Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help
* * * * - 4 votes

Repetition & How Guild Wars 2 is not your average MMORPG.

repetition not average co-op leveling role playing game

  • Please log in to reply
128 replies to this topic

#61 mentalvortex

mentalvortex

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 300 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 01:27 PM

View PostCailais, on 06 September 2012 - 01:15 PM, said:

Quite possible.  My guess is that Arena Net faced competing and contradictory design goals.  On one hand they wanted to step away or distance GW2 from the traditional quest+zone design delivered successfully by WOW whilst on the other hand they recognised that many players would be conditioned to expect this design format.  

GW2 is (probably rightly) a compromise.  I still think that the lack of sufficient resources in a given zone to fully level to progress is deliberate.  It pushes the player into doing 'something else' in order to progress and that drive to receive a reward is presumably intended to reduce the impression of repetition.  Using the skinner box model GW2 is basically saying "you wont get any more rewards here - why don't you try that box over there?"   By moving boxes your perception is one of change rather than grind (visual / audio clues giving the illusion of newness).

Why is that important? Well we tend to experience new things as being more exciting, less tedious and more rewarding - hence anti-grind. It's something of a trick of course (killing 10 centuars is really no different to killing 10 swamp spiders) but because the background stimuli is different we perceive the same process as being new and therefore fun.  

C.
Very well put. Personally, I never think gating should be used as a mechanic to force players to explore. The "themepark" based MMO revolves around the player wanting to explore if they so wish. "Hey, you've got to go look around for more stuff to do before progressing" seems less like a choice and more of a demand. The point of a "themepark" game is exactly that. Whatever seems the most appealing to you - go do it, not because you have to but because you want to.

You're right. It's a compromise - but I still hate having my hand forced. If they want to improve the overall fun of completing tasks they have to remove the value of reward that comes with it. I could write pages on this though, so if you're interested in what I mean you can look at this interesting talk of the system of "rewards".

http://chrishecker.c...idered_Harmful?

#62 mastermage264

mastermage264

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 25 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 01:36 PM

I've seen a few posts here about not being at the high enough level for an area when you get 100% map complete. I know the thread isn't dedicated to this topic, but I want to know a bit more about it.

Since I haven't seen this on any of my characters yet (54, 12, 9) I'm wondering if it's part of specific zones or what. When going through a zone I'll 100% it, do about 10 or so DE's, level up crafting by 50 or so levels, get a bunch of extra mats gathering things I don't use in current professions, and do the story quests in that area. After all that I'm normally a level or so above where I need to be. Add to that the story and explorable dungeons (4 total runs per dungeon), jumping puzzles if I find them (AWESOME!), some sPvP and WvW on the side, and I'm bleeding xp. In fact right now I'm trying to catch up in zones, as I'm about 5 levels too high.

Everything but zone completion, and even some of that, I do with friends. I know there is some xp boost to that, is that why I haven't run into this issue? I also tend to try and finish the daily achievements and such. I'm curious what everyone else is doing besides running through hearts/poi/vista/waypoints, as I've heard of this issue quite a few times.

#63 XPhiler

XPhiler

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1826 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 01:37 PM

View PostTyranno, on 06 September 2012 - 12:07 PM, said:

It would appear that Misce has achieved his goal, trolling like hell and derailing a thread into oblivion. Bravo.

On-topic: OP just fyi, but I think they did away with the flat-levleing curve, at least at the upper levels. It certainly seemed like it at 60+.

I'd agree with your other points though OP

Are you sure? dont think they can really do away with flat-leveling curve because activities give a percentage XP and not a fixed XP amount. Example A dynamic event gives 7% of its level in XP

for it takes 15 DE to level from level 1 to level 2 and 15 DE to level from level 79 to 80

However that being said its entirely possible that 1 lvl 1 DE takes 2 minutes to complete while a level 79 to 80 DE might take 30 mins to complete! do you think its that perhaps?

#64 XPhiler

XPhiler

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1826 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 01:43 PM

View Postmentalvortex, on 06 September 2012 - 12:13 PM, said:

I'm going to help you out on this point because I've said the same thing and people are going to jump over you saying "you're wrong." There have been players voicing the exact opposite - that leveling is extremely quick and they're getting to 80 much too quickly. The main difference is crafting.

You and I seem to not be crafting very much (none at all in my case since the beginning) so we're at a disadvantage for experience gaining. Like you said, getting 100% isn't enough - you have to do outside things. People who enjoy crafting and spend their time farming all their nodes while they go for 100% seem to be able to progress to the next area. I think it should be agreed upon that not crafting shouldn't be punishable. The JOYSTIQ review for example expressed our problems with leveling - so we're not alone in this fact.

Just wanted to say you're not alone before you get jumped all over.

conceptually you are right but I just think its not crafting thats at an issue. I am wayyyyy over levelled and barely did any crafting I am saying like my crafting is lvl 25 or so out of 400

I think its probably more how many Dynamic Events you end up doing. Something that I observed is most people finish the dynamic event at hand and just run off looking for the next missing out the rest of the chain. And something else I do that I certainly dont expect others to do but I it might be why I am extremely overleveled is I wait for events to happen. So If there is an NPC, I talk to him and if it suggests that a Dynamic event might happen, say because he complains that the grawl are causing him trouble, I stick around even 15 minutes to check out the story.

But I think by far the problem is the moment a Dynamic Event gives XP people just run off even if you tell them that the event chains! And this is true for nearly every Dynamic Event out there .If you hang around and follow the NPCs more dynamic events happen telling the story of the dynamic event chain. If you run off you end up getting 1/4 the XP the event chain generally gives (the majority of the chains are 4 events long in my experiance)

#65 XPhiler

XPhiler

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1826 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 01:51 PM

View Postmentalvortex, on 06 September 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

I think it's the former given how they laid out the game. Areas being completely revealed to you on the map as soon as you enter them and every area containing at least one waypoint seems to show that they intended ease of movement from one area to another. I think if they wanted to achieve as you stated they could have used the "fog of war" mechanic in where you actually have to be at a certain area to permanently reveal it on the map. That could be very easily implemented.

It is "complete zone A to complete zone B" though. I don't see how this is jarring in the least.

Actually they do that, especially for discoverable areas that arent Points of interest, they'll be shrouded until you get there and you get XP for revealing them. They are also quite far of any Way point. they are areas that you dont really need to travel too except for the sake of exploring

#66 mentalvortex

mentalvortex

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 300 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 01:56 PM

View PostXPhiler, on 06 September 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

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!


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!


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,
<spoil>
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.
</spoil>



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

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 :)



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.
I feel like I'll be repeating points so I'm not going to go quote by quote this time.

First off, you're still misusing dynamic. Events do not need to repeat in order to be dynamic. They don't. Let me give you how even the events in GW2 were defined.

Quote

They are called "dynamic" because there are multiple outcomes that also result in new events, creating a cascade effect.

None of this has to do with it happening again. Zero. Now that we have that out of the way, I can re-iterate the same bandit point you did except for Witcher 2 phrasing. Saying no other games have DEs is really weird since it's the whole point of RPGs in the first place. Let me give you an example.

