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.
LOL he only replies to posts where he thinks he can argue against something. He's not interested in discussing this issue, he's more interested in being right and lording his superior intellect over people.
I'm pretty sure that if we compared GW2 with WoW or GW1, he would call the comparison invalid because they are completely different games.
LOL he only replies to posts where he thinks he can argue against something. He's not interested in discussing this issue, he's more interested in being right and lording his superior intellect over people.
I'm pretty sure that if we compared GW2 with WoW or GW1, he would call the comparison invalid because they are completely different games.
You have yet to rationally challenge my concern regarding Dynamic Events. Oh, and, I won't reply to every fricken post, so sorry.
LOL he only replies to posts where he thinks he can argue against something. He's not interested in discussing this issue, he's more interested in being right and lording his superior intellect over people.
I'm pretty sure that if we compared GW2 with WoW or GW1, he would call the comparison invalid because they are completely different games.
You have yet to rationally challenge my concern regarding Dynamic Events. Oh, and, I won't reply to every fricken post, so sorry.
I'm pretty sure I could never "rationally" challenge your concern with dynamic events if you are the judge of rationality...because you're being irrational.
Be nice if the dynamic events were great, but I suspect they a quest chains, maybe longer than anyone else has come out with yet, but probably quest chains, with maybe some added branches...They may even throw some randomness into it, but thats fine with me.
If they truely have found a way to have truely random event dynamic quests, then they will be the first imo, and I have been saying that is one of the future things I think would make a game great...Along with a whole other list of stuff, like random dungeons that make exploration good, and once completed they collapse, so its not run to the same dungeon and repeat...customized/random loot, make everything exploring and the random dungeons built well....Good computer AI that can interact with the players both good and bad, etc...In a pvp/land game, one that would attack a player/guild city, if it was weak and the AI was in a good position, maybe even make alliances with other players/guilds to do so...Make it like the real world, where you have to worry about all enemies, not just certain ones in a game...Allow for kingdoms to be built, torn down, land ruled, players that choose not to envolved themselves, just pay taxes to whoever is in charge and remove themselves...etc... Be good to have a dynamic world that behaved using good AI...If two guilds that had kingdoms fought, and they fought to a stalemate and lost a lot of power and were vulnerable, why wouldn't a computer/AI kingdom maybe come in and clean one or both of them up...Great gain or dire consequences, and not only players to worry about. A living simulated AI world would be great....I hope I get to play a game like that one day.
You have yet to rationally challenge my concern regarding Dynamic Events.
Denial isn't just a river in Africa, apparently.
At this point I think you're just being contrary. There have been pages and pages of rational and factually based challenges to your concern, made by multiple people who genuinely hoped to enlighten you on the details of the game. Take it or leave it, I think is the best one can say.
I'm pretty sure I could never "rationally" challenge your concern with dynamic events if you are the judge of rationality...because you're being irrational.
I am? Tell me.. who compared an MMO to a singleplayer game? Who compared dynamic events to PvP? Who compared dynamic events to raiding? Who compared Guild Wars 2 to a sandbox? All your attempts at debunking my concern are invalid because you make extremely distorted, irrelevant, and useless comparisons.
You have yet to rationally challenge my concern regarding Dynamic Events.
Denial isn't just a river in Africa, apparently.
At this point I think you're just being contrary. There have been pages and pages of rational and factually based challenges to your concern, made by multiple people who genuinely hoped to enlighten you on the details of the game. Take it or leave it, I think is the best one can say.
I disagree good sir. The discussion strayed so far away from the original claim that only a few people brought up points worth considering.
fact: gw2 will not be truly dynamic since it is not a sandbox
however
the illusion of a dynamic world can be created by having a large variety of events so that the same event does not occur for a couple of months after it first occured.
i really doubt gw2 will have enough unique events to even create an illusion of a dynamic world. from what i have seen the
-shatterer will respawn repeatedly in the same location every time
-the same centaurs will raid the same human city every single time
- the same pirates will attack the same city every single time
seems it will be like invasions in rift (mundane and repetitive); if i kill this boss he will be back in an hour and if i dont kill him he will occupy some trivial quest hub.
