I think the problem is you are looking at it right at it's bare bones, so to speak. Effectively, that's all it is. Kill X mobs, get reward. But, if your going to look at it right down, past how it's implemented, then every MMO is similar. If you ignore implementation then there is no innovation at all in any game. Every game would pretty much be a copy of every other game. When you get down to it, CoD is basically just a copy of pong. Yes that's going to the extreme, but it still works. Every book is basically the same exact book, over and over again. It's just told in a different way.
You need to look at how the system is implemented. Are they telling you to go kill 10 mobs, where the mobs are just standing around in a field? Then you kill the 10 mobs, and then go back to quest giver and get reward. OR are you told to kill 10 mobs, but the mobs are actually doing what the person said. Again, it matters how it's implemented. That's where the innovation comes from. You take what's been done before and build upon it. The base is still the same across the board. That's because it's a base, you can't get anywhere without having a base. I don't think you can start building a skyscraper from the top down. If you can...every scientist would like to talk to you right now.
The evolution chart is accurate. quests -> PQ -> DE.
PQ's are nothing more than quests that has been built upon. It's been innovative a bit. Then you have DE, which are public quests that have been built upon. At the base, it's still questing.
I think people are confusing innovation with something that is absolutely new in every single way. No. That is no innovation. Innovation is taking what's been before, and building on it. Improving it. There is no point reinventing the wheel. Have you guys ever heard the phrase, there is nothing original under the sun?
While I can agree with the sentiment of your post, I am not sure I can entirely agree. While ANet might have had their idea for events back in 2006, there is no doubt that the performance of WAR's PQ system had an impact upon their decisions.
ANet might have had a more similar idea to PQs before actually seeing the downside in a real setting, WAR. From that lesson they adjusted their vision to what we see now. Maybe...maybe not, we most likely will never know.
I agree that this entire argument does boil down to semantics though. The fact that we are having this discussion does show that ANet is doing something right though. What ANet presented is generating a buzz, and thus we are having discussions because of the "word on the street". If you notice we're not having a discussion on how the system will ultimately fail, but rather a discussion on how to exactly define what it is ANet is doing. This is all good press for ANet and GW2 as a whole.
This might be innovation, evolution, or it might be nothing but the next logical step. Our definitions are pointless, for the most part. However, all of curiosity shows me that ANet is sitting on a potential gold mine.
I could see them having the idea of dynamic events from the beginning. But then, with the help of WAR, they quickly learned what not to do with the DE events. So in a way, i guess, it wouldn't be innovation on WAR's PQ system. Good point :P.
I also agree that these discussions are good for the game. It shows that people are truely curious about the game Anet is producing. I do, also, agree that the game will be very sucessful. More sucessful that GW1, and a bit more successful than recent MMOs since WoW. However, it will not be able to go past WoW. WoW is way to big, and if Anet focuses on beating WoW, we instantly loose. From what it looks like, Anet knows that and is stearing well clear of that.
BTW as for the amount of content added with DE system. I think Anet is banking on it lasting until they have an expansion on the shelves. Plus I also see the events improving with the expansions. I mean, the first game is still the test ground for the systems they have in place. The expansion is where they can expand upon it, and take their system in new directions. Also they can really start to test the limits of the system they created in the expansion.
I think the problem is you are looking at it right at it's bare bones, so to speak. Effectively, that's all it is. Kill X mobs, get reward. But, if your going to look at it right down, past how it's implemented, then every MMO is similar. If you ignore implementation then there is no innovation at all in any game. Every game would pretty much be a copy of every other game. When you get down to it, CoD is basically just a copy of pong. Yes that's going to the extreme, but it still works. Every book is basically the same exact book, over and over again. It's just told in a different way.
You need to look at how the system is implemented. Are they telling you to go kill 10 mobs, where the mobs are just standing around in a field? Then you kill the 10 mobs, and then go back to quest giver and get reward. OR are you told to kill 10 mobs, but the mobs are actually doing what the person said. Again, it matters how it's implemented. That's where the innovation comes from. You take what's been done before and build upon it. The base is still the same across the board. That's because it's a base, you can't get anywhere without having a base. I don't think you can start building a skyscraper from the top down. If you can...every scientist would like to talk to you right now.
The evolution chart is accurate. quests -> PQ -> DE.
PQ's are nothing more than quests that has been built upon. It's been innovative a bit. Then you have DE, which are public quests that have been built upon. At the base, it's still questing.
I think people are confusing innovation with something that is absolutely new in every single way. No. That is no innovation. Innovation is taking what's been before, and building on it. Improving it. There is no point reinventing the wheel. Have you guys ever heard the phrase, there is nothing original under the sun?
While I can agree with the sentiment of your post, I am not sure I can entirely agree. While ANet might have had their idea for events back in 2006, there is no doubt that the performance of WAR's PQ system had an impact upon their decisions.
ANet might have had a more similar idea to PQs before actually seeing the downside in a real setting, WAR. From that lesson they adjusted their vision to what we see now. Maybe...maybe not, we most likely will never know.
I agree that this entire argument does boil down to semantics though. The fact that we are having this discussion does show that ANet is doing something right though. What ANet presented is generating a buzz, and thus we are having discussions because of the "word on the street". If you notice we're not having a discussion on how the system will ultimately fail, but rather a discussion on how to exactly define what it is ANet is doing. This is all good press for ANet and GW2 as a whole.
This might be innovation, evolution, or it might be nothing but the next logical step. Our definitions are pointless, for the most part. However, all of curiosity shows me that ANet is sitting on a potential gold mine.
I could see them having the idea of dynamic events from the beginning. But then, with the help of WAR, they quickly learned what not to do with the DE events. So in a way, i guess, it wouldn't be innovation on WAR's PQ system. Good point :P.
I also agree that these discussions are good for the game. It shows that people are truely curious about the game Anet is producing. I do, also, agree that the game will be very sucessful. More sucessful that GW1, and a bit more successful than recent MMOs since WoW. However, it will not be able to go past WoW. WoW is way to big, and if Anet focuses on beating WoW, we instantly loose. From what it looks like, Anet knows that and is stearing well clear of that.
BTW as for the amount of content added with DE system. I think Anet is banking on it lasting until they have an expansion on the shelves. Plus I also see the events improving with the expansions. I mean, the first game is still the test ground for the systems they have in place. The expansion is where they can expand upon it, and take their system in new directions. Also they can really start to test the limits of the system they created in the expansion.
Yes, the actual chllenges of a system are just as important as the "raison d'etre" - as someone else pointed out, loads of good ideas about, few great implementations.
ArenaNet have done a wonderful job of being informative and keep asking questions of every mmo feature. That's been a big confidence boost for me. I wish other MMO would do the same or is there "proof in the pudding"?!
The market conditions of MMO is very different now than when WOW entered, it could still shift a lot of boxes/downloads however if it all comes together and impress but agree WOW is a colossus.
The one thing I am still skeptical about, is the longevity of DEs, having seen how stagnant PQs quickly became. I hope the density and quanity and variation of DE and the community numbers all contribute to them working as intended.
This is my only complaint about the game right now. From all the videos I saw they looked 90% the same as WAR public quests.
You walk into an area
Your UI tells you your doing a quest
It tells you kill 10 mobs
A boss comes out
It ends
A chest appears? loot?
It's basically a public quest. The ONLY thing I see that is something new is that they are made into branching quest chains. Also no timer telling you when the next will start. Are those things really that innovative?
I just don't think innovative is the right word for dynamic events.
IN WAR if you fail or succeed a PQ then it ends. That does not happen IN GW2. If you fail or succeed the first part of the dynamic event if kicks off other events in the process depending upon your success or failure. It isnt just a 10 min hacknslash fest. Everything depends upon your success on what is going to happen next. Obviously you never ready anything on dynamic events in GW2. We forgive .
I think the problem is you are looking at it right at it's bare bones, so to speak. Effectively, that's all it is. Kill X mobs, get reward. But, if your going to look at it right down, past how it's implemented, then every MMO is similar. If you ignore implementation then there is no innovation at all in any game. Every game would pretty much be a copy of every other game. When you get down to it, CoD is basically just a copy of pong. Yes that's going to the extreme, but it still works. Every book is basically the same exact book, over and over again. It's just told in a different way.
You need to look at how the system is implemented. Are they telling you to go kill 10 mobs, where the mobs are just standing around in a field? Then you kill the 10 mobs, and then go back to quest giver and get reward. OR are you told to kill 10 mobs, but the mobs are actually doing what the person said. Again, it matters how it's implemented. That's where the innovation comes from. You take what's been done before and build upon it. The base is still the same across the board. That's because it's a base, you can't get anywhere without having a base. I don't think you can start building a skyscraper from the top down. If you can...every scientist would like to talk to you right now.
The evolution chart is accurate. quests -> PQ -> DE.
PQ's are nothing more than quests that has been built upon. It's been innovative a bit. Then you have DE, which are public quests that have been built upon. At the base, it's still questing.
I think people are confusing innovation with something that is absolutely new in every single way. No. That is no innovation. Innovation is taking what's been before, and building on it. Improving it. There is no point reinventing the wheel. Have you guys ever heard the phrase, there is nothing original under the sun?
While I can agree with the sentiment of your post, I am not sure I can entirely agree. While ANet might have had their idea for events back in 2006, there is no doubt that the performance of WAR's PQ system had an impact upon their decisions.
ANet might have had a more similar idea to PQs before actually seeing the downside in a real setting, WAR. From that lesson they adjusted their vision to what we see now. Maybe...maybe not, we most likely will never know.
I agree that this entire argument does boil down to semantics though. The fact that we are having this discussion does show that ANet is doing something right though. What ANet presented is generating a buzz, and thus we are having discussions because of the "word on the street". If you notice we're not having a discussion on how the system will ultimately fail, but rather a discussion on how to exactly define what it is ANet is doing. This is all good press for ANet and GW2 as a whole.
