game is really going to get interesting. There are DEs in WvWvW, and I am going to guess that the incentive for somebody to do those will be fairly high, as they will provide some sort of benefit in combat against other servers. DEs as a concept are quite flexible and are unlikely to creat the same kind of game that WAR has become and rift is becoming (from what I have heard).
Now...for GW2 vs SWTOR...I am not sure why people compare these 2 games...honestly...I don't really care if SWTOR does well (but I hope it does because wanting games to fail is stupid). I am a GW2 person, and I am decidedly not a starwars person.
However, I think that the main question (from the title of this thread) hasn't been properly addressed. SWTOR, from what i can tell, hasn't made any attempts to change how MMOs are played by players and I see it being mostly the same structure game as games that came before it. I am not really talking about themepark or sandbox games either. SWTOR will be played by players in much the same ways that other games are p[layed mostly because it aims to be like most of those other games (but with story and brancing paths for your character to take, but that is a bit too macro of a perspective for this topic). People are likely to play alone, unless forced to group because that is what players have done in the past. People are likely to play through the content, reach the endgame, play whatever endgame there is with groups of other people of the same level, or do PvP of one kind or another (arena or open world) or just reroll and play a different story (this is probably not typical for other MMOs). This isn't really a bad thing, except when people complain that there isn't enough content and all the middle level content gets completely ignored except for the purpose of leveling. It means that people often rush through the middle of the game to get to the end of the game because people are at the end that they want to play with. Anet's approach is a bit different.
GW2 is trying to be different than other MMOs. It ISN'T putting a bunch of instanced dungeouns near the END of the game, but rather, spreading them out through the game. GW2 will have a system in it that allows players to sidekick lower level people to a higher level area so that they can play witht there higher level friends, and it will have a way for those higher level people to explore lower level areas without being over powered (reverse sidekicking). People aren't going to be as limited in what areas they can play because of their level and are more likely to go explore regions that they didn't get to explore though thir personal story, though, to be honest, the liklelyhood that people just go straight to PvP is just as high as in other games...PvP is awesome. GW2 has a form of PvP which Anet is hoping will allow for players on a server to get to know there own server and create a community that has more connections than a random group of solo players on a server walking past each other except when they are together in small groups.
That is my answer to this thread.
I used to TL;DR, but then I took a bullet point to the footnote.
I totally agree. It's one of the biggest beefs I have with GW2. IMO, if you aren't forced to travel in some way, then it doesn't feel like immersion. Popping in and out of places you've already visited makes it feel more like an arcade game than an MMO.
Hate to break it to you, but teleporting is a method of travel.
Also, people in GW2 have teleporters. So technically them teleporting around ADDS to immersion, the same way watching somebody teleport when you're watching Star Trek does.
Is TOR doing anything regarding making it easier for people to play with eachother?
In wow for example it's really hard to say play with an irl friend unless both of you only play those characters together never solo. He won't be able to do your quests if you soloed a bit and redoing quests without actually redoing the quest is sub optimal for immersion and fun not to mention if theres enough soloing by one person content will turn grey penalizing both.
I totally agree. It's one of the biggest beefs I have with GW2. IMO, if you aren't forced to travel in some way, then it doesn't feel like immersion. Popping in and out of places you've already visited makes it feel more like an arcade game than an MMO.
Hate to break it to you, but teleporting is a method of travel.
Also, people in GW2 have teleporters. So technically them teleporting around ADDS to immersion, the same way watching somebody teleport when you're watching Star Trek does.
Hate to break it to you, but I already know that teleporting is a method of travel. First off, this isn't Star Trek. Even in Star Trek, 99% of the time people teleported from ships (in the tv show), not from anywhere by touching a map.Second, there is a big difference using means of travel, having a toon with the ability to taxi to certain spots (like mages), or hubs that allow instant travel to certain destinations once you get to the hub then everyone being able to travel at will to any place they have traveled by popping in and out. To me, its an immersion breaking kiddy like feature. If it was in SWTOR Id say the same. I don't want everyone being like the Q in Star Trek. Fortunately, this game is looking for something a little more to my taste...which is at it is, my personal taste. I understand the advantages of what GW2 is trying to do with travel. I just don't like it.
I've heard alot of people claim that TOR isn't really a "multi-player game". IMO, that arguement is pretty much bogus as TOR is implimenting most of the group oriented things that are expected as standard in MMO's these days.
However, I personaly do feel that TOR does put more emphasis on the single player experience then is typical for most MMO's.
First and foremost, lets be blunt, making single-player RPG's is what Bioware has specialized in as a company. It's what they are known for, what they are experienced in and how they've bult thier fan base. It's almost a given, even if they set purposefully out to do something completely different that a bit of thier existing focus is going to bleed into the design of TOR. Most institutions and development houses have certain ways of doing things and it's usualy pretty hard to shed that sort of institutional bias..even when they are consciously making an effort to do so.