Please dont state something as a "fact" when you can in no way prove that it is indeed a "fact"
When I said i had "time", i meant virtual time, i got no RL "time" for you.
I am not sure how the dynamic stuff will be done in GW2. I'm am sure it will be an illusion of sorts to make appear to be un-mundane. Very much like what RIFT does. The problem with the way RIFT does it is that it's everytime you turn around there is an invasion or rift. And the rewards for closing them up is so blehh.
If RIFT had an invasion 1 time a day and no time selected for the event and the rewards where sweet, Then it would be better. But getting back to GW2. It all looks very nice and very entertaining. Will it be the same character models everytime. 99% they will be. It will come down to how large the world feels. If it's really big it will work better. Spread the population out and make it a natural feeling enviroment then the dynamic events will feel more special. RIFTs world is too small to make things feel truely dynamic.
10 Years from now I think games will have the named mob dies. He is dead forever. Game developers still have along way to go before they get the kinks worked out. I think one day games will have random everything. From dungeons that once the boss is cleared they vanish and moved to another location. Main world named bosses die...gone forever and another named boss shows up with a new agenda. I hope the next step for game development is multiple boss stratagys. Where when you fight the boss he may have 5 differnt scrips he may run.
Looking foward to GW2. Hope it does'nt disappoint.
Jymm Byuu Playing : Blood Bowl. Waiting for 2. Holding breath for Archeage and EQN.
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).
I know nobody can reply to everything and these things do get lost, but I think one of them in particular did a good job of addressing why it's ok for DEs to not have as many objectives as quests because the story is the important thing.
As far as single player games go, I do think the benchmark single player games these days are known more for their story than for their gameplay. Not to say that the gameplay is bad, but a game like Mass Effect in my opinion isn't really known for having a complicated AI or complex combat.
What I keep coming back to is that it doesn't matter whether a game is repetitive, it matters whether people think the game suffers due to the repetition. DEs might not have as many possible objectives as quests, but if they have a sufficient number of objectives, if the combat is engaging, if they provide a multitiude of different environments, if they provide a framework for playing with your friends and getting to know strangers, then they may still be something people enjoy. Having objectives is only one aspect of what makes up the whole experience.
"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 know nobody can reply to everything and these things do get lost, but I think one of them in particular did a good job of addressing why it's ok for DEs to not have as many objectives as quests because the story is the important thing.
As far as single player games go, I do think the benchmark single player games these days are known more for their story than for their gameplay. Not to say that the gameplay is bad, but a game like Mass Effect in my opinion isn't really known for having a complicated AI or complex combat.
What I keep coming back to is that it doesn't matter whether a game is repetitive, it matters whether people think the game suffers due to the repetition. DEs might not have as many possible objectives as quests, but if they have a sufficient number of objectives, if the combat is engaging, if they provide a multitiude of different environments, if they provide a framework for playing with your friends and getting to know strangers, then they may still be something people enjoy. Having objectives is only one aspect of what makes up the whole experience.
Ah yes, I read those posts indeed. I didn't reply to them because they make a point that I had already acknowledged and considered previously. Basically, you are saying that the pro's (story, real consequence, etc.) will probably outweigh the con's (the limitation I make constant reference to). It is a valid point that can only be debated once the DE system has been experienced extensively.
I disagree good sir. The discussion strayed so far away from the original claim that only a few people brought up points worth considering.
In your estimation...which seems a bit, well, self-serving. The discussion "strayed" from your original claim in your second post in the thread, where you compared dynamic events to quests. Don't abandon the context of the discussion just because it was getting difficult to maintain your assertion.
Double edit -
The more I think about it, the more sure I am that it's silly to argue the number of possible objectives with you. As others have very deftly explained, it really isn't about the number of theoretically different objectives. I think this ArenaNet Developer explained it best (I know this was quoted earlier in the thread, but it speaks directly to your concern, so I repost it).
It is true that we do want to get away from the standard kill X MMO quest. One thing that’s important to realize is that while we desire to get rid of this sort of thing there are a finite number of actions one can undertake in a combat focused game and there are a finite number of ways to express to a player what they should be doing. I think too often we get caught up in semantics when the root of the problem is that the standard kill X quest is bad because it is unexciting and has no context or consequence.
