It's like saying one shouldn't analyze Public Quests as a feature but as a part of the whole because other features complement it, but that simply isn't true. Your immediate experience, what really matters, when doing Dynamic Events will become repetitive no matter how good the other gameplay areas are due to the crude objectives it has to make use of. Therefore, the issues do indeed exist. The flaws are entirely concrete.
I'm not saying you can't analyze dynamic events as an individual system...what I'm saying is that you can't COMPARE them directly to quests in other games, because the systems don't translate 1:1. Dynamic events don't have to fulfill the same functions as quests...it will fulfill some of the functions of the task grind in other games, plus it will fulfill additional functions which are not covered in other games at all. Other systems in GW2 will fulfill additional aspects of the task grind in other games. In other words, the two systems have overlap and don't match up directly.
This is my attempt at showing that the systems in previous games don't map directly onto GW2. The task grind does not equal the dynamic events directly... and dynamic events provide for a great deal more than was even possible in previous MMORPGs. Dungeons will also play a bigger role in GW2 than in most WoW-formula games...providing another method to deliver story to the player, and more replayability without repetition.
Can you analyze dynamic events and say they don't do the same thing as quests in some ways? Sure. But you can't call that a deficiency or problem with the game as a whole when those things you claim are "missing" are fulfilled (and fleshed out) much better using other systems in GW2. Your supposed flaw lies outside the necessary scope of the dynamic events system, because it is covered by other systems in the game.
Not providing for the individualistic elements that you get in a WoW-formula task system is not a flaw with the dynamic event system...it's just not what the dynamic event system was designed to do (as we understand it right now, see next paragraph). The personal story quests are designed to fulfill that aspect, and do it much better than the task system in previous games ever could. Not providing for those individualistic goals isn't something the system needs to do, and therefore not doing it isn't a flaw.
Also, you are basing your beliefs in the deficiencies of the dynamic events system on your own understanding of the system, which you must admit is extremely limited. You know the basic mechanics, but it doesn't seem like you've spent much time watching the demos or understanding the system in any depth. Add to that the fact that there are hundreds of dynamic events that we haven't seen, so the system may provide a great deal more flexibility than you are assuming. Claiming that the system will become repetitive (in comparison to the task grind in previous games) is premature at best...the system provides dramatically more in the way of changing content than a linear task grind ever could, even when just a single zone or area is considered. The game isn't set up to have players repeating content over and over...there will, in fact, be little reason to repeat anything other than you enjoyed it and want to see it again.
Totally agree. What makes DEs great and innovative isn't their 'dynamic' nature, which imho is just a trick to temporarily make us believe that we're in a changing dynamic world. It's their communal nature: easy, rewarding and meaningful grouping. That's what makes DEs great.
Thirded.
Every criticism of DE's I see if people crying foul because they aren't "truly" dynamic. They will repeat, the changes the result from them aren't permanent etc. etc.
But um...you're missing the point. Dynamic events aren't supposed to replicate the kind of player driven dynamism that happens in sandbox games. They are basically just a complete overhaul improvement of traditional questing. And in that regard, I think they look awesome.
Totally agree. What makes DEs great and innovative isn't their 'dynamic' nature, which imho is just a trick to temporarily make us believe that we're in a changing dynamic world. It's their communal nature: easy, rewarding and meaningful grouping. That's what makes DEs great.
Thirded.
Every criticism of DE's I see if people crying foul because they aren't "truly" dynamic. They will repeat, the changes the result from them aren't permanent etc. etc.
But um...you're missing the point. Dynamic events aren't supposed to replicate the kind of player driven dynamism that happens in sandbox games. They are basically just a complete overhaul improvement of traditional questing. And in that regard, I think they look awesome.
Rift wasn't for me, but I have to admit that during beta the rifts (despite all of their faults) were a lot of fun. There was a lot of impromptu grouping, it brough people together, and it was exciting. It looks like GW2 will be taking it a step further with a greater variety, and I'm looking forward to seeing how it plays out.
I disagree. Dynamic Events can and should be analyzed without considering the other forms of gameplay because, essentially, while you are doing a Dynamic Event, the Personal Story system, the dungeon system, and all these other systems will have no effect on your immediate experience. Since Dynamic Events will suffer from the disadvantage of having to use objectives that are scalable, I believe this will lead to a severe limitation and ultimately repetition in the gameplay experience pertaining to doing Dynamic Events.
It's like saying one shouldn't analyze Public Quests as a feature but as a part of the whole because other features complement it, but that simply isn't true. Your immediate experience, what really matters, when doing Dynamic Events will become repetitive no matter how good the other gameplay areas are due to the crude objectives it has to make use of. Therefore, the issues do indeed exist. The flaws are entirely concrete. Dynamic Events are a HUGE part of the game, even though it is not the only form of progression. What you are fundamentally advocating here is that if a game's open world PvE is repetitive while the instanced PvE isn't, then there is no problem, since one features makes up for the other, which is quite ludicrous.
I think Fozzik has a point. Take for instance, PVE vs PVP. GW2's PVE world is designed to be entirely PVE with no PVP and with as little griefing as possible. Yet I don't look at the PVE world like it's suffering because of a lack of PVP, or that it'll be repetitive or boring because there's no possibility of being ganked. I look at it like the game is giving you options. The WvW PVP or the structured PVP can be there to "scratch the itch" of a person who needs a PVP experience in their MMO.
Similarly, if DEs were the only content, maybe people would feel constrained by them being all there was. But if the personal story supplements that by allowing people to have quest type experiences, dedicated solo play, stealth missions, and feel like a hero, then it might just be ok for DEs not to be able to provide them because they provide other things (group play, immersion, etc)
I think what it comes down to is not really whether DEs are repetitive, but whether the game suffers due to that repetition. Even though I concede that you can't do everything with a DE you can do with a quest, the contextual variety of DEs and their other bonuses might make up for it. We don't know for sure. We might have to just agree to disagree until the game comes out.