Secondly BIOWARE has a huge existing fan base for thier games... and they've pretty much stated that a big part of the target audience for TOR is that fan base. Those fans are going to have certain expectations of what a Bioware game should include.... and some of those features definately have design implications where the focus between group and solo play falls.
Finally, we can look at some of thier anounced features. Something as simple as setting the standard group size at 4 rather then the 5 or 6 that most other MMO's seem to settle on. Then there is the emphasis on how much the characters personal storyline plays as part of the game. It's certainly not the whole game and it's true that a player can invite thier freinds to play through most of it.... but there is no denying that it's a very large part of what Bioware talks about when describing the strengths of thier game....and even though other players can tag along....the focus on that portion of the game is clearly making the character THE STAR of it. Then we can look at other decisions, like how large a role NPC companions play in the game.
Again, I'm not trying to argue that TOR is simply a single-player game dressed up in an MMO. I'm sure there is plenty of fun and support for multi-player play in TOR. However all games have a certain scale as to what degree they emphasize single-play compared to group play.... and it's pretty clear to me which end of the scale TOR weighs in on.
I totally agree. It's one of the biggest beefs I have with GW2. IMO, if you aren't forced to travel in some way, then it doesn't feel like immersion. Popping in and out of places you've already visited makes it feel more like an arcade game than an MMO.
Hate to break it to you, but teleporting is a method of travel.
Also, people in GW2 have teleporters. So technically them teleporting around ADDS to immersion, the same way watching somebody teleport when you're watching Star Trek does.
Hate to break it to you, but I already know that teleporting is a method of travel. First off, this isn't Star Trek. Even in Star Trek, 99% of the time people teleported from ships (in the tv show), not from anywhere by touching a map.Second, there is a big difference using means of travel, having a toon with the ability to taxi to certain spots (like mages), or hubs that allow instant travel to certain destinations once you get to the hub then everyone being able to travel at will to any place they have traveled by popping in and out. To me, its an immersion breaking kiddy like feature. If it was in SWTOR Id say the same. I don't want everyone being like the Q in Star Trek. Fortunately, this game is looking for something a little more to my taste...which is at it is, my personal taste. I understand the advantages of what GW2 is trying to do with travel. I just don't like it.
I generaly dislike teleports in MMO's as well. However isn't TOR's transportation pretty much non-interactive as well (kinda like WOW's griffon rides?). It strikes me that there really isn't all that much qualitative difference between that and a teleport system. It's not like you actualy get to do anything beside watch the pretty "in flight" move while being carried from point A to point B.
I totally agree. It's one of the biggest beefs I have with GW2. IMO, if you aren't forced to travel in some way, then it doesn't feel like immersion. Popping in and out of places you've already visited makes it feel more like an arcade game than an MMO.
Hate to break it to you, but teleporting is a method of travel.
Also, people in GW2 have teleporters. So technically them teleporting around ADDS to immersion, the same way watching somebody teleport when you're watching Star Trek does.
Hate to break it to you, but I already know that teleporting is a method of travel. First off, this isn't Star Trek. Even in Star Trek, 99% of the time people teleported from ships (in the tv show), not from anywhere by touching a map.Second, there is a big difference using means of travel, having a toon with the ability to taxi to certain spots (like mages), or hubs that allow instant travel to certain destinations once you get to the hub then everyone being able to travel at will to any place they have traveled by popping in and out. To me, its an immersion breaking kiddy like feature. If it was in SWTOR Id say the same. I don't want everyone being like the Q in Star Trek. Fortunately, this game is looking for something a little more to my taste...which is at it is, my personal taste. I understand the advantages of what GW2 is trying to do with travel. I just don't like it.
I generaly dislike teleports in MMO's as well. However isn't TOR's transportation pretty much non-interactive as well (kinda like WOW's griffon rides?). It strikes me that there really isn't all that much qualitative difference between that and a teleport system. It's not like you actualy get to do anything beside watch the pretty "in flight" move while being carried from point A to point B.
I thought you just open a map, touch on the way point if you already visited it and teleport. Am I wrong?
I've heard alot of people claim that TOR isn't really a "multi-player game". IMO, that arguement is pretty much bogus as TOR is implimenting most of the group oriented things that are expected as standard in MMO's these days.
However, I personaly do feel that TOR does put more emphasis on the single player experience then is typical for most MMO's.
First and foremost, lets be blunt, making single-player RPG's is what Bioware has specialized in as a company. It's what they are known for, what they are experienced in and how they've bult thier fan base. It's almost a given, even if they set purposefully out to do something completely different that a bit of thier existing focus is going to bleed into the design of TOR. Most institutions and development houses have certain ways of doing things and it's usualy pretty hard to shed that sort of institutional bias..even when they are consciously making an effort to do so.
Secondly BIOWARE has a huge existing fan base for thier games... and they've pretty much stated that a big part of the target audience for TOR is that fan base. Those fans are going to have certain expectations of what a Bioware game should include.... and some of those features definately have design implications where the focus between group and solo play falls.