For example let’s pretend we have a situation where a group of undead creatures is gathering in a swamp to attack a local fortress.
In a typical kill X quest I would walk up to the commander of the fortress and he’d have an exclamation mark over his head. I’d click on him and he would present me with text describing how evil and foul the undead in the swamp are and how if they are not dealt with they will overrun his fortress. I accept this task and head to the swamp. It is likely that I now have “Kill 10 zombies” as a quest objective. I enter the swamp, see zombies and start killing them. After killing 10 I decide to head back to the fortress and turn in my quest. If I hadn’t done the quest what would have happened? Would the zombies have attacked? Are they still going to attack? I killed 10 of them but there are still more of them out there, doesn’t that matter? This is the experience provided by the typical kill X quest.
In Guild Wars 2, let’s take the same set up and apply it to a dynamic event. As I approach the fortress the commander runs up to me and says out loud for everyone in the area to hear that there are zombies in the local swamp, they are building up to attack his fort and someone had better do something. I head to the swamp and notice that the usual wildlife is gone, having been slain by the zombie horde (you actually get to see this happen as the event starts) when I enter the event radius I have the objective of “Cull the Zombie Horde” followed by a percentage indicating how much of the horde remains and a timer. I start killing zombies as the timer counts down. If I and any other adventurers in the area can cull the horde down to 0% before time expires then the remaining zombies will flee and disaster has been averted. I’ll automatically receive a reward, the fortress remains safe and the original wildlife will return to the swamp. If I fail to cull the horde and the timer reaches zero then the zombies will all shamble out of the swamp and attack the fortress. I have failed the event but now a new event presents itself where I can defend the fortress from the horde. If the fortress is overrun it will remain occupied by zombies until cleared, a valuable travel point will be lost, merchants and other NPC’s will be unavailable. My act of killing the zombies actually protected the fortress with the consequence of possibly losing the fortress when I failed the event.
In each case I was killing zombies. In each case I had a goal up on screen that communicated very similar things. However, the experience that I had during and after each type of content was very different due to context and consequences. Hope that clears things up a bit.
Due to the much greater flexibility and variety available in terms of context and consequence, I believe the loss of some possible types of objectives will actually be a net positive... especially since those objectives are met much more effectively with the personal story and dungeons in GW2. To say that having events scale to the number of players is a limitation is to ignore the many great things that it adds to the game, in terms of players being able to play together, and the integrity of the content being maintained. It may reduce flexibility in one direction, but it increases flexibility in two or three other directions.
In your estimation...which seems a bit, well, self-serving.
Again, to your central argument... your opinion is that "objectives that can scale" will be a small subset of the objectives available in quests that don't scale, and therefore dynamic events will become repetitive.
This is based only on your own ability to fathom objectives. You must see that.
I'm not claiming there will be any specific number, I'm just saying that you can't know the number just based on what you came up with in your head. You must be able to step back and admit that it's possible that ArenaNet, in the last 6 years, may have thought of more things in regards to this system than you have.
So, my rational challenge is this... There CAN be (I'm not saying WILL be, because we don't know) ANY NUMBER of objectives, only limited by developer's imagination and the tools they have available. You can't claim there will only be a few simply because you can only think of a few. To claim that you have thought of every scalable objective possible in the universe is the height of arrogance and irrationality.
You have made this point and I have replied to it before:
"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 have made this point and I have replied to it before: "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."
Sorry for the edits above... I was hoping maybe you went to eat dinner and we wouldn't have to go down this silly path again.
You can't formulate an opinion on what ArenaNet will do based on Rift or WarHammer. There intentions were different, their implementations were different, and the systems were different. I would argue their skills, competence, and level of understanding of the genre were very different as well. This will become very obvious once the games are competing head-to-head. You are comparing apples and oranges.
The similarities between Rift's and GW2's content stops at the words "dynamic" and "public quest", and the most generic of foundations like "people can play together". Beyond that, the systems are completely different, and rooted in completely different games which don't share the same mechanics.
It's like saying you saw someone walking down the street, and so you KNOW that someone traveling in a car can only go 5 miles an hour. True, both people were moving, but HOW they were moving should be significant. Sure, both games include something called "dynamic content" which takes its roots from public quests...but what they did, how they did it, and what the game is like that they did it to are all VITAL to forming a useful opinion.
