well, I am devided on this issue, I like story, I like the idea of players actions affecting the world and how people react to them, I think it would be awsome to have an element in games which would allow for say player 1 draws a mission to take out so many of the creatures attacking a given city and if he/she fails the creatures attack and destroy the city therby making the city useless to all others, player 2 them comes along and can't do the stuff at that city because it was destroyed. It is a sad fact though that there are a great many people out there that would get on an alt if it were allowed and fail it just to cut others off from the content for no reason other then they enjoy being an ass.
I think that story is a good thing but, the penaltys should be more personal not affecting others such as if player 1 comes along and saves the city from impending doom then there after he/she will be hailed as a hero and have access to further npc missions in said city. player 2 comes along and fails and is no longer able to talk to the npcs in that city and is shuned as being less then a hero. The problem remains the same in an open world tho with jerks messing with your quest and causeing you to fail just to be jerks.
The only solution to that is instancing your special quest to save or not the city in question, then the npc's would react to your positivly because you were capable of saving them or negativly because you failed. The trouble I see here tho is that they would have to have at least twice as much content so that the guy that failed here can try again at another city or they would lose people and the game would fail.
Personally I think making people responsable for there actions would be a awsome addition to games so many people do what ever and hurt others because they don't give a damn because there are no penaltys, case in point in SWG you were playing a game about a war and the war was to be the focal point yet, as the game degraded into a mindless grind with factions being pointless no one took them seriously or cared about them at all except in a pvp zone when they were looking for someone to battle with.
People should be held responsable for there actions yeah, they are just games but, for many it increases the fun facter if they have to actually make choices that affect them in some way or another. I do think it should be optional but, not in the way that you can do what ever you want while others are tring to follow the story and held accountable for there actions, to this end I think that seperate servers is the way to go those that want to play that way go to this server and those that don't care who they harm being ass's can go play on another server.
If there is a chance that failing at say taking a city from the enemy is going to have a negative affect on your charactor then maybe some of these kids that think zerging in all the time is a good idea will actually start to think about how to do it right or if they are just that determined not to think then they can go play on the server where no one thinks. For games like SWG where you can talk to the enemy there should be a penalty for associtating with them and selling them gear or giving them things. These would be great additions to modern gaming imo. Those that see no point in playing the game by the idea it was designed on can go to the brainless server.
Different people enjoy games for different reasons I think game companys need to figure that out and make there games in a fashion that caters to both the thinkers and the mindless grinders, not because I think mindless gamers have anything to offer aside from a montly fee payment but, in the end it is about money and how much they can make. I for one am tired of all the people that just click through and later when they relize they missed a vital bit of info they clog up the chat channel wanting to know the answers they would have gotten had they read the info they clicked over. Make there choices mean something or put them on a server away from the people that want there choices to mean something so they can get back to gaming without the low capacity thinkers.
I think it's time we found some new terms, though I'm unsure of what the new terms should be.
"Role-playing", as it originally appeared in pen-and-paper days gave you infinite depth with character development....'living the novel' with creativity limited only by your imagination.
RPG, though, is any game now where you play a character through any sort of story. The more choices of armor and weapons, the better.
MMORPG is and RPG, but with many many peoples. But by the old definition, admittedly not more actual playing of the "characters". Just playing with the characters. Not the same.
Not true. Old definition: the abilities of your avatar/toon/character is represented by a sheet of paper with numbers on them that would determine how "good" it was in a given situation, using math (stochastic, die rolls etc). So it's not the "the real you" abilities that mattered, like how good you are at wielding swords, but rather this number on the sheet of paper that represented some imaginary dude in a fantasy world. There was no amateur dramatic performance involved at all, as RPGs evolved out of complicated war games, cross-pollinated with Lord of the Rings. That's why earlier games were obsessed with numbers and "simulating" situations using probability.
When computers hit the scene, they figured that the CPU could do the number crunching. Early CRPGs where still about dungeon crawling or about "adventure" type object based puzzle solving (which would become it's own genre). In the meantime, people have developed the pen/paper variants further (up to real enactment called LARP), and added other layers of storytelling and "in-character" play and all that. Roleplayers should learn that their hobby is appreciated and accepted, but not a dogma that must be applied to anything that has RPG printed on a box.
Or another simple check: How can you "roleplay" when there was no chat, back then? And those games were really called RPGs (commonly CRPG for computer RPG or JRPG for japanese RPG).
/sorry for the history lesson
Spoken like a person who never pen and paper roll played or played with bad GM's. Your stats determined what your charactor could or could not do, if you had a good GM then your actiona dictated how the world reacted around you.
The GM I played with the most took into account your actions when it came to dealing with npc's and in the case or D&D took into account the charactors alignment so if a chaotic good charactor did something chaotic evil there would be a penalty either in the way people reacted to them or in the case of a charactor that might be a profession that depensed on alignment they might lose some ablitys or an npc having heard or seen there actions would not help them any further.
The stats were simplely a base line of how hard you might hit that thing with that sword you have or even if you had a chance to pick up that sword in the first place. A good GM let you play your charactor the way you wanted to play it and then adapted the world around your actions. That was truely role playing which happens to be pretending to be that charactor and involves not only the GM but, the player taking into account how the charactor, not the player, might react to a given situation.
early PC games basically took the Role Playing out of the game you could approach a npc and say " hi how you doing ?" or " Your ugly and I hate you and everyone that looks like you !" and there was no difference, thats assumeing there was the option to say anything at all which in most cases there was not, again a good GM would make the npc react differently based on the statements and the negative one would in the future affect how that npc reacted to you just as much as the good statement, sometimes this came in the form of a roll to see you you made the npc mad enough to not deal with you or sometime the GM would make the choice and ROLE PLAY the npc's reaction.