Finally, we can look at some of thier anounced features. Something as simple as setting the standard group size at 4 rather then the 5 or 6 that most other MMO's seem to settle on. Then there is the emphasis on how much the characters personal storyline plays as part of the game. It's certainly not the whole game and it's true that a player can invite thier freinds to play through most of it.... but there is no denying that it's a very large part of what Bioware talks about when describing the strengths of thier game....and even though other players can tag along....the focus on that portion of the game is clearly making the character THE STAR of it. Then we can look at other decisions, like how large a role NPC companions play in the game.
Again, I'm not trying to argue that TOR is simply a single-player game dressed up in an MMO. I'm sure there is plenty of fun and support for multi-player play in TOR. However all games have a certain scale as to what degree they emphasize single-play compared to group play.... and it's pretty clear to me which end of the scale TOR weighs in on.
There is much more to the game than your personal class story. Look at it this way. In the movies, you had personal storylines for main characters. But that personal story brought them together with others for the overall movie storyline. Erickson has said that the starter worlds will be 60% solo and 40% group. Then the origin worlds will be 40% solo and 60% group. Then higher level worlds will be 10% solo and 90% group.
TOR is being made with the movies in mind. You have your personal class story that shapes your character and builds your skill base. But each planet will have the overall world story going on at the same time. You will have to join up with other players to see this part of the game. Also, the group quests is where you will see how other classes differ from your own with unique dialogue resonses from each class. These responses are based both on their class and choices they made.
So yes, BW is using it's SPG background to make the class story arc that SPG feel. But they expand that into their muliplayer dialogue system for group play. So you have multiplayer SPG play in epic quest chains that can take many many hours. Then the largest number of quests will be the MMO generic open world quests where you can group or not. Still have the VO and dialogue wheele even for some open world quests, but they are not just solo.
So you will be "THE STAR" in your class story arc. But you will be one of many STARS banding together for the world story chains, Flashpoints, Operations, Warzones and open PvP zones.
How many people long for that "past, simpler, and better world," I wonder, without ever recognizing the truth that perhaps it was they who were simpler and better, and not the world about them? R.A.Salvatore
I think it has to do with the not seeing the inbetween parts. The going to it. Sure it might be non interactive in the sense that you are lead there and that you don't drive to it, but you still see all the rocks, mobs, trees, sarlaac pits...you get the idea.
Where as teleport it's just your at town, BAM your at the dungeon. Just seems like that sort of travel all the time would make the world feel smaller in a sense and people jump around more. Plus if they start putting teleport points next to certain areas you're likely to see people doing this
Walk out of town. Click a location on the map. See a loading screen. you are at the location. Complete the require objective (whatever it may be). Click the map location for town. Your back at town. After you've seen all the location i forsee a lot of people just jumping between points. In which case you'll see them at whatver happens to be the best way to level and get the gear/most fun DE and no where else. They wo'nt be between town, they won't be running around outside of town (outside the first time they do this).
It's really going to depend on how many teleportation locations there are as to how it will make the world feel. To me it just feels like the world can be tranversed in seconds rather then minutes and as we know with RL, with cars, planes and trains. The faster we move the less we notice and the smaller the world feels. Just my general viewpoint on it.
As for actual interactivity, no i don't think they will work any different, both will take you to different points, but again, with the transports your seeing the world and going through it, so it gives you a bigger grasp of the world the whole time and keeps it from feeling smaller.
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.
I think it has to do with the not seeing the inbetween parts. The going to it. Sure it might be non interactive in the sense that you are lead there and that you don't drive to it, but you still see all the rocks, mobs, trees, sarlaac pits...you get the idea.
Where as teleport it's just your at town, BAM your at the dungeon. Just seems like that sort of travel all the time would make the world feel smaller in a sense and people jump around more. Plus if they start putting teleport points next to certain areas you're likely to see people doing this
Walk out of town. Click a location on the map. See a loading screen. you are at the location. Complete the require objective (whatever it may be). Click the map location for town. Your back at town. After you've seen all the location i forsee a lot of people just jumping between points. In which case you'll see them at whatver happens to be the best way to level and get the gear/most fun DE and no where else. They wo'nt be between town, they won't be running around outside of town (outside the first time they do this).
It's really going to depend on how many teleportation locations there are as to how it will make the world feel. To me it just feels like the world can be tranversed in seconds rather then minutes and as we know with RL, with cars, planes and trains. The faster we move the less we notice and the smaller the world feels. Just my general viewpoint on it.
As for actual interactivity, no i don't think they will work any different, both will take you to different points, but again, with the transports your seeing the world and going through it, so it gives you a bigger grasp of the world the whole time and keeps it from feeling smaller.
I think you expressed me better than I expressed me lol.