In your estimation...which seems a bit, well, self-serving.
Again, to your central argument... your opinion is that "objectives that can scale" will be a small subset of the objectives available in quests that don't scale, and therefore dynamic events will become repetitive.
This is based only on your own ability to fathom objectives. You must see that.
I'm not claiming there will be any specific number, I'm just saying that you can't know the number just based on what you came up with in your head. You must be able to step back and admit that it's possible that ArenaNet, in the last 6 years, may have thought of more things in regards to this system than you have.
So, my rational challenge is this... There CAN be (I'm not saying WILL be, because we don't know) ANY NUMBER of objectives, only limited by developer's imagination and the tools they have available. You can't claim there will only be a few simply because you can only think of a few. To claim that you have thought of every scalable objective possible in the universe is the height of arrogance and irrationality.
You have made this point and I have replied to it before:
"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."
They have shown a lot of signs and told us how they will repair most of the problem...... its been detailed in the posts above... but you seem unwilling to accept that....
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
Dynamic or Full scale World Events will never work the way they should , For the simple reason you can't control human behavior
I real life world events you have people commanding people & order are followed but in a MMO you don't know if you have the players availble & you don't know how there gonna reach to any situation
Take Rifts Dynamic events , for the first month there fun because everyone has never seen such things but as time goes on intres wains & now many dynamic events pass without a single player seeing it ..
Due to the much greater flexibility and variety available in terms of context and consequence, I believe the loss of some possible types of objectives will actually be a net positive... especially since those objectives are met much more effectively with the personal story and dungeons in GW2. To say that having events scale to the number of players is a limitation is to ignore the many great things that it adds to the game, in terms of players being able to play together, and the integrity of the content being maintained. It may reduce flexibility in one direction, but it increases flexibility in two or three other directions.
So basically the positives outweigh the negatives. If that was your point all along you should have seen that I already addressed that to two other posters. Such will require extensive testing with Dynamic Events to see which outweighs which.
Due to the much greater flexibility and variety available in terms of context and consequence, I believe the loss of some possible types of objectives will actually be a net positive... especially since those objectives are met much more effectively with the personal story and dungeons in GW2. To say that having events scale to the number of players is a limitation is to ignore the many great things that it adds to the game, in terms of players being able to play together, and the integrity of the content being maintained. It may reduce flexibility in one direction, but it increases flexibility in two or three other directions.
So basically the positives outweigh the negatives. If that was your point all along you should have seen that I already addressed that to two other posters. Such will require extensive testing with Dynamic Events to see which outweighs which.
I'm pretty sure ArenaNet have been testing their ideas quite extensively.
I'm really not sure how WAR's PQs worked but Rifts I do know about, Rifts are a random aside to the very linear questing which follow a series of waypoints (NPCs) to reach end game. The beauty of DE's is that all ceases to be the case, DEs aren't a random aside they are the main content. Go out and explore, get involved or not, if you do get involved decide on how you're getting involved and contribute. Outside of the personal/main story there's no NPC standing waiting for you, there are things happening in the world it's up to you how you react. That in itself is a massive difference and a completely different feel to how questing and rifts work, it's a far more logical and immersive experience. DEs are a MASSIVE improvement on traditional questing and a big move in the right direction, rifts just do not compare because they play a completely different role to DEs.
Stealth, I'd love to jump in and challenge your rational arguements, but after re-reading the thread, I still can't figure out your rationale in order to reply to it. When ever someone addresses what appear to be your concerns with a rational arguement, somehow their reply never actually addresses, in your mind, what the real issues are, which makes it just impossible to have a rational discussion with you on the subject.
I have to believe that your understanding of Dynamic Events is in some way completely skewed from the reality. Maybe if you could more fully explain how you think Dynamic Event Chains work in the game, we can then try to figure out what misconceptions you are basing your elusive arguements on?
Originally posted by stealthbr So basically the positives outweigh the negatives. If that was your point all along you should have seen that I already addressed that to two other posters. Such will require extensive testing with Dynamic Events to see which outweighs which.
The positives of the system in reality outweigh the negatives which exist only in your mind. Correct.