Game developers lost that concept in the name of chasing the all mighty doller not because the choice was not there.
(yeah, what choice is it, be good guy and take the reward or be a bad guy and get no reward and you lose the chances to follow up the quest chain)
I was under the impression that you would not be penalized for these character choices. So if your a good guy they just give you a reward but if you are bad you may have to beat it out of them but in the end you still get the reward.
I dont think your going to have to be a hero to participate in dynamic events. What i mean is saving a chicken farm from bandits may at first seem very heroic , but it really isn't if you only did it so you could shake down the farmer for the egg money.
As for quest chains i haven't seen any info on this at all. I've only seen dynamic events and the ones that do chain into other dynamic events i think just start on there own. So there shouldn't be anything to keep you from continuing to participate.
This is purely speculation on my part but these were the impressions i was under.
There are a few things i really like as to story line over quest line. One is that once i get a character finshed and decide to make another. I don't have to have the exact same experience i did the first time. Where with quest chains i'd end up doing the exact same thing over again. I'd then get to a part of the chain i remember hating but have to do because it leads to the next part. In GW2 i'm told i'm not really forced to do this and can just skip what i dont like. This will largely depend on how much content is in the game though.
Also playing a charming commoner should feel different than playing an overbearing noble type. Your experince may still be very similar but atleast it offers some change. I think alt-aholics will enjoy this.
many people would have you believe that the sun revolves around them but it doesn't. a story in the background helps show that actions in that world are still in play and that it wont wait for you to catch up showing that time waits for no man . it is how ever your choice to follow the story or not and guild wars 2 has it prepared consequences for if you do chose to leave it alone. i find that most of the time people who play just to make there character fight, eat, drink, sleep and fart just so boring and lacking in imagination amongst other thing. and i find repetition in game boring as hell.
I'm not interested in talking "in character" or performing any sort of artistic enactment under the guise of roleplaying. I do think that given the opportunity to become renown for specific traits is definately interesting. I would really like to see a much greater diversity in cause and effect situations through verbal dialogue or questing. I think that there is a great potential for increasing the whole roleplaying mechanism, while not alienating the non-roleplaying crowd (as I would consider myself)
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
The idea is noble, and with their event system, perhaps they are closer than anyone has been to creating a world that feels natural and real, but having a story, however non-linear, that includes the same characters and similar choices for all characters can only have a negative affect on roleplaying. If every human that is a noble starts out with the same person being their best friend, how will it be possible to roleplay different characters with different lives as nobles before the game began? The simple answer is that you cannot, and this will hurt roleplaying.
The nature of roleplaying they are using is the same kind Bioware uses, and while it is amazing and tons of fun for single-player games, I do not see a way in which it can work for a multiplayer game. If we are all living the same lives, how can our roleplaying be realistic?
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Its amazing to me how resistant the MMO community is to change. When someone like Bioware or ArenaNet comes along and tries to mix things up by adding another pillar to the MMO framework, half the community freaks out. I really don't get it...
Personally I think MMOs as they are today have become very very stale. We NEED to change up the formula... and I'm personally glad some people are willing to try.
Gary Gygax did allot to popularize "Role playing" games but also was one of the first to mate them with statistics, dice and the sort from military boardgames.
This was both a good thing AND a bad thing.
The military games where complex (sometimes hyper complex) but basically "risk" type war games (simplistic but more or less accuriate) strategy and chance.
"Role playing" games where what theater and actors did to sharpen there ability to . .well play roles . . others also did this to have fun at party's etc.
Merging the two allowed people that tended to add immersion to the war games which they lacked and structure to the Role playing games which could get wild.
People tend to migrate to the extremes but the TRUE goal is a nice mix of the two.
Some stereotypes that fit.
1. The old school D&D or AD&D player - Character sheets, dice, to hit tables, graph paper, and books of rules. These tend to like the "enter room, check for traps, kill badies, get loot, repeat in next room till dragon/etc. Effectively Diablo and most MMO's . . story is secondary, uber loot and gold is everything as everyone rushes to the end/max level. Very minimal RP if at all. The GM is there to describe what is next and to hand out loot . . story is there as a framework only (computers are good at this)
2. Old style RP, You are given a role (or have to figure it out on the fly) and talk/banter with others doing the same . . sometimes there is a theme or plot but just as often freestyle. The ability to stay in character is the main goal. can get rather chaotic. This requires skill and often a bit of a powerful personality . . not something everyone can or wants to do. the GM if one exists at all - mainly just starts the ball rolling. (Computers are bad at human banter.)
3. The something in the middle of the two (some people pointed this out above talking about "GOOD" GMs) is a game system light enough for players to understand the world and to have some basis (fighting the Chaos of pure RP) but also not heavy where it bogs down the game and makes it a statistics battle . . The STORY comes into play in this version . . more fluid then a map, less caotic and more focused then banter RP. Single player RPG's have come close to good GM based modern paper RPG's.
The difference here is the what game is being played. . . an arcade game? and freestyle banter game? or a Story based game? (sure things are not so cut and dry but that only complicates the issue)
From my point of view if I want old school D&D I would just play Diablo or it's like . . fun, kill, loot. . etc . . Old style RP well not that good at it but not bad . . hate period-isms and accents though. The Story based? is my favorate . . as it is effectively a immersive movie/story that adapts to your/groups actions but at the same time pushes you/group along also.
MMORPGs really have not gotten past old school D&D . . attempts at story are fragmented and often lame. The rush to massive loot, gear and max level may be fun for a time but seems . . immature.
some of this has to do with computer capability for sure but also mindset. (easy $$ from obsessives).
Story based games are HARD to do . . and on computers (because of limited resources and possable content) it all seems to be on a rail and you can't do something radical or unique. (unlike a good paper GM that can think on the fly)
GWII seems to be making a living world full of interconnected content and triggers. The more interconnected the more complex the world seems. . .
I for one look forward to WGII for getting off the main MMO template.
I was under the impression that you would not be penalized for these character choices. So if your a good guy they just give you a reward but if you are bad you may have to beat it out of them but in the end you still get the reward.
Sometimes the bad guys get more cash I suppose. I have a feeling that it will even out in the long run and sometimes bad guys get themselves into trouble.
Knowing MMO community will we surely get guides if you are truly greedy and want max reward from everything.
Firstly GW2 is a mmorpg. Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game. The lore and the npc interaction is a vital part of any mmorpg.
That said the people playing the game are not all roleplayers. Some play the game to win they want the best gear and the most efficent maxed out build. they can not care less about lore or any reason to make a decsion outside of the ingame benefits offered. To be honest no matter what lore is put in these players will ignore it. I always consider these platers to be the Leet players. They want to win they aim to be the highest scorers the aim to be the first to accomplish something. They rush to the end game and will skip all content that slows them down.
Then there are the "roleplayers" these are the players who check listen to all the lore they hunt down obscure references and see all the sights expore all the nooks and cranies. A roleplayer will spend months on a single goal if it matches his roleplaying paradim. Often roleplayers will ignore optimu or even advantageous builds for unreliable and in some cases unplayable ones because they match their vision. A roleplayer, often refuses to adapt his vison to the game. Furthermore many roleplayers find themselves trapped in the middle levels of the game as they are unable to progress due to flawed builds or playing style. The roleplayer will enjoy the lore only as long as it does not conflict with his interpretation of the game world. Also he will enjoy roleplaying choices as long as said choices fit his concept.
Lastly we have the gamer. These are in the middle, they enjoy the lore. They iconise their characters, but they also adapt their visons to take into account the game mechanics. A gamer is driven to see all that a game has to offer. But he is not in a rush, he wants to take his time and see it all. The gamer often roleplays his character according to a broad ideal he follows. For example his character is dark and violent warrior who is prone to hit first and ask questions afterwards so his decsions follow this path. On the flipside another gamer may play a paladin type with nobility and heroism shaping his decsions.
The majority of games cater to the Gamer. Largely because no matter what rpg elements thay add the Leet player will ignore it and the roleplayer will complain its suppressing his vision and hence often disregard it. Only the gamer will actually enjoy it.
It has been said that you can level to 80 without touching the personal story aspect of the game at all! You can stick to the persistent world's dynamic events or even fight in World vs World PvP battles from the start and for infinity. The storyline and RPG aspects just make the entire game much more rich and deep. You can play however you want, ignore some aspects of the game and still have a lot of stuff to do. This is what makes GW2 sooo good.
I believe you should be able to play an mmorpg how u want and that shapes your character, not just choices via quest choices/answers. I loved KOTOR for the light/dark side and how giving the right answer was a game in its self. But I pefer a sandbox existance where how you play and what you do, with freedom of choice or how you react to situations defines your character - simply put if I become a gather profession I get dynamic & quest style events that allow me to delve deeper into that. I remember in my WoWcrack days that people wanted to know where I got a certain unique staff or where stoked when in a dungeon I handed out unique potions. GW2 extends that with skill drops but I like the idea of choosing something to achieve and allowing me to go off and do it, let it be grinding a mob for a drop or following a chain that has a reward or soft gameplay (crafting ) but add depth, discovery and freedom.
E
EivilSar, Deathhand of International Spellborn PvP
It's odd how we keep seeing storytelling and roleplaying used as if they mean the same thing. One can be a part of the other, but neither one creates the other. They're completely different things that can, at best, support one another.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Its just a tiny little step toward what MMORPGS are about. Choices and RP(g) a true MMORPG is a game whit no limmets at all and all choices made by the play giving the player a deep connection to its character. this is only possible is a full sandbox game.
The game company's now have rediscoverd that the RPG element were a player "bonds" whit his/her character actualy increases the lifetime of said subcriber. ( as in play more or longer) and thus create more income.
Its only logical that they remain in the "linair" story driven MMO game bussines as its far saver to create sutchs a game then a complicated player driven sandbox. for in sutch a game a developer has to create and for modern games even invent compleetly new controol mechanics for the gamer to play whit.
its a small step back to were we once were and a welcome addition to any mmo.
PS: Kinda funny title, Injecting Role-playing , In to a Role-playing game. ... .. ..
Originally posted by Eladi Its just a tiny little step toward what MMORPGS are about. Choices and RP(g) a true MMORPG is a game whit no limmets at all and all choices made by the play giving the player a deep connection to its character. this is only possible is a full sandbox game. The game company's now have rediscoverd that the RPG element were a player "bonds" whit his/her character actualy increases the lifetime of said subcriber. ( as in play more or longer) and thus create more income. Its only logical that they remain in the "linair" story driven MMO game bussines as its far saver to create sutchs a game then a complicated player driven sandbox. for in sutch a game a developer has to create and for modern games even invent compleetly new controol mechanics for the gamer to play whit. its a small step back to were we once were and a welcome addition to any mmo.
PS: Kinda funny title, Injecting Role-playing , In to a Role-playing game. ... .. ..
Actually, to my mind, a story has the opposite effect. When I play a single-player game, when I am finished, I am finished. When the story is completed, I feel no desire to continue playing.
With a MMO, the idea is to have a realistic world in which players can live and create a virtual life for themselves. That is part of why most of them still have tips of their hat to this idea (think crafting, fishing, etc.)
If you have me play through a "personal story," it seems like it will feel like a single-player game, and I will feel like I "beat the game" at the end of it, and that is not conducive to roleplaying.
A personal story that is run in the way this seems like it is going to be run will have exactly the opposite effect from what seems to be desired. People that roleplay more than character progression in various fields, people that take on a persona in the game and act as if they are that character, neither need nor want a story fed to them during their progression. Their story is something they create themselves to make their character realistic. When you put people through the same story, with the same NPCs, everyone's life will have been the same, thus preventing any roleplaying.
What is interesting to me is that while GW had no roleplaying, Anet seems to want roleplaying in GW2. And mechanics like the personality in conversations and dynamic events seem to point towards an emphasis on roleplaying in a realistic world that changes and is affected by the people living in it. I simply cannot understand why they would put worldbuilding mechanics and roleplaying mechanics in a game that will feed players a story the very existence of which will prevent roleplayers from roleplaying without blatantly ignoring it completely. Everything else they do seems so well-done and well-planned.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
A role playing game is a role playing game period.
It is one or more players assuming a role with a story and rules that define how the role can be played out. The only difference is the depth of said story and rules.
It can be as open and as free as simply "you are a butler" with the only rule being that you you act like a butler would, and the story nothing more than an initial setting like "you are at a hospital".
Or it can be as detailed and restrictive as "you are Link in the land of Hyrule". the world is completely defined the role is completely defined as are the rules of the world and the story is laid out on rails. this is both a choice of style as well as limitations of technology.
Games like D&D/AD&D have very complex rules that define what is possible and what is not, it has some freedom of your role in comparison to say Legend of Zelda But that role is still limited by the rules of the game. it can also have varying degrees of story depth, depending on the GM and the players involved, but the story is there and affects the players and the world within the limitations of the rules.
whatever the role playing game, the three elements of role , story, and rules are always there. what is the best implementation of these three elements? That is purely a matter of preference and mood really.
I personally like the way AD&D works, however I prefer the computer to do most of the "work" for me such as enforcing the rules, rolling the dice, etc. and I feel more immersed if I see the world in graphical representation. I have a decent imagination but not to the point that I can delude myself into truly seeing what is not there (though I'm sure there is a pill for that).
At this point, in my opinion, the biggest difference between a very good CRPG and a D&D game is the GM, the human element behind the non-player actors. In my opinion the closer Devs get to this the better, and things like random encounters and reputation through conversation choices and npc reactions changing based on that is all a step closer and I give kudos to ArenaNet for pushing in that direction.
If they can pull it off, it’ll be awfully hard not to end every annoying conversation with a punch to the face or a knife to the eye. But maybe that’s just me.
"Scoundrel William" - probably gonna be his title .
It's unfortunate that people believe the level grind is the correct way to go. I feel disconnected to all MMOs so far, but everytime I play say Fallout 3 I can feel my heart beating faster and faster as the enemy sounds like it's getting closer and closer. I get chills from looking at it just because the storyline and lore and just so well thought out. MMO's could use a dose of story. They're not just a chain of quests but instead it feels like there is a reason to do it. I don't even stay to listen to the quests in any game but well thought out quests also mean that the world is more fleshed out and can be seen in the graphical details placed through out the world. Those that are only providing a world in which to kill x monsters for no good reason shows a huge lack of world detail.
Also remember, this is completely my point of view and I will not ever look in these comments again so anything said to me will be for all intents and purposes will be ignored.
I have to really agree, Im at the point with MMO's it feels like an upgraded version of D2 or similar single player dungeon hackers. Im excited to see story line make a come back. and i dont think it will give you any LESS CHOICE as some may think it just gives you FLAVOUR and ATMOSPHERE that is highlty lacking.
It's odd how we keep seeing storytelling and roleplaying used as if they mean the same thing. One can be a part of the other, but neither one creates the other. They're completely different things that can, at best, support one another.
Ah Many people look at RPG=Story Telling as when you play a RPG its telling a story that you are playing. And same goes with pencil&paper,The GM/Storyteller/DM's (depending on what game is your flavour) job was to create compeling stories/adventures/quests for the Players to imbark apon,tackle,and make their story while Role Playing their character.If you ever did play P&P you know that the GM had the last say too..lol.
After years with this discussion (I can't remember how many times I've participated in threads nearly identical to this) all we've learned is that there is no common definition from role-playing. We all bring different thoughts to the table, and different interpretations of the "history" of the term, as well as our game experiences.
So, yep...I'm a fan of almost all MMORPGs, whether it's all computer-officiated, or whether the players have an impact.
But let me tell you about the game I'd LOVE to see someone make. It has some traits like this:
A world in which I play a character, and that character has an investment in the world.
NPCs are there for background, but the "game" recognizes my character for their significance. For example, if I'm the leader of the games largest guild, I expect to be treated as such where it matters - diplomats, brigands, shop keepers, etc.
I want to be able to own land and improve it -- with as many of my friends as I can gather.
I want the events AND interactions of my playtime--whether they be with NPCs or with players--to weave a story of my character's time in this fictional world, and I want a way to remember or memorialize that story.
I want systems that make social interaction more important - not just Goldshire table-dancing, but diplomacy, status, standing, and influence.
I want to feel like I can be an explorer again. Asheron's Call was the first (and arguably still the best) at achieving the "I bet no one's ever been here before" feeling.
I want the same design care spent on how interactions affect your character as are taken with weapon and ability balance.
I want the mystery of meeting new people back --not a direct link to your entire profile and a full description of your wealth. I miss when characters could be "Anon".
I don't want to build a character; I want to build a dynasty.
I want knowledge gained as a character AND player to have game-recognized value in world, and be tradeable and usable.
I want to feel as if I've been dropped inside my favorite fiction novel, and now am playing a part--as big as my skill and time will allow--that changes the world.
I want a lot, I know.
But if in 15 years from now, I'm still killing 10/10, running an important note across town, or picking 15 dungflowers---I'll feel sadly stagnated as a fan of RPGs.
Comments
well, I am devided on this issue, I like story, I like the idea of players actions affecting the world and how people react to them, I think it would be awsome to have an element in games which would allow for say player 1 draws a mission to take out so many of the creatures attacking a given city and if he/she fails the creatures attack and destroy the city therby making the city useless to all others, player 2 them comes along and can't do the stuff at that city because it was destroyed. It is a sad fact though that there are a great many people out there that would get on an alt if it were allowed and fail it just to cut others off from the content for no reason other then they enjoy being an ass.
I think that story is a good thing but, the penaltys should be more personal not affecting others such as if player 1 comes along and saves the city from impending doom then there after he/she will be hailed as a hero and have access to further npc missions in said city. player 2 comes along and fails and is no longer able to talk to the npcs in that city and is shuned as being less then a hero. The problem remains the same in an open world tho with jerks messing with your quest and causeing you to fail just to be jerks.
The only solution to that is instancing your special quest to save or not the city in question, then the npc's would react to your positivly because you were capable of saving them or negativly because you failed. The trouble I see here tho is that they would have to have at least twice as much content so that the guy that failed here can try again at another city or they would lose people and the game would fail.
Personally I think making people responsable for there actions would be a awsome addition to games so many people do what ever and hurt others because they don't give a damn because there are no penaltys, case in point in SWG you were playing a game about a war and the war was to be the focal point yet, as the game degraded into a mindless grind with factions being pointless no one took them seriously or cared about them at all except in a pvp zone when they were looking for someone to battle with.
People should be held responsable for there actions yeah, they are just games but, for many it increases the fun facter if they have to actually make choices that affect them in some way or another. I do think it should be optional but, not in the way that you can do what ever you want while others are tring to follow the story and held accountable for there actions, to this end I think that seperate servers is the way to go those that want to play that way go to this server and those that don't care who they harm being ass's can go play on another server.
If there is a chance that failing at say taking a city from the enemy is going to have a negative affect on your charactor then maybe some of these kids that think zerging in all the time is a good idea will actually start to think about how to do it right or if they are just that determined not to think then they can go play on the server where no one thinks. For games like SWG where you can talk to the enemy there should be a penalty for associtating with them and selling them gear or giving them things. These would be great additions to modern gaming imo. Those that see no point in playing the game by the idea it was designed on can go to the brainless server.
Different people enjoy games for different reasons I think game companys need to figure that out and make there games in a fashion that caters to both the thinkers and the mindless grinders, not because I think mindless gamers have anything to offer aside from a montly fee payment but, in the end it is about money and how much they can make. I for one am tired of all the people that just click through and later when they relize they missed a vital bit of info they clog up the chat channel wanting to know the answers they would have gotten had they read the info they clicked over. Make there choices mean something or put them on a server away from the people that want there choices to mean something so they can get back to gaming without the low capacity thinkers.
Spoken like a person who never pen and paper roll played or played with bad GM's. Your stats determined what your charactor could or could not do, if you had a good GM then your actiona dictated how the world reacted around you.
The GM I played with the most took into account your actions when it came to dealing with npc's and in the case or D&D took into account the charactors alignment so if a chaotic good charactor did something chaotic evil there would be a penalty either in the way people reacted to them or in the case of a charactor that might be a profession that depensed on alignment they might lose some ablitys or an npc having heard or seen there actions would not help them any further.
The stats were simplely a base line of how hard you might hit that thing with that sword you have or even if you had a chance to pick up that sword in the first place. A good GM let you play your charactor the way you wanted to play it and then adapted the world around your actions. That was truely role playing which happens to be pretending to be that charactor and involves not only the GM but, the player taking into account how the charactor, not the player, might react to a given situation.
early PC games basically took the Role Playing out of the game you could approach a npc and say " hi how you doing ?" or " Your ugly and I hate you and everyone that looks like you !" and there was no difference, thats assumeing there was the option to say anything at all which in most cases there was not, again a good GM would make the npc react differently based on the statements and the negative one would in the future affect how that npc reacted to you just as much as the good statement, sometimes this came in the form of a roll to see you you made the npc mad enough to not deal with you or sometime the GM would make the choice and ROLE PLAY the npc's reaction.
Game developers lost that concept in the name of chasing the all mighty doller not because the choice was not there.
I was under the impression that you would not be penalized for these character choices. So if your a good guy they just give you a reward but if you are bad you may have to beat it out of them but in the end you still get the reward.
I dont think your going to have to be a hero to participate in dynamic events. What i mean is saving a chicken farm from bandits may at first seem very heroic , but it really isn't if you only did it so you could shake down the farmer for the egg money.
As for quest chains i haven't seen any info on this at all. I've only seen dynamic events and the ones that do chain into other dynamic events i think just start on there own. So there shouldn't be anything to keep you from continuing to participate.
This is purely speculation on my part but these were the impressions i was under.
There are a few things i really like as to story line over quest line. One is that once i get a character finshed and decide to make another. I don't have to have the exact same experience i did the first time. Where with quest chains i'd end up doing the exact same thing over again. I'd then get to a part of the chain i remember hating but have to do because it leads to the next part. In GW2 i'm told i'm not really forced to do this and can just skip what i dont like. This will largely depend on how much content is in the game though.
Also playing a charming commoner should feel different than playing an overbearing noble type. Your experince may still be very similar but atleast it offers some change. I think alt-aholics will enjoy this.
many people would have you believe that the sun revolves around them but it doesn't. a story in the background helps show that actions in that world are still in play and that it wont wait for you to catch up showing that time waits for no man . it is how ever your choice to follow the story or not and guild wars 2 has it prepared consequences for if you do chose to leave it alone. i find that most of the time people who play just to make there character fight, eat, drink, sleep and fart just so boring and lacking in imagination amongst other thing. and i find repetition in game boring as hell.
/edit wrong post
I'm not interested in talking "in character" or performing any sort of artistic enactment under the guise of roleplaying. I do think that given the opportunity to become renown for specific traits is definately interesting. I would really like to see a much greater diversity in cause and effect situations through verbal dialogue or questing. I think that there is a great potential for increasing the whole roleplaying mechanism, while not alienating the non-roleplaying crowd (as I would consider myself)
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
I don't hate much, but I hate Apple© with a passion. If Steve Jobs was alive, I would punch him in the face.
The idea is noble, and with their event system, perhaps they are closer than anyone has been to creating a world that feels natural and real, but having a story, however non-linear, that includes the same characters and similar choices for all characters can only have a negative affect on roleplaying. If every human that is a noble starts out with the same person being their best friend, how will it be possible to roleplay different characters with different lives as nobles before the game began? The simple answer is that you cannot, and this will hurt roleplaying.
The nature of roleplaying they are using is the same kind Bioware uses, and while it is amazing and tons of fun for single-player games, I do not see a way in which it can work for a multiplayer game. If we are all living the same lives, how can our roleplaying be realistic?
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
WTF? No subscription fee?
Its amazing to me how resistant the MMO community is to change. When someone like Bioware or ArenaNet comes along and tries to mix things up by adding another pillar to the MMO framework, half the community freaks out. I really don't get it...
Personally I think MMOs as they are today have become very very stale. We NEED to change up the formula... and I'm personally glad some people are willing to try.
UG, not this again!!
Gary Gygax did allot to popularize "Role playing" games but also was one of the first to mate them with statistics, dice and the sort from military boardgames.
This was both a good thing AND a bad thing.
The military games where complex (sometimes hyper complex) but basically "risk" type war games (simplistic but more or less accuriate) strategy and chance.
"Role playing" games where what theater and actors did to sharpen there ability to . .well play roles . . others also did this to have fun at party's etc.
Merging the two allowed people that tended to add immersion to the war games which they lacked and structure to the Role playing games which could get wild.
People tend to migrate to the extremes but the TRUE goal is a nice mix of the two.
Some stereotypes that fit.
1. The old school D&D or AD&D player - Character sheets, dice, to hit tables, graph paper, and books of rules. These tend to like the "enter room, check for traps, kill badies, get loot, repeat in next room till dragon/etc. Effectively Diablo and most MMO's . . story is secondary, uber loot and gold is everything as everyone rushes to the end/max level. Very minimal RP if at all. The GM is there to describe what is next and to hand out loot . . story is there as a framework only (computers are good at this)
2. Old style RP, You are given a role (or have to figure it out on the fly) and talk/banter with others doing the same . . sometimes there is a theme or plot but just as often freestyle. The ability to stay in character is the main goal. can get rather chaotic. This requires skill and often a bit of a powerful personality . . not something everyone can or wants to do. the GM if one exists at all - mainly just starts the ball rolling. (Computers are bad at human banter.)
3. The something in the middle of the two (some people pointed this out above talking about "GOOD" GMs) is a game system light enough for players to understand the world and to have some basis (fighting the Chaos of pure RP) but also not heavy where it bogs down the game and makes it a statistics battle . . The STORY comes into play in this version . . more fluid then a map, less caotic and more focused then banter RP. Single player RPG's have come close to good GM based modern paper RPG's.
The difference here is the what game is being played. . . an arcade game? and freestyle banter game? or a Story based game? (sure things are not so cut and dry but that only complicates the issue)
From my point of view if I want old school D&D I would just play Diablo or it's like . . fun, kill, loot. . etc . . Old style RP well not that good at it but not bad . . hate period-isms and accents though. The Story based? is my favorate . . as it is effectively a immersive movie/story that adapts to your/groups actions but at the same time pushes you/group along also.
MMORPGs really have not gotten past old school D&D . . attempts at story are fragmented and often lame. The rush to massive loot, gear and max level may be fun for a time but seems . . immature.
some of this has to do with computer capability for sure but also mindset. (easy $$ from obsessives).
Story based games are HARD to do . . and on computers (because of limited resources and possable content) it all seems to be on a rail and you can't do something radical or unique. (unlike a good paper GM that can think on the fly)
GWII seems to be making a living world full of interconnected content and triggers. The more interconnected the more complex the world seems. . .
I for one look forward to WGII for getting off the main MMO template.
Sometimes the bad guys get more cash I suppose. I have a feeling that it will even out in the long run and sometimes bad guys get themselves into trouble.
Knowing MMO community will we surely get guides if you are truly greedy and want max reward from everything.
Firstly GW2 is a mmorpg. Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game. The lore and the npc interaction is a vital part of any mmorpg.
That said the people playing the game are not all roleplayers. Some play the game to win they want the best gear and the most efficent maxed out build. they can not care less about lore or any reason to make a decsion outside of the ingame benefits offered. To be honest no matter what lore is put in these players will ignore it. I always consider these platers to be the Leet players. They want to win they aim to be the highest scorers the aim to be the first to accomplish something. They rush to the end game and will skip all content that slows them down.
Then there are the "roleplayers" these are the players who check listen to all the lore they hunt down obscure references and see all the sights expore all the nooks and cranies. A roleplayer will spend months on a single goal if it matches his roleplaying paradim. Often roleplayers will ignore optimu or even advantageous builds for unreliable and in some cases unplayable ones because they match their vision. A roleplayer, often refuses to adapt his vison to the game. Furthermore many roleplayers find themselves trapped in the middle levels of the game as they are unable to progress due to flawed builds or playing style. The roleplayer will enjoy the lore only as long as it does not conflict with his interpretation of the game world. Also he will enjoy roleplaying choices as long as said choices fit his concept.
Lastly we have the gamer. These are in the middle, they enjoy the lore. They iconise their characters, but they also adapt their visons to take into account the game mechanics. A gamer is driven to see all that a game has to offer. But he is not in a rush, he wants to take his time and see it all. The gamer often roleplays his character according to a broad ideal he follows. For example his character is dark and violent warrior who is prone to hit first and ask questions afterwards so his decsions follow this path. On the flipside another gamer may play a paladin type with nobility and heroism shaping his decsions.
The majority of games cater to the Gamer. Largely because no matter what rpg elements thay add the Leet player will ignore it and the roleplayer will complain its suppressing his vision and hence often disregard it. Only the gamer will actually enjoy it.
Gadareth
I believe you should be able to play an mmorpg how u want and that shapes your character, not just choices via quest choices/answers. I loved KOTOR for the light/dark side and how giving the right answer was a game in its self. But I pefer a sandbox existance where how you play and what you do, with freedom of choice or how you react to situations defines your character - simply put if I become a gather profession I get dynamic & quest style events that allow me to delve deeper into that. I remember in my WoWcrack days that people wanted to know where I got a certain unique staff or where stoked when in a dungeon I handed out unique potions. GW2 extends that with skill drops but I like the idea of choosing something to achieve and allowing me to go off and do it, let it be grinding a mob for a drop or following a chain that has a reward or soft gameplay (crafting ) but add depth, discovery and freedom.
E
EivilSar, Deathhand of International
Spellborn PvP
It's odd how we keep seeing storytelling and roleplaying used as if they mean the same thing. One can be a part of the other, but neither one creates the other. They're completely different things that can, at best, support one another.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Its just a tiny little step toward what MMORPGS are about. Choices and RP(g) a true MMORPG is a game whit no limmets at all and all choices made by the play giving the player a deep connection to its character. this is only possible is a full sandbox game.
The game company's now have rediscoverd that the RPG element were a player "bonds" whit his/her character actualy increases the lifetime of said subcriber. ( as in play more or longer) and thus create more income.
Its only logical that they remain in the "linair" story driven MMO game bussines as its far saver to create sutchs a game then a complicated player driven sandbox. for in sutch a game a developer has to create and for modern games even invent compleetly new controol mechanics for the gamer to play whit.
its a small step back to were we once were and a welcome addition to any mmo.
PS: Kinda funny title, Injecting Role-playing , In to a Role-playing game. ... .. ..
Actually, to my mind, a story has the opposite effect. When I play a single-player game, when I am finished, I am finished. When the story is completed, I feel no desire to continue playing.
With a MMO, the idea is to have a realistic world in which players can live and create a virtual life for themselves. That is part of why most of them still have tips of their hat to this idea (think crafting, fishing, etc.)
If you have me play through a "personal story," it seems like it will feel like a single-player game, and I will feel like I "beat the game" at the end of it, and that is not conducive to roleplaying.