I think it has to do with the not seeing the inbetween parts. The going to it. Sure it might be non interactive in the sense that you are lead there and that you don't drive to it, but you still see all the rocks, mobs, trees, sarlaac pits...you get the idea.
Where as teleport it's just your at town, BAM your at the dungeon. Just seems like that sort of travel all the time would make the world feel smaller in a sense and people jump around more. Plus if they start putting teleport points next to certain areas you're likely to see people doing this
Walk out of town. Click a location on the map. See a loading screen. you are at the location. Complete the require objective (whatever it may be). Click the map location for town. Your back at town. After you've seen all the location i forsee a lot of people just jumping between points. In which case you'll see them at whatver happens to be the best way to level and get the gear/most fun DE and no where else. They wo'nt be between town, they won't be running around outside of town (outside the first time they do this).
It's really going to depend on how many teleportation locations there are as to how it will make the world feel. To me it just feels like the world can be tranversed in seconds rather then minutes and as we know with RL, with cars, planes and trains. The faster we move the less we notice and the smaller the world feels. Just my general viewpoint on it.
As for actual interactivity, no i don't think they will work any different, both will take you to different points, but again, with the transports your seeing the world and going through it, so it gives you a bigger grasp of the world the whole time and keeps it from feeling smaller.
I think you expressed me better than I expressed me lol.
Don't forget that you also have companions that you can send to town to sell junk while you keep on going in addition to the "teleporting system". I see this as a positive, as it keeps you in the area of interest with questing and story. Others might see it as a negative, as the potential for social interaction is further removed as you won't visit social hubs as often.
In regards to teleportation, I think you only need to point to TER Oblivion as compared to Morrowind. Morrowind had teleports only available from the Mage Guilds. Oblivion allowed you to simply click on your map and go to any city or point of interest you had previously found. I felt such a different experience in the game when I didn't have to travel in real time. It removed the "epic" quality if you will. I simply got a quest, had the person tell me where I needed to go, used fast travel, finished quest objective, used fast travel again and got my reward. It was awful. I ended up choosing not to play using the fast travel option and instead used a horse instead.
I had the same problem with my brief stint in Vanguard a year or so ago. It's a great game in regards to the mechanics and visuals. A big downer for me though was the ease of travel using portals. Why would I want to buy a boat - which is a high level crafting item - when I can just hit a portal and get to where I want much, much faster? The novelty is very thin. For a game that is bent on the seamless visual mechanics, with no zoning or instancing, they sure made an effort to avoid making you explore it.
Sorry for the drawn out post but I agree - teleportation mechanics can really ruin game play and immersion. It's like you're watching Lord of the Rings and Gandalf and Frodo are in the Shire with the ring and Gandalf's all like "We need to destroy the ring!" and Frodo is like "Sure, how do we do that!" and Gandalf says "Well, we must journey into the realm of Mordor into the base of Mount Doom, through perilous trials, emotional loss and near starvation..." and Frodo goes "No man. I got the bind point right here...."
A different story, no doubt.
edit: with the LOTRO story at the end. couldn't resist.
I think it has to do with the not seeing the inbetween parts. The going to it. Sure it might be non interactive in the sense that you are lead there and that you don't drive to it, but you still see all the rocks, mobs, trees, sarlaac pits...you get the idea.
Where as teleport it's just your at town, BAM your at the dungeon. Just seems like that sort of travel all the time would make the world feel smaller in a sense and people jump around more. Plus if they start putting teleport points next to certain areas you're likely to see people doing this
Walk out of town. Click a location on the map. See a loading screen. you are at the location. Complete the require objective (whatever it may be). Click the map location for town. Your back at town. After you've seen all the location i forsee a lot of people just jumping between points. In which case you'll see them at whatver happens to be the best way to level and get the gear/most fun DE and no where else. They wo'nt be between town, they won't be running around outside of town (outside the first time they do this).
It's really going to depend on how many teleportation locations there are as to how it will make the world feel. To me it just feels like the world can be tranversed in seconds rather then minutes and as we know with RL, with cars, planes and trains. The faster we move the less we notice and the smaller the world feels. Just my general viewpoint on it.
As for actual interactivity, no i don't think they will work any different, both will take you to different points, but again, with the transports your seeing the world and going through it, so it gives you a bigger grasp of the world the whole time and keeps it from feeling smaller.
I think you expressed me better than I expressed me lol.
Don't forget that you also have companions that you can send to town to sell junk while you keep on going in addition to the "teleporting system". I see this as a positive, as it keeps you in the area of interest with questing and story. Others might see it as a negative, as the potential for social interaction is further removed as you won't visit social hubs as often.
In regards to teleportation, I think you only need to point to TER Oblivion as compared to Morrowind. Morrowind had teleports only available from the Mage Guilds. Oblivion allowed you to simply click on your map and go to any city or point of interest you had previously found. I felt such a different feel to the game when I didn't have to travel in real time. It removed the "epic" quality if you will. I simply got a quest, had the person tell me where I needed to go, used fast travel, finished quest objective, used fast travel again and got my reward. It was awful. I ended up choosing not to play using the fast travel option and instead used a horse instead.
