Yes thats it, Arenanet's attempt at making a dynamic world is by far the best attempt yet for me by having a more natural event system that helps the world to come alive, whereas Rift and Warhammer's attempts were very static you knew exactly where a rift would open every time and what would happen, they are very static.
GW2's events are also very static... once you've played through a region once you know exactly what event spawns where. There is a bit more variety to them but they are mostly still very static. The number of events that are part of chains are extremely limited and the meta events are the least dynamic of the lot as they always culminate in the same boss fight in the same location.
Whilst GW2's DEs have a lot more variety to them I find it ironic that Rift is actually the only game that allowed for some real dynamics in the results... When an invasion took control of an entire region in Rift it dramatically altered the entire area and generally lead to a region-wide effort by the players to repel it. GW2 has nothing like that. The rifts themselves are very repetitive compared to DEs but I felt it was a real shame that ANet didn't try something like the invasions for the meta events...
I agree that invasions do add something more to the overall dynamic feel to the game and that I was lead to believe that GW2 had the same thing as in the cascading of events that would affect the whole zone but that seems to not be true. Though areas are taken over by mobs and you have to clear them to bring back normailty just not the scale of Invasions and going through zone4s a second time has thrown up new events for me that I did not see the first time. I just feel DE's are more natural and better designed that Rifts rifts and invasions and are a step up from conventional questing all IMO of course.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
ispired, parallel, evolution , "based on"etc. I would disagree just on the use of the word base. The entire game is "based" on others. One thing that has been tried since UO is a "dynamic" world so they are all based somewhat on that. If you create a game that has an event that changes based on player interaction, even WoW's phasing then there are going to be similarities. I think it is really splitting hairs when you talk about chains vs. stages. Each part of the chain is a stage and wow had chain quests. These are just spawned when the first chain is done . . the same way the stages work. You could argue that since the golden ! above the heads of the quest giver in WoW are not visible to you until you finish the previous link in the chain make them dynamic as well. The only difference with GW2 (which I like and play by the way) is that more than one person participates. . .which was done in stages in one place in WAR.
I get your argument but am not even sure why you are making it. BUT. . .you obviously put a lot of thought into it and think it is important so no complaints on the sharing it is a forum.
It makes sense, but doesn't change my overall point. I'm not going to keep repeating myself. If you disagree, you're more than welcome to. Attacking my understanding of game design as a reason to prove me wrong doesn't make your point any more true. I will continue to argue that they are different in purpose and implementation. This is not complicated. Instead of talkign about HP and Alienware, why not use spedific PQ's and Dynamic events in your argument.
*Edit: to clarify, what I mean is "Show me that GW2 events are based on WAR's PQ system".
Last I checked, RIFT's RIFT can open up with or without player involvement and does something until something else happens.
GW2 DE is exactly the same, a DE will start (Sometimes with the player involvement, somethimes not) and it does something until a condition is met for it to change.
It is essentially a series of events that does stuff with different starting conditions.
We've seen this countless times in other games.
WAR / RIFT chose to keep this design limited in their world design, while GW2 went 'all-in'. This is probably why everyone thinks they are different.
Not sure why you are so defensive around game design though.
I don't know music and if someone tells me that because I said something wrong, I'm totally fine with it. You learn and move on; not that hard.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Do they serve the same function: sure, they give the players something to do besides a quest. Are they different; Yes. That's all I was saying.
If a person came to me and said HP and Alienware are different because Alienware has brightly colored lights inside their PC cases, I'd say the same thing. 'That's not why HP and Alienware PCs are different and if you continue to insists that it is, you don't know how PCs work.'
Not sure what this 'core function of a zone' has to do with DE game design though. It has to do with overall world design which is seperate from DE game design.
DE / RIFT / PQ are all based upon this 'Dynamic and Open-ended world' design; first saw (kinda but really badly) in Elite and much more refined in X-series, Space Rangers and DROX Operative.
It essentially has game events that can happen with or without player involvement.
WAR was probably the first MMO to come out with it although it kept the number of events to '1'.
RIFT / GW2 just up the event number to '1+' and added a starting condition to any event past the first one.