This might be innovation, evolution, or it might be nothing but the next logical step. Our definitions are pointless, for the most part. However, all of curiosity shows me that ANet is sitting on a potential gold mine.
I could see them having the idea of dynamic events from the beginning. But then, with the help of WAR, they quickly learned what not to do with the DE events. So in a way, i guess, it wouldn't be innovation on WAR's PQ system. Good point :P.
I also agree that these discussions are good for the game. It shows that people are truely curious about the game Anet is producing. I do, also, agree that the game will be very sucessful. More sucessful that GW1, and a bit more successful than recent MMOs since WoW. However, it will not be able to go past WoW. WoW is way to big, and if Anet focuses on beating WoW, we instantly loose. From what it looks like, Anet knows that and is stearing well clear of that.
BTW as for the amount of content added with DE system. I think Anet is banking on it lasting until they have an expansion on the shelves. Plus I also see the events improving with the expansions. I mean, the first game is still the test ground for the systems they have in place. The expansion is where they can expand upon it, and take their system in new directions. Also they can really start to test the limits of the system they created in the expansion.
Yes, the actual chllenges of a system are just as important as the "raison d'etre" - as someone else pointed out, loads of good ideas about, few great implementations.
ArenaNet have done a wonderful job of being informative and keep asking questions of every mmo feature. That's been a big confidence boost for me. I wish other MMO would do the same or is there "proof in the pudding"?!
The market conditions of MMO is very different now than when WOW entered, it could still shift a lot of boxes/downloads however if it all comes together and impress but agree WOW is a colossus.
The one thing I am still skeptical about, is the longevity of DEs, having seen how stagnant PQs quickly became. I hope the density and quanity and variation of DE and the community numbers all contribute to them working as intended.
Anet answers one question, ten more take it's place. I do think it's good that they release Q&A section after each feature reveal. Also that they round up major interviews and articles for people to look at, as if GW2G already isn't doing that. Plus we have the community managers on GW2G attempting to prevent speculation from getting out of hand.
I think Anet has realized that the MMO market has changed since WoW. I mean they aren't releasing beta until close to release, because they recognize that beta now means demo for the players. So i think Anet is a bit smarter than what people want to believe. If you look at GW retention rate, I would think it's remarkable for a company that was that small to maintain such a retention rate. And then you see the number of GW players that are also going to transfer to GW2, it's still remarkable. Not many companies have such a loyal fanbase as Anet does. I think the loyalty of the fanbase speaks for the company as well.
*I ran out of time for the rest of this post. Suppose to be longer, second part of this post will come at a later time.
While I agree with the OP's skepticism and understand other people's wait and see attitude towards GW2 since there are a ton of unanswered questions and possible flaws with the dynamic event system, there is one point that everyone seems to be overlooking about this concept and it depends on how this one factor works will really sway me about GW2.
If, and only if, the effects of DE are persisent, then this creates a huge potential to have different alts on different servers for what is happening on one world should be totally different on another world.
Example:
Server 1 (Earth) your ranger is helping the village with the ogres, helps save the town with a bunch of others, the people are happy and you move on to the next big thing.
Server 2 (Anti-Earth) your elementalist failed to help the village, failed to stop the ogres and now the little town is filled with demi human nasties and now you got to find others to help battle back.
what you should have is totally different experiences based on each server's group of players.
Another question?
If my ranger logs out in a friendly town and stays gone for a few days, does he log back in to find that he is sitting in the middle of a dragon love fest and he's a bastard child.
How this DE could be really innovative is if you include factions and allow players to shape the world good or bad in a consistent persistent world. Good characters could recruit armies from nearby villages while evil characters could go deep into the ground and raise an army of orcs to overthrow a city.
While I agree with the OP's skepticism and understand other people's wait and see attitude towards GW2 since there are a ton of unanswered questions and possible flaws with the dynamic event system, there is one point that everyone seems to be overlooking about this concept and it depends on how this one factor works will really sway me about GW2.
If, and only if, the effects of DE are persisent, then this creates a huge potential to have different alts on different servers for what is happening on one world should be totally different on another world.
Example:
Server 1 (Earth) your ranger is helping the village with the ogres, helps save the town with a bunch of others, the people are happy and you move on to the next big thing.
Server 2 (Anti-Earth) your elementalist failed to help the village, failed to stop the ogres and now the little town is filled with demi human nasties and now you got to find others to help battle back.
what you should have is totally different experiences based on each server's group of players.
Another question?
If my ranger logs out in a friendly town and stays gone for a few days, does he log back in to find that he is sitting in the middle of a dragon love fest and he's a bastard child.
How this DE could be really innovative is if you include factions and allow players to shape the world good or bad in a consistent persistent world. Good characters could recruit armies from nearby villages while evil characters could go deep into the ground and raise an army of orcs to overthrow a city.
That would be innovative.
that would be a diffrent innovation. but that does not make DE's not innovative.
A dynamic event is dynamic while a public quest is static.
Dynamic Events
Not on a timer; triggers vary; seems to contain some randomization on when they happen
Number of players needed for an event scales dynamically.
Higher level players will scale down in level so they do can't make the event trivial to complete, but can still participate.
Non-combat events exist
Results of some events are semi-persistent. They remain at the same point until undone.
Public Quests
On a timer
Do not scale to number of players
High Levels cannot participate at all; they can't enter the zone
Failing a step ends the event
Always includes combat
No persistent results
Are they similar to PQs? Yes.
Are they innovative? Yes.
Innovation: the introduction of something new.
I think the mistake being made is in the use of innovative. The term that you really mean is revolutionary. A big change from what exists now; something groundbreaking; etc.
I think the determination of any aspect of Guild Wars 2 being revolutationary will wait until it's released.
This is my only complaint about the game right now. From all the videos I saw they looked 90% the same as WAR public quests.
You walk into an area
Your UI tells you your doing a quest
It tells you kill 10 mobs
A boss comes out
It ends
A chest appears? loot?
It's basically a public quest. The ONLY thing I see that is something new is that they are made into branching quest chains. Also no timer telling you when the next will start. Are those things really that innovative?
I just don't think innovative is the right word for dynamic events.
Also in case your using parts of the demo from gamescom as an example for this, you should know that the devs purposely shortened the chain of events needed to get to the events that had bosses (such as the shatterer) so that people would get the chance to play them in the demo since it was only 40 minuets long. In the actual game it would take alot more time and effort before the shatterer comes out, and even then he's only one branch of the event chain.
also it never tells you to kill a surtain number of mobs, the amount of enemys is scailed and I dont remember them using such terminology in the scout guidlines. They wouldnt tell you "kill 10 centaurs" they would tell you "centaurs are raiding a town, help the towns people!" which inevitably leads you to defending the townspeople by killing the centaurs.
You have to understand in a fantasy genre, fighting and killing the enemy is one of the most basic principles; but guild wars 2 wont just have that, its just one of many many types of events that will occur.
also in terms of the chest spawning at the end, its something I found slightly out of place my self, if you find it a big deal, send an Email to Anet, they tend to respond to feedback.
that's what they SAY happens... the few GW2PQs I've seen in the videos looked very tame... those worms on that farm f.e. were just standing around until killed...
also they've already admitted that the events will eventually reset just like any other PQ... so what's the point in seeing some big bridge destroyed when it gets restored at the end of the PQ chain? what frackin changed in the game world??? nothing!
again, I'm not saying this stuff is going to be bad... I liked PQs and I'm probably going to enjoy these PQs, too. My point is that ArenaNet is being a bunch of pretentious, trash talking idiots with their whole "WE ARE THE SALVATION" campaign when in actuality it's just the regular stuff that's been here before...
also it's funny to see how defensive the GW2 fanbois are getting now that they see how not-so-much-innovation some parts of the game are
Lol... hey, that you can't grasp the differences between PQ's and DE's as well as others can, maybe because you don't have much experience with MMO's or PQ's or didn't pay much attention to the available GW2 info, that's your problem, mate.
If you like to go on a GW2-bashing-merry-go-round, go ahead and do your thing, but don't blame others for your lack of comprehension or reading skills
wow... just wow ^^ thanks for providing a good example for my last 2 lines there. Insults, the last resort of the weak. Not even worth starting a discussion with you... you're too deep in fanboiland.
@ that other guy that called me a troll.
wow... this thing about trolling is pretty popular these days... it used to be a term for people who intentionally "defiled" forum discussions or derailed them with stupid stuff.... nowadays apparently anyone who does not share your opinion is a troll... or is it that I didn't coyly skirt around the issue like the OP did and that hurt your tender little feelings?
you know? it's funny that I never get to have an actual discussion (check the root... Guild Wars 2 Forum >> General DISCUSSION....) about GW2 because some frackwits always have to come by and bark like kicked dogs...
oh well...
Make it simple: Someone who posts useful information, collaborates posts/opinions and responses vs someone who: ad hominen's comments at ArenaNet, uses foul language, flaming comments about fanbois, disparaging, opinionated (& rhetorical) comments <> description of why they value their own opinion or even why anyone else should?
Troll.
Maybe that's the sort of community you are looking for in Rift? You seem not to be interesting in GW2 at all? Oddly I do agree with your opinion with the overuse of tagging every contrary pov with "troll", but that probably answers the question why it's overused qed style?!
Edit: It's worth checking out some of the previous posts for more information of DEs if you do change your mind. I'm still skeptical they will work more than a few times, but I can quantifiy discretely INNOVATIVE FEATURES that are implemented, at least.
well check my post history again, for a few of the GW2 threads... doesn't really matter how I post, I get attacked by everyone and their mother for "being stupid", "not thinking outside the box" and whatnot...
Then check my history again for a few of the Rift threads.... say whatever you will about me, mate but don't go badmouthing the Rift Community, those guys are great.
I've read a lot of info about DE's, believe it or not, I used to be totally psyched about GW2 until they started spouting off about how what every MMO before them did was stupid and they're here to save us all... that's just an untolerable attitude and it does make them pretentious. just like Bioware f.e. ... Make a good and fun game - fine, be super excited about your own product - probably PR but if sincere, great. stand there and say that your game's the best and most innovative and everything in the last ten years was pointless - you're a douche.
