Is anyone else a little turned off by the Personal Story?

Creslin321

I'm really hyped for GW2, so many features and design concepts really appeal to me as someone who misses the "glory days" when MMORPGs were more about communities and player interaction.  But I find that I'm just a little turned off by the concept of the personal story...let me explain why.

Almost every concept in GW2 is built to bring players together and encourage a spirit of community.

Dynamic events shatter the old "Sorry I'm not on that quest" barrier to grouping.  Now if you see someone saving a village, you can jump right in and help them without having to worry about if you ahve the quest first and if they will slow you down.

Forward and reverse level scaling shatter the old "Sorry you're too low/high!" barrier to grouping.  Now if your friends are max level and you are level 10 you can play together and even do the level 10 content!

Teleportation shatters the "Sorry I'm on the other side of the continent" barrier to grouping.  Now if you want to group with a friend who is far away, you can just pop right in!

And as for PvP, WvWvW will encourage a sense of "server pride" since you will always be with your server fighting against foreign servers; and the "FPS-style" servers for competitive PvP will enable you to really get to know your opponents/allies by frequenting the same server.

But then you have...the personal story.  Which as I understand it is basically a long string of instanced traditional quests.  Doesn't this just seem counter to everything else about GW2's philosophy?  When someone is on their personal story they will never run into another player and decide to team up, they are essentially playing single player.  Sure, you can bring another player into your instance, but this really isn't any different to how GW1 worked.

I just feel like the personal story is the only thing in GW2 that could lead to the kind of "single player MMO" behavior that we see in so many quest based MMO's like WoW, WAR, AoC, and Rift.  This worries be a bit.

Thoughts?

Exilor

How else would they have any kind of plot advancement without it? 

Saxx0n

I'm curious about this too. You may be right about pushing a personalized questline. I hope this mainly exists to further develop a personal attachment to your toon and also make availble cool customizations thru vanity/style equipment and possibly custom emotes of some sort.

Dynamic events will push the plot and I think it will be defined to areas as opposed to your character.

ThomasN7

Not really. Most Guild Wars players are used to story already and they are also used to mission based gameplay. Personal story is really your own personal mission that you can bring friends along with you.

Creslin321

Originally posted by Exilor

How else would they have any kind of plot advancement without it? 

It would be possible to tell a story through dynamic events, but I will admit that this is not as effective as a story telling mechanism as a scripted story.

With a scripted personal story, you deliver the plot directly to each player and they all get the whole story.  If you tried to do it with dynamic events, the WORLD would get the whole story, but individual players would only get pieces of the story.  Some of it would happen without them being there.

So I think it's a trade-off.  On one hand, you can deliver a personalized story to each player, but you have to remove them from the game world to do this and it makes the whole thing artificial.  On the other hand, you can have the world tell the story, but many players will miss out on certain parts and could be confused as to where the overall story is going; but the world would feel much more cohesive and the fact that things happen without you being there makes it much more immersive.

Personally, I would prefer that the world tell the story.

Saxx0n

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Exilor

How else would they have any kind of plot advancement without it? 

It would be possible to tell a story through dynamic events, but I will admit that this is not as effective as a story telling mechanism as a scripted story.

With a scripted personal story, you deliver the plot directly to each player and they all get the whole story.  If you tried to do it with dynamic events, the WORLD would get the whole story, but individual players would only get pieces of the story.  Some of it would happen without them being there.

So I think it's a trade-off.  On one hand, you can deliver a personalized story to each player, but you have to remove them from the game world to do this and it makes the whole thing artificial.  On the other hand, you can have the world tell the story, but many players will miss out on certain parts and could be confused as to where the overall story is going; but the world would feel much more cohesive and the fact that things happen without you being there makes it much more immersive.

Personally, I would prefer that the world tell the story.

As opposed to a strict storyline this might be handled in more of a themed style to allow players to drift in and out of the storyline at will and still be aware of the big picture.

Unknown

I don't see how its a problem unless you have to do it.   I doubt you are forced into doing all your personal story.

 

It seems to me it is simply a way for people to choose the narrative mechanic they prefer.

 

Its just a fact that different people prefer different methods of narration.

bill4747

I think you may be correct, but..........

Let me play devil's advocate, or use optimism.

The personal quests are something to do when you don't feel like dealing with other people, and are a change of pace.

Long term, most people will be spending far more time in 'open world dynamic events' and 'RvR' than the time they spend on personal quests.