"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
Totally agree. What makes DEs great and innovative isn't their 'dynamic' nature, which imho is just a trick to temporarily make us believe that we're in a changing dynamic world. It's their communal nature: easy, rewarding and meaningful grouping. That's what makes DEs great.
That's the part that makes me the most skeptical. The communal thing could go either way IMO, while it's great that they bring folks to congregate in an area, it doesn't exactly mean there will be "meaningful grouping". It really depends on the nature of the in-game community, which is why it could be a double edged sword.
To me what makes them great is the idea that they add a bit of "realism" to the questing experience. Rather than quests (events) being handed to you and triggered through conversation, as well as each event being your own personal instance of that event. They happen in a semi "dynamic" manner. (IE) It's going on whether you're there or not.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
This seems to have become a Quests vs Dynamic Events discussion. I apologize if I took part in creating this, but it was not my intention. Using quests was just an example to show a mechanic that is not limited by scalable objectives.
Now, let's go back to my inital concern. My claim was that Dynamic Events would become repetitive after a while because it can only have objectives that are scalable. Now, you can refute my claim by telling me how it will not become repetitive based on what I just said.
Nope, many quests *could* be like that. Very few *are* like that. I think a DE system (once the tools to create them were made as smooth as possible) could replace most of the dull quests leaving more time to create the sort of quests you're talking about.
Even though the fact that you deem only a few existing quests to be incompatible with the Dynamic Events system is quite irrelevant to the discussion at hand (we are considering the system's potential, not its actuality), most of Cataclysm's quests would fall under the category of not compatible.
Hey Stealth, there have been a lot of posts about the issue you bring up regarding the lower number of possible "objectives" with dynamic events so I just wanted to respond to that.
First, you are technically correct. As you said previously, any objective in a dynamic event has to be somehow scalable for a large group of people, and simple enough for a large group to all cooperate together on without having coordinated beforehand.
Second, I don't think it's really a big deal. Here's why...
The example you brought up about the assassination earlier where you have to kill a chieftain and then frame someone else. This SOUNDS really good on paper, but I've done quests like this in WoW and other games and the reality of them is not very exciting. The quest you mention would almost certainly boil down to killing a chieftain who is sitting in his tent doing nothing and then right clicking on his table to plant some false evidence...quest complete.
So why was this quest with such an exciting premise so boring? It's because the QUEST if instanced for you, but the WORLD is shared for everyone. The chieftain can't really be doing anything interesting, because he has to be there to be available for all the other players to kill when it's their turn. You can't have any interesting scripted events happen after you kill the chieftain because it may spoil someone else's quest. Sure, you can do this a tiny bit in moderation (spawn a monster when chieftain dies) but you can't really do much. Unless you instance the entire world (single player, GW1), you will have this problem. IMO, this is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, issues with traditional questing.
Dynamic events seek to solve this problem. With dynamic events, both the "quest" and the world are shared. So I think this allows them to be more interesting. You can actually have "stuff" happen when the players complete some objective or trigger something. In a traditional quest, nearly everything has to remain static. If you change anything, it can only be very momentary so that the next person will have a "clean" slate on which to do their instance of the quest.
This seems to have become a Quests vs Dynamic Events discussion. I apologize if I took part in creating this, but it was not my intention. Using quests was just an example to show a mechanic that is not limited by scalable objectives.
Now, let's go back to my inital concern. My claim was that Dynamic Events would become repetitive after a while because it can only have objectives that are scalable. Now, you can refute my claim by telling me how it will not become repetitive based on what I just said.
IMO, the flaw in your argument is that you are assuming that variety in objectives is the only real way to keep something interesting. I don't think this is true.
Look at a game like Gran Turismo or Forza (racing). There is only one real objective. Get to the finish line quickly. And yet people play these games for months. Same thing can be said for football games (get more points), or RTS games (destroy enemy base).
The point is that you don't need varied objectives if the GAMEPLAY is interesting enough to keep the players' attention. If dynamic events provide a decent enough challenge and the gameplay is fun, then I think that's all you really need. Personally, varied objectives do very little to keep me interested when the gameplay is boring. That's why I skip most quest text. I don't care what I have to do if it boils down to follow minimap and kill bob then right click on the table.
And from what I have seen, the gameplay of dynamic events looks like it can be interesting. Take the Tequatl fight for example. The objective is simple, kill Tequatl. But to do this, you have many options/strategies available to you...
1. Repair turrets.
2. Use turrets to destroy bonewalls.
3. Guard the players who are using the turrets from MOBs that Tequatl spawns.
4. Attack Tequatl head on.
5. Rez downed players.
6. Etc. etc.
So even though the overarching objective is simple, the amount of ways you can achieve it makes for more interesting gameplay. Much like how in a football game your objective is merely to get more points than the other team, but you can accomplish this objective by picking from a wide variety of plays at every down, etc.
Along the same lines as what Creslin just said, when you're playing a combat MMO, there's only so many actions you can be taking. In poorly constructed quest games, you're probably doing one of two things; you're killing something or you're clicking on an environmental object.
What separates well constructed games from poorly constructed games is making you care about the story. Quests can get creative and have an individual touch where you're looting rags to make a disguise, or you're using stealth or you're going off to find this ghost's last surviving relative and these are all things that DEs probably can't do. But what made them interesting is the story, not the act of looting or clicking an environmental object, or the act of killing that guy.
DEs, even though they can't do things with the invidual touch, are still better than quests at immersing you in a story. Not only because you only have one DE at a time to worry about instead of a whole log. It's because they happen to the world. Mobs attack and things get knocked down, NPCs die. DEs can be failed. You can take part without being told to take part.