Kill Henselt -> Aedirn becomes ungoverned -> Henselt does not show up in Act 3 -> same as "don't side with henselt" options
Save Henselt -> Aedirn is under Kaedweni control -> Henselt takes place in the meeting in Act 3 -> Side with Henselt -> Henselt becomes the new king -> The Council takes form
Save Henselt -> Aedirn is under Kaedweni control ->Henselt takes place in the meeting in Act 3 -> Don't side with Henselt -> Hand Anais to Radovid -> Temeria becomes a protectorate of Redania -> The Council takes form
Save Henselt -> Aedn becomes under Kaedweni control Henselt takes place in the meeting in Act 3 -> Don't side with Henselt -> Hand Anais to Natalis -> Anais becomes queen of Temeria -> The Council and other mages are hunted

These are a chain of events and are "dynamic events" as described in the definition I just gave. You can say GW2 approaches them differently with their timer-based dynamic events rather than quest based but that doesn't mean they aren't dynamic events. Saying otherwise is misuse of definition. Permanent change is a better function of dynamic events because it's more realistic. The same swamp monster being triggered 50 times within the course of a day cheapens "lasting impact on the world", do you not agree? Lasting impact should be permanent because it makes your option more weighty. "Oh no I didn't protect the water supply from the bandits" is never something I think of in GW2 because they're going to attempt to do so every half hour. Would you say you're honestly so worried about the townsfolk that get attacked every 30 minutes that you protect the area and never leave it? Of course not, because you know you'd be there forever. Events that repeat every 30 minutes are bound to cheapen the experience of "lasting effects" because they are in fact not lasting.

You saying I never played GW2 when you then repeated what I said is weird. I said there was 2 options for each DE, you said "have you even played this game? there's 2 options for each DE!" Uh, yeah. Yes there's 16 total options, but it's still just positive and negative. Still no shades of grey. The events I listed above are shades of grey. Henselt is a greedy person, but the alternatives to him being king are placing your faith in a 6 year old girl as well as having the blame being focused on all the mages and having them all slaughtered OR having Temaria be part of Redania and not a free country. Which is the best? There's no clear option. However - it's up to you to make that option.

I just want to make sure you understand what "dynamic" means and that "dynamic events" in GW2 is just the option of choice on how the world is impacted. The only reason they are repeated is because it's an MMO. The fact they are repeated has no holding on them being "dynamic" or not. Are we understood on that?

Edited by mentalvortex, 06 September 2012 - 01:59 PM.


#67 raspberry jam

raspberry jam

    Vigil Crusader

  • Members
  • 4814 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 01:58 PM

View PostXPhiler, on 06 September 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

But I think by far the problem is the moment a Dynamic Event gives XP people just run off even if you tell them that the event chains! And this is true for nearly every Dynamic Event out there .If you hang around and follow the NPCs more dynamic events happen telling the story of the dynamic event chain. If you run off you end up getting 1/4 the XP the event chain generally gives (the majority of the chains are 4 events long in my experiance)
That's because people don't really give a crap about the event; they just want the reward. Yes you lose out on 3/4 of the event xp from the chain but who cares? While you're not doing those events, you can do other things that give roughly as much xp.

#68 XPhiler

XPhiler

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1826 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 02:02 PM

View Postmentalvortex, on 06 September 2012 - 01:09 PM, said:

Honestly, the only reason that people are bashing WoW is because it was marketed that way. I have never seen more WoW bashing on any other MMO in my life. A few of the interviews Colin and others took potshot at WoW, as well as the game being marketed as "the MMO for people who don't like MMOs [WoW]".

So now that the game is released, of course players think that this game has to be the biggest departure from WoW in order for them to fully enjoy it. Many of them have not played WoW, either. As you stated, the game shares a ton of similarities with WoW and I've said the exact same thing that the game borrows more from WoW than it does in GW. I've been posting in another topic recently where people have been telling me that ANet has planned for a departure from GW and a more generic MMO style. I won't get into how wrong I think that is simply from the interviews saying it would be completely different from the MMO formula - but the release seems to be the case.

Many reviews of the game thus far have said "while the game is not revolutionary - it improves upon the MMO formula". That's what you're getting with GW2. I've personally vented disappointment because I wanted a departure from the MMO formula - but many still try to argue that the game is revolutionary.

I'd make a topic called "Do you think GW2 is revolutionary?" but I'd be flamed and the general consensus (since this is a fansite) would be yes.

Its not the features that make the game, its the game play.
Most of those features where not invented by WoW anyway.
It is true that Gw2 adopts phylosofies that are somewhat different then WoW
sPvP where everyone is on the same term where in WoW times gives you the advantage
Based on my experiance long long long ago crafting in WoW was pointless and I mean Pointless I would spend hours going around looking for material only to build a weapon that in less then 5 mins I would get a better version from a drop and I think though not entirely sure that you still cant get the best weapons and armors from crafting in WoW, they are still optainable just from Raids which again is something that GW2 fans likely dislike for various reasons.

Not bashing either game just pointing out that in my remote experiance at least while both GW2 and WoW have crafting and while on a conceptual level it works sorta the same except for a few differences The experiance of doing one is entirely different from doing the other.

Just cause games share features it doesnt mean they're a like!

#69 dirkaderpa

dirkaderpa

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 204 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 02:03 PM

I played like this from the beginning and am lvl 22 lol! I've been in the game since the headstart! But, I mean its kind of fun, but playing like this just feels like I'm playing a crappy version of skyrim. The game isn't as lax as you'd think, there's always a rush to help out in DE's so that you get a reward. You can't just derp around in the world, you have to help out at a particular heart or you get no reward. I find that very irritating and would only enjoy it if I was in fact trying to clear the zones fast to level my character. I find the game isn't built too strongly on immersion either, the DE's seem to just be there to increase your level, not serve as quests that increase your immersion, since the "lasting impact" your actions have on the world is below negligible. If you aren't RUSHING through the world like I guess you should be doing, you'll see the same DE spawn 10-15 times under an hour. So no, the game still very much pushes for you to level up and stuff like that.

I find it somewhere in between a really chill game like skyrim, I would be much happier if leveling didn't really matter and I could go to the endgame zones whenever I wanted like skyrim, and a game where you get obsessed with progression and making yourself leet, like WoW. Ultimately it fails at both...

Edited by dirkaderpa, 06 September 2012 - 02:06 PM.


#70 InfiniteRetro

InfiniteRetro

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 482 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 02:03 PM

View PostXPhiler, on 06 September 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

Since I guess you're refering to me cause I am the one that brought that subject, I will answer you. I stopped playing WoW in time when indoctrination told me that GW was a bad game that was only about pvp so I had completely skipped over it at that time. I didnt get to play Gw1 until years after I stopped playing WoW. Anyhow I wasnt talking about WoW (there are many other MMOs out there not just WoW) because from what I hear leveling in WoW changed substentially since I played so I cannot really comment on that any longer.

Always Keep in mind different people have different tastes, Just like you believe people who think leveling in WoW is not fun are brainwashed so do others think people who think that GW2 has the same experiance as other MMOs are just as equally brainwashed as well.

Truth is no game can be everything for everyone.

