Originally posted by Badaboom

Level scaling to content is probably GW2's greatest feature.  This ensures that all content updates/expansions is relevant and can be experienced by everybody.

I believe a solid foundation has been laid from Anet enabling this game to continually grow and evolve.

I don't think the leveling scaling can be singled out as the greatest feature.  Because, it's only when it is coupled with the dynamic events and hearts system does one get the full perspective of a combination of systems that aren't "level locked" and thus are able to create a greater degree of longevity in the content whilst creating a feeling of a less linear world.

Side Note:  It's just a shame that currently GW2 is missing two features that I personally think it needs: 

• Player housing:  Just like in games such as SWG, player housing that can be built by the player and has a fully customisable interior can add to a sense of the gameworld actually "feeling" like a world and less like a movie set tour (I'm looking at you Bioware).
• .
• Land and Sea based Mounts:  I'm not talking about having flying mounts or even mounts that go at super fast speeds.  Both of which would bring in their own sets of problems to the game.  I'm referring to a wide variety of types of land and sea based mounts that perhaps have speeds slightly higher than run speed.   Such a variation of mounts (some of which are not easily obtainable) can be another element which gives players something to seek out and thus gives them more reason to stay in the game world.

I think part of the issue why some don't understand the concept of giving oneself something to do in the game when you reach "max" is the simple fact that a lot of MMO's just don't offer anything other than preset quest chains, raids and pvp warzones. 

the more recent MMO's just don't include some of the "world" type stuff found in games like SWG:

• Unique and highly sought after items to find.
• Places of interest to visit.
• Activities that are outside of the usual scope of "questing" such as "collections".
• Being able to be one of only a few that can make specific items of worth.
• Being able to build your own "house" and customise it accordingly, without restriction on what you can put in it.
• Being able to build ships.
• The list goes on and on.

I suppose it probably came down to a matter of time and resources, as well as a little hubris that suggested they weren't needed (I'm looking at you Bioware) that stopped these companies from expanding on the games design to be a little less restrictive in what activities could be accomplished in such games.

Perhaps it was the advent of things like achievement systems, LFG tools, long story arcs, voice over, dialogue options and all the other things that we now somewhat take for granted that forced out all the other "world" type stuff simply because there's only so much time in the day.  That along with rising costs, an increase in competition, reduction in time scales and an economic situation putting the squeeze on such companies.

But, as what we are witnessing now, companies are beginning to realise that excuses don't keep players loyal.  Companies have to start going that extra mile just to retain players.

Even Damion Schubert of Bioware once said : 

"Freedom is a true part of the magic of MMOs, and artificial constraints and mechanics can undermine the fiction and the sense that you are living in the virtual world – and when you have a brand as rich and textured as Star Wars™, the last thing you want to do is undermine it. Even worse, the depth and visual splendor of Star Wars™: The Old Republic would be completely lost if players couldn’t jump off the rails and just live in the space from time to time."

I agree with him, in my opinon, the situation should not be EITHER all linear, or all "world" type content.  Because as we've seen in the past, neither extreme is really a "one size fits all" situation.  Instead, BOTH should be included in order to offer players options.

It's just a shame that SWTOR didn't actually accomplish what Damion wanted to see in the game.

Originally posted by Psychow

Originally posted by Tarka

 

For me, it was the fact that the content quantity and quality was lacking.  The second and third acts ended way too soon, and the game relies on players doing the harder modes to take them to top level.

 

I agree the 3rd and 4th Acts were too short. Especially Act 4.

 

However, I disagree that the content quality was lacking, but that is a matter of personal opinion. I liked the cheesy story, the cut-scenes, and pretty much everything about the gameplay itself.

 

As for content quantity, perhaps I play slow, but it took me anywhere from 25 to 30 hours on normal difficulty to beat the game. I was level 32 or 33 on each class I played through. I did all optional dungeons and fully cleared each map. I also did not buy anything off the AH.

