| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (64)

Posted: May 18th 2011 7:14PM Apakal said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)

In the grand scheme of the whole world while exploring it won't be tedious. But I'm thinking of a longer term scenario, maybe when I'm on my second character or my first character is progressing through endgame/PvP.

Everytime, or every so often when I log onto my character in my out-of-the-way town, I'm going to have to go through the same dynamic event to get my town and my vendors back.

Its just a what-if scenario, but for a game that players are expected to play for months and years, I think its a question worth asking.

Hopefully they not only will cycle the start of dynamic events, but the events themselves, so that one are can experience a variety of dynamic events in a semi-random manner in the same place. Maybe one time its Centaurs invading, another time the town is on fire, and so on and so forth, through a handful of scenarios. This would greatly extend and enhance the living experience.
Reply

Posted: May 18th 2011 7:51PM Irem said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Apakal
"Hopefully they not only will cycle the start of dynamic events, but the events themselves, so that one are can experience a variety of dynamic events in a semi-random manner in the same place. Maybe one time its Centaurs invading, another time the town is on fire, and so on and so forth, through a handful of scenarios. This would greatly extend and enhance the living experience."

That's exactly the way it works. Not only can you come back at different levels and play through areas again to experience different events thanks to scaling down, but it also helps solve some of the potential problem with tedium. A town that's not constantly protected by adventurers isn't necessarily going to be perpetually under attack and taken over--there are other events that can run in the same area instead, and they don't reset immediately once a chain has finished. Nor will they reset until a chain is completed, so it's not on a set schedule.
Reply

Posted: May 18th 2011 8:06PM Apakal said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Irem

Aha! I was unaware of the details. Thanks for the clarification. :)
Reply

Posted: May 18th 2011 8:52PM Irem said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Apakal
Sure thing! :D I am a packrat of semi-useful GW2 trivia, ask anything.
Reply

Posted: May 19th 2011 5:01AM Dirame said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Apakal

Lol why would your town be attacked everyday? This isn't Rift invasions where the town is attacked every hour lol. You'll probably need to fight off at the town you're in every other week, I doubt you'll be waking up every day to see a small town you like overrun.
Reply

Posted: May 18th 2011 4:01PM BigAndShiny said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Please. They could just have made a modern version of gw2, but no, they went to topple wow, added a cash shop, and now are heading for failure in my opinion. [others are welcome to disagree] Sad, sad, sad.

Posted: May 18th 2011 4:48PM DevilSei said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@BigAndShiny

What are you on and can I have some?
I've never really heard them say they are trying to be the WoW-killer, just a bunch of eager fans claiming it will be.
Second, so what if they have a cash shop, are you so out of the loop that you didn't realize Guild Wars 1 has one too? Yet that game is doing awesomely well, and the cash shop hasn't broken a thing.
Reply

Posted: May 18th 2011 6:08PM nightsong89 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@BigAndShiny

Guild Wars 2 is the successor of Guild Wars 1. It's everything ArenaNet wanted to do in the first game but couldn't because of technology limitations at the time. Also, the cash shop: everything in it is cosmetic and in no way affects gameplay. Check out the GW1 cash shop for an example of how the GW2 cash shop will work.
Reply

Posted: May 18th 2011 6:13PM Irem said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@BigAndShiny
They said that they want to make the best game possible (the Eurogamer interview isn't the only time they've said this). That's not them saying they're gunning for WoW, it's a reflection of their design philosophy. What do you want them to say, "Well, we don't really think we can push ourselves that hard, but we'll try our best :)"? They're not even really competing for the same market as WoW, since the game is buy to play.
Reply

Posted: May 18th 2011 6:57PM aurickle said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@BigAndShiny
Every time I see a new game come out everyone complains that, "This is just like everything I've ever played before." Yet here we have GW2 with developers deliberately working to break the conventions, making the game unlike anything you've ever played before. So now we have people complaining about that, too!

Really, there's no pleasing some people.
Reply

Posted: May 18th 2011 4:15PM cliktea said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Couldn't really care less about all the role play jazz. Just be a good pvp game, I beg of you, there hasn't been one in ages.

Posted: May 18th 2011 6:11PM nightsong89 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@cliktea

In regards to PvP. You have both structured PvP (5 on 5 matches on a variety of maps) and World vs World vs World. The WvWvW is three servers randomly matched up. Each server gets their own map with a central map that connects all of them. Best example to look at is the Realm vs Realm (RvR) of Dark Age of Camelot. That is the style of PvP ArenaNet is trying to go for with their World vs World vs World PvP.
Reply

Posted: May 18th 2011 6:21PM cliktea said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@nightsong89 Yeah I'm fully aware of how they are implementing and designing it, however that doesn't mean it's going to be good. There are hundreds of MMOs that talk their pvp sytems up and they turn out to be really awful. I'm crossing my fingers for good fighting mechanics, smooth control, decent balance, and lots of room for strategy. None of these things are known yet and wont be until it's in beta.

I played countless hours of GW GvG in vanilla and I'm expecting an even better experience.
Reply

Posted: May 18th 2011 4:25PM hereafter said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
While it's true that quests have that feeling where you're not changing much (which can be lessened by clever phasing), I wonder if big important events being on cycles is necessarily the perfect solution. It's a novel approach and I expect it will still be fun, but things like coming into the middle of a chain of events or missing some chains entirely could be a problem. Will the story behind these events suffer as a result. Can they effectively convey the story of these centaurs and why they're attacking? Would missing parts of the event make other parts less compelling more meaningful? Will this drop-in-and-play mentality be as engaging in the long run? These are questions that won't be answered until we're all in game experiencing the stories for ourselves, but it's worth thinking about.

Posted: May 18th 2011 4:26PM hereafter said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@hereafter bah, typos
Reply

Posted: May 19th 2011 5:09AM Dirame said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@hereafter

I think missing part of an event chain could potentially reduce the effect of the final part of the event. Its an issue that can't be avoided. The player will just have to hope to be there when the chain begins.
Reply

Posted: May 18th 2011 4:40PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You guys bring up a lot of good questions ... interesting to see how it plays out ... but yeah ... I do wonder more and more how well this is going to actually work out in reality.

What happens when I am in my town and log out ... if the centaurs take the town while I am logged out, what happens when I log in?

It would get realllly old in a hurry if I have to reconquer the same town every day.

If I come along in the middle of an event, how is that going to work ... do I just have to jump in without really knowing what's going on? Do I miss the event b/c of phasing (b/c I just am not sure how they can do this without some phasing ultimately) ...

it seems like it could get confusing trying to figure out what the heck is going on if I am a player that is only on for 10 hours a week.

Posted: May 18th 2011 4:52PM Ehra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)

To answer some of your questions, you just jump in whenever you want. You don't even have to be grouped up with anyone, two players killing the same mob get full loot and xp even if they're not grouped. All of the events are meant to be very visual, players should be able to run up to and event, see what's happening, and know what to do. There will also be help through the use of audio (voices) and text from NPC (a town under attack might send out runners to other cities asking players for help. And you would hear this happen, as you see smoke from the siege in the distance).

No phasing is necessary :)
Reply

Posted: May 18th 2011 4:48PM slickie said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Guild Wars 2 and The Old Republic need to start coming out, like, yesterday.

Posted: May 18th 2011 4:53PM MrFinesse326 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You guys need to read the extent of the interview. It goes more into detail about the event cycles and the idea behind what they're trying to accomplish in regards to it NOT being a grind. Check it out before you pass judgment and compare it to Rift.

Featured Stories

MMO Week in Review: Are you Elite or Dangerous?

Posted on Dec 21st 2014 8:00PM

EVE Evolved: EVE Online vs. Elite: Dangerous

Posted on Dec 21st 2014 6:00PM

WoW Archivist: A Glyphmas story

Posted on Dec 21st 2014 12:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW