There is nothing wrong with quest hubs. In your typical fantasy game world, it often makes sense for a bunch of quests to be centered around a point of interest, a village in the wild, or something. 

The problems are too much linearity, actually too many questhubs and last but not least, the actual quests, which are just the same boring kill/fetch stuff.  What players do in GW2 is not really diffrent from what players do in, say, WoW. Kill, click, fetch "meaningless" stuff. It feels diffrent and even more streamlined, because you do can do it "on the fly", although looking at the RP part of MMORPG, i actually like to have a "choice" and speak to a NPC. 

What do you people think will happen, if games in the future adapt GW2´s model? In 5 years we will be having a thread on this forum, complaining how damn boring that stuff is. Why? Because what we do is still the same old sh*t. 

Btw, i am not saying that GW2´s model is bad or something. It does give you a feel of freedom and feels kind of fresh. But it still just a nice looking, well made band-aid. 

I admit i kept asking my wife about the lack of quests beyond your story line (What am i doing wrong, where are they?!!!)... I was in the 20s before I even noticed that days into the game and that I had already done probably 100 of them under a different guise. honestly refreshing at least for me.  They just exist. Yes they are repeatable, but if you keep moving and exploring, the world continues to grow around you, and they flow so well you can seem to end up miles from where you began w/out even knowing where you are. It's really bad if you're OCHD! ack! Not good!

Originally posted by Morgaren

I just find it humorous how many of you want to act like you know so much more about questing than one of the people who designed the system that so many of you have been complaining about for years. Then when a game comes out that does something different, and people talk about it as being different you immediately dismiss it.

The criteria that is come up with is comepletely ludacris sometimes. "This online game is just like anything else out there, you log in, play, then log out, can't a company come up with anything original?"

Thats what some of the people here sound like. GW2 did come up with a new way to deal with questing. That still means you go out and do stuff, for other NPC's. Alot of people get "it" that a MMO requires certain things, like objectives, and conflict. Some of you though, you think that a new game should be designed without the elements that make it a game, and wonder why no one has done it yet. Then, when someone comes on this site and shares some of their actual insights from experience in the industry, you have the nerve to tell them they are not educated on subject matter that they designed.

Its like telling Steve Jobs what the iPhone can do, if he were still alive, or explaining the female form to Larry Flint. You guys have no idea how dumb you sound sometimes.

Thing is, a lot of criticism is directed towards a feature's building block and how similar it is with an already existing game. From there a conclusion is drawn that it's "no different". They strip it off its top coating.

"Dynamic Events are not dynamic because it's just a series of scripted events with multiple results based on factors x, y, z". I really don't know how to argue with a person that sees things this way. In a way, he is telling the truth, because that's what everything boils down to in the world of software engineering. It is, however, not right to debunk the term "Dynamic" in DE's. The main premise of DEs is that a certain area may or may not be of the same state when he visits it for the nth time. With this in mind DEs are truly dynamic. Understanding how, when, and where an event will take place doesn't make it NOT dynamic. He simply understood the system. Can it be MORE dynamic, though? The answer is yes, and that's what we should expect for the future.

"You do the same tasks in Dynamic Events just like in traditional quests". This is true word for word. The key differences lie in 2 things:

1.) Things actually happen around you.

2.) Not taking part in the event can have consequences and may change the area you are in. It may also bring change to another area.

"Dynamic Events are just spawned quests". This is also true, but the message can easily come across as a negative towards DEs. Whether it be from player interaction, time of the day, timer, random value, DEs need to start in one way or another. ANet (Colin Johanson) stated that they simply don't have enough developers to be able to generate infinite DE's that will not repeat. Maybe in the future we'll have a DE system that's more akin to reality (e.g. Swamp Lord that was killed willl never rise again, but a new and different menace will appear in replacement).

Originally posted by Suzie_Ford

MMORPG.com is proud to introduce our newest regular columnist, Red 5's Mark Kern. Yep, -that- Mark Kern! In his inaugural column, Mark opines on the idea that a game has finally arrived that deals the death knell to 'quest hubs'. Find out what he's got to say and then weigh in with your thoughts in the comments.