I'm sure someday there will be a GW2 clone where the developer was lazy and all the events are "Kill X bandits" and "Kill X Centaurs" but I think we're seeing the effort being put in by ArenaNet where hay bales get burned, prison doors need to be knocked down, and friendly ships attack pirate islands once their defensive turrets are destroyed. I think it's too early to write them off as being repetitive without first seeing all they can do.
"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
3. Guard the players who are using the turrets from MOBs that Tequatl spawns.
4. Attack Tequatl head on.
5. Rez downed players.
6. Etc. etc.
Dude, how did you forget the laser beam?
"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
Now, let's go back to my inital concern. My claim was that Dynamic Events would become repetitive after a while because it can only have objectives that are scalable. Now, you can refute my claim by telling me how it will not become repetitive based on what I just said.
Strictly on that particular point...the problem there is your lack of imagination. You aren't able to think of very many different possibilities, so you assume there will be few. "Only objectives that are scaleable" could be a MASSIVE subset...really only limited by the developer's imagination and the technology they have available...neither of which you can know. I'm guessing ArenaNet, being professionals and highly skilled, plus having years to ponder this stuff and develop the tools, have probably come up with considerably more diversity in events than you can fathom in a short weekend of bellybutton gazing.
Because I think your gripe is simply based on your lack of info or imagination, it's pretty much impossible for me to argue it with you. You'll just have to wait and be surprised when you discover that ArenaNet thought of a few more things than you did.
Now, let's go back to my inital concern. My claim was that Dynamic Events would become repetitive after a while because it can only have objectives that are scalable. Now, you can refute my claim by telling me how it will not become repetitive based on what I just said.
Strictly on that particular point...the problem there is your lack of imagination. You aren't able to think of very many different possibilities, so you assume there will be few. "Only objectives that are scaleable" could be a MASSIVE subset...really only limited by the developer's imagination and the technology they have available...neither of which you can know. I'm guessing ArenaNet, being professionals and highly skilled, plus having years to ponder this stuff and develop the tools, have probably come up with considerably more diversity in events than you can fathom in a short weekend of bellybutton gazing.
Because I think your gripe is simply based on your lack of info or imagination, it's pretty much impossible for me to argue it with you. You'll just have to wait and be surprised when you discover that ArenaNet thought of a few more things than you did.
Obviously I am not basing this solely on my reasoning. To formulate my opinion I am also considering what other games before Guild Wars did when taking this path. You could say the same thing about Warhammer's and Rift's developers and how they are professional and how their ability to diversify this kind of system is unparalleled compared to an average forum poster. But in reality, we didn't get all that much, it became repetitive, and Guild Wars 2 has shown no sign of fixing this specific problem. I don't go by a blind faith of believing that the only reason I see this as a problem is because I am not as creative as a game developer.
Now, let's go back to my inital concern. My claim was that Dynamic Events would become repetitive after a while because it can only have objectives that are scalable. Now, you can refute my claim by telling me how it will not become repetitive based on what I just said.
Strictly on that particular point...the problem there is your lack of imagination. You aren't able to think of very many different possibilities, so you assume there will be few. "Only objectives that are scaleable" could be a MASSIVE subset...really only limited by the developer's imagination and the technology they have available...neither of which you can know. I'm guessing ArenaNet, being professionals and highly skilled, plus having years to ponder this stuff and develop the tools, have probably come up with considerably more diversity in events than you can fathom in a short weekend of bellybutton gazing.
Because I think your gripe is simply based on your lack of info or imagination, it's pretty much impossible for me to argue it with you. You'll just have to wait and be surprised when you discover that ArenaNet thought of a few more things than you did.
You call someone out for his "lack of imagination" and assuming that "there will be few" then go on to assume there will be many. Then you white-knight Arena net for being "professionals an highly skilled" which just makes you come off as a fanboi, which won't help your argument.
Neither you or him know exactly what is going to happen. His point is simple yet you are blowing it out of proportion. RIFT has the same type of thing and while it was pretty cool for the first couple of characters, it gets old.
This seems to have become a Quests vs Dynamic Events discussion. I apologize if I took part in creating this, but it was not my intention. Using quests was just an example to show a mechanic that is not limited by scalable objectives.
Now, let's go back to my inital concern. My claim was that Dynamic Events would become repetitive after a while because it can only have objectives that are scalable. Now, you can refute my claim by telling me how it will not become repetitive based on what I just said.
IMO, the flaw in your argument is that you are assuming that variety in objectives is the only real way to keep something interesting. I don't think this is true.
Look at a game like Gran Turismo or Forza (racing). There is only one real objective. Get to the finish line quickly. And yet people play these games for months. Same thing can be said for football games (get more points), or RTS games (destroy enemy base).
The point is that you don't need varied objectives if the GAMEPLAY is interesting enough to keep the players' attention. If dynamic events provide a decent enough challenge and the gameplay is fun, then I think that's all you really need. Personally, varied objectives do very little to keep me interested when the gameplay is boring. That's why I skip most quest text. I don't care what I have to do if it boils down to follow minimap and kill bob then right click on the table.
And from what I have seen, the gameplay of dynamic events looks like it can be interesting. Take the Tequatl fight for example. The objective is simple, kill Tequatl. But to do this, you have many options/strategies available to you...
1. Repair turrets.
2. Use turrets to destroy bonewalls.
3. Guard the players who are using the turrets from MOBs that Tequatl spawns.
4. Attack Tequatl head on.
5. Rez downed players.
6. Etc. etc.
So even though the overarching objective is simple, the amount of ways you can achieve it makes for more interesting gameplay. Much like how in a football game your objective is merely to get more points than the other team, but you can accomplish this objective by picking from a wide variety of plays at every down, etc.
Clearly, that is not how MMO's work and the comparison to Grand Turismo is seriously irrelevant. They are different types of games and I could go on and on about why it is a skewed comparison, but I see no point. If Guild Wars 2 can come up with some intense, strategic, and extremely varied encounters with very intelligent AI, then you will have a point. Yet, MMO's are still far away from that caliber of gameplay.