I had the same problem with my brief stint in Vanguard a year or so ago. It's a great game in regards to the mechanics and visuals. A big downer for me though was the ease of travel using portals. Why would I want to buy a boat - which is a high level crafting item - when I can just hit a portal and get to where I want much, much faster? The novelty is very thin. For a game that is bent on the seamless visual mechanics, with no zoning or instancing, they sure made an effort to avoid making you explore it.
Sorry for the drawn out post but I agree - teleportation mechanics can really ruin game play and immersion.
I haven't played Oblivion all the way through yet, its on my list of To Dos after I finish Knights of the Old Republic 1 and 2. However, that travel system and the leveling of all creatures with you (without a good Mod to fix that) were the only things I disliked in the first 8 levels I played. I loved that game, I just got diverted. I'm looking forward though to getting back into it as I prepare for Skyrim hehe.
I don't think TOR will be so much instanced. But I do think a lot of players will spent the majority of their time alone! Reasons are simple.
- you have your personal story and don't want some douchebags screw it up
- you are being used to be alone in story so you will continue solo as habit
- I havn't seen any built around social hubs, instead a linear pass through from a to b to c similar as in WAR, so people have no fallback hub for all players to meet and greet
- as far as we know lack of any sphere not heroic story adventuring which might add social aspects
- the idea of being the hero of a story epmhasizes soloing much more than teamplay per se
So while players CAN group, I expect many players will prefer to solo or duo with a RL friend the majority of the time. I see SWTOR as a hightlight, the high end in the evolution of 2nd Gen MMOs. MMORPGs began with EQ2 and WOW era - casual friendly and quest based. I am sure it will be a good MMO, but in many senses TOR is very conservative, always trying to make the best of the known and proven, but never going beyond it. Never trying to really make something entirely new. Which isn't essentially a bad thing, but surely not very visionary or pushing the genre ahead.
One of the cornerstones of 3rd Gen MMOs in my perspective is "adapting content". Content that does not always stay the same, but adapts in different ways. The Rift invasions are a first baby step in that direction, even though that new system of dynamic content is still in it's infancy, I think that is really the future tha defines 3rd to a large degree. Also getting beyond the rigid boundaries of classes. Again think how Rift gave you 8 souls and 4 roles to built by yourself to have several different playstyles for various different situations. That is what I think is really 3rd Gen MMO gaming: flexible and adaptable gameplay both in the character you play as well as in the world around you. And in these terms TOR is entirely 2nd Gen. And NO I don't think just story, however large, does make a difference here. In the end, story is just a cosmetic, a better reason to "go kill 10 boars" and not a change in gameplay mechanics.
Again, I see TOR as the height, and also the end, of classic 2nd Gen MMO gaming. No less, no more.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Kinda silly topic. Both will have pros and cons both will be very different. GW2 will also be F2P with microtrans and TOR will be P2P so you could try either. I focus mostly on GW2 but if TOR comes earlier ill give it a shot. If TOR comes after GW2 i mostly wont try it anytime soon.
TOR to me looks like WoW 2.0 while GW2 brings some fresh air and to me who plays MMOS since 1998 it is very important perk.
Comments
Wow you obviously, obviously, and again obviously are not informed on what you speak of. First of all, PQ's did not scale in WAR. Second of all you keep comparing GW2 DE's to Rift's Rifts. However, Rift is limited to the elements, and the elements are limited to the elemental type of mobs they spawn per stage. These do not change at all, if you have a certain invasion, you are going to see the same types of mobs all over the zone from that element. Yet, in GW2 each DE is gonna have story going along with it, there will be measures of lore going on depending on races and zones. The whole event will change and actually ripple out into the world if you fail or succeed, when in Rift or WAR if you fail you fail. There will be differing encounters all over that constantly change so it will be completely different. Also, the more players that come, the bosses don't just up in dmg, not all difficulty is just scaled in dmg..... That is just the way things are scaled in a tank and healer's world... In GW2 the bosses will gain new abilities that they can use when there are more players present, that make them harder to handle, and there isn't one character in the game that can sit there and take a bosses dmg. If anyone tries to tank a boss for a full fight, they will die. People are going to have to coordinate together and switch off being in the line of fire, use support abilities to block boss attacks, be careful about when they go in to take dmg., keep an eye on their own health, maybe use a group regenerative ability. There will be no tanks, and no dedicated healers. It will be a group coordinated event, with people changes roles on the fly. Not inbetween combat like in Rift, but in combat at all times... Go read some more before you spew nonsense as fact. You don't see me talking up a storm about SWTOR's mechanics when I know little to none.
So...let me tell those out there who don't have perspective exactly why WAR PQs are different from GW2 DEs:
The are secondary to questing, where as DEs ARE the questing...there is no other form of questing in GW2.