From a game design point of view, WAR / RIFT / GW2 events are doing the same thing; DO X while Y.
Whether there is a 'FOR / IF' loop at the start doesn't change the actual design since it is still doing the same 'DO X while Y'.
Make sense?
It makes sense, but doesn't change my overall point. I'm not going to keep repeating myself. If you disagree, you're more than welcome to. Attacking my understanding of game design as a reason to prove me wrong doesn't make your point any more true. I will continue to argue that they are different in purpose and implementation. This is not complicated. Instead of talkign about HP and Alienware, why not use spedific PQ's and Dynamic events in your argument.
*Edit: to clarify, what I mean is "Show me that GW2 events are based on WAR's PQ system".
You really cannot see any correlation between PQ's and DE's? I wrote all my posts earlier for nothing? the basic priciples are exactly the same and there are loads of events in GW2 that only require you to set of the event and complete the task with the added bonus that others can join in at any time and they happen in exactly the same place every time, sounds like a PQ to me. You are confusing context with concept, Arenanet have made their event system have zone wide context by linking them all to a wider narrative or moving the event throughout the zone but they are all basically the same concept as PQ's/Rifts/Invasions/Dynamic battlefields etc... the world is ever changing "dynamic" whether you are particiapnting or not.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
It makes sense, but doesn't change my overall point. I'm not going to keep repeating myself. If you disagree, you're more than welcome to. Attacking my understanding of game design as a reason to prove me wrong doesn't make your point any more true. I will continue to argue that they are different in purpose and implementation. This is not complicated. Instead of talkign about HP and Alienware, why not use spedific PQ's and Dynamic events in your argument.
*Edit: to clarify, what I mean is "Show me that GW2 events are based on WAR's PQ system".
Last I checked, RIFT's RIFT can open up with or without player involvement and does something until something else happens.
GW2 DE is exactly the same, a DE will start (Sometimes with the player involvement, somethimes not) and it does something until a condition is met for it to change.
It is essentially a series of events that does stuff with different starting conditions.
We've seen this countless times in other games.
WAR / RIFT chose to keep this design limited in their world design, while GW2 went 'all-in'. This is probably why everyone thinks they are different.
Not sure why you are so defensive around game design though.
I don't know music and if someone tells me that because I said something wrong, I'm totally fine with it. You learn and move on; not that hard.
So you can't prove that Guild Wars 2 DE's are based on Warhammer PQ's. That's what I thought. I'm not sure why you bring computers and music into the discussion.
If in 1982 we played with the current mentality, we would have burned down all the pac man games since the red ghost was clearly OP. Instead we just got better at the game.
Yes thats it, Arenanet's attempt at making a dynamic world is by far the best attempt yet for me by having a more natural event system that helps the world to come alive, whereas Rift and Warhammer's attempts were very static you knew exactly where a rift would open every time and what would happen, they are very static.
GW2's events are also very static... once you've played through a region once you know exactly what event spawns where. There is a bit more variety to them but they are mostly still very static. The number of events that are part of chains are extremely limited and the meta events are the least dynamic of the lot as they always culminate in the same boss fight in the same location.
Whilst GW2's DEs have a lot more variety to them I find it ironic that Rift is actually the only game that allowed for some real dynamics in the results... When an invasion took control of an entire region in Rift it dramatically altered the entire area and generally lead to a region-wide effort by the players to repel it. GW2 has nothing like that. The rifts themselves are very repetitive compared to DEs but I felt it was a real shame that ANet didn't try something like the invasions for the meta events...
Look at the Living Story content creeping into the game... we may be seeing exactly that happening, but instead of cycled Rift style things we're looking at progressing, long-term one time things that will change the game forever.
Yes thats it, Arenanet's attempt at making a dynamic world is by far the best attempt yet for me by having a more natural event system that helps the world to come alive, whereas Rift and Warhammer's attempts were very static you knew exactly where a rift would open every time and what would happen, they are very static.
GW2's events are also very static... once you've played through a region once you know exactly what event spawns where. There is a bit more variety to them but they are mostly still very static. The number of events that are part of chains are extremely limited and the meta events are the least dynamic of the lot as they always culminate in the same boss fight in the same location.
