Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Dynamic Events vs Quests: Like-For-Like Comparison
MumboJumbo
Member UncommonPosts: 3,219
in Guild Wars 2
Zeroxin quotes Eric Flannum's COMPARISON of the "same" quest vs the "same" dynamic event (see link).
Basic Description: Kill Quest involving killing 10 zombies in a wood (Area 
and accepting and delivering to NPC quest-giver in Area A.
COMPARISON SUMMARY:
Quest |
1. Click on quest marker NPC in area A |
2. Text story dialogue |
3. Player clciks to accept/decline quest |
4. Travel to Area B, kills 10 zombies doing nothing |
5. Turn in quest back at area A for reward |
Dynamic Event |
1. Player enters area A: NPC runs out informing of quest if it's triggered/cycled back |
2. Other players can eavesdrop in, visual/auditory, reactive |
3. Player(s) can react or ignore stimulus, Area B radius visually different state |
4. Player(s) experience different parameters to complete DE eg this instance a %-meter in time x |
5. Automatic reward if completed positively |
6. If "failed": New event: Protect the fortress (2) |
7. If "failed": New event: Retake the fortress (3) |
8. Success: NPC merchants available, Map travel location available = Affects other players, local area |
9. Persistent to all players |
This is x1 EG only. Parameters for Dynamic Events and features list can be viewed here. Things to note in the above comparison that color DEs favorable vs Quests:
Events happen to players out in the open world (different triggers) vs soley quest-givers
Events are visually/auditorily conveyed vs text
Events happen once initiation conditions are triggered irrespective of players
Events are multi-player 1-Many vs 1-1 quests; more mmo/coop than sp-rpg.
Events are visceral: Area B aesthetically different graphical state when DEvent Y is in state b vs state a. Zombies appear active eg killing npc's.
Different success parameters not just numerical increase in kill quests
Rewards are different see list of features for full differences vs quests
Success/Failure leads to new nodes repeating the above otherwise not available ~ More continious story vs discrete story quests for rpg of persistent server world.
Ripple affect on the local area of the server and other players potential actions eg NPC availability/travel hub "up" or "down"
Objectively there's a lot more complexity in DEs vs quests. That said subjectively is unknown factor "HOW DIFFERENT THEY WILL FEEL". This will be very interesting to find out from lots of players. But if ArenaNet can vary the parameter for DE's provide a staggering amount of chains per DE ie very dense total content they can succeed but it's a tall order imo!!
Comments
I can't remember if it was Izzy who said this or some other dev but some events may have more than two possible endings, i.e. not just "pass" or "fail".
On the plus side, this will lead to branching and it becomes harder to anticipate events making the gameworld seem more lively or... dynamic. On the down side, I can imagine events with multiple endings can be harder to design and/or handle on the developer side. It is a lot more complicated than having only events with just two possible endings.
Events and event chains can also affect each other. The system has the potential to be very complex if Anet desires it.
Or this is what I've come to understand atleast. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
(link doesn't work)
but i think a comparison also has to mention some of the impacts that dynamic Events and NO quest has on the gaming experience.
No quest hubs
No quest log
No waiting for party member to also get their quests , no need to work on getting a party in questing sync!
I know what you are talking about, even if it's a alternative set of quotes; this one from Colin Johanson on the Dredge Army Dynamic Events:
They're also layered with other Dynamic Events:
The source(s) for the above should be easy to google if anyone needs to read it in context..
RE: The design is harder, they quoted that also, May 13, 2010: Guild Wars 2: Dynamic Events Interview
@ jondifool: Links should be ok? Putting Dynamic Events in terms of the negatives associated with quests that they solve is also a very useful to describe why/how they are innovate/improved on quests.
I think a lot of it is very impressive in terms of compared to the usual themepark design which is awesome, but nonetheless a lot of players without that "way of seeing things" could easily just say, they are still quests to me. I think as Colin gives the order of increase in content x3 (above) ArenaNet may need it to be even higher eg x6? in some sense or other? Perhaps "Elite Dynamic Events" will give a taste of that?
From wiki: http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Dynamic_event
Elite Events
Separate from event scaling, Elite Events are different in complexity and/or difficulty from other events of the surrounding area. Elite Events are listed in the event assist as [Elite Event], and like other events are marked on the map and compass.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
I think it is worth going over Dynamic Events with a fine comb for a few reasons:
(1) Marketing vs Reception: Statements that DEs "Change the world" or "Players can affect the world" sorta describe them but can very easily be blown out of proportion and expectation.