You've definitely framed the discussion very carefully, and ambiguously, around the idea that dynamic events are missing something compared to previous content in other MMORPGs. We've all tried to address your concern on your terms, by talking about what dynamic events offer to offset the "flaw" in the system that you alone perceive.
The fact is, we're going to continue going in circles until we reject the premise...because you're deftly avoiding ever allowing any rational argument to touch this amorphous problem.
I can't explain away a problem that exists in your head, because you can always just move the football right when I get ready to kick it. The truth is that I don't agree with your premise, and why I'm arguing it escapes me. Dynamic events do not necessarily have a more limited set of objectives, that's your own opinion based on shoddy evidence from badly designed games which have no bearing on GW2. How do you like those apples?
So basically the positives outweigh the negatives. If that was your point all along you should have seen that I already addressed that to two other posters. Such will require extensive testing with Dynamic Events to see which outweighs which.
The positives of the system in reality outweigh the negatives which exist only in your mind. Correct.
You've definitely framed the discussion very carefully, and ambiguously, around the idea that dynamic events are missing something compared to previous content in other MMORPGs. We've all tried to address your concern on your terms, by talking about what dynamic events offer to offset the "flaw" in the system that you alone perceive.
The fact is, we're going to continue going in circles until we reject the premise...because you're deftly avoiding ever allowing any rational argument to touch this amorphous problem.
I can't explain away a problem that exists in your head, because you can always just move the football right when I get ready to kick it. The truth is that I don't agree with your premise, and why I'm arguing it escapes me. Dynamic events do not necessarily have a more limited set of objectives, that's your own opinion based on shoddy evidence from badly designed games which have no bearing on GW2. How do you like those apples?
For once I'm actually inclined to disagree with you, Fozzik.
It seems clear that me that there are indeed limitations on what DEs can do. A DE can be a chain, it can be reactive or proactive in the environment, but it doesn't lend itself to an epic, solo, adventure type quest. I know the personal story is doing much more than that (character creation, branching, home instance), but in a way just the fact that the personal story exists is evidence of this limitation of DEs.
We also know that DEs are limited by ArenaNet's desire to have them be ungriefable. The example they give is you can't have a stealth DE because then people could intentionally fail it.
So I'm inclined to agree with stealthbr's premise that there are limitations on the types of things DEs can do.
What it comes down to is that we're at an impasse. We've tried to provide a variety of counterarguments, and stealthbr is still not convinced. I think we are at the point where we're going in circles and things are getting a bit tense. So why don't we just call a halt to this debate and say let's just wait and see. DEs look very positive but we still don't know for certain how they'll play day in and day out. Nobody knows unless they've been alpha testing GW2 for years. Even then different testers might have different opinions.
"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
Stealth, I'd love to jump in and challenge your rational arguements, but after re-reading the thread, I still can't figure out your rationale in order to reply to it. When ever someone addresses what appear to be your concerns with a rational arguement, somehow their reply never actually addresses, in your mind, what the real issues are, which makes it just impossible to have a rational discussion with you on the subject.
I have to believe that your understanding of Dynamic Events is in some way completely skewed from the reality. Maybe if you could more fully explain how you think Dynamic Event Chains work in the game, we can then try to figure out what misconceptions you are basing your elusive arguements on?
Alright, I'll start over.
First, I'll provide some context. I have played Warhammer Online. In that game, there a public quests which are basically "Kill X" or "Use X" in a large number to accomodate many people which does not require having the quest or being in a party to actually do it. Public quests became very repetitive after a while because all the objectives consisted of some form of "Kill large number of X" or "Use large number of X".
My concern is whether the Dynamic Events system will have this or if they will address this and how.
Btw, please don't quote these awfully huge posts by devs. Just copy the parts that matter for the sake of readability. AutoCAD got my eyes tired.
What it comes down to is that we're at an impasse. We've tried to provide a variety of counterarguments, and stealthbr is still not convinced. I think we are at the point where we're going in circles and things are getting a bit tense. So why don't we just call a halt to this debate and say let's just wait and see. DEs look very positive but we still don't know for certain how they'll play day in and day out. Nobody knows unless they've been alpha testing GW2 for years. Even then different testers might have different opinions.