They are competitive in nature...you compete to do better than the others so that you can get the better reward. GW2 rewards scale as well, but the reward is based on the amount of participation. You do a little bit you get a bronze medal, you do most of the event or space out a little in the middle and you get a silver, you pllay through the whole thing you get a gold. It is easy to get a gold medal.
PQs were on timers and you could watch the countdown until the next time the PQ showed up. DEs are more random because they can be triggered by other events being finished or by players entering a certain area, or some other condition such as time 9but there is no countdown.
DEs can chain into other DEs, which one depend upon the outcome of the first DE. If you fail to help some poor farmer save his crops from flames, logical consequenses of that event take place. There isn't enough food to feed the cows...some cows die...a merchant can't ssell milk anymore...stuff like that.
DEs are meant to be done by whoever shows up, whether that be one person or a group of 10 people or even more for the bigger DEs. There ARE SOME DEs that REQUIRE a small group to complete...PQs didn't scale and couldn't really allow for this kind of thing to happen, so when a PQ was abandoned, people usually left the area.
There are about 1600 DEs in GW2...how many PQs are there in WAR?
For those who want to compare to rifts in Rift, consider that the basic rift was VERY similar to EVERY other rift out there...its not really about different types of mobs or stuff like that...they are all trying to do the same thing and for the most part you deal with is the same way. If left unattended, rifts would grow into the next stage and would be more fun...so people would just leave the basic type alone and do the second type...or so I have read. Lack of variety and lack of incentive to do these rifts meant that they were ignored so that they could grow. DEs are basically everything in the open world PvE of GW2...are you going to ignore them in favor of hunting random mobs? you could...are you going to ignore them to go exploring? By all means! you might find some hidden DEs. Are you going to ignore them because you are done with that kind of PvE content? sure...but then you would be in PvP where the game is really going to get interesting. There are DEs in WvWvW, and I am going to guess that the incentive for somebody to do those will be fairly high, as they will provide some sort of benefit in combat against other servers. DEs as a concept are quite flexible and are unlikely to creat the same kind of game that WAR has become and rift is becoming (from what I have heard).
Now...for GW2 vs SWTOR...I am not sure why people compare these 2 games...honestly...I don't really care if SWTOR does well (but I hope it does because wanting games to fail is stupid). I am a GW2 person, and I am decidedly not a starwars person.
However, I think that the main question (from the title of this thread) hasn't been properly addressed. SWTOR, from what i can tell, hasn't made any attempts to change how MMOs are played by players and I see it being mostly the same structure game as games that came before it. I am not really talking about themepark or sandbox games either. SWTOR will be played by players in much the same ways that other games are p[layed mostly because it aims to be like most of those other games (but with story and brancing paths for your character to take, but that is a bit too macro of a perspective for this topic). People are likely to play alone, unless forced to group because that is what players have done in the past. People are likely to play through the content, reach the endgame, play whatever endgame there is with groups of other people of the same level, or do PvP of one kind or another (arena or open world) or just reroll and play a different story (this is probably not typical for other MMOs). This isn't really a bad thing, except when people complain that there isn't enough content and all the middle level content gets completely ignored except for the purpose of leveling. It means that people often rush through the middle of the game to get to the end of the game because people are at the end that they want to play with. Anet's approach is a bit different.
GW2 is trying to be different than other MMOs. It ISN'T putting a bunch of instanced dungeouns near the END of the game, but rather, spreading them out through the game. GW2 will have a system in it that allows players to sidekick lower level people to a higher level area so that they can play witht there higher level friends, and it will have a way for those higher level people to explore lower level areas without being over powered (reverse sidekicking). People aren't going to be as limited in what areas they can play because of their level and are more likely to go explore regions that they didn't get to explore though thir personal story, though, to be honest, the liklelyhood that people just go straight to PvP is just as high as in other games...PvP is awesome. GW2 has a form of PvP which Anet is hoping will allow for players on a server to get to know there own server and create a community that has more connections than a random group of solo players on a server walking past each other except when they are together in small groups.
That is my answer to this thread.
I used to TL;DR, but then I took a bullet point to the footnote.
Hate to break it to you, but teleporting is a method of travel.
Also, people in GW2 have teleporters. So technically them teleporting around ADDS to immersion, the same way watching somebody teleport when you're watching Star Trek does.
Is TOR doing anything regarding making it easier for people to play with eachother?
In wow for example it's really hard to say play with an irl friend unless both of you only play those characters together never solo. He won't be able to do your quests if you soloed a bit and redoing quests without actually redoing the quest is sub optimal for immersion and fun not to mention if theres enough soloing by one person content will turn grey penalizing both.