 

Now what was the release date again

 

WellzyC

ALso, i think   *Think*     the personal story is optional, from what i read you can continue it at anytime and it will scale with your level. So if your not digging that part of the game, i believe you dont have to do it and just stick to the persistant world events and pvp.

 

*not 100% on this*

Meowhead

The Personal Story is only a fraction of the game though.

While it's possible to hit max level just doing WvWvW or Dynamic Events, this isn't true for the personal story.

It's not even neccessary to do the personal story... and the level of the content changes with you.  So if you want to save all (Or most of it anyway, you do a little in the beginning) of it for level 80 during some rainy day when you don't feel like playing with others, that's perfectly possible.

... and you can still bring other people along.  Up to 4 more people presumably (Full party size), which means it can be as multiplayer as dungeons anyway.

Methos12

Originally posted by SaintViktor

Not really. Most Guild Wars players are used to story already and they are also used to mission based gameplay. Personal story is really your own personal mission that you can bring friends along with you.

This and to be honest it's a good way to cover your bases because there are still people who will unknowingly go into GW2 expecting something akin to GW1 or more traditional quests. Personal Story format is there for them. It's your personal story and you have the freedom to take others into it with you + instanced nature provides the devs with absolute control in how they'll present the story to you without outside interference. That's pretty much it.

Distopia

Originally posted by Creslin321

But then you have...the personal story.  Which as I understand it is basically a long string of instanced traditional quests.  Doesn't this just seem counter to everything else about GW2's philosophy?  When someone is on their personal story they will never run into another player and decide to team up, they are essentially playing single player.  Sure, you can bring another player into your instance, but this really isn't any different to how GW1 worked.

I don't think it does, as first these seem to be RPG quests, not your typical WOW trash you find in many MMO's. Second it's an excellent way to change things up for those who want something a little more traditional, as well as a break from the other areas of the game.

Omnifish

I actually think it's a good idea, it's a gateway into the greater story of whatevers going on in the world.  It's a bit like reading a novel without a protagonist.  Who cares whats going in this world if you have nothing you can relate to on a personal level?

 

The idea is to make a connection between the player and the greater story of the game through the medium of a personalised story.  That way people make more of an investment in the game and potentially are going to hang around longer. I'm all for it if they pull it off, of course being an MMO thats a lot harder to do then a single player game :P

BlahTeeb

The main reason why stories are not persistent is due to the fact that there are choices that need instancing.

For example, we know you can lose close friends and families in your storyline. If you go the route where you save the village instead of your friend, but someone else chooses to save their friend... how can this possibly play out in a persistent world? It can't.

What most people don't understand is that phasing is just lite instancing. If you have two choices, then you need two phases to accomodate those two choices. However, if you have twenty tough choices and fifty small choices, then that is already several hundred phasing instances. If you are going to phase a hundred different instances, you might as well just make a persistent world where everyone else gets their own instance. Having a hundred phases breaks the game more so than having a persistent + instance world.

 

The only other way to solve the problem would be... my brother is dead, but because you saved him in your story, he is still there for everyone. When I walk into a village, my brother shouldn't be there. He is though, because ArenaNet didn't want to instance the village. Therefore, anyone who dies in my story never really did die, because somewhere on my server, at least one player decided to let them live. This is NOT how a good story should go. ArenaNet's stance on personal story is pretty solid and harsh, they have said numerous times that making a choice is a one way thing. You cannot go back and replay a choice, and choices are supposed to be grey, not black and white.

 

Take Dragon Age for example. In one of the parts, you were supposed to help the Redcliffe castle (I think...) but if you didn't, then it would be destroyed. How do you show a destroyed and not destroyed castle at the same time without phasing or instances?

 

So in the end, you either have an instanced personal story, or you don't have a personal story at all.

 

BlahTeeb

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Exilor

How else would they have any kind of plot advancement without it? 

It would be possible to tell a story through dynamic events, but I will admit that this is not as effective as a story telling mechanism as a scripted story.

With a scripted personal story, you deliver the plot directly to each player and they all get the whole story.  If you tried to do it with dynamic events, the WORLD would get the whole story, but individual players would only get pieces of the story.  Some of it would happen without them being there.

So I think it's a trade-off.  On one hand, you can deliver a personalized story to each player, but you have to remove them from the game world to do this and it makes the whole thing artificial.  On the other hand, you can have the world tell the story, but many players will miss out on certain parts and could be confused as to where the overall story is going; but the world would feel much more cohesive and the fact that things happen without you being there makes it much more immersive.

Personally, I would prefer that the world tell the story.