Good idea. If the next serious answer can't convince me, I'll just wait for the game to come out or something. Too much time in this thread.
Stealth, I'd love to jump in and challenge your rational arguements, but after re-reading the thread, I still can't figure out your rationale in order to reply to it. When ever someone addresses what appear to be your concerns with a rational arguement, somehow their reply never actually addresses, in your mind, what the real issues are, which makes it just impossible to have a rational discussion with you on the subject.
I have to believe that your understanding of Dynamic Events is in some way completely skewed from the reality. Maybe if you could more fully explain how you think Dynamic Event Chains work in the game, we can then try to figure out what misconceptions you are basing your elusive arguements on?
Alright, I'll start over.
First, I'll provide some context. I have played Warhammer Online. In that game, there a public quests which are basically "Kill X" or "Use X" in a large number to accomodate many people which does not require having the quest or being in a party to actually do it. Public quests became very repetitive after a while because all the objectives consisted of some form of "Kill large number of X" or "Use large number of X".
My concern is whether the Dynamic Events system will have this or if they will address this and how.
Btw, please don't quote these awfully huge posts by devs. Just copy the parts that matter for the sake of readability. AutoCAD got my eyes tired.
"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
Comments
LOL he only replies to posts where he thinks he can argue against something. He's not interested in discussing this issue, he's more interested in being right and lording his superior intellect over people.
I'm pretty sure that if we compared GW2 with WoW or GW1, he would call the comparison invalid because they are completely different games.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
You have yet to rationally challenge my concern regarding Dynamic Events. Oh, and, I won't reply to every fricken post, so sorry.
I'm pretty sure I could never "rationally" challenge your concern with dynamic events if you are the judge of rationality...because you're being irrational.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
They had me at WvWvW....
Be nice if the dynamic events were great, but I suspect they a quest chains, maybe longer than anyone else has come out with yet, but probably quest chains, with maybe some added branches...They may even throw some randomness into it, but thats fine with me.
If they truely have found a way to have truely random event dynamic quests, then they will be the first imo, and I have been saying that is one of the future things I think would make a game great...Along with a whole other list of stuff, like random dungeons that make exploration good, and once completed they collapse, so its not run to the same dungeon and repeat...customized/random loot, make everything exploring and the random dungeons built well....Good computer AI that can interact with the players both good and bad, etc...In a pvp/land game, one that would attack a player/guild city, if it was weak and the AI was in a good position, maybe even make alliances with other players/guilds to do so...Make it like the real world, where you have to worry about all enemies, not just certain ones in a game...Allow for kingdoms to be built, torn down, land ruled, players that choose not to envolved themselves, just pay taxes to whoever is in charge and remove themselves...etc... Be good to have a dynamic world that behaved using good AI...If two guilds that had kingdoms fought, and they fought to a stalemate and lost a lot of power and were vulnerable, why wouldn't a computer/AI kingdom maybe come in and clean one or both of them up...Great gain or dire consequences, and not only players to worry about. A living simulated AI world would be great....I hope I get to play a game like that one day.
At this point I think you're just being contrary. There have been pages and pages of rational and factually based challenges to your concern, made by multiple people who genuinely hoped to enlighten you on the details of the game. Take it or leave it, I think is the best one can say.
I am? Tell me.. who compared an MMO to a singleplayer game? Who compared dynamic events to PvP? Who compared dynamic events to raiding? Who compared Guild Wars 2 to a sandbox? All your attempts at debunking my concern are invalid because you make extremely distorted, irrelevant, and useless comparisons.
I disagree good sir. The discussion strayed so far away from the original claim that only a few people brought up points worth considering.
When I said i had "time", i meant virtual time, i got no RL "time" for you.
I am not sure how the dynamic stuff will be done in GW2. I'm am sure it will be an illusion of sorts to make appear to be un-mundane. Very much like what RIFT does. The problem with the way RIFT does it is that it's everytime you turn around there is an invasion or rift. And the rewards for closing them up is so blehh.
If RIFT had an invasion 1 time a day and no time selected for the event and the rewards where sweet, Then it would be better. But getting back to GW2. It all looks very nice and very entertaining. Will it be the same character models everytime. 99% they will be. It will come down to how large the world feels. If it's really big it will work better. Spread the population out and make it a natural feeling enviroment then the dynamic events will feel more special. RIFTs world is too small to make things feel truely dynamic.
