Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Guild Wars 2 Events are Not Based on Warhammer/RIFT Events

13

Comments

  • RizelStarRizelStar Member UncommonPosts: 2,773
    Originally posted by Yamota
    Originally posted by Calerxes

    At the end of the day its a moot point as to who influenced who in a transient world such as game development, as the basic idea for Dynamic Events is old probably older than Tabula Rasa and thus influenced it, Warhammer, Rift and GW2 making them heavily related, they are just different implimentations of the same basic concept.

    Yep. Same concept but with some variations.

    +1

     

    I would also like to state that while the title of this thread is true, it really is a waste in my opionin, in fact it started and/or appears to be who did "DEs" the best, when I thought it was just a means to put an end to "Oh but GW2 events came from rift and Warhammer, how about you put that pipe up your ass and smoke it." lol I read something similar to that in another thread made me laugh.

     

     

    I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.

    I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.

    P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)

    Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.

  • RoxtarrRoxtarr Member CommonPosts: 1,122
    Originally posted by jpnz

    The OP is factually wrong in many ways but that is expected if one does not know about game design.

    Kinda like how people think different cars are 'so different because of XYZ' but to a car mechanic that's not why they are different.

    GW2 DE, War PQ, RIFT are identical from a game design's perspective.

    All 3 implements that design in kind of a similar way but presents them differently.

    Most of the OP's reasons are the presentation rather than actual game design.

     

    I'd like to point out that this game design has been around for AGES. The original Elite was probably the first to have this although since it was released in 1984, the execution of it wasn't there and players didn't really see it. However, we are talking about 1984!!

    A more recent example would be X-series / Space Rangers which was released 10+ years ago.

    Well, it's interesting to mention how I am factually wrong without actually giving any "facts" that prove my post wrong.  I stated that GW2 wasn't based on WAR/RIFT, and you didn't prove that incorrect.  I never stated that GW2 invented them.

     My observations are indeed accurate, while one may feel free to disagree with my conclusions.  Hinting at my ignorance of game design while somehow bolstering yours is interesting.  

    In one breath you say they are "identical" from a game design perspective, while this is mostly incorrect.  They may have similar function, but are implemented quite diffrerently.  "Identical?" Not really.  Permanent events that do not interact with each other are not the same.  Mobile events that do not break into varying chains are not the same as mobile events that simply "fight" one another.  Or, perhaps, we simply have a different definition of identical.  

    I find it interesting to read your next statement say that they are implemented differently, which is exaclty what I was trying to point out.  

    Some people wrongly try to argue that GW2's dynamic events are copied from WAR's, which is incorrect.  

    You also support my point by stating that these type of events have been a part of gaming since the early days. 

    Again, the title of the thread is that GW2 events aren't based on WAR/RIFT.  It does not say, "GW2 invented them".  

    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.
    image

  • RoxtarrRoxtarr Member CommonPosts: 1,122
    Originally posted by RizelStar
    Originally posted by Yamota
    Originally posted by Calerxes

    At the end of the day its a moot point as to who influenced who in a transient world such as game development, as the basic idea for Dynamic Events is old probably older than Tabula Rasa and thus influenced it, Warhammer, Rift and GW2 making them heavily related, they are just different implimentations of the same basic concept.

    Yep. Same concept but with some variations.

    +1

     

    I would also like to state that while the title of this thread is true, it really is a waste in my opionin, in fact it started and/or appears to be who did "DEs" the best, when I thought it was just a means to put an end to "Oh but GW2 events came from rift and Warhammer, how about you put that pipe up your ass and smoke it." lol I read something similar to that in another thread made me laugh.

     

     

    Except for people waiting in the wings that got a bad taste in their mouth from WAR and are being decieved into thinking that GW2 is somehow like WAR, which it is not.  The point is to clarify for those who may be considering GW2 but haven't pulled the trigger.

    If a player doesn't like GW2, that's fine, there are plenty of other reasons to complain about the game.  But saying that it's somehow a copy of WAR or RIFT is completely wrong.  I never said GW2 was better, I simply stated that DE's are very different from PQ's or Rifts.