Actually, if the world told the story, it would pointless. It would just be a series of events that you "ride" on and never really do much. There are no choices to be made. There is only what the game says will happen. You cannot have choices in a persistent world, unless everyone on that server made the same choice.

With a personal story, you get at least a dozen solid different stories to play through. With the world story, there would only be one story taking place at the same time. This would draw in a huge amount of players to a location... but we already see that this happens with dynamic events. A world story means that you have no control, you just tag along for the ride. Your brother would be my brother, my mentor would be your mentor... so... I would just be you. That's not how a story should be told. At least an interactive one.

DarkPony

Wouldn't wory too much about it. Diversity and choice in gameplay alternatives is never a bad thing, I'd see it as a definite pro.

Also gives some extra "rp feel", background and diversity to having different characters.

Funny thing is that the whole "easy to jump in" aspect you stress in all the group aspects isn't all that appealing to me, personally as I am more the "achievement" kind of player who prefers putting in work, time and effort to unlock, be ready for or get to content.

Creslin321

Originally posted by BlahTeeb

The main reason why stories are not persistent is due to the fact that there are choices that need instancing.

For example, we know you can lose close friends and families in your storyline. If you go the route where you save the village instead of your friend, but someone else chooses to save their friend... how can this possibly play out in a persistent world? It can't.

What most people don't understand is that phasing is just lite instancing. If you have two choices, then you need two phases to accomodate those two choices. However, if you have twenty tough choices and fifty small choices, then that is already several hundred phasing instances. If you are going to phase a hundred different instances, you might as well just make a persistent world where everyone else gets their own instance. Having a hundred phases breaks the game more so than having a persistent + instance world.

 

The only other way to solve the problem would be... my brother is dead, but because you saved him in your story, he is still there for everyone. When I walk into a village, my brother shouldn't be there. He is though, because ArenaNet didn't want to instance the village. Therefore, anyone who dies in my story never really did die, because somewhere on my server, at least one player decided to let them live. This is NOT how a good story should go. ArenaNet's stance on personal story is pretty solid and harsh, they have said numerous times that making a choice is a one way thing. You cannot go back and replay a choice, and choices are supposed to be grey, not black and white.

 

Take Dragon Age for example. In one of the parts, you were supposed to help the Redcliffe castle (I think...) but if you didn't, then it would be destroyed. How do you show a destroyed and not destroyed castle at the same time without phasing or instances?

 

So in the end, you either have an instanced personal story, or you don't have a personal story at all.

 

I definitely get this, but what you're really talking about is that there is no way to make player A's version of the world different than player B's without instancing.  And yeah, that's obvious.

I think what I and some other posters were talking about would be to not have a personal story at all, but instead tell the story of the WORLD all through non-instanced dynamic events.  Players would then participate in these events and learn pieces of the story as the events unfolded.

I completely admit that this would not be nearly as personal as an instanced scripted quest line.  You are never going to have a situation like "your brother dies" or "you are left to be in charge of an elite fighting force."  So it's a trade off as I stated before.

You either have a more immersive world at the cost of story, or a more engrossing storyline at the cost of immersion.

VowOfSilence

100% agree. The personal story is just as backwards as SWTOR, except SWTOR is superior in terms of presentation. People want GW2 PvE because of dynamics events, and imo that's what Anet should focus on in expansions. Personal story is great, but only if it's told with the help of dynamic events instead of instances.

Unlight

I like it.  It gives you a sense that you are significant in the world and not just one of the thousands of other "heroes" out there, cracking skulls for a good cause.  That your role in the events of Tyria are important, even though the world continues to move ahead with or without you.

I think it's a good balance.  We all know we're just players in an online game, but allowing you to experience pivotal events without having to trip over scores of others doing exactly the same thing, is a good way to let you forget that for just a little while.  After all, when you finally succeed in bringing together Destiny's Edge, would it really be more meaningful having a couple of dozen strangers there, waiting to collect their share of the reward too?

For me, this preserves the positive aspects of fully instanced gameplay like we saw in GW1, while still being able to mix with a large number of people in an open world.  Besides, why does *everything* need to be done in a group?  Isn't it good to be able to leave the committee behind now and then?

This is MY story.

Go get your own.

Shroom_Mage

Since the personal story is in instances, it's like a separate game all on its own. It doesn't pull players apart from each other because you can only play through it once per character, and it doesn't even take you to the level cap. You'll only ever have one storyline objective at a time, so it's not like you're going to spend the majority of time playing through it, compared to games like CoH where the majority of your gameplay is in instances.