This seems to have become a Quests vs Dynamic Events discussion. I apologize if I took part in creating this, but it was not my intention. Using quests was just an example to show a mechanic that is not limited by scalable objectives.
Now, let's go back to my inital concern. My claim was that Dynamic Events would become repetitive after a while because it can only have objectives that are scalable. Now, you can refute my claim by telling me how it will not become repetitive based on what I just said.
IMO, the flaw in your argument is that you are assuming that variety in objectives is the only real way to keep something interesting. I don't think this is true.
Look at a game like Gran Turismo or Forza (racing). There is only one real objective. Get to the finish line quickly. And yet people play these games for months. Same thing can be said for football games (get more points), or RTS games (destroy enemy base).
The point is that you don't need varied objectives if the GAMEPLAY is interesting enough to keep the players' attention. If dynamic events provide a decent enough challenge and the gameplay is fun, then I think that's all you really need. Personally, varied objectives do very little to keep me interested when the gameplay is boring. That's why I skip most quest text. I don't care what I have to do if it boils down to follow minimap and kill bob then right click on the table.
And from what I have seen, the gameplay of dynamic events looks like it can be interesting. Take the Tequatl fight for example. The objective is simple, kill Tequatl. But to do this, you have many options/strategies available to you...
1. Repair turrets.
2. Use turrets to destroy bonewalls.
3. Guard the players who are using the turrets from MOBs that Tequatl spawns.
4. Attack Tequatl head on.
5. Rez downed players.
6. Etc. etc.
So even though the overarching objective is simple, the amount of ways you can achieve it makes for more interesting gameplay. Much like how in a football game your objective is merely to get more points than the other team, but you can accomplish this objective by picking from a wide variety of plays at every down, etc.
Clearly, that is not how MMO's work and the comparison to Grand Turismo is seriously irrelevant. They are different types of games and I could go on and on about why it is a skewed comparison, but I see no point. If Guild Wars 2 can come up with some intense, strategic, and extremely varied encounters with very intelligent AI, then you will have a point. Yet, judging from demos and other videos, I believe this to be a very long stretch from the game's reality.
Haha well you're pretty committed to your viewpoint so I see I can't sway you .
The best I can say is try watching the TotalBiscuit video where he does the Tequatl the Sunless DE. It actually looks fairly interesting.
Anyway...DE's are obviously going to bare a lot of similarity to PQs and Rifts. They are essentially the same basic concept.
But PQs and Rifts got boring because they were all the same thing without much variation at all. They were both too formulaic. Incidentally, this is why quests get boring as well IMO. From what I have seen with DE's...I don't see this happening. I mean, it might, I can't be sure. But if the majority of them are as complex as the Tequatl one looked, then I'm not really worried.
Oh and as for the Gran Turismo thing...I don't see why the comparison is invalid. They are both games. GT shows that you don't need to have varied objectives for a GAME to remain interesting provided that the gameplay is deep and challenging.
If you want another example that's closer to GW2, look at UO or other sandbox games. They basically no scripted objectives and were just about playing and enjoying the game. Yet many people enjoyed them for years despite this.
The point is that you don't NEED a whole bunch of varied scripted objectives to make a game have longevity. That could probably be one path to making a game have longevity, but it is not the only one.
Haha well you're pretty committed to your viewpoint so I see I can't sway you .
The best I can say is try watching the TotalBiscuit video where he does the Tequatl the Sunless DE. It actually looks fairly interesting.
Anyway...DE's are obviously going to bare a lot of similarity to PQs and Rifts. They are essentially the same basic concept.
But PQs and Rifts got boring because they were all the same thing without much variation at all. They were both too formulaic. Incidentally, this is why quests get boring as well IMO. From what I have seen with DE's...I don't see this happening. I mean, it might, I can't be sure. But if the majority of them are as complex as the Tequatl one looked, then I'm not really worried.
Sure, it looks fun and all, but it is still close to what most modern MMO's offer and very far away from what singleplayer games can offer (obviously).
Haha well you're pretty committed to your viewpoint so I see I can't sway you .
The best I can say is try watching the TotalBiscuit video where he does the Tequatl the Sunless DE. It actually looks fairly interesting.
Anyway...DE's are obviously going to bare a lot of similarity to PQs and Rifts. They are essentially the same basic concept.
But PQs and Rifts got boring because they were all the same thing without much variation at all. They were both too formulaic. Incidentally, this is why quests get boring as well IMO. From what I have seen with DE's...I don't see this happening. I mean, it might, I can't be sure. But if the majority of them are as complex as the Tequatl one looked, then I'm not really worried.
Sure, it looks fun and all, but it is still close to what most modern MMO's offer and very far away from what singleplayer games can offer (obviously).
But why would you want an MMO to be like a single player game? That's basically what single player games are for, to give you a really personalized experience where you get to be the hero.
IMO, MMORPG's should be more about being just "a" (not the) hero in a shared, persistent world where you can cooperate with and compete with hundreds of players. SPRPGs are great, but I think they should be distinct from MMORPGs to a degree.
I mean, it's quite possible to design an MMORPG to play a lot like an SPRPG. All you have to do is make every single area in the game instanced. But do you really want to do that? If you do, I don't see the point in making it an MMORPG anymore.
Another Edit:
Anyway...I think the point is that MMORPGs can offer something different than SPRPGs. While SPRPGs will always have a personalized experience that MMORPGs cannot match, MMORPGs can offer a cooperative and competitive experience of player interaction that SPRPGs will never match.
So why should you make an MMORPG and focus on a "personalized" experience that will never match up with an SPRPG? IMO, MMORPGs should focus on their strength, which is the fact that they are a persistent world with tons of other players...that should be an asset, not a weakness.
For the most part, GW2 is doing this (in exception for the personal story).