(2) Evolution vs Revolution: Will they stimulate a fresh experience in the cliched and stale themepark genre + awesome graphics?
(3) MMO Development & Risk: Dynamic Events imo are the biggest challenge for ArenaNet to pull of successfully in the PvE game.
(4) Sandbox vs Themepark: Anyone disappointed by DEs might want to try more sandbox mmos in the future?
(5) Academic: DEs are a further evolution of the quest system: http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1013691/Designing_Guild_Wars_2_Dynamic_Events
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
Sandbox MMORPGs bore the piss out of me. To be honest, I can imagine that people who're disenfranchised with the fact that you can't accumulate anything in a sandbox MMORPG other than growing numbers* may flock to Guild Wars 2 for something truly different than the old toss they've been playing.
The point is is that some people want to get involved in their characters, and this is why some people play actual RPGs instead of, say, war-based strategy games. In a war-basd strategy game, there isn't much to win or lose, you just have win or loss scenarios and that's it. It's dull. There's no emotional investment, no connection, no story, it's cold, mechanical, unfeeling, and to a degree, inhuman. It strikes me as the sort of thing that management and beauraucrats do to pass the time.
Look at Portal 2, it's a puzzle game but it's so, so much more because of its plot and characters. There is simply no other puzzle game out there that you can compare to it for this reason. Story is becoming more and more important to people, as well it should, as a sense of adventure is good for escapism, and instead of just plonking stuff around on a screen, you actually feel like you have a purpose.
Let's look at a sandbox game like EvE:
Kill things: Money.
Corporate takeovers: Money.
Mining: Money.
Point of Game: NUMBER GOES UP.
I actually find it hypocritical for sandbox players to pick on World of Warcraft gamers, because WoW's raiding cycle and gear grind actually has a hell of a lot in common with EvE; Growing numbers. Now let's compare that to a single-player game.
You play a character that you may forge a connection with.
You engage in activities with other characters you may forge connections with.
You're doing something meaningful, somethig that will have a visible end-result.
You're involved in a story, a story that you'll remember warmly as a story, like the most impactful paragraph of a favourite book.
You'll have outcomes.
You'll have meaningful consequences. (Rather than simply 'number goes up' or 'number goes down'.)
It's a much more romantic thing, it's not a cold number, you're out there to do some good and you can see the good you're doing.
I think that anyone who's sick of watching numbers go up/down might find something in Guild Wars 2, because as the OP explains, there are many things that Guild Wars 2 shares with a single-player game, and I wouldn't be surprised if I saw GW2 steal away a good chunk of sandbox gamers, since those sandbox gamers do play single-player games too. (And from what I've heard from EvE fans, they tend to have more fun when they're playing things that aren't EvE.)
Really, it's like comparing EvE to... say, Mass Effect or Dragon Age. It's humiliating to try. For painfully obvious reasons.
* The only exception in existence being Minecraft, where it's not actually an MMORPG at all, more of an MMO LEGO game.
I agree completely. I think it's cool that DEs can change the world, but it can't be the motivation for doing them because it's not permanent. That I think is the fundamental flaw with Rift. It becomes a case where if you don't need anything at this moment from that town, then there's no reason to bother.
That being said, I do fully expect to get caught up in the DE system. For one thing, DEs make up the content. The town is under attack, so let's save it. It's not something that just happens to be in the way of your questing. There's a story to them that is shown, not told, which is great. I also love that they can be failed and not just retried.
But the real thing for me, the thing I hype about DEs more than anything else is the community building aspect. I've been posting a lot about this lately, and I would love if some of it was included in an overview thread of DEs. http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/4350916#4350916
"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
You totally omit the aspect of drinking someone's tasty tears when you stomp enemy into the ground (for EvE into the void), joy when your plans come to fruition, social interaction with war buddies... I guess someone got his arse kicked and now is bitter...
Fiurstly,I think it's a bit disingenuous to compare WoW and EVE. What players like in EVE is not the "growing numbers," though they certainly exist. It is the existing in a virtual world that you can actually affect. It is the social gameplay and the living, vibrant world that feels real that is appealing. The point of the game is not numbers going up. It is playing with and against players in a world in which you can affect real change. You can do things that matter in the game world.
Of course, the point of theme parks isn't for numbers to go up either. That is merely the by product of the neverending loot cycle most MMOs are on now. The point is to defeat ever more powerful enemies, in PvE or PvP. The numbers are secondary to the fact that you are trying to defeat something you could not defeat before.
