Essentially you won't need to group and communicate because there is absolutely no way to not group with the people around you.
Lolwut?
So people won't be grouping together because they are forced to? So people have never communicated with random people before?
That is essentially what you are saying. Pretty much bullshit.
If people want to communicate and be social then they will. DEs will help that because it will get people to work together unlike questing which will have people doing completely different things by themselves.
The only way to get people to socialize is to give them the tools to do it and DEs will be bringing people together so they can.
So we never had the tools to socialize and play together before? Hmm.. I do recall chat boxes before... and grouping mechanics in every MMO I've ever played.... not sure about the games you've played.
Most players play solo, thats just the way it is. People don't need to group in Dynamic events. They will see other people, they will work towards the same objectives, but at the end of the day, they are playing solo, together. Just because you see people doesn't mean they'll talk with you, or care what you say, or even want to play with you.
If you want to be social you can, but just because they are in the same event doesn't mean they're going to talk back to you. The game is catered to playing around other people, not grouping with them. No events require grouping... no events require a certain amount of players, everything scales, and people can come and go when they want.
I feel very strongly about this, and I've gone so far as to say on several occassions that if a person does not think dynamic events are truly revolutionary, then they simply don't understand them.
Honestly, I think your argument basically amounts to a Straw Man. It is a predominantly combat oriented game, there is only so much you can do with the game mechanics (killing, collecting, clicking, etc). Eric Flannum himself concedes this in his explanation about the zombies in the swamp. The problem with your argument is that you're implying that these (and chaining) are the only aspects of DEs, and then concluding that they're basically quests.
Dynamic events completely change how you view other players. When you're doing a traditional MMO's solo quest leveling, other players are either irrelevant, a nuisance, or outright griefing you. In GW2, they're doing away with griefing completely. With the way dynamic events scale up and become more chaotic and have bosses gain more abilities, you'll want to see other players. Other players will make the game more fun. Can you possibly say the same about quests?
In addition to that, they just get rid of the barriers to community in general. You don't have to pick up the quest first or have to redo something so your friend can catch up to where you are in the quest chain. Events cycle so you can repeat one and get rewarded for it instead of just assisting someone else. They scale you down so you can group with that guy from your friends list who is much lower level than you.
There's one more big fundamental difference between quests as well, and that is that they let you do things that you can't easily do with traditional quests. With quests, everything has to be triggered. Bandits can only attack once you've talked to the guy who then spawns them. It's clunky to say the least. Not only can events make mobs start an assault on their own, you can also have failure conditions that would be hard to reproduce in quests. We've probably all done quests where you fail if the guy you're protecting dies. Have you ever done one where you fail if bandits burn those dozen hay bales?
I could go on a little more about some of their other cool features, but I won't. I don't even consider chaining to be the big deal about them. The real reason I think to love them is that they're bringing community back to MMOs that have been dominated by solo leveling experiences. That to me is an MMO convention changer right there.
I'm just going to quote myself because you obviously didn't pay attention to anything I had to say. You did expand your straw man a little bit, so maybe you did but just missed the point.
I don't know why you're getting so caught up in that there is only a finite number of things you can be doing. We all get that. It's kind of like you're arguing that two sitcoms must be basically the same because they both have male and female characters interacting in a finite number of ways (love, hate, friendship). Presentation and context are a huge part of it.
But as I've shown, it goes beyond that. Dynamic events are capable of fundamentally altering how you view other players who go from people you don't want to see to people that you do want to see and interact with. Yes, you're killing X mobs while you're doing it, but like Eric Flannum says, there's only a finite number of ways to do things. It's a combat MMO, not a dating sim.
I'm a big believer that in GW2's case, little things can make a huge difference in how the game actually plays. Like automatically equipping an underwater breathing mask. You might say, "it's like any other game except you don't have to watch the breath meter." But how it affects what you can do and what you can put down there has enormous ramifications, inspired underwater races and entire cities, and probably the weapon switching, skill changing, and Z axis play as well.
If you really can't see this, maybe we should all just agree to disagree.
I'm saying it will be objective based just like other quests... you'll still be doing kill, collect, clicky, all the kinds of quests we've seen before, just with a different presentation.
So? Then what's the problem? What is the alternative to objective-based gameplay? Isn't it standard in most games, not just (MMO)RPGs that the game is about objectives?
Don't ask ME what the problem is, ask the people trying to prove me "wrong". All I was saying is that you'll find an event, do a kill quest (or similar), receive a reward no matter what, and then move on to the next link in the chain (or next event). Is there something wrong with that?
Essentially you won't need to group and communicate because there is absolutely no way to not group with the people around you.
Lolwut?
So people won't be grouping together because they are forced to? So people have never communicated with random people before?
That is essentially what you are saying. Pretty much bullshit.
If people want to communicate and be social then they will. DEs will help that because it will get people to work together unlike questing which will have people doing completely different things by themselves.
The only way to get people to socialize is to give them the tools to do it and DEs will be bringing people together so they can.
So we never had the tools to socialize and play together before? Hmm.. I do recall chat boxes before... and grouping mechanics in every MMO I've ever played.... not sure about the games you've played.
Most players play solo, thats just the way it is. People don't need to group in Dynamic events. They will see other people, they will work towards the same objectives, but at the end of the day, they are playing solo, together. Just because you see people doesn't mean they'll talk with you, or care what you say, or even want to play with you.
If you want to be social you can, but just because they are in the same event doesn't mean they're going to talk back to you. The game is catered to playing around other people, not grouping with them. No events require grouping... not events require a certain amount of players, everything scales, and people can come and go when they want.
Most MMOs these days revolve around questing. Questing in and of itself is a single player mechanic. Yes you have the option to group, but it is still a single player mechanic and it keeps people away from each other. It doesn't do that on purpose, that is simply a side-effect of it being a single player mechanic.
DEs bring people together making it easier to be social.
The whole "no events require grouping" is bullshit. There are events that require groups of people to do them for them to be completed. Sure most events can be soloed, but at least they scale with the amount of people so you never have to worry about it being too hard or too easy and people won't be in competition over each other over the rewards or mobs.
Essentially you won't need to group and communicate because there is absolutely no way to not group with the people around you.
Lolwut?
So people won't be grouping together because they are forced to? So people have never communicated with random people before?
That is essentially what you are saying. Pretty much bullshit.
If people want to communicate and be social then they will. DEs will help that because it will get people to work together unlike questing which will have people doing completely different things by themselves.
The only way to get people to socialize is to give them the tools to do it and DEs will be bringing people together so they can.
So we never had the tools to socialize and play together before? Hmm.. I do recall chat boxes before... and grouping mechanics in every MMO I've ever played.... not sure about the games you've played.
Most players play solo, thats just the way it is. People don't need to group in Dynamic events. They will see other people, they will work towards the same objectives, but at the end of the day, they are playing solo, together. Just because you see people doesn't mean they'll talk with you, or care what you say, or even want to play with you.
If you want to be social you can, but just because they are in the same event doesn't mean they're going to talk back to you. The game is catered to playing around other people, not grouping with them. No events require grouping... not events require a certain amount of players, everything scales, and people can come and go when they want.
Most MMOs these days revolve around questing. Questing in and of itself is a single player mechanic. Yes you have the option to group, but it is still a single player mechanic and it keeps people away from each other. It doesn't do that on purpose, that is simply a side-effect of it being a single player mechanic.
DEs bring people together making it easier to be social.
The whole "no events require grouping" is bullshit. There are events that require groups of people to do them for them to be completed. Sure most events can be soloed, but at least they scale with the amount of people so you never have to worry about it being too hard or too easy and people won't be in competition over each other over the rewards or mobs.
There are events that will require multiple people, perhaps, but you don't have to form a group to complete them. There are only some instanced missions that I know of in GW2 that requires actual groups. Nothing else requires grouping, they just require solo players in an area. Consider it like a PQ, you don't need to group with the players in the area, you don't need to even talk to them, you just need to show up, and do the quest objectives. What about RIFTs? Do you really need to talk to the guys next to you to repel the invasion? No.