AMAGAAAD we have a problem with critical thinking here folks. GW2 can't be compared to Gran Turismo or any singleplayer game because they don't have to worry about the ONLINE portion, possibilitating far more complex AI, combat, etc.. That and MANY other reasons, is why they can have a single constant objective while Dynamic Events can't. Therefore, your comparison is irrelevant. Do you understand now? That is why I said that if GW2 can come up with some crazy good gameplay dynamics with super intelligent AI like in a singleplayer game (which it can't, because it's an MMO!), then you would have a point.
"Sure, it looks fun and all, but it is still close to what most modern MMO's offer and very far away from what singleplayer games can offer (obviously)."
This quote is referring to singleplayer games' technological advantage over MMO's and Guild Wars 2. I didn't say I wanted it to be like a singleplayer. I thought I wouldn't have to explain this...
AMAGAAAD we have a problem with critical thinking here folks. GW2 can't be compared to Gran Turismo or any singleplayer game because they don't have to worry about the ONLINE portion, possibilitating far more complex AI, combat, etc.. That and MANY other reasons, is why they can have a single constant objective while Dynamic Events can't. Therefore, your comparison is irrelevant. Do you understand now? That is why I said that if GW2 can come up with some crazy good gameplay dynamics with super intelligent AI like in a singleplayer game (which it can't, because it's an MMO!), then you would have a point.
PvP in MMORPG usually has one or two objectives only, it is ONLINE as you say, and yet people play it for years.
Difficult, max-level, dungeons and raids are scarce, they are ONLINE, and yet people play them for years.
Sandbox games as I mentioned...ONLINE and yet people play them for years.
Considering whenever they talk about the MMO part of the game they talk about being heroes with your friends and affecting things happening in the world i dissagree with the point that its meant to be a more single player type experience. They can make the game enjoyable for a person without having to limit the person to being jsut a singular hero in the story (aka, forcing you into a stait of mind that what you do is not as important for the game world over all).
Dont we play RPG's to be that badass character fightin the good fight? And dont we play MMO's to be badasses with our friends? Anet keeps saying they want to bring the RPG back into MMORPG, considering that, I dont see how what their doing is wrong or bad, or why any one would be convinced it will fail or be similar to the mechanics of previous titles. Anet has shown their commitment to evolving the genre through everything they've done so far, and considering that they've already gone farther than rift or war or any other theme park MMO out there to be more than what WoW had to offer I dont see where people are coming from comparing it to rift and war unless its to make distinctions between the two in an unbiast factual matter.
As it stands games like Rift and War wherent trying to be better games then WoW, they where trying to be on par with WoW with a few new features and mechanics to try and persuade people that their attention deserved to be on them. But when looking at Guild Wars 2, the amount of effort their oppenly putting into their product I can only see it either working out to be aan incredibly polished and well designed game that will be better then rift and war in terms of pretty much everything quality and quantity wise, or it will crash to the ground in a smoldering pile of ruin and tears.
PvP in MMORPG usually has one or two objectives only, it is ONLINE as you say, and yet people play it for years.
Difficult, max-level, dungeons and raids are scarce, they are ONLINE, and yet people play them for years.
Sandbox games as I mentioned...ONLINE and yet people play them for years.
Honestly, I think you're kinda full of it.
Wooooooooooooow, stop......pleeeeeeeease. PvP involves a player killing ANOTHER player. We are talking about dynamic events, where players kill AI's. Comparison fail 2x.
Raiding is only played by a vocal minority, and its more for the progression than the actual experience. Comparison fail 3x.
Sandbox games are sandbox games. Guild Wars 2 is a themepark. Comparison fail 4x.
I shall not elaborate further. I expect you to take this and see how badly formulated your argument is.
AMAGAAAD we have a problem with critical thinking here folks. GW2 can't be compared to Gran Turismo or any singleplayer game because they don't have to worry about the ONLINE portion, possibilitating far more complex AI, combat, etc.. That and MANY other reasons, is why they can have a single constant objective while Dynamic Events can't. Therefore, your comparison is irrelevant. Do you understand now? That is why I said that if GW2 can come up with some crazy good gameplay dynamics with super intelligent AI like in a singleplayer game (which it can't, because it's an MMO!), then you would have a point.
"Sure, it looks fun and all, but it is still close to what most modern MMO's offer and very far away from what singleplayer games can offer (obviously)."
This quote is referring to singleplayer games' technological advantage over MMO's and Guild Wars 2. I didn't say I wanted it to be like a singleplayer. I thought I wouldn't have to explain this...
I'm confused as to how we got from quests possibly being better than DEs due to more variety of objectives to where we are now, which is that single player games can have more complex AI and combat and some kind of technological advantage as well.
What are the standards for single player games so far? Dragon Age? Oblivion? Mass Effect? Are these games known for their stories or are they known for complex AI and combat?
Please feel free to continue to ignore my posts while you reply to other people. I'm used to 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
I'm confused as to how we got from quests possibly being better than DEs due to more variety of objectives to where we are now, which is that single player games can have more complex AI and combat and some kind of technological advantage as well.
What are the standards for single player games so far? Dragon Age? Oblivion? Mass Effect? Are these games known for their stories or are they known for complex AI and combat?
Please feel free to continue to ignore my posts while you reply to other people. I'm used to it.
Sorry if I missed your post, but I will give you a breakdown on how the discussion came to this. I made my claim regarding Dynamic Events, and Creslin rebuked by saying that repetitive gameplay wouldn't matter since other games like Grand Turismo don't get boring (it gets worse though, just wait for it). I stated that Grand Turismo can have only one goal while Dynamic Events can't because it's a singleplayer game where the AI and many other technological factors are superior allowing for far more dynamic, varied, and unpredictable gameplay. He then thought I wanted Guild Wars 2 to be like a singleplayer game (don't ask me...). Then he said that repetition wouldn't matter because people PvP for years and don't get bored (oh boy). Then he compared it to raiding and sandbox gameplay (Yep, I think I'll give up on him).
Comments
I'm not saying you can't analyze dynamic events as an individual system...what I'm saying is that you can't COMPARE them directly to quests in other games, because the systems don't translate 1:1. Dynamic events don't have to fulfill the same functions as quests...it will fulfill some of the functions of the task grind in other games, plus it will fulfill additional functions which are not covered in other games at all. Other systems in GW2 will fulfill additional aspects of the task grind in other games. In other words, the two systems have overlap and don't match up directly.
Previous Games
Task Grind <---------------------------------->
Raiding <------------------->
Dungeons <------------------->
Guild Wars 2
Dynamic events <-------------------------------------------------->
Personal story <------------------------>
Dungeons <------------------------------------>
This is my attempt at showing that the systems in previous games don't map directly onto GW2. The task grind does not equal the dynamic events directly... and dynamic events provide for a great deal more than was even possible in previous MMORPGs. Dungeons will also play a bigger role in GW2 than in most WoW-formula games...providing another method to deliver story to the player, and more replayability without repetition.
Can you analyze dynamic events and say they don't do the same thing as quests in some ways? Sure. But you can't call that a deficiency or problem with the game as a whole when those things you claim are "missing" are fulfilled (and fleshed out) much better using other systems in GW2. Your supposed flaw lies outside the necessary scope of the dynamic events system, because it is covered by other systems in the game.
Not providing for the individualistic elements that you get in a WoW-formula task system is not a flaw with the dynamic event system...it's just not what the dynamic event system was designed to do (as we understand it right now, see next paragraph). The personal story quests are designed to fulfill that aspect, and do it much better than the task system in previous games ever could. Not providing for those individualistic goals isn't something the system needs to do, and therefore not doing it isn't a flaw.
Also, you are basing your beliefs in the deficiencies of the dynamic events system on your own understanding of the system, which you must admit is extremely limited. You know the basic mechanics, but it doesn't seem like you've spent much time watching the demos or understanding the system in any depth. Add to that the fact that there are hundreds of dynamic events that we haven't seen, so the system may provide a great deal more flexibility than you are assuming. Claiming that the system will become repetitive (in comparison to the task grind in previous games) is premature at best...the system provides dramatically more in the way of changing content than a linear task grind ever could, even when just a single zone or area is considered. The game isn't set up to have players repeating content over and over...there will, in fact, be little reason to repeat anything other than you enjoyed it and want to see it again.
Thirded.
Every criticism of DE's I see if people crying foul because they aren't "truly" dynamic. They will repeat, the changes the result from them aren't permanent etc. etc.
But um...you're missing the point. Dynamic events aren't supposed to replicate the kind of player driven dynamism that happens in sandbox games. They are basically just a complete overhaul improvement of traditional questing. And in that regard, I think they look awesome.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Rift wasn't for me, but I have to admit that during beta the rifts (despite all of their faults) were a lot of fun. There was a lot of impromptu grouping, it brough people together, and it was exciting. It looks like GW2 will be taking it a step further with a greater variety, and I'm looking forward to seeing how it plays out.
I think Fozzik has a point. Take for instance, PVE vs PVP. GW2's PVE world is designed to be entirely PVE with no PVP and with as little griefing as possible. Yet I don't look at the PVE world like it's suffering because of a lack of PVP, or that it'll be repetitive or boring because there's no possibility of being ganked. I look at it like the game is giving you options. The WvW PVP or the structured PVP can be there to "scratch the itch" of a person who needs a PVP experience in their MMO.
Similarly, if DEs were the only content, maybe people would feel constrained by them being all there was. But if the personal story supplements that by allowing people to have quest type experiences, dedicated solo play, stealth missions, and feel like a hero, then it might just be ok for DEs not to be able to provide them because they provide other things (group play, immersion, etc)
I think what it comes down to is not really whether DEs are repetitive, but whether the game suffers due to that repetition. Even though I concede that you can't do everything with a DE you can do with a quest, the contextual variety of DEs and their other bonuses might make up for it. We don't know for sure. We might have to just agree to disagree until the game comes out.
"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
That's the part that makes me the most skeptical. The communal thing could go either way IMO, while it's great that they bring folks to congregate in an area, it doesn't exactly mean there will be "meaningful grouping". It really depends on the nature of the in-game community, which is why it could be a double edged sword.
To me what makes them great is the idea that they add a bit of "realism" to the questing experience. Rather than quests (events) being handed to you and triggered through conversation, as well as each event being your own personal instance of that event. They happen in a semi "dynamic" manner. (IE) It's going on whether you're there or not.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
This seems to have become a Quests vs Dynamic Events discussion. I apologize if I took part in creating this, but it was not my intention. Using quests was just an example to show a mechanic that is not limited by scalable objectives.
Now, let's go back to my inital concern. My claim was that Dynamic Events would become repetitive after a while because it can only have objectives that are scalable. Now, you can refute my claim by telling me how it will not become repetitive based on what I just said.
Hey Stealth, there have been a lot of posts about the issue you bring up regarding the lower number of possible "objectives" with dynamic events so I just wanted to respond to that.
First, you are technically correct. As you said previously, any objective in a dynamic event has to be somehow scalable for a large group of people, and simple enough for a large group to all cooperate together on without having coordinated beforehand.
Second, I don't think it's really a big deal. Here's why...
The example you brought up about the assassination earlier where you have to kill a chieftain and then frame someone else. This SOUNDS really good on paper, but I've done quests like this in WoW and other games and the reality of them is not very exciting. The quest you mention would almost certainly boil down to killing a chieftain who is sitting in his tent doing nothing and then right clicking on his table to plant some false evidence...quest complete.
So why was this quest with such an exciting premise so boring? It's because the QUEST if instanced for you, but the WORLD is shared for everyone. The chieftain can't really be doing anything interesting, because he has to be there to be available for all the other players to kill when it's their turn. You can't have any interesting scripted events happen after you kill the chieftain because it may spoil someone else's quest. Sure, you can do this a tiny bit in moderation (spawn a monster when chieftain dies) but you can't really do much. Unless you instance the entire world (single player, GW1), you will have this problem. IMO, this is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, issues with traditional questing.
Dynamic events seek to solve this problem. With dynamic events, both the "quest" and the world are shared. So I think this allows them to be more interesting. You can actually have "stuff" happen when the players complete some objective or trigger something. In a traditional quest, nearly everything has to remain static. If you change anything, it can only be very momentary so that the next person will have a "clean" slate on which to do their instance of the quest.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
IMO, the flaw in your argument is that you are assuming that variety in objectives is the only real way to keep something interesting. I don't think this is true.
Look at a game like Gran Turismo or Forza (racing). There is only one real objective. Get to the finish line quickly. And yet people play these games for months. Same thing can be said for football games (get more points), or RTS games (destroy enemy base).
The point is that you don't need varied objectives if the GAMEPLAY is interesting enough to keep the players' attention. If dynamic events provide a decent enough challenge and the gameplay is fun, then I think that's all you really need. Personally, varied objectives do very little to keep me interested when the gameplay is boring. That's why I skip most quest text. I don't care what I have to do if it boils down to follow minimap and kill bob then right click on the table.
And from what I have seen, the gameplay of dynamic events looks like it can be interesting. Take the Tequatl fight for example. The objective is simple, kill Tequatl. But to do this, you have many options/strategies available to you...
1. Repair turrets.
2. Use turrets to destroy bonewalls.
3. Guard the players who are using the turrets from MOBs that Tequatl spawns.
4. Attack Tequatl head on.
5. Rez downed players.
6. Etc. etc.
So even though the overarching objective is simple, the amount of ways you can achieve it makes for more interesting gameplay. Much like how in a football game your objective is merely to get more points than the other team, but you can accomplish this objective by picking from a wide variety of plays at every down, etc.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Along the same lines as what Creslin just said, when you're playing a combat MMO, there's only so many actions you can be taking. In poorly constructed quest games, you're probably doing one of two things; you're killing something or you're clicking on an environmental object.
What separates well constructed games from poorly constructed games is making you care about the story. Quests can get creative and have an individual touch where you're looting rags to make a disguise, or you're using stealth or you're going off to find this ghost's last surviving relative and these are all things that DEs probably can't do. But what made them interesting is the story, not the act of looting or clicking an environmental object, or the act of killing that guy.
DEs, even though they can't do things with the invidual touch, are still better than quests at immersing you in a story. Not only because you only have one DE at a time to worry about instead of a whole log. It's because they happen to the world. Mobs attack and things get knocked down, NPCs die. DEs can be failed. You can take part without being told to take part.
I'm sure someday there will be a GW2 clone where the developer was lazy and all the events are "Kill X bandits" and "Kill X Centaurs" but I think we're seeing the effort being put in by ArenaNet where hay bales get burned, prison doors need to be knocked down, and friendly ships attack pirate islands once their defensive turrets are destroyed. I think it's too early to write them off as being repetitive without first seeing all they can do.
"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
Dude, how did you forget the laser beam?
"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
Mah bad
.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Strictly on that particular point...the problem there is your lack of imagination. You aren't able to think of very many different possibilities, so you assume there will be few. "Only objectives that are scaleable" could be a MASSIVE subset...really only limited by the developer's imagination and the technology they have available...neither of which you can know. I'm guessing ArenaNet, being professionals and highly skilled, plus having years to ponder this stuff and develop the tools, have probably come up with considerably more diversity in events than you can fathom in a short weekend of bellybutton gazing.
Because I think your gripe is simply based on your lack of info or imagination, it's pretty much impossible for me to argue it with you. You'll just have to wait and be surprised when you discover that ArenaNet thought of a few more things than you did.
Obviously I am not basing this solely on my reasoning. To formulate my opinion I am also considering what other games before Guild Wars did when taking this path. You could say the same thing about Warhammer's and Rift's developers and how they are professional and how their ability to diversify this kind of system is unparalleled compared to an average forum poster. But in reality, we didn't get all that much, it became repetitive, and Guild Wars 2 has shown no sign of fixing this specific problem. I don't go by a blind faith of believing that the only reason I see this as a problem is because I am not as creative as a game developer.
You call someone out for his "lack of imagination" and assuming that "there will be few" then go on to assume there will be many. Then you white-knight Arena net for being "professionals an highly skilled" which just makes you come off as a fanboi, which won't help your argument.
Neither you or him know exactly what is going to happen. His point is simple yet you are blowing it out of proportion. RIFT has the same type of thing and while it was pretty cool for the first couple of characters, it gets old.
Clearly, that is not how MMO's work and the comparison to Grand Turismo is seriously irrelevant. They are different types of games and I could go on and on about why it is a skewed comparison, but I see no point. If Guild Wars 2 can come up with some intense, strategic, and extremely varied encounters with very intelligent AI, then you will have a point. Yet, MMO's are still far away from that caliber of gameplay.
Having played a dynamic event (the recent undead dragon one) I can tell you that yes it will be similar to Rifts PQs.
Think of it as the next evolution of PQs.
WAR - > Rift -> GW2
That said. I have always liked the concept of PQs. So I know I'll definitely enjoy it.
Haha well you're pretty committed to your viewpoint so I see I can't sway you
.
The best I can say is try watching the TotalBiscuit video where he does the Tequatl the Sunless DE. It actually looks fairly interesting.
Anyway...DE's are obviously going to bare a lot of similarity to PQs and Rifts. They are essentially the same basic concept.
But PQs and Rifts got boring because they were all the same thing without much variation at all. They were both too formulaic. Incidentally, this is why quests get boring as well IMO. From what I have seen with DE's...I don't see this happening. I mean, it might, I can't be sure. But if the majority of them are as complex as the Tequatl one looked, then I'm not really worried.
Oh and as for the Gran Turismo thing...I don't see why the comparison is invalid. They are both games. GT shows that you don't need to have varied objectives for a GAME to remain interesting provided that the gameplay is deep and challenging.
If you want another example that's closer to GW2, look at UO or other sandbox games. They basically no scripted objectives and were just about playing and enjoying the game. Yet many people enjoyed them for years despite this.
The point is that you don't NEED a whole bunch of varied scripted objectives to make a game have longevity. That could probably be one path to making a game have longevity, but it is not the only one.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Sure, it looks fun and all, but it is still close to what most modern MMO's offer and very far away from what singleplayer games can offer (obviously).
But why would you want an MMO to be like a single player game? That's basically what single player games are for, to give you a really personalized experience where you get to be the hero.
IMO, MMORPG's should be more about being just "a" (not the) hero in a shared, persistent world where you can cooperate with and compete with hundreds of players. SPRPGs are great, but I think they should be distinct from MMORPGs to a degree.
I mean, it's quite possible to design an MMORPG to play a lot like an SPRPG. All you have to do is make every single area in the game instanced. But do you really want to do that? If you do, I don't see the point in making it an MMORPG anymore.
Another Edit:
Anyway...I think the point is that MMORPGs can offer something different than SPRPGs. While SPRPGs will always have a personalized experience that MMORPGs cannot match, MMORPGs can offer a cooperative and competitive experience of player interaction that SPRPGs will never match.
So why should you make an MMORPG and focus on a "personalized" experience that will never match up with an SPRPG? IMO, MMORPGs should focus on their strength, which is the fact that they are a persistent world with tons of other players...that should be an asset, not a weakness.
For the most part, GW2 is doing this (in exception for the personal story).
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
AMAGAAAD we have a problem with critical thinking here folks. GW2 can't be compared to Gran Turismo or any singleplayer game because they don't have to worry about the ONLINE portion, possibilitating far more complex AI, combat, etc.. That and MANY other reasons, is why they can have a single constant objective while Dynamic Events can't. Therefore, your comparison is irrelevant. Do you understand now? That is why I said that if GW2 can come up with some crazy good gameplay dynamics with super intelligent AI like in a singleplayer game (which it can't, because it's an MMO!), then you would have a point.
"Sure, it looks fun and all, but it is still close to what most modern MMO's offer and very far away from what singleplayer games can offer (obviously)."
This quote is referring to singleplayer games' technological advantage over MMO's and Guild Wars 2. I didn't say I wanted it to be like a singleplayer. I thought I wouldn't have to explain this...
PvP in MMORPG usually has one or two objectives only, it is ONLINE as you say, and yet people play it for years.
Difficult, max-level, dungeons and raids are scarce, they are ONLINE, and yet people play them for years.
Sandbox games as I mentioned...ONLINE and yet people play them for years.
Honestly, I think you're kinda full of it.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Considering whenever they talk about the MMO part of the game they talk about being heroes with your friends and affecting things happening in the world i dissagree with the point that its meant to be a more single player type experience. They can make the game enjoyable for a person without having to limit the person to being jsut a singular hero in the story (aka, forcing you into a stait of mind that what you do is not as important for the game world over all).
Dont we play RPG's to be that badass character fightin the good fight? And dont we play MMO's to be badasses with our friends? Anet keeps saying they want to bring the RPG back into MMORPG, considering that, I dont see how what their doing is wrong or bad, or why any one would be convinced it will fail or be similar to the mechanics of previous titles. Anet has shown their commitment to evolving the genre through everything they've done so far, and considering that they've already gone farther than rift or war or any other theme park MMO out there to be more than what WoW had to offer I dont see where people are coming from comparing it to rift and war unless its to make distinctions between the two in an unbiast factual matter.
As it stands games like Rift and War wherent trying to be better games then WoW, they where trying to be on par with WoW with a few new features and mechanics to try and persuade people that their attention deserved to be on them. But when looking at Guild Wars 2, the amount of effort their oppenly putting into their product I can only see it either working out to be aan incredibly polished and well designed game that will be better then rift and war in terms of pretty much everything quality and quantity wise, or it will crash to the ground in a smoldering pile of ruin and tears.
Wooooooooooooow, stop......pleeeeeeeease. PvP involves a player killing ANOTHER player. We are talking about dynamic events, where players kill AI's. Comparison fail 2x.
Raiding is only played by a vocal minority, and its more for the progression than the actual experience. Comparison fail 3x.
Sandbox games are sandbox games. Guild Wars 2 is a themepark. Comparison fail 4x.
I shall not elaborate further. I expect you to take this and see how badly formulated your argument is.
I'm confused as to how we got from quests possibly being better than DEs due to more variety of objectives to where we are now, which is that single player games can have more complex AI and combat and some kind of technological advantage as well.
What are the standards for single player games so far? Dragon Age? Oblivion? Mass Effect? Are these games known for their stories or are they known for complex AI and combat?
Please feel free to continue to ignore my posts while you reply to other people. I'm used to 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
Sorry if I missed your post, but I will give you a breakdown on how the discussion came to this. I made my claim regarding Dynamic Events, and Creslin rebuked by saying that repetitive gameplay wouldn't matter since other games like Grand Turismo don't get boring (it gets worse though, just wait for it). I stated that Grand Turismo can have only one goal while Dynamic Events can't because it's a singleplayer game where the AI and many other technological factors are superior allowing for far more dynamic, varied, and unpredictable gameplay. He then thought I wanted Guild Wars 2 to be like a singleplayer game (don't ask me...). Then he said that repetition wouldn't matter because people PvP for years and don't get bored (oh boy). Then he compared it to raiding and sandbox gameplay (Yep, I think I'll give up on him).
And now, we are here!