Question: Why is having a lasting an effect on the mmo world a required, or even an important aspect for the game to have?
Let's say that choices affect nothing past cutscenes. I'm sure some people are satisfied with this, or even prefer it. I don't think one is better than the other.
A game where where decisions have some impact on the world is interesting, yes. But it's a completely different game. I would probably like a game like that, but I also like a game like this one, where choices affect your own personal story and other people's choices doesn't affect how you play your own story. Two different game styles, none are better than the other imo.
I think the OP see the decisions having limited impacted on the game as a negative (correct me if I'm wrong). I don't see it as a positive or a negative. It is what it is.
A rich dynamic world > static world or do you like the static crap we have been seeing since MMOs were invented ?
come on now.
Maybe you like a dynamic world. Others do not. Some people like WoW, other like Eve. 2 very different game styles. Not one is better than the other.
Just because you like a dynamic world better, doesn't make it objectively better. Plus, who says you can't have a rich static world?
Question: Why is having a lasting an effect on the mmo world a required, or even an important aspect for the game to have?
Let's say that choices affect nothing past cutscenes. I'm sure some people are satisfied with this, or even prefer it. I don't think one is better than the other.
A game where where decisions have some impact on the world is interesting, yes. But it's a completely different game. I would probably like a game like that, but I also like a game like this one, where choices affect your own personal story and other people's choices doesn't affect how you play your own story. Two different game styles, none are better than the other imo.
I think the OP see the decisions having limited impacted on the game as a negative (correct me if I'm wrong). I don't see it as a positive or a negative. It is what it is.
A rich dynamic world > static world or do you like the static crap we have been seeing since MMOs were invented ?
come on now.
Maybe you like a dynamic world. Others do not. Some people like WoW, other like Eve. 2 very different game styles. Not one is better than the other.
Just because you like a dynamic world better, doesn't make it objectively better. Plus, who says you can't have a rich static world?
Lol I pray this is a satire.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
While that is partially true about GW2 you are forgetting that those events are not a part of the player's personal story in the game. On top of those event you also have an individual story wherein the player can make meaningful choices. The most commonly known example of this is when human characters have to choose to save an orphanage or a military hospital from being burned down (there isn't enough time to save both). If you save the hospital the orphange is then forever burnt down leaving a bunch of sad orphans milling about and vice versa. How the story branches off after that we don't yet know but seeing the orphange or hospital burnt husk forever afterwards seems to me to be a meaningful effects from the choices you make.
No, I am not forgetting, you completely missed my point.
Letting one burn down and saving the other is much like letting Praven die vs turning him to the light side.(as mentioned earlier) So now, not only does your point miss it's mark, it's simply wrong too.
Back on topic, you can also gain more credits from certain dialog options. It was one of the nice things playing along side a dark character. You still get your LS points when they win, but you also get the credits they shook out of the NPC.
I disagree. If you let him die or live he disapears. If you let him die he's just gone forever. If he lives he goes poof until much later in the game (and again after he serves his purpose he disappers from your story yet again). The orphange or hospital are there either in good shape (if you saved it) or a burn out husk (if you didn't save it) with sad orphans or sick/injured soldiers milling/lying about. You will see this every time you go there (after that part of the story anyway). That is a permanent and much more tangible change in my opinion. Plus that's not even considering that we don't yet know how the story branches off from that choice.
You may disagree, but I believe one of those is a much more meaningful choice. I feel that the TOR example you made is much more ephermal. So no, I was not simplywrong.
So if I turn a sith to the light side he should forever dedicate himself to me as an indentured servant and stand around my ship taking up space doing nothing like the husk of a building?
I get it, the GW2 example takes it a smidge further but ephemeral is ephemeral and there is no getting around it.(p.s. I'm a HUGE GW2 fan... heck, I'm an actual fanboi for it, if you will) Just because it's always there in my personal INSTANCE forever to be forgotten having no impact at all on anything.... yes you're simply wrong. Ultimately I guess we're arguing over the difference of invisible in plain sight vs invisible out of sight? lol w/e
Lest we forget, this has nothing to do with my original point about how even an ambitious game like GW2 is acknowledging the very issues that caused others to complain earlier in the thread. Simply put, it's unavoidable because reward will always be greater than choice, thus eliminating choice despite it technically being present.