Hate to break it to you, but I already know that teleporting is a method of travel. First off, this isn't Star Trek. Even in Star Trek, 99% of the time people teleported from ships (in the tv show), not from anywhere by touching a map.Second, there is a big difference using means of travel, having a toon with the ability to taxi to certain spots (like mages), or hubs that allow instant travel to certain destinations once you get to the hub then everyone being able to travel at will to any place they have traveled by popping in and out. To me, its an immersion breaking kiddy like feature. If it was in SWTOR Id say the same. I don't want everyone being like the Q in Star Trek. Fortunately, this game is looking for something a little more to my taste...which is at it is, my personal taste. I understand the advantages of what GW2 is trying to do with travel. I just don't like it.
There Is Always Hope!
I've heard alot of people claim that TOR isn't really a "multi-player game". IMO, that arguement is pretty much bogus as TOR is implimenting most of the group oriented things that are expected as standard in MMO's these days.
However, I personaly do feel that TOR does put more emphasis on the single player experience then is typical for most MMO's.
First and foremost, lets be blunt, making single-player RPG's is what Bioware has specialized in as a company. It's what they are known for, what they are experienced in and how they've bult thier fan base. It's almost a given, even if they set purposefully out to do something completely different that a bit of thier existing focus is going to bleed into the design of TOR. Most institutions and development houses have certain ways of doing things and it's usualy pretty hard to shed that sort of institutional bias..even when they are consciously making an effort to do so.
Secondly BIOWARE has a huge existing fan base for thier games... and they've pretty much stated that a big part of the target audience for TOR is that fan base. Those fans are going to have certain expectations of what a Bioware game should include.... and some of those features definately have design implications where the focus between group and solo play falls.
Finally, we can look at some of thier anounced features. Something as simple as setting the standard group size at 4 rather then the 5 or 6 that most other MMO's seem to settle on. Then there is the emphasis on how much the characters personal storyline plays as part of the game. It's certainly not the whole game and it's true that a player can invite thier freinds to play through most of it.... but there is no denying that it's a very large part of what Bioware talks about when describing the strengths of thier game....and even though other players can tag along....the focus on that portion of the game is clearly making the character THE STAR of it. Then we can look at other decisions, like how large a role NPC companions play in the game.
Again, I'm not trying to argue that TOR is simply a single-player game dressed up in an MMO. I'm sure there is plenty of fun and support for multi-player play in TOR. However all games have a certain scale as to what degree they emphasize single-play compared to group play.... and it's pretty clear to me which end of the scale TOR weighs in on.
I generaly dislike teleports in MMO's as well. However isn't TOR's transportation pretty much non-interactive as well (kinda like WOW's griffon rides?). It strikes me that there really isn't all that much qualitative difference between that and a teleport system. It's not like you actualy get to do anything beside watch the pretty "in flight" move while being carried from point A to point B.
I thought you just open a map, touch on the way point if you already visited it and teleport. Am I wrong?
There Is Always Hope!
There is much more to the game than your personal class story. Look at it this way. In the movies, you had personal storylines for main characters. But that personal story brought them together with others for the overall movie storyline. Erickson has said that the starter worlds will be 60% solo and 40% group. Then the origin worlds will be 40% solo and 60% group. Then higher level worlds will be 10% solo and 90% group.
TOR is being made with the movies in mind. You have your personal class story that shapes your character and builds your skill base. But each planet will have the overall world story going on at the same time. You will have to join up with other players to see this part of the game. Also, the group quests is where you will see how other classes differ from your own with unique dialogue resonses from each class. These responses are based both on their class and choices they made.
So yes, BW is using it's SPG background to make the class story arc that SPG feel. But they expand that into their muliplayer dialogue system for group play. So you have multiplayer SPG play in epic quest chains that can take many many hours. Then the largest number of quests will be the MMO generic open world quests where you can group or not. Still have the VO and dialogue wheele even for some open world quests, but they are not just solo.
So you will be "THE STAR" in your class story arc. But you will be one of many STARS banding together for the world story chains, Flashpoints, Operations, Warzones and open PvP zones.
How many people long for that "past, simpler, and better world," I wonder, without ever recognizing the truth that perhaps it was they who were simpler and better, and not the world about them?
R.A.Salvatore
I think it has to do with the not seeing the inbetween parts. The going to it. Sure it might be non interactive in the sense that you are lead there and that you don't drive to it, but you still see all the rocks, mobs, trees, sarlaac pits...you get the idea.
Where as teleport it's just your at town, BAM your at the dungeon. Just seems like that sort of travel all the time would make the world feel smaller in a sense and people jump around more. Plus if they start putting teleport points next to certain areas you're likely to see people doing this
Walk out of town. Click a location on the map. See a loading screen. you are at the location. Complete the require objective (whatever it may be). Click the map location for town. Your back at town. After you've seen all the location i forsee a lot of people just jumping between points. In which case you'll see them at whatver happens to be the best way to level and get the gear/most fun DE and no where else. They wo'nt be between town, they won't be running around outside of town (outside the first time they do this).