If you like story and you have the pacience to follow dynamic events and lore while playing they're just great an unparallell experiance! If on other hand you like to get into the action and kill stuff, Gw2 is likely to be something you will not like and not see any difference from other games cause all you'll do is run around homing in on any dynamic event you see, reach its objective and move on. If all you do is kill stuff then yes Gw2 is like any other MMO you kill stuff in there too. Whats different is the presentation but obviously people who dont care about that in the first place will not see the difference while people who care about that stuff will see it clearly as day!

Look, levels, skill, armor whatever is all a progression system. Its not really that different, in TSW progression works similar to GW1 you're still getting essentially getting Experiance that you use to buy the skills to form up your build. Without the necessary skills and armor you'll still not be able to experiances high level zones because you will end up dead. Whats the difference between that an a Level?

i wasnt actually writing that in reference to you just something ive observed over the last few months. people seem to not realise that Wow did more positive than negative and invigorated mmos out of the basement and into another genre people can play without being looked at like they're weird.

simply its age isnt an excuse for some to think its bad. vanilla to what is in MoP is thankfully for me a welcome change. i dont have the time to do hours and hours of dungeons like in vanilla. with dungeon/raid timers etc you can do them piecemeal, come back and continue (great feature). since i have barely raided though my experience in wow and what i still havent done blows my mind. theres almost TOO much content, for an mmo though, content is key and accessing it in a manner for all is also important to.

gw1, will never be topped out of it and its sequel. i think along the way lots of the very interesting ideas like upscaling, a companion you could take with you in case you couldnt find other players etc all went out the window for bigger ambitions which unfortunately rely TOO much on other players.

i know its strange to say, but WoW proved this. vanilla/tbc most quests ended with a boss fight. usually needing a group. sometimes it was difficult to get a group and since you couldnt get other quests you were stunted. now, the questing system is built for people who want to progress forward with or without anyone and the world bosses/dungeons/raids are the places for organised teams. again, lots of quests in vanilla/tbc ended up making you go into a dungeon to, so again, was sometimes a big process/time consuming to simply finish this.

its 2012, peoples time is short. having a game focused solely on needing players (dynamic events, storyline, Orr) is a bad move. because you have to answer the 'what if' question. what if theres no one around? its already proving its stunting advancement for players. yes you can level up doing other things, but you also have to ask 'what if people arent interested in the things anet are making as mandatory for xp farming when in other games they are simply the side dish IF you wish to participate?

these are key questions i dont think they have fully answered. and yet, funnily enough, gw1 did. heroes/henchmen and i actually preferred crafting in gw1. i liked having an npc simply require me to rock up with the materials because id never seen it in an mmo before.

im not alone in this. gw1 to a majority will be the superior game and anets dreams of making a wow killer (even stated they want to be number 1 despite saying they dont want wow dead) i think clouded judgements and foresight to where these systems lead.

#71 raspberry jam

raspberry jam

    Vigil Crusader

  • Members
  • 4814 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 02:05 PM

View PostRed_Falcon, on 06 September 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

I think GW2 suits players who don't need a game to tell them what to do but rather just like to set their own objectives.
For instance in GW1 I made it a personal challenge to explore all Tyria and solo every zone on my Warrior.
I made a goal to collect all the skins I liked - now that has taken me some time as some were FoW armors and very rare golds.
I even managed to solo the large majority of FoW with Talkhora keeping boons on me (skeletons were the hard part, blind spamming).
Another thing was soloing the first coop mission because I couldn't stand that you simply had to run from the charrs, I killed them all.

I feel GW2 is more of a playground for you to find your stuff to do just like GW1 rather than a game full of artificial invisible walls you have to break by grinding.
Soloing with heroes isn't soloing you tit. It's like having another player with you.

Also lol @ soloing the first mission: Killing the charrs in GNW is easy if you are level 20, even solo (without heroes/henchmen), but solo killing them when you're fresh out of pre-searing? Hahaha ok man

#72 Skjuludde

Skjuludde

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 02:10 PM

View PostInfiniteRetro, on 06 September 2012 - 10:14 AM, said:

why are people under this retardation that a game like WoW isnt fun at all until you reach level cap? i do love this anet indoctrination that all other mmos are dull and boring and somehow by stealing warhammer/rifts technology they somehow have made mmos fun again?

I haven't needed any indoctrination to have that opinion at all. I've had that opinion for a long time.
What I don't get is. Recently pretty much every game has followed the WoW formula of thing and hasn't been successful at all, some more then others but falling shortly afterwards. Then comes a game that tries to change a few core concepts of the formula and it gets critiqued for not following the WoW formula of progression for example.
I am all for reading through both positive and negative contructive critique for a game, but I think one thing is important to keep in mind when writing it. It shouldn't conflict too much or at all to the core design philosophy that the developers have had when making the game.

When you think about it, it makes sense. You want to help make the game better on the premise and the philosophy that the developers have set out for the game to have. Critique that diverges from that has a tendency to not be as useful. It doesn't mean that you have to love every aspect of the game. Personally I really dislike the underwater combat of the game, easily the weakest part of the game. That makes me avoid some 15-25% of the PvE content. If I write a detailed post on their forums describing why I dislike that feature and what I think would make the game better in that regard, wouldn't conflict any with the design philosophy the game is built on.
I can certainly regard things such as "The highest tier of items is 13% more powerful statwise then the tier below and all of them is a grind to get" since that in my opinion would help ArenaNet to follow the design philosophy they put out during the games development. Now that was an example taken from the dark, just remembered someone writing that before.

View PostMisce, on 06 September 2012 - 07:19 AM, said:

Friend, the problem is that the game is boring. Just because ANet made that conscious decision from the very start doesn't make it ok.

Hello again and sorry for before.
What is boring is highly subjective.
Btw I tried playing GW2 as I played Dragon's Lair........I died :(

#73 Fiddle

Fiddle

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 54 posts
  • Location:U.S.
  • Guild Tag:[Fate]
  • Server:Tarnished Coast

Posted 06 September 2012 - 02:17 PM

Didn't we all know this game would not be the norm from the beginning?

GW2 was not designed to be like other MMOs. Changing it defeats what ANet set out to do.

Edited by Fiddle, 06 September 2012 - 02:18 PM.


#74 Cailais

Cailais

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 349 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 02:20 PM

View Postmentalvortex, on 06 September 2012 - 01:27 PM, said:

Very well put. Personally, I never think gating should be used as a mechanic to force players to explore. The "themepark" based MMO revolves around the player wanting to explore if they so wish. "Hey, you've got to go look around for more stuff to do before progressing" seems less like a choice and more of a demand. The point of a "themepark" game is exactly that. Whatever seems the most appealing to you - go do it, not because you have to but because you want to.

You're right. It's a compromise - but I still hate having my hand forced. If they want to improve the overall fun of completing tasks they have to remove the value of reward that comes with it. I could write pages on this though, so if you're interested in what I mean you can look at this interesting talk of the system of "rewards".

http://chrishecker.c...idered_Harmful?

I can see pros and cons to both sides of the argument.  Its certainly understandable as a design choice - something I didn't mention above of course is that the next zone of progression may be out of reach for the individual but as part of a group....hence promoting social interaction.  By way of example you might find a level 17-25 zone extremely challenging as a level 12 character, but its an achievable target for multiple level 12 characters.