Yes, thank you, I would very much like to see that reformed sith lord around. But he needn't be stuck in my ship. There are all kinds of instanced areas in TOR for them to added him and other npc characters from your story that you could visit later as you continued your story. Like all those landing bays. They could have added characters from that planet's story into your landing bay instance for the planet. And they need not be in there permanently. They could have been given X% chance for characters Y and Z being in the instance walking/lounging around (possibly with a nice short interactive bit as a cherry on top). That way you still see these characters during and after your personal story reducing some of that ephemeral quality.
And, at this point w/o GW2 being released you have no idea how the orphanage/hospital choice affects the player story. If you save the hospital the story could send you to Ebonhawke versus sending you to Demetra if you saved the orphanage. Yes in both storys you'll probably later end up going to Lion's Arch, but the path you took to get there would have been different. While this is all just a made up possibility on my part it is still a possibility. So you can't just state as if it's a fact, at this point in time, that that choice does nothing for your story like it does in TOR. Oh, and it's not just a husk of a building that lies forgotten lest you forget the sad orphans. I mean I sure don't want mopey sad orphans in my home instance.
Also, we have seen choices in GW2 that significantly change your story. If you choose one legion (I forget if it's Iron or Blood) as a charr your story starts you off challenging the leader of your warband in a giant colessium. If you choose Ash Legion your story starts you in a different direction where you're using stealth to help gather info on threats to the charr legions outside of a bar. The rewards you gain from doing these first story missions are the same (same amount of gold/karma/ choice of weapon/armor rewards) but the story you played out was different.
Lastly, the whole reason I replied to you in the first place was that I disagreed with your implication that for the most part the story choices in GW2 would be just as meaningless as those seen in TOR. You are free to disagree to however an extent as you wish. And the reason I replied to your next post was because you said I was simply wrong even though simply doesn't apply. The world is filled with shades of grey. What I see as meaningful is not going to be the same for everyone. Such things are not simple-those shades of grey are some of the most complexing things around.
Question: Why is having a lasting an effect on the mmo world a required, or even an important aspect for the game to have?
Let's say that choices affect nothing past cutscenes. I'm sure some people are satisfied with this, or even prefer it. I don't think one is better than the other.
A game where where decisions have some impact on the world is interesting, yes. But it's a completely different game. I would probably like a game like that, but I also like a game like this one, where choices affect your own personal story and other people's choices doesn't affect how you play your own story. Two different game styles, none are better than the other imo.
I think the OP see the decisions having limited impacted on the game as a negative (correct me if I'm wrong). I don't see it as a positive or a negative. It is what it is.
A rich dynamic world > static world or do you like the static crap we have been seeing since MMOs were invented ?
come on now.
Maybe you like a dynamic world. Others do not. Some people like WoW, other like Eve. 2 very different game styles. Not one is better than the other.
Just because you like a dynamic world better, doesn't make it objectively better. Plus, who says you can't have a rich static world?
Lol I pray this is a satire.
I assure you it's not. Again, no one has really made the case to me as to why a dynamic world is objectively better than a static one. WoW, LOTRO, FFXI are extremelly static worlds. I consider those as pretty decent MMOs and rich static worlds. For some people, these kinds of "static" MMOs are not for them. Sure, no problem. But to say that they're bad because they're static, or that static worlds are worse than dynamic ones doesn't make any sense to me.
Again, so far, to oppose this point of view, I've only seen people post one liners dismissing it. So I ask again, why should I consider a dynamic world to be better than a static one. There are in fact no objective reasons why it is.
-edit-
Also, don't get me wrong. I find dynamic worlds to be fun as well.
Question: Why is having a lasting an effect on the mmo world a required, or even an important aspect for the game to have?
Let's say that choices affect nothing past cutscenes. I'm sure some people are satisfied with this, or even prefer it. I don't think one is better than the other.
A game where where decisions have some impact on the world is interesting, yes. But it's a completely different game. I would probably like a game like that, but I also like a game like this one, where choices affect your own personal story and other people's choices doesn't affect how you play your own story. Two different game styles, none are better than the other imo.
I think the OP see the decisions having limited impacted on the game as a negative (correct me if I'm wrong). I don't see it as a positive or a negative. It is what it is.
A rich dynamic world > static world or do you like the static crap we have been seeing since MMOs were invented ?
come on now.
Maybe you like a dynamic world. Others do not. Some people like WoW, other like Eve. 2 very different game styles. Not one is better than the other.
Just because you like a dynamic world better, doesn't make it objectively better. Plus, who says you can't have a rich static world?
Lol I pray this is a satire.
I assure you it's not. Again, no one has really made the case to me as to why a dynamic world is objectively better than a static one. WoW, LOTRO, FFXI are extremelly static world. I consider those as pretty decent MMOs. For others, these kinds of "static" MMOs are not for them. Sure, no problem. But to say that they're bad because they're static, or that static worlds are worse than dynamic ones doesn't make any sense to me.
Again, so far, to oppose this point of view, I've only seen people post one liners dismissing it. So I ask again, why should I consider a dynamic world to be better than a static one. There are in fact no objective reasons why it is.
So why are you asking if your going to be in denial.
I'll let time take it's course and hopefully you'll run into what you seek.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
So why are you asking if your going to be in denial.
I'll let time take it's course and hopefully you'll run into what you seek.
Your answer doesn't make any sense. I'm not in denial of anything. I made a point and it's the job of anyone with an opposing view to present arguments against it (assuming they have any).
But to answer your question anyways, I'm asking in response to the OP. I'm asking why he feels that a game needs to be dynamic in order to be good. I don't think that it needs to be. My reasoning, and some examples of what I consider rich static worlds, are in my previous posts.
Example Spoiler! I did not bow to a Sith Lord as Imperial Agent, I was given the option again, and I refused again and the bastard killed me. That is right, he shocked me with lightning and I freakin died and had to rez. More annoying than game changing.
Didn't kill you. At best knocked you out. Just saying.
So why are you asking if your going to be in denial.
I'll let time take it's course and hopefully you'll run into what you seek.
Your answer doesn't make any sense. I'm not in denial of anything. I made a point and it's the job of anyone with an opposing view to present arguments against it (assuming they have any).
But to answer your question anyways, I'm asking in response to the OP. I'm asking why he feels that a game needs to be dynamic in order to be good. I don't think that it needs to be. My reasoning, and some examples of what I consider rich static worlds, are in my previous posts.
The merits of a static or dynamic game can be debated as a matter of taste, cost, profitability, appeal, etc.
The reason SWTOR is bothersome in this regard is that the ability to affect your story was touted by Bioware. That alone is a bother. Add in the tantalizing illusion of choice all the time, and it is that much more annoying when the player realizes how devoid of impact the "choices" are.
I remember being very careful wiht my choices and even placating some quest givers for fear that my light side ways would get me some consequences. Then there was a moment on Voss when I said, "Fuck it, I have to put this sith in his place regardless of the consequences". So I did. I told the native species the truth about their history. Other than being berated for a moment in the next part of the cutscene, there was no change. Well, you would think I would be relieved that I wasn't hit with a consequence. The opposite happened. I looked back at all the other decisions I had thought through and felt stupid for having taken them seriuously.
Friendzoned -
To put it another way - a "reddit" way - I was "FRIENDZONED" by SWTOR and here I was thinking I was in the running to get some pussy.
If you meet a lady, and she isn't interested in you and doesn't lead you on, no worries. But if that same lady who isn't interested leads you on for companionship, a backup or just maybe some material gain, well the blue balls you've been carrying turn into grenades, and you want to launch those bitches into her Ford Focus and watch it burn. Had she not lead you on at all, your balls would never have armed, and there would be no reason to be upset.
SWTOR spends a lot of time pretending you have choices that affect the story when, in fact, they are just dialogue options along the conveyor belt to the end. Choice is a lie in SWTOR, but it wouldn't be that big a deal if they didn't come SOOO close during their "revolutionary" voice acting then have it be completely pointless 99.99% of the time outside of those coveted cutscenes.
Shit, WoW is honest about it. You need to do X. Either do it or don't. We don't care what you do. No ability to influence that story and the events outside of the quest window.
OR WoW will, as another poster mentioned, let you make choices which do change your situation in the game in terms of faction rep. If I choose Aldor it's a shitty road back to being able to be Scryer, and if I go up the wrong elevator or land in the wrong part of Shattrath (hilarious name, btw - the wrath of having shat) I get attacked and exiled.