No game is "about" numbers going up. That's a side-effect of the nature of games today, in which developers think that to make bigger, harder things, you need bigger numbers. Guild Wars the first proved that to be false, and Guild Wars 2 will as well. But that was never the point. The point was, as you say "to do some good." In sandboxes you can see that, in theme parks you cannot, though in theme parks what you have to do seems to mean more than in sandboxes.
The reason people who love sandboxes hate on theme park games is that theme parks are, as the name suggests, just a serious of quests, or "rides" that you get on and then finish. Nothing changes, nothing is different. Nothing happens. There is tons to do, but not of it affects anything.
The reason theme plark players hate on sandbox games is that sandboxes don't have that level of content. It is a world that is created, like EVE, for players to exist in and do things in, but there is much less actual content written by the developers. It's just a medium for players to do things in, there is little guidance and less content.
I think Guild Wars 2 is mixing these two ideas. You have lots of content in the form of dynamic events, but they do not exist as static quests or "rides" you get on or off. You can pop in for a few minutes and do dynamic events, but what you do affects things that continue even after you have left. The field you were when you logged won't be the same when you get back. It isn't a sandbox, because there is not that same level of freedom, but it is not a theme park because it is not a static world where everything is in the same place doing the same thing all the time. It is a synergy in which there is a great deal to do, but what you do choose to do affects the game world in a long-term way (or at least longer-term than previous games, I am sure some DEs will have longer and shorter cycle rates).
Players want to "do some good," or some evil, but they can't really see the affect of their actions in theme parks, and they don't have important things to do in sandboxes. This is the best of both worlds.
"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?
Fiurstly,I think it's a bit disingenuous to compare WoW and EVE. What players like in EVE is not the "growing numbers," though they certainly exist. It is the existing in a virtual world that you can actually affect. It is the social gameplay and the living, vibrant world that feels real that is appealing. The point of the game is not numbers going up. It is playing with and against players in a world in which you can affect real change. You can do things that matter in the game world.
Of course, the point of theme parks isn't for numbers to go up either. That is merely the by product of the neverending loot cycle most MMOs are on now. The point is to defeat ever more powerful enemies, in PvE or PvP. The numbers are secondary to the fact that you are trying to defeat something you could not defeat before.
No game is "about" numbers going up. That's a side-effect of the nature of games today, in which developers think that to make bigger, harder things, you need bigger numbers. Guild Wars the first proved that to be false, and Guild Wars 2 will as well. But that was never the point. The point was, as you say "to do some good." In sandboxes you can see that, in theme parks you cannot, though in theme parks what you have to do seems to mean more than in sandboxes.
The reason people who love sandboxes hate on theme park games is that theme parks are, as the name suggests, just a serious of quests, or "rides" that you get on and then finish. Nothing changes, nothing is different. Nothing happens. There is tons to do, but not of it affects anything.
The reason theme plark players hate on sandbox games is that sandboxes don't have that level of content. It is a world that is created, like EVE, for players to exist in and do things in, but there is much less actual content written by the developers. It's just a medium for players to do things in, there is little guidance and less content.
I think Guild Wars 2 is mixing these two ideas. You have lots of content in the form of dynamic events, but they do not exist as static quests or "rides" you get on or off. You can pop in for a few minutes and do dynamic events, but what you do affects things that continue even after you have left. The field you were when you logged won't be the same when you get back. It isn't a sandbox, because there is not that same level of freedom, but it is not a theme park because it is not a static world where everything is in the same place doing the same thing all the time. It is a synergy in which there is a great deal to do, but what you do choose to do affects the game world in a long-term way (or at least longer-term than previous games, I am sure some DEs will have longer and shorter cycle rates).
Players want to "do some good," or some evil, but they can't really see the affect of their actions in theme parks, and they don't have important things to do in sandboxes. This is the best of both worlds.
This is a well written post. I am looking forward to seeing how dynamic events feel compared to other themepark content I have experienced. My one critique is that Anet should have incorporated all of its crafting, harvesting, and trading into the DE system as well. I would have also liked to see some PvP dynamic events. But of course that is not how this game was designed and thats ok. Baby steps, I suppose.
WvWvW. They're there.
The mists are its own thing which is fine. I just would have liked to see some pvp DEs in the main gameworld.