Whilst GW2's DEs have a lot more variety to them I find it ironic that Rift is actually the only game that allowed for some real dynamics in the results... When an invasion took control of an entire region in Rift it dramatically altered the entire area and generally lead to a region-wide effort by the players to repel it. GW2 has nothing like that. The rifts themselves are very repetitive compared to DEs but I felt it was a real shame that ANet didn't try something like the invasions for the meta events...
Look at the Living Story content creeping into the game... we may be seeing exactly that happening, but instead of cycled Rift style things we're looking at progressing, long-term one time things that will change the game forever.
The living story, somehow, got me back into the game after a break for a couple months. After getting the achievement, I'm still playing. This is a much better approach than the huge world changing events that happen over a couple of days.
If in 1982 we played with the current mentality, we would have burned down all the pac man games since the red ghost was clearly OP. Instead we just got better at the game.
Yes thats it, Arenanet's attempt at making a dynamic world is by far the best attempt yet for me by having a more natural event system that helps the world to come alive, whereas Rift and Warhammer's attempts were very static you knew exactly where a rift would open every time and what would happen, they are very static.
GW2's events are also very static... once you've played through a region once you know exactly what event spawns where. There is a bit more variety to them but they are mostly still very static. The number of events that are part of chains are extremely limited and the meta events are the least dynamic of the lot as they always culminate in the same boss fight in the same location.
Whilst GW2's DEs have a lot more variety to them I find it ironic that Rift is actually the only game that allowed for some real dynamics in the results... When an invasion took control of an entire region in Rift it dramatically altered the entire area and generally lead to a region-wide effort by the players to repel it. GW2 has nothing like that. The rifts themselves are very repetitive compared to DEs but I felt it was a real shame that ANet didn't try something like the invasions for the meta events...
Look at the Living Story content creeping into the game... we may be seeing exactly that happening, but instead of cycled Rift style things we're looking at progressing, long-term one time things that will change the game forever.
Arenanet have set the groundwork with their DE's and its just seeing how far they can take it within the constructs of their engine and imagination, it will be interesting for sure and the Living Story concept is an excellent start. Being involved in a long narrative that ultimately changes the world is a great idea that long term players can talk about in years to come rather than with other games the narrative happens outside of your control, one day you wake up and Deathwing has ravaged the land but you were having such a lovely dream about female blood elves that you didn't notice
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
Yes thats it, Arenanet's attempt at making a dynamic world is by far the best attempt yet for me by having a more natural event system that helps the world to come alive, whereas Rift and Warhammer's attempts were very static you knew exactly where a rift would open every time and what would happen, they are very static.
GW2's events are also very static... once you've played through a region once you know exactly what event spawns where. There is a bit more variety to them but they are mostly still very static. The number of events that are part of chains are extremely limited and the meta events are the least dynamic of the lot as they always culminate in the same boss fight in the same location.
Whilst GW2's DEs have a lot more variety to them I find it ironic that Rift is actually the only game that allowed for some real dynamics in the results... When an invasion took control of an entire region in Rift it dramatically altered the entire area and generally lead to a region-wide effort by the players to repel it. GW2 has nothing like that. The rifts themselves are very repetitive compared to DEs but I felt it was a real shame that ANet didn't try something like the invasions for the meta events...
Look at the Living Story content creeping into the game... we may be seeing exactly that happening, but instead of cycled Rift style things we're looking at progressing, long-term one time things that will change the game forever.
Arenanet have set the groundwork with their DE's and its just seeing how far they can take it within the constructs of their engine and imagination, it will be interesting for sure and the Living Story concept is an excellent start. Being involved in a long narrative that ultimately changes the world is a great idea that long term players can talk about in years to come rather than with other games the narrative happens outside of your control, one day you wake up and Deathwing has ravaged the land but you were having such a lovely dream about female blood elves that you didn't notice
I can say that the living story appeals to me more than the short halloween or xmas events. Running around with a bazillion of other players in the same spot for a couple days doesn't really appeal to me. The longer narrative with long-lasting meaning int he world is great. It's certainly grabbed my attention again since I hadn't really been playing for a couple of months.