Also I wrote like a thousand times now, that their PQs 2.0 aren't bad. They probably are even fun but they are still PQs... doesn't matter what you call them...
Wether or not you feel the need to reply to this, it's my last post on these boards anyway... too much of a waste of my time
<S.T.E.A.L.T.H> An Agency that kicks so much ass it has to be written in all capital letters... divided by dots! www.stealth-industries.de
well check my post history again, for a few of the GW2 threads... doesn't really matter how I post, I get attacked by everyone and their mother for "being stupid", "not thinking outside the box" and whatnot...
Then check my history again for a few of the Rift threads.... say whatever you will about me, mate but don't go badmouthing the Rift Community, those guys are great.
I've read a lot of info about DE's, believe it or not, I used to be totally psyched about GW2 until they started spouting off about how what every MMO before them did was stupid and they're here to save us all... that's just an untolerable attitude and it does make them pretentious. just like Bioware f.e. ... Make a good and fun game - fine, be super excited about your own product - probably PR but if sincere, great. stand there and say that your game's the best and most innovative and everything in the last ten years was pointless - you're a douche.
Also I wrote like a thousand times now, that their PQs 2.0 aren't bad. They probably are even fun but they are still PQs... doesn't matter what you call them...
Wether or not you feel the need to reply to this, it's my last post on these boards anyway... too much of a waste of my time
Check your own post history again. If you showed the same common sense and constructiveness in your GW2 posts as in your Rift posts, then you would get attacked a lot less.
Take for example a comment of yours in 1 of your Rift posts
Originally posted by eLdritchZ
hope you didn't take my FF remark personally.... honestly wasn't intended to be offending...
And compare that with this GW2 post
Originally posted by eLdritchZ
My point is that ArenaNet is being a bunch of pretentious, trash talking idiots with their whole "WE ARE THE SALVATION" campaign when in actuality it's just the regular stuff that's been here before...
also it's funny to see how defensive the GW2 fanbois are getting (...)
See? How polite you were in the 1st in order not to offend, where in the 2nd one you didn't care at all whether you were offensive or not.
It's not about the "community" of a game, it's about your posts and the way you state things in a different manner from one post to another.
Personally, I don't care one bit if someone likes or hates a game, I mean, each one's taste is different, live and let live; but if I see someone posting stupid, irrelevant arguments or ignoring facts and information available, then they can get the same treatment of me
Basically, your anti arguments against ANet were based upon their saying that they've taken a good look at the MMO market and current gameplay mechanics and them stating that they can and strive to do better, and you finding them arrogant for it.
But anyway, gl with Rift, it's on my to-play list too. As I said, there's enough MMO's around for any MMO gamer to pick the one(s) they like most to play
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
I find it funny that it's "untolerable" and pretentious for a game company to hype their product. No one ever hypes what they are trying to sell by promoting their product as the next great thing and the competition can't hold up. No one except for McDonalds, Burger King, Microsoft, Blizzard, Nintendo, Sony, HBO, Honda, Toyota, Harmonix, Intel, Apple, Geico, etc - no one!
I think the problem is you are looking at it right at it's bare bones, so to speak. Effectively, that's all it is. Kill X mobs, get reward. But, if your going to look at it right down, past how it's implemented, then every MMO is similar. If you ignore implementation then there is no innovation at all in any game. Every game would pretty much be a copy of every other game. When you get down to it, CoD is basically just a copy of pong. Yes that's going to the extreme, but it still works. Every book is basically the same exact book, over and over again. It's just told in a different way.
You need to look at how the system is implemented. Are they telling you to go kill 10 mobs, where the mobs are just standing around in a field? Then you kill the 10 mobs, and then go back to quest giver and get reward. OR are you told to kill 10 mobs, but the mobs are actually doing what the person said. Again, it matters how it's implemented. That's where the innovation comes from. You take what's been done before and build upon it. The base is still the same across the board. That's because it's a base, you can't get anywhere without having a base. I don't think you can start building a skyscraper from the top down. If you can...every scientist would like to talk to you right now.
The evolution chart is accurate. quests -> PQ -> DE.
PQ's are nothing more than quests that has been built upon. It's been innovative a bit. Then you have DE, which are public quests that have been built upon. At the base, it's still questing.
I think people are confusing innovation with something that is absolutely new in every single way. No. That is no innovation. Innovation is taking what's been before, and building on it. Improving it. There is no point reinventing the wheel. Have you guys ever heard the phrase, there is nothing original under the sun?
While I can agree with the sentiment of your post, I am not sure I can entirely agree. While ANet might have had their idea for events back in 2006, there is no doubt that the performance of WAR's PQ system had an impact upon their decisions.
ANet might have had a more similar idea to PQs before actually seeing the downside in a real setting, WAR. From that lesson they adjusted their vision to what we see now. Maybe...maybe not, we most likely will never know.
I agree that this entire argument does boil down to semantics though. The fact that we are having this discussion does show that ANet is doing something right though. What ANet presented is generating a buzz, and thus we are having discussions because of the "word on the street". If you notice we're not having a discussion on how the system will ultimately fail, but rather a discussion on how to exactly define what it is ANet is doing. This is all good press for ANet and GW2 as a whole.
This might be innovation, evolution, or it might be nothing but the next logical step. Our definitions are pointless, for the most part. However, all of curiosity shows me that ANet is sitting on a potential gold mine.
I could see them having the idea of dynamic events from the beginning. But then, with the help of WAR, they quickly learned what not to do with the DE events. So in a way, i guess, it wouldn't be innovation on WAR's PQ system. Good point :P.
I also agree that these discussions are good for the game. It shows that people are truely curious about the game Anet is producing. I do, also, agree that the game will be very sucessful. More sucessful that GW1, and a bit more successful than recent MMOs since WoW. However, it will not be able to go past WoW. WoW is way to big, and if Anet focuses on beating WoW, we instantly loose. From what it looks like, Anet knows that and is stearing well clear of that.
BTW as for the amount of content added with DE system. I think Anet is banking on it lasting until they have an expansion on the shelves. Plus I also see the events improving with the expansions. I mean, the first game is still the test ground for the systems they have in place. The expansion is where they can expand upon it, and take their system in new directions. Also they can really start to test the limits of the system they created in the expansion.
Yes, the actual chllenges of a system are just as important as the "raison d'etre" - as someone else pointed out, loads of good ideas about, few great implementations.
ArenaNet have done a wonderful job of being informative and keep asking questions of every mmo feature. That's been a big confidence boost for me. I wish other MMO would do the same or is there "proof in the pudding"?!
The market conditions of MMO is very different now than when WOW entered, it could still shift a lot of boxes/downloads however if it all comes together and impress but agree WOW is a colossus.
The one thing I am still skeptical about, is the longevity of DEs, having seen how stagnant PQs quickly became. I hope the density and quanity and variation of DE and the community numbers all contribute to them working as intended.
Anet answers one question, ten more take it's place. I do think it's good that they release Q&A section after each feature reveal. Also that they round up major interviews and articles for people to look at, as if GW2G already isn't doing that. Plus we have the community managers on GW2G attempting to prevent speculation from getting out of hand.
I think Anet has realized that the MMO market has changed since WoW. I mean they aren't releasing beta until close to release, because they recognize that beta now means demo for the players. So i think Anet is a bit smarter than what people want to believe. If you look at GW retention rate, I would think it's remarkable for a company that was that small to maintain such a retention rate. And then you see the number of GW players that are also going to transfer to GW2, it's still remarkable. Not many companies have such a loyal fanbase as Anet does. I think the loyalty of the fanbase speaks for the company as well.
*I ran out of time for the rest of this post. Suppose to be longer, second part of this post will come at a later time.
Maybe when you come back to finish the rest of this post you can give us all the details about where you got the information on GWs retention rate, and how you figured it is so good.
I'd also say that most fans of particular games are loyal to IPs moreso than their respective companies. Since Arenanet hasn't deviated from this IP, it doesn't have to mean that people are loyal to Arenanet, just that they've kept playing the IP. For this same reason, Halo is still one of the most popular shooters. Star Wars games are still widely popular, eventhough we've seen subsequent games being made across many different developers.
I think the problem is you are looking at it right at it's bare bones, so to speak. Effectively, that's all it is. Kill X mobs, get reward. But, if your going to look at it right down, past how it's implemented, then every MMO is similar. If you ignore implementation then there is no innovation at all in any game. Every game would pretty much be a copy of every other game. When you get down to it, CoD is basically just a copy of pong. Yes that's going to the extreme, but it still works. Every book is basically the same exact book, over and over again. It's just told in a different way.
You need to look at how the system is implemented. Are they telling you to go kill 10 mobs, where the mobs are just standing around in a field? Then you kill the 10 mobs, and then go back to quest giver and get reward. OR are you told to kill 10 mobs, but the mobs are actually doing what the person said. Again, it matters how it's implemented. That's where the innovation comes from. You take what's been done before and build upon it. The base is still the same across the board. That's because it's a base, you can't get anywhere without having a base. I don't think you can start building a skyscraper from the top down. If you can...every scientist would like to talk to you right now.
The evolution chart is accurate. quests -> PQ -> DE.
PQ's are nothing more than quests that has been built upon. It's been innovative a bit. Then you have DE, which are public quests that have been built upon. At the base, it's still questing.
I think people are confusing innovation with something that is absolutely new in every single way. No. That is no innovation. Innovation is taking what's been before, and building on it. Improving it. There is no point reinventing the wheel. Have you guys ever heard the phrase, there is nothing original under the sun?
While I can agree with the sentiment of your post, I am not sure I can entirely agree. While ANet might have had their idea for events back in 2006, there is no doubt that the performance of WAR's PQ system had an impact upon their decisions.
ANet might have had a more similar idea to PQs before actually seeing the downside in a real setting, WAR. From that lesson they adjusted their vision to what we see now. Maybe...maybe not, we most likely will never know.