They were my fault to begin with, at least partially. You see, I worked on World of Warcraft, the most quest-hub heavy game in existence. I even helped come up with that dang exclamation mark, borrowing it from Diablo 2 and being inspired by Metal Gear Solid. Since WoW, everyone shifted their online quest design to hubs and spokes, and a forest of exclamation marks as far as the eye could see. I, for one, am glad someone finally killed them for good.

Read more of Mark Kern's Quest Hubs Are Dead, Finally!

Khm... what's wrong with quest hubs? And how latest "innovations" changes anything to better?

First things first.  MMORPG.com needs to kill the "auto-insert page 2, page 3, page 4, page 5 comments on scroll down" because it is pushing the comment box away from my screen, preventing me from commenting.

With that away and said, my real comment.

I salute you for being honest and professional.  Honest in that, you gave your comments (and review for that matter) about an indirect competitor game.  It is not a common thing to hear from the industry (Richard Garriott is one of those honest industry leader) giving their comments and reviews of a product that is a direct or indirect competitor of their own.

Secondly, it isn't a "marketing" article - which we usually hear when a competitor say something about their product.  There were no Firefall everywhere in the article!  In fact, the way you wrote it, the firefall mention at the end was something added late, it's not bias, it is fair, it's not a front in pushing for your own product.  Kudos to that.  Again, honesty there plus professionalism.

Which makes me even more excited for Firefall.  I haven't downloaded the latest patch (since GW2 was near when the huge update went out, I was still downloading GW2), but because of your honesty and professionalism, even to the point of saying "following in their footsteps" even though - from the public's view - you never 'copied' GW2 since both Firefall and GW2 were developed secretly, and very private, simultaneously.

Yep, that definitely put Firefall even higher.  Much more in that, you mentioned how you're doing new things differently from what you yourself established back in WoW, and differently from GW2.

The last part is interesting to me, especially since it is yet another revolution in MMOG, just like how phasing technology was first implemented in LotRO, then Auto Assault, then Guild Wars, then Tabula Rasa - all developed at the same time so they did not copy each other.

Parallel development, all doing similar things if not the same thing.  That makes it interesting to watch.  Diversity in ideas and implementations.  That is what will keep this multi-billion dollar going.

Huge plus.  Thank you very much.

Originally posted by DixonHill

There is nothing wrong with quest hubs. In your typical fantasy game world, it often makes sense for a bunch of quests to be centered around a point of interest, a village in the wild, or something. 

The problems are too much linearity, actually too many questhubs and last but not least, the actual quests, which are just the same boring kill/fetch stuff.  What players do in GW2 is not really diffrent from what players do in, say, WoW. Kill, click, fetch "meaningless" stuff. It feels diffrent and even more streamlined, because you do can do it "on the fly", although looking at the RP part of MMORPG, i actually like to have a "choice" and speak to a NPC. 

What do you people think will happen, if games in the future adapt GW2´s model? In 5 years we will be having a thread on this forum, complaining how damn boring that stuff is. Why? Because what we do is still the same old sh*t. 

Btw, i am not saying that GW2´s model is bad or something. It does give you a feel of freedom and feels kind of fresh. But it still just a nice looking, well made band-aid. 

 

 

I actually agree quite a lot with that. The optimal solution is a good mixture of the two. Partially because it makes just as much sense that an NPC would have orders or tasks for you from time to time as it is that a town would fall under a suprise attack that everyone responds to immidiatly. From a game mechanic stand point I'd say you'd need a bit of both as both the traditional quest and the public quest(or DE in GW2 speak) have both positive aspects and drawbacks. A traditional quest can have content that simply won't work in a "public" enviornment and vice versa.

Originally posted by Felheart5

Originally posted by DixonHill

There is nothing wrong with quest hubs. In your typical fantasy game world, it often makes sense for a bunch of quests to be centered around a point of interest, a village in the wild, or something. 

The problems are too much linearity, actually too many questhubs and last but not least, the actual quests, which are just the same boring kill/fetch stuff.  What players do in GW2 is not really diffrent from what players do in, say, WoW. Kill, click, fetch "meaningless" stuff. It feels diffrent and even more streamlined, because you do can do it "on the fly", although looking at the RP part of MMORPG, i actually like to have a "choice" and speak to a NPC. 

What do you people think will happen, if games in the future adapt GW2´s model? In 5 years we will be having a thread on this forum, complaining how damn boring that stuff is. Why? Because what we do is still the same old sh*t. 

Btw, i am not saying that GW2´s model is bad or something. It does give you a feel of freedom and feels kind of fresh. But it still just a nice looking, well made band-aid. 

 

 

I actually agree quite a lot with that. The optimal solution is a good mixture of the two. Partially because it makes just as much sense that an NPC would have orders or tasks for you from time to time as it is that a town would fall under a suprise attack that everyone responds to immidiatly. From a game mechanic stand point I'd say you'd need a bit of both as both the traditional quest and the public quest(or DE in GW2 speak) have both positive aspects and drawbacks. A traditional quest can have content that simply won't work in a "public" enviornment and vice versa.

Originally posted by GoldenArrow

The hearts in GW2 are quest-hubs.

Funny how people think just masking something makes it go away.

If they actually removed the hearts and made everything appear randomly in the world then we could say there are no quest hubs. Even with the group events they always appear in the same places.

Untill we get more randomness there will always be "quest-hubs".

Hearts was not intended from the start, in BW1 there were no hearts but players whined and felt lost so Anet put in the hearts for the "questhub" crowd.

first off the hearts are quest hubs but, let me tell you Guildwars is one of the most lonely mmos ever, no one chats no one asks for help, just flash mobs..

the idea of automaticaly being able to pick up quests is also very unegagiing, no reason to find out why were doing that quest no reason to see the circumstances or even the quest quiver. the entire game is just like a single player lobby adventure game.

There is never a reason to group up becuase your automaticly grouped. Thats like saying if I am in a huge crowd in the mall I am in a group, no I am not.

I have a feeling people who play guildwars are all xenophobes  or there all chinese gold farmers being whipped and told no talking.

good luck with such a dull game. good I wish arch age was coming out soon. going back to skyrim which seems 10x more social and lively then this and its a single player game

Most of the heart quests gives you 3 objectives to complete the quest with- you don't particularly have to go farm bandits or centaurs, you could go destroy weapon crates or rez the fallen or gather ruined grape plants.

That's one difference between GW2 quests and other MMO quests, there's more variety to each of them rather than talking to an NPC, walk a mile down the path to kill ogres and come back, move onto next NPC, run to a cave and collect amulets, run back to NPC to turn them in...

---

Originally posted by pmaura
first off the hearts are quest hubs but, let me tell you Guildwars is one of the most lonely mmos ever, no one chats no one asks for help, just flash mobs..

---

---

There is never a reason to group up becuase your automaticly grouped. Thats like saying if I am in a huge crowd in the mall I am in a group, no I am not.

---

Originally posted by sookster54

Most of the heart quests gives you 3 objectives to complete the quest with- you don't particularly have to go farm bandits or centaurs, you could go destroy weapon crates or rez the fallen or gather ruined grape plants.

That's one difference between GW2 quests and other MMO quests, there's more variety to each of them rather than talking to an NPC, walk a mile down the path to kill ogres and come back, move onto next NPC, run to a cave and collect amulets, run back to NPC to turn them in...

You know, a lot of quests in "traditional" MMO's still have the same kind of objectives in a single quest right? Kill ten ogres, one ogre "mini-boss" and destroy five ogre items. The only difference is that in GW2 you can destroy fifteen items instead and theoretically not have to kill any ogres to finish the quest. Only, usually you'll find yourself killing about ten ogres, destroying about five items and maybe killing the boss because the objectives are usually lumped together anyways. 

At the end of the day it's fairly similar. Don't get me wrong, I prefer that it all pools together, but at the same time it doesn't quite help the feeling of grind when I don't have a clear idea of how much a certain task actually requires of me other than gauging how slowly the bar fills.

Originally posted by Fadedbomb

Yes, I will agree that "Quest Hubs" have been dealt a Death-Knell in GW2. However, zones are still horrbily linear, and quests are just "Prettied" up by hiding all the relevant data behind a "Progress Bar". However, the grindyness & ease of GW2 lends itself to a standard themepark, of which it fits perfectly into.

 

I will say that GW2 is the only themepark in the last 7yrs I paid for, and am still casually playing when I'm bored with DAOC, other side projects, and EQ.

Funny thing about the linearity, it's in the eyes of the beholder. When I first started playing the game, I went from a level 2 area to a level 6 area in mere seconds because, I was just exploring. All of sudden I have to use my wits to beat level 6 mobs, t'was hard but I managed and it was fun and rewarding. For GW2, linearity depends on the player, not the game.

Originally posted by KhinRunite

Originally posted by Morgaren

I just find it humorous how many of you want to act like you know so much more about questing than one of the people who designed the system that so many of you have been complaining about for years. Then when a game comes out that does something different, and people talk about it as being different you immediately dismiss it.

The criteria that is come up with is comepletely ludacris sometimes. "This online game is just like anything else out there, you log in, play, then log out, can't a company come up with anything original?"

Thats what some of the people here sound like. GW2 did come up with a new way to deal with questing. That still means you go out and do stuff, for other NPC's. Alot of people get "it" that a MMO requires certain things, like objectives, and conflict. Some of you though, you think that a new game should be designed without the elements that make it a game, and wonder why no one has done it yet. Then, when someone comes on this site and shares some of their actual insights from experience in the industry, you have the nerve to tell them they are not educated on subject matter that they designed.

Its like telling Steve Jobs what the iPhone can do, if he were still alive, or explaining the female form to Larry Flint. You guys have no idea how dumb you sound sometimes.

 

Thing is, a lot of criticism is directed towards a feature's building block and how similar it is with an already existing game. From there a conclusion is drawn that it's "no different". They strip it off its top coating.

 

 

Thats my point though, people strip it to the most basic building blocks that make games MMORPG's questing is just another means of making progression through zones entertaining. When are they going to quit doing that? Try never.

They are building blocks and framework. If you can strip the game down to it's bare bone elements, try looking around and seeing why it all fits together in that fashion. There is a reason why MMORPG's can get people to keep playing their games for thousands of hours, it has to do with those building blocks people are always complaining, about, and how they are stacked together.

I like quest hubs in MMO's. They are a gathering place for social interaction in the game world and they are towns full of other people just like a real town, but I'm one of those  weirdos who thinks there should be multiplayer interation and Role Play in a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. WHAT?!

I don't really understand why someone would play an MMORPG if they wanted to play solo and without an immursive RP world. It's really quite sad seeing so many MMORPG writers on different sites supporting the player interaction and RP being slowly taken out of MMO's.

Why not play an offline RPG or a FPS and quit ruining MMORPG's for those of us who actually love the genre?

(And since the mods don't seem to understand what a troll is I'm going to go ahead and say that my opinion is harsh and some people may not like it, but just because someone might not agree with my point of view doesn't mean I'm trolling.)

Originally posted by Yaoiman

I like quest hubs in MMO's. They are a gathering place for social interaction in the game world and they are towns full of other people just like a real town, but I'm one of those  weirdos who thinks there should be multiplayer interation and Role Play in a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. WHAT?!

 

I don't really understand why someone would play an MMORPG if they wanted to play solo and without an immursive RP world. It's really quite sad seeing so many MMORPG writers on different sites supporting the player interaction and RP being slowly taken out of MMO's.

 

Why not play an offline RPG or a FPS and quit ruining MMORPG's for those of us who actually love the genre?

 

(And since the mods don't seem to understand what a troll is I'm going to go ahead and say that my opinion is harsh and some people may not like it, but just because someone might not agree with my point of view doesn't mean I'm trolling.)

Very simple. Fyi, MMO mean "Massively Multiplayer Online". Do you see any word grouping, socializing, ... or alike in this? Just many players online. What they do is their problem. Chat, craft, .... or play.

On the other side, who does care for group play, can do this, nobody is forbiding them. But if you mean games are more and more solo oriented nowadays for questing (never heard for solo endgame) you are right. And I'm personally happy to have this possibility. If not, company would never get money from me. They have simply adapted to market.

Also I'm (still) playing Wow, Swtor, .... instead of Skyrim, that horror of Oblivion ... only because first are are designed and programmed much better. Way much better. They are constantly tweaked, patched, upgraded, .... One game I always loved series is Mass Effect ... but again, buy, play to end, leave, nothing more to do. Not with MMO. Besides in single rpg bugs can many times stay there for years without any1 fixing them. They have sold copy.

Defend the farm by killing the bandits or avenge the farm by killing the bandits... 

Spoilt for choice.