If in 1982 we played with the current mentality, we would have burned down all the pac man games since the red ghost was clearly OP. Instead we just got better at the game.
Everquest 1 was the first to do events with Flippy Darkpaw assulting the Qeynos gate. We didn't need hand holding and UI elements to let us know it was happening though.
Look I am vastly enjoying GW2, have been since pre-release but even I wont agree with you OP. The events in GW2 is an evoloved version of Warhammers events and there is NOTHING wrong with that because it was done better.
It would be like saying that the horrible instanced, non-open world PvP that we have today is not the fault of that PoS DaoC that turned it all into a zerg skillless crapfest that todays games built on...and when you build on crap, you end up with a big pile of dung. Seriously...the idea of turning PvP into a carrot on a stick play option...gawd damn.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Originally posted by Theely Everquest 1 was the first to do events with Flippy Darkpaw assulting the Qeynos gate. We didn't need hand holding and UI elements to let us know it was happening though.
Different kind of event bud. Asherons Call, Ultima Online...heck even Meridian 59 had an "event" of that nature...the Asherons Call 1 "events" were of epic proportion. The epic battles where Asheron himself would show up always had...100s of players dead just for watching just a little too closely.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Again, while similar things to DEs have been present in other games, there must have been reasons why they weren't present in the massive amounts GW2 DEs are.
If DEs were just a few here and there, like the Dragon ones or the Orr temples, we would be talking differently.
The fact DEs are present in such high numbers means the player play the game differently.
Of course you can see GW2 DEs are built from the ground up as the main system of GW2 as opposed to another system added to the game. AI pathfinding is really good, the voice acting brings another layer, the fact group play just happens with no player input, the fact the game is so visual instead of UI based.
(And DEs are limited in complexity to avoid griefing).
The main difference is how it is implemented, the scope (hundreds of them), what it achieves and how the rest of the game systems support it (for example in Rift and Tabula Rasa, rifts and aliens capturing towns conflicted with the questing system) instead of being a fundamentelly different concept.
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
Again, while similar things to DEs have been present in other games, there must have been reasons why they weren't present in the massive amounts GW2 DEs are.
If DEs were just a few here and there, like the Dragon ones or the Orr temples, we would be talking differently.
The fact DEs are present in such high numbers means the player play the game differently.
Of course you can see GW2 DEs are built from the ground up as the main system of GW2 as opposed to another system added to the game. AI pathfinding is really good, the voice acting brings another layer, the fact group play just happens with no player input, the fact the game is so visual instead of UI based.
(And DEs are limited in complexity to avoid griefing).
The main difference is how it is implemented, the scope (hundreds of them), what it achieves and how the rest of the game systems support it (for example in Rift and Tabula Rasa, rifts and aliens capturing towns conflicted with the questing system) instead of being a fundamentelly different concept.
This post represents the fundamental crux on why the 'pro-gw2' side logic doesn't make sense.
We first have someone accepting that 'similar things to DE' were in other games, then we see them claim that it was 'built from the ground up'.
What the DE was based on in terms of game design was created years ago; X-series, Space Rangers. Something happening without player input has been around for years.
If something was based upon a design that was first created 30 years ago, how can it be 'built from the ground up'?
This is actually fairly easy to get it wrong though as it is the difference between game world design and game system design. DE is a system design, it does STUFF. Game world design is a collection of these system designs to make a game / world.
RIFT / WAR went towards a limited DE design in their game world. GW2 went 'DE design is king' in their game world. The actual design of the DE system hasn't changed, just the amount.
Once again, finding the distinction between game world design and game system design is probably beyond the normal person unless you are involved in the creation of a game; or know people who do.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Again, while similar things to DEs have been present in other games, there must have been reasons why they weren't present in the massive amounts GW2 DEs are.
If DEs were just a few here and there, like the Dragon ones or the Orr temples, we would be talking differently.
The fact DEs are present in such high numbers means the player play the game differently.
Of course you can see GW2 DEs are built from the ground up as the main system of GW2 as opposed to another system added to the game. AI pathfinding is really good, the voice acting brings another layer, the fact group play just happens with no player input, the fact the game is so visual instead of UI based.