It's really going to depend on how many teleportation locations there are as to how it will make the world feel. To me it just feels like the world can be tranversed in seconds rather then minutes and as we know with RL, with cars, planes and trains. The faster we move the less we notice and the smaller the world feels. Just my general viewpoint on it.
As for actual interactivity, no i don't think they will work any different, both will take you to different points, but again, with the transports your seeing the world and going through it, so it gives you a bigger grasp of the world the whole time and keeps it from feeling smaller.
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.
I think you expressed me better than I expressed me lol.
There Is Always Hope!
Don't forget that you also have companions that you can send to town to sell junk while you keep on going in addition to the "teleporting system". I see this as a positive, as it keeps you in the area of interest with questing and story. Others might see it as a negative, as the potential for social interaction is further removed as you won't visit social hubs as often.
In regards to teleportation, I think you only need to point to TER Oblivion as compared to Morrowind. Morrowind had teleports only available from the Mage Guilds. Oblivion allowed you to simply click on your map and go to any city or point of interest you had previously found. I felt such a different experience in the game when I didn't have to travel in real time. It removed the "epic" quality if you will. I simply got a quest, had the person tell me where I needed to go, used fast travel, finished quest objective, used fast travel again and got my reward. It was awful. I ended up choosing not to play using the fast travel option and instead used a horse instead.
I had the same problem with my brief stint in Vanguard a year or so ago. It's a great game in regards to the mechanics and visuals. A big downer for me though was the ease of travel using portals. Why would I want to buy a boat - which is a high level crafting item - when I can just hit a portal and get to where I want much, much faster? The novelty is very thin. For a game that is bent on the seamless visual mechanics, with no zoning or instancing, they sure made an effort to avoid making you explore it.
Sorry for the drawn out post but I agree - teleportation mechanics can really ruin game play and immersion. It's like you're watching Lord of the Rings and Gandalf and Frodo are in the Shire with the ring and Gandalf's all like "We need to destroy the ring!" and Frodo is like "Sure, how do we do that!" and Gandalf says "Well, we must journey into the realm of Mordor into the base of Mount Doom, through perilous trials, emotional loss and near starvation..." and Frodo goes "No man. I got the bind point right here...."
A different story, no doubt.
edit: with the LOTRO story at the end. couldn't resist.
I haven't played Oblivion all the way through yet, its on my list of To Dos after I finish Knights of the Old Republic 1 and 2. However, that travel system and the leveling of all creatures with you (without a good Mod to fix that) were the only things I disliked in the first 8 levels I played. I loved that game, I just got diverted. I'm looking forward though to getting back into it as I prepare for Skyrim hehe.
There Is Always Hope!
I don't think TOR will be so much instanced. But I do think a lot of players will spent the majority of their time alone! Reasons are simple.
- you have your personal story and don't want some douchebags screw it up
- you are being used to be alone in story so you will continue solo as habit
- I havn't seen any built around social hubs, instead a linear pass through from a to b to c similar as in WAR, so people have no fallback hub for all players to meet and greet
- as far as we know lack of any sphere not heroic story adventuring which might add social aspects
- the idea of being the hero of a story epmhasizes soloing much more than teamplay per se
So while players CAN group, I expect many players will prefer to solo or duo with a RL friend the majority of the time. I see SWTOR as a hightlight, the high end in the evolution of 2nd Gen MMOs. MMORPGs began with EQ2 and WOW era - casual friendly and quest based. I am sure it will be a good MMO, but in many senses TOR is very conservative, always trying to make the best of the known and proven, but never going beyond it. Never trying to really make something entirely new. Which isn't essentially a bad thing, but surely not very visionary or pushing the genre ahead.
One of the cornerstones of 3rd Gen MMOs in my perspective is "adapting content". Content that does not always stay the same, but adapts in different ways. The Rift invasions are a first baby step in that direction, even though that new system of dynamic content is still in it's infancy, I think that is really the future tha defines 3rd to a large degree. Also getting beyond the rigid boundaries of classes. Again think how Rift gave you 8 souls and 4 roles to built by yourself to have several different playstyles for various different situations. That is what I think is really 3rd Gen MMO gaming: flexible and adaptable gameplay both in the character you play as well as in the world around you. And in these terms TOR is entirely 2nd Gen. And NO I don't think just story, however large, does make a difference here. In the end, story is just a cosmetic, a better reason to "go kill 10 boars" and not a change in gameplay mechanics.
Again, I see TOR as the height, and also the end, of classic 2nd Gen MMO gaming. No less, no more.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Kinda silly topic. Both will have pros and cons both will be very different. GW2 will also be F2P with microtrans and TOR will be P2P so you could try either. I focus mostly on GW2 but if TOR comes earlier ill give it a shot. If TOR comes after GW2 i mostly wont try it anytime soon.
TOR to me looks like WoW 2.0 while GW2 brings some fresh air and to me who plays MMOS since 1998 it is very important perk.
try both, pick whichever you find more fun.