Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Was it just misinformation?
Distopia
Member EpicPosts: 21,183
in Guild Wars 2
After watching the city preview videos, I have to question something that was said a lot during the TOR WARS, many tried comparing GW2 to TOR cities saying there were too many static bystanders just standing around in TOR, and GW2 would be different. I'm not seeing it, looks roughly the same, a handful of moving NPCs with most just standing around. Is there something I am missing?
(Lets discuss the question and not discuss me please)..
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Comments
It is like night and day.
How so?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Both the videos of human city and charr city show handful of npc moving around. Rest is just static NPC fixed to one place with chat bubbles on. I don't see how that makes cities more lively.
Most NPCs are scripted and there are heaps of people walking around town, including children. The only static people tend to be vendors. Also, they dont just walk around town, they have their own conversations and do other activities.
I personally dont need city ambience (I prefer the company of other players anyway), but the attention to detail in the world and its inhabitants was the first thing that jumped out at me with GW2.
Sorry what video is that? i am talking about two videos posted on this very website and i didn't see heap of people walking around.
Did you watch the video's? While there may be 3-4 things moving on screen there are 50 things just standing, TOR was no different than that.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I'm not real sure how this effects anything with either games. I understant the idea of setting an atmosphere but I could really care less if a merchant is standing still or walking down the road, I will be out killing mobs and other players outside the city gates.
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
Nope not the same at all but nice try though.
I have been round Divinitys Reach and their are plenty of moving npc but the biggest thing of all is when you click on an npc every single one of them says something.
In clone wars with voices most npc stood around doing sign language,you could'nt even click on them.
I don't think it effects the two games either, I'm just trying to find out where all of these arguments were coming from.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
In GW2 there are children running around. I don't think that I saw a child in any of the SWTOR cities. All of the cities in GW2 (from what I could see in the beta videos) seem MUCH larger than any of the SWTOR cities. I liked SWTOR but the cities seemed like the rest of the worlds - like a stage. GW2 cities feel like they are lived in, not part of the scenery. In SWTOR I was in a story - in GW2 I will feel that I am in a world - and that is the feeling that I want to have.
at least the static npcs will do something (rebuild or die) when the centaurs attack lol
Did you play TOR?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Yes, there are people standing around. There are also children running, and people conversing about a variety of topics, and guards doing patrols, and vendors trying to attract you to their stalls, and people drinking, and of course other players. I'm not sure how truly "alive" you can make an MMO city feel, but it's closer than SWTOR and certainly closer than WoW. For what it's worth, the world itself is also much more "alive". There are harpies attacking cattle, wolves hunting deer, bunnies hopping around, and, of course, multiple chaining dynamic events at multiple locations. Events that are happening whether you are there or not, all the things that one would expect if one were to venture out into the wild.
"Loading screens" are not "instances".
Your personal efforts to troll any game will not, in fact, impact the success or failure of said game.
The videos you watched were not very representative then.
The concept of SWTOR and GW2 city ambiance is very similar. (we can pull hairs all day on the differences). They both have roaming and static NPCs that utilize voice acting for flavor. The difference between the two is their aesthetics and that's all opinion based.
Edit: And I much prefer GW2 over SWTOR. It is my opinion that GW2 excels in city atmosphere.
To be honest i have failed to find a video so far which shows all these npc walking around the city. Just saw the detailed charr city video and i didn't see 'plenty of movement' anywhere. The only difference is that NPC though stuck to one place have chat bubbles on.
GW2 has city chatter it makes cities feel alive, in TOR its dead silence. I dont even consider TOR MMO its instanced singleplayer with MMO elements and is gonna end up like WAR soon.
Ah I got you. Well, I haven't seen one single argument here about it. Perhaps another website forum was discussing it.
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
Its been awhile since I have seen the city tour vids, but I can see what you are getting at.
IMO, merchants and key npc's have to remain in the same place. I dont think people would like main npc's to have elder scrolls-esque behaviors.
What would it take for them to add in "traffic." Just random, nontargetable people that add atmosphere to market areas?
At random, NPCs do chat at eachother (with voices) in SWTOR....But it is not nearly as much (and their conversations not as amusing) as GW2....it does happen though.
For me it is a hugh difference, they talk witch each other, kids running to places etc. i dont need armys of npc moveing around but i need way more then what Tor offer in this department. There nothing move at all. But if you dont care about it that is another issue all together.
For me its very important to have a lively world outside of players only.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqwbS4sMgoY
Last week's video podcast from Gamebreaker.tv talks a lot about atmosphere in this game, and how awesome it is.
http://www.gamebreaker.tv/video-game-shows/guild-wars-video/guildcast-guild-wars-show/beta-roundtable/
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
Straws, they're for grasping
"I am not a robot. I am a unicorn."
You're talking about ambience, that's not the subject I brought up, as I agree in this sense GW2 is a tad different (seemingly). I'm referring to the simple fact that there were a lot of people saying that GW2 woukld not have these NPC's just standing around statically like I'm seeing. TOR didn't have little kids running around, it did have kids in it though. I'm referring to the number of moving NPC's compared to the amount of stationary, which I really see no difference.
It was either misinformation, trolling, or people speaking before they actually knew.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Sorry but the first few seconds of the Divinity Reach video already shows a boatload of npc's walking about, there are more then enough people walking around for the first 90 seconds of that video. Furthermore look at the npc's that are standing still and clearly in what's supposed to be conversation. you see them waving their arms as if to illustrate things. They aren't static at all. Not to mention I couldn't quite tell if there were any players in that video, since no names where visible. So who's to say some npc weren't afk players, but sure for the sake of argument there were npc's not walking about. Not to mention it was a tour of the city, so the person making it didn't bother to stand still and look at what the npc's were actually doing.
I'd say it is more of a I refuse to see and not I don't see.