(And DEs are limited in complexity to avoid griefing).
The main difference is how it is implemented, the scope (hundreds of them), what it achieves and how the rest of the game systems support it (for example in Rift and Tabula Rasa, rifts and aliens capturing towns conflicted with the questing system) instead of being a fundamentelly different concept.
This post represents the fundamental crux on why the 'pro-gw2' side logic doesn't make sense.
We first have someone accepting that 'similar things to DE' were in other games, then we see them claim that it was 'built from the ground up'.
What the DE was based on in terms of game design was created years ago; X-series, Space Rangers. Something happening without player input has been around for years.
If something was based upon a design that was first created 30 years ago, how can it be 'built from the ground up'?
This is actually fairly easy to get it wrong though as it is the difference between game world design and game system design. DE is a system design, it does STUFF. Game world design is a collection of these system designs to make a game / world.
RIFT / WAR went towards a limited DE design in their game world. GW2 went 'DE design is king' in their game world. The actual design of the DE system hasn't changed, just the amount.
Once again, finding the distinction between game world design and game system design is probably beyond the normal person unless you are involved in the creation of a game; or know people who do.
OMG, not the SINGLE PLAYER SPACE SIMS ARGUMENT AGAIN.
Do you know how every FPS has bullet and projectile physics?
Why the heck cant MMORPGs have them?
You know why?
Maybe because tracking thousands upon thousands of projectiles onlie is a bit more complicated?
Can it be that is because having hundreds of DEs with dozens and dozens of moving NPCs moving around, amongst projectiles online is somewhat more complicated?
Do you know why a MMORPG takes 3x-5x more to develop than a non-mmo game?
I guess the reason people in here think it isn't revolutionary is because they don't have the slightest conception on how difficult it is to do it.
In a room with game designers and programmers one might get a different response.
GW2 was built from the gound up with the DE system in mind - remove DEs and you don't have GW2.
Rift/Tabula Rasa/WAR - remove the rifts, the PQs and the invasions and you still have Rift, Tabula Rasa and WAR.
It is a bit complicated to have a discussion when one says "GW2 dynamic events are revolutionary because they are more than just something added to the game, they actually change how the game is played" while the others say "no, no it isn't revolutionary because we have seen bits of it before".
Yes, we saw bits and pieces, we saw prototypes and now we are seeing a real model that is used for more than just showing something cool.
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
OMG, not the SINGLE PLAYER SPACE SIMS ARGUMENT AGAIN.
Do you know how every FPS has bullet and projectile physics?
Why the heck cant MMORPGs have them?
/snip
Yes, we saw bits and pieces, we saw prototypes and now we are seeing a real model that is used for more than just showing something cool.
This post is not quite up-to-date with the MMO scene as it stands today.
There is this little game called PlanetSide2 that has bullet and projectile physics; and yes, PS2 is an MMO.
To the actual argument that 'GW2 is more complete!', lets have a look at the logic so far by the 'pro-GW2' side.
We went from 'DE is revolutionary!
to 'It isn't based on anything previous!'
to 'GW2 is more complete!'
That's 3 times the goal post was moved, based upon a game design that was made years ago.
If you want to present your point of view, at least have the decency to not move the goal post three times. /facepalm
Cool, hmm, you were able to find another example that released the same year.
Sure PS2 also has physics - it would be crazy for a FPS not have it.
Lets see if PS2 and GW2 also share other things in common.
Yep they do, they have a limited amount of players per map.
In GW2 case tcritics said it apparently was to save money by having crappy servers. Is SOE saving money with crappy servers?
No moving posts - IMO DEs are revolutionary because they change how players level in a MMORPG.
And it is easy to see it is different - anyone can just go search for "Let's play" series concerning GW2 and one can see:
a) how (many) players don't do any research about the games;
b) how (many) players were completely lost without the "!" and quest hubs, with some guys thinking they must have borked the game because the story went from level 4 tol level 7;
c) how (many) players have no curiosity at all and just try to play GW2 as they played their previous games.
I'm going to repeat it - IMO DEs are revolutionary because they change how players level in a MMORPG.
