Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Developers change the name of a feature, but calls it a new idea. You get hyped over this. How you f
MMOExposed
Member RarePosts: 7,387
Developers take an old idea and change the name of it, and people actually believe its something new and different.
I can understand falling for it once, because we all had to learn at some point, but repeated?
For example, with the hype around Guild Wars 2 not having quest. No, they changed them to being called Hearts instead of quest. But it's the same thing, but with a different name. Yet people got so excited over something we already have done many times before.
In Camelot Unchained, many people were against Stealth mechanics being in the game. This Mark guy changes the name of it, and people jump for joy in excitement over the same feature you were once complaining about. This here is a more direct example of what I am talking about.
Rift's dynamic event rifts.its a public quest with a different name. They spawn in the same locations just like public quest do. It's a few set of common quest objectives with phases. Same thing.
I am sure you can think of more examples, but why do you fall for this tactic over and over again? I sometimes get the feeling many of you enjoy getting overhyped and disappointed at the final results. Sort of like how certain people enjoy cutting themselves for pleasure.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Comments
If something has a negative association some people will follow the herd and hate it. Change the name and suddenly they feel they can love it without the negative association. That or they are not as bright as you'd want them to be.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Except it *is* different. They are *much* closer to a micro-faction grind than a quest. In fact, that is exactly what they are.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
So usually quests can be completed via a multitude of tasks, including completing other quests, are only a minor source of XP and are shared automatically between people? You can usually see the other people who are in stealth?
I'm not sure about Rift's Rifts, but GW2's leveling system is radically different from that of WoW-style MMOs and CU's stealth looks like a clever variation of normal stealth.
That might be true but I bet 100% think they're part of the 30% and the people who disagree with them are the ones that make up the 70%
Well the OP is actually on the right track,he does understand the problem just picked a couple bad examples,no biggie,what he is saying is the important thing.
In case of GW2 they did actually pull the wool over eyes in many areas the most notable being DYNAMIC events.
What happens when you kill a mob in a game?He spawns back in 5 minutes.What happens when a mob enters GW2?Phases in.different wording but in reality,it is spawning in,just using a different trigger.Because it uses a trigger such as click a tree instead of triggering a timer upon killing it,they deemed it worthy of a whole new title ,hence Dynamic Event.
If it actually disappears for say at least a year ,the same way normal holiday events happen,i think we can accept it as an EVENT,Dynamic however is a very loose term.This works only because nobody actually knows how these are implanted in the system,well Arena net knows but not telling.If they for example are on a rotation of say every month,i do not consider it a dynamic event anymore,just repeated content with a longer timer.
Some games actually lock out content forever once you do it,like quests,do we now call questing dynamic events if there is a mob that spawns in during the quest and you can NEVER do that content again?See the problem Arena nets content might actually be repeating more often than our simple quests and doing nothing more than our quests already do and in some case even LESS.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
This is the same silly lack of logic that has players calling every single game a WOW clone.
Those games aren't WOW clones -- they're nowhere near as successful as WOW. Know why? The details matter! That's why even though features are similar, the implementation details actually matter quite a bit.
Virtually every game has a goal or objective of some sort. Guess what: they're all functionally quests. Are we prevented from enjoying Portal because the quests are all the same (beat this level)? Are we prevented from enjoying League of Legends because every round's quest is the same (kill the nexus)?
Every game which isn't a completely freeform experience has goals (and the more freeform a game is, the less a game it is.) But the details matter of how those quests are presented, so GW2's take on questing is pretty justified. Now if you absolutely hate WOW-style quests, it probably won't satisfy you -- but then, you might be the sort who shouldn't be playing games to begin with and you should enjoy non-games like writing music or programming, where you're completely free to create your own objectives.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
YOU are a wow clone.
/Jk
I think you have a good point that that any PvE Quest/Mission Content IS scripted and therefore very LINEAR. The OP is also right with respect that they are still quests but vary by degrees and not by paradigm shift and the contention is the marketing of them being a real paradigm shift ie the experience is very different.
I actually think the CU stealth thing could be quite a departure from the normal stealth ie planar travel which is in dnd iirc. Could easily be done in mmo - just overlay the plane with the game location. So wait and see on that one.
So this proves devs can over-sell their features but sometimes they are being honest! IMHO devs should deliver and not sing their own praises until players have a say.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Arenanet didn't take credit for creating dynamic quests, what they did first was basing the entire core PvE gameplay of an MMO around those events.
The hearts actually came later in development when they found out MMO players are so conditioned by their former MMOs that they willingly ignore the events despite all the visual feedback, unless they get a UI element (heart) that makes it look like a quest.
Funny observation in this thread: many people join in the OP's sermon of how stupid everyone is 'falling for the same trick', yet they all fall for his same trick of creating bullshit discussions on this forum with creating threads over controversial topics with leading questions pondering to the know-it-alls.
Every game Ideas have been done before since dawn of gaming.
Only thing that is left is the holodecks but that will also have the same ideas from older games.
If it's not broken, you are not innovating.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
They did create all the DEs. They didn't invent the concept of public quests, but that's irrelevant. The great thing about GW2's DEs isn't that they're the first of their kind. It's that they're used well as the primary PvE and leveling content instead of quests. Yeah, Rift, WAR and AO had similar features, but they were either minor (Rifts, alien invasions) or the game just sucked (WAR).
Let me demonstrate how great GW2's DEs are via an example:
The traditional model:
I travel to a village. Some guy tells me orcs are attacking this village. I go out and see some orcs wander around aimlessly and have to kill 10 of them to progress my quest. Nothing happens if I ignore this quest. I ask a friend to help me in this epic battle. He can only do that if we party up. After I've completed the quest, I can still see orcs wandering around. Wait, didn't I just push them back? Why are they still here?
GW2's model:
I travel to a village. Some guy tells me centaurs are attacking this village. I can see centaurs run through the village, setting things on fire and killing villagers. I ask a friend to help me in this epic battle. He can simply help me, without using a metagame construct like parties. I complete the quest by killing enough centaurs, forcing them to retreat. Maybe they'll attempt to attack the village again later on, but for a while it returns to being its peaceful self. If I ignored this event, the village would've gotten pillaged by centaurs, making its NPCs unavailable and opening up DEs to take this village back.
Sure, you still kill some stuff and get XP, but GW2's event is so much more believable than the quest the two can't even be compared. THAT's why GW2's events are great and traditional quests suck.
Ok, I'l admit I'm bored. This'll probably get ignored, anyway, and stupid comments like "lol GW2 fan think ANet invented dynamic content!" will continue.
This principal not just applies to mmos.
You effectively described 2/3 of the branches of the federal government. Would people like a law forcing them to buy health coverage, no call it affordable care act and bam, passes. An agency designed to spy on US citizens, nah, how about homeland security, has a nice ring to it.
it is the nature of humans. People are tired of kill 10 rats, collect 10 rat tails, which evolves into place rat trap to capture 10 plague rats. You go through roughly the same motion, but change some of the verbage and, hey look guys, they added a new quest.
At the end of they day, most mmo companies are in it to make the dollar. If they make a great game, bonus, if it's profitable is way more important. They follow a tried and true business model because that is what sells. Everyone wants new and different, until they truly see something new and different, then usually "WTF is this" pops out of their mouth, followed by the" where can I kill 10 rats"?
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Personally I wish 95% of the quest in all games would go the way of the Dodo bird.. Quest should be quest similar to the original EQ epic quest for each class.. This bologna we have now are nothing more then chores and task.. If it was up to me again I would resort to the old EQ way of handling these additional task.. I would just make them faction turn-ins.. For those that played EQ, do you remember the deathfist belts? or gnoll teeth? Turn them in for coin and faction.. Even WoW did this with cloth turn ins.. I wish we would go back to that same mechanic.. It was great for the economy for those races that wanted to raise their faction up with an enemy, and it was more reasonable to understand.. I think it added much more flavor and emersion into the game then anything today.. I miss the EQ days of grinding faction just to say I did it, and I loved how you had to pick and choose what factions you wanted to follow..
.. You gain faction with Billy Bob
.. You gain faction with Sally Sue
.. You lose faction with Barney Fife
You can't please everyone, can we? lol I remember when our EQ guild was ToV faction, then switched to Kael faction months later.. As much as some of us grrrrrrrrrr'd.. it really did add content, and a reason to play, and it greatly effected our gameplay.. Bring that back
I agree with a previous poster, it's about implementation.
Every single MMO has quests, whether game driven or player driven. Therefore finding a new and unique way of implementing them and giving it a shiny name is a way to differentiate.
In the examples of dynamic events/rifts they are different than quests. If a player doesn't get ham for the farmer in WoW, it doesn't affect anything. If a dynamic event/rift is left it follows a sequence of events that temporarily changes the game. I think that is significant enough to warrant a new appellation.
Drop the next-gen marketing and people will argue if the game itself has merit.
Hearts == quests. Last time I checked walking into an area and doing various acitivities that automatically add to your progress isn't comparable to first talking to an NPC before getting assigned a specific activity.
A better comparison would've been dynamic events = public events. Because they pretty much are.
Yes, what you say is true, this is used quite often and it's a common marketing technique. Most apparent example right now would be Wildstar's "telegraphs" imo. Circles on the ground have been used for many years.
Still why do people fall for it: because they haven't seen the game yet, a re-branded name might also come with a few new tricks and depending on the way a concept is handled, the same idea in a new environment might work much better, or much worse.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
In gw2 its even better you dont have walk to npc at all(manytimes they come run up to you even telling you to help them) you just start killing centours and you doing quest but killing mobs your friend dont have party or go to npc also he just help wallah DYNAMIC event.
+1
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.'
-Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid."
-Luke McKinney
Other example of quest you see group of children at village and some boy is talking to other kids some little story or whatever. And some kid say you wont dare, other kid say ok i will you follow him and he just run out to some place(remember i just listend and follow never talked to any npc kid or other npc) he then see you near he ask can you help me and dynamic events starts thats GW2.
Random events thats just happen if you pay attention no ! above head or npc's waiting you come to them asking for quest no you just experience it dynamicly.
OP is totally wrong with is assumptions GW2 just have same quest as other games thats just NOT TRUE.
i can understand the re-naming in terms of game 'flavor', like a rift in RIFT is supposed to be an opening between dimensions, yeah its essentially just a public quest but that wouldnt sound as good in terms of game lore.
beyond that OP is right. gw2 has quests, you just have to wait for them to start up, instead of clicking an ! npc (or in the case of the hearts you do just that haha). almost all the DE come down to 'do this so many times' until the next phase (next part in the quest line) starts.
i guess new features are hard to come up with, so they try to tweak the way old ones are implemented.
OP claimed people were excited because GW2 replaced quests with Hearts. I explained why people were excited. It's because it replaced quests with Dynamic Events, not Hearts. There's a huge difference there. Similarly, people recognized that CU's stealth mechanic was stealth, but with a twist. They simply liked the twist. As for Rift's Rifts, I guess people were excited about public quests in a game that doesn't suck.
The point is that the renaming of those features was never of any importance. People get excited because of the way these games used those features, not because of the basic premise behind them.