10 Years from now I think games will have the named mob dies. He is dead forever. Game developers still have along way to go before they get the kinks worked out. I think one day games will have random everything. From dungeons that once the boss is cleared they vanish and moved to another location. Main world named bosses die...gone forever and another named boss shows up with a new agenda. I hope the next step for game development is multiple boss stratagys. Where when you fight the boss he may have 5 differnt scrips he may run.
Looking foward to GW2. Hope it does'nt disappoint.
Jymm Byuu
Playing : Blood Bowl. Waiting for 2. Holding breath for Archeage and EQN.
The reason I made a point about you not replying to me was because yesterday I made a point of addressing a previous post (actually there were two unreplied to) in a post. http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/4515424#4515424
And today two more. http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/4517173#4517173 and http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/4517269#4517269
I know nobody can reply to everything and these things do get lost, but I think one of them in particular did a good job of addressing why it's ok for DEs to not have as many objectives as quests because the story is the important thing.
As far as single player games go, I do think the benchmark single player games these days are known more for their story than for their gameplay. Not to say that the gameplay is bad, but a game like Mass Effect in my opinion isn't really known for having a complicated AI or complex combat.
What I keep coming back to is that it doesn't matter whether a game is repetitive, it matters whether people think the game suffers due to the repetition. DEs might not have as many possible objectives as quests, but if they have a sufficient number of objectives, if the combat is engaging, if they provide a multitiude of different environments, if they provide a framework for playing with your friends and getting to know strangers, then they may still be something people enjoy. Having objectives is only one aspect of what makes up the whole experience.
"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
Ah yes, I read those posts indeed. I didn't reply to them because they make a point that I had already acknowledged and considered previously. Basically, you are saying that the pro's (story, real consequence, etc.) will probably outweigh the con's (the limitation I make constant reference to). It is a valid point that can only be debated once the DE system has been experienced extensively.
In your estimation...which seems a bit, well, self-serving. The discussion "strayed" from your original claim in your second post in the thread, where you compared dynamic events to quests. Don't abandon the context of the discussion just because it was getting difficult to maintain your assertion.
Double edit -
The more I think about it, the more sure I am that it's silly to argue the number of possible objectives with you. As others have very deftly explained, it really isn't about the number of theoretically different objectives. I think this ArenaNet Developer explained it best (I know this was quoted earlier in the thread, but it speaks directly to your concern, so I repost it).
Due to the much greater flexibility and variety available in terms of context and consequence, I believe the loss of some possible types of objectives will actually be a net positive... especially since those objectives are met much more effectively with the personal story and dungeons in GW2. To say that having events scale to the number of players is a limitation is to ignore the many great things that it adds to the game, in terms of players being able to play together, and the integrity of the content being maintained. It may reduce flexibility in one direction, but it increases flexibility in two or three other directions.
You have made this point and I have replied to it before:
"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."
Sorry for the edits above... I was hoping maybe you went to eat dinner and we wouldn't have to go down this silly path again.
You can't formulate an opinion on what ArenaNet will do based on Rift or WarHammer. There intentions were different, their implementations were different, and the systems were different. I would argue their skills, competence, and level of understanding of the genre were very different as well. This will become very obvious once the games are competing head-to-head. You are comparing apples and oranges.
The similarities between Rift's and GW2's content stops at the words "dynamic" and "public quest", and the most generic of foundations like "people can play together". Beyond that, the systems are completely different, and rooted in completely different games which don't share the same mechanics.
It's like saying you saw someone walking down the street, and so you KNOW that someone traveling in a car can only go 5 miles an hour. True, both people were moving, but HOW they were moving should be significant. Sure, both games include something called "dynamic content" which takes its roots from public quests...but what they did, how they did it, and what the game is like that they did it to are all VITAL to forming a useful opinion.
They have shown a lot of signs and told us how they will repair most of the problem...... its been detailed in the posts above... but you seem unwilling to accept that....