It has always been my stance - the revolution isn't so much on the method, but how the method is applied and on the outcome.
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
Cool, hmm, you were able to find another example that released the same year.
Sure PS2 also has physics - it would be crazy for a FPS not have it.
Lets see if PS2 and GW2 also share other things in common.
Yep they do, they have a limited amount of players per map.
In GW2 case tcritics said it apparently was to save money by having crappy servers. Is SOE saving money with crappy servers?
No moving posts - IMO DEs are revolutionary because they change how players level in a MMORPG.
And it is easy to see it is different - anyone can just go search for "Let's play" series concerning GW2 and one can see:
a) how (many) players don't do any research about the games;
b) how (many) players were completely lost without the "!" and quest hubs, with some guys thinking they must have borked the game because the story went from level 4 tol level 7;
c) how (many) players have no curiosity at all and just try to play GW2 as they played their previous games.
I'm going to repeat it - IMO DEs are revolutionary because they change how players level in a MMORPG.
It has always been my stance - the revolution isn't so much on the method, but how the method is applied and on the outcome.
Dont get cought up in his strawman. And strawman is (i must congratulate on eloquency):
Originally posted by jpnz DE is a system design, it does STUFF.
He actually argues about something noone else is arguing about.
Cool, hmm, you were able to find another example that released the same year.
Sure PS2 also has physics - it would be crazy for a FPS not have it.
Lets see if PS2 and GW2 also share other things in common.
Yep they do, they have a limited amount of players per map.
In GW2 case tcritics said it apparently was to save money by having crappy servers. Is SOE saving money with crappy servers?
No moving posts - IMO DEs are revolutionary because they change how players level in a MMORPG.
And it is easy to see it is different - anyone can just go search for "Let's play" series concerning GW2 and one can see:
a) how (many) players don't do any research about the games;
b) how (many) players were completely lost without the "!" and quest hubs, with some guys thinking they must have borked the game because the story went from level 4 tol level 7;
c) how (many) players have no curiosity at all and just try to play GW2 as they played their previous games.
I'm going to repeat it - IMO DEs are revolutionary because they change how players level in a MMORPG.
It has always been my stance - the revolution isn't so much on the method, but how the method is applied and on the outcome.
Dont get cought up in his strawman.
All the discussions about GW2 seem to be the same.
Those that like GW2 are looking at the end result.
Those that dislike are looking at the abstracts/mechanics of the systems used.
And if one wants to discuss the abstracts/mechanics of the systems, you might want to get the games code first.
Just because I think GW2 events are different from Rift/War/Tabula Rasa it doesn't mean I agree with the reasons the OP give.
Currently playing: GW2 Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
Comments
I agree that invasions do add something more to the overall dynamic feel to the game and that I was lead to believe that GW2 had the same thing as in the cascading of events that would affect the whole zone but that seems to not be true. Though areas are taken over by mobs and you have to clear them to bring back normailty just not the scale of Invasions and going through zone4s a second time has thrown up new events for me that I did not see the first time. I just feel DE's are more natural and better designed that Rifts rifts and invasions and are a step up from conventional questing all IMO of course.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
ispired, parallel, evolution , "based on"etc. I would disagree just on the use of the word base. The entire game is "based" on others. One thing that has been tried since UO is a "dynamic" world so they are all based somewhat on that. If you create a game that has an event that changes based on player interaction, even WoW's phasing then there are going to be similarities. I think it is really splitting hairs when you talk about chains vs. stages. Each part of the chain is a stage and wow had chain quests. These are just spawned when the first chain is done . . the same way the stages work. You could argue that since the golden ! above the heads of the quest giver in WoW are not visible to you until you finish the previous link in the chain make them dynamic as well. The only difference with GW2 (which I like and play by the way) is that more than one person participates. . .which was done in stages in one place in WAR.
I get your argument but am not even sure why you are making it. BUT. . .you obviously put a lot of thought into it and think it is important so no complaints on the sharing
it is a forum.
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
Last I checked, RIFT's RIFT can open up with or without player involvement and does something until something else happens.