I agree that this entire argument does boil down to semantics though. The fact that we are having this discussion does show that ANet is doing something right though. What ANet presented is generating a buzz, and thus we are having discussions because of the "word on the street". If you notice we're not having a discussion on how the system will ultimately fail, but rather a discussion on how to exactly define what it is ANet is doing. This is all good press for ANet and GW2 as a whole.
This might be innovation, evolution, or it might be nothing but the next logical step. Our definitions are pointless, for the most part. However, all of curiosity shows me that ANet is sitting on a potential gold mine.
I could see them having the idea of dynamic events from the beginning. But then, with the help of WAR, they quickly learned what not to do with the DE events. So in a way, i guess, it wouldn't be innovation on WAR's PQ system. Good point :P.
I also agree that these discussions are good for the game. It shows that people are truely curious about the game Anet is producing. I do, also, agree that the game will be very sucessful. More sucessful that GW1, and a bit more successful than recent MMOs since WoW. However, it will not be able to go past WoW. WoW is way to big, and if Anet focuses on beating WoW, we instantly loose. From what it looks like, Anet knows that and is stearing well clear of that.
BTW as for the amount of content added with DE system. I think Anet is banking on it lasting until they have an expansion on the shelves. Plus I also see the events improving with the expansions. I mean, the first game is still the test ground for the systems they have in place. The expansion is where they can expand upon it, and take their system in new directions. Also they can really start to test the limits of the system they created in the expansion.
Yes, the actual chllenges of a system are just as important as the "raison d'etre" - as someone else pointed out, loads of good ideas about, few great implementations.
ArenaNet have done a wonderful job of being informative and keep asking questions of every mmo feature. That's been a big confidence boost for me. I wish other MMO would do the same or is there "proof in the pudding"?!
The market conditions of MMO is very different now than when WOW entered, it could still shift a lot of boxes/downloads however if it all comes together and impress but agree WOW is a colossus.
The one thing I am still skeptical about, is the longevity of DEs, having seen how stagnant PQs quickly became. I hope the density and quanity and variation of DE and the community numbers all contribute to them working as intended.
Anet answers one question, ten more take it's place. I do think it's good that they release Q&A section after each feature reveal. Also that they round up major interviews and articles for people to look at, as if GW2G already isn't doing that. Plus we have the community managers on GW2G attempting to prevent speculation from getting out of hand.
I think Anet has realized that the MMO market has changed since WoW. I mean they aren't releasing beta until close to release, because they recognize that beta now means demo for the players. So i think Anet is a bit smarter than what people want to believe. If you look at GW retention rate, I would think it's remarkable for a company that was that small to maintain such a retention rate. And then you see the number of GW players that are also going to transfer to GW2, it's still remarkable. Not many companies have such a loyal fanbase as Anet does. I think the loyalty of the fanbase speaks for the company as well.
*I ran out of time for the rest of this post. Suppose to be longer, second part of this post will come at a later time.
Maybe when you come back to finish the rest of this post you can give us all the details about where you got the information on GWs retention rate, and how you figured it is so good.
I'd also say that most fans of particular games are loyal to IPs moreso than their respective companies. Since Arenanet hasn't deviated from this IP, it doesn't have to mean that people are loyal to Arenanet, just that they've kept playing the IP. For this same reason, Halo is still one of the most popular shooters. Star Wars games are still widely popular, eventhough we've seen subsequent games being made across many different developers.
Recently it was announced 6.5M copies of GW have been sold (Gamasutra) so that's a feather of a kind in their hat. Retention rates and brand loyalty are possibly connected.
One thing I know about GW (but nothing more) is that they are very big on their LORE for their game and that's a good basis for any IP, especially when a decent community builds around a core of such. It should help act as a context, background and design inspiration for the game for it's personal story and also perhaps for Dynamic Events, such as win/fail branching affecting your influence with some of the races maybe? Sort of extension to basic quests that have wider repercussion in the world (or at least significance) that MMOs really need to aspire to for a dynamic/changeable/living world.
I think the problem is you are looking at it right at it's bare bones, so to speak. Effectively, that's all it is. Kill X mobs, get reward. But, if your going to look at it right down, past how it's implemented, then every MMO is similar. If you ignore implementation then there is no innovation at all in any game. Every game would pretty much be a copy of every other game. When you get down to it, CoD is basically just a copy of pong. Yes that's going to the extreme, but it still works. Every book is basically the same exact book, over and over again. It's just told in a different way.
You need to look at how the system is implemented. Are they telling you to go kill 10 mobs, where the mobs are just standing around in a field? Then you kill the 10 mobs, and then go back to quest giver and get reward. OR are you told to kill 10 mobs, but the mobs are actually doing what the person said. Again, it matters how it's implemented. That's where the innovation comes from. You take what's been done before and build upon it. The base is still the same across the board. That's because it's a base, you can't get anywhere without having a base. I don't think you can start building a skyscraper from the top down. If you can...every scientist would like to talk to you right now.
The evolution chart is accurate. quests -> PQ -> DE.
PQ's are nothing more than quests that has been built upon. It's been innovative a bit. Then you have DE, which are public quests that have been built upon. At the base, it's still questing.
I think people are confusing innovation with something that is absolutely new in every single way. No. That is no innovation. Innovation is taking what's been before, and building on it. Improving it. There is no point reinventing the wheel. Have you guys ever heard the phrase, there is nothing original under the sun?
While I can agree with the sentiment of your post, I am not sure I can entirely agree. While ANet might have had their idea for events back in 2006, there is no doubt that the performance of WAR's PQ system had an impact upon their decisions.
ANet might have had a more similar idea to PQs before actually seeing the downside in a real setting, WAR. From that lesson they adjusted their vision to what we see now. Maybe...maybe not, we most likely will never know.
I agree that this entire argument does boil down to semantics though. The fact that we are having this discussion does show that ANet is doing something right though. What ANet presented is generating a buzz, and thus we are having discussions because of the "word on the street". If you notice we're not having a discussion on how the system will ultimately fail, but rather a discussion on how to exactly define what it is ANet is doing. This is all good press for ANet and GW2 as a whole.
This might be innovation, evolution, or it might be nothing but the next logical step. Our definitions are pointless, for the most part. However, all of curiosity shows me that ANet is sitting on a potential gold mine.
I could see them having the idea of dynamic events from the beginning. But then, with the help of WAR, they quickly learned what not to do with the DE events. So in a way, i guess, it wouldn't be innovation on WAR's PQ system. Good point :P.
I also agree that these discussions are good for the game. It shows that people are truely curious about the game Anet is producing. I do, also, agree that the game will be very sucessful. More sucessful that GW1, and a bit more successful than recent MMOs since WoW. However, it will not be able to go past WoW. WoW is way to big, and if Anet focuses on beating WoW, we instantly loose. From what it looks like, Anet knows that and is stearing well clear of that.
BTW as for the amount of content added with DE system. I think Anet is banking on it lasting until they have an expansion on the shelves. Plus I also see the events improving with the expansions. I mean, the first game is still the test ground for the systems they have in place. The expansion is where they can expand upon it, and take their system in new directions. Also they can really start to test the limits of the system they created in the expansion.
Yes, the actual chllenges of a system are just as important as the "raison d'etre" - as someone else pointed out, loads of good ideas about, few great implementations.
ArenaNet have done a wonderful job of being informative and keep asking questions of every mmo feature. That's been a big confidence boost for me. I wish other MMO would do the same or is there "proof in the pudding"?!
The market conditions of MMO is very different now than when WOW entered, it could still shift a lot of boxes/downloads however if it all comes together and impress but agree WOW is a colossus.
The one thing I am still skeptical about, is the longevity of DEs, having seen how stagnant PQs quickly became. I hope the density and quanity and variation of DE and the community numbers all contribute to them working as intended.
Anet answers one question, ten more take it's place. I do think it's good that they release Q&A section after each feature reveal. Also that they round up major interviews and articles for people to look at, as if GW2G already isn't doing that. Plus we have the community managers on GW2G attempting to prevent speculation from getting out of hand.
I think Anet has realized that the MMO market has changed since WoW. I mean they aren't releasing beta until close to release, because they recognize that beta now means demo for the players. So i think Anet is a bit smarter than what people want to believe. If you look at GW retention rate, I would think it's remarkable for a company that was that small to maintain such a retention rate. And then you see the number of GW players that are also going to transfer to GW2, it's still remarkable. Not many companies have such a loyal fanbase as Anet does. I think the loyalty of the fanbase speaks for the company as well.
*I ran out of time for the rest of this post. Suppose to be longer, second part of this post will come at a later time.
Maybe when you come back to finish the rest of this post you can give us all the details about where you got the information on GWs retention rate, and how you figured it is so good.
I'd also say that most fans of particular games are loyal to IPs moreso than their respective companies. Since Arenanet hasn't deviated from this IP, it doesn't have to mean that people are loyal to Arenanet, just that they've kept playing the IP. For this same reason, Halo is still one of the most popular shooters. Star Wars games are still widely popular, eventhough we've seen subsequent games being made across many different developers.
Recently it was announced 6.5M copies of GW have been sold (Gamasutra) so that's a feather of a kind in their hat. Retention rates and brand loyalty are possibly connected.
One thing I know about GW (but nothing more) is that they are very big on their LORE for their game and that's a good basis for any IP, especially when a decent community builds around a core of such. It should help act as a context, background and design inspiration for the game for it's personal story and also perhaps for Dynamic Events, such as win/fail branching affecting your influence with some of the races maybe? Sort of extension to basic quests that have wider repercussion in the world (or at least significance) that MMOs really need to aspire to for a dynamic/changeable/living world.
6.5 million copies is BOXES SOLD of ALL titles, including games and expansions. Not just prophecies, and it most likely counts the bundle packs as single copies of each title. Its misleading in that most companies don't count boxes sold in this category. think of WoW releasing numbers on boxes sold instead of their subscription numbers? 11.5 million multiplied by 3 expansions? Think about high selling games like Borderlands or Halo could say they sold if they counted DLC packs.