Funny enough, WoW has more options for shaping your destiny than SWTOR.
WoW never pretended it wanted anything other than my friendship, so my balls never went weapon ready, whereas SWTOR practically lapdances us at every turn.
Yes, thank you, I would very much like to see that reformed sith lord around. But he needn't be stuck in my ship. There are all kinds of instanced areas in TOR for them to added him and other npc characters from your story that you could visit later as you continued your story. Like all those landing bays. They could have added characters from that planet's story into your landing bay instance for the planet. And they need not be in there permanently. They could have been given X% chance for characters Y and Z being in the instance walking/lounging around (possibly with a nice short interactive bit as a cherry on top). That way you still see these characters during and after your personal story reducing some of that ephemeral quality.
Which is exactly the same amount of ephermeralness in the GW2 personal storyline. It's all restriced to your personal instance and ends there. Ultimately we are not arguing if it's ephemeral, we're arguing to what degree... which is just silly. As I said earlier, ephemeral is ephemeral.
And, at this point w/o GW2 being released you have no idea how the orphanage/hospital choice affects the player story. If you save the hospital the story could send you to Ebonhawke versus sending you to Demetra if you saved the orphanage. Yes in both storys you'll probably later end up going to Lion's Arch, but the path you took to get there would have been different. While this is all just a made up possibility on my part it is still a possibility. So you can't just state as if it's a fact, at this point in time, that that choice does nothing for your story like it does in TOR. Oh, and it's not just a husk of a building that lies forgotten lest you forget the sad orphans. I mean I sure don't want mopey sad orphans in my home instance.
But that kind of thing DOES happen in SWTOR, outside of the personal story line even. (i.e. destination a <- choice -> destination b ; as I mentioned earlier, that happened to us when I was leveling with a friend) So while I may not be able to state it as fact for GW2, I canstate it as fact for SWTOR... fact that it's there.
Also, we have seen choices in GW2 that significantly change your story. If you choose one legion (I forget if it's Iron or Blood) as a charr your story starts you off challenging the leader of your warband in a giant colessium. If you choose Ash Legion your story starts you in a different direction where you're using stealth to help gather info on threats to the charr legions outside of a bar. The rewards you gain from doing these first story missions are the same (same amount of gold/karma/ choice of weapon/armor rewards) but the story you played out was different.
GW2 really wants to take these things further than typical MMOs (without penalizing you even) and that's one reason why I'm really looking forward to it. ... but again, not relevant to my point.
Lastly, the whole reason I replied to you in the first place was that I disagreed with your implication that for the most part the story choices in GW2 would be just as meaningless as those seen in TOR. You are free to disagree to however an extent as you wish. And the reason I replied to your next post was because you said I was simply wrong even though simply doesn't apply. The world is filled with shades of grey. What I see as meaningful is not going to be the same for everyone. Such things are not simple-those shades of grey are some of the most complexing things around.
You may chalk it up to disagreement all you want but as the author of the text in question I can tell you that your inferred implication is incorrect from both what I said and it's intended meaning. If I were to talk about that 'implication', my words and thoughts expressed would be much different. At no point did I make that argument you're telling me that I made. I was speaking about GW2, a much more dynamic driven MMO, ackowledging the limitations needed to put in place upon MMO 'choices' to keep them from being 'real choices'(what users in this thread were talking about prior to my post) which would ultimately end up indirectly making it 'choiceless'...
...which can be found in what I said (and what you quoted):
"Ultimately, the choices and their effects are there, you just have to be looking for them. You also need a base for comparison otherwise it seems like your choices didn't matter. Unfortunately, they are very watered down and bland (for the most part) as to be easy on the MMOers and not force them into a certain route due to outcome. It's much like what GW2 talks about in trying to keep the dynamic events from turning into "NO GUYS! FAIL THIS PART! THE OUTCOME IS BETTER' which takes away all 'choice' of the matter and undermines it's very existence."
We really need separate forums for every newly launched game. There can be the anti-<MMO> one and there can be the 'what general discussion should be' one. All the lamenting can happen together where each can find solace in like minded can't-move-on-ers leaving the rest of us to actually move forward and discuss meaningful and relevant topics.