A personal story that is run in the way this seems like it is going to be run will have exactly the opposite effect from what seems to be desired. People that roleplay more than character progression in various fields, people that take on a persona in the game and act as if they are that character, neither need nor want a story fed to them during their progression. Their story is something they create themselves to make their character realistic. When you put people through the same story, with the same NPCs, everyone's life will have been the same, thus preventing any roleplaying.
What is interesting to me is that while GW had no roleplaying, Anet seems to want roleplaying in GW2. And mechanics like the personality in conversations and dynamic events seem to point towards an emphasis on roleplaying in a realistic world that changes and is affected by the people living in it. I simply cannot understand why they would put worldbuilding mechanics and roleplaying mechanics in a game that will feed players a story the very existence of which will prevent roleplayers from roleplaying without blatantly ignoring it completely. Everything else they do seems so well-done and well-planned.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
WTF? No subscription fee?
A role playing game is a role playing game period.
It is one or more players assuming a role with a story and rules that define how the role can be played out. The only difference is the depth of said story and rules.
It can be as open and as free as simply "you are a butler" with the only rule being that you you act like a butler would, and the story nothing more than an initial setting like "you are at a hospital".
Or it can be as detailed and restrictive as "you are Link in the land of Hyrule". the world is completely defined the role is completely defined as are the rules of the world and the story is laid out on rails. this is both a choice of style as well as limitations of technology.
Games like D&D/AD&D have very complex rules that define what is possible and what is not, it has some freedom of your role in comparison to say Legend of Zelda But that role is still limited by the rules of the game. it can also have varying degrees of story depth, depending on the GM and the players involved, but the story is there and affects the players and the world within the limitations of the rules.
whatever the role playing game, the three elements of role , story, and rules are always there. what is the best implementation of these three elements? That is purely a matter of preference and mood really.
I personally like the way AD&D works, however I prefer the computer to do most of the "work" for me such as enforcing the rules, rolling the dice, etc. and I feel more immersed if I see the world in graphical representation. I have a decent imagination but not to the point that I can delude myself into truly seeing what is not there (though I'm sure there is a pill for that).
At this point, in my opinion, the biggest difference between a very good CRPG and a D&D game is the GM, the human element behind the non-player actors. In my opinion the closer Devs get to this the better, and things like random encounters and reputation through conversation choices and npc reactions changing based on that is all a step closer and I give kudos to ArenaNet for pushing in that direction.
If they can pull it off, it’ll be awfully hard not to end every annoying conversation with a punch to the face or a knife to the eye. But maybe that’s just me.
"Scoundrel William" - probably gonna be his title
.
I have to really agree, Im at the point with MMO's it feels like an upgraded version of D2 or similar single player dungeon hackers. Im excited to see story line make a come back. and i dont think it will give you any LESS CHOICE as some may think it just gives you FLAVOUR and ATMOSPHERE that is highlty lacking.
you obviously dont like "roleplaying" games... go play call of duty... kill x people and level up ..
Favorite Games:
Old School EQ1
Pre TOA/NF DAOC
Ah Many people look at RPG=Story Telling as when you play a RPG its telling a story that you are playing. And same goes with pencil&paper,The GM/Storyteller/DM's (depending on what game is your flavour) job was to create compeling stories/adventures/quests for the Players to imbark apon,tackle,and make their story while Role Playing their character.If you ever did play P&P you know that the GM had the last say too..lol.
Funny.
After years with this discussion (I can't remember how many times I've participated in threads nearly identical to this) all we've learned is that there is no common definition from role-playing. We all bring different thoughts to the table, and different interpretations of the "history" of the term, as well as our game experiences.
So, yep...I'm a fan of almost all MMORPGs, whether it's all computer-officiated, or whether the players have an impact.
But let me tell you about the game I'd LOVE to see someone make. It has some traits like this:
A world in which I play a character, and that character has an investment in the world.
NPCs are there for background, but the "game" recognizes my character for their significance. For example, if I'm the leader of the games largest guild, I expect to be treated as such where it matters - diplomats, brigands, shop keepers, etc.
I want to be able to own land and improve it -- with as many of my friends as I can gather.
I want the events AND interactions of my playtime--whether they be with NPCs or with players--to weave a story of my character's time in this fictional world, and I want a way to remember or memorialize that story.
I want systems that make social interaction more important - not just Goldshire table-dancing, but diplomacy, status, standing, and influence.
I want to feel like I can be an explorer again. Asheron's Call was the first (and arguably still the best) at achieving the "I bet no one's ever been here before" feeling.
I want the same design care spent on how interactions affect your character as are taken with weapon and ability balance.
I want the mystery of meeting new people back --not a direct link to your entire profile and a full description of your wealth. I miss when characters could be "Anon".
I don't want to build a character; I want to build a dynasty.
I want knowledge gained as a character AND player to have game-recognized value in world, and be tradeable and usable.
I want to feel as if I've been dropped inside my favorite fiction novel, and now am playing a part--as big as my skill and time will allow--that changes the world.
I want a lot, I know.
But if in 15 years from now, I'm still killing 10/10, running an important note across town, or picking 15 dungflowers---I'll feel sadly stagnated as a fan of RPGs.
With all the talk around this, if ArenaNet can pull all of this off... this will become the greatest MMORPG of all time.
Boom!