If you want to be social you can. I do not see this style of gameplay increasing the amount of socialization between players. In fact, I think with the short amount of time you have for completion of some events, you'll even have less time to stop and socialize due to event chains and how long you have until events complete. In every game a social player will be social. That doesn't mean that everyone will suddenly be a social player. GW2 doesn't cater any MORE to social gameplay, as the game gears most of its content to solo - casual gameplay.
I love arguing with GW2 fans, I really do. They try and tell me I'm a fool, or prove me wrong on so many different things when I'm not wrong, and I'm using the exact same information they have access too. You guys are taking yourselves way too seriously.
Don't play being a martyr, that's not cool. I don't want to hear about how tormented and alone you are, fighting valiantly against GW2 fans and being misunderstood. If I was interested in reading that sort of thing, I'd be visiting some fanfic site and reading self insertion fanfics.
Anyway, this is pretty futile both ways, but I don't think it's fair for you to say that the GW2 fans don't understand dynamic events at all. I think the MAIN problem here is that you're not agreeing on the definition of what 'different' entails. There are things that are different, that you apparently simply don't care about, or chalk up as 'not different enough to sate my needs'.
Neither side is going to convince the other side of anything, but you should probably realize that walking into a group of people with a particular interest and saying 'By the way, you don't understand your interest properly' is a good way to pick a fight.
It's perfectly possible for two people to be in possession of the same set of facts, but have a different understanding of how those facts relate to them personally.
Essentially you won't need to group and communicate because there is absolutely no way to not group with the people around you.
Lolwut?
So people won't be grouping together because they are forced to? So people have never communicated with random people before?
That is essentially what you are saying. Pretty much bullshit.
If people want to communicate and be social then they will. DEs will help that because it will get people to work together unlike questing which will have people doing completely different things by themselves.
The only way to get people to socialize is to give them the tools to do it and DEs will be bringing people together so they can.
So we never had the tools to socialize and play together before? Hmm.. I do recall chat boxes before... and grouping mechanics in every MMO I've ever played.... not sure about the games you've played.
Most players play solo, thats just the way it is. People don't need to group in Dynamic events. They will see other people, they will work towards the same objectives, but at the end of the day, they are playing solo, together. Just because you see people doesn't mean they'll talk with you, or care what you say, or even want to play with you.
If you want to be social you can, but just because they are in the same event doesn't mean they're going to talk back to you. The game is catered to playing around other people, not grouping with them. No events require grouping... not events require a certain amount of players, everything scales, and people can come and go when they want.
Most MMOs these days revolve around questing. Questing in and of itself is a single player mechanic. Yes you have the option to group, but it is still a single player mechanic and it keeps people away from each other. It doesn't do that on purpose, that is simply a side-effect of it being a single player mechanic.
DEs bring people together making it easier to be social.
The whole "no events require grouping" is bullshit. There are events that require groups of people to do them for them to be completed. Sure most events can be soloed, but at least they scale with the amount of people so you never have to worry about it being too hard or too easy and people won't be in competition over each other over the rewards or mobs.
There are events that will require multiple people, perhaps, but you don't have to form a group to complete them. There are only some instanced missions that I know of in GW2 that requires actual groups. Nothing else requires grouping, they just require solo players in an area. Consider it like a PQ, you don't need to group with the players in the area, you don't need to even talk to them, you just need to show up, and do the quest objectives. What about RIFTs? Do you really need to talk to the guys next to you to repel the invasion? No.
If you want to be social you can. I do not see this style of gameplay increasing the amount of socialization between players. In fact, I think with the short amount of time you have for completion of some events, you'll even have less time to stop and socialize due to event chains and how long you have until events complete. In every game a social player will be social. That doesn't mean that everyone will suddenly be a social player. GW2 doesn't cater any MORE to social gameplay, as the game gears most of its content to solo - casual gameplay.
As long as the content is challenging enough people will have to socialize in order to complete events, I'm sure people will need to prepare themselves in order to take back a town that's captured by enemy forces, or to complete an Elite Event. Besides how do you know how much time it takes to complete your average event, wouldn't that be dependant on the skill and teamwork of the people participating?
And on a sidenote: What exactly is your definition of socialization? Because officially, it means becoming part of a community.
I love arguing with GW2 fans, I really do. They try and tell me I'm a fool, or prove me wrong on so many different things when I'm not wrong, and I'm using the exact same information they have access too. You guys are taking yourselves way too seriously.
Don't play being a martyr, that's not cool. I don't want to hear about how tormented and alone you are, fighting valiantly against GW2 fans and being misunderstood. If I was interested in reading that sort of thing, I'd be visiting some fanfic site and reading self insertion fanfics.
Anyway, this is pretty futile both ways, but I don't think it's fair for you to say that the GW2 fans don't understand dynamic events at all. I think the MAIN problem here is that you're not agreeing on the definition of what 'different' entails. There are things that are different, that you apparently simply don't care about, or chalk up as 'not different enough to sate my needs'.
Neither side is going to convince the other side of anything, but you should probably realize that walking into a group of people with a particular interest and saying 'By the way, you don't understand your interest properly' is a good way to pick a fight.
It's perfectly possible for two people to be in possession of the same set of facts, but have a different understanding of how those facts relate to them personally.
I never said anything regarding what is different enough for "me". All I said was what the game offers, people perceive this as an attack. Some people choose not to see my point of view, or choose to believe I must be "wrong" even if I'm agreeing with the differences, but noticing the similarities.
If people really have a problem with what I'm saying, they should at least try and point out where I'm wrong in my point of view, or where I've stated that the focus of this was "bad" in any way. All I said, is that the quests are what they are. In other instances, we could very well be arguing the same points. What I see here though, is people arguing with me even though I'm not saying anything bad or wrong about the game.
The conversation pretty much went similar to:
Me: "Dynamic events will have regular quest objectives"
Guy: "No, dynamic events are completely different, they have chains, and they scale, and we get rewards, and you can play with other players"
Me: "I know, but when you're playing them, they'll have regular quest obejectives, kill, collect, protect, etc."
Guy: "You have no idea what you're talking about, Dynamic Events don't equal regular quests! They are completely different! GW2 will be awesome!"
Me: "I never said it wouldn't be awesome, I said they have some differences as we've gone over, but when you're doing them.."
And yes, Dynamic events are regular quests, they just chain. You will still be doing kill and collect quests all day long, you'll still be doing "clicky" quests and things of that nature, and when you pass an event, you'll move on to the next chain of events that revolves around killing, collecting, clicking, protecting, fedexing.. what have you. On top of that, you'll have a certain amount of each to do, as always. Have you watched the videos of the game? Have you seen the event chains?
This is the root of your problems. As long as somebody can come up with a single example of how dynamic events are more than regular quests that just chain, they are going to.
If you feel like you're getting dogpiled by GW2 fans, you only have your imprecise usage of the English language to blame.
You're responsible for your own woes, I'm sorry to say!
One could come up with a ridiculously long list of ways that events are different from quests. They may have similarities, but to call them 'regular quests that just chain' is a gross inaccuracy, and many GW2 fans are ALL about jumping on those.
It doesn't matter if you accurately explain a dynamic quest in some OTHER post, nobody sits there and dwells on how somebody accurately summed things up, they dwell on errors.
(edit: The moment I first saw that post, and read the part in red, I basically went 'Oh crap, Maskedweasel went and did it now'. ... and hey, I was right. Everybody immediately picked up on that. ... and they will continue to, since at no point in time have you bothered to retract your statement, or at least go 'I worded that poorly, this is what I'd like to say...'. You can pirouette and dance and switch what you're saying, but until you take that text in red, and explicitly deal with that, you've got GW2 bulldog death grip on your neck. )
I love arguing with GW2 fans, I really do. They try and tell me I'm a fool, or prove me wrong on so many different things when I'm not wrong, and I'm using the exact same information they have access too. You guys are taking yourselves way too seriously.
Don't play being a martyr, that's not cool. I don't want to hear about how tormented and alone you are, fighting valiantly against GW2 fans and being misunderstood. If I was interested in reading that sort of thing, I'd be visiting some fanfic site and reading self insertion fanfics.