Another good point is, GW2 is selling more copies AFTER subsequent releases. You can get a GW trilogy for 30 dollars on most game sites or in store. Thats 3 copies sold, whether the people play for 6 months or 6 minutes. It has no bearing on retention overall.
6.5 million copies is BOXES SOLD of ALL titles, including games and expansions. Not just prophecies, and it most likely counts the bundle packs as single copies of each title. Its misleading in that most companies don't count boxes sold in this category. think of WoW releasing numbers on boxes sold instead of their subscription numbers? 11.5 million multiplied by 3 expansions? Think about high selling games like Borderlands or Halo could say they sold if they counted DLC packs.
Another good point is, GW2 is selling more copies AFTER subsequent releases. You can get a GW trilogy for 30 dollars on most game sites or in store. Thats 3 copies sold, whether the people play for 6 months or 6 minutes. It has no bearing on retention overall.
We could say that 1.6 million people have bought and played all the campaigns and expansions for GW. That's potential 1.6mil that may play GW2.
6.5 million copies is BOXES SOLD of ALL titles, including games and expansions. Not just prophecies, and it most likely counts the bundle packs as single copies of each title. Its misleading in that most companies don't count boxes sold in this category. think of WoW releasing numbers on boxes sold instead of their subscription numbers? 11.5 million multiplied by 3 expansions? Think about high selling games like Borderlands or Halo could say they sold if they counted DLC packs.
Another good point is, GW2 is selling more copies AFTER subsequent releases. You can get a GW trilogy for 30 dollars on most game sites or in store. Thats 3 copies sold, whether the people play for 6 months or 6 minutes. It has no bearing on retention overall.
We could say that 1.6 million people have bought and played all the campaigns and expansions for GW. That's potential 1.6mil that may play GW2.
I completely agree with that, but thats not to give us an idea on retention of how long they'll play, or how long they played. Nowhere am I saying that selling all these copies isn't an accomplishment, I'm just saying, in the scope of how many people bought the game and the retention rate, we just don't know how many kept playing. In comparison with other games that go on subscriptions, its a very different ballgame if they start boasting on boxes sold.
In fact AOC did just that, selling 1 million in their first month. The difference being, AOC relies on retention to succeed in their payment model, so while AOC might have more subscribers, or players in game then GW, GW is getting the most out of their payment model and could possibly be deemed more successful.
Really thats what it comes down to in the end, if the game is deemed successful by the company. Although we may not get 3 million players in GW2, theres no doubt in my mind that the game can't or won't be successful.
To answer the original question about how is this innovative.
Simple this is how evolution works. Small changes that advance the idea gradually over the generations. Sure if you break it down to the most simplistic of details it doesn't seem like much as you say it's like a public quest that chains and allows more people to do a chain at once over a larger area. The thing you seem to have missed though is if the people before you failed at some point or evan if no-one turned up to do a certain stage (maybe I dunno if it's on some kind of timer as to when an event starts or weather it is triggered by amout of people in the vicinity) the event is going to play out differently than if you come across it where the event was completed totally and successfully.
To illistrate it's like say your playing WOW at end game and your raiding. If your group wipes half way through say then the next lot of chumps come along and do the raid but because you wiped the makeup of the dungeon is different they say beefed up the defences near the entrance, there are more of the common mobs that killed your raid scattered in different places. There are more mobs patrolling the paths to the entrance things like that in other words it's slightly harder for the next group as the occupants of the raid grew a bit more powerful from your defeat. Not only that but quests given for the raid are changed with slightly higher rewards for killing the group of things that killed you other normal quests spring up asking you to go out and kill the new patrolling mobs in an attempt to make the path to the raid safer for normal folk and to take it a step further prevent an assult on a nearby town by said patrols. Of couse once the raid is eventually defeated it sets back to default state as the raid occupants have to start building themselves back up from the crushing defeat. So each time you do that particular raid would be slightly different depending on the results of previous raids. Go straight after someone completed the raid and it will be easier but there will be less rewards go after several wipes and it will be harder but better rewards to go with it and probably more people around to help.
So see a small step from WAR is a giant leap for WOW raiding simply by adding the dynamic component that affects the persistant world.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
There is nothing more dangerous than a true believer.
I think the problem is you are looking at it right at it's bare bones, so to speak. Effectively, that's all it is. Kill X mobs, get reward. But, if your going to look at it right down, past how it's implemented, then every MMO is similar. If you ignore implementation then there is no innovation at all in any game. Every game would pretty much be a copy of every other game. When you get down to it, CoD is basically just a copy of pong. Yes that's going to the extreme, but it still works. Every book is basically the same exact book, over and over again. It's just told in a different way.
You need to look at how the system is implemented. Are they telling you to go kill 10 mobs, where the mobs are just standing around in a field? Then you kill the 10 mobs, and then go back to quest giver and get reward. OR are you told to kill 10 mobs, but the mobs are actually doing what the person said. Again, it matters how it's implemented. That's where the innovation comes from. You take what's been done before and build upon it. The base is still the same across the board. That's because it's a base, you can't get anywhere without having a base. I don't think you can start building a skyscraper from the top down. If you can...every scientist would like to talk to you right now.
The evolution chart is accurate. quests -> PQ -> DE.
PQ's are nothing more than quests that has been built upon. It's been innovative a bit. Then you have DE, which are public quests that have been built upon. At the base, it's still questing.
I think people are confusing innovation with something that is absolutely new in every single way. No. That is no innovation. Innovation is taking what's been before, and building on it. Improving it. There is no point reinventing the wheel. Have you guys ever heard the phrase, there is nothing original under the sun?
While I can agree with the sentiment of your post, I am not sure I can entirely agree. While ANet might have had their idea for events back in 2006, there is no doubt that the performance of WAR's PQ system had an impact upon their decisions.
ANet might have had a more similar idea to PQs before actually seeing the downside in a real setting, WAR. From that lesson they adjusted their vision to what we see now. Maybe...maybe not, we most likely will never know.
I agree that this entire argument does boil down to semantics though. The fact that we are having this discussion does show that ANet is doing something right though. What ANet presented is generating a buzz, and thus we are having discussions because of the "word on the street". If you notice we're not having a discussion on how the system will ultimately fail, but rather a discussion on how to exactly define what it is ANet is doing. This is all good press for ANet and GW2 as a whole.
This might be innovation, evolution, or it might be nothing but the next logical step. Our definitions are pointless, for the most part. However, all of curiosity shows me that ANet is sitting on a potential gold mine.
I could see them having the idea of dynamic events from the beginning. But then, with the help of WAR, they quickly learned what not to do with the DE events. So in a way, i guess, it wouldn't be innovation on WAR's PQ system. Good point :P.
I also agree that these discussions are good for the game. It shows that people are truely curious about the game Anet is producing. I do, also, agree that the game will be very sucessful. More sucessful that GW1, and a bit more successful than recent MMOs since WoW. However, it will not be able to go past WoW. WoW is way to big, and if Anet focuses on beating WoW, we instantly loose. From what it looks like, Anet knows that and is stearing well clear of that.
BTW as for the amount of content added with DE system. I think Anet is banking on it lasting until they have an expansion on the shelves. Plus I also see the events improving with the expansions. I mean, the first game is still the test ground for the systems they have in place. The expansion is where they can expand upon it, and take their system in new directions. Also they can really start to test the limits of the system they created in the expansion.
Yes, the actual chllenges of a system are just as important as the "raison d'etre" - as someone else pointed out, loads of good ideas about, few great implementations.
ArenaNet have done a wonderful job of being informative and keep asking questions of every mmo feature. That's been a big confidence boost for me. I wish other MMO would do the same or is there "proof in the pudding"?!
The market conditions of MMO is very different now than when WOW entered, it could still shift a lot of boxes/downloads however if it all comes together and impress but agree WOW is a colossus.
The one thing I am still skeptical about, is the longevity of DEs, having seen how stagnant PQs quickly became. I hope the density and quanity and variation of DE and the community numbers all contribute to them working as intended.
Anet answers one question, ten more take it's place. I do think it's good that they release Q&A section after each feature reveal. Also that they round up major interviews and articles for people to look at, as if GW2G already isn't doing that. Plus we have the community managers on GW2G attempting to prevent speculation from getting out of hand.
I think Anet has realized that the MMO market has changed since WoW. I mean they aren't releasing beta until close to release, because they recognize that beta now means demo for the players. So i think Anet is a bit smarter than what people want to believe. If you look at GW retention rate, I would think it's remarkable for a company that was that small to maintain such a retention rate. And then you see the number of GW players that are also going to transfer to GW2, it's still remarkable. Not many companies have such a loyal fanbase as Anet does. I think the loyalty of the fanbase speaks for the company as well.
*I ran out of time for the rest of this post. Suppose to be longer, second part of this post will come at a later time.
Maybe when you come back to finish the rest of this post you can give us all the details about where you got the information on GWs retention rate, and how you figured it is so good.
I'd also say that most fans of particular games are loyal to IPs moreso than their respective companies. Since Arenanet hasn't deviated from this IP, it doesn't have to mean that people are loyal to Arenanet, just that they've kept playing the IP. For this same reason, Halo is still one of the most popular shooters. Star Wars games are still widely popular, eventhough we've seen subsequent games being made across many different developers.
Recently it was announced 6.5M copies of GW have been sold (Gamasutra) so that's a feather of a kind in their hat. Retention rates and brand loyalty are possibly connected.
One thing I know about GW (but nothing more) is that they are very big on their LORE for their game and that's a good basis for any IP, especially when a decent community builds around a core of such. It should help act as a context, background and design inspiration for the game for it's personal story and also perhaps for Dynamic Events, such as win/fail branching affecting your influence with some of the races maybe? Sort of extension to basic quests that have wider repercussion in the world (or at least significance) that MMOs really need to aspire to for a dynamic/changeable/living world.
6.5 million copies is BOXES SOLD of ALL titles, including games and expansions. Not just prophecies, and it most likely counts the bundle packs as single copies of each title. Its misleading in that most companies don't count boxes sold in this category. think of WoW releasing numbers on boxes sold instead of their subscription numbers? 11.5 million multiplied by 3 expansions? Think about high selling games like Borderlands or Halo could say they sold if they counted DLC packs.
Another good point is, GW2 is selling more copies AFTER subsequent releases. You can get a GW trilogy for 30 dollars on most game sites or in store. Thats 3 copies sold, whether the people play for 6 months or 6 minutes. It has no bearing on retention overall.
Actually the DLC has no bearing on this what so ever. Three out of the 4 games were full price and one was an expansion. DLC generally costs a lot less and even then doesn't normally sell the same amount as an expansion. Your WoW comparision however is mostly valid but people in Asia generally don't pay for the original client.
On your second point retention has a fair impact ofc no where near the same as a sub but a person who only plays for 6 mins is unlikely to buy another campaign. So if someone bought all of the games as they were released they probably have played the game fairly regularly.
Yes, the actual chllenges of a system are just as important as the "raison d'etre" - as someone else pointed out, loads of good ideas about, few great implementations.
ArenaNet have done a wonderful job of being informative and keep asking questions of every mmo feature. That's been a big confidence boost for me. I wish other MMO would do the same or is there "proof in the pudding"?!
The market conditions of MMO is very different now than when WOW entered, it could still shift a lot of boxes/downloads however if it all comes together and impress but agree WOW is a colossus.
The one thing I am still skeptical about, is the longevity of DEs, having seen how stagnant PQs quickly became. I hope the density and quanity and variation of DE and the community numbers all contribute to them working as intended.
Anet answers one question, ten more take it's place. I do think it's good that they release Q&A section after each feature reveal. Also that they round up major interviews and articles for people to look at, as if GW2G already isn't doing that. Plus we have the community managers on GW2G attempting to prevent speculation from getting out of hand.
I think Anet has realized that the MMO market has changed since WoW. I mean they aren't releasing beta until close to release, because they recognize that beta now means demo for the players. So i think Anet is a bit smarter than what people want to believe. If you look at GW retention rate, I would think it's remarkable for a company that was that small to maintain such a retention rate. And then you see the number of GW players that are also going to transfer to GW2, it's still remarkable. Not many companies have such a loyal fanbase as Anet does. I think the loyalty of the fanbase speaks for the company as well.
*I ran out of time for the rest of this post. Suppose to be longer, second part of this post will come at a later time.
Maybe when you come back to finish the rest of this post you can give us all the details about where you got the information on GWs retention rate, and how you figured it is so good.
I'd also say that most fans of particular games are loyal to IPs moreso than their respective companies. Since Arenanet hasn't deviated from this IP, it doesn't have to mean that people are loyal to Arenanet, just that they've kept playing the IP. For this same reason, Halo is still one of the most popular shooters. Star Wars games are still widely popular, eventhough we've seen subsequent games being made across many different developers.
Recently it was announced 6.5M copies of GW have been sold (Gamasutra) so that's a feather of a kind in their hat. Retention rates and brand loyalty are possibly connected.
One thing I know about GW (but nothing more) is that they are very big on their LORE for their game and that's a good basis for any IP, especially when a decent community builds around a core of such. It should help act as a context, background and design inspiration for the game for it's personal story and also perhaps for Dynamic Events, such as win/fail branching affecting your influence with some of the races maybe? Sort of extension to basic quests that have wider repercussion in the world (or at least significance) that MMOs really need to aspire to for a dynamic/changeable/living world.
6.5 million copies is BOXES SOLD of ALL titles, including games and expansions. Not just prophecies, and it most likely counts the bundle packs as single copies of each title. Its misleading in that most companies don't count boxes sold in this category. think of WoW releasing numbers on boxes sold instead of their subscription numbers? 11.5 million multiplied by 3 expansions? Think about high selling games like Borderlands or Halo could say they sold if they counted DLC packs.
Another good point is, GW2 is selling more copies AFTER subsequent releases. You can get a GW trilogy for 30 dollars on most game sites or in store. Thats 3 copies sold, whether the people play for 6 months or 6 minutes. It has no bearing on retention overall.
Actually the DLC has no bearing on this what so ever. Three out of the 4 games were full price and one was an expansion. DLC generally costs a lot less and even then doesn't normally sell the same amount as an expansion. Your WoW comparision however is mostly valid but people in Asia generally don't pay for the original client.
On your second point retention has a fair impact ofc no where near the same as a sub but a person who only plays for 6 mins is unlikely to buy another campaign. So if someone bought all of the games as they were released they probably have played the game fairly regularly.
I think some DLC packs do count, like borderlands for instance, that wasn't just released online as DLC but also sold in stores as such. Some packs costing as much as 40 dollars. This actually IS a good comparison as stated previously, GW is basing this off of boxes sold, which can contain GW packages, which they've had since factions released. They've done two packs, and trilogies, the price has been all around the board. Currently you can buy the trilogy for 40 dollars, which would be 3 of their boxes sold. On a game like, say Dragon Age, you could buy their combo pack of origins and awakening for 60, technically the games work on the same model.
Overall this is also where retention falls apart, as you could only assume players that began with prophecies and expanded as content became available are the main cause of retention, but in this its very tough to prove as theres no specific point where retention is proven, only that box sales increased.
As stated earlier as boxes suddenly started becoming packaged together, so a new player who wanted to try guild wars, most probably wouldn't want to buy prophecies for 20 dollars when factions and nightfall was only 19 or so dollars more. While more people become curious about guild wars, ever single trilogy box sold, ups the numbers of boxes sold 3 fold.
Great for costs and numbers, but has no bearing on retention.
A piece taken from an article here on MMORPG explains it better then I could.It doesn't end like you think it does nor do the most dynamic events look like that at all.But read below to understand better:
"Colin goes on to describe how quests are flawed, in that if you are sent out on a quest to kill 10 Ogres who are supposedly going to destroy an NPC's home, you'd typically just find these Ogres "standing around in a field picking daises," basically just waiting for you to kill them at the quest's marked location. This won't be the case in Guild Wars 2 due to the dynamic events system. Instead, if an NPC tells you Ogres are coming to level his house -- you'd better believe it!
The dynamic events system isn't simply a different conduit to deliver storyline and quest to players, according to Colin it also gives players the potential to have a lasting impact on the game world, something not often found in most MMOs:
A single player decision can cascade across a zone, changing the direction of a chain of events until they dramatically alter the content played by players in a map.
Other developers have tried to tackle this problem, but in Guild Wars 2 we go further. Where other multi-player quest systems were pass or fail - our dynamic events evolve in response to player interaction and the outcomes they achieve. Where previous systems reset and start again and really don't change the world, dynamic events chain and cascade across a zone and leave persistent effects in the game world after the event has ended.
The big question is: how will the devs be able to keep up with such lasting effects? Rotating content updates? Longer time between resets? Maybe have 5-10 scenarios that rotate as each PQ is completed?
I am looking forward to GW2 big time. If they pull this off and can truly innovate, this game will dominate.
I don't think you quite understand how events work.
Some things will never reset until the players undo them.
A fortress taken over by monsters? Stays that way until it's taken back. If on a particular server no one ever decides to take it back (which will never happen, but it works as an example), it stays in those monsters hands forever. I remember reading a while back that in some events allowing monsters to hold a point could allow them to use that as a base to raid the oulying areas from. Not sure if that's actually in the game, but it serves as an example of what can be done with the event system.
Stop thinking of them as PQs - that's the problem.
They operate competely different. The similarities are superficial.
They are Public Quests.... highly overhyped and overglorified Public Quests but PQs nonetheless. They can call them Flying Action Battle Event Happenings... in the same way you can call a piece of crap on a stick an "alternate chocolat popcicle"
Still not the same thing. Here is a few reasons why:
1. GW2 have only public quests or dynamic quests, whatever you call them (except a few personal story quests). That means no full quest log. You can't ignore something for months until you do it, either save the village now or it burns down.
2. Everybody who participates gets a reward. No roll but there seems to be 3 degrees of rewards depending on how much you did.
3. The quest will affect the world in some way or another.
4. They scale depending on how many players that do them. This is what WAR messed up, they should have done this too.
5. If you save a village they remember you later, nothing like that was in WAR.
WARS PQs were actually a very good idea but like many of WARs other ideas it was really badly implemented in the game. This have the same basic idea but is a lot better implemented.
I don't want to buy into the words they say, I want to see the innovation and for the most part it has not/can not be shown which is why I said previously we will have to wait for the release to see the impact.
Scaling seems innovative, I can't think of any MMO to use it but it's not a new concept. Diablo had scaling.
They seem to have alot of stuff that is new to PQs but it's stuff that is not really new to gaming in general or even MMOs.
FFXI had bassicly a large dynamic event in it's besiged where you would lose NPCs in your city and the AC which helped with alot of stuff. You had to go out and fight for it back. The whole game wasn't based on it like GW2 seems to be but it was still there.
You can cite all the crap they said all you want, but they were the ones that told us they would walk the walk. So start showing it instead of talking about it.
I think the issue here is that a dynamic event, taken out of the context of the world in which it exists, IS just a public quest. In other words, if you take any dynamic event individually, there is no difference between it and a public quest simply because there is no "world" for it to affect after it is completed.
When you watch a demo video, this is what you are seeing. A dynamic event taken out of context and viewed individually. So of course it looks like a public quest. The thing that makes it dynamic can only be experienced by viewing the affects it has on the world after it is completed. It is difficult to show this with just one short gameplay demo. They tried to explain it in the demos verbally, but as you say, those are only words.
I think the issue here is that a dynamic event, taken out of the context of the world in which it exists, IS just a public quest. In other words, if you take any dynamic event individually, there is no difference between it and a public quest simply because there is no "world" for it to affect after it is completed.
When you watch a demo video, this is what you are seeing. A dynamic event taken out of context and viewed individually. So of course it looks like a public quest. The thing that makes it dynamic can only be experienced by viewing the affects it has on the world after it is completed. It is difficult to show this with just one short gameplay demo. They tried to explain it in the demos verbally, but as you say, those are only words.
I tend to believe them, but it's your perogative.
You're right. There's only a limited number you can show of Dynamic Events, since a number of properties are hard to discern. Scalable? Sure, you see a number of mobs but who's to say when it's more and when they're less. Branching consequences of an Event? You'd have to follow up an event chain and pushing it to each next stage, well, you saw nobody do that in the short time they had while playing. Plus the fail condition is as good as never reached with the number of continuous new players fighing around in the same area.
Actually though, you saw a number of signals that showed glimpses of differences between DE's and PQ's. The sprinklers had different stages they were in: in one they were spouting water healthily, in another you saw one not working, and as the presenter pointed out, in the distance you saw the waterpumpstation with one pipe exploded and fire and smoke rising from it. And in yet another, third, stage, you saw toxic water spouting from the sprinklers, pointing towards yet another event cause.
Another example, the Steeleye Span fortress: in one stage it had been conquered, Charr lying dead or wounded all around, the Dragonbrand roaming around, in another stage it has been reconquered and you see Charr defending against waves of Dragonbrand by firing the canons and meeting the mobs on the battlefield. And in another scene, the Dragonbrand have breached the defenses and the Charr captain with his guard are preparing for a last stand in the main hall while the fighting in the hallways comes closer.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
I don't think you quite understand how events work.
Some things will never reset until the players undo them.
A fortress taken over by monsters? Stays that way until it's taken back. If on a particular server no one ever decides to take it back (which will never happen, but it works as an example), it stays in those monsters hands forever. I remember reading a while back that in some events allowing monsters to hold a point could allow them to use that as a base to raid the oulying areas from. Not sure if that's actually in the game, but it serves as an example of what can be done with the event system.
We haven't seen it yet, but it is ingame. They stated that they have eventchains that consist of 18-20 event and that influence a whole area.
They also mentioned that their Dynamic Events have all kinds of triggers and workings: some are activated by a player's action like a player finding a treasure box, opening it and releasing a boss monster that starts rampaging around in the area. Other events are triggered when it's night or by a weather condition. Some events branche in different directions, or will continue in their chain when no player intervenes to stop them.
They gave an example when an army of monsters manages to slowly conquer village after village, defeating the human armies until at the end they reach the king's last stronghold and slay him. That's where one end of an eventchain can rest.
As far as I understood there are several possibilities that can happen from one event to another: the situation stays this way until arriving players start to fight back against the influence of the monsters over the area,, or after some (random?) interval a new king is appointed and gathers people around him to fight back against the mobs.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Comments
I could see them having the idea of dynamic events from the beginning. But then, with the help of WAR, they quickly learned what not to do with the DE events. So in a way, i guess, it wouldn't be innovation on WAR's PQ system. Good point :P.
I also agree that these discussions are good for the game. It shows that people are truely curious about the game Anet is producing. I do, also, agree that the game will be very sucessful. More sucessful that GW1, and a bit more successful than recent MMOs since WoW. However, it will not be able to go past WoW. WoW is way to big, and if Anet focuses on beating WoW, we instantly loose. From what it looks like, Anet knows that and is stearing well clear of that.
BTW as for the amount of content added with DE system. I think Anet is banking on it lasting until they have an expansion on the shelves. Plus I also see the events improving with the expansions. I mean, the first game is still the test ground for the systems they have in place. The expansion is where they can expand upon it, and take their system in new directions. Also they can really start to test the limits of the system they created in the expansion.
Yes, the actual chllenges of a system are just as important as the "raison d'etre" - as someone else pointed out, loads of good ideas about, few great implementations.
ArenaNet have done a wonderful job of being informative and keep asking questions of every mmo feature. That's been a big confidence boost for me. I wish other MMO would do the same or is there "proof in the pudding"?!
The market conditions of MMO is very different now than when WOW entered, it could still shift a lot of boxes/downloads however if it all comes together and impress but agree WOW is a colossus.
The one thing I am still skeptical about, is the longevity of DEs, having seen how stagnant PQs quickly became. I hope the density and quanity and variation of DE and the community numbers all contribute to them working as intended.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
IN WAR if you fail or succeed a PQ then it ends. That does not happen IN GW2. If you fail or succeed the first part of the dynamic event if kicks off other events in the process depending upon your success or failure. It isnt just a 10 min hacknslash fest. Everything depends upon your success on what is going to happen next. Obviously you never ready anything on dynamic events in GW2. We forgive .
Anet answers one question, ten more take it's place. I do think it's good that they release Q&A section after each feature reveal. Also that they round up major interviews and articles for people to look at, as if GW2G already isn't doing that. Plus we have the community managers on GW2G attempting to prevent speculation from getting out of hand.
I think Anet has realized that the MMO market has changed since WoW. I mean they aren't releasing beta until close to release, because they recognize that beta now means demo for the players. So i think Anet is a bit smarter than what people want to believe. If you look at GW retention rate, I would think it's remarkable for a company that was that small to maintain such a retention rate. And then you see the number of GW players that are also going to transfer to GW2, it's still remarkable. Not many companies have such a loyal fanbase as Anet does. I think the loyalty of the fanbase speaks for the company as well.
*I ran out of time for the rest of this post. Suppose to be longer, second part of this post will come at a later time.
While I agree with the OP's skepticism and understand other people's wait and see attitude towards GW2 since there are a ton of unanswered questions and possible flaws with the dynamic event system, there is one point that everyone seems to be overlooking about this concept and it depends on how this one factor works will really sway me about GW2.
If, and only if, the effects of DE are persisent, then this creates a huge potential to have different alts on different servers for what is happening on one world should be totally different on another world.
Example:
Server 1 (Earth) your ranger is helping the village with the ogres, helps save the town with a bunch of others, the people are happy and you move on to the next big thing.
Server 2 (Anti-Earth) your elementalist failed to help the village, failed to stop the ogres and now the little town is filled with demi human nasties and now you got to find others to help battle back.
what you should have is totally different experiences based on each server's group of players.
Another question?
If my ranger logs out in a friendly town and stays gone for a few days, does he log back in to find that he is sitting in the middle of a dragon love fest and he's a bastard child.
How this DE could be really innovative is if you include factions and allow players to shape the world good or bad in a consistent persistent world. Good characters could recruit armies from nearby villages while evil characters could go deep into the ground and raise an army of orcs to overthrow a city.
That would be innovative.
that would be a diffrent innovation. but that does not make DE's not innovative.
Here's the difference in simple terms -
A dynamic event is dynamic while a public quest is static.
Dynamic Events
Not on a timer; triggers vary; seems to contain some randomization on when they happen
Number of players needed for an event scales dynamically.
Higher level players will scale down in level so they do can't make the event trivial to complete, but can still participate.
Non-combat events exist
Results of some events are semi-persistent. They remain at the same point until undone.
Public Quests
On a timer
Do not scale to number of players
High Levels cannot participate at all; they can't enter the zone
Failing a step ends the event
Always includes combat
No persistent results
Are they similar to PQs? Yes.
Are they innovative? Yes.
Innovation: the introduction of something new.
I think the mistake being made is in the use of innovative. The term that you really mean is revolutionary. A big change from what exists now; something groundbreaking; etc.
I think the determination of any aspect of Guild Wars 2 being revolutationary will wait until it's released.
Also in case your using parts of the demo from gamescom as an example for this, you should know that the devs purposely shortened the chain of events needed to get to the events that had bosses (such as the shatterer) so that people would get the chance to play them in the demo since it was only 40 minuets long. In the actual game it would take alot more time and effort before the shatterer comes out, and even then he's only one branch of the event chain.
also it never tells you to kill a surtain number of mobs, the amount of enemys is scailed and I dont remember them using such terminology in the scout guidlines. They wouldnt tell you "kill 10 centaurs" they would tell you "centaurs are raiding a town, help the towns people!" which inevitably leads you to defending the townspeople by killing the centaurs.
You have to understand in a fantasy genre, fighting and killing the enemy is one of the most basic principles; but guild wars 2 wont just have that, its just one of many many types of events that will occur.
also in terms of the chest spawning at the end, its something I found slightly out of place my self, if you find it a big deal, send an Email to Anet, they tend to respond to feedback.
well check my post history again, for a few of the GW2 threads... doesn't really matter how I post, I get attacked by everyone and their mother for "being stupid", "not thinking outside the box" and whatnot...
Then check my history again for a few of the Rift threads.... say whatever you will about me, mate but don't go badmouthing the Rift Community, those guys are great.
I've read a lot of info about DE's, believe it or not, I used to be totally psyched about GW2 until they started spouting off about how what every MMO before them did was stupid and they're here to save us all... that's just an untolerable attitude and it does make them pretentious. just like Bioware f.e. ... Make a good and fun game - fine, be super excited about your own product - probably PR but if sincere, great. stand there and say that your game's the best and most innovative and everything in the last ten years was pointless - you're a douche.
Also I wrote like a thousand times now, that their PQs 2.0 aren't bad. They probably are even fun but they are still PQs... doesn't matter what you call them...
Wether or not you feel the need to reply to this, it's my last post on these boards anyway... too much of a waste of my time
<S.T.E.A.L.T.H>
An Agency that kicks so much ass it has to be written in all capital letters... divided by dots!
www.stealth-industries.de
Check your own post history again. If you showed the same common sense and constructiveness in your GW2 posts as in your Rift posts, then you would get attacked a lot less.
Take for example a comment of yours in 1 of your Rift posts
And compare that with this GW2 post
See? How polite you were in the 1st in order not to offend, where in the 2nd one you didn't care at all whether you were offensive or not.
It's not about the "community" of a game, it's about your posts and the way you state things in a different manner from one post to another.
Personally, I don't care one bit if someone likes or hates a game, I mean, each one's taste is different, live and let live; but if I see someone posting stupid, irrelevant arguments or ignoring facts and information available, then they can get the same treatment of me
Basically, your anti arguments against ANet were based upon their saying that they've taken a good look at the MMO market and current gameplay mechanics and them stating that they can and strive to do better, and you finding them arrogant for it.
But anyway, gl with Rift, it's on my to-play list too. As I said, there's enough MMO's around for any MMO gamer to pick the one(s) they like most to play
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Why bother Cyphers? It's easier to just ignore.
I find it funny that it's "untolerable" and pretentious for a game company to hype their product. No one ever hypes what they are trying to sell by promoting their product as the next great thing and the competition can't hold up. No one except for McDonalds, Burger King, Microsoft, Blizzard, Nintendo, Sony, HBO, Honda, Toyota, Harmonix, Intel, Apple, Geico, etc - no one!
Maybe when you come back to finish the rest of this post you can give us all the details about where you got the information on GWs retention rate, and how you figured it is so good.
I'd also say that most fans of particular games are loyal to IPs moreso than their respective companies. Since Arenanet hasn't deviated from this IP, it doesn't have to mean that people are loyal to Arenanet, just that they've kept playing the IP. For this same reason, Halo is still one of the most popular shooters. Star Wars games are still widely popular, eventhough we've seen subsequent games being made across many different developers.
Recently it was announced 6.5M copies of GW have been sold (Gamasutra) so that's a feather of a kind in their hat. Retention rates and brand loyalty are possibly connected.
One thing I know about GW (but nothing more) is that they are very big on their LORE for their game and that's a good basis for any IP, especially when a decent community builds around a core of such. It should help act as a context, background and design inspiration for the game for it's personal story and also perhaps for Dynamic Events, such as win/fail branching affecting your influence with some of the races maybe? Sort of extension to basic quests that have wider repercussion in the world (or at least significance) that MMOs really need to aspire to for a dynamic/changeable/living world.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
6.5 million copies is BOXES SOLD of ALL titles, including games and expansions. Not just prophecies, and it most likely counts the bundle packs as single copies of each title. Its misleading in that most companies don't count boxes sold in this category. think of WoW releasing numbers on boxes sold instead of their subscription numbers? 11.5 million multiplied by 3 expansions? Think about high selling games like Borderlands or Halo could say they sold if they counted DLC packs.
Another good point is, GW2 is selling more copies AFTER subsequent releases. You can get a GW trilogy for 30 dollars on most game sites or in store. Thats 3 copies sold, whether the people play for 6 months or 6 minutes. It has no bearing on retention overall.
We could say that 1.6 million people have bought and played all the campaigns and expansions for GW. That's potential 1.6mil that may play GW2.
This is not a game.
I completely agree with that, but thats not to give us an idea on retention of how long they'll play, or how long they played. Nowhere am I saying that selling all these copies isn't an accomplishment, I'm just saying, in the scope of how many people bought the game and the retention rate, we just don't know how many kept playing. In comparison with other games that go on subscriptions, its a very different ballgame if they start boasting on boxes sold.
In fact AOC did just that, selling 1 million in their first month. The difference being, AOC relies on retention to succeed in their payment model, so while AOC might have more subscribers, or players in game then GW, GW is getting the most out of their payment model and could possibly be deemed more successful.
Really thats what it comes down to in the end, if the game is deemed successful by the company. Although we may not get 3 million players in GW2, theres no doubt in my mind that the game can't or won't be successful.
To answer the original question about how is this innovative.
Simple this is how evolution works. Small changes that advance the idea gradually over the generations. Sure if you break it down to the most simplistic of details it doesn't seem like much as you say it's like a public quest that chains and allows more people to do a chain at once over a larger area. The thing you seem to have missed though is if the people before you failed at some point or evan if no-one turned up to do a certain stage (maybe I dunno if it's on some kind of timer as to when an event starts or weather it is triggered by amout of people in the vicinity) the event is going to play out differently than if you come across it where the event was completed totally and successfully.
To illistrate it's like say your playing WOW at end game and your raiding. If your group wipes half way through say then the next lot of chumps come along and do the raid but because you wiped the makeup of the dungeon is different they say beefed up the defences near the entrance, there are more of the common mobs that killed your raid scattered in different places. There are more mobs patrolling the paths to the entrance things like that in other words it's slightly harder for the next group as the occupants of the raid grew a bit more powerful from your defeat. Not only that but quests given for the raid are changed with slightly higher rewards for killing the group of things that killed you other normal quests spring up asking you to go out and kill the new patrolling mobs in an attempt to make the path to the raid safer for normal folk and to take it a step further prevent an assult on a nearby town by said patrols. Of couse once the raid is eventually defeated it sets back to default state as the raid occupants have to start building themselves back up from the crushing defeat. So each time you do that particular raid would be slightly different depending on the results of previous raids. Go straight after someone completed the raid and it will be easier but there will be less rewards go after several wipes and it will be harder but better rewards to go with it and probably more people around to help.
So see a small step from WAR is a giant leap for WOW raiding simply by adding the dynamic component that affects the persistant world.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
There is nothing more dangerous than a true believer.
Actually the DLC has no bearing on this what so ever. Three out of the 4 games were full price and one was an expansion. DLC generally costs a lot less and even then doesn't normally sell the same amount as an expansion. Your WoW comparision however is mostly valid but people in Asia generally don't pay for the original client.
On your second point retention has a fair impact ofc no where near the same as a sub but a person who only plays for 6 mins is unlikely to buy another campaign. So if someone bought all of the games as they were released they probably have played the game fairly regularly.
I think some DLC packs do count, like borderlands for instance, that wasn't just released online as DLC but also sold in stores as such. Some packs costing as much as 40 dollars. This actually IS a good comparison as stated previously, GW is basing this off of boxes sold, which can contain GW packages, which they've had since factions released. They've done two packs, and trilogies, the price has been all around the board. Currently you can buy the trilogy for 40 dollars, which would be 3 of their boxes sold. On a game like, say Dragon Age, you could buy their combo pack of origins and awakening for 60, technically the games work on the same model.
Overall this is also where retention falls apart, as you could only assume players that began with prophecies and expanded as content became available are the main cause of retention, but in this its very tough to prove as theres no specific point where retention is proven, only that box sales increased.
As stated earlier as boxes suddenly started becoming packaged together, so a new player who wanted to try guild wars, most probably wouldn't want to buy prophecies for 20 dollars when factions and nightfall was only 19 or so dollars more. While more people become curious about guild wars, ever single trilogy box sold, ups the numbers of boxes sold 3 fold.
Great for costs and numbers, but has no bearing on retention.
I think you nailed it with the Public Quests. It's going to wait and see on the final results.
The big question is: how will the devs be able to keep up with such lasting effects? Rotating content updates? Longer time between resets? Maybe have 5-10 scenarios that rotate as each PQ is completed?
I am looking forward to GW2 big time. If they pull this off and can truly innovate, this game will dominate.
insanex
I don't think you quite understand how events work.
Some things will never reset until the players undo them.
A fortress taken over by monsters? Stays that way until it's taken back. If on a particular server no one ever decides to take it back (which will never happen, but it works as an example), it stays in those monsters hands forever. I remember reading a while back that in some events allowing monsters to hold a point could allow them to use that as a base to raid the oulying areas from. Not sure if that's actually in the game, but it serves as an example of what can be done with the event system.
Stop thinking of them as PQs - that's the problem.
They operate competely different. The similarities are superficial.
I think the issue here is that a dynamic event, taken out of the context of the world in which it exists, IS just a public quest. In other words, if you take any dynamic event individually, there is no difference between it and a public quest simply because there is no "world" for it to affect after it is completed.
When you watch a demo video, this is what you are seeing. A dynamic event taken out of context and viewed individually. So of course it looks like a public quest. The thing that makes it dynamic can only be experienced by viewing the affects it has on the world after it is completed. It is difficult to show this with just one short gameplay demo. They tried to explain it in the demos verbally, but as you say, those are only words.
I tend to believe them, but it's your perogative.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
You're right. There's only a limited number you can show of Dynamic Events, since a number of properties are hard to discern. Scalable? Sure, you see a number of mobs but who's to say when it's more and when they're less. Branching consequences of an Event? You'd have to follow up an event chain and pushing it to each next stage, well, you saw nobody do that in the short time they had while playing. Plus the fail condition is as good as never reached with the number of continuous new players fighing around in the same area.
Actually though, you saw a number of signals that showed glimpses of differences between DE's and PQ's. The sprinklers had different stages they were in: in one they were spouting water healthily, in another you saw one not working, and as the presenter pointed out, in the distance you saw the waterpumpstation with one pipe exploded and fire and smoke rising from it. And in yet another, third, stage, you saw toxic water spouting from the sprinklers, pointing towards yet another event cause.
Another example, the Steeleye Span fortress: in one stage it had been conquered, Charr lying dead or wounded all around, the Dragonbrand roaming around, in another stage it has been reconquered and you see Charr defending against waves of Dragonbrand by firing the canons and meeting the mobs on the battlefield. And in another scene, the Dragonbrand have breached the defenses and the Charr captain with his guard are preparing for a last stand in the main hall while the fighting in the hallways comes closer.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
We haven't seen it yet, but it is ingame. They stated that they have eventchains that consist of 18-20 event and that influence a whole area.
They also mentioned that their Dynamic Events have all kinds of triggers and workings: some are activated by a player's action like a player finding a treasure box, opening it and releasing a boss monster that starts rampaging around in the area. Other events are triggered when it's night or by a weather condition. Some events branche in different directions, or will continue in their chain when no player intervenes to stop them.
They gave an example when an army of monsters manages to slowly conquer village after village, defeating the human armies until at the end they reach the king's last stronghold and slay him. That's where one end of an eventchain can rest.
As far as I understood there are several possibilities that can happen from one event to another: the situation stays this way until arriving players start to fight back against the influence of the monsters over the area,, or after some (random?) interval a new king is appointed and gathers people around him to fight back against the mobs.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."