Hehe you're not gonna find any effect of the choices, beside the letters in the mailbox from NPC's of previous quests reminding you of what you did.
Because a real effect would be that an NPC(whom you either chose to spare or wack) from a previous quest reappears in a later quest, and changes what you're about to do in some way.
This can't happen!!
because in the new quest another member of your party would say "hey i remember the choice about this guy, i DID kill him, i want my money back!"
Hehe you're not gonna find any effect of the choices, beside the letters in the mailbox from NPC's of previous quests reminding you of what you did.
Actually, that isn't true. I can recall that I had the exact same situation on 1 of the starter planets, I grouped up with someone for some quests, I had killed a guy, he didn't. He got a totally different outcome than I had and he had to do follow up quests that were different than mine. I only found out when I asked 'what are we doing here?' and he answered that it was follow up of the quest we did a short time before. He had to do different tasks than I.
I was playing with my gf. She went light side Jedi Knight. I went dark side Jedi Knight.
There were times that we had to go two different ways depending on our alignment and/or dialogue choices. She was sent to defend colonists from a Sith whilst I went some where else to confront a Sith who found an artifact rarity of an orange color crystal, which I would then claim as a reward.
Most of your actions are reflected in cut scenes and dialogue how ever. Though there are always minor changes to game play. Such as who's fighting with you, who's fighting against you, will you avoid a fight, or will you pursue a fight?
Hehe you're not gonna find any effect of the choices, beside the letters in the mailbox from NPC's of previous quests reminding you of what you did.
Actually, that isn't true. I can recall that I had the exact same situation on 1 of the starter planets, I grouped up with someone for some quests, I had killed a guy, he didn't. He got a totally different outcome than I had and he had to do follow up quests that were different than mine. I only found out when I asked 'what are we doing here?' and he answered that it was follow up of the quest we did a short time before. He had to do different tasks than I.
indeed i was talking about the only valuable thing in the game, DE flashpointises
I don't know many since I haven't played many classes twice. I did note on one that I redid (because I was taking a different adv. class), that my threatening one ho that double crossed my smuggler, that she gave me money, which hadn't happened when I was in a better mood.
"Never met a pack of humans that were any different. Look at the idiots that get elected every couple of years. You really consider those guys more mature than us? The only difference between us and them is, when they gank some noobs and take their stuff, the noobs actually die." - Madimorga
So why are you asking if your going to be in denial.
I'll let time take it's course and hopefully you'll run into what you seek.
Your answer doesn't make any sense. I'm not in denial of anything. I made a point and it's the job of anyone with an opposing view to present arguments against it (assuming they have any).
But to answer your question anyways, I'm asking in response to the OP. I'm asking why he feels that a game needs to be dynamic in order to be good. I don't think that it needs to be. My reasoning, and some examples of what I consider rich static worlds, are in my previous posts.
The merits of a static or dynamic game can be debated as a matter of taste, cost, profitability, appeal, etc.
The reason SWTOR is bothersome in this regard is that the ability to affect your story was touted by Bioware. That alone is a bother. Add in the tantalizing illusion of choice all the time, and it is that much more annoying when the player realizes how devoid of impact the "choices" are.
I remember being very careful wiht my choices and even placating some quest givers for fear that my light side ways would get me some consequences. Then there was a moment on Voss when I said, "Fuck it, I have to put this sith in his place regardless of the consequences". So I did. I told the native species the truth about their history. Other than being berated for a moment in the next part of the cutscene, there was no change. Well, you would think I would be relieved that I wasn't hit with a consequence. The opposite happened. I looked back at all the other decisions I had thought through and felt stupid for having taken them seriuously.
Friendzoned -
To put it another way - a "reddit" way - I was "FRIENDZONED" by SWTOR and here I was thinking I was in the running to get some pussy.
If you meet a lady, and she isn't interested in you and doesn't lead you on, no worries. But if that same lady who isn't interested leads you on for companionship, a backup or just maybe some material gain, well the blue balls you've been carrying turn into grenades, and you want to launch those bitches into her Ford Focus and watch it burn. Had she not lead you on at all, your balls would never have armed, and there would be no reason to be upset.
SWTOR spends a lot of time pretending you have choices that affect the story when, in fact, they are just dialogue options along the conveyor belt to the end. Choice is a lie in SWTOR, but it wouldn't be that big a deal if they didn't come SOOO close during their "revolutionary" voice acting then have it be completely pointless 99.99% of the time outside of those coveted cutscenes.
Shit, WoW is honest about it. You need to do X. Either do it or don't. We don't care what you do. No ability to influence that story and the events outside of the quest window.
OR WoW will, as another poster mentioned, let you make choices which do change your situation in the game in terms of faction rep. If I choose Aldor it's a shitty road back to being able to be Scryer, and if I go up the wrong elevator or land in the wrong part of Shattrath (hilarious name, btw - the wrath of having shat) I get attacked and exiled.
Funny enough, WoW has more options for shaping your destiny than SWTOR.
WoW never pretended it wanted anything other than my friendship, so my balls never went weapon ready, whereas SWTOR practically lapdances us at every turn.
Most changes are minor, changes in dialogue for the most part. However, saying that your choices never affect the game is simply not factual. There are many many quests where your choices will affect where you go, who you kill (sometimes not having to kill anything), and things like that. I had the option to help a Jawa in exchange for something that I want from him, choosing to help him (light side option) gives you an extra quest to go repair things then he gives you the item; choose to not help him (dark side) and you simply take what you want from him.
Of course, your story will change based on your choices as well. In the agent storyline, you're asked to kill an important character. If you kill him, he haunts your mind later on. If you don't, I assume he just contacts you. Who knows how these characters will appear (or not appear) in later additions to the storyline.
I agree that the choices doesn't change your prelined path. They simply can't do that in an MMO this big. Just having 1 fork for each class, and the possibilities are mind numbing. You'd have to double all the story content from that point on (until the end of the chapter at least). Do that times 8, crasiness.
People who were expecting stories to fork all over the place, take you on wildly different paths were diluding themselves about how big a game can realistically be. Swtor is exactly what I was expecting. I didn't get "blue balls" as you so eloquently put it, because I didn't give in to the hype. The game is certainly not perfect. But I'm playing it as an online KOTOR 3/mmo in which you pvp and run dungeons with friends as well as open world group content. Once again, expecting anything more is self dilusion.
Comments
Maybe you like a dynamic world. Others do not. Some people like WoW, other like Eve. 2 very different game styles. Not one is better than the other.
Just because you like a dynamic world better, doesn't make it objectively better. Plus, who says you can't have a rich static world?
Lol I pray this is a satire.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
Yes, thank you, I would very much like to see that reformed sith lord around. But he needn't be stuck in my ship. There are all kinds of instanced areas in TOR for them to added him and other npc characters from your story that you could visit later as you continued your story. Like all those landing bays. They could have added characters from that planet's story into your landing bay instance for the planet. And they need not be in there permanently. They could have been given X% chance for characters Y and Z being in the instance walking/lounging around (possibly with a nice short interactive bit as a cherry on top). That way you still see these characters during and after your personal story reducing some of that ephemeral quality.
And, at this point w/o GW2 being released you have no idea how the orphanage/hospital choice affects the player story. If you save the hospital the story could send you to Ebonhawke versus sending you to Demetra if you saved the orphanage. Yes in both storys you'll probably later end up going to Lion's Arch, but the path you took to get there would have been different. While this is all just a made up possibility on my part it is still a possibility. So you can't just state as if it's a fact, at this point in time, that that choice does nothing for your story like it does in TOR. Oh, and it's not just a husk of a building that lies forgotten lest you forget the sad orphans. I mean I sure don't want mopey sad orphans in my home instance.
Also, we have seen choices in GW2 that significantly change your story. If you choose one legion (I forget if it's Iron or Blood) as a charr your story starts you off challenging the leader of your warband in a giant colessium. If you choose Ash Legion your story starts you in a different direction where you're using stealth to help gather info on threats to the charr legions outside of a bar. The rewards you gain from doing these first story missions are the same (same amount of gold/karma/ choice of weapon/armor rewards) but the story you played out was different.
Lastly, the whole reason I replied to you in the first place was that I disagreed with your implication that for the most part the story choices in GW2 would be just as meaningless as those seen in TOR. You are free to disagree to however an extent as you wish. And the reason I replied to your next post was because you said I was simply wrong even though simply doesn't apply. The world is filled with shades of grey. What I see as meaningful is not going to be the same for everyone. Such things are not simple-those shades of grey are some of the most complexing things around.
I assure you it's not. Again, no one has really made the case to me as to why a dynamic world is objectively better than a static one. WoW, LOTRO, FFXI are extremelly static worlds. I consider those as pretty decent MMOs and rich static worlds. For some people, these kinds of "static" MMOs are not for them. Sure, no problem. But to say that they're bad because they're static, or that static worlds are worse than dynamic ones doesn't make any sense to me.
Again, so far, to oppose this point of view, I've only seen people post one liners dismissing it. So I ask again, why should I consider a dynamic world to be better than a static one. There are in fact no objective reasons why it is.
-edit-
Also, don't get me wrong. I find dynamic worlds to be fun as well.
So why are you asking if your going to be in denial.
I'll let time take it's course and hopefully you'll run into what you seek.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
Your answer doesn't make any sense. I'm not in denial of anything. I made a point and it's the job of anyone with an opposing view to present arguments against it (assuming they have any).
But to answer your question anyways, I'm asking in response to the OP. I'm asking why he feels that a game needs to be dynamic in order to be good. I don't think that it needs to be. My reasoning, and some examples of what I consider rich static worlds, are in my previous posts.
I'll give you a couple
1) Faction: ie. you choose Republic you can't be a Sith
2) Specie: depending on the race you want to play (but human) your are limited to the classes you can play
3) Space ship: you either choose your class or your space ship type
4) Story: if you choose a type of story you can't really choose your type of combat skills
5) Weapons: Each class is mostly limited to only one type of weapon
6) Gear: you choose your gear color palette when you choose your class
7) Companions: 1st your class has mandatory companions, then you are required to use specific companions to fit needed roles.
8) Colors: your weapons laser colors are set when you choose your side
Ok it's not events still choices matters in TOR. Maybe a bit too much
Didn't kill you. At best knocked you out. Just saying.
The merits of a static or dynamic game can be debated as a matter of taste, cost, profitability, appeal, etc.
The reason SWTOR is bothersome in this regard is that the ability to affect your story was touted by Bioware. That alone is a bother. Add in the tantalizing illusion of choice all the time, and it is that much more annoying when the player realizes how devoid of impact the "choices" are.
I remember being very careful wiht my choices and even placating some quest givers for fear that my light side ways would get me some consequences. Then there was a moment on Voss when I said, "Fuck it, I have to put this sith in his place regardless of the consequences". So I did. I told the native species the truth about their history. Other than being berated for a moment in the next part of the cutscene, there was no change. Well, you would think I would be relieved that I wasn't hit with a consequence. The opposite happened. I looked back at all the other decisions I had thought through and felt stupid for having taken them seriuously.
Friendzoned -
To put it another way - a "reddit" way - I was "FRIENDZONED" by SWTOR and here I was thinking I was in the running to get some pussy.
If you meet a lady, and she isn't interested in you and doesn't lead you on, no worries. But if that same lady who isn't interested leads you on for companionship, a backup or just maybe some material gain, well the blue balls you've been carrying turn into grenades, and you want to launch those bitches into her Ford Focus and watch it burn. Had she not lead you on at all, your balls would never have armed, and there would be no reason to be upset.
SWTOR spends a lot of time pretending you have choices that affect the story when, in fact, they are just dialogue options along the conveyor belt to the end. Choice is a lie in SWTOR, but it wouldn't be that big a deal if they didn't come SOOO close during their "revolutionary" voice acting then have it be completely pointless 99.99% of the time outside of those coveted cutscenes.
Shit, WoW is honest about it. You need to do X. Either do it or don't. We don't care what you do. No ability to influence that story and the events outside of the quest window.
OR WoW will, as another poster mentioned, let you make choices which do change your situation in the game in terms of faction rep. If I choose Aldor it's a shitty road back to being able to be Scryer, and if I go up the wrong elevator or land in the wrong part of Shattrath (hilarious name, btw - the wrath of having shat) I get attacked and exiled.
Funny enough, WoW has more options for shaping your destiny than SWTOR.
WoW never pretended it wanted anything other than my friendship, so my balls never went weapon ready, whereas SWTOR practically lapdances us at every turn.
Someone please make a good MMO.
LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
8) is a lie!!!!
Your light and dark side decides your weapon color options - both for your "lasers" and the light sabers.
Someone please make a good MMO.
...which can be found in what I said (and what you quoted):
"Ultimately, the choices and their effects are there, you just have to be looking for them. You also need a base for comparison otherwise it seems like your choices didn't matter. Unfortunately, they are very watered down and bland (for the most part) as to be easy on the MMOers and not force them into a certain route due to outcome. It's much like what GW2 talks about in trying to keep the dynamic events from turning into "NO GUYS! FAIL THIS PART! THE OUTCOME IS BETTER' which takes away all 'choice' of the matter and undermines it's very existence."
We really need separate forums for every newly launched game. There can be the anti-<MMO> one and there can be the 'what general discussion should be' one. All the lamenting can happen together where each can find solace in like minded can't-move-on-ers leaving the rest of us to actually move forward and discuss meaningful and relevant topics.
Hehe you're not gonna find any effect of the choices, beside the letters in the mailbox from NPC's of previous quests reminding you of what you did.
Because a real effect would be that an NPC(whom you either chose to spare or wack) from a previous quest reappears in a later quest, and changes what you're about to do in some way.
This can't happen!!
because in the new quest another member of your party would say "hey i remember the choice about this guy, i DID kill him, i want my money back!"
that's why choices cannot work in TOR.
the best blog of the net
Actually, that isn't true. I can recall that I had the exact same situation on 1 of the starter planets, I grouped up with someone for some quests, I had killed a guy, he didn't. He got a totally different outcome than I had and he had to do follow up quests that were different than mine. I only found out when I asked 'what are we doing here?' and he answered that it was follow up of the quest we did a short time before. He had to do different tasks than I.I was playing with my gf. She went light side Jedi Knight. I went dark side Jedi Knight.
There were times that we had to go two different ways depending on our alignment and/or dialogue choices. She was sent to defend colonists from a Sith whilst I went some where else to confront a Sith who found an artifact rarity of an orange color crystal, which I would then claim as a reward.
Most of your actions are reflected in cut scenes and dialogue how ever. Though there are always minor changes to game play. Such as who's fighting with you, who's fighting against you, will you avoid a fight, or will you pursue a fight?
-Azure Prower
http://www.youtube.com/AzurePrower
indeed i was talking about the only valuable thing in the game, DE flashpointises
the best blog of the net
I don't know many since I haven't played many classes twice. I did note on one that I redid (because I was taking a different adv. class), that my threatening one ho that double crossed my smuggler, that she gave me money, which hadn't happened when I was in a better mood.
"Never met a pack of humans that were any different. Look at the idiots that get elected every couple of years. You really consider those guys more mature than us? The only difference between us and them is, when they gank some noobs and take their stuff, the noobs actually die." - Madimorga
Most changes are minor, changes in dialogue for the most part. However, saying that your choices never affect the game is simply not factual. There are many many quests where your choices will affect where you go, who you kill (sometimes not having to kill anything), and things like that. I had the option to help a Jawa in exchange for something that I want from him, choosing to help him (light side option) gives you an extra quest to go repair things then he gives you the item; choose to not help him (dark side) and you simply take what you want from him.
Of course, your story will change based on your choices as well. In the agent storyline, you're asked to kill an important character. If you kill him, he haunts your mind later on. If you don't, I assume he just contacts you. Who knows how these characters will appear (or not appear) in later additions to the storyline.
I agree that the choices doesn't change your prelined path. They simply can't do that in an MMO this big. Just having 1 fork for each class, and the possibilities are mind numbing. You'd have to double all the story content from that point on (until the end of the chapter at least). Do that times 8, crasiness.
People who were expecting stories to fork all over the place, take you on wildly different paths were diluding themselves about how big a game can realistically be. Swtor is exactly what I was expecting. I didn't get "blue balls" as you so eloquently put it, because I didn't give in to the hype. The game is certainly not perfect. But I'm playing it as an online KOTOR 3/mmo in which you pvp and run dungeons with friends as well as open world group content. Once again, expecting anything more is self dilusion.