It's like a separate game where you can use the same character. Complaining about the personal story (to me) is like complaining that GW2 players might also buy Mass Effect 3.

It also, like other have said, gives you a certain attachment to your character that you don't find in most other games.

Tyroki

I'm pretty sure they said in one of the con videos that you don't HAVE to do the personal story. It's just there for when you want to. They fully expect people to explore the world.

Creslin321

Originally posted by Unlight

I like it.  It gives you a sense that you are significant in the world and not just one of the thousands of other "heroes" out there, cracking skulls for a good cause.  That your role in the events of Tyria are important, even though the world continues to move ahead with or without you.

I think it's a good balance.  We all know we're just players in an online game, but allowing you to experience pivotal events without having to trip over scores of others doing exactly the same thing, is a good way to let you forget that for just a little while.  After all, when you finally succeed in bringing together Destiny's Edge, would it really be more meaningful having a couple of dozen strangers there, waiting to collect their share of the reward too?

For me, this preserves the positive aspects of fully instanced gameplay like we saw in GW1, while still being able to mix with a large number of people in an open world.  Besides, why does *everything* need to be done in a group?  Isn't it good to be able to leave the committee behind now and then?

This is MY story.

Go get your own.

Yeah I have no argument against this.  I see the positive side of personal stories.  I mean, I love SPRPGs so I'm sure I will enjoy the personal story in GW2.  Everything you say is probably true.

That said...it really just comes down to preferences.  I would prefer GW2 be completely "MMO" oriented, and I feel like Personal Story is the only thing it has that pushes it towards a more SP experience.

Tyroki

The soloists out there should enjoy it then, while the rest of us play it like a real MMO and chill out with the dynamic events and large unpartied groups of people in huge scale battles :P

Classicstar

Lol after i read OPs explanation how game works i wonder if you are playing the game or game playing you?

Omg i would never play such game as OP explains seems to me even worse then WoW , this is just a observation ive not much experience with themeparks so don't  take my opinion to serieus guys:)

grimm6th

Originally posted by DarkPony

Wouldn't wory too much about it. Diversity and choice in gameplay alternatives is never a bad thing, I'd see it as a definite pro.

Also gives some extra "rp feel", background and diversity to having different characters.

Funny thing is that the whole "easy to jump in" aspect you stress in all the group aspects isn't all that appealing to me, personally as I am more the "achievement" kind of player who prefers putting in work, time and effort to unlock, be ready for or get to content.

Yes it does. 

The idea that you can make the kind of character you want, even with the restrictions of an online game, is one of the things that many people don't understand and don't talk about.  In most games if I were playing another game and I said my character was a ferocious warrior who started fights and punched people because I found thier voice annoying, a heartless pragmatist who would let children die because the village needed my services elsewhere, and a friend to the idol worshipping grawl because I found their naively mystic ways amusing, that would be simple RPing.  In GW2, I would actually have my character do these things in my personal story (those things listed are all known to be possible)  Heck, it would even be recorded in the character menu so I could read it later.

Personally, I want to be a dignified necromancer who was orphaned at birth but raised by nobility...but thats just me.

 

GW2's personal story system sounds good enough for even skeptics of the value of instances or personal stories in MMOs to at least be curious about the results.

BlahTeeb

Originally posted by Creslin321

I definitely get this, but what you're really talking about is that there is no way to make player A's version of the world different than player B's without instancing.  And yeah, that's obvious.

I think what I and some other posters were talking about would be to not have a personal story at all, but instead tell the story of the WORLD all through non-instanced dynamic events.  Players would then participate in these events and learn pieces of the story as the events unfolded.

I completely admit that this would not be nearly as personal as an instanced scripted quest line.  You are never going to have a situation like "your brother dies" or "you are left to be in charge of an elite fighting force."  So it's a trade off as I stated before.

You either have a more immersive world at the cost of story, or a more engrossing storyline at the cost of immersion.

That I understand. However, it seems you want to remove the personal story and not trade it with anything. We already dynamic events. In fact, we have events that have 20+ chains that accomodate for 100+ players. I imagine a 20+ chain event would tell a story. We have events that tie in with the elder dragons, the white mantle, the history, the secret things, and pretty much every aspect of the world. What you want is pretty much already in the game. The world in GW2 already tells a persistent story. This story goes on with or without you and is availble to everyone to experience with everyone else.

The personal story is just another piece. This personal story doesn't take anything away from the world story. The personal story is there for that exact reason... to be personal.