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
Dynamic or Full scale World Events will never work the way they should , For the simple reason you can't control human behavior
I real life world events you have people commanding people & order are followed but in a MMO you don't know if you have the players availble & you don't know how there gonna reach to any situation
Take Rifts Dynamic events , for the first month there fun because everyone has never seen such things but as time goes on intres wains & now many dynamic events pass without a single player seeing it ..
So basically the positives outweigh the negatives. If that was your point all along you should have seen that I already addressed that to two other posters. Such will require extensive testing with Dynamic Events to see which outweighs which.
I'm pretty sure ArenaNet have been testing their ideas quite extensively.
I'm really not sure how WAR's PQs worked but Rifts I do know about, Rifts are a random aside to the very linear questing which follow a series of waypoints (NPCs) to reach end game. The beauty of DE's is that all ceases to be the case, DEs aren't a random aside they are the main content. Go out and explore, get involved or not, if you do get involved decide on how you're getting involved and contribute. Outside of the personal/main story there's no NPC standing waiting for you, there are things happening in the world it's up to you how you react. That in itself is a massive difference and a completely different feel to how questing and rifts work, it's a far more logical and immersive experience. DEs are a MASSIVE improvement on traditional questing and a big move in the right direction, rifts just do not compare because they play a completely different role to DEs.
Stealth, I'd love to jump in and challenge your rational arguements, but after re-reading the thread, I still can't figure out your rationale in order to reply to it. When ever someone addresses what appear to be your concerns with a rational arguement, somehow their reply never actually addresses, in your mind, what the real issues are, which makes it just impossible to have a rational discussion with you on the subject.
I have to believe that your understanding of Dynamic Events is in some way completely skewed from the reality. Maybe if you could more fully explain how you think Dynamic Event Chains work in the game, we can then try to figure out what misconceptions you are basing your elusive arguements on?
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
The positives of the system in reality outweigh the negatives which exist only in your mind. Correct.
You've definitely framed the discussion very carefully, and ambiguously, around the idea that dynamic events are missing something compared to previous content in other MMORPGs. We've all tried to address your concern on your terms, by talking about what dynamic events offer to offset the "flaw" in the system that you alone perceive.
The fact is, we're going to continue going in circles until we reject the premise...because you're deftly avoiding ever allowing any rational argument to touch this amorphous problem.
I can't explain away a problem that exists in your head, because you can always just move the football right when I get ready to kick it. The truth is that I don't agree with your premise, and why I'm arguing it escapes me. Dynamic events do not necessarily have a more limited set of objectives, that's your own opinion based on shoddy evidence from badly designed games which have no bearing on GW2. How do you like those apples?
For once I'm actually inclined to disagree with you, Fozzik.
It seems clear that me that there are indeed limitations on what DEs can do. A DE can be a chain, it can be reactive or proactive in the environment, but it doesn't lend itself to an epic, solo, adventure type quest. I know the personal story is doing much more than that (character creation, branching, home instance), but in a way just the fact that the personal story exists is evidence of this limitation of DEs.
We also know that DEs are limited by ArenaNet's desire to have them be ungriefable. The example they give is you can't have a stealth DE because then people could intentionally fail it.
So I'm inclined to agree with stealthbr's premise that there are limitations on the types of things DEs can do.
What it comes down to is that we're at an impasse. We've tried to provide a variety of counterarguments, and stealthbr is still not convinced. I think we are at the point where we're going in circles and things are getting a bit tense. So why don't we just call a halt to this debate and say let's just wait and see. DEs look very positive but we still don't know for certain how they'll play day in and day out. Nobody knows unless they've been alpha testing GW2 for years. Even then different testers might have different opinions.
"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
Alright, I'll start over.
First, I'll provide some context. I have played Warhammer Online. In that game, there a public quests which are basically "Kill X" or "Use X" in a large number to accomodate many people which does not require having the quest or being in a party to actually do it. Public quests became very repetitive after a while because all the objectives consisted of some form of "Kill large number of X" or "Use large number of X".
My concern is whether the Dynamic Events system will have this or if they will address this and how.
Btw, please don't quote these awfully huge posts by devs. Just copy the parts that matter for the sake of readability. AutoCAD got my eyes tired.
Good idea. If the next serious answer can't convince me, I'll just wait for the game to come out or something. Too much time in this thread.
Watch this video please. Everybody.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G29DXfcdhBg
"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