If what I did was how the gameplay was supposed to be, then I think that is plenty of content (25-30 hours) for a single playthrough.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing the story, I'm just not used the a large portion of the levels being reliant on replaying the same content.   Plus the dungeons started to feel very samey after awhile (a point that I believe was mentioned by a number of critics).

Like I said, that's why I was personally disappointed with the product.  Others obviously felt otherwise.

Originally posted by Lobotomist

Originally posted by sammandar
It always never ceases to amaze me how we continue to judge the quality of a game by how many copies it sells. Just because something sells very well does not make it worth the purchase.

Its a crazy mixed bag of a game.

It actually gets the gameplay right. But misses everywhere else.

 

But as I always say - gameplay is most important piece of the game. If you have that, all else can be repaired or improved.

So goes with D3. It can actually still be a great game if Blizzard makes some changes.

Question is : do they want to ? Or are they just content with 10 million copies sold , and leave it at that ?

As is always the case with Blizzard, they are lazy and will only just do enough work to make a profit, and no more.  They don't like to over-exert themselves if they don't have to. 

This is why WoW has plodded along in terms of development and yet, still continues to dominate.  And until a competitor actually manages to do a decent job of an MMO, Blizzard will not actually try to be innovative or evolutionary is any way. 

Blizzards moto:  "If it ain't broke:  don't fix it."

Originally posted by Psychow

Originally posted by ste2000

Originally posted by k-damage
Yes, yes. But how many did stay ... ?

Diablo 3 is not a MMO, it is a Multiplayer game.

Its job was to sell boxes not subscriptions, and it did

Good on Blizzard, huge success.................crap game though

Yet, when you have a good reputation, people buys everything (me included).

Not so sure about the next tme though..................

 

What part of the game was "crap" ?

 

Movement?

Combat?

UI?

Class diversity?

Graphics?

Too easy? Too hard?

 

How many hours did you play before you came to your conclusion that it was a crap game?

 Was it a crap game before you came to this conclusion?

What did you think of the game before it became a crap game? 

Did you come to this conclusion on your own, or was it from reading other people's comments and complaints?

For me:

Movement:  standard ARPG style.

Combat:  standard:

UI:  standard

Class diversity: below par.  Titan Quest did it better.

Graphics:  Ok.  Titan Quest did as good a job.

Difficulty:  Ok.

However, none of the above actually pins down why Diablo 3 was a let down for me personally.

For me, it was the fact that the content quantity and quality was lacking.  The second and third acts ended way too soon, and the game relies on players doing the harder modes to take them to top level.

Originally posted by tixylix
If you don't like MMOs you still wont like them, GW2 is pretty much your standard MMO, it's basically like WAR but if WAR was alright and not complete shit.

Erm....no....just.....no.

Originally posted by Roybe

The problem I've found people have with using this term (I have and still believe it is a valid term in business settings) is that the definition of it in the strictest sense is that a new discovery in a branch of science makes all other theories obsolete e.g.  by using a planned scientific experiment around the globe, it was proven that the earth is round.  This makes any further theory about the earth being flat, square, ovoid, etc.  nonsensical and wrong.  Therefore, since there is nothing that can create this type of fundamental change to the way business runs, there is no way to call naything a business creates a 'pardigm shift'.

 

My argument to this is that there can be changes made that make a business, or it's output, so fundamentally different that it makes little sense for people to go back to an older model.  Yes, there are still people that do not have a cell phone (I am actually one of those), but it's a narrow group of people that a cell phone does not appeal to.  As things improve with the coverage/cost of cell phones it will become a smaller and smaller population that will not have one.

 

So the easy way to relate this to GW2 is by using what is being called the GW2 effect.  The fact that many people that have played the game, do not find it fun, enticing, or otherwise worth their time to play their old game of choice.  Why?  That's the magic question.  The best answer I have been able to come up with is that the overall game of GW2 is better than many other games in the same genre, not because of any single change (or group of changes) but the game as a whole is better than the sum of it's parts, which in terms of this discussion make it better than most games within the genre.  I think the statment 'it just works' conveys this quite nicely.

Erm...the bit in red seems to contradict the rest of your post. 

