Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help

El Duderino

Member Since 25 Jan 2013
Offline Last Active Sep 08 2014 12:57 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: What GW2 does right

28 April 2014 - 01:24 AM

From what I remember when I played, my favorite things were the graphics and exploring. That is something ANet has always done well.

In Topic: Interview: The ArenaNet Team on the Aftermath of Season 1

23 April 2014 - 03:53 PM

View Postraspberry jam, on 23 April 2014 - 09:28 AM, said:

The GW1 Prophecies storyline had something that the GW2 storyline lacks. In GW1, you start out as a member of an elite but irregular military scouting force. You get drawn into hero stuff already then though: you prevent the charr from making the final breakthrough into southern Ascalon, you go deep behind enemy lines to free people, you get to recapture the capital city! And that is before the main story even starts. By the time you get to Lion's Arch, you're a hero - but then what? Instead of joining the refugee Ascalonians, you are dumped in LA where you have to find new employment. After joining the White Mantle, you are drawn into a conspiracy theory that turns out to be true, you have to escape across the seas carrying a magical artifact, you have to find your destiny, recapture another kingdom and then finally invade the home of the bad guys - and then there is another twist waiting for you.

That you see all these story twists and narrative pumps way before they happen, or that it's all very cheesy, doesn't really matter. Because even though there were no narrative branches, it still felt like progressing the story was your choice. That is in part due to gameplay: everywhere you went, you could stay as long as you wanted and smell the flowers. There was never the feeling of "I want to do this but I have to stop and grind this first" that you (or at least I) ran into with the GW2 personal story all the time. There was also the feeling of wanting to see where the story went - you knew it would go somewhere cheesy and that it would have bad voice acting, but you never knew exactly what twist was behind the next corner (for example, I thought that Khilbron was going to turn the world undead or something, I had no idea that his plan was to summon some kinda monsters from hell itself).

In short: deep hero stuff and player agency.

Oh and this:
While I don't agree with you about the PC focus, I do agree about this.

Really love this post. The illusion of choice is just as strong as real choice, if done well. Actually, the benefits may end up being better from a design perspective.

In Topic: Why Being Efficient is the Only Thing Left

03 March 2014 - 08:05 PM

View Postmaster21, on 03 March 2014 - 02:13 PM, said:

Really? You think that neural network are simulating human brain?

You do realize that the idea of a neural network came from neuroscience, right? Do you understand how the human brain is connected? It is indeed a neural network - just much more complex than what one might use to code AI for a computer.

Keep in mind that you aren't the only person here with programming or experience with AI. I actually have a bachelors degree in the closest thing to a degree in AI you can get.

In Topic: Why Being Efficient is the Only Thing Left

02 March 2014 - 02:12 AM

View PostEpitaph_Blade, on 02 March 2014 - 12:57 AM, said:

I see, well, I suspected such answer, since I kept seeing references of a "good" and a "bad" game, being related to this.

But I don't think you understand the consequences of such kind of AI.
I mean, of course, who wouldn't want options, certain places or levels were AI is better, and more challenging.
But no, your definition of a good game, is just, unreasonable.

I hope you can find a game that meet your expectations, which would probably be, a single player experience.

Why is it unreasonable? Should games be so dumbed down nowadays that you can sleep walk through them simply because they should be developed for the lowest common denominator?

Let me ask a question: In general, we consider arts and entertainment to be intertwined, right? So, what is generally considered good "art"? The stuff that is developed for the lowest common denominator or the stuff that was done well? Why should games be done differently? Why can't we say that GW2 is just like the Twilight Saga? Sure, it is a popular series of movies, but no one is giving it any awards. No one is saying that it is really any good in any objective sense. Why are you saying that games should be held to a lower standard than other art and to ask for more is unreasonable??

In Topic: Why Being Efficient is the Only Thing Left

02 March 2014 - 12:29 AM

View PostEchou, on 01 March 2014 - 11:07 PM, said:

If you expect an MMO to have a highly designed AI, keep on walking.

If you are OK with settling for crap, then keep on playing...

I suppose your attitude is what allows the continual output of generic themepark MMO WoW clones to keep doing well enough to keep developers from wanting to innovate.