To what end, may I ask?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
That seems like that would severely violate their stated game design to always have you glad to run across another person in the game world... or at the very least, to not be annoyed.
Awesome post, well organized. Its always good to break it down to the basics and show concrete examples that explain the design behind it. Nice job OP.
@Meowhead
Indeed. Promoting non-consensual actions is fucked up, frankly. In reality, we don't promote non-consensual actions that would make another person unhappy, do we? That's why we have laws. I'm not sure why PvP gamers feel it's fine to thrust their e-dick in someone's face when they're just trying to have fun playing the game. PvP DEs would mean that people would accidentally get caught up in them, and thus non-consensual participation. I'm sure they didn't consent to be killed, but the average player killer doesn't give a flying shit about that and kills them anyway.
This is why PvP needs to be partitioned off to its own area - this is also why PvPers can't have nice things. They need to be contained in an area where they can't force PvE players into a type of game content that they didn't consent to. Open world PvP is the most ridiculous idea ever for this reason, and PvP/PvE worlds should always be separate from each other. ArenaNet has been going about creating a game where other players can't fuck with you just to get whatever small amounts of happiness they can from life, those people will just have to find another way to be happy, as opposed to griefing people whom are already happy and enjoying the game.
And yeah, I'm calling it out, here. Any non-consensual act forced upon another player is both griefing and kind of fucked up. Hence why ArenaNet are trying to avoid that, because it's a horrible, terrible mess. Their game will receive better PR by not allowing that. Therefore, if you're in WvWvW then you're going to know that people who're also there are also the sorts of people who do PvP. And if you're in PvE, then no, sorry, no easy kills for you. You'll just have to sit there, ineffectually, and watch the PvE players having fun.
To this end, I hope there's an option to disable all duel requests too, or that they simply haven't put them in the game. (They weren't in Guild Wars, after all.)
See, that is the problem with PvP. Almost every PvPer I've met who wants open world (as opposed to WvWvW) is a coward and a bad PvPer. So what I'm sayinig here does not reflect all PvPers, I want to make that absolutely clear. It does not. But those nasty little people are the negative underbelly of PvP. I've met many a PvPer who's simply an awesome person. In Ultima Online, in Guild Wars, in TF2, and in loads of other games. But desiring open world PvP, to me, is just screaming aloud that you're a part of that nasty underbelly of PvP. That it's not about PvP at all. You just want to grief.
Guild Wars 2 is going to be as much of a sans griefing game as possible, and that means no open world PvP of any sort.
Y'know what that means? GW2 might actually have a semi-decent PvP community.
I think that consented pvp in the open world is a lot of fun. Im not a fan of forced ffa pvp especially with full looting and a level based game. But in the spirit of competition, I welcome some good pvp action. It doesnt always need to be kill or be killed for good pvp. You could simply have some DEs that had multiple ways to advance at the same time. Say you had an event where you could either help the villagers put out a fire started by some thugs or chase down the thugs before they got away. Some people might choose to put out the fire. If they finish first, they get to push the event forward in the direction they were going, if the people that chased down the thugs get to them and finish them off before the fire gets put out, then maybe a different branch of the event opens up instead of the fire fighters. You see? Theres some interesting, non ganking, pvp that I think would be a welcome addition to this DE system.
And I cant help but chuckle at the irony of your statements there, Dream_Chaser. For someone who despises griefing and open world pvp, you sure enjoy talking a lot of shit on forums hehe. Ive lost track of how many times you jump into a thread and "gank" it with your absolutist ideals. And yes, Im teasing you
Im for the WvWvW PvP as well, and I enjoy all forms of PvP wether its instanced, arena, or open world. But a sfar as your comments about open world PvP and being "forced to PvP".... youre not forced to do anything. You are knowingly making a decision wethe ror not to play a game that has open PvP, or to play on a server which has open PvP rules. Dont like it, then pick another game or stick to a PvE server. Its very simple. If they were to implement open PvP in GW2, it would be the same. You know it has open pvp, nobody is forcing you to play it.
Open world PvP doesn't really fit into the lore either with all the races being allied together to figth a creater foe (dem dragons).
You remind me this Heartflame chick http://dimfall.blogspot.com/2008/02/dimfall-issue-006-its-not-one-of-us.html
It is interesting that you talk about PvP in such a way that implies you don't like the cruelty of the people that enjoy doing it, but you seem to have a lot of hate in you about it, yourself.
I like open world PvP, and I am not a griefer. I don't chase down someone who runs from me, and I don't even initiate very many fights while in a game that has open world PvP. I know those people exist, and I, too, despise their actions. But that does not mean everyone who likes open PvP is like that. EVE, for example, has a robust open world PvP system, and not everyone who likes that game enjoys killing people decidedly weaker than they. That is not fun PvP for many, myself included. Where is the joy in knowing you defeated someone who had no hope of winning. None, unless you are in it for the sheer sadism of it.
I don't want open world PvP in Guild Wars 2, both because of the ideas behind it, and the lore, but that does not mean it is not appropriate for some games. And that does not mean that everyone who likes open world PvP like griefing. Or even most, in my experience, it is a small minority, but they make themselves very visible with their actions. I like open world PvP, in games where it makes sense and works, because of the sense of danger. You are never totally safe in a world with open PvP. Some players like that.
I like Guild Wars 2's ethic of player co-operation, and I like that there will be no PvP in the PvE areas. I also like open world PvP, largely because it gives the very opposite feel. There is no real safety. That breeds a different sort of co-operation, in which players team up to go places for safety's sake.
Of course, if a game has open PvP, or open PvP servers, it is safe to assume people playing it want PvP, as well. So if you were killed while playing a game with open PvP, the person who killed you probably assumed you were playing a PvP game because you like PvP. It'd be like playing Halo and being upset someone killed you. You signed up for PvP by playing a game that had open PvP. It's really that simple. That is why I like games like, dare I say it?, WoW, that has servers with both rulesets. Then people can choose what they want out of the game. Obviously, that wouldn't work in Guild Wars 2 because of the lore, but the general concept is good. Give both PvE players and PvP players a place.
In any case, some players actually like non-consensual acts, and the sense of danger that creates, instead of griefing. Some players enjoy that without wanting to hurt non-PvPers. But, as I said, if you are playing in an open PvP environment, you know what you are getting into. PvP happening in a PvP game? Madness.
I think it is very inappropriate to say anyone who likes open PvP is a griefer, largely because if you go play a PvP game (which is for PvPers!), then you should expect PvP. It's really that simple. So, not all games should have it, but some should, because some people like it. That is why we have different games. To accommodate different playstyles. Just because someone likes something you don't does not mean they are a bad person. I mean, really.
All that said, there will be PvP DEs in the WvWvW. And Guild Wars had an amazing PvP community, and I imagine many of them will migrate.
"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?
/bump
out of interest to read Dream_Chaser's counterpoints
If they make Dynamic Events good, bug free, smooth and interesting [and not abusable]then i dont see how quests could ever be better or even anywhere near as good as DE.
The more interesting question however is: How successfully can ArenaNet make the Dynamic Events feel, above all: VARIABLE (individually & collectively)?
DEs compared to a quest, are going the distance. RESULT. But will that be enough for players to feel that each or most of the Dynamic Events feel different from each other and from the previous quest model ?
If you don't have the openness of sandbox the content must be substantially complex to substitute possible variability that you could easily find in a sandbox; even the contentious FFA-PvP does lend itself to that result and one very good reason why it appears in some of these sandbox games: It cures static content but at the cost of potentially harsh side-effects...
GW2's DE's are designed to avoid all forms of ganking/leeching/queuing atst as promoting variable and surprising outcomes. ArenaNet have set themselves the bar to be very high!
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
My question is just how variable can Dynamic events be?
That was one of the problems with public quests (WAR) and rifts (rift).
Think about it:
You need content that can scale. Thus, this limits how much variety you can have? Really is there any difference if a farm is being invaded by worms vs. a town being invaded by centaurs?
I guess you can have an event where you have to "save people (ie clicking on them)" with mobs about trying to do something else to them (kill, maim, take them away).
I guess you can also be part of an attacking force.
Outside of that what will DE events consist of.
What happens when I am tired of dealing with invasions, tired of being in the zerg going from event to event and just want to do something?
What happens if all the above and i am at a point in my personal quest where I need to level to continue? Is all that is left is instanced PvP?
I have seen public quests and rifts and it seems that Dynamic Events may be more elegant but not really different. But zerg gameplay is zerg gameplay. It really is not community building in that there really is no need to talk to anyone. You join the public group and just start doing your thang. That's it. What's to discuss? See mob, kill mob.
What happens if a group of 6 let's say joins an event in which there were already 10 people and after 5 min of fighting decide they want to move on. How long before the even realizes it is doing an event for 10 people and not 16 people?
Just my thoughts