Something which I don't think is fully explored by the games design industry is the interaction between a 'reward' and the reward-social dynamic.  Again by way of example a social experience is, of itself, rewarding (you make new friends is a simplistic way of looking at this).  The deeper context is how a 'reward' relates to that social experience: "Whoa! That armour's amazing, where'd you get it?"  The player feels a sense of accomplishment and achievement for getting that reward but more importantly the recognition from his peers for that achievement.

Gating, whilst sometimes objectionable, is a push into more social game play which, in turn, reinforces the reward-social dynamic.  In brief AN (and most MMO developers) want you to show off your rewards to your peers and by turn feel jealousy / loss when you can't (or see others doing so) which in turn promotes you to play more in order to gain said rewards.

That cycle is an immensely powerful sales tool because it plays upon our natural desire to show off our own success and compete with others.  Its so powerful that it enables revenue generation through things like the gemstore (MTs).  What's interesting is that a few players seem to be more sensitive than others to this sales push - perhaps they are directly concious or at least sub consciously aware that they are being nudged towards the 'easier' path of buying 'rewards' to demonstrate their status within the games social hierarchy?

I do wonder if this is due to immersion breaking (you become aware that you are playing a game, and more importantly a game that's hinting you should spend more to succeed)? You seem to be consciously aware of this - but many aren't or who do not want to be: hence the arguments that erupt over topics like this.  

C.

#75 mentalvortex

mentalvortex

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 300 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 02:25 PM

View Postmastermage264, on 06 September 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

I've seen a few posts here about not being at the high enough level for an area when you get 100% map complete. I know the thread isn't dedicated to this topic, but I want to know a bit more about it.

Since I haven't seen this on any of my characters yet (54, 12, 9) I'm wondering if it's part of specific zones or what. When going through a zone I'll 100% it, do about 10 or so DE's, level up crafting by 50 or so levels, get a bunch of extra mats gathering things I don't use in current professions, and do the story quests in that area. After all that I'm normally a level or so above where I need to be. Add to that the story and explorable dungeons (4 total runs per dungeon), jumping puzzles if I find them (AWESOME!), some sPvP and WvW on the side, and I'm bleeding xp. In fact right now I'm trying to catch up in zones, as I'm about 5 levels too high.

Everything but zone completion, and even some of that, I do with friends. I know there is some xp boost to that, is that why I haven't run into this issue? I also tend to try and finish the daily achievements and such. I'm curious what everyone else is doing besides running through hearts/poi/vista/waypoints, as I've heard of this issue quite a few times.
The issue is mostly that tasks give you very little experience and crafting gives you massive experience (well, if you do a lot of it). As I said I do zero crafting, I just don't like it. I don't find that part of the game enjoyable.

Another part of it may be luck I suppose? If you run into DEs while you're exploring and completing tasks versus they're not currently happening. I feel like having 100% zone completion shouldn't have you under-leveled for the next zone. I ran around looking for DEs in order to get to the next zone - only to end up going to the Sylvari starting location so I could get enough levels to progress. I was about 3 levels behind the next zone location and story-arc quest in Kessex Foothills.

#76 Saraphiel

Saraphiel

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 02:31 PM

View PostEliirae, on 06 September 2012 - 07:24 AM, said:

How?  Your one opinion is just that: your one opinion.

Maybe you'd like it better in a WoW based game where you grind through something that isn't even considered a game to most people (the leveling up part) so you can run dungeons over and over and over to get the best gear possible, only to do it all again when a new expansion comes out.

That's just how I see it.  When someone tries to mistake their own opinion that the game is "boring" as a fact, it's usually because they don't know how to put into words how they feel about it.  Or they feel that saying they like other MMOs because you can raid the same dungeon over and over and over for no real reward will make them sound silly.

Also because you try to dismiss a guy's huge post that took effort to make with one little sentence.
Well, I think the OP's "huge post" was a bit long-winded and repetitive and could have been summed up into a paragraph or less.

But, to address your post:
You did exactly to Misce what you accuse Misce of doing to the OP, being dismissive because he has an opinion.  The bit where you alluded he would be better going back to WoW was special as well.  Nothing like being condescending and dismissive, as well as hypocritical, in one fell swoop.
.......

I think we are seeing an interesting phenomena here.  The people who have invested years watching the game develop, hyping themselves, forming a community here of like-minded individuals, have finally seen the game launch and are allowed to roam and experience the world.  I think many of these people have blinded themselves to beleive that the game is all that and a bag of chips, that ANet's overall design and product is untouchable and shouldn't be questioned.

Why do I state that?  Simple observation has shown that people who post valid criticisms get repeatedly told "the game is not for you", "leave", "go back to WoW", etc.  I'm sorry, I thought ANet, in designing an outside-the-box MMO, would nurture an equally progressive community.  All I have seen from the community (as a whole, not everyone) is intolerance for anyone that dares to touch their Holy Grail.

Is it that you are afraid to possibly admit GW2 isn't perfect?  Maybe that is why I see such viciousness directed towards the people who haven't dedicated years to the game's gestation.  People from the outside are seeing in fairly short order that the level of individual progression, your character progression, is quite anemic.  There is no doubt people are having fun, right now, but the game has been out of a week.  What about in 2 months when you've rolled through all the content over and over on alts, and you try to put your finger on why the game is feeling stale, when you have that epiphany that people are already having now:  the game is pretty, its fun (for now), but its hollow without other forms of progression.

Its all well and good to cling to perceptions that GW2 is the Next Coming, but in doing so you disallow the opinions of others, and you become fearful to become critical yourself.

I think GW2 is an excellent framework.  Yes, I said it.  It is definitely a step in the right direction with its innovations and stepping away from the current mold the market seems to be stuck in.  No one can doubt that, and I applaud what they have done.  However, there is a lot of room for improvement that a competitive company could use to their advantage.  In the same way that previous MMO's built, borrowed, and stole from their predecessor's, so too will someone look at how ANet solved many of the current problems and annoyances of the genre and take it to the next level.

But, this is simply my opinion.

#77 Nox_Aeterna

Nox_Aeterna

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 773 posts
  • Server:Jade Quarry

Posted 06 September 2012 - 02:33 PM

Maybe i played far to many MMOs by now ... but all i see is more of the same?

Granted they made few changes , which are always made by every company so the game is "unique" , in the end it is no revolution.

I admit , i had pretty damm high expectations.

It is a good game , will never go down has a legend , but hey it is fun , and it was worth the money i spent on it that is for sure.

#78 Cailais

Cailais

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 349 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 02:34 PM

View Postdirkaderpa, on 06 September 2012 - 02:03 PM, said:

I played like this from the beginning and am lvl 22 lol! I've been in the game since the headstart! But, I mean its kind of fun, but playing like this just feels like I'm playing a crappy version of skyrim. The game isn't as lax as you'd think, there's always a rush to help out in DE's so that you get a reward. You can't just derp around in the world, you have to help out at a particular heart or you get no reward. I find that very irritating and would only enjoy it if I was in fact trying to clear the zones fast to level my character. I find the game isn't built too strongly on immersion either, the DE's seem to just be there to increase your level, not serve as quests that increase your immersion, since the "lasting impact" your actions have on the world is below negligible. If you aren't RUSHING through the world like I guess you should be doing, you'll see the same DE spawn 10-15 times under an hour. So no, the game still very much pushes for you to level up and stuff like that.