GW2 DE is exactly the same, a DE will start (Sometimes with the player involvement, somethimes not) and it does something until a condition is met for it to change.
It is essentially a series of events that does stuff with different starting conditions.
We've seen this countless times in other games.
WAR / RIFT chose to keep this design limited in their world design, while GW2 went 'all-in'. This is probably why everyone thinks they are different.
Not sure why you are so defensive around game design though.
I don't know music and if someone tells me that because I said something wrong, I'm totally fine with it. You learn and move on; not that hard.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
You really cannot see any correlation between PQ's and DE's? I wrote all my posts earlier for nothing? the basic priciples are exactly the same and there are loads of events in GW2 that only require you to set of the event and complete the task with the added bonus that others can join in at any time and they happen in exactly the same place every time, sounds like a PQ to me. You are confusing context with concept, Arenanet have made their event system have zone wide context by linking them all to a wider narrative or moving the event throughout the zone but they are all basically the same concept as PQ's/Rifts/Invasions/Dynamic battlefields etc... the world is ever changing "dynamic" whether you are particiapnting or not.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
So you can't prove that Guild Wars 2 DE's are based on Warhammer PQ's. That's what I thought. I'm not sure why you bring computers and music into the discussion.
If in 1982 we played with the current mentality, we would have burned down all the pac man games since the red ghost was clearly OP. Instead we just got better at the game.
Look at the Living Story content creeping into the game... we may be seeing exactly that happening, but instead of cycled Rift style things we're looking at progressing, long-term one time things that will change the game forever.
Oderint, dum metuant.
The living story, somehow, got me back into the game after a break for a couple months. After getting the achievement, I'm still playing. This is a much better approach than the huge world changing events that happen over a couple of days.
If in 1982 we played with the current mentality, we would have burned down all the pac man games since the red ghost was clearly OP. Instead we just got better at the game.
Arenanet have set the groundwork with their DE's and its just seeing how far they can take it within the constructs of their engine and imagination, it will be interesting for sure and the Living Story concept is an excellent start. Being involved in a long narrative that ultimately changes the world is a great idea that long term players can talk about in years to come rather than with other games the narrative happens outside of your control, one day you wake up and Deathwing has ravaged the land but you were having such a lovely dream about female blood elves that you didn't notice
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
I can say that the living story appeals to me more than the short halloween or xmas events. Running around with a bazillion of other players in the same spot for a couple days doesn't really appeal to me. The longer narrative with long-lasting meaning int he world is great. It's certainly grabbed my attention again since I hadn't really been playing for a couple of months.
If in 1982 we played with the current mentality, we would have burned down all the pac man games since the red ghost was clearly OP. Instead we just got better at the game.
Look I am vastly enjoying GW2, have been since pre-release but even I wont agree with you OP. The events in GW2 is an evoloved version of Warhammers events and there is NOTHING wrong with that because it was done better.
It would be like saying that the horrible instanced, non-open world PvP that we have today is not the fault of that PoS DaoC that turned it all into a zerg skillless crapfest that todays games built on...and when you build on crap, you end up with a big pile of dung. Seriously...the idea of turning PvP into a carrot on a stick play option...gawd damn.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Different kind of event bud. Asherons Call, Ultima Online...heck even Meridian 59 had an "event" of that nature...the Asherons Call 1 "events" were of epic proportion. The epic battles where Asheron himself would show up always had...100s of players dead just for watching just a little too closely.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Again, while similar things to DEs have been present in other games, there must have been reasons why they weren't present in the massive amounts GW2 DEs are.
If DEs were just a few here and there, like the Dragon ones or the Orr temples, we would be talking differently.
The fact DEs are present in such high numbers means the player play the game differently.
Of course you can see GW2 DEs are built from the ground up as the main system of GW2 as opposed to another system added to the game. AI pathfinding is really good, the voice acting brings another layer, the fact group play just happens with no player input, the fact the game is so visual instead of UI based.
(And DEs are limited in complexity to avoid griefing).
The main difference is how it is implemented, the scope (hundreds of them), what it achieves and how the rest of the game systems support it (for example in Rift and Tabula Rasa, rifts and aliens capturing towns conflicted with the questing system) instead of being a fundamentelly different concept.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
This post represents the fundamental crux on why the 'pro-gw2' side logic doesn't make sense.
