Your definition of dynamic is a little off. Dynamic means "continuous change" which is actually the opposite of what DEs are currently given a long time scale. A world being dynamic changes around you based on your actions. Dynamic in no way means the same events have to repeat themselves in order to fulfill the definition. They only made it this way because it's an MMO and they have to repeat themselves for all players to be able to enjoy them. Look at any modern RPG - almost all of them you encounter an event in the game that gives you a choice which changes the outcome of the game. If you put those throughout the games you're in a dynamic world and those are "dynamic events". Lots of games have that.
Are you sure you played GW2 at all? First dynamic event you come across in the human zone is the irrigation system water supply. Bandits want to sabotage it to cause a drought which will lead to a famine. They will try to poison it, if you stop them then they will try to blow up the pipe lines, if you dont stop them then it get poisoned, green myst will come out, further down hill the sprinklers will start spraying the green stuff which will cause ooze. This will lead to yet another event to clean the water supply up which will lead to the bandits trying to sabotage the pipe line. if they manage you will need guard the engineers to fix the piple as obviously the bandits will try to stop them.
This means that at any one time the story of this irigation system can go:
X Bandits Tried to Poison -> they failed -> they tried to blow up -> they failed -> safe for a while
X Bandits Tried to poision -> they succeeded -> clean up the ooze and create an antidote -> cover engineer while he delivers antidote -> success -> bandits try to blow it up -> they fail -> safe for a while
X Bandits Tried to poision -> they succeeded -> clean up the ooze and create an antidote -> cover engineer while he delivers antidote -> bandits try to blow it up -> they succeeded -> Engineers try to fix it -> Engineers fail -> Irigation remains broken for a while
X Bandits Tried to poision -> they succeeded -> clean up the ooze and create an antidote -> cover engineer while he delivers antidote -> bandits try to blow it up -> they succeeded -> Engineers try to fix it -> Engineers succeeds -> Irigation remains safe for a while
.. Anyhow this is getting boring now. I will not write every possible combination
Suffice to say there are 4 different states that all have 2 possible outcomes which means at any one point in time the story of this dynamic event chain can go in 16 different ways. how can you say its the same thing repeating if there are 16 different paths the story can go based on player success or failure? Whats more these changes happen whether you're there or not!
Naming one structured quest in the game does not mean the game has no dynamic events. In Act 2 (Roche) there are camps being under attack by Rotfiends and if you don't save them - they're dead. There are similarly many quests that involve a choice that impact the rest of the game. You can choose to allow Roche to kill King Henselt which then has a drastic impact in how the game ends. You can also (must be done quickly) choose to throw Iorveth his sword in order to defends himself - or you can leave him for dead. A "DE" triggers in Act 2 when you see a man training for a duel to the death coming up. You can choose to fight by him in order to avoid his certain death - or you can allow him to go through with it. All of these events change the story in various ways and they're all dynamic. GW2 just tried to make the concept of choice prevalent in their game.
You yourself have just defined dynamic events as: "Dynamic means "continuous change"" and you are quoting events that yes branch the story but have just a single time impact. so yes camp is attacked by rotfiends, you save it, it will never be attacked again even if you leave the game running for a 100 years which doesnt make sense in world terms either ! Rotfiends are all around you're attacked by them all the time but this camp suffers one attack only that you essentially trigger!
Again, this isn't true of all games. You keep saying all games have only static quests which makes me believe you've played few RPGs. There are many RPGs with time based quests that if you do not do them in a certain time, the negative outcome will happen. Mass Effect is a current example of featuring that, but also The Witcher has some of those as well. Hell, lots of games have that.
No it isnt. Yes some quests might be on a timer but the timer only starts after you trigger the quest. Going back to your specific example from the witcher 2,
you have a timer on how long you can think whether you want to throw Iorveth
his sword or not but that timer is designed in such away to work around you. In this case simply speaking events happen in a total convient way. You're basically caught up between 3 sides but the moment you get the timer is when you're free to act on it. If roche came just a few seconds when you start fighting letho you wouldnt be able to throw the sword even if you wanted to for example but no he shows up exactly before that fight begins. Also they shoot the skoiatel but not Iorveth? A better example was the other example about the camp attacked by the rotfiends, you can never get to the camp and find everyone dead simply because you got late because you stopped doing something else along the way. Simply every quest is static waiting there conviniently for the player. Its like the player always has perfect timing up to the milli second to see it in real world terms.
This is a strange comparison, as the outcomes in GW2 are much more limited than the ones in The Witcher 2. GW2 has a positive outcome and a negative outcome for every dynamic event. There is no shades of grey. You help them or you don't. Then the next quest proceeds. Saying they have "unexpected random results" is really really confusing to me. As I said - they have 2 results. And to you saying they "happen randomly" that's also false - ANet doesn't have devs sitting by randomly pressing a button to trigger a DE. They're all timer based assumingly dependent (maybe even not) how many players are in the game. You talk of walkthroughs as making players know every step. Not only does that ruin the fun, the same thing can happen to GW2 in a month or even less. Give GW2 some time and players will come up with a wiki (they probably already have) that lists the location of every DE, the positive or negative effect that comes after it, and the time it takes for the DE to start up again. Games have to be structured up to a point, I don't know how you can argue GW2 is completely freeform.
You missunderstood me I never said things happen randomly, I said you never know which stage of the chain you're going to be facing with. Back to my original example on the irrigation system I can go there and find it quite, I can go there and find it already poisoned, I can go there and find bandits trying to poison it etc.. There is no guaranteed state of any dynamic events because they play out dynamic all the time unlike single player RPG where the quest doesnt play out until triggered. If I start The witcher 2 a million times I know that every single quest will be in preciesly the same state.
Also I never said Gw2 is freeform, This is not a sandbox which is also generally not totally free form either. I only said that Dynamic events are really dynamic, as in they continously change the world around you walk by the irrigation system 16 times and each time you could possibly see something different happening there. Walk by the same camp 16 times in The witcher and it will be the same all the time.
Another advantage of GW2 is that in time it will evolve, as new Dynamic events are introduced and existant ones are made to trigger more infrequent it will make the game feel more alive imho
This is a good point and one I made to an extreme. I just said "the best story ever" because with the way a lot of posts are making it sound they think that GW2 has the best everything in a game. I'm of the personal opinion that the storyline in GW2 is bland. Not perhaps bad, but bland and not enjoyable. Of course this is subjective to a point, but I really don't even think it can qualify as a good story. If GW2 were a book detailing one path, it would be a bad one. But that's just it - it's a game. An MMO no less, as Heart has said MMOs have generally been weak in the story department so it doesn't impact the game as much as other genres and you can still have fun.
Agree, story is subjective! I like it, (dont think is exceptional dont get me wrong certainly not the best ever, but it keeps me engaged) you find it blant
There's a few - to say that GW2 was the first to have different playable characters with different storylines would be wrong. In fact, GW2 has a starting system that borrows directly from Dragon Age: Origins. Secret of Mana 2 had 3 different complete storylines and that game came out in 1995.
I never said Gw2 was the first one to have different storylines I said it has perhaps the most main storylines especially compared to single player games.
Edited by XPhiler, 06 September 2012 - 01:51 PM.