    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.
    image

  • drbaltazardrbaltazar Member UncommonPosts: 7,856
    dream chaser,first yes fight and reward scale ,this mean a max level killing a 15 -25 champion will fight tooth amlnd nail and will get a level of gear proportional to the difficulty lvl at your level(since new patch)trust me you don't go in and 3 shot kill.people see a max level die vs a lvl 23 champion and all yell noob,don't .it is the same difficulty be it 80 or lvl 23!so a max lvl won't be bored helping low level and reward table will be according to the player lvl and difficulty lvl.one thing i love on war the gamma tool to properly set gamma with int .
  • RizelStarRizelStar Member UncommonPosts: 2,773
    Originally posted by Roxtarr
    Originally posted by RizelStar
    Originally posted by Yamota
    Originally posted by Calerxes

    At the end of the day its a moot point as to who influenced who in a transient world such as game development, as the basic idea for Dynamic Events is old probably older than Tabula Rasa and thus influenced it, Warhammer, Rift and GW2 making them heavily related, they are just different implimentations of the same basic concept.

    Yep. Same concept but with some variations.

    +1

     

    I would also like to state that while the title of this thread is true, it really is a waste in my opionin, in fact it started and/or appears to be who did "DEs" the best, when I thought it was just a means to put an end to "Oh but GW2 events came from rift and Warhammer, how about you put that pipe up your ass and smoke it." lol I read something similar to that in another thread made me laugh.

     

     

    Except for people waiting in the wings that got a bad taste in their mouth from WAR and are being decieved into thinking that GW2 is somehow like WAR, which it is not.  The point is to clarify for those who may be considering GW2 but haven't pulled the trigger.

    If a player doesn't like GW2, that's fine, there are plenty of other reasons to complain about the game.  But saying that it's somehow a copy of WAR or RIFT is completely wrong.  I never said GW2 was better, I simply stated that DE's are very different from PQ's or Rifts.

    Alright I understand what your saying.

    I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.

    I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.

    P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)

    Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.

  • Gaia_HunterGaia_Hunter Member UncommonPosts: 3,066
    In fact one could say DEs are nothing more than transposing GW1 missions and quests of the instanced world into a Open World and adapting them to more players and open world.

    Currently playing: GW2
    Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders

  • CalerxesCalerxes Member UncommonPosts: 1,641
    Originally posted by Roxtarr
    Originally posted by jpnz

    The OP is factually wrong in many ways but that is expected if one does not know about game design.

    Kinda like how people think different cars are 'so different because of XYZ' but to a car mechanic that's not why they are different.

    GW2 DE, War PQ, RIFT are identical from a game design's perspective.

    All 3 implements that design in kind of a similar way but presents them differently.

    Most of the OP's reasons are the presentation rather than actual game design.

     

    I'd like to point out that this game design has been around for AGES. The original Elite was probably the first to have this although since it was released in 1984, the execution of it wasn't there and players didn't really see it. However, we are talking about 1984!!

    A more recent example would be X-series / Space Rangers which was released 10+ years ago.

    Well, it's interesting to mention how I am factually wrong without actually giving any "facts" that prove my post wrong.  I stated that GW2 wasn't based on WAR/RIFT, and you didn't prove that incorrect.  I never stated that GW2 invented them.

     My observations are indeed accurate, while one may feel free to disagree with my conclusions.  Hinting at my ignorance of game design while somehow bolstering yours is interesting.  

    In one breath you say they are "identical" from a game design perspective, while this is mostly incorrect.  They may have similar function, but are implemented quite diffrerently.  "Identical?" Not really.  Permanent events that do not interact with each other are not the same.  Mobile events that do not break into varying chains are not the same as mobile events that simply "fight" one another.  Or, perhaps, we simply have a different definition of identical.  

    I find it interesting to read your next statement say that they are implemented differently, which is exaclty what I was trying to point out.  

    Some people wrongly try to argue that GW2's dynamic events are copied from WAR's, which is incorrect.  

    You also support my point by stating that these type of events have been a part of gaming since the early days. 

    Again, the title of the thread is that GW2 events aren't based on WAR/RIFT.  It does not say, "GW2 invented them".  

     

    How do you know your observations are accurate? you were not privy to the early meetings in the planning of GW2 you cannot know if they had information about Wars PQ's, Tabula Rasa's Dynamic Battlefield or Rifts rifts, all of those games were in production before GW2 and information could have leaked to the Arenanet. This is all specualtion but so are your observations, you are trying to prove something without the correct information to hand and that my friend is just guessing not accurate observation. But I will agree one thing, they are the best attempt at dynamic content yet and shown me after the very disappointing Warhammer and Rift that the basic concept is achievable if not quite there yet. Though as I said all four examples are the same basic concept just different implimentations and that for me is due to the underlinning tech used Rift and War used a cranky old engine that they tried to manipulate to produce DE's and failed whereas Arenanet built their engine around DE's and had much much better results.

    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.