Anyway, this is pretty futile both ways, but I don't think it's fair for you to say that the GW2 fans don't understand dynamic events at all. I think the MAIN problem here is that you're not agreeing on the definition of what 'different' entails. There are things that are different, that you apparently simply don't care about, or chalk up as 'not different enough to sate my needs'.
Neither side is going to convince the other side of anything, but you should probably realize that walking into a group of people with a particular interest and saying 'By the way, you don't understand your interest properly' is a good way to pick a fight.
It's perfectly possible for two people to be in possession of the same set of facts, but have a different understanding of how those facts relate to them personally.
I never said anything regarding what is different enough for "me". All I said was what the game offers, people perceive this as an attack. Some people choose not to see my point of view, or choose to believe I must be "wrong" even if I'm agreeing with the differences, but noticing the similarities.
If people really have a problem with what I'm saying, they should at least try and point out where I'm wrong in my point of view, or where I've stated that the focus of this was "bad" in any way. All I said, is that the quests are what they are. In other instances, we could very well be arguing the same points. What I see here though, is people arguing with me even though I'm not saying anything bad or wrong about the game.
The conversation pretty much went similar to:
Me: "Dynamic events will have regular quest objectives"
Guy: "No, dynamic events are completely different, they have chains, and they scale, and we get rewards, and you can play with other players"
Me: "I know, but when you're playing them, they'll have regular quest obejectives, kill, collect, protect, etc."
Guy: "You have no idea what you're talking about, Dynamic Events don't equal regular quests! They are completely different! GW2 will be awesome!"
Me: "I never said it wouldn't be awesome, I said they have some differences as we've gone over, but when you're doing them.."
Guy: "NO! You don't know. Your argument is void."
You are somewhat bending reality in your favor there, it's more like this:
Guy: "No, they're clearly different: they are part of a chain of dynamic events which advances regardless of your actions, they scale, you get rewards wether you fail or lose, and they're designed in a way that it encourages playing together.
Me: "I know, but when you're playing them, they'll have regular quest objectives, kill, collect, protect, etc..."
Troll-Alot: "WAIT A SECOND! Just a moment ago you said Dynamic Events are regular quests, and as matter of fact Guy proved you wrong."
Me: "Yes, but I'm speaking from my high horse, and you guys don't because GW2 doesn't have mounts."
Guy: "But the presentation is ultimately different, therefore they are not regular quests."
Me: "But the objectives will be the same (Or at least that's what I think, even though there have already been examples of Dynamic Events with objectives that couldn't work with regular quests), therefore they are regular quests."
And yes, Dynamic events are regular quests, they just chain.
Use a dictionary honestly, you cannot say a apple is the same as an orange because they are both fruit, if they use different words that mean there is something different to them. If you can't see hte difference its your own fault, you cannot put the fault on others for your lack of insight.
Essentially you won't need to group and communicate because there is absolutely no way to not group with the people around you.
Lolwut?
So people won't be grouping together because they are forced to? So people have never communicated with random people before?
That is essentially what you are saying. Pretty much bullshit.
If people want to communicate and be social then they will. DEs will help that because it will get people to work together unlike questing which will have people doing completely different things by themselves.
The only way to get people to socialize is to give them the tools to do it and DEs will be bringing people together so they can.
So we never had the tools to socialize and play together before? Hmm.. I do recall chat boxes before... and grouping mechanics in every MMO I've ever played.... not sure about the games you've played.
Most players play solo, thats just the way it is. People don't need to group in Dynamic events. They will see other people, they will work towards the same objectives, but at the end of the day, they are playing solo, together. Just because you see people doesn't mean they'll talk with you, or care what you say, or even want to play with you.
If you want to be social you can, but just because they are in the same event doesn't mean they're going to talk back to you. The game is catered to playing around other people, not grouping with them. No events require grouping... not events require a certain amount of players, everything scales, and people can come and go when they want.
Most MMOs these days revolve around questing. Questing in and of itself is a single player mechanic. Yes you have the option to group, but it is still a single player mechanic and it keeps people away from each other. It doesn't do that on purpose, that is simply a side-effect of it being a single player mechanic.
DEs bring people together making it easier to be social.
The whole "no events require grouping" is bullshit. There are events that require groups of people to do them for them to be completed. Sure most events can be soloed, but at least they scale with the amount of people so you never have to worry about it being too hard or too easy and people won't be in competition over each other over the rewards or mobs.
There are events that will require multiple people, perhaps, but you don't have to form a group to complete them. There are only some instanced missions that I know of in GW2 that requires actual groups. Nothing else requires grouping, they just require solo players in an area. Consider it like a PQ, you don't need to group with the players in the area, you don't need to even talk to them, you just need to show up, and do the quest objectives. What about RIFTs? Do you really need to talk to the guys next to you to repel the invasion? No.
If you want to be social you can. I do not see this style of gameplay increasing the amount of socialization between players. In fact, I think with the short amount of time you have for completion of some events, you'll even have less time to stop and socialize due to event chains and how long you have until events complete. In every game a social player will be social. That doesn't mean that everyone will suddenly be a social player. GW2 doesn't cater any MORE to social gameplay, as the game gears most of its content to solo - casual gameplay.
As long as the content is challenging enough people will have to socialize in order to complete events, I'm sure people will need to prepare themselves in order to take back a town that's captured by enemy forces, or to complete an Elite Event. Besides how do you know how much time it takes to complete your average event, wouldn't that be dependant on the skill and teamwork of the people participating?
And on a sidenote: What exactly is your definition of socialization? Because officially, it means becoming part of a community.
Well, heres the thing... the game scales depending on the amount of people. While some events may require more people to complete them, I think that would be an exception to the regular rule that most events will cater to wet noodle players. The thing is, as they stated in one of their hour long interviews, they can't really create specific gameplay that requires players to direct certain aspects of gameplay to complete.. such as stealth gameplay, or things of that nature, simply because one player could ruin it. They would need to cater most events to the majority of players, most of which will have to scale so that the casual player, and the more experienced player can coexist.
You can't create a multitude of scaling content in the open world that requires a specific amount of experienced players. (I mean you can I guess, but when done in other games, its usually signified by area, or mob level or rank). I mean when they go into making an event you'd imagine they'd have to consider that there could be a point where only 1 player, of this particular class, that could or could not be of a particular skill level. You don't want this player to be completely segregated and not able to do anything by themself, or make it from one story point to the next.
Sure they could require only skillful players or multiple players are allowed to complete the majority of content.. but I have a feeling that, with the casual focus they've outlined that won't be the case.
As for socialization, you can be part of a community but be anti-social. I can be in a PQ but not want to talk or assist others with what they are doing and instead complete objectives on another part of the PQ map by myself. I think of it like.... a guild. You have a lot of guilds that just invite tons of players. You become part of their group. But if you are doing your own thing, or can't (or won't) participate in their little ventrilo talks or be there for every guild function, you could be kicked.
While you could be "social" in the sense that you are part of a group of people that are in an area, you aren't really "socializing" as in being part of the community, talking to others, or cooperating. You are there because the objective is there, had others not been around, you would still be there doing the same thing. A group of people in a waiting room of a doctors office is a "group" but it isn't a community nor are they socializing.
Guy: "No, they're clearly different: they are part of a chain of dynamic events which advances regardless of your actions, they scale, you get rewards wether you fail or lose, and they're designed in a way that it encourages playing together.
Me: "I know, but when you're playing them, they'll have regular quest objectives, kill, collect, protect, etc..."
Troll-Alot: "WAIT A SECOND! Just a moment ago you said Dynamic Events are regular quests, and as matter of fact Guy proved you wrong."
Me: "Yes, but I'm speaking from my high horse, and you guys don't because GW2 doesn't have mounts."
Guy: "But the presentation is ultimately different, therefore they are not regular quests."
Me: "But the objectives will be the same (Or at least that's what I think, even though there have already been examples of Dynamic Events with objectives that couldn't work with regular quests), therefore they are regular quests."
Guy: "No, they're clearly different: they are part of a chain of dynamic events which advances regardless of your actions, they scale, you get rewards wether you fail or lose, and they're designed in a way that it encourages playing together.
Me: "I know, but when you're playing them, they'll have regular quest objectives, kill, collect, protect, etc..."
Troll-Alot: "WAIT A SECOND! Just a moment ago you said Dynamic Events are regular quests, and as matter of fact Guy proved you wrong."
Me: "Yes, but I'm speaking from my high horse, and you guys don't because GW2 doesn't have mounts."
Guy: "But the presentation is ultimately different, therefore they are not regular quests."
Me: "But the objectives will be the same (Or at least that's what I think, even though there have already been examples of Dynamic Events with objectives that couldn't work with regular quests), therefore they are regular quests."
Examples?
A regular quest couldn't have an objective like: defend a town (with failure as a possible outcome), unless phasing would be used. A regular quest couldn't have an objective like: capture a town, unless phasing would be required. A regular quest can't have any objective of which the completion or failure will affect the spawns, outposts, friendly NPCs (including other quest-givers) without phasing. A Dynamic Event doesn't use phasing, and the effects as well as the process of completion/failure of the event are noticeable for every player in that zone on that server.
Edit: We've seen these type of events in the last demo, with the pirates taking over a town.
Guy: "No, they're clearly different: they are part of a chain of dynamic events which advances regardless of your actions, they scale, you get rewards wether you fail or lose, and they're designed in a way that it encourages playing together.
Me: "I know, but when you're playing them, they'll have regular quest objectives, kill, collect, protect, etc..."
Troll-Alot: "WAIT A SECOND! Just a moment ago you said Dynamic Events are regular quests, and as matter of fact Guy proved you wrong."
Me: "Yes, but I'm speaking from my high horse, and you guys don't because GW2 doesn't have mounts."
Guy: "But the presentation is ultimately different, therefore they are not regular quests."
Me: "But the objectives will be the same (Or at least that's what I think, even though there have already been examples of Dynamic Events with objectives that couldn't work with regular quests), therefore they are regular quests."
Examples?
A regular quest couldn't have an objective like: defend a town (with failure as a possible outcome), unless phasing would be used. A regular quest couldn't have an objective like: capture a town, unless phasing would be required. A regular quest can't have any objective of which the completion or failure will affect the spawns, outposts, friendly NPCs (including other quest-givers) without phasing. A Dynamic Event doesn't use phasing, and the effects as well as the process of completion/failure of the event are noticeable for every player in that zone on that server.
Edit: We've seen these type of events in the last demo, with the pirates taking over a town.
We've had quests like this before though, and regular quests can actually be both, take and defend a town. For example, in TR you could pick up quests for when raids happened on a base.
Quests are just objectives based around rewards. I could easily get a quest for a PQ or event in other games. You can even get quests that require user interaction to enable the quest objectives (such as using a stone or something in your inventory). If you fail to repel enemies from a town, then you fail the quest and have to do it again (usually on a cycle). If you complete it, the quest succeeds and you get your reward. Thats not something that regular quests are incapable of doing.
Guy: "No, they're clearly different: they are part of a chain of dynamic events which advances regardless of your actions, they scale, you get rewards wether you fail or lose, and they're designed in a way that it encourages playing together.
Me: "I know, but when you're playing them, they'll have regular quest objectives, kill, collect, protect, etc..."
Troll-Alot: "WAIT A SECOND! Just a moment ago you said Dynamic Events are regular quests, and as matter of fact Guy proved you wrong."
Me: "Yes, but I'm speaking from my high horse, and you guys don't because GW2 doesn't have mounts."
Guy: "But the presentation is ultimately different, therefore they are not regular quests."
Me: "But the objectives will be the same (Or at least that's what I think, even though there have already been examples of Dynamic Events with objectives that couldn't work with regular quests), therefore they are regular quests."
Examples?
A regular quest couldn't have an objective like: defend a town (with failure as a possible outcome), unless phasing would be used. A regular quest couldn't have an objective like: capture a town, unless phasing would be required. A regular quest can't have any objective of which the completion or failure will affect the spawns, outposts, friendly NPCs (including other quest-givers) without phasing. A Dynamic Event doesn't use phasing, and the effects as well as the process of completion/failure of the event are noticeable for every player in that zone on that server.
Edit: We've seen these type of events in the last demo, with the pirates taking over a town.
Quests are just objectives based around rewards. I could easily get a quest for a PQ or event in other games. You can even get quests that require user interaction to enable the quest objectives (such as using a stone or something in your inventory). If you fail to repel enemies from a town, then you fail the quest and have to do it again (usually on a cycle). If you complete it, the quest succeeds and you get your reward. Thats not something that regular quests are incapable of doing.
They are incapable of affecting the game world for along time (longer than the respawn timer), at least without phasing.
This discussion seam such a rethorical competition to the most shallow entretainement ever. An event happen to the world, it have no objective but the one you want to make of it if you even want to make some of it. A quest doesn't happent to the world, it is soemthing you decide to acheive by your own. An event take you into its action, a quest is an action you do, thats not hard to understand. They are totally different things.
Guy: "No, they're clearly different: they are part of a chain of dynamic events which advances regardless of your actions, they scale, you get rewards wether you fail or lose, and they're designed in a way that it encourages playing together.
Me: "I know, but when you're playing them, they'll have regular quest objectives, kill, collect, protect, etc..."
Troll-Alot: "WAIT A SECOND! Just a moment ago you said Dynamic Events are regular quests, and as matter of fact Guy proved you wrong."
Me: "Yes, but I'm speaking from my high horse, and you guys don't because GW2 doesn't have mounts."
Guy: "But the presentation is ultimately different, therefore they are not regular quests."
Me: "But the objectives will be the same (Or at least that's what I think, even though there have already been examples of Dynamic Events with objectives that couldn't work with regular quests), therefore they are regular quests."
Examples?
A regular quest couldn't have an objective like: defend a town (with failure as a possible outcome), unless phasing would be used. A regular quest couldn't have an objective like: capture a town, unless phasing would be required. A regular quest can't have any objective of which the completion or failure will affect the spawns, outposts, friendly NPCs (including other quest-givers) without phasing. A Dynamic Event doesn't use phasing, and the effects as well as the process of completion/failure of the event are noticeable for every player in that zone on that server.
Edit: We've seen these type of events in the last demo, with the pirates taking over a town.
Quests are just objectives based around rewards. I could easily get a quest for a PQ or event in other games. You can even get quests that require user interaction to enable the quest objectives (such as using a stone or something in your inventory). If you fail to repel enemies from a town, then you fail the quest and have to do it again (usually on a cycle). If you complete it, the quest succeeds and you get your reward. Thats not something that regular quests are incapable of doing.
They are incapable of affecting the game world for along time (longer than the respawn timer), at least without phasing.
In TR they could over run the base and hold it until players took it back. This wasn't phased. In CoH in issue (2 or 3.. one of the early ones) with the invasion, enemies would spawn from another dimension and take areas of the city and stay until players killed them (they had quests to kill these guys as well). They were persistent, and they weren't level restricted, they would spawn -- sometimes level 30s in 1- 10 areas, and higher level players would have to come clear them.
GW2 events are done differently in that they chain, but again, quests really aren't incapable.. its mostly the world that doesn't enable persistency in most quests. Thats not to say its not possible.
Ok, maybe I can stop the endless back and forth here.
Back in the EQ days, we just hunted. We camped spawns. We killed mobs because they were there. The quest model was an improvement over that because it gave some context and story to what was going on. You're still doing the same thing, killing mobs, but the presentation is better. Then came PQs as the next iteration and so on.
It's a combat MMO, so you're still going to end up doing a lot of things that even predate the quest model, you're still killing bad guys. But it's the differences that count, it's the differences that are getting people excited about this improvement. It's even more context, more immediacy, consequences and community all rolled into one.
Maskedweasel, you could have just said that because the underlying fundamental gameplay concepts are going to be the same (killing, collecting, protecting), you might expect the novelty to wear off after people get used to DEs. I'm not sure anybody here would disagree with that concern. But you didn't. You said they're just quests that chain. I hope you can see why people would respond, because frankly I don't think it's true at all when said like that.
Now can we all drop this please?
"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
Ok, maybe I can stop the endless back and forth here.
Back in the EQ days, we just hunted. We camped spawns. We killed mobs because they were there. The quest model was an improvement over that because it gave some context and story to what was going on. You're still doing the same thing, killing mobs, but the presentation is better. Then came PQs as the next iteration and so on.
It's a combat MMO, so you're still going to end up doing a lot of things that even predate the quest model, you're still killing bad guys. But it's the differences that count, it's the differences that are getting people excited about this improvement. It's even more context, more immediacy, consequences and community all rolled into one.
Maskedweasel, you could have just said that because the underlying fundamental gameplay concepts are going to be the same (killing, collecting, protecting), you might expect the novelty to wear off after people get used to DEs. I'm not sure anybody here would disagree with that concern. But you didn't. You said they're just quests that chain. I hope you can see why people would respond, because frankly I don't think it's true at all when said like that.
Now can we all drop this please?
I've used the expression before, that the novelty will wear off,, and whilst my initial response could have been more informative, I never stated anywhere that something is good, bad or otherwise. I'm all for agreeing to disagree, or what have you.
I've played a lot of games as you can likely tell, so, perhaps I have a larger spectrum of styles to pull from. I'm usually very neutral when it comes to features. I like reasoning and comparing, but I really don't like fanatacism, which is one reason I constantly delve into the more risque side of these conversations even if they are mostly contrary to my stance. If yo ulook through my post history, most previous titles I've taken stances on counterpoints, sometimes for discussions sake, sometimes because thats how I feel and it happens to be a point that could use some bolstering.
I like the discussions.... they're entertainment, amongst other things.
Discussions are good but I agree people need to be calmer and be less err offended. At the very least, don't add insults or attacks to your posts and keep it clean. Also stick to one topic or it gets hard to follow for people like me who want to join in. (So anyone arguing anything that isn't about DEs and socialising, perhaps move it to the Like-For-Like comparison thread?) Though I'll add, saying DEs are the same as quests is taking it a bit too far.
Well I've attempted to read most of the text (There is a lot ._.) I'll keep my input solely on just socialising. Sure the DEs don't really make people anymore social, the example used being rifts in RIFT, I think the design is at least easier to socialise with others simply because everyone in that one area will have the exact same objectives.
Say in a generic mmo (I don't think I've played an mmo with complicated quests =/) you're doing this chain of quests and you want to set up a party to get it over with faster but most of the people in the area your quest is in is either further ahead in the chain or behind you. It'd be annoying for the people ahead to stop what they're doing and help you and it'd be annoying for you to stop your progress and help the people lagging behind. Especially if they were 10 quests behind. (I say this from experience too from Eden Eternal, the game being advertised right here right now)
Now how DEs fix this problem is pretty obvious in that everyone will have the same objective and you will be playing together. That's pretty much as much as a game could make people social (Well I don't have any ideas) without being forceful and I think that will strike a good balance. I mean, do you really want to socialise with someone that doesn't even want to? That I'd like to add in one demo (Sorry, I don't remember the source =/), I saw someone watering plants as everyone else is killing monsters >_> It was just to show the different objectives events can have and it seems a single event can have multiple of them at once then. (I could have misintrepeted the video however and watering was not an objective, the person could have just done it for nothing)
NecroBator: I think the event system is brilliant, and considering the topic of your panel discussion this weekend – social gameplay – one of the things I’ve been really curious about is based on the social impact of events.
If you’ve played Warhammer, Rift, or even Tabula Rasa, those games attempted to make questing a very social and public thing, yet that’s not what really ended up happening in any of those systems. Players will band together to seal a rift, defeat the final stage of a public quest, but then scatter the moment they collect their rewards. So even though you’re playing in a social environment, there’s nothing built into those systems to actively encourage social groups to form beyond that static portion of the map.
Will you have any kind of mechanics in GW2 that will encourage players to group up and form better social bonds in the game? I know this is a concern for some fans because of the fact that dungeons are all group content, but they wonder if events will continue that trend of anti-social gaming followed by sitting in LA LFG if they want to do dungeons.
Colin: I think there are some inherent systems in the game that kind of do that already. I think that one of the things you see after an event in Warhammer, or a rift in Rift, one of the reasons I think people scatter is because all of the remaining content that’s available to them, and even during those public quests, you’re competing with other players.
If you now have a quest that you want to go do, and somebody else has that same quest, you guys are fighting over the monsters to see who is going to kill them and get credit for them to contribute towards your quest. In the public quest system, you’re competing with other players to get a high score, so that you can get the best reward on the loot table.
In Guild Wars 2, there is none of that. If you attack a creature and I come over and help you kill it we both get loot, and we both get experience. The events scale so that the more players who show up the more stuff there is to do for each player. And at the end of the event, as long as you hit a minimum participation threshold, everybody gets the rewards for doing it.
The idea is that you don’t really have a reason to get away from other players; they actually help you. They help you finish events faster, they help you kill creatures faster, and everyone is getting rewarded faster, and the events get more fun because there are more people around.
So by the very nature of the way that the gameplay works, instead of having core systems that drive you away from other players and make you not want to have them around, we built the system so that it is fun to have other players around. That’s a really big part of that. At that point you are wanting to play with other players, and suddenly you are invested in hanging out with them, or joining a guild with them. There’s not really a lot that encourages you to do that in a traditional MMO, so that’s one really big thing.
What you find is when you’re playing with other players, more and more people start rezzing each other and you have this cool moment when you build this ad hock group that starts to go through the map together. And even though you might not ever join a group together you start playing with these people naturally because it’s just a more rewarding experience and it’s a better way to play the game.
I think that’s the biggest thing that we’re trying to do to accomplish that.
From a community and a chat perspective of how we might provide UI to help you form groups better, we haven’t revealed all of the information yet about how we’re going to handle guilds and guild forming and all of that. We’re going to try to do something that layers into the event system to try to help encourage a strong sense of community between those players to try and take advantage of the fact that they are all there together.
Except for the last paragraph, it's mostly what people have been saying already, but this kind of makes it more official.
At the very least, it at least shows that Arenanet is aware of the problem of getting people to socialize... and that they consider it a problem, and are attempting to deal with.
Feel free to nay-say all you want, but as of right now, the only people who can really say how well this works are the people at Arenanet and the people who've been doing usability testing for them. How will it pan out when it hits the real world, and is a real game? Nobody knows that (Even Arenanet), unless somebody here is a psychic with a hotline stright to the future.
I find it comforting to know that they're at least seeing it as a problem, and are trying their own ways of dealing with it.
Also, while we're on the topic of dynamic events, I just thought that this sort of variety is interesting, and I'm hoping to see more things like this across the various zones. I like that things like feeding cows, watering crops, catching bunnies and fetching food around is part of just a pool of possible event actions you can do, and that you can do that OR combat (Or a mixture of both) to make friends with an NPC. For when I feel in a Harvest Moon sort of mood, I guess.
NecroBator: With the scout system, what kind of bonus or incentive will there be for players who work to fill up the hearts on their map? Would that be something like maybe a bonus to their karma points or some other type of reward for doing that?
Colin: Yes, you do. When you complete the heart – and like I said you really have 6 or 7 different ways that you can fill it up – so you really have a choice of the kind of game style that you want to do there. It’s a little bit like a quest in the past but you don’t have to talk to anybody to accept it. You just auto-accept it when you walk into the area, and it gives you a list of things like Farmer Jeb needs help at his farm fields, and there’s a whole bunch of different stuff you can do in that area to help out.
So if you’re the kind of person that enjoys doing role playing type stuff, you can get the food and feed the cows, or water the crops. Or if you’re more combat oriented, you can smash worm holes, kill worms, or kill bandits that are invading the farm, and then you have all of these events that happen there too.
The idea with these is that when you finish it you get a reward; you get gold, karma, and experience for completing it. That character that you help is going to turn into a karma merchant, or somebody who remembers the things you’ve done. That part isn’t hooked up in the demo yet. Right now those guys just say thank you afterwards, but they will eventually become guys who offer services based on the stuff you’ve done.
The solution to this is to have quests/DE where you have to socialize. This can be done by limiting the knowledge of the objective to the players,( like location, and how to get to it) kind of like a big puzzle. Also you can have areas only accessable by more than one person, like you need to press x switches at the same time to open y door(s). This way encourages communication, and may lead to group formations if gamers play their cards right.
Except for the last paragraph, it's mostly what people have been saying already, but this kind of makes it more official.
At the very least, it at least shows that Arenanet is aware of the problem of getting people to socialize... and that they consider it a problem, and are attempting to deal with.
Feel free to nay-say all you want, but as of right now, the only people who can really say how well this works are the people at Arenanet and the people who've been doing usability testing for them. How will it pan out when it hits the real world, and is a real game? Nobody knows that (Even Arenanet), unless somebody here is a psychic with a hotline stright to the future.
I find it comforting to know that they're at least seeing it as a problem, and are trying their own ways of dealing with it.
Also, while we're on the topic of dynamic events, I just thought that this sort of variety is interesting, and I'm hoping to see more things like this across the various zones. I like that things like feeding cows, watering crops, catching bunnies and fetching food around is part of just a pool of possible event actions you can do, and that you can do that OR combat (Or a mixture of both) to make friends with an NPC. For when I feel in a Harvest Moon sort of mood, I guess.
Wow... I've never even heard of Necrobator yet they had something so crucial. It's also good to read about the underlining problem with why people aren't social in RIFT. If this is all there is done about making the GW2 more social, I think that's plenty already. That seems to be a lot more social compared to other games.
I also like the part about multiple objectives despite how mundane is might be, it can be pretty relaxing. I'm very curious about the karma shop however. I can't tell if most karma shops would sell the same thing (In turn not forcing people to do specific ones but ruining the exploration aspects of the game) or if each area will have its own karma shop. (Which will do the reverse) I'd prefer the latter honestly but perhaps something completely different will occur?
Originally posted by Mister_Re
The solution to this is to have quests/DE where you have to socialize. This can be done by limiting the knowledge of the objective to the players,( like location, and how to get to it) kind of like a big puzzle. Also you can have areas only accessable by more than one person, like you need to press x switches at the same time to open y door(s). This way encourages communication, and may lead to group formations if gamers play their cards right.
I would have to disagree with this idea. It'd make the game less accessible because the objectives would be a lot less clear or more annoying to achieve and events not being soloable would also jerk people in the wrong way. (I believe a lot of people complained about FF14 in terms of that) You mustn't forget that crowd. It's possible it'd just be a few events but that doesn't make the entire game much more social. Though this mechanic would work very well in a dungeon.
In TR they could over run the base and hold it until players took it back. This wasn't phased. In CoH in issue (2 or 3.. one of the early ones) with the invasion, enemies would spawn from another dimension and take areas of the city and stay until players killed them (they had quests to kill these guys as well). They were persistent, and they weren't level restricted, they would spawn -- sometimes level 30s in 1- 10 areas, and higher level players would have to come clear them.
GW2 events are done differently in that they chain, but again, quests really aren't incapable.. its mostly the world that doesn't enable persistency in most quests. Thats not to say its not possible.
Question 1: Whats TR? it seems interesting
Question 2: WHAT COH sounds amazing I have tried CO and DCUO, but COH seems like hte superhero game for me? OMG COH:FREEDOM COME QUICKLY
Well if you define everything that involves you to kill,fetch,click something as a 'quest', every game, every game in the future, will forever be a quest based interactive multimedia. Because what you basically state is an 'objective' every game will require an 'objective' clicking and killing is just methods of interaction. If one objective is present differenly, it inheritly becomes a different type of 'objectives', or in your words, different type of 'quest'.
How much WoW could a WoWhater hate, if a WoWhater could hate WoW? As much WoW as a WoWhater would, if a WoWhater could hate WoW.
Comments
So we never had the tools to socialize and play together before? Hmm.. I do recall chat boxes before... and grouping mechanics in every MMO I've ever played.... not sure about the games you've played.
Most players play solo, thats just the way it is. People don't need to group in Dynamic events. They will see other people, they will work towards the same objectives, but at the end of the day, they are playing solo, together. Just because you see people doesn't mean they'll talk with you, or care what you say, or even want to play with you.
If you want to be social you can, but just because they are in the same event doesn't mean they're going to talk back to you. The game is catered to playing around other people, not grouping with them. No events require grouping... no events require a certain amount of players, everything scales, and people can come and go when they want.
Don't ask ME what the problem is, ask the people trying to prove me "wrong". All I was saying is that you'll find an event, do a kill quest (or similar), receive a reward no matter what, and then move on to the next link in the chain (or next event). Is there something wrong with that?
Most MMOs these days revolve around questing. Questing in and of itself is a single player mechanic. Yes you have the option to group, but it is still a single player mechanic and it keeps people away from each other. It doesn't do that on purpose, that is simply a side-effect of it being a single player mechanic.
DEs bring people together making it easier to be social.
The whole "no events require grouping" is bullshit. There are events that require groups of people to do them for them to be completed. Sure most events can be soloed, but at least they scale with the amount of people so you never have to worry about it being too hard or too easy and people won't be in competition over each other over the rewards or mobs.
There are events that will require multiple people, perhaps, but you don't have to form a group to complete them. There are only some instanced missions that I know of in GW2 that requires actual groups. Nothing else requires grouping, they just require solo players in an area. Consider it like a PQ, you don't need to group with the players in the area, you don't need to even talk to them, you just need to show up, and do the quest objectives. What about RIFTs? Do you really need to talk to the guys next to you to repel the invasion? No.
If you want to be social you can. I do not see this style of gameplay increasing the amount of socialization between players. In fact, I think with the short amount of time you have for completion of some events, you'll even have less time to stop and socialize due to event chains and how long you have until events complete. In every game a social player will be social. That doesn't mean that everyone will suddenly be a social player. GW2 doesn't cater any MORE to social gameplay, as the game gears most of its content to solo - casual gameplay.
Don't play being a martyr, that's not cool.
I don't want to hear about how tormented and alone you are, fighting valiantly against GW2 fans and being misunderstood. If I was interested in reading that sort of thing, I'd be visiting some fanfic site and reading self insertion fanfics. 
Anyway, this is pretty futile both ways, but I don't think it's fair for you to say that the GW2 fans don't understand dynamic events at all. I think the MAIN problem here is that you're not agreeing on the definition of what 'different' entails. There are things that are different, that you apparently simply don't care about, or chalk up as 'not different enough to sate my needs'.
Neither side is going to convince the other side of anything, but you should probably realize that walking into a group of people with a particular interest and saying 'By the way, you don't understand your interest properly' is a good way to pick a fight.
It's perfectly possible for two people to be in possession of the same set of facts, but have a different understanding of how those facts relate to them personally.
As long as the content is challenging enough people will have to socialize in order to complete events, I'm sure people will need to prepare themselves in order to take back a town that's captured by enemy forces, or to complete an Elite Event. Besides how do you know how much time it takes to complete your average event, wouldn't that be dependant on the skill and teamwork of the people participating?
And on a sidenote: What exactly is your definition of socialization? Because officially, it means becoming part of a community.
I never said anything regarding what is different enough for "me". All I said was what the game offers, people perceive this as an attack. Some people choose not to see my point of view, or choose to believe I must be "wrong" even if I'm agreeing with the differences, but noticing the similarities.
If people really have a problem with what I'm saying, they should at least try and point out where I'm wrong in my point of view, or where I've stated that the focus of this was "bad" in any way. All I said, is that the quests are what they are. In other instances, we could very well be arguing the same points. What I see here though, is people arguing with me even though I'm not saying anything bad or wrong about the game.
The conversation pretty much went similar to:
Me: "Dynamic events will have regular quest objectives"
Guy: "No, dynamic events are completely different, they have chains, and they scale, and we get rewards, and you can play with other players"
Me: "I know, but when you're playing them, they'll have regular quest obejectives, kill, collect, protect, etc."
Guy: "You have no idea what you're talking about, Dynamic Events don't equal regular quests! They are completely different! GW2 will be awesome!"
Me: "I never said it wouldn't be awesome, I said they have some differences as we've gone over, but when you're doing them.."
Guy: "NO! You don't know. Your argument is void."
This is the root of your problems. As long as somebody can come up with a single example of how dynamic events are more than regular quests that just chain, they are going to.
If you feel like you're getting dogpiled by GW2 fans, you only have your imprecise usage of the English language to blame.
You're responsible for your own woes, I'm sorry to say!
One could come up with a ridiculously long list of ways that events are different from quests. They may have similarities, but to call them 'regular quests that just chain' is a gross inaccuracy, and many GW2 fans are ALL about jumping on those.
It doesn't matter if you accurately explain a dynamic quest in some OTHER post, nobody sits there and dwells on how somebody accurately summed things up, they dwell on errors.
(edit: The moment I first saw that post, and read the part in red, I basically went 'Oh crap, Maskedweasel went and did it now'. ... and hey, I was right. Everybody immediately picked up on that. ... and they will continue to, since at no point in time have you bothered to retract your statement, or at least go 'I worded that poorly, this is what I'd like to say...'. You can pirouette and dance and switch what you're saying, but until you take that text in red, and explicitly deal with that, you've got GW2 bulldog death grip on your neck.
)
You are somewhat bending reality in your favor there, it's more like this:
Me(you): "Dynamic Events are regular quests"
Guy: "No, they're clearly different: they are part of a chain of dynamic events which advances regardless of your actions, they scale, you get rewards wether you fail or lose, and they're designed in a way that it encourages playing together.
Me: "I know, but when you're playing them, they'll have regular quest objectives, kill, collect, protect, etc..."
Troll-Alot: "WAIT A SECOND! Just a moment ago you said Dynamic Events are regular quests, and as matter of fact Guy proved you wrong."
Me: "Yes, but I'm speaking from my high horse, and you guys don't because GW2 doesn't have mounts."
Guy: "But the presentation is ultimately different, therefore they are not regular quests."
Me: "But the objectives will be the same (Or at least that's what I think, even though there have already been examples of Dynamic Events with objectives that couldn't work with regular quests), therefore they are regular quests."
Use a dictionary honestly, you cannot say a apple is the same as an orange because they are both fruit, if they use different words that mean there is something different to them. If you can't see hte difference its your own fault, you cannot put the fault on others for your lack of insight.
Well, heres the thing... the game scales depending on the amount of people. While some events may require more people to complete them, I think that would be an exception to the regular rule that most events will cater to wet noodle players. The thing is, as they stated in one of their hour long interviews, they can't really create specific gameplay that requires players to direct certain aspects of gameplay to complete.. such as stealth gameplay, or things of that nature, simply because one player could ruin it. They would need to cater most events to the majority of players, most of which will have to scale so that the casual player, and the more experienced player can coexist.
You can't create a multitude of scaling content in the open world that requires a specific amount of experienced players. (I mean you can I guess, but when done in other games, its usually signified by area, or mob level or rank). I mean when they go into making an event you'd imagine they'd have to consider that there could be a point where only 1 player, of this particular class, that could or could not be of a particular skill level. You don't want this player to be completely segregated and not able to do anything by themself, or make it from one story point to the next.
Sure they could require only skillful players or multiple players are allowed to complete the majority of content.. but I have a feeling that, with the casual focus they've outlined that won't be the case.
As for socialization, you can be part of a community but be anti-social. I can be in a PQ but not want to talk or assist others with what they are doing and instead complete objectives on another part of the PQ map by myself. I think of it like.... a guild. You have a lot of guilds that just invite tons of players. You become part of their group. But if you are doing your own thing, or can't (or won't) participate in their little ventrilo talks or be there for every guild function, you could be kicked.
While you could be "social" in the sense that you are part of a group of people that are in an area, you aren't really "socializing" as in being part of the community, talking to others, or cooperating. You are there because the objective is there, had others not been around, you would still be there doing the same thing. A group of people in a waiting room of a doctors office is a "group" but it isn't a community nor are they socializing.
Examples?
A regular quest couldn't have an objective like: defend a town (with failure as a possible outcome), unless phasing would be used. A regular quest couldn't have an objective like: capture a town, unless phasing would be required. A regular quest can't have any objective of which the completion or failure will affect the spawns, outposts, friendly NPCs (including other quest-givers) without phasing. A Dynamic Event doesn't use phasing, and the effects as well as the process of completion/failure of the event are noticeable for every player in that zone on that server.
Edit: We've seen these type of events in the last demo, with the pirates taking over a town.
We've had quests like this before though, and regular quests can actually be both, take and defend a town. For example, in TR you could pick up quests for when raids happened on a base.
Quests are just objectives based around rewards. I could easily get a quest for a PQ or event in other games. You can even get quests that require user interaction to enable the quest objectives (such as using a stone or something in your inventory). If you fail to repel enemies from a town, then you fail the quest and have to do it again (usually on a cycle). If you complete it, the quest succeeds and you get your reward. Thats not something that regular quests are incapable of doing.
They are incapable of affecting the game world for along time (longer than the respawn timer), at least without phasing.
This discussion seam such a rethorical competition to the most shallow entretainement ever. An event happen to the world, it have no objective but the one you want to make of it if you even want to make some of it. A quest doesn't happent to the world, it is soemthing you decide to acheive by your own. An event take you into its action, a quest is an action you do, thats not hard to understand. They are totally different things.
In TR they could over run the base and hold it until players took it back. This wasn't phased. In CoH in issue (2 or 3.. one of the early ones) with the invasion, enemies would spawn from another dimension and take areas of the city and stay until players killed them (they had quests to kill these guys as well). They were persistent, and they weren't level restricted, they would spawn -- sometimes level 30s in 1- 10 areas, and higher level players would have to come clear them.
GW2 events are done differently in that they chain, but again, quests really aren't incapable.. its mostly the world that doesn't enable persistency in most quests. Thats not to say its not possible.
Ok, maybe I can stop the endless back and forth here.
Back in the EQ days, we just hunted. We camped spawns. We killed mobs because they were there. The quest model was an improvement over that because it gave some context and story to what was going on. You're still doing the same thing, killing mobs, but the presentation is better. Then came PQs as the next iteration and so on.
It's a combat MMO, so you're still going to end up doing a lot of things that even predate the quest model, you're still killing bad guys. But it's the differences that count, it's the differences that are getting people excited about this improvement. It's even more context, more immediacy, consequences and community all rolled into one.
Maskedweasel, you could have just said that because the underlying fundamental gameplay concepts are going to be the same (killing, collecting, protecting), you might expect the novelty to wear off after people get used to DEs. I'm not sure anybody here would disagree with that concern. But you didn't. You said they're just quests that chain. I hope you can see why people would respond, because frankly I don't think it's true at all when said like that.
Now can we all drop this please?
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
I've used the expression before, that the novelty will wear off,, and whilst my initial response could have been more informative, I never stated anywhere that something is good, bad or otherwise. I'm all for agreeing to disagree, or what have you.
I've played a lot of games as you can likely tell, so, perhaps I have a larger spectrum of styles to pull from. I'm usually very neutral when it comes to features. I like reasoning and comparing, but I really don't like fanatacism, which is one reason I constantly delve into the more risque side of these conversations even if they are mostly contrary to my stance. If yo ulook through my post history, most previous titles I've taken stances on counterpoints, sometimes for discussions sake, sometimes because thats how I feel and it happens to be a point that could use some bolstering.
I like the discussions.... they're entertainment, amongst other things.
Discussions are good but I agree people need to be calmer and be less err offended. At the very least, don't add insults or attacks to your posts and keep it clean. Also stick to one topic or it gets hard to follow for people like me who want to join in. (So anyone arguing anything that isn't about DEs and socialising, perhaps move it to the Like-For-Like comparison thread?) Though I'll add, saying DEs are the same as quests is taking it a bit too far.
Well I've attempted to read most of the text (There is a lot ._.) I'll keep my input solely on just socialising. Sure the DEs don't really make people anymore social, the example used being rifts in RIFT, I think the design is at least easier to socialise with others simply because everyone in that one area will have the exact same objectives.
Say in a generic mmo (I don't think I've played an mmo with complicated quests =/) you're doing this chain of quests and you want to set up a party to get it over with faster but most of the people in the area your quest is in is either further ahead in the chain or behind you. It'd be annoying for the people ahead to stop what they're doing and help you and it'd be annoying for you to stop your progress and help the people lagging behind. Especially if they were 10 quests behind. (I say this from experience too from Eden Eternal, the game being advertised right here right now)
Now how DEs fix this problem is pretty obvious in that everyone will have the same objective and you will be playing together. That's pretty much as much as a game could make people social (Well I don't have any ideas) without being forceful and I think that will strike a good balance. I mean, do you really want to socialise with someone that doesn't even want to? That I'd like to add in one demo (Sorry, I don't remember the source =/), I saw someone watering plants as everyone else is killing monsters >_> It was just to show the different objectives events can have and it seems a single event can have multiple of them at once then. (I could have misintrepeted the video however and watering was not an objective, the person could have just done it for nothing)
I'm just going to put this out here, an excerpt from http://www.necrobator.com/features/interviews/exclusive-sdcc-interview-with-colin-johanson-part-two/3/
NecroBator: I think the event system is brilliant, and considering the topic of your panel discussion this weekend – social gameplay – one of the things I’ve been really curious about is based on the social impact of events.
If you’ve played Warhammer, Rift, or even Tabula Rasa, those games attempted to make questing a very social and public thing, yet that’s not what really ended up happening in any of those systems. Players will band together to seal a rift, defeat the final stage of a public quest, but then scatter the moment they collect their rewards. So even though you’re playing in a social environment, there’s nothing built into those systems to actively encourage social groups to form beyond that static portion of the map.
Will you have any kind of mechanics in GW2 that will encourage players to group up and form better social bonds in the game? I know this is a concern for some fans because of the fact that dungeons are all group content, but they wonder if events will continue that trend of anti-social gaming followed by sitting in LA LFG if they want to do dungeons.
Colin: I think there are some inherent systems in the game that kind of do that already. I think that one of the things you see after an event in Warhammer, or a rift in Rift, one of the reasons I think people scatter is because all of the remaining content that’s available to them, and even during those public quests, you’re competing with other players.
If you now have a quest that you want to go do, and somebody else has that same quest, you guys are fighting over the monsters to see who is going to kill them and get credit for them to contribute towards your quest. In the public quest system, you’re competing with other players to get a high score, so that you can get the best reward on the loot table.
In Guild Wars 2, there is none of that. If you attack a creature and I come over and help you kill it we both get loot, and we both get experience. The events scale so that the more players who show up the more stuff there is to do for each player. And at the end of the event, as long as you hit a minimum participation threshold, everybody gets the rewards for doing it.
The idea is that you don’t really have a reason to get away from other players; they actually help you. They help you finish events faster, they help you kill creatures faster, and everyone is getting rewarded faster, and the events get more fun because there are more people around.
So by the very nature of the way that the gameplay works, instead of having core systems that drive you away from other players and make you not want to have them around, we built the system so that it is fun to have other players around. That’s a really big part of that. At that point you are wanting to play with other players, and suddenly you are invested in hanging out with them, or joining a guild with them. There’s not really a lot that encourages you to do that in a traditional MMO, so that’s one really big thing.
What you find is when you’re playing with other players, more and more people start rezzing each other and you have this cool moment when you build this ad hock group that starts to go through the map together. And even though you might not ever join a group together you start playing with these people naturally because it’s just a more rewarding experience and it’s a better way to play the game.
I think that’s the biggest thing that we’re trying to do to accomplish that.
From a community and a chat perspective of how we might provide UI to help you form groups better, we haven’t revealed all of the information yet about how we’re going to handle guilds and guild forming and all of that. We’re going to try to do something that layers into the event system to try to help encourage a strong sense of community between those players to try and take advantage of the fact that they are all there together.
Except for the last paragraph, it's mostly what people have been saying already, but this kind of makes it more official.
At the very least, it at least shows that Arenanet is aware of the problem of getting people to socialize... and that they consider it a problem, and are attempting to deal with.
Feel free to nay-say all you want, but as of right now, the only people who can really say how well this works are the people at Arenanet and the people who've been doing usability testing for them. How will it pan out when it hits the real world, and is a real game? Nobody knows that (Even Arenanet), unless somebody here is a psychic with a hotline stright to the future.
I find it comforting to know that they're at least seeing it as a problem, and are trying their own ways of dealing with it.
Also, while we're on the topic of dynamic events, I just thought that this sort of variety is interesting, and I'm hoping to see more things like this across the various zones. I like that things like feeding cows, watering crops, catching bunnies and fetching food around is part of just a pool of possible event actions you can do, and that you can do that OR combat (Or a mixture of both) to make friends with an NPC. For when I feel in a Harvest Moon sort of mood, I guess.
NecroBator: With the scout system, what kind of bonus or incentive will there be for players who work to fill up the hearts on their map? Would that be something like maybe a bonus to their karma points or some other type of reward for doing that?
Colin: Yes, you do. When you complete the heart – and like I said you really have 6 or 7 different ways that you can fill it up – so you really have a choice of the kind of game style that you want to do there. It’s a little bit like a quest in the past but you don’t have to talk to anybody to accept it. You just auto-accept it when you walk into the area, and it gives you a list of things like Farmer Jeb needs help at his farm fields, and there’s a whole bunch of different stuff you can do in that area to help out.
So if you’re the kind of person that enjoys doing role playing type stuff, you can get the food and feed the cows, or water the crops. Or if you’re more combat oriented, you can smash worm holes, kill worms, or kill bandits that are invading the farm, and then you have all of these events that happen there too.
The idea with these is that when you finish it you get a reward; you get gold, karma, and experience for completing it. That character that you help is going to turn into a karma merchant, or somebody who remembers the things you’ve done. That part isn’t hooked up in the demo yet. Right now those guys just say thank you afterwards, but they will eventually become guys who offer services based on the stuff you’ve done.
The solution to this is to have quests/DE where you have to socialize. This can be done by limiting the knowledge of the objective to the players,( like location, and how to get to it) kind of like a big puzzle. Also you can have areas only accessable by more than one person, like you need to press x switches at the same time to open y door(s). This way encourages communication, and may lead to group formations if gamers play their cards right.
Wow... I've never even heard of Necrobator yet they had something so crucial. It's also good to read about the underlining problem with why people aren't social in RIFT. If this is all there is done about making the GW2 more social, I think that's plenty already. That seems to be a lot more social compared to other games.
I also like the part about multiple objectives despite how mundane is might be, it can be pretty relaxing. I'm very curious about the karma shop however. I can't tell if most karma shops would sell the same thing (In turn not forcing people to do specific ones but ruining the exploration aspects of the game) or if each area will have its own karma shop. (Which will do the reverse) I'd prefer the latter honestly but perhaps something completely different will occur?
I would have to disagree with this idea. It'd make the game less accessible because the objectives would be a lot less clear or more annoying to achieve and events not being soloable would also jerk people in the wrong way. (I believe a lot of people complained about FF14 in terms of that) You mustn't forget that crowd. It's possible it'd just be a few events but that doesn't make the entire game much more social. Though this mechanic would work very well in a dungeon.
Question 1: Whats TR? it seems interesting
Question 2: WHAT COH sounds amazing I have tried CO and DCUO, but COH seems like hte superhero game for me? OMG COH:FREEDOM COME QUICKLY
Well if you define everything that involves you to kill,fetch,click something as a 'quest', every game, every game in the future, will forever be a quest based interactive multimedia. Because what you basically state is an 'objective' every game will require an 'objective' clicking and killing is just methods of interaction. If one objective is present differenly, it inheritly becomes a different type of 'objectives', or in your words, different type of 'quest'.
How much WoW could a WoWhater hate, if a WoWhater could hate WoW?
As much WoW as a WoWhater would, if a WoWhater could hate WoW.
TR = Tabula Rasa, biggest MMORPG flop in history
"I am not a robot. I am a unicorn."