Anyhow, I do agree that the "the whole is better than the sum of its parts" is probably a good (albeit vague) summary.

Originally posted by BilboDoggins

I often hear the phrase "paradigm shift" used to describe what GW2 is going to do for the genre. However I don't see what GW2 is doing that actually makes it a "paradigm shift" seeing as how every aspect of the game has been done before already by games before it.

 

So please enlighten me as to what makes GW2 a "paradigm shift".

Personally, I wouldn't say that it's a complete "paradigm shift", more like a selective "paradigm shift".  What I mean is that in my opinion it's includes an evolutionary take on certain core systems that are found in many "themepark" type MMO's

For instance, the "Renown Hearts" and Dynamic Events systems are both an evolutionary take on the traditional linear quest system found in games like Rift, TOR and WoW.  Both of the GW2 systems create an environment which (to me at least) feels more "natural" and fluidic.  Where results of an event can have consequences on future events that follow.

• Is it a paradigm shift?  In certain respects I'd say yes. 
• Is it a complete paradigm shift in respect to how to design an MMO?  No.  There are still other systems in the game that can be attributed to games that came before it. 

It all comes down to what one defines as the meaning of the term "paradigm shift".

The fact is that the differences found in GW2 do set it apart from other MMO's.  Will it be enough for it to be successful?  I don't think anyone can say right now with any degree of certainty.

Originally posted by colddog04

Originally posted by Tarka

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by Tarka

 

The "heart" progress bar is a communal one as far as I could tell.

---

 

If the completion was communal, it would mean that you can come to an area and the Heart being finished by other players even before you start any of the Heart tasks on your own.

That would be very very poor game design. Or am I missing something?

When I mention the "progress bar", I am talking about the bar that is specific to any one particular "heart" quest that the player is partaking in.  Not the "counter" which records how many "heart" quests you have completed in an area.  That is a completely different thing.

Yeah, but that isn't actually communal. Within your own group it is. As I feed cows, it is not helping someone elses bar fill, it is only helping my own.

 

The DE progress bars (or whatever they have for the DE at the time) is communal. The heart quest progress bar is not.

Well, I was sure that it filled up whilst other people (not in a group with me) were "completing" their bits for the quest, but I could be wrong.  I notice that the subject seems to be under much debate on various parts of the web.

I'm sure I even saw a progress bar partly filled up when I began on a "hearts" quest.

To me it seems that if only 1 person is working on the "hearts" quest then the progress bar will indeed fill up in accordance with what that one person is doing.  But if more than one is working on it, then it is the communal actions that are defining how quickly it fills up.  I could be wrong though.

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by Tarka

 

The "heart" progress bar is a communal one as far as I could tell.

---

 

If the completion was communal, it would mean that you can come to an area and the Heart being finished by other players even before you start any of the Heart tasks on your own.

That would be very very poor game design. Or am I missing something?

When I mention the "progress bar", I am talking about the bar that is specific to any one particular "heart" quest that the player is partaking in.  Not the "counter" which records how many "heart" quests you have completed in an area, that is a completely different thing (which is part of the "achievements" system).

This is what I'm talking about:

Notice the progress bar under the details for the "Heart" quest.  That bar fills up in accordance with what is being done for THAT specific "Heart" quest.

Originally posted by altas
For 1 year I see only one storyline going on here and there on internet: GW2 sux, it's not revolutionary, it's boring, nothing new, wow clone, rift clone... BUT, never seen/heard at least ONE, just ONE idea/suggestion how new or next gen MMORPGs should look like and how to improve this fallen genre...

Very true indeed.  If the current crop of MMO's are indeed not fun for some people, then those individuals should perhaps be at the forefront of offering constructive options and ideas on how MMO's should change for the better.

GW2 may bomb, who knows right now, but the fact is that games such as Rift, GW2, TOR and others are least trying different things.  Such features may not be to everyone's liking but that still doesn't detract from the fact that not all MMO's are alike.  Some hit a "magic formula" that makes them successful, others don't.

The fact is that MMO's don't have to be "revolutionary", but they should at least try to be "evolutionary".

Originally posted by Spiider

Originally posted by Tarka

Originally posted by Spiider

Fanboism is strong in this one.

It will not change the fact that GW2 is same old same old for many of us. Call it WOW clone, call it not-same-as-rift or call it Matilda but it will not be revolutionary and industry breaking or saving. 12 months, after that it becomes booooring. Maybe not even that long.

Since when is "Fanboyism" synonymous with actually answering a query?  Furthermore, where did anyone in this thread call it "revolutionary" or "industry breaking"?  

The simple fact is, GW2's progression activities (i.e. the "Hearts" and DE systems) ARE different to Rift.  Just like Rift has progression systems that differ to those in WoW.  One may not like the fact that GW2 isn't so radically different as to be considered a completely different animal, but nevertheless each game is different in some noticable respects. 

Of course, that doesn't prevent certain individuals from refusing to acknowledge such differences, and trying to automatically assume that everything is the same.

 

So my question to you is:    

In YOUR own opinion, at what point is a "ground based" MMO so different as to be worthy of being actually labelled as "different" to the competition, and yet STILL actually be considered a ground based MMO?  

Do you have any examples?  Or are you just trolling for the sake of it?

 

Is GW2 "revolutionary"?  In my opinion, no.  But that's not the point of this discussion.  GW2 IS different to Rift in the ways mentioned earlier. So whilst it may not be "revolutionary", it could be instead considered to be"evolutionary".

So you are trying to say that I'm 100% wrong and that GW2 is something this world has never seen?

EVE was revolutionary when it came out. So was AO (that's 2001 we are talking about, a year you probably didn't even know how to spell "mmorpg"). Yet some individuals will keep defending what they like despite obvious facts showing the contrary (of that something being boring, bad or just plain dumb). Just like some Germans supported nazi party or some americans support invading countries they cant even find on the map. Are you one of those?

Rift and GW2 are the same. Grindy, boring, and clones of WOW that is clone of EQ that is clone of something before it.

Right now there is NO game that breaks the industry in a positive way simply because people making games are too afraid to saiil uncharted waters. It's all about profits and GW2 is money making game, not fun providing one.

Shall I continue? Or will you simply avoid any intelligent and honest argument by claming me to be a troll? I can always claim that those who find GW2 interessting are trolls if I was to follow your chain of deduction. Yet I do know better and will simply find my amuzement somewhere else, not interrupting anyone who wants to play GW2. We are all free to do and think what we want. If you like it play it. But don't expect me to be silent in expressing myself.

Did you actually read my post?  

1)  Do you know the difference between something being "revolutionary" as opposed to being "evolutionary"?   If I said "GW2 is something this world has never seen" (your words) then I would be implying that it is revolutionary.  Not evolutionary (which is what I actually said).  So your question (and the majority of your latest post) is irrelevant. 

2)  It is really not advisable to make assumptions about people you dont actually know.  Yes, I played AO and Eve.  I have played many MMORPG's in my time.   Including SWG (Pre-NGE), AOC, WoW, Tabula Rasa, SWTOR, STO, and others.  I really don't care if you believe me or not.  That's irrelevant.

3)  Calling something "boring" or "not fun" is completely subjective.  You are entitled to your own opinion, but that doesn't necessarily apply to others.  More importantly, such an opinion is completely off topic in a discussion comparing systems in two games.  The fact is that the OP asked a question and people have replied.  If you are calling them "fanboys" for replying then you have really gotten things mixed up.

4)  You claim that "...there is no game that breaks the industry in a positive way...", which is again a subjective statement.  I could point out that GW2 brings elements which can affect the industry in a positive way, just as many other MMO's have.  For instance, TOR's situation could be considered to be something that the industry could learn from and therefore be considered a positive thing.  Just because YOU don't agree doesn't make your opinion as being the only justifiable one.

In short: 

• Is GW2 revolutionary?  No. 
• Does it HAVE to be revolutionary to be capable of providing "fun"?   No.  

The point here is that your statements are completely off-topic and subjective.  You are throwing around labels which are well known to evoke emotions in other users of such discussions and generalising because you refuse to acknowledge differences between the games.  Therefore your comments are both inaccurate and unhelpful to the actual topic being discussed, and therefore could well be considered as a troll attempt.

Originally posted by Spiider

Fanboism is strong in this one.

It will not change the fact that GW2 is same old same old for many of us. Call it WOW clone, call it not-same-as-rift or call it Matilda but it will not be revolutionary and industry breaking or saving. 12 months, after that it becomes booooring. Maybe not even that long.

Since when is "Fanboyism" synonymous with actually answering a query?  Furthermore, where did anyone in this thread call it "revolutionary" or "industry breaking"?  

The simple fact is, GW2's progression activities (i.e. the "Hearts" and DE systems) ARE different to Rift.  Just like Rift has progression systems that differ to those in WoW.  One may not like the fact that GW2 isn't so radically different as to be considered a completely different animal, but nevertheless each game is different in some noticable respects. 

Of course, that doesn't prevent certain individuals from refusing to acknowledge such differences, and trying to automatically assume that everything is the same.

So my question to you is:    

In YOUR own opinion, at what point is a "ground based" MMO so different as to be worthy of being actually labelled as "different" to the competition, and yet STILL actually be considered a ground based MMO?  

[mod edit]

Is GW2 "revolutionary"?  In my opinion, no.  But that's not the point of this discussion.  GW2 IS different to Rift in the ways mentioned earlier. So whilst it may not be "revolutionary", it could be instead considered to be"evolutionary".

Originally posted by Reflection2

Originally posted by Tarka

2)  The player doesn't get a progress bar that applies solely to their own progress in the task, instead they see a "communal" progress for everyone taking part in the "Heart" quest.  I don't know if WAR had something similar for its PQ system, but I'd guess that it did.

 

This is not true - the heart progress bar is individual for each person. They are different to the dynamic event progress bar which counts the contribution of everyone in the area. You can often complete heart quests by doing a nearby dynamic event which may lead to some of this confusion.

From my extensive time playing Rift and taking part in the dynamic events they had, my main hated was mob tagging. As a fully raid geared cleric it was not efficient to do anything but solo if you wanted to earn PAs, and I would rarely join public groups as it simply slowed things down. I tended to avoid other players when grinding or doing dailies. My whole guild was the same, no one ever grouped outside of raids and the 15 mins for a daily dungeon, and arguments often broke out over the best soloing spots such as Talos Landing. When I did join a public group during an event there was always some asshat who was ungrouped tagging the mobs so the group did not get any experience or loot. 

Compared to this Guild Wars 2 is a complete breath of fresh air. Actually being happy to see other players in the world! Helping people and being helped! I mean, even apart from the thousands of other improvements GW2 has over Rift, this was just mind blowing for me.

Incorrect.  I was doing "Heart" quests in Queensdale (it was the one with the wurms and the feeding of the cows) and everyones contribution was making that bar go up, not just my own.  See the wiki article for Renown Hearts:

"Hearts fill as players assist in the area; no NPC interaction is required to begin progress on a heart....

......

Once a heart is completed, players are rewarded with experience and receive mail from an NPC expressing gratitude and containing money. Additionally, the renown heart NPCs will begin selling karma goods."

Note the plural:  "players" and the bits in red.

I believe that you are getting mixed up between:

1)  Multiple players contributing to completing the "heart" (which is what I experienced).

with:

2)  The rewards that are given out on an individual basis based on each individual players contribution. 

The "heart" progress bar is a communal one as far as I could tell.

Originally posted by Ubel12
For real the voice acting does suck badly.  It does. This is not me hating, it is just fact. Also, when you go down and have to do abilities to save yourself, your character say's, "I need healing, for real!". Or something out of sorts which drives me crazy. However, the game is GREAT!! It has awesome Charater animations which have been missing in a lot of MMO's, and the graphics are amazing as well. And all this comes in a free to play purchase! AMAZING!

I will admit that I find certain human character responses when you kill things etc are annoying.  But others aren't too bad.  For me, such a thing is a minor point, I learn to block them out, or turn the sound down :)

Originally posted by BlackestNite

Originally posted by Tarka

Originally posted by BlackestNite
the touch of SWTOR lingers in the minds of men even after death.

I wouldn't blame TOR, it's just that GW2's "quest" systems (and I use that term loosely) are subtlely different that at face value they may seem identical to what came before.  It's natural, after all, to draw comparisons and try to compartmentise/label something to be the same as something else one has experienced.  Even though such a label may be very inaccurate.

In the end, it's only when someone actually plays the game that they realise the core difference between the "quest system" in GW2 compared to others. 

i'm only referring to the attitude of most former swtor lovers toward the game. i held off interest for months on the word of such people and when i played i discovered the opposite of nearly every BS tale they spun.

Well, I can agree that TOR does seem to have a large portion of players who feverishly defend it at all costs.  More than certain other MMO's.  Such individuals are unable to look upon other games objectively and acknowledge that TOR has faults.  Unfortunately such misguided players aren't helping the continued development of TOR, they are actually hindering it.  But they cannot see that.  Instead, they label anyone with even the most mild concerns about TOR as a "Hater", and distill the designs and features of all other MMO's down to the point of absurdity in order to try to lessen their appeal.

These are the individuals who will stick with the game and wonder why everyone is leaving when they are having so much fun.

Blind fanboys:  The suckers of the MMO industry.

Originally posted by BlackestNite
the touch of SWTOR lingers in the minds of men even after death.

I wouldn't blame TOR, it's just that GW2's "quest" systems (and I use that term loosely) are subtlely different, and yet at face value they may look initially identical to what came before (albeit with a slightly cosmetic difference).  It's natural, after all, to draw comparisons and try to compare/compartmentise/label something to what one has experienced previously.  Even though such an assumption / label may be very inaccurate.

In the end, it's only when someone actually plays the game that they realise the core difference between the "quest system" in GW2 compared to others.   It's neither TOR's fault, not the fault of any other MMO.  People are merely drawing on their experiences.

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by Tarka

The "Hearts" system is a bit like (but not exactly the same as) traditional quests, whilst the DE system is perhaps more like the PQ's in WAR.

 

As others have said, the combination of the "Renown Hearts" system and the Dynamic Events system essentially replaces the entirety of the tradtional quest system found in other games like WoW, Rift, AOC, TOR, etc, etc. 

This combination is a more fluidic and dynamic system allowing players to "feel" that the environment in which they are inhabiting is constantly shifting in its state, thus giving the feeling of being in a living and breathing virtual "world".

I didn't play WAR so I really cannot comment on its similarities to GW2 in this respect, but I'd guess that the GW2 systems essentially took the concept of the PQ's in WAR, and evolved refined it to remove the problems (e.g. what happens when there isn't enough people doing them).  

---

 

Yes, that is how I understand it too. Just I am considering a word "replacement" too strong and inappropriate. Mechanics are the same, function and role differs. Maybe a matter of perspective tho - replacement as in progression design perception.

GW2 seems to have same quest/progression systems like any other game but the emphasis on each part is different.

 

Again, thanks for all the replies!

I disagree.  It is a replacement.   The mechanics are very different between the "Renown Heart" system (i.e. "Hearts" quests) and the traditional quest systems in other games.  For instance:

1)  A player doesn't have to talk to an npc to do a "Heart" quest.  The moment the player enters into the range of the quest, it automatically appears on their tracker list.  The player can still go and talk to an npc to get more background on the task if they choose, but it's not mandatory in order to begin the quest.

2)  The player doesn't get a progress bar that applies solely to their own progress in the task, instead they see a "communal" progress for everyone taking part in the "Heart" quest.  I don't know if WAR had something similar for its PQ system, but I'd guess that it did.

3)  The player is given various ways to complete the "Heart" quest.  There isn't just one set way to complete the quest.  For instance, a farmer might need cattle feeding, fires putting out and giant worms killing.  Players can choose which to do, and participation in ANY of the different ways will add to the communal progress of the task. 

4)  The outcome can change.  Thus the end result is not always the same e.g. a "Queen" may turn up after killing minions.  Sometimes it may not.

In short, at "face value" it may seem the same as a traditional quest system found in other games, but it actually differs in various ways. 

Nevertheless, there is no "traditional" linear quest system in GW2.  It doesn't exist.  Instead, in its place is the combination of "Renown Hearts" system mentioned above and the "Dynamics Events" system which helps players progress in levels by giving them XP, Karma (Renown) and money as rewards.

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by Tarka

 

Close, but no.

The "Hearts" system is the replacement of the standard quest systems you find in other MMO's. But one does not necessarily lead you to another.

The "Dynamic Events" system is as it sounds, events that are ALSO taking place in the zone which you can get involved in and change in accordance with outcomes.

There is also a "personal story" which isn't connected with the above. It can take place in instanced locations set in cities or in the outside world.

In short, the three take place in the same areas of the game, but aren't necessarily connected. Together they create a variance in what the player experiences that is more than what can be experienced in other games, whilst allowing the player to do what they want, when they want

---

 

Ah.

So no replacement of quest system. Just adding something else to do besides questing, like Public Quests in Warhammer Online?

EDIT: If Hearts means Renown Hearts it does not seem to be anything like Public Quests but side quests.

The "Hearts" system is a bit like (but not exactly the same as) traditional quests, whilst the DE system is perhaps more like the PQ's in WAR.

As others have said, the combination of the "Renown Hearts" system and the Dynamic Events system essentially replaces the entirety of the tradtional quest system found in other games like WoW, Rift, AOC, TOR, etc, etc. 

This combination is a more fluidic and dynamic system allowing players to "feel" that the environment in which they are inhabiting is constantly shifting in its state, thus giving the feeling of being in a living and breathing virtual "world".

I didn't play WAR so I really cannot comment on its similarities to GW2 in this respect, but I'd guess that the GW2 systems essentially took the concept of the PQ's in WAR, and evolved refined it to remove the problems (e.g. what happens when there isn't enough people doing them).  

Originally posted by Zylaxx

Originally posted by Tarka

Originally posted by Zylaxx

Originally posted by Tutu2
Is this a fair assessment? I keep hearing the story and voice acting is somewhat lucklustre, which is concerning me also. 

Either a troll post or highly misinformed.

 

Rift = WoW with Dynamic Events that are not a core design component of the game, in fact it takes away from the game much the same way WAR's PQ's did.  Rift is also very much a gear grind, raid centric, elitist mentality, vertical slog through hell.  Tab target borefest of a combat system......and to top it off Rift allows you to macro all 3089457835 skilsl to one button....yawn inducing combat.  Crappy World PvP, they even had to make shit up (PvP rifts LOL)to create the illusion of having world pvp.

 

GW2 = Innovation out the ass.  Dynamic events, is the only questing system in place, there is no conventional and linear threadmilll.  No Trinity to slow your group making compostions down.  Innovative combat where you need to move or get smuched, dodge mechanic to assist with creating a fast paced game style reminescent of action games.  You also have no vertical progression, its all horizontal, gear has stats but the good stuff only looks better.  WvW is hands down the best form of PvP which pits 3 factions (or in this case worlds) against each other, hell Rift even lolcopied it.

 

Rift is old and bust.....GW2 is the new hotness!

 Don't confuse the "Dynamic Events" system with the "Hearts" system.   The "Hearts" system is like a semi-dynamic system but are statically set in particular places.  The "Dynamic Events" can move across the landscape.   And there could be quite a few DE's going on in one area.

Sorry dont see where you see in my post where I confused heart quests, I didnt even mention heart quests in my post.  I think you meant to quote a post above mine.

Here's what you posted:

"Dynamic events, is the only questing system in place,......"

You mention the Dynamic Events system, but contrary to what you posted, that isn't the "only" system in place. 

The "Hearts" system is also in place as well.  The two aren't the same thing.