I find it somewhere in between a really chill game like skyrim, I would be much happier if leveling didn't really matter and I could go to the endgame zones whenever I wanted like skyrim, and a game where you get obsessed with progression and making yourself leet, like WoW. Ultimately it fails at both...

I can understand that position - although you would obviously recognise that without a level system in some form there could be no endgame zone (as everywhere would be accessible at all times).  

The holy grail of MMOs is obviously a persistent online world (i.e where change is permanent) with no inherent progression (much like real life in fact!).  Clearly that's a nigh on impossible task.  

The closest thing MMO developers can create is an illusion of change and, to an extent, DEs achieve that.  Obviously if you look too intently the immersion cracks and the gears and levers behind the scene are clear to see. Arena Net have done a great job of trying to maximise that immersion and to suspend your disbelief through great visual and audio - but ultimately you yourself have to be willing at some level to suspend your disbelief.  

C.

#79 mentalvortex

mentalvortex

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 300 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 02:43 PM

View PostCailais, on 06 September 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:

I can see pros and cons to both sides of the argument.  Its certainly understandable as a design choice - something I didn't mention above of course is that the next zone of progression may be out of reach for the individual but as part of a group....hence promoting social interaction.  By way of example you might find a level 17-25 zone extremely challenging as a level 12 character, but its an achievable target for multiple level 12 characters.

Something which I don't think is fully explored by the games design industry is the interaction between a 'reward' and the reward-social dynamic.  Again by way of example a social experience is, of itself, rewarding (you make new friends is a simplistic way of looking at this).  The deeper context is how a 'reward' relates to that social experience: "Whoa! That armour's amazing, where'd you get it?"  The player feels a sense of accomplishment and achievement for getting that reward but more importantly the recognition from his peers for that achievement.

Gating, whilst sometimes objectionable, is a push into more social game play which, in turn, reinforces the reward-social dynamic.  In brief AN (and most MMO developers) want you to show off your rewards to your peers and by turn feel jealousy / loss when you can't (or see others doing so) which in turn promotes you to play more in order to gain said rewards.

That cycle is an immensely powerful sales tool because it plays upon our natural desire to show off our own success and compete with others.  Its so powerful that it enables revenue generation through things like the gemstore (MTs).  What's interesting is that a few players seem to be more sensitive than others to this sales push - perhaps they are directly concious or at least sub consciously aware that they are being nudged towards the 'easier' path of buying 'rewards' to demonstrate their status within the games social hierarchy?

I do wonder if this is due to immersion breaking (you become aware that you are playing a game, and more importantly a game that's hinting you should spend more to succeed)? You seem to be consciously aware of this - but many aren't or who do not want to be: hence the arguments that erupt over topics like this.  

C.
It's this sense of "reward" and "social hierarchy" you speak of that makes MMOs what they are. MMOs have a lasting appeal that no other genre has. You see very little single-player games have people pump in 5000 hours into the game or not even 1/10 of that. In an MMO that's not unheard of. How do people make games so fun that people are willing spend this much time of their lives on? In simple terms, it's the carrot on the stick. You show another side of the coin to it though, which I find is an interesting point. It's not just having gear or being a high level that motivates players - it's the interaction this causes between other players. Perhaps it's fair to say that the "carrot on the stick" isn't eaten, but rather displayed to others.

The issue is that everything you described in the post about what monetary success entails in an MMO is just the MMO formula. Never once in your post did the object of "fun" become a sales tool. The interview at the end of the lecture I posted had the developer from Farmville who operated how he changed the game based on metrics. "Polls show this is popular - let's do this." Many games operate this way and it stagnates evolution of games. Because popular features are ones that are pre-existing, new features never become developed.

When your main objective behind a game is sales your game is bound to not be anything new. This is why the CoD franchise is the same game over and over again and yet they can get away with it. They literally have to just upgrade the graphics, put in a new campaign, and they will get millions of sales.

I understand it's a business, but if you're not making a game for fun - why make games?*

*this isn't implying GW2 isn't fun - this is addressing the topic of sales and marketing devices

#80 XPhiler

XPhiler

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1826 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 02:58 PM

View Postmentalvortex, on 06 September 2012 - 01:56 PM, said:

I feel like I'll be repeating points so I'm not going to go quote by quote this time.

First off, you're still misusing dynamic. Events do not need to repeat in order to be dynamic. They don't. Let me give you how even the events in GW2 were defined.
[/size][/font][/color]
None of this has to do with it happening again. Zero. Now that we have that out of the way, I can re-iterate the same bandit point you did except for Witcher 2 phrasing. Saying no other games have DEs is really weird since it's the whole point of RPGs in the first place. Let me give you an example.
Ok I see why we dont seem to be on the same page :) you're going with the wiki description but It seems its wrong! (keep in mind wiki is populated by players) The official description is:
"Dynamic events change and evolve in response to how you interact with them, leaving lasting effects in the game world."
https://www.guildwar...dynamic-events/

And I think the change and evolve are key, so much so if we check the definition of the word Dynamic
http://www.definitio...inition/dynamic
"characterized by or producing change or progression"

Now this is probably the tricky part if change or progression happens just once, does it make it dynamic?
In my opinion it doesnt , seems in your opinion it does.

This actually an interesting question.  My main problem is the moment the change happens it definitely becomes static. But then thats true of anything that is static, anything static still had a change happening to it bringing it into existance but its still considered static. Example a Wall is static yet while it was being build it was changing become larger and larger. You dont conider the wall dynamic though just cause one point in time it was changing. Thats why in my opinion a progression that happens just once isnt really dynamic but static.

And yes The Dynamic events dont have to repeat to be dynamic but they have to keep changing, its just that repeating is the only way to achieve that realistically really!

View Postmentalvortex, on 06 September 2012 - 01:56 PM, said:

Saying otherwise is misuse of definition. Permanent change is a better function of dynamic events because it's more realistic.

Hmm no I am afraid I completely disagree that permanent change is more realistic. Its also not realistic how gw2 implements it with everything repeating even as often as every 1 hour (game time). Ideally it should be something in the middle. If the centaurs are at war with the humans its not realistic they would attack a town only once. Or driven out of their home and never try to take it back. Obvioulsy you're right and its not realistic they would retry every hour either.

View Postmentalvortex, on 06 September 2012 - 01:56 PM, said:

The same swamp monster being triggered 50 times within the course of a day cheapens "lasting impact on the world", do you not agree? Lasting impact should be permanent because it makes your option more weighty. "Oh no I didn't protect the water supply from the bandits" is never something I think of in GW2 because they're going to attempt to do so every half hour. Would you say you're honestly so worried about the townsfolk that get attacked every 30 minutes that you protect the area and never leave it? Of course not, because you know you'd be there forever. Events that repeat every 30 minutes are bound to cheapen the experience of "lasting effects" because they are in fact not lasting.

now you are cheating though you're mixing what you know with what you experiance. The swamp monster might spawn 24 times in a game day but you'll most likely only see it once or twice and probably with quite a gab between the two. They're lasting from your characters point of view. And they're certainly lasting when compared to a regular MMO quest where change is litterally counted in a couple of seconds until the mob you killed respawns.

View Postmentalvortex, on 06 September 2012 - 01:56 PM, said:

You saying I never played GW2 when you then repeated what I said is weird. I said there was 2 options for each DE, you said "have you even played this game? there's 2 options for each DE!" Uh, yeah. Yes there's 16 total options, but it's still just positive and negative. Still no shades of grey. The events I listed above are shades of grey. Henselt is a greedy person, but the alternatives to him being king are placing your faith in a 6 year old girl as well as having the blame being focused on all the mages and having them all slaughtered OR having Temaria be part of Redania and not a free country. Which is the best? There's no clear option. However - it's up to you to make that option.

Well technically I asked if you played the game, I didnt put it as a statement but anyhow you're cheating again by comparing the choices at hand with the back story. In a Dynamic Event you can suceed or you can fail true. But like wise in each quest you mention all you have are two choices as well. Do I kill Henselt or do I save him?
Dynamic events have their back story as well which is what you're calling shades of grey. Bandits aren't just trying to poison the water for fun or to give you something to do, they have an agenda. More then that saving the water supply is just 1 of 4 interconnected Dynamic Events chain that are happening in the area. Its not just an assault on the watersupply they also assault the mill to the east in order take over the store at the bottom of it. They assault the farms to the north in order to steal the life stock and at the same time they have a base of operations with their leader. So Tehcnically you do have the same shades of grey. Do I ignore the poising and go deal with the leader? do I ignore the poisioning and go stop the bandits from taking control of the food supply? do I ignore the poisoning and go save the farmers and their live stock?

Now keep in mind that Dynamic events would be more equal to side quest rather then the main story line which is full of these choices !

View Postmentalvortex, on 06 September 2012 - 01:56 PM, said:


I just want to make sure you understand what "dynamic" means and that "dynamic events" in GW2 is just the option of choice on how the world is impacted. The only reason they are repeated is because it's an MMO. The fact they are repeated has no holding on them being "dynamic" or not. Are we understood on that?

Well no, for reasons explained further up :)

View Postraspberry jam, on 06 September 2012 - 01:58 PM, said:

That's because people don't really give a crap about the event; they just want the reward. Yes you lose out on 3/4 of the event xp from the chain but who cares? While you're not doing those events, you can do other things that give roughly as much xp.

If thats how you enjoy playing sure go ahead! I am just point out why I am doing no crafting and am level 54 and just starting the level 45 area!

#81 InfiniteRetro

InfiniteRetro

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 482 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 02:58 PM

View PostSkjuludde, on 06 September 2012 - 02:10 PM, said:

I haven't needed any indoctrination to have that opinion at all. I've had that opinion for a long time.
What I don't get is. Recently pretty much every game has followed the WoW formula of thing and hasn't been successful at all, some more then others but falling shortly afterwards. Then comes a game that tries to change a few core concepts of the formula and it gets critiqued for not following the WoW formula of progression for example.
I am all for reading through both positive and negative contructive critique for a game, but I think one thing is important to keep in mind when writing it. It shouldn't conflict too much or at all to the core design philosophy that the developers have had when making the game.

When you think about it, it makes sense. You want to help make the game better on the premise and the philosophy that the developers have set out for the game to have. Critique that diverges from that has a tendency to not be as useful. It doesn't mean that you have to love every aspect of the game. Personally I really dislike the underwater combat of the game, easily the weakest part of the game. That makes me avoid some 15-25% of the PvE content. If I write a detailed post on their forums describing why I dislike that feature and what I think would make the game better in that regard, wouldn't conflict any with the design philosophy the game is built on.
I can certainly regard things such as "The highest tier of items is 13% more powerful statwise then the tier below and all of them is a grind to get" since that in my opinion would help ArenaNet to follow the design philosophy they put out during the games development. Now that was an example taken from the dark, just remembered someone writing that before.



Hello again and sorry for before.
What is boring is highly subjective.
Btw I tried playing GW2 as I played Dragon's Lair........I died :(

i think half the problem with some mmo gamers is they blame wow because OTHER developers tried to copy it. its not blizzards fault, its the other developers fault for not thinking too far outside the box. but in saying that, questing in wow has existed prior to it.

theres an mmo i cannot wait for, sandbox called ArcheAge. it has standard questing but if you get bored and only partially complete it you can hand it in and be rewarded on what you achieved. to me, this is fantastic. it also has dynamic events but they arent advertised like text messaging in gw2. it also has progression both through levelling up skill trees (classes) as well as gear etc. although gear can be worn by anyone. you can also run 3 fully functioning skill trees at the same time (naturally when all skills are unlocked).

so, gw2 touts no trinity, a jack of all trades. ArcheAge allows me to be a fully functioning healer, tank and dps while wearing plate armour and have no limit on skills to carry. the cross combination of skills and how they affect each other is akin to GW1 but on a more grander scale.

you can also build houses, castles, ships, seige weaponary, create your OWN faction, invade another continent and take it over. all of what i just mentioned in this paragraph is 'optional' but * ME i cant wait. it has mounts that can attack and also carry you and a friend which allows you both to attack from the mounts back.

i get a bit sidetracked talking about AA but when anet claimed innovation or at least evolution and i see what AA is doing but not needing to use other mmos to try and make it look better, and videos that back up everything ive just said that works in AA right now in the betas, well, gw2 pales PALES in comparison.

i dont claim AA to kill WoW either. its an entirely similar but completely different experience at the same time.

no other game ive seen allows you to actually get punished for killing your own people (including players) of your same race, and you face trial and jail. that exists in AA. again, mind f'ing blown.

#82 Red_Falcon

Red_Falcon

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 2417 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 03:05 PM

View Postraspberry jam, on 06 September 2012 - 02:05 PM, said:

Killing the charrs in GNW is easy if you are level 20, even solo (without heroes/henchmen), but solo killing them when you're fresh out of pre-searing? Hahaha ok man

I was obviously talking about hard mode GNW.
I'd like to see you doing hard mode missions solo, go ahead. ;) You'd die at the first 2 grawls in the beginning.

#83 Grimful

Grimful

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 156 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 03:06 PM

Say GW2 is amazing with little to no reasoning behind it - Good constructive post

Say GW2 is boring with little to no reasoning behind it - terrible trolling flamebait horrible poster go die in a fire.

Yep, makes sense.

#84 mentalvortex

mentalvortex

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 300 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 03:07 PM

View PostXPhiler, on 06 September 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

"Dynamic events change and evolve in response to how you interact with them, leaving lasting effects in the game world."
https://www.guildwar...dynamic-events/

And I think the change and evolve are key, so much so if we check the definition of the word Dynamic
http://www.definitio...inition/dynamic
"characterized by or producing change or progression"
I'm going to ask for outside help here. Can someone help me out?

Where does this say the same event must be repeated in order to be dynamic? Who agrees with XP that GW2 was the first game ever to include Dynamic Events? How was my Witcher 2 list not an example not dynamic? The game changes based on your choice, this snowballs into having more options and you can make more changes. I only started it at Henselt because I didn't want to make a gigantic list. I could have started it at Roche vs Iorveth which would have me have to make an entire flowchart.

Your issue is your very definition of "Dynamic Event" exists as a Guild Wars 2 term. You're directly comparing how DE's function in GW2 and comparing them to everything else. If it doesn't happen exactly like it happens in GW2 it is by definition not dynamic.

Edited by mentalvortex, 06 September 2012 - 03:11 PM.


#85 Skjuludde

Skjuludde

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 77 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 03:16 PM

View PostInfiniteRetro, on 06 September 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

i think half the problem with some mmo gamers is they blame wow because OTHER developers tried to copy it. its not blizzards fault, its the other developers fault for not thinking too far outside the box. but in saying that, questing in wow has existed prior to it.

theres an mmo i cannot wait for, sandbox called ArcheAge. it has standard questing but if you get bored and only partially complete it you can hand it in and be rewarded on what you achieved. to me, this is fantastic. it also has dynamic events but they arent advertised like text messaging in gw2. it also has progression both through levelling up skill trees (classes) as well as gear etc. although gear can be worn by anyone. you can also run 3 fully functioning skill trees at the same time (naturally when all skills are unlocked).

so, gw2 touts no trinity, a jack of all trades. ArcheAge allows me to be a fully functioning healer, tank and dps while wearing plate armour and have no limit on skills to carry. the cross combination of skills and how they affect each other is akin to GW1 but on a more grander scale.

you can also build houses, castles, ships, seige weaponary, create your OWN faction, invade another continent and take it over. all of what i just mentioned in this paragraph is 'optional' but * ME i cant wait. it has mounts that can attack and also carry you and a friend which allows you both to attack from the mounts back.

i get a bit sidetracked talking about AA but when anet claimed innovation or at least evolution and i see what AA is doing but not needing to use other mmos to try and make it look better, and videos that back up everything ive just said that works in AA right now in the betas, well, gw2 pales PALES in comparison.

i dont claim AA to kill WoW either. its an entirely similar but completely different experience at the same time.

no other game ive seen allows you to actually get punished for killing your own people (including players) of your same race, and you face trial and jail. that exists in AA. again, mind f'ing blown.


I don't blame WoW for being what it is and influencing the genre the way it has. WoW itself is sort of a collection of the "best of" features from other contemporary MMOs (as well as later ones as well) packaged in a familiar setting with tweaks and ideas of its own. When you think about it, GW2 is sort of the same thing. Most of the features has been seen before in other games, but iteration is the way games evolve so that's hardly surprising.
I don't even blame the developers of those games for doing that, really. It's a very costly business so they are trying to shoot with the formula that has worked for someone else in the past, because after all "Why change a winning concept?".

I've heard about it and seen quite a bit of it and it does look promising. What I like about it is that it brings back the sandbox elements again.
The thing that makes me wary about ArcheAge however is that it's a Korean game, and if there's any country that knows how to make supreme grindy games, look no further. I'm hoping ArcheAge will be different.
I won't go very far into arguing which one is the most innovative, since as far as I've heard they innovate on different areas. Of course not everyone enjoy those innovative features.
The concept of sandboxing, open world PvP and those other things have been done before in one way shape or form (Just like most things GW2 brings to the table has been done before). But I like the push to innovate, I really support it. The brilliant thing is that it doesn't even need to be a choice between AA or GW2, I can simply play both. That in itself, is mind blowing :)

I think it was one of the devs from ArenaNet that pretty accurately commented
"Only WoW can kill WoW"
No single game can, as proven time and time again, kill WoW. To be honest it doesn't even look like GW2 would be trying since it lends itself very handily to be played alongside WoW for example.

Cheers for innovation

#86 InfiniteRetro

InfiniteRetro

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 482 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 03:22 PM

well this will add some petrol to the blaze but WoW has already achieved what i consider permanent change to the world through phasing. the Maw of Madness i believe is its name is a huge monster in the ground in Twilight Highlands. theres a quest chain where you go in and kill it. before you kill it the tentacles are moving but afterwards its dead. on that character you achieved this with it will never EVER be alive again. this is great, because the world has changed through your actions.

also, WoW has dynamic events 'kinda'. Rare bosses and Deathwing. the rare bosses can be mapped in terms of where they were seen, but this is with the help of mods or research. you could simply 'stumble' across one otherwise and have no idea. the respawn times and paths change so dramatically that even with mods its still difficult and a timesink, especially if you're a hunter wanting that new awesome pet.

Deathwing was a true well i call it random event. you could never track him, the only time you knew where he was was when he was burning your entire zone to the ground with you in it. to me, thats amazing because you never knew one day to the next would be that day the fire came. epic shitz.

View PostSkjuludde, on 06 September 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

I don't blame WoW for being what it is and influencing the genre the way it has. WoW itself is sort of a collection of the "best of" features from other contemporary MMOs (as well as later ones as well) packaged in a familiar setting with tweaks and ideas of its own. When you think about it, GW2 is sort of the same thing. Most of the features has been seen before in other games, but iteration is the way games evolve so that's hardly surprising.
I don't even blame the developers of those games for doing that, really. It's a very costly business so they are trying to shoot with the formula that has worked for someone else in the past, because after all "Why change a winning concept?".

I've heard about it and seen quite a bit of it and it does look promising. What I like about it is that it brings back the sandbox elements again.
The thing that makes me wary about ArcheAge however is that it's a Korean game, and if there's any country that knows how to make supreme grindy games, look no further. I'm hoping ArcheAge will be different.
I won't go very far into arguing which one is the most innovative, since as far as I've heard they innovate on different areas. Of course not everyone enjoy those innovative features.
The concept of sandboxing, open world PvP and those other things have been done before in one way shape or form (Just like most things GW2 brings to the table has been done before). But I like the push to innovate, I really support it. The brilliant thing is that it doesn't even need to be a choice between AA or GW2, I can simply play both. That in itself, is mind blowing :)

I think it was one of the devs from ArenaNet that pretty accurately commented
"Only WoW can kill WoW"
No single game can, as proven time and time again, kill WoW. To be honest it doesn't even look like GW2 would be trying since it lends itself very handily to be played alongside WoW for example.

Cheers for innovation

from feedback from the cbt's (closed beta trials) that it doesnt appear to be 'grindy' in the typical korean sense. even with boat building etc doesnt seem to be all that big of an issue. and running on cryengine 3 WOW game looks like digital sex.

watch E3 next year, thats supposed to be its unveiling to the west. i mean, what game allows you to go burn down someones house, or kill their crops. if you dont sweep away your footprints people can submit them, like reporting a crime. if you do go to jail you can break out but you're debuffed. add to that, if you're still a norty boy/girl, eventually you will be banished to the pirate faction and no npc in the world except the pirate ones will interact with you until you lower your status.

tell me thats not exciting!

#87 Lycrus

Lycrus

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 304 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 03:23 PM

View PostInfiniteRetro, on 06 September 2012 - 03:18 PM, said:

well this will add some petrol to the blaze but WoW has already achieved what i consider permanent change to the world through phasing. the Maw of Madness i believe is its name is a huge monster in the ground in Twilight Highlands. theres a quest chain where you go in and kill it. before you kill it the tentacles are moving but afterwards its dead. on that character you achieved this with it will never EVER be alive again. this is great, because the world has changed through your actions.

also, WoW has dynamic events 'kinda'. Rare bosses and Deathwing. the rare bosses can be mapped in terms of where they were seen, but this is with the help of mods or research. you could simply 'stumble' across one otherwise and have no idea. the respawn times and paths change so dramatically that even with mods its still difficult and a timesink, especially if you're a hunter wanting that new awesome pet.

Deathwing was a true well i call it random event. you could never track him, the only time you knew where he was was when he was burning your entire zone to the ground with you in it. to me, thats amazing because you never knew one day to the next would be that day the fire came. epic shitz.

deathwing burning a zone..was epic shit for you? flying 2min over zone..dropping occasional fire....all it was, was that it was annoying, nothing else. it interrupted questing and other things. sure the first time you went "oh..well..here he is, lets die in the fire to get achievement" but ye...ive had more epic moments in gw2 allready than in WoW for months or years..

reading diary in a cave to spawn a secret event? going underwater only to find this huge cave with strange things in? reading gravestones with epic texts on them? this huge crystal cave...heck, even the hidden lava jumping puzzle was a "wtf" moment for me, but deathwing?...no...not at all.s.adly i must say, because i rly liked wow and its a good game nontheless :D

and the phasing in WoW..is simply horrible. how i hated it to not see group members..cant interact with them and so on...god how i hated it. we even made jokes out of such things in guild chat<,<

AND the rare mobs were hilariously annoying, too. camping for days, only that a random bypasser gets luckily the first hit on the mob? anyone remembers?..

i allready like gw2 too much i guess..

Edited by Lycrus, 06 September 2012 - 03:25 PM.


#88 XPhiler

XPhiler

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1826 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 03:24 PM

View PostInfiniteRetro, on 06 September 2012 - 02:03 PM, said:

i wasnt actually writing that in reference to you just something ive observed over the last few months. people seem to not realise that Wow did more positive than negative and invigorated mmos out of the basement and into another genre people can play without being looked at like they're weird.

simply its age isnt an excuse for some to think its bad. vanilla to what is in MoP is thankfully for me a welcome change. i dont have the time to do hours and hours of dungeons like in vanilla. with dungeon/raid timers etc you can do them piecemeal, come back and continue (great feature). since i have barely raided though my experience in wow and what i still havent done blows my mind. theres almost TOO much content, for an mmo though, content is key and accessing it in a manner for all is also important to.

gw1, will never be topped out of it and its sequel. i think along the way lots of the very interesting ideas like upscaling, a companion you could take with you in case you couldnt find other players etc all went out the window for bigger ambitions which unfortunately rely TOO much on other players.

i know its strange to say, but WoW proved this. vanilla/tbc most quests ended with a boss fight. usually needing a group. sometimes it was difficult to get a group and since you couldnt get other quests you were stunted. now, the questing system is built for people who want to progress forward with or without anyone and the world bosses/dungeons/raids are the places for organised teams. again, lots of quests in vanilla/tbc ended up making you go into a dungeon to, so again, was sometimes a big process/time consuming to simply finish this.

its 2012, peoples time is short. having a game focused solely on needing players (dynamic events, storyline, Orr) is a bad move. because you have to answer the 'what if' question. what if theres no one around? its already proving its stunting advancement for players. yes you can level up doing other things, but you also have to ask 'what if people arent interested in the things anet are making as mandatory for xp farming when in other games they are simply the side dish IF you wish to participate?

these are key questions i dont think they have fully answered. and yet, funnily enough, gw1 did. heroes/henchmen and i actually preferred crafting in gw1. i liked having an npc simply require me to rock up with the materials because id never seen it in an mmo before.

im not alone in this. gw1 to a majority will be the superior game and anets dreams of making a wow killer (even stated they want to be number 1 despite saying they dont want wow dead) i think clouded judgements and foresight to where these systems lead.

You miss understood me regarding WoW, I am agreeing with you essentially I am saying that my experiance of WoW is old and is bad because of the issues you mention you needed to invest a lot of time to get anywhere but from what I heard that has changed a lot since then so I avoid comparing any game with WoW is possible because my experiance is outdated so to speak !

I disagree with you regarding GW2 needing players, Up to level 54 at least I dont find that to be true. I generally wake up early and every day I play between ~5:30am to 8am  That means most of that time I am just playing solo and I have no problem! (maybe that changes once I get to Orr I dont know! Even if it does Nothing is stopping me from playing in level 50 area or so when I know for sure I can play comfortably solo! More then that there is no mandatory task if you want to gain XP! They only thing you'll suffer a lot if you dont want to do Dynamic Events, you can still do it but its going take quite an effort! but anything else you can easily do provided you do your chosen task properly and by properly I mean If you decide you want to level up by crafting you need to make sure you do as many discoveries as possible. If you want to level by by Dynamic Events make sure you dont hurry and do all the Dynamic Events and all the steps in a chain!

#89 XPhiler

XPhiler

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1826 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 03:33 PM

View Postmentalvortex, on 06 September 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

The issue is mostly that tasks give you very little experience and crafting gives you massive experience (well, if you do a lot of it). As I said I do zero crafting, I just don't like it. I don't find that part of the game enjoyable.

Another part of it may be luck I suppose? If you run into DEs while you're exploring and completing tasks versus they're not currently happening. I feel like having 100% zone completion shouldn't have you under-leveled for the next zone. I ran around looking for DEs in order to get to the next zone - only to end up going to the Sylvari starting location so I could get enough levels to progress. I was about 3 levels behind the next zone location and story-arc quest in Kessex Foothills.

I already said this but I am going to repeat it, you're finding yourself under leveled, you're looking at somethign to blame and you're blaming crafting, the issue is not crafting I didnt craft enough to gain a single level and I am 9 levels overlevelled for the content I am doing. Didnt do anything other then fully explore a zone, play all the dynamic events (not the ones that I come across but all the events, I wait for them if necessary) and doing Daily achievements (which essentially just have me gather every node I come across which I generally I do anyway while waiting for events to start)

Also Dynamic Events give 7% of their level in XP. so really all you need to do is less then 15 events to level up (you get xp while killing as well and getting achievements) . Also  story line mission give a massive 27% of their level in XP!

anyhow full list here:
http://wiki.guildwar...wiki/Experience

#90 mentalvortex

mentalvortex

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 300 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 03:37 PM

View PostXPhiler, on 06 September 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:

I already said this but I am going to repeat it, you're finding yourself under leveled, you're looking at somethign to blame and you're blaming crafting, the issue is not crafting I didnt craft enough to gain a single level and I am 9 levels overlevelled for the content I am doing. Didnt do anything other then fully explore a zone, play all the dynamic events (not the ones that I come across but all the events, I wait for them if necessary) and doing Daily achievements (which essentially just have me gather every node I come across which I generally I do anyway while waiting for events to start)

Also Dynamic Events give 7% of their level in XP. so really all you need to do is less then 15 events to level up (you get xp while killing as well and getting achievements) . Also  story line mission give a massive 27% of their level in XP!

anyhow full list here:
http://wiki.guildwar...wiki/Experience
You're over leveled because you're grinding. ANet never intended for someone sit and wait for an event to happen. Dynamic Events shouldn't be played like a checklist. Are you on the wiki looking at all the DEs and doing them one by one based on location? That's called grinding.

Edited by mentalvortex, 06 September 2012 - 03:37 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users