We first have someone accepting that 'similar things to DE' were in other games, then we see them claim that it was 'built from the ground up'.
What the DE was based on in terms of game design was created years ago; X-series, Space Rangers. Something happening without player input has been around for years.
If something was based upon a design that was first created 30 years ago, how can it be 'built from the ground up'?
This is actually fairly easy to get it wrong though as it is the difference between game world design and game system design. DE is a system design, it does STUFF. Game world design is a collection of these system designs to make a game / world.
RIFT / WAR went towards a limited DE design in their game world. GW2 went 'DE design is king' in their game world. The actual design of the DE system hasn't changed, just the amount.
Once again, finding the distinction between game world design and game system design is probably beyond the normal person unless you are involved in the creation of a game; or know people who do.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
OMG, not the SINGLE PLAYER SPACE SIMS ARGUMENT AGAIN.
Do you know how every FPS has bullet and projectile physics?
Why the heck cant MMORPGs have them?
You know why?
Maybe because tracking thousands upon thousands of projectiles onlie is a bit more complicated?
Can it be that is because having hundreds of DEs with dozens and dozens of moving NPCs moving around, amongst projectiles online is somewhat more complicated?
Do you know why a MMORPG takes 3x-5x more to develop than a non-mmo game?
I guess the reason people in here think it isn't revolutionary is because they don't have the slightest conception on how difficult it is to do it.
In a room with game designers and programmers one might get a different response.
GW2 was built from the gound up with the DE system in mind - remove DEs and you don't have GW2.
Rift/Tabula Rasa/WAR - remove the rifts, the PQs and the invasions and you still have Rift, Tabula Rasa and WAR.
It is a bit complicated to have a discussion when one says "GW2 dynamic events are revolutionary because they are more than just something added to the game, they actually change how the game is played" while the others say "no, no it isn't revolutionary because we have seen bits of it before".
Yes, we saw bits and pieces, we saw prototypes and now we are seeing a real model that is used for more than just showing something cool.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
This post is not quite up-to-date with the MMO scene as it stands today.
There is this little game called PlanetSide2 that has bullet and projectile physics; and yes, PS2 is an MMO.
To the actual argument that 'GW2 is more complete!', lets have a look at the logic so far by the 'pro-GW2' side.
We went from 'DE is revolutionary!
to 'It isn't based on anything previous!'
to 'GW2 is more complete!'
That's 3 times the goal post was moved, based upon a game design that was made years ago.
If you want to present your point of view, at least have the decency to not move the goal post three times. /facepalm
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Cool, hmm, you were able to find another example that released the same year.
Sure PS2 also has physics - it would be crazy for a FPS not have it.
Lets see if PS2 and GW2 also share other things in common.
Yep they do, they have a limited amount of players per map.
In GW2 case tcritics said it apparently was to save money by having crappy servers. Is SOE saving money with crappy servers?
No moving posts - IMO DEs are revolutionary because they change how players level in a MMORPG.
And it is easy to see it is different - anyone can just go search for "Let's play" series concerning GW2 and one can see:
a) how (many) players don't do any research about the games;
b) how (many) players were completely lost without the "!" and quest hubs, with some guys thinking they must have borked the game because the story went from level 4 tol level 7;
c) how (many) players have no curiosity at all and just try to play GW2 as they played their previous games.
I'm going to repeat it - IMO DEs are revolutionary because they change how players level in a MMORPG.
It has always been my stance - the revolution isn't so much on the method, but how the method is applied and on the outcome.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
Dont get cought up in his strawman. And strawman is (i must congratulate on eloquency):
He actually argues about something noone else is arguing about.
All the discussions about GW2 seem to be the same.
Those that like GW2 are looking at the end result.
Those that dislike are looking at the abstracts/mechanics of the systems used.
And if one wants to discuss the abstracts/mechanics of the systems, you might want to get the games code first.
Just because I think GW2 events are different from Rift/War/Tabula Rasa it doesn't mean I agree with the reasons the OP give.
Currently playing: GW2
Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders