Originally posted by Fozzik 1. Oh, ok...now we're arguing for neither? I thought this thread was about SW:TOR vs. GW2. 2. Again, we're talking about "most", certainly there will be exceptions. Most people want to play a good game. 3. Yes it does...it's just not a good<---->evil alignment system. You can treat NPCs differently with your responses in GW2, and their reactions to you will change accordingly. You will be able to mix and match your answers to get hybrid results, and you'll be able to change the way NPCs react to you any time you want simply by changing the way you interact with them. 4. Ok, so both games will have a branching story (if you are correct, which I'm not sure...I had heard it was totally linear). So that's not a reason to pick one over the other, is it? You claimed that anyone interested in a storyline that allows hard choices with lasting repercussions would want to play SW:TOR... both games have that.
When talking about hard choices and alignment I'm referring to being able say "screw that orphanage, burn it!" instead of having to choose if I'll save it by aligning myself with the order of whispers or save it by aligning with the Vigil. Sure, having to choose between burning or saving orphanages isn't all that great. But it beats being forced to always save it, even if they give you a few options in how exactly to go about saving it. I know that in SW:ToR I'll actually have a choice whether or not I want to turn a criminal in to the authorities or allow myself to be bribed with something fancy to help myself later on, instead of being forced to always turn the guy in. And at the end of my storyline I'll have the option of either choosing for good or evil. In GW2 no matter what I do I know I'm going out there to save innocents and the rest of the world. When I get a quest I won't have the option to accept a bribe, that's not what heroes do. I won't have the option to betray my quest giver for easy profit, that's not what heroes do. And I certainly won't have any option to assist the dragons in destroying the world. In one game I'm always forced to be the hero. In the other game I get an actual choice and while all the possible options are rather extreme at least the choice is there.
It's funny that you would use the example of the orphanage...since that's specifically an example that ArenaNet uses when discussing the hard choices / branching in the GW2 storyline. You will indeed have to choose whether to save an orphanage or a hospital...and the one you don't save will be destroyed, with permanent effects to your personal instance. They've also talked about situations where you save / kill friends of yours based on your choices, etc. So it sounds like you may need to brush up on info regarding the game.
EDIT: Not having two opposing factions in GW2 is one of those big fundamental social mechanics that I talked about... no splitting the world and the playerbase in two in PvE is much more "oldschool" MMORPG...while still providing for large scale PvP open-world style in WvWvW.
My biggest issue with GW2 is the teleportation system
The lack of a allignment system.
GW1 story was boring to me and what i watched of GW2 story it seems like it be the same
what i've seen of the community thus far asides from a few hasn't been good (yes thats a part of the actual content)
I don't care for the more action style gameplay of GW2
There are no dwarfs (in a fantasy game i want to be able to play a dwarf class)
Those are my objections to guild wars 2. All of it factual as you may or may not have noticed.
I've also seen a lot of people who say they don't want to play GW2 is because it's a high fantasy game. Again factual, as it is a high fantasy game.
GW2 has an alignment system of sorts. You can deal with NPCs different ways and they will react to you accordingly. You can even mix the different responses to create hybrid alignments.
SW:TOR isn't going to have fast travel to places you already visited?
Your anecdotal evidence about the community is not a fact at all...it's just an opinion. You haven't played the game, so it would be impossible to have an objective opinion on the community.
No dwarves... To each there own. I'll give you that one.
There are dwarves, or at least one, but they aren't playable. Might have something to do with spending all their time underground and being made of living stone. Perhaps they'll be playable in the expansion where we take on Primordus.
1. Oh, ok...now we're arguing for neither? I thought this thread was about SW:TOR vs. GW2.
2. Again, we're talking about "most", certainly there will be exceptions. Most people want to play a good game.
3. Yes it does...it's just not a good<---->evil alignment system. You can treat NPCs differently with your responses in GW2, and their reactions to you will change accordingly. You will be able to mix and match your answers to get hybrid results, and you'll be able to change the way NPCs react to you any time you want simply by changing the way you interact with them.
4. Ok, so both games will have a branching story (if you are correct, which I'm not sure...I had heard it was totally linear). So that's not a reason to pick one over the other, is it? You claimed that anyone interested in a storyline that allows hard choices with lasting repercussions would want to play SW:TOR... both games have that.
When talking about hard choices and alignment I'm referring to being able say "screw that orphanage, burn it!" instead of having to choose if I'll save it by aligning myself with the order of whispers or save it by aligning with the Vigil.
Sure, having to choose between burning or saving orphanages isn't all that great. But it beats being forced to always save it, even if they give you a few options in how exactly to go about saving it.
I know that in SW:ToR I'll actually have a choice whether or not I want to turn a criminal in to the authorities or allow myself to be bribed with something fancy to help myself later on, instead of being forced to always turn the guy in. And at the end of my storyline I'll have the option of either choosing for good or evil.
In GW2 no matter what I do I know I'm going out there to save innocents and the rest of the world. When I get a quest I won't have the option to accept a bribe, that's not what heroes do. I won't have the option to betray my quest giver for easy profit, that's not what heroes do. And I certainly won't have any option to assist the dragons in destroying the world.
In one game I'm always forced to be the hero. In the other game I get an actual choice and while all the possible options are rather extreme at least the choice is there.
You know, all the "choice" that you have in both the GW2 Personal Story and SWTOR means very little to me. Why? Because this stuff has existed in SPRPGs for over a decade now and how it's implemented in MMORPGs is NO different than how it is implemented in SPRPGs.
"Choice," as you describe it, in an MMORPG is limited only to the player's "instanced" quest history or zones. If a player decides to take a bribe instead of reporting a criminal, then that decision does not affect the world or other players at all. Another player could decide to report the criminal in their version of the quests but it would have no effect on any player as well. Everyone is running around in their own instanced rat maze of a quest system even if they are all sharing the same world.
So this version of "choice" means nothing to me. It is nothing more than grafting an SPRPG feature onto an MMORPG.
"Choice" will mean something to me once it starts affecting the actual MMORPG world.
1. Oh, ok...now we're arguing for neither? I thought this thread was about SW:TOR vs. GW2.
2. Again, we're talking about "most", certainly there will be exceptions. Most people want to play a good game.
3. Yes it does...it's just not a good<---->evil alignment system. You can treat NPCs differently with your responses in GW2, and their reactions to you will change accordingly. You will be able to mix and match your answers to get hybrid results, and you'll be able to change the way NPCs react to you any time you want simply by changing the way you interact with them.
4. Ok, so both games will have a branching story (if you are correct, which I'm not sure...I had heard it was totally linear). So that's not a reason to pick one over the other, is it? You claimed that anyone interested in a storyline that allows hard choices with lasting repercussions would want to play SW:TOR... both games have that.
When talking about hard choices and alignment I'm referring to being able say "screw that orphanage, burn it!" instead of having to choose if I'll save it by aligning myself with the order of whispers or save it by aligning with the Vigil.
Sure, having to choose between burning or saving orphanages isn't all that great. But it beats being forced to always save it, even if they give you a few options in how exactly to go about saving it.
I know that in SW:ToR I'll actually have a choice whether or not I want to turn a criminal in to the authorities or allow myself to be bribed with something fancy to help myself later on, instead of being forced to always turn the guy in. And at the end of my storyline I'll have the option of either choosing for good or evil.
In GW2 no matter what I do I know I'm going out there to save innocents and the rest of the world. When I get a quest I won't have the option to accept a bribe, that's not what heroes do. I won't have the option to betray my quest giver for easy profit, that's not what heroes do. And I certainly won't have any option to assist the dragons in destroying the world.
In one game I'm always forced to be the hero. In the other game I get an actual choice and while all the possible options are rather extreme at least the choice is there.
You know, all the "choice" that you have in both the GW2 Personal Story and SWTOR means very little to me. Why? Because this stuff has existed in SPRPGs for over a decade now and how it's implemented in MMORPGs is NO different than how it is implemented in SPRPGs.
"Choice," as you describe it, in an MMORPG is limited only to the player's "instanced" quest history or zones. If a player decides to take a bribe instead of reporting a criminal, then that decision does not affect the world or other players at all. Another player could decide to report the criminal in their version of the quests but it would have no effect on any player as well. Everyone is running around in their own instanced rat maze of a quest system even if they are all sharing the same world.
So this version of "choice" means nothing to me. It is nothing more than grafting an SPRPG feature onto an MMORPG.
"Choice" will mean something to me once it starts affecting the actual MMORPG world.
It does effect the actual MMO quests when grouped. That hasn't been done in SPGs. I don't believe its being done in GW2 either, but thats not to say GW2 should have an option like it.
It is an obvious evolution of BioWare, not so much from Anet. That is all.
You know, all the "choice" that you have in both the GW2 Personal Story and SWTOR means very little to me. Why? Because this stuff has existed in SPRPGs for over a decade now and how it's implemented in MMORPGs is NO different than how it is implemented in SPRPGs. "Choice," as you describe it, in an MMORPG is limited only to the player's "instanced" quest history or zones. If a player decides to take a bribe instead of reporting a criminal, then that decision does not affect the world or other players at all. Another player could decide to report the criminal in their version of the quests but it would have no effect on any player as well. Everyone is running around in their own instanced rat maze of a quest system even if they are all sharing the same world. So this version of "choice" means nothing to me. It is nothing more than grafting an SPRPG feature onto an MMORPG. "Choice" will mean something to me once it starts affecting the actual MMORPG world.
Dyanamic events take a step in that direction in GW2. Players will be able to affect the zones in a persistent way depending on the outcome of the various events. It won't be permanent, but definitely persistent... those vendors won't sell bread again until somebody finally fights back against those centaurs and retakes the town. Group dungeons on will be the same...providing players and groups with different paths and outcomes depending on their choices.
Because of the more open-world aspects that GW2 applies, I think the single-player RPG elements will be better integrated and more 'organic' as players move through the world and the storyline...instead of a stark contrast between single-player RPG and formulaic, static WoW-like Kill 10 quests which exists in SW:TOR.
Who can seriously answer this with any meaning?There are a handful lthat have played maybe 20 minutes of game time in a expo and most stuff is just talk,needs to be seen in game for ourselves.
I base my decisions on the "finished product" not hype or the past or the developer or anything other than what it should be.
I would be more honest in saying there is a very good chance i play neither.
I may not play either, but given a choice, from what I have seen thus far, Guild Wars 2 for me.
I have nothing against SWTOR. When I was younger, with less responsibilities and more free time it would of been a great game to play.
But now my time is limited and the casual style of GW2 fits into my life.
Who can seriously answer this with any meaning?There are a handful lthat have played maybe 20 minutes of game time in a expo and most stuff is just talk,needs to be seen in game for ourselves.
I base my decisions on the "finished product" not hype or the past or the developer or anything other than what it should be.
I would be more honest in saying there is a very good chance i play neither.
I may not play either, but given a choice, from what I have seen thus far, Guild Wars 2 for me.
I have nothing against SWTOR. When I was younger, with less responsibilities and more free time it would of been a great game to play.
But now my time is limited and the casual style of GW2 fits into my life.
Funny, someone picked SWTOR earlier for the exact same reason. Obviously, fanboyism dictates that one of you is wrong and both of you have to fight it to the death.
It's funny that you would use the example of the orphanage...since that's specifically an example that ArenaNet uses when discussing the hard choices / branching in the GW2 storyline. You will indeed have to choose whether to save an orphanage or a hospital...and the one you don't save will be destroyed, with permanent effects to your personal instance. They've also talked about situations where you save / kill friends of yours based on your choices, etc. So it sounds like you may need to brush up on info regarding the game.
EDIT: Not having two opposing factions in GW2 is one of those big fundamental social mechanics that I talked about... no splitting the world and the playerbase in two in PvE is much more "oldschool" MMORPG...while still providing for large scale PvP open-world style in WvWvW.
Save an orphanage, save a hospital. You're still choosing between good and good.
Even in those situations where your friends may die you'll be choosing between good and good.
Either way you're not choosing anything that can in any way be classified as selfish or evil.
And as someone who loves anti-heroes the like you see in George R. R. Martin's and Joe Abercombie's books I just can't get all that excited about a choice system like that.
Sure, SWToR won't be all that much better in that regard with the rather extreme choices you have to make, but at least there are evil choices. It's still 100% better in the evil department.
And from a RP perspective I love having those choices. Even if the system doesn't have that much more depth it allows so much more RP opportunities to be able to choose between good and evil.
We are the bunny. Resistance is futile. ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\ ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o) (")("),,(")("),(")(")
In GW2 no matter what I do I know I'm going out there to save innocents and the rest of the world. When I get a quest I won't have the option to accept a bribe, that's not what heroes do. I won't have the option to betray my quest giver for easy profit, that's not what heroes do. And I certainly won't have any option to assist the dragons in destroying the world.
in GW1, both Factions and Nightfall had quests where you bribe quest npcs
ANET never said anything about GW2 players being Mr. "Do No Wrong" Hero
Eric Flannum: As part of their personal story, each character will choose to join the Vigil, the Durmond Priory, or the Order of Whispers. Which organization they join will have a dramatic effect on the story they experience. Of course, each of these organizations is very important in our world and all of them will have a major impact on the fate of Tyria. Morality choice in a game can be a very interesting mechanic, but is very hard to pull off correctly. Early in development, we talked about whether or not we wanted to present these sorts of choices in Guild Wars 2. We decided against this style of play both to ensure our focus as developers, as well as maintain the cooperative nature of the game. Therefore, all player characters in Guild Wars 2 are considered “good” and would never join one of the many “evil” organizations in Tyria.
There won't be a morality system in GW2. You will always be a hero. You will always be good.
We are the bunny. Resistance is futile. ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\ ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o) (")("),,(")("),(")(")
In GW2 no matter what I do I know I'm going out there to save innocents and the rest of the world. When I get a quest I won't have the option to accept a bribe, that's not what heroes do. I won't have the option to betray my quest giver for easy profit, that's not what heroes do. And I certainly won't have any option to assist the dragons in destroying the world.
in GW1, both Factions and Nightfall had quests where you bribe quest npcs
ANET never said anything about GW2 players being Mr. "Do No Wrong" Hero
Eric Flannum: As part of their personal story, each character will choose to join the Vigil, the Durmond Priory, or the Order of Whispers. Which organization they join will have a dramatic effect on the story they experience. Of course, each of these organizations is very important in our world and all of them will have a major impact on the fate of Tyria. Morality choice in a game can be a very interesting mechanic, but is very hard to pull off correctly. Early in development, we talked about whether or not we wanted to present these sorts of choices in Guild Wars 2. We decided against this style of play both to ensure our focus as developers, as well as maintain the cooperative nature of the game. Therefore, all player characters in Guild Wars 2 are considered “good” and would never join one of the many “evil” organizations in Tyria.
There won't be a morality system in GW2. You will always be a hero. You will always be good.
Sounds like being Mr "Do No Wrong" Hero. And it's little decisions like this that detract from what I feel could be a really great game... Forcing everyone onto the same team is just kind of... weak. It also forces them to have this mystical WvWvW PvP rather than the obvious inter-faction PvP that should have been in the game.
1. Oh, ok...now we're arguing for neither? I thought this thread was about SW:TOR vs. GW2.
2. Again, we're talking about "most", certainly there will be exceptions. Most people want to play a good game.
3. Yes it does...it's just not a good<---->evil alignment system. You can treat NPCs differently with your responses in GW2, and their reactions to you will change accordingly. You will be able to mix and match your answers to get hybrid results, and you'll be able to change the way NPCs react to you any time you want simply by changing the way you interact with them.
4. Ok, so both games will have a branching story (if you are correct, which I'm not sure...I had heard it was totally linear). So that's not a reason to pick one over the other, is it? You claimed that anyone interested in a storyline that allows hard choices with lasting repercussions would want to play SW:TOR... both games have that.
When talking about hard choices and alignment I'm referring to being able say "screw that orphanage, burn it!" instead of having to choose if I'll save it by aligning myself with the order of whispers or save it by aligning with the Vigil.
Sure, having to choose between burning or saving orphanages isn't all that great. But it beats being forced to always save it, even if they give you a few options in how exactly to go about saving it.
I know that in SW:ToR I'll actually have a choice whether or not I want to turn a criminal in to the authorities or allow myself to be bribed with something fancy to help myself later on, instead of being forced to always turn the guy in. And at the end of my storyline I'll have the option of either choosing for good or evil.
In GW2 no matter what I do I know I'm going out there to save innocents and the rest of the world. When I get a quest I won't have the option to accept a bribe, that's not what heroes do. I won't have the option to betray my quest giver for easy profit, that's not what heroes do. And I certainly won't have any option to assist the dragons in destroying the world.
In one game I'm always forced to be the hero. In the other game I get an actual choice and while all the possible options are rather extreme at least the choice is there.
You have a choice of saving a city from occupiers or leaving it alone and letting the occupiers burn it down to the ground. There's not a big mistery around it. You (and people around you) make choices in the world and this choices affect the look of the world. So you might choose to leave the city and make it easy for them to destroy the town, but then someone might help them and the city will stay where it is and the people will then start asking for help with rebuilding the city back. But then you have your personal story where you can do missions and you can choose if you'll help someone do what he has to do or will you ignore it and let him meet his doom alone. Helping him or ignoring him will have different effects on your story, if you help him he might offer you something what'll make your story branch to another place, where it wouldn't go if you choosed to ignore him, and that guy will always be in your city and offer you his services and vice versa. Another example is: there's a orphanage burning down and there's the towns bar in trouble, you can help only 1 of them since the orphanage will burn down soon and the towns bar won't be in this specific situation for long as well. So if you choose to help the bar it will always be there and the ppl in it will recognize you for your help to them, hell you can even start a bar fight if you want in there, but the orphanage will remain ruined and it won't be usable since it's burned down and many died in the fire. So you have choices and you don't always have to do something you don't want to, that's why GW2 is interesting. You can fail (intentionaly or not) and that has it's own consequences and makes the story advance in other directions. And there's something involving your story line where you can choose if you want to hunt down your father (with charr) and kill him, let him live or not search him at all. But I'm not sure about that last part, so kinda there are choices.
About SWTOR choices, in SWTOR you have choices of good and evil, and it's always been like that in SW games. You can choose if you want to be sith or jedi by just clicking the answers and making npcs do different thing because you've chosen a different answer. But it's kinda the same only thing is in GW2 you don't get "Evil" points for walking away and there's no click button which says "I'm walking away and ignoring that idiot because I want to". So basically you have choices, only difference is BioWare has done it in their own way and GW2 made it in their own way.... You can't really judge the games without knowing about BOTH of them!
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life." -------------------------------
In GW2 no matter what I do I know I'm going out there to save innocents and the rest of the world. When I get a quest I won't have the option to accept a bribe, that's not what heroes do. I won't have the option to betray my quest giver for easy profit, that's not what heroes do. And I certainly won't have any option to assist the dragons in destroying the world.
in GW1, both Factions and Nightfall had quests where you bribe quest npcs
ANET never said anything about GW2 players being Mr. "Do No Wrong" Hero
Eric Flannum: As part of their personal story, each character will choose to join the Vigil, the Durmond Priory, or the Order of Whispers. Which organization they join will have a dramatic effect on the story they experience. Of course, each of these organizations is very important in our world and all of them will have a major impact on the fate of Tyria. Morality choice in a game can be a very interesting mechanic, but is very hard to pull off correctly. Early in development, we talked about whether or not we wanted to present these sorts of choices in Guild Wars 2. We decided against this style of play both to ensure our focus as developers, as well as maintain the cooperative nature of the game. Therefore, all player characters in Guild Wars 2 are considered “good” and would never join one of the many “evil” organizations in Tyria.
There won't be a morality system in GW2. You will always be a hero. You will always be good.
Sounds like being Mr "Do No Wrong" Hero. And it's little decisions like this that detract from what I feel could be a really great game... Forcing everyone onto the same team is just kind of... weak. It also forces them to have this mystical WvWvW PvP rather than the obvious inter-faction PvP that should have been in the game.
Faction pvp is in GW1 and after Eye of the North that story is long gone so you can't bring back something what's dead for hundreds of years with something simple. Maybe they bring it up back with something big like the new gods rising or something in the expansions of GW2? that'd be something to think about
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life." -------------------------------
Walking away and not receiving a reward isn't really the same as being confronted with a choice to actively choosing to do something evil for an actual reward.......
We are the bunny. Resistance is futile. ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\ ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o) (")("),,(")("),(")(")
Walking away and not receiving a reward isn't really the same as being confronted with a choice to actively choosing to do something evil for an actual reward.......
I agree, it is a minus they decided not to implement that, it would made GW2 so much more diverse than it will be now simply by allowing people choosing "Bad" or "Good" karma or something. But still choices are there, it's not the same tho
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life." -------------------------------
I don't think dynamic events are going to be as uh... dynamic as people are saying. Maybe I'm just reading wrong but it seems like people are expecting a unique quest everytime they go back to one of the events. My guess is it will be... Defend/Ignore City under attack by Undead > Did you defend? If yes, event stays the same. If no, Undead took over. New event: Retake/Ignore City. Repeat.
That is the extent I believe it will go to. Now, if the undead continue to take over new cities if people ignore them... that would be awesome. However, it looks like they are wrapping a handful of quests together and allowing you to go back and forth between them. I don't care about PvE either way, but I'm still curious to see how it turns out.
Despite EA's money, BioWare's reputation, and the obvious strength of the Star Wars IP... My decision on what to play (where to spend my money) is still going to be based on what really matters - that actual game itself, the philosophy behind it, and how it plays.
In the case of SW:TOR, it's the same old stale formulaic game, with all its problems and shortcomings fully intact. They stapled a quality (but linear) single-player RPG on the side and put some duct tape on top of some of the worst aspects of the old formula...but it is what it is.
"Sure, we copied over the same horrible crafting system instead of making a better one, but don't worry...Our companion system allows you to skip the crafting all together!"
"Ok, so our mechanics actively discourage social play in the central advancement path of the game...but don't worry, we provide you with fake other players to replace the real other players you would normally have to deal with in an MMO."
GW2 on the other hand is a true MMORPG in every sense, and actually moves the genre in a better direction. They've tossed out the formula the genre has been stuck on for the last 6 years (the mass-market, ultra-accessible but ever-more-shallow, dumbed-down EQ formula popularized by WoW), and actually took a fresh look at a lot of systems from the ground up.
Their philosophy revolves around the fundamental elements that originally gave this genre its promise (true social play, server community, a deep virtual world), and they will be realizing some of that promise in very new and innovative ways. They will also be adding some new elements in a way that actually integrates them into the design at a basic level in a much more organic way...like personal story, more visceral, tactical, and mobile combat, PvP based on player skill rather than gear, etc.
So, my choice is pretty simple. Do I support yet another clone which does nothing to move the genre forward and likely wouldn't keep me interested for more than 3 months, or do I support a game that moves the genre in a better direction using innovation and imaginative new systems to improve on the fundamentals, and adds some actual new depth instead of just tacked-on systems from other types of games?
I'll be putting my money down on GW2.
A truely epic response Foz. I couldnt of said it better myself.
People who are tired of WoW's model who have gone from game to game looking for a new MMO are going to be so disappointed in SWToR because it follows the same run of the mill threadmill that plagues MMO's of the WoW model.
I should know, I am one of those players, as is my entire guild who left WoW to Rift and quit that game within 2 months because it follows the same archaic and boring principles that make this sort of MMO horrible. It is all the reason why I spend alot of time bashing SWToR because I honestly think of my self as the anti-hero here, trying to persuade people who are sick of the same old same, to look past the new shiny and sink their teeth in to some real meat.
Playing: GW2 Waiting on: TESO Next Flop: Planetside 2 Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
In GW2 no matter what I do I know I'm going out there to save innocents and the rest of the world. When I get a quest I won't have the option to accept a bribe, that's not what heroes do. I won't have the option to betray my quest giver for easy profit, that's not what heroes do. And I certainly won't have any option to assist the dragons in destroying the world.
in GW1, both Factions and Nightfall had quests where you bribe quest npcs
ANET never said anything about GW2 players being Mr. "Do No Wrong" Hero
Eric Flannum: As part of their personal story, each character will choose to join the Vigil, the Durmond Priory, or the Order of Whispers. Which organization they join will have a dramatic effect on the story they experience. Of course, each of these organizations is very important in our world and all of them will have a major impact on the fate of Tyria. Morality choice in a game can be a very interesting mechanic, but is very hard to pull off correctly. Early in development, we talked about whether or not we wanted to present these sorts of choices in Guild Wars 2. We decided against this style of play both to ensure our focus as developers, as well as maintain the cooperative nature of the game. Therefore, all player characters in Guild Wars 2 are considered “good” and would never join one of the many “evil” organizations in Tyria.
There won't be a morality system in GW2. You will always be a hero. You will always be good.
I've always kind of preferred the flawed hero archetype myself. Just because you can't run around raping and murdering doesn't mean have to sh*t rays of sunshine. Except maybe in children's stories where there is only black and white and rarely a muddy grey in-between. From what I recall, you'll be able to resolve some decisions in ways that aren't exactly angelic. I'm satisfied with that.
One day.... please! Just one day where I don't see useless GW2 or SW TOR spam on front page. Key world "Useless"
New Screenshots? New gameplay talks? All good. "Which will you play?" Useless... "Which is better?" Useless... "GW2 Will fail!" Useless... SW TOR Is a wow clone! Useless!!!!!!
I don't think dynamic events are going to be as uh... dynamic as people are saying. Maybe I'm just reading wrong but it seems like people are expecting a unique quest everytime they go back to one of the events. My guess is it will be... Defend/Ignore City under attack by Undead > Did you defend? If yes, event stays the same. If no, Undead took over. New event: Retake/Ignore City. Repeat.
That is the extent I believe it will go to. Now, if the undead continue to take over new cities if people ignore them... that would be awesome. However, it looks like they are wrapping a handful of quests together and allowing you to go back and forth between them. I don't care about PvE either way, but I'm still curious to see how it turns out.
If undeads are attacking the city and you ignore them, they capture the city. That DE is over. The next one is, they are recruiting more undeads and are spreading to other cities and trying to capture them. If further ignored, they repeat doing that untill they come to a certain place where they have something in value and can probably summon their god or something.
If not ignored and you attack them, city is defended and people in it ask for help with rebuilding it but at the same time the new event starts where people try to push them back underground or in the cave from where they came from. If successful new event starts where you can try and capture their main "castle" where they recruit underground. If sucessful that chain stops and new DE starts where Undeads are trying to capture that castle back and you gotta defend it. That's gonna roll untill they capture it, probably in waves since it's pointless to defend the city 24/7 untill there's only 1 of you and 100000 of them xD...
That's how I got it from devs trough many vids I watched and red interviews... correct me if I'm wrong somewhere.
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life." -------------------------------
Sounds like being Mr "Do No Wrong" Hero. And it's little decisions like this that detract from what I feel could be a really great game... Forcing everyone onto the same team is just kind of... weak. It also forces them to have this mystical WvWvW PvP rather than the obvious inter-faction PvP that should have been in the game.
One of their goals with PVE is to take away barriers to community. It's not like a traditional MMO where you're suspicious of other people because you don't know if they're going to compete with you for spawns, steal your kills or your gathering node, or start that escort quest without you. In GW2, not only is the game designed to be purely cooperative, but they want it to be as griefless as possible. There's no competition for spawns, not only is there no mob tagging, everybody who helps gets xp and loot, everyone gets a whack at gathering nodes. Other people to always help you, never hurt you. They want you to WANT to see other people.
There are benefits to WvWvW PVP above inter-faction PVP so it's entirely possible that they would have done it anyway even with a different PVE system. Having players come from different servers increases the size of the battle. Instead of there being three servers all doing their own 333 vs 333 vs 333 fight, it's instead one giant 1000 vs 1000 vs 1000 battle. Instead of factions being fixed and subject to population imbalances (always A vs B+C), servers are reranked and rematched at the end of every 2 week battle based on W/L record. Not only do you face more equal competition, you never know if you'll be the big or small faction each time. And the W/L record gives people real server pride to fight for.
In my opinion, these little decisions enhance the game, not detract from it.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it."-Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Who can seriously answer this with any meaning?There are a handful lthat have played maybe 20 minutes of game time in a expo and most stuff is just talk,needs to be seen in game for ourselves.
I base my decisions on the "finished product" not hype or the past or the developer or anything other than what it should be.
I would be more honest in saying there is a very good chance i play neither.
I may not play either, but given a choice, from what I have seen thus far, Guild Wars 2 for me.
I have nothing against SWTOR. When I was younger, with less responsibilities and more free time it would of been a great game to play.
But now my time is limited and the casual style of GW2 fits into my life.
Funny, someone picked SWTOR earlier for the exact same reason. Obviously, fanboyism dictates that one of you is wrong and both of you have to fight it to the death.
lol
Well, truth is, anyone can play any game however they choose. And if they want to play SWTOR casually, good for them. Maybe they like the whole story aspect of the game.
Casual 3 way PvP + progressing at my own speed, wherever I wish and however I wish sounds like a ton of fun. And thats why for me GW2 is an easy decision.
This is an easy choice. I choose Star Wars. Simply because it drops first. This doesn't work really until both games are out or unless they dropped at the same time but they do not.
Comments
Lock this topic already? xD
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life."
-------------------------------
It's funny that you would use the example of the orphanage...since that's specifically an example that ArenaNet uses when discussing the hard choices / branching in the GW2 storyline. You will indeed have to choose whether to save an orphanage or a hospital...and the one you don't save will be destroyed, with permanent effects to your personal instance. They've also talked about situations where you save / kill friends of yours based on your choices, etc. So it sounds like you may need to brush up on info regarding the game.
EDIT: Not having two opposing factions in GW2 is one of those big fundamental social mechanics that I talked about... no splitting the world and the playerbase in two in PvE is much more "oldschool" MMORPG...while still providing for large scale PvP open-world style in WvWvW.
There are dwarves, or at least one, but they aren't playable. Might have something to do with spending all their time underground and being made of living stone. Perhaps they'll be playable in the expansion where we take on Primordus.
You know, all the "choice" that you have in both the GW2 Personal Story and SWTOR means very little to me. Why? Because this stuff has existed in SPRPGs for over a decade now and how it's implemented in MMORPGs is NO different than how it is implemented in SPRPGs.
"Choice," as you describe it, in an MMORPG is limited only to the player's "instanced" quest history or zones. If a player decides to take a bribe instead of reporting a criminal, then that decision does not affect the world or other players at all. Another player could decide to report the criminal in their version of the quests but it would have no effect on any player as well. Everyone is running around in their own instanced rat maze of a quest system even if they are all sharing the same world.
So this version of "choice" means nothing to me. It is nothing more than grafting an SPRPG feature onto an MMORPG.
"Choice" will mean something to me once it starts affecting the actual MMORPG world.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
It does effect the actual MMO quests when grouped. That hasn't been done in SPGs. I don't believe its being done in GW2 either, but thats not to say GW2 should have an option like it.
It is an obvious evolution of BioWare, not so much from Anet. That is all.
Dyanamic events take a step in that direction in GW2. Players will be able to affect the zones in a persistent way depending on the outcome of the various events. It won't be permanent, but definitely persistent... those vendors won't sell bread again until somebody finally fights back against those centaurs and retakes the town. Group dungeons on will be the same...providing players and groups with different paths and outcomes depending on their choices.
Because of the more open-world aspects that GW2 applies, I think the single-player RPG elements will be better integrated and more 'organic' as players move through the world and the storyline...instead of a stark contrast between single-player RPG and formulaic, static WoW-like Kill 10 quests which exists in SW:TOR.
I may not play either, but given a choice, from what I have seen thus far, Guild Wars 2 for me.
I have nothing against SWTOR. When I was younger, with less responsibilities and more free time it would of been a great game to play.
But now my time is limited and the casual style of GW2 fits into my life.
I have to choose?
This is news to me...
Can someone point me to the article/dev diary that says I have to choose between the two?
Funny, someone picked SWTOR earlier for the exact same reason. Obviously, fanboyism dictates that one of you is wrong and both of you have to fight it to the death.
This is not a game.
Save an orphanage, save a hospital. You're still choosing between good and good.
Even in those situations where your friends may die you'll be choosing between good and good.
Either way you're not choosing anything that can in any way be classified as selfish or evil.
And as someone who loves anti-heroes the like you see in George R. R. Martin's and Joe Abercombie's books I just can't get all that excited about a choice system like that.
Sure, SWToR won't be all that much better in that regard with the rather extreme choices you have to make, but at least there are evil choices. It's still 100% better in the evil department.
And from a RP perspective I love having those choices. Even if the system doesn't have that much more depth it allows so much more RP opportunities to be able to choose between good and evil.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
Eric Flannum: As part of their personal story, each character will choose to join the Vigil, the Durmond Priory, or the Order of Whispers. Which organization they join will have a dramatic effect on the story they experience. Of course, each of these organizations is very important in our world and all of them will have a major impact on the fate of Tyria. Morality choice in a game can be a very interesting mechanic, but is very hard to pull off correctly. Early in development, we talked about whether or not we wanted to present these sorts of choices in Guild Wars 2. We decided against this style of play both to ensure our focus as developers, as well as maintain the cooperative nature of the game. Therefore, all player characters in Guild Wars 2 are considered “good” and would never join one of the many “evil” organizations in Tyria.
There won't be a morality system in GW2. You will always be a hero. You will always be good.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
Sounds like being Mr "Do No Wrong" Hero. And it's little decisions like this that detract from what I feel could be a really great game... Forcing everyone onto the same team is just kind of... weak. It also forces them to have this mystical WvWvW PvP rather than the obvious inter-faction PvP that should have been in the game.
You have a choice of saving a city from occupiers or leaving it alone and letting the occupiers burn it down to the ground. There's not a big mistery around it. You (and people around you) make choices in the world and this choices affect the look of the world. So you might choose to leave the city and make it easy for them to destroy the town, but then someone might help them and the city will stay where it is and the people will then start asking for help with rebuilding the city back. But then you have your personal story where you can do missions and you can choose if you'll help someone do what he has to do or will you ignore it and let him meet his doom alone. Helping him or ignoring him will have different effects on your story, if you help him he might offer you something what'll make your story branch to another place, where it wouldn't go if you choosed to ignore him, and that guy will always be in your city and offer you his services and vice versa. Another example is: there's a orphanage burning down and there's the towns bar in trouble, you can help only 1 of them since the orphanage will burn down soon and the towns bar won't be in this specific situation for long as well. So if you choose to help the bar it will always be there and the ppl in it will recognize you for your help to them, hell you can even start a bar fight if you want in there, but the orphanage will remain ruined and it won't be usable since it's burned down and many died in the fire. So you have choices and you don't always have to do something you don't want to, that's why GW2 is interesting. You can fail (intentionaly or not) and that has it's own consequences and makes the story advance in other directions. And there's something involving your story line where you can choose if you want to hunt down your father (with charr) and kill him, let him live or not search him at all. But I'm not sure about that last part, so kinda there are choices.
About SWTOR choices, in SWTOR you have choices of good and evil, and it's always been like that in SW games. You can choose if you want to be sith or jedi by just clicking the answers and making npcs do different thing because you've chosen a different answer. But it's kinda the same only thing is in GW2 you don't get "Evil" points for walking away and there's no click button which says "I'm walking away and ignoring that idiot because I want to". So basically you have choices, only difference is BioWare has done it in their own way and GW2 made it in their own way.... You can't really judge the games without knowing about BOTH of them!
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life."
-------------------------------
Faction pvp is in GW1 and after Eye of the North that story is long gone so you can't bring back something what's dead for hundreds of years with something simple. Maybe they bring it up back with something big like the new gods rising or something in the expansions of GW2? that'd be something to think about
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life."
-------------------------------
Walking away and not receiving a reward isn't really the same as being confronted with a choice to actively choosing to do something evil for an actual reward.......
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
I agree, it is a minus they decided not to implement that, it would made GW2 so much more diverse than it will be now simply by allowing people choosing "Bad" or "Good" karma or something. But still choices are there, it's not the same tho
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life."
-------------------------------
I don't think dynamic events are going to be as uh... dynamic as people are saying. Maybe I'm just reading wrong but it seems like people are expecting a unique quest everytime they go back to one of the events. My guess is it will be... Defend/Ignore City under attack by Undead > Did you defend? If yes, event stays the same. If no, Undead took over. New event: Retake/Ignore City. Repeat.
That is the extent I believe it will go to. Now, if the undead continue to take over new cities if people ignore them... that would be awesome. However, it looks like they are wrapping a handful of quests together and allowing you to go back and forth between them. I don't care about PvE either way, but I'm still curious to see how it turns out.
A truely epic response Foz. I couldnt of said it better myself.
People who are tired of WoW's model who have gone from game to game looking for a new MMO are going to be so disappointed in SWToR because it follows the same run of the mill threadmill that plagues MMO's of the WoW model.
I should know, I am one of those players, as is my entire guild who left WoW to Rift and quit that game within 2 months because it follows the same archaic and boring principles that make this sort of MMO horrible. It is all the reason why I spend alot of time bashing SWToR because I honestly think of my self as the anti-hero here, trying to persuade people who are sick of the same old same, to look past the new shiny and sink their teeth in to some real meat.
Everything you need to know about Elder Scrolls Online
Playing: GW2
Waiting on: TESO
Next Flop: Planetside 2
Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
I've always kind of preferred the flawed hero archetype myself. Just because you can't run around raping and murdering doesn't mean have to sh*t rays of sunshine. Except maybe in children's stories where there is only black and white and rarely a muddy grey in-between. From what I recall, you'll be able to resolve some decisions in ways that aren't exactly angelic. I'm satisfied with that.
One day.... please! Just one day where I don't see useless GW2 or SW TOR spam on front page. Key world "Useless"
New Screenshots? New gameplay talks? All good. "Which will you play?" Useless... "Which is better?" Useless... "GW2 Will fail!" Useless... SW TOR Is a wow clone! Useless!!!!!!
If undeads are attacking the city and you ignore them, they capture the city. That DE is over. The next one is, they are recruiting more undeads and are spreading to other cities and trying to capture them. If further ignored, they repeat doing that untill they come to a certain place where they have something in value and can probably summon their god or something.
If not ignored and you attack them, city is defended and people in it ask for help with rebuilding it but at the same time the new event starts where people try to push them back underground or in the cave from where they came from. If successful new event starts where you can try and capture their main "castle" where they recruit underground. If sucessful that chain stops and new DE starts where Undeads are trying to capture that castle back and you gotta defend it. That's gonna roll untill they capture it, probably in waves since it's pointless to defend the city 24/7 untill there's only 1 of you and 100000 of them xD...
That's how I got it from devs trough many vids I watched and red interviews...
correct me if I'm wrong somewhere.
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life."
-------------------------------
One of their goals with PVE is to take away barriers to community. It's not like a traditional MMO where you're suspicious of other people because you don't know if they're going to compete with you for spawns, steal your kills or your gathering node, or start that escort quest without you. In GW2, not only is the game designed to be purely cooperative, but they want it to be as griefless as possible. There's no competition for spawns, not only is there no mob tagging, everybody who helps gets xp and loot, everyone gets a whack at gathering nodes. Other people to always help you, never hurt you. They want you to WANT to see other people.
There are benefits to WvWvW PVP above inter-faction PVP so it's entirely possible that they would have done it anyway even with a different PVE system. Having players come from different servers increases the size of the battle. Instead of there being three servers all doing their own 333 vs 333 vs 333 fight, it's instead one giant 1000 vs 1000 vs 1000 battle. Instead of factions being fixed and subject to population imbalances (always A vs B+C), servers are reranked and rematched at the end of every 2 week battle based on W/L record. Not only do you face more equal competition, you never know if you'll be the big or small faction each time. And the W/L record gives people real server pride to fight for.
In my opinion, these little decisions enhance the game, not detract from it.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Have no interest in GW2. Has nothing to do with whether it is a good game or not. Playing TOR due to story/BW.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
lol
Well, truth is, anyone can play any game however they choose. And if they want to play SWTOR casually, good for them. Maybe they like the whole story aspect of the game.
Casual 3 way PvP + progressing at my own speed, wherever I wish and however I wish sounds like a ton of fun. And thats why for me GW2 is an easy decision.
This is an easy choice. I choose Star Wars. Simply because it drops first. This doesn't work really until both games are out or unless they dropped at the same time but they do not.