  • VolkonVolkon Member UncommonPosts: 3,748
    Originally posted by Calerxes

     

    How do you know your observations are accurate? you were not privy to the early meetings in the planning of GW2 you cannot know if they had information about Wars PQ's, Tabula Rasa's Dynamic Battlefield or Rifts rifts, all of those games were in production before GW2 and information could have leaked to the Arenanet. This is all specualtion but so are your observations, you are trying to prove something without the correct information to hand and that my friend is just guessing not accurate observation. But I will agree one thing, they are the best attempt at dynamic content yet and shown me after the very disappointing Warhammer and Rift that the basic concept is achievable if not quite there yet. Though as I said all four examples are the same basic concept just different implimentations and that for me is due to the underlinning tech used Rift and War used a cranky old engine that they tried to manipulate to produce DE's and failed whereas Arenanet built their engine around DE's and had much much better results.

     

     

    Eric Flannum said:

    Wanted to clarify something since I see this bit of misinformation quite a bit. We released Nightfall in late October of 2006, at this time we were actively developing the next GW1campaign which was called Utopia. We decided early in 2007 to stop Utopia development and start both GW2 and Guild Wars:Eye of the North development. We announced this almost as soon as we made the decision and in fact had a very small team laying the groundwork for GW2 while the vast majority of the company worked on Eye of the North. It wasn't until EotN shipped in late August 2007 that we really started GW2 development in earnest. This means we've really been working on GW2 for about 4 years and aren't actually close to 5 years let alone 6 years. I think what makes it seem like a long time is that we announced the project very early on so GW1 fans would know why we weren't doing any more campaigns. Hope that clears 

    things up.

    - Posted on 9/4/11

     

    Rift was in development from 2006 until its release in 2011 and underwent extensive alpha testing, with beta testing finalizing the stress test portion of development.

     

    Parallel development. Rift released first, but it wasn't developed first.

     

     

    Oderint, dum metuant.

  • CalerxesCalerxes Member UncommonPosts: 1,641
    Originally posted by Volkon
    Originally posted by Calerxes

     

    How do you know your observations are accurate? you were not privy to the early meetings in the planning of GW2 you cannot know if they had information about Wars PQ's, Tabula Rasa's Dynamic Battlefield or Rifts rifts, all of those games were in production before GW2 and information could have leaked to the Arenanet. This is all specualtion but so are your observations, you are trying to prove something without the correct information to hand and that my friend is just guessing not accurate observation. But I will agree one thing, they are the best attempt at dynamic content yet and shown me after the very disappointing Warhammer and Rift that the basic concept is achievable if not quite there yet. Though as I said all four examples are the same basic concept just different implimentations and that for me is due to the underlinning tech used Rift and War used a cranky old engine that they tried to manipulate to produce DE's and failed whereas Arenanet built their engine around DE's and had much much better results.

     

     

    Eric Flannum said:

    Wanted to clarify something since I see this bit of misinformation quite a bit. We released Nightfall in late October of 2006, at this time we were actively developing the next GW1campaign which was called Utopia. We decided early in 2007 to stop Utopia development and start both GW2 and Guild Wars:Eye of the North development. We announced this almost as soon as we made the decision and in fact had a very small team laying the groundwork for GW2 while the vast majority of the company worked on Eye of the North. It wasn't until EotN shipped in late August 2007 that we really started GW2 development in earnest. This means we've really been working on GW2 for about 4 years and aren't actually close to 5 years let alone 6 years. I think what makes it seem like a long time is that we announced the project very early on so GW1 fans would know why we weren't doing any more campaigns. Hope that clears 

    things up.

    - Posted on 9/4/11

     

    Rift was in development from 2006 until its release in 2011 and underwent extensive alpha testing, with beta testing finalizing the stress test portion of development.

     

    Parallel development. Rift released first, but it wasn't developed first.

     

     

     

    The bit in red is the key here as GW2 real development wasn't started until late 2007 and Rift had been in proper development since 2006 as it was Trions first game with Utopia becoming EotN so again you do not know who influenced who here, Dev's meet at conferences and functions and talk to each other ideas get tossed around constantly and I imagine the concepts in Rift were talked about prior to Trion being founded so that puts the posibilities of their ideas for DE's back before 2006 but Arenanets could be too. This whole thread is trying to prove something that you cannot prove as you don't have any facts only amateur observations. DE's are a concept just as phasing is and each company will inplement the concept in their own way just like the phasing in SW:TOR is different to the phasing in WoW. The way they implement the concept does not exclude it from being influenced by a previous implementation or basic idea and that is what this thread is trying to prove. But why I'm not sure, his precious is being attacked?

    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.

  • drbaltazardrbaltazar Member UncommonPosts: 7,856
    Rift are awesome,back then there was no way to pvp in rift zone,but it's still nice,in fact I like rift better.but gw does a lot of phasing zone also.me I am annoyed by the fact you can't pvp raid in game ,lika group can't go attack another group say in fractal if the other team also allow pvp encounter.or maybe its unlocked at max level fractal?that would be epic ,imagine you revisit a level one fractal but now with pvp for also.
  • Gaia_HunterGaia_Hunter Member UncommonPosts: 3,066
    Originally posted by Calerxes
    Originally posted by Volkon
    Originally posted by Calerxes

     

    How do you know your observations are accurate? you were not privy to the early meetings in the planning of GW2 you cannot know if they had information about Wars PQ's, Tabula Rasa's Dynamic Battlefield or Rifts rifts, all of those games were in production before GW2 and information could have leaked to the Arenanet. This is all specualtion but so are your observations, you are trying to prove something without the correct information to hand and that my friend is just guessing not accurate observation. But I will agree one thing, they are the best attempt at dynamic content yet and shown me after the very disappointing Warhammer and Rift that the basic concept is achievable if not quite there yet. Though as I said all four examples are the same basic concept just different implimentations and that for me is due to the underlinning tech used Rift and War used a cranky old engine that they tried to manipulate to produce DE's and failed whereas Arenanet built their engine around DE's and had much much better results.

     

     

    Eric Flannum said:

    Wanted to clarify something since I see this bit of misinformation quite a bit. We released Nightfall in late October of 2006, at this time we were actively developing the next GW1campaign which was called Utopia. We decided early in 2007 to stop Utopia development and start both GW2 and Guild Wars:Eye of the North development. We announced this almost as soon as we made the decision and in fact had a very small team laying the groundwork for GW2 while the vast majority of the company worked on Eye of the North. It wasn't until EotN shipped in late August 2007 that we really started GW2 development in earnest. This means we've really been working on GW2 for about 4 years and aren't actually close to 5 years let alone 6 years. I think what makes it seem like a long time is that we announced the project very early on so GW1 fans would know why we weren't doing any more campaigns. Hope that clears 

    things up.

    - Posted on 9/4/11

     

    Rift was in development from 2006 until its release in 2011 and underwent extensive alpha testing, with beta testing finalizing the stress test portion of development.

     

    Parallel development. Rift released first, but it wasn't developed first.

     

     

     

    The bit in red is the key here as GW2 real development wasn't started until late 2007 and Rift had been in proper development since 2006 as it was Trions first game with Utopia becoming EotN so again you do not know who influenced who here, Dev's meet at conferences and functions and talk to each other ideas get tossed around constantly and I imagine the concepts in Rift were talked about prior to Trion being founded so that puts the posibilities of their ideas for DE's back before 2006 but Arenanets could be too. This whole thread is trying to prove something that you cannot prove as you don't have any facts only amateur observations. DE's are a concept just as phasing is and each company will inplement the concept in their own way just like the phasing in SW:TOR is different to the phasing in WoW. The way they implement the concept does not exclude it from being influenced by a previous implementation or basic idea and that is what this thread is trying to prove. But why I'm not sure, his precious is being attacked?

    The Key is that Arenanet started developing GW2 because they wanted to change the way players and the world interacted.

    There was talk of changing mobs in an area based on good players were doing vs those mobs, or change mobs builds based on what players were using vs them. This was talked for GW:Utopia.

    The DEs were under test using GW1 engine from which players got a sniff by datamining the .dat file of GW1.

    Again, the Arenanet GDC talk in 2010 is a good presentation of how DEs came to be and how they work.

     

     

    Currently playing: GW2
    Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders

  • drbaltazardrbaltazar Member UncommonPosts: 7,856
    Ps about the various event:I met one a bridge one group was trying to blow ,I prevented that,I passed by ?I couldn't take the bridge it had been blasted to smithereen !I had to take a less good path Orr help the forester by protecting them while they go cut trees.this is at lvl 23 .i am pretty sure at end game this evolve to insane level.if the progression pace at the pace it has been ramping up ?I bet at level 80 it will be very hard to meet same chain quest twice .not impossible lol but a bored player have it very easy to do something else.i can tell you it is very hard to do same thing again outside instance and this is a to player dream come true.amlnd I bet as gw2 team can now focus on story and pvp these various story branches will grow,they have the base right they only need to let it grow.in fact this the future of gaming,it will probably be applied to pve raid and pvp in the futur
  • CalerxesCalerxes Member UncommonPosts: 1,641
    Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter
    Originally posted by Calerxes
    Originally posted by Volkon
    Originally posted by Calerxes

     

    SNIP!

     

    The bit in red is the key here as GW2 real development wasn't started until late 2007 and Rift had been in proper development since 2006 as it was Trions first game with Utopia becoming EotN so again you do not know who influenced who here, Dev's meet at conferences and functions and talk to each other ideas get tossed around constantly and I imagine the concepts in Rift were talked about prior to Trion being founded so that puts the posibilities of their ideas for DE's back before 2006 but Arenanets could be too. This whole thread is trying to prove something that you cannot prove as you don't have any facts only amateur observations. DE's are a concept just as phasing is and each company will inplement the concept in their own way just like the phasing in SW:TOR is different to the phasing in WoW. The way they implement the concept does not exclude it from being influenced by a previous implementation or basic idea and that is what this thread is trying to prove. But why I'm not sure, his precious is being attacked?

    The Key is that Arenanet started developing GW2 because they wanted to change the way players and the world interacted.

    There was talk of changing mobs in an area based on good players were doing vs those mobs, or change mobs builds based on what players were using vs them. This was talked for GW:Utopia.

    The DEs were under test using GW1 engine from which players got a sniff by datamining the .dat file of GW1.

    Again, the Arenanet GDC talk in 2010 is a good presentation of how DEs came to be and how they work.

     

     

     

    I do understand that and I'm slowly growing to really like GW2 it took me a few weeks to really get into the game but now I'm putting in more and more hours but don't you think that the guys at Trion and Mythic wanted to do exactly the same things but might have been hampered by their choice in game engine ie Gamebryo? is it any wonder both games fell short of their initial plans using a renowned poor engine? the company that made it went bust because it wasn't up to the job. I think its a big part of the reason I find it hard to get into Oblivion and Fallout 3 as they use the same engine.

    All dev's I imagine have plenty of ideas on how to shake up the status quo but things never go as planned especially on projects the size of MMO's just look at SW:TOR it could have been so much more and there is probably lots of things that couldn't be done in GW2 that were initially outlined like upscaling/sidekicking. I just don't think you can diferentiate between Tabula Rasa, Warhammer, Rift and GW2 in reagrds to dynamic event systems because at their core they are the same thing just with varying success and Arenanet being at the top due to, for me, they built their own engine to do it. But who really seeded the idea of DE's? no-one knows but saying that Rifts event and GW2's events are not the same thing is pushing the boundaries of common sense really. 

    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.

  • Mari2kMari2k Member UncommonPosts: 367
    of course they are..... 
  • Gaia_HunterGaia_Hunter Member UncommonPosts: 3,066
    Originally posted by Calerxes
    Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter
    Originally posted by Calerxes
    Originally posted by Volkon
    Originally posted by Calerxes

     

    SNIP!

     

    The bit in red is the key here as GW2 real development wasn't started until late 2007 and Rift had been in proper development since 2006 as it was Trions first game with Utopia becoming EotN so again you do not know who influenced who here, Dev's meet at conferences and functions and talk to each other ideas get tossed around constantly and I imagine the concepts in Rift were talked about prior to Trion being founded so that puts the posibilities of their ideas for DE's back before 2006 but Arenanets could be too. This whole thread is trying to prove something that you cannot prove as you don't have any facts only amateur observations. DE's are a concept just as phasing is and each company will inplement the concept in their own way just like the phasing in SW:TOR is different to the phasing in WoW. The way they implement the concept does not exclude it from being influenced by a previous implementation or basic idea and that is what this thread is trying to prove. But why I'm not sure, his precious is being attacked?

    The Key is that Arenanet started developing GW2 because they wanted to change the way players and the world interacted.

    There was talk of changing mobs in an area based on good players were doing vs those mobs, or change mobs builds based on what players were using vs them. This was talked for GW:Utopia.

    The DEs were under test using GW1 engine from which players got a sniff by datamining the .dat file of GW1.

    Again, the Arenanet GDC talk in 2010 is a good presentation of how DEs came to be and how they work.

     

     

     

    I do understand that and I'm slowly growing to really like GW2 it took me a few weeks to really get into the game but now I'm putting in more and more hours but don't you think that the guys at Trion and Mythic wanted to do exactly the same things but might have been hampered by their choice in game engine ie Gamebryo? is it any wonder both games fell short of their initial plans using a renowned poor engine? the company that made it went bust because it wasn't up to the job. I think its a big part of the reason I find it hard to get into Oblivion and Fallout 3 as they use the same engine.

    All dev's I imagine have plenty of ideas on how to shake up the status quo but things never go as planned especially on projects the size of MMO's just look at SW:TOR it could have been so much more and there is probably lots of things that couldn't be done in GW2 that were initially outlined like upscaling/sidekicking. I just don't think you can diferentiate between Tabula Rasa, Warhammer, Rift and GW2 in reagrds to dynamic event systems because at their core they are the same thing just with varying success and Arenanet being at the top due to, for me, they built their own engine to do it. But who really seeded the idea of DE's? no-one knows but saying that Rifts event and GW2's events are not the same thing is pushing the boundaries of common sense really. 

    DEs are as different from Rifts and PQs as quests are different from killing mobs.

    Now, some people don't see any difference either between quests and killing mobs.

    Additionally Anet wanted to replace traditional questing with DEs. I'm not sure the others wanted to.

    But then again, I already thought GW1 quests were better than traditional quests.

     

     

    Currently playing: GW2
    Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders

  • CalerxesCalerxes Member UncommonPosts: 1,641
    Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter
    Originally posted by Calerxes
    Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter
    Originally posted by Calerxes
    Originally posted by Volkon
    Originally posted by Calerxes

     

    SNIP!

     

    The bit in red is the key here as GW2 real development wasn't started until late 2007 and Rift had been in proper development since 2006 as it was Trions first game with Utopia becoming EotN so again you do not know who influenced who here, Dev's meet at conferences and functions and talk to each other ideas get tossed around constantly and I imagine the concepts in Rift were talked about prior to Trion being founded so that puts the posibilities of their ideas for DE's back before 2006 but Arenanets could be too. This whole thread is trying to prove something that you cannot prove as you don't have any facts only amateur observations. DE's are a concept just as phasing is and each company will inplement the concept in their own way just like the phasing in SW:TOR is different to the phasing in WoW. The way they implement the concept does not exclude it from being influenced by a previous implementation or basic idea and that is what this thread is trying to prove. But why I'm not sure, his precious is being attacked?

    The Key is that Arenanet started developing GW2 because they wanted to change the way players and the world interacted.

    There was talk of changing mobs in an area based on good players were doing vs those mobs, or change mobs builds based on what players were using vs them. This was talked for GW:Utopia.

    The DEs were under test using GW1 engine from which players got a sniff by datamining the .dat file of GW1.

    Again, the Arenanet GDC talk in 2010 is a good presentation of how DEs came to be and how they work.

     

     

     

    I do understand that and I'm slowly growing to really like GW2 it took me a few weeks to really get into the game but now I'm putting in more and more hours but don't you think that the guys at Trion and Mythic wanted to do exactly the same things but might have been hampered by their choice in game engine ie Gamebryo? is it any wonder both games fell short of their initial plans using a renowned poor engine? the company that made it went bust because it wasn't up to the job. I think its a big part of the reason I find it hard to get into Oblivion and Fallout 3 as they use the same engine.

    All dev's I imagine have plenty of ideas on how to shake up the status quo but things never go as planned especially on projects the size of MMO's just look at SW:TOR it could have been so much more and there is probably lots of things that couldn't be done in GW2 that were initially outlined like upscaling/sidekicking. I just don't think you can diferentiate between Tabula Rasa, Warhammer, Rift and GW2 in reagrds to dynamic event systems because at their core they are the same thing just with varying success and Arenanet being at the top due to, for me, they built their own engine to do it. But who really seeded the idea of DE's? no-one knows but saying that Rifts event and GW2's events are not the same thing is pushing the boundaries of common sense really. 

    DEs are as different from Rifts and PQs as quests are different from killing mobs.

    Now, some people don't see any difference either between quests and killing mobs.

    Additionally Anet wanted to replace traditional questing with DEs. I'm not sure the others wanted to.

    But then again, I already thought GW1 quests were better than traditional quests.

     

     

     

    Trion's ideas are exactly the same as Arenanet's and PQ's as well as TR's dynamic battlefield ideas are just a more primitive version of the same thing a more dynamic world something that changed from moment to moment. Rifts and inavsions are an attempt to change up the world dynamically just as are DE's in GW2 though the context is different, the intent to change all questing content into DE's is rather a moot point as the Rifts and invasions in rift actually affect and impede the traditional questing system and Arenanet was forced to put in heart quests (similar to traditional questing) by the betra testers because of the radical change in makiing the whole game popualted with DE's. If Trion had made all the leveling content rifts and invasions the same thing would have happened. Even in EQ2 you have NPC's calling out to you to talk to them or gesticulating for you to come over and talk to them this was an attempt to make the world feel more alive and dynamic and that game was released in 2004. I don't like the fact that Arenanet is put on a pedestal because of their DE's when they are just a continuation and evolution of ideas that were in earlirer MMO's, good ones and the best realisation so far in my book but not really revolutionary or fundamentally different than other attempts at the same thing.

    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.

  • Gaia_HunterGaia_Hunter Member UncommonPosts: 3,066
    Originally posted by Calerxes
    Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter
     

    DEs are as different from Rifts and PQs as quests are different from killing mobs.

    Now, some people don't see any difference either between quests and killing mobs.

    Additionally Anet wanted to replace traditional questing with DEs. I'm not sure the others wanted to.

    But then again, I already thought GW1 quests were better than traditional quests.

     

    Trion's ideas are exactly the same as Arenanet's and PQ's as well as TR's dynamic battlefield ideas are just a more primitive version of the same thing a more dynamic world something that changed from moment to moment. Rifts and inavsions are an attempt to change up the world dynamically just as are DE's in GW2 though the context is different, the intent to change all questing content into DE's is rather a moot point as the Rifts and invasions in rift actually affect and impede the traditional questing system and Arenanet was forced to put in heart quests (similar to traditional questing) by the betra testers because of the radical change in makiing the whole game popualted with DE's. If Trion had made all the leveling content rifts and invasions the same thing would have happened. Even in EQ2 you have NPC's calling out to you to talk to them or gesticulating for you to come over and talk to them this was an attempt to make the world feel more alive and dynamic and that game was released in 2004. I don't like the fact that Arenanet is put on a pedestal because of their DE's when they are just a continuation and evolution of ideas that were in earlirer MMO's, good ones and the best realisation so far in my book but not really revolutionary or fundamentally different than other attempts at the same thing.

    Maybe the difference is the results, with a world where NPCs move much more and where physics are present.

    Currently playing: GW2
    Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders

  • CalerxesCalerxes Member UncommonPosts: 1,641
    Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter
    Originally posted by Calerxes
    Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter
     

    DEs are as different from Rifts and PQs as quests are different from killing mobs.

    Now, some people don't see any difference either between quests and killing mobs.

    Additionally Anet wanted to replace traditional questing with DEs. I'm not sure the others wanted to.

    But then again, I already thought GW1 quests were better than traditional quests.

     

    Trion's ideas are exactly the same as Arenanet's and PQ's as well as TR's dynamic battlefield ideas are just a more primitive version of the same thing a more dynamic world something that changed from moment to moment. Rifts and inavsions are an attempt to change up the world dynamically just as are DE's in GW2 though the context is different, the intent to change all questing content into DE's is rather a moot point as the Rifts and invasions in rift actually affect and impede the traditional questing system and Arenanet was forced to put in heart quests (similar to traditional questing) by the betra testers because of the radical change in makiing the whole game popualted with DE's. If Trion had made all the leveling content rifts and invasions the same thing would have happened. Even in EQ2 you have NPC's calling out to you to talk to them or gesticulating for you to come over and talk to them this was an attempt to make the world feel more alive and dynamic and that game was released in 2004. I don't like the fact that Arenanet is put on a pedestal because of their DE's when they are just a continuation and evolution of ideas that were in earlirer MMO's, good ones and the best realisation so far in my book but not really revolutionary or fundamentally different than other attempts at the same thing.

    Maybe the difference is the results, with a world where NPCs move much more and where physics are present.

     

    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. 

    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.

  • jpnzjpnz Member Posts: 3,529
    Originally posted by Roxtarr
    Originally posted by jpnz

     

    Again, the title of the thread is that GW2 events aren't based on WAR/RIFT.  It does not say, "GW2 invented them".  

    If three games base their game design on the same design, would you say they were based upon each other?

    The 3 games essentially implemented a game design that's been around for years.

    Your continued insistance how 'events / PQ / RIFTS looks to function differently thus are different' is more than enough to show that you don't really understand how game design works.

    Gdemami -
    Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.

  • AlberelAlberel Member Posts: 1,121
    Originally posted by Calerxes

    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...

  • RoxtarrRoxtarr Member CommonPosts: 1,122
    Originally posted by jpnz
    Originally posted by Roxtarr
    Originally posted by jpnz

     

    Again, the title of the thread is that GW2 events aren't based on WAR/RIFT.  It does not say, "GW2 invented them".  

    If three games base their game design on the same design, would you say they were based upon each other?

    The 3 games essentially implemented a game design that's been around for years.

    Your continued insistance how 'events / PQ / RIFTS looks to function differently thus are different' is more than enough to show that you don't really understand how game design works.

    Personal attacks are uncalled for.  You have no idea of my game design experience or knowledge.  Any armchair debater knows that if you have a weak argument you attack the person, if you can't beat the idea.  You are misrepresenting my point.  I have no idea what your motive is.  In GW2 they were designed to replace questing and are the core function of a zone.  They drive the story of each zone and have myriad of chains that can go in any number of directions.  Some are one or two chains linked, while others contain many steps and connect multiple DE's together.  Each eventually culminates in a zone wide event.  To in any way, shape or form try to prove that it's the same implementation as WAR (permanently in one location, visible countdoun and stages on the UI) is ludicrous.  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 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.
    image

  • moosecatlolmoosecatlol Member RarePosts: 1,530
    Originally posted by Roxtarr
    Originally posted by Zorgo

    .....yeah no previous mmo's ever influenced anothers design....if WAR had not come out; GW2 would be exactly as it is today....irrefutably.

    Or your delusional.

    The point is that some people try to argue that events evolution goes: WAR>RIFT> GW2 and this is not the case, which is the point of my post.  I think the way contribution is handled is very similar however, but the events themselves are a completely different animal.

    Would you not agree that the key word was "Evolution".

    Personally I would say that Guild Wars 2 adopted the Public Questing system from Warhammer and have evolved it in such a fantastic way, that creates a much more entertaining game.(To an extent, because we all know that the word "Dynamic" only went so far.)

    Though I would never say that they copy pasted the PQ idea from Warhammer, in the same way that SWTOR copy pasted it's combat from every other tab-target mmo.

  • jpnzjpnz Member Posts: 3,529
    Originally posted by Roxtarr
     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?

    Gdemami -
    Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.

  • MightyChasmMightyChasm Member Posts: 298
    Originally posted by Roxtarr

    The similarities: the way contribution is calculated and the fact that they are "events".  RIFT is a descendent of WAR, but GW2 is from a different family altogether.

    RIFT and Warhammer's events are built in "Stages" while GW2's is based on "Chains".  While all dynamic events in all MMO's share the definition, GW2's did not evolve from WAR/RIFT's.  It's more of a parellel evolution, per se and not a direct descendent.

    1. In Warhammer they are permanently located on the map on a small parcel of space.  They run in a cycle that is clearly visible in the UI with a countdown timer that clearly shows what stage a player is on.  At the end of the event, contribution is weighed and a random lottery decides who gets loot and who doesnt'.  These events do not scale based on a player level, so higher level players can make quick work of them, regardless of how epic they were to lower levels.

    2. In RIFT (made my several ex Warhammer Devs) they took this sytem 'up a notch' by making the events more interactive.  They can be spawned by players and don't show up on the map until spawned (or ready to spawn).  RIFTS have multple stages that are clearly shown on the UI that help a plaeyer know of it's progress.  Once a RIFT is complete, it disappears and everybody is rewarded based on contribution.  Another wrinkle that RIFT brings is "zone events" (which I haven't seen any other game do as smoothly) where an invasion force roams the countryside.  They are mobile and can be dangerous.  Again, events in lower level zones can be handled quite easily by higher level players.

    3. In GW2 events are "chains" that are spawned by any number of ways and can travel great distances across the map.  The only UI indication a player has is the progress in that particular part of the chain.  If one part of the chain fails, the story usually takes a different turn which will can involve any number of different other events that are available.  With the exception of a zone wide dynamic event, there is no indication of an event until a player stumbles upon it.  They can be spawned by killing a certain mob, picking up an item, talking to an NPC, opening a cage door, or just overhearing a conversation.  Some chains are very short, while others are extremely long and involved.  In my experince most people run away to do other things after completing a link in the chain, not realizing they missed the best part coming up.  XP, Karma and coin are given based on contribution and occasional a "chest" will spawn on particularly large zone events.  Players level will scale to the level of the event, so while higher level players are more powerful, they are never trivialized.

    To summarize: WAR and RIFT events (not invasions - those are unique!) are small events that occur in visible stages while GW2 events are CHAINS that will often branch in multple directions.  They are all "dynamic events" by definition, but to say that GW2 is a evolution of the WAR/RIFT model would be incorrect since they are so different.  So, to say that GW2 somehow evolved from WAR or RIFT is incorrect.  GW2 evolved parellell to them, and is not a descendent of them.

    Yes they are.  Everything about GW2 is entirely derivative.  End of thread.  

  • RoxtarrRoxtarr Member CommonPosts: 1,122
    Originally posted by jpnz
    Originally posted by Roxtarr
     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". 

    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.
    image

Sign In or Register to comment.