Trending Games | WildStar | Elder Scrolls Online | Guild Wars 2 | ArcheAge

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,641,712 Users Online:0
Games:681  Posts:6,076,032
BioWare | Play Now
MMORPG | Genre:Sci-Fi | Status:Final  (rel 12/20/11)  | Pub:LucasArts
PVP:Yes | Distribution:Retail | Retail Price:n/a | Pay Type:Hybrid | Monthly Fee:n/a
System Req: PC | Out of date info? Let us know!

Star Wars: The Old Republic Forum » Spoilers » 20 Examples of Choices Effecting Events Beyond the Cutscene

5 Pages « 1 2 3 4 5 » Search
93 posts found
  Msenge

Novice Member

Joined: 1/05/12
Posts: 90

2/09/12 2:14:00 PM#61
Originally posted by Cavod
Originally posted by Msenge

While that is partially true about GW2 you are forgetting that those events are not a part of the player's personal story in the game.  On top of those event you also have an individual story wherein the player can make meaningful choices.  The most commonly known example of this is when human characters have to choose to save an orphanage or a military hospital from being burned down (there isn't enough time to save both).  If you save the hospital the orphange is then forever burnt down leaving a bunch of sad orphans milling about and vice versa.  How the story branches off after that we don't yet know but seeing the orphange or hospital burnt husk forever afterwards seems to me to be a meaningful effects from the choices you make.

No, I am not forgetting, you completely missed my point.

 

Letting one burn down and saving the other is much like letting Praven die vs turning him to the light side.(as mentioned earlier)  So now, not only does your point miss it's mark, it's simply wrong too.

 

Back on topic, you can also gain more credits from certain dialog options.  It was one of the nice things playing along side a dark character.  You still get your LS points when they win, but you also get the credits they shook out of the NPC.

I disagree.  If you let him die or live he disapears.  If you let him die he's just gone forever.  If he lives he goes poof until much later in the game (and again after he serves his purpose he disappers from your story yet again).  The orphange or hospital are there either in good shape (if you saved it) or a burn out husk (if you didn't save it) with sad orphans or sick/injured soldiers milling/lying about.  You will see this every time you go there (after that part of the story anyway).  That is a permanent and much more tangible change in my opinion.  Plus that's not even considering that we don't yet know how the story branches off from that choice.

You may disagree, but I believe one of those is a much more meaningful choice.  I feel that the TOR example you made is much more ephermal.  So no, I was not simply wrong

  baritone3k

Apprentice Member

Joined: 11/02/10
Posts: 225

 
OP  2/09/12 2:33:22 PM#62
Originally posted by dubyahite
Well there are many people that will show up later and help you if you don't kill them.

There are also many times when someone will show up for revenge or show up to reward you if you kill that same person.


Let's not forget that there are DS/LS choices that completely refuse to do a quest if you pick them.

The dead end of refusing a quest is not a good version of choice. I have that same option in any game. The decision to just NOT do something is too basic to be in consideration. It is a dead end.

Someone please make a good MMO.

  ropenice

Elite Member

Joined: 10/02/04
Posts: 575

2/09/12 2:55:42 PM#63
Originally posted by baritone3k
Originally posted by Zekiah
Originally posted by Majinash
Originally posted by Zekiah

 

I won't use years to do this. I will take about 10 minutes to type this out:

 

Quest: Kil Jedi X.

Options upon meeting Jedi X: 1. Kill Jedi X, 2. Convince jedi X to switch sides; 3. Join jedi X.

Branch from option 1: Return to sith turd who asked you to kill jedi X, get agreed upon reward or a twist "pray I don't alter the deal further".

Branch from option 2: Return to sith turd who asked you to kill jedi X. Explain jedi X is now on your side. Turd sith gives you same or better reward or attacks you for being an idiot and tricked by jedi X.

Branch from option 3: Having joined Jedi X, you now look for ways to help the republic through sabotage, etc. You go to the empire places and do the opposite of what you are suppsed to for the empire. You can then double-cross the jedi after getting the reward and get both rewards. It took longer and you got more XP and more rewards.

Add in betray turd sith to any of there options and fight him or have to flee him if he is more powerful than you are.

Fun option would be - you are blackisted from questing on Balmorra! So you have to do your questing on the parallel worlds that are there which were just an option before. Now you have only 2 of the 3 planets to choose from. THIS of course would require less linearity.

I think you really underestimate the amount of time and resources it would take to add that many options to 1000's of scenes/decisions in the quests of a game. And then you'd be expected to have more options leading into the next action you take. Where do you stop? I'm not defending TOR, as I've never played it (and i to would love a twist-a-plot type MMO), but just don't see what you propose as being feasible.

  ComfyChair

Novice Member

Joined: 7/22/10
Posts: 766

2/09/12 3:51:31 PM#64

They were never going to have any lasting consequences using the standard MMO mechanics. Even Guild wars 2 keeps the 'choices' like you get in bioware games to having an effect on your own storyline instances and the base MMO mechanics in that game are far more advanced than WoW era mechanics. Despite that the main world is still more a general cause and effect thing than 'i want to be nice or evil' on an individual player basis. Although i suppose if you count evil as not helping in any events and just sitting there, that could kind of be a choice.

You cannot make a convincing storyline in a true MMO world, as storylines need a central character who others characters get dicked over for (intentionally, or not). A system with tons of choices means that very few would ever be able to get their choice, unless it's extremely shoehorned in. For example, what if you want to kill a guy but another person wants to save him? It simply doesn't work out in an open world for that guy to die. The only thing you could do is 'hide' that person from the player who killed him, but that's a bit of a cop-out.

Having a true open world directed MMO story with branching choices is as feasible as a movie being real life. That is, it isn't, everyone wants to be the main character, so it falls apart. The only ongoing story in an open world in an MMO is politics related 'stories' generated in sandbox games like EVE. That works because no-one ever intended there to be a million main characters.

  Souldrainer

Spotlight Poster

Joined: 5/21/06
Posts: 1878

2/10/12 7:03:56 AM#65
Originally posted by Tardcore
Originally posted by Laughing-man

They said early on in development that choices you make will have long term effects.

Then later on they recanted saying that they didn't like gameplay choices that made you feel stuck that you couldn't take back later. 

Thats why they went with dark side and light side not having much difference...   Only cosmetic and thats it...

Kinda disapointing.

I've been told that most of the Bioware ideas that didn't make it to launch were changed due to feedback from their testing community. IE companion leaving or death, light/dark side choices dictating what powers you received, etc. Not sure if that is entirely accurate. Any long time testers around that could shed some light on that?

 

And on the choices not mattering, (I'm leaving out operations as I've only played the first one for each side) while I didn't buy the game I did still play every class up to around 11th (Gunslinger and Marauder up to high 20s) to see what the story was like.  Like the others complaining here I found my choices were almost entirely meaningless. As a dark side jedi or consular I was never in jepardy of getting discovered and thrown out of the order. With the exception of one or two sharp tongued one sentece retorts from my quest gver it was just business as usual. Same on sith side. My warrior could take all light side choices and still be the chosen one. My Imperial Agent could do likewise and still be thought of as the ruthless space pirate the was pretending to be. In all of this the only real effect these choices had was how much or how little affection I received from my companions. At first this did impact how I decided to make my choices. But then sadly I found out those choices turned out to be meaningless as you can just shower them with gifts and buy their loyalty that way.

 Yup... a ton of things got dropped because many early beta testers were whiny idiots.

Error: 37. Signature not found. Please connect to my server for signature access.

  Dracill

Novice Member

Joined: 2/29/08
Posts: 161

2/10/12 7:14:04 AM#66
Not like the current players that are examples of educated people and nearly never whine. Just look at the game forums and you will be impressed by the high level of the posts there.
  baritone3k

Apprentice Member

Joined: 11/02/10
Posts: 225

 
OP  2/10/12 5:51:30 PM#67
Originally posted by ropenice
Originally posted by baritone3k
Originally posted by Zekiah
Originally posted by Majinash
Originally posted by Zekiah

 

I won't use years to do this. I will take about 10 minutes to type this out:

 

Quest: Kil Jedi X.

Options upon meeting Jedi X: 1. Kill Jedi X, 2. Convince jedi X to switch sides; 3. Join jedi X.

Branch from option 1: Return to sith turd who asked you to kill jedi X, get agreed upon reward or a twist "pray I don't alter the deal further".

Branch from option 2: Return to sith turd who asked you to kill jedi X. Explain jedi X is now on your side. Turd sith gives you same or better reward or attacks you for being an idiot and tricked by jedi X.

Branch from option 3: Having joined Jedi X, you now look for ways to help the republic through sabotage, etc. You go to the empire places and do the opposite of what you are suppsed to for the empire. You can then double-cross the jedi after getting the reward and get both rewards. It took longer and you got more XP and more rewards.

Add in betray turd sith to any of there options and fight him or have to flee him if he is more powerful than you are.

Fun option would be - you are blackisted from questing on Balmorra! So you have to do your questing on the parallel worlds that are there which were just an option before. Now you have only 2 of the 3 planets to choose from. THIS of course would require less linearity.

I think you really underestimate the amount of time and resources it would take to add that many options to 1000's of scenes/decisions in the quests of a game. And then you'd be expected to have more options leading into the next action you take. Where do you stop? I'm not defending TOR, as I've never played it (and i to would love a twist-a-plot type MMO), but just don't see what you propose as being feasible.

You are addressing something no one in this thread has proposed. Nowhere did I say EVERY quest should branch.

 

But in a game of 100s of quests - having a handful that did something "extreme" like I showed above would feel epic.

 

But in no way did I or anyone else say they should ALL or even the majority should be like this.

 

Inundating the player with too many of these types of decisions would not only be diffficulty in terms of programming and especially story telling but would cheapen the effect.

 

BUT doing this (allowing for branching) is not THAT difficult. Ultimately everyyone can end up on similar planets and in the end Malgus still betrays, the jedi are still sexless tools and the game can funnel everyone into the last house. BUT, though they only really had to design 1 house, the player feels special and can take pride in how he got there. The could enter through through the chimney, the window (unlocked window, open window, break the window), the front door (open, unlocked, picked the lock, kicked the door down, tricked the owner to let him in), the back door (similar options to front door), the garage... etc. The ways to enter that "house" I enumerated 16 in number and there are more, but still only one house had to be designed to accomodate. Now, on the way to that house, the funneling was less strict and there were hopefully a couple/few streets to take by car, bus, plane, jetpack, etc. So the journey was alive and personal. That would NOT be a monumental undertaking.

The limit wouldn't necessarily be conveiving of how to do it or even implementing the code, that's easy. It would be more like - oops we went to far. We COULD have made 100% of the quests dynamic, but we chose to make 30% dynamic and that seems like it is making players too weary. Let's get rid of 50% of the ones we made and maybe boost the WOW factor, challenge and/or consequence of some of the dynamic quests we do have. 

Someone please make a good MMO.

  baritone3k

Apprentice Member

Joined: 11/02/10
Posts: 225

 
OP  2/10/12 6:00:32 PM#68
Originally posted by ComfyChair

They were never going to have any lasting consequences using the standard MMO mechanics. Even Guild wars 2 keeps the 'choices' like you get in bioware games to having an effect on your own storyline instances and the base MMO mechanics in that game are far more advanced than WoW era mechanics. Despite that the main world is still more a general cause and effect thing than 'i want to be nice or evil' on an individual player basis. Although i suppose if you count evil as not helping in any events and just sitting there, that could kind of be a choice.

You cannot make a convincing storyline in a true MMO world, as storylines need a central character who others characters get dicked over for (intentionally, or not). A system with tons of choices means that very few would ever be able to get their choice, unless it's extremely shoehorned in. For example, what if you want to kill a guy but another person wants to save him? It simply doesn't work out in an open world for that guy to die. The only thing you could do is 'hide' that person from the player who killed him, but that's a bit of a cop-out.

Having a true open world directed MMO story with branching choices is as feasible as a movie being real life. That is, it isn't, everyone wants to be the main character, so it falls apart. The only ongoing story in an open world in an MMO is politics related 'stories' generated in sandbox games like EVE. That works because no-one ever intended there to be a million main characters.

That is a very close-minded way of viewing story telling. "You cannot make a convincing storyline in a true MMO world, as storylines need a central character who others characters get dicked over for (intentionally, or not)."

 

As for the open world - hey this guy is alive but I wanted him dead or vice-versa:

We are expected to accept things being somewhat out of our contraol in MMOs. Honestly, in PVP, both sides want to win and only one gets to (and if it's SWTOR, they don't always get credit either :)). It's not that you WANT to lose, but you have to recognize it's possible. So if you don't keep that guy alive/kill him, then you just live with it. OR that aspect can be instanced for your toon and players in your group can instance in or out of it. Every time I ran Black Talon, I was stuck with whatever the roll winner chose for the captain. It's not the end of the world.

Part of what I like in MMOs and games/stories are the limitations. For me and many other living in a world that is bigger than us and our wants is actually compelling.

You want that guy dead? Well. convince enough people that he should be dead and hopefully you get a group that makes it happen. If not, ragequit if you're a pussy, try to be more compelling next time, adapt your goals or shrug it off and look for the next thing. Regardless, I argue that allowing the story to branch allow a player to better affect the world and as such increase a feeling of merit and pride in what is done. And branching actually allows MORE players to experience the king of game they want to play by giving them a better chance to inlfuence events. Branching options in an open world don't guarantee that you can make your mark, but better allows someone who doesn't want character X dead to not have him be dead - 1.Branching choice wherein character X is saved. 2. Written in stone version where linear questlines say he MUST die or questline stops, you have to drop it and move on? Clearly 1 is the only options. You may come back and say - well, what about option 3. Written in stone version where he DOESN'T die? It's still written in stone, so the guy who DOES want him to die is out of luck. The player thus becomes more influential and more likely to be able to have the story event HE wants to happen come to be. With the set in stone version, there is no choice. You could luck out or lose out. But it is set in stone.

Someone please make a good MMO.

  MosesZD

Novice Member

Joined: 2/10/12
Posts: 1407

2/10/12 7:29:09 PM#69

Sadly, no.   I actually tried to see if the game had some flexibility.   So with my Consular-Sage, I pretty much went Option 1.   With my Consular-Shadow, options 2 and 3 except darkside because I didn't want to harm myself vis the messed 'morality system' they had.    I did the same thing with my Gunslinger and my Scrapper.  

 

They ended up exactly the same.    It didn't really seem to matter for plot effect.  However, there was a minor difference in dialog, something along the lines of this:

Nice Option (1 or 2):  pre-canned dialog ---  blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

Jerk Option (#3):   Minor reaction to my being a completely inappropriate rude jerk, then a straight jump into the pre-canned dialog ---  blah, blah, blah, blah, blah... without even a minor segue to smooth it out.   Often times with different production values in the VA so it was really obvious and harsh in its lack of continuity.

Now, if the stories were good, it wouldn't have bothered me.  But they were trash.   There were some good moments, some good scenes.  But they mostly just stupid.   And, what's worse, since I'm big, big science fiction reader and OLD (at 51), I recognized the stories from which many of them were stolen!

  Cavod

Novice Member

Joined: 11/23/10
Posts: 299

2/10/12 8:02:33 PM#70
Originally posted by Msenge
Originally posted by Cavod
Originally posted by Msenge

While that is partially true about GW2 you are forgetting that those events are not a part of the player's personal story in the game.  On top of those event you also have an individual story wherein the player can make meaningful choices.  The most commonly known example of this is when human characters have to choose to save an orphanage or a military hospital from being burned down (there isn't enough time to save both).  If you save the hospital the orphange is then forever burnt down leaving a bunch of sad orphans milling about and vice versa.  How the story branches off after that we don't yet know but seeing the orphange or hospital burnt husk forever afterwards seems to me to be a meaningful effects from the choices you make.

No, I am not forgetting, you completely missed my point.

 

Letting one burn down and saving the other is much like letting Praven die vs turning him to the light side.(as mentioned earlier)  So now, not only does your point miss it's mark, it's simply wrong too.

 

Back on topic, you can also gain more credits from certain dialog options.  It was one of the nice things playing along side a dark character.  You still get your LS points when they win, but you also get the credits they shook out of the NPC.

I disagree.  If you let him die or live he disapears.  If you let him die he's just gone forever.  If he lives he goes poof until much later in the game (and again after he serves his purpose he disappers from your story yet again).  The orphange or hospital are there either in good shape (if you saved it) or a burn out husk (if you didn't save it) with sad orphans or sick/injured soldiers milling/lying about.  You will see this every time you go there (after that part of the story anyway).  That is a permanent and much more tangible change in my opinion.  Plus that's not even considering that we don't yet know how the story branches off from that choice.

You may disagree, but I believe one of those is a much more meaningful choice.  I feel that the TOR example you made is much more ephermal.  So no, I was not simply wrong

So if I turn a sith to the light side he should forever dedicate himself to me as an indentured servant and stand around my ship taking up space doing nothing like the husk of a building?


I get it, the GW2 example takes it a smidge further but ephemeral is ephemeral and there is no getting around it.(p.s. I'm a HUGE GW2 fan... heck, I'm an actual fanboi for it, if you will)  Just because it's always there in my personal INSTANCE forever to be forgotten having no impact at all on anything.... yes you're simply wrong.  Ultimately I guess we're arguing over the difference of invisible in plain sight vs invisible out of sight?  lol w/e


Lest we forget, this has nothing to do with my original point about how even an ambitious game like GW2 is acknowledging the very issues that caused others to complain earlier in the thread.  Simply put, it's unavoidable because reward will always be greater than choice, thus eliminating choice despite it technically being present.

 

We really need separate forums for every newly launched game. There can be the anti-<MMO> one and there can be the 'what general discussion should be' one. All the lamenting can happen together where each can find solace in like minded can't-move-on-ers leaving the rest of us to actually move forward and discuss meaningful and relevant topics.

  leojreimroc

Novice Member

Joined: 7/07/09
Posts: 367

2/10/12 9:01:48 PM#71

Question:  Why is having a lasting an effect on the mmo world a required, or even an important aspect for the game to have? 

Let's say that choices affect nothing past cutscenes.  I'm sure some people are satisfied with this, or even prefer it.  I don't think one is better than the other. 

 

A game where  where decisions have some impact on the world is interesting, yes.  But it's a completely different game.  I would probably like a game like that, but I also like a game like this one, where choices affect your own personal story and other people's choices doesn't affect how you play your own story.  Two different game styles, none are better than the other imo. 

 

I think the OP see the decisions having limited impacted on the game as a negative (correct me if I'm wrong).  I don't see it as a positive or a negative.  It is what it is.

  BadSpock

Hard Core Member

Joined: 8/21/04
Posts: 7649

Logic be damned!

2/10/12 9:10:05 PM#72

Bioware made TOR too safe because their "trademark" story style just... doesn't work in a MMO setting.

You can't make a choice to kill Kaedin or Ashley - because in a MMO you don't have a revert to last save button and you could seriously gimp your progress because it is MMO "holy trinity" based combat.

You can't make the choice to save or kill Wrex - same reason.

I really do think Bioware believed in the beginning they could bring all of their "Bioware story + choices" talent to the MMO space, but found that the very structure and systems of a modern MMO game tied their hands far, far too much.

So they had to play it safe.

And as such, watered down.

I just finished my classes story line completely - my only reaction?

Meh.

But, I felt the same way after ME2 and didn't bring myself to finish DA2.

ME1 may have been the first and last Bioware game to really make me go "holy shit I can't believe that just happened."

Now Playing: D3:RoS
Looking Towards: Destiny

  allegria

Novice Member

Joined: 3/10/07
Posts: 685

2/10/12 9:26:00 PM#73
Originally posted by 77lolmac77
Having choices affect the game world? In a theme park?

Wrong genre my friend

SWTOR does not even have factions outside of empire republic right ? 

Other Themeparks do and things you do and quest choices you make affect that...

it is not a themepark "thing"... not affecting the world, but swtor appears not to do that.

  allegria

Novice Member

Joined: 3/10/07
Posts: 685

2/10/12 9:27:13 PM#74
Originally posted by leojreimroc

Question:  Why is having a lasting an effect on the mmo world a required, or even an important aspect for the game to have? 

Let's say that choices affect nothing past cutscenes.  I'm sure some people are satisfied with this, or even prefer it.  I don't think one is better than the other. 

 

A game where  where decisions have some impact on the world is interesting, yes.  But it's a completely different game.  I would probably like a game like that, but I also like a game like this one, where choices affect your own personal story and other people's choices doesn't affect how you play your own story.  Two different game styles, none are better than the other imo. 

 

I think the OP see the decisions having limited impacted on the game as a negative (correct me if I'm wrong).  I don't see it as a positive or a negative.  It is what it is.

A rich dynamic world > static world or do you like the static crap we have been seeing since MMOs were invented ?

come on now.

  allegria

Novice Member

Joined: 3/10/07
Posts: 685

2/10/12 9:28:03 PM#75
Originally posted by Souldrainer
Originally posted by Tardcore
Originally posted by Laughing-man

They said early on in development that choices you make will have long term effects.

Then later on they recanted saying that they didn't like gameplay choices that made you feel stuck that you couldn't take back later. 

Thats why they went with dark side and light side not having much difference...   Only cosmetic and thats it...

Kinda disapointing.

I've been told that most of the Bioware ideas that didn't make it to launch were changed due to feedback from their testing community. IE companion leaving or death, light/dark side choices dictating what powers you received, etc. Not sure if that is entirely accurate. Any long time testers around that could shed some light on that?

 

And on the choices not mattering, (I'm leaving out operations as I've only played the first one for each side) while I didn't buy the game I did still play every class up to around 11th (Gunslinger and Marauder up to high 20s) to see what the story was like.  Like the others complaining here I found my choices were almost entirely meaningless. As a dark side jedi or consular I was never in jepardy of getting discovered and thrown out of the order. With the exception of one or two sharp tongued one sentece retorts from my quest gver it was just business as usual. Same on sith side. My warrior could take all light side choices and still be the chosen one. My Imperial Agent could do likewise and still be thought of as the ruthless space pirate the was pretending to be. In all of this the only real effect these choices had was how much or how little affection I received from my companions. At first this did impact how I decided to make my choices. But then sadly I found out those choices turned out to be meaningless as you can just shower them with gifts and buy their loyalty that way.

 Yup... a ton of things got dropped because many early beta testers were whiny idiots.

And that is a damn shame.

  Xthos

Elite Member

Joined: 4/18/10
Posts: 2568

2/10/12 9:33:02 PM#76
Originally posted by godzilr1

 

i think the problem you will have with this post is that you'll need someone that played the same class twice up to level cap making the oppose choices to get any answers. 

 

 The wife and I played Sorcs, she was light, and I was dark.  I really only remember one thing that sticks out, she warned some guy in an alliance with my enemy about firing a weapon and later he refused to fight her, where I had to kill him as part of my story.  I mean it wasn't huge, the guy was still there in both.

May be others, I won't say its 100% that that was it, but it isn't much and we play the same class on polar opposite choices.

 

One thing they could of done is put flags in, so when you make a faction succumb (always putting down rebellions on planets as a sith), they then turn neutral, it would be something very small, but even that seems to be more than they did.

  leojreimroc

Novice Member

Joined: 7/07/09
Posts: 367

2/10/12 9:39:28 PM#77
Originally posted by allegria
Originally posted by leojreimroc

Question:  Why is having a lasting an effect on the mmo world a required, or even an important aspect for the game to have? 

Let's say that choices affect nothing past cutscenes.  I'm sure some people are satisfied with this, or even prefer it.  I don't think one is better than the other. 

 

A game where  where decisions have some impact on the world is interesting, yes.  But it's a completely different game.  I would probably like a game like that, but I also like a game like this one, where choices affect your own personal story and other people's choices doesn't affect how you play your own story.  Two different game styles, none are better than the other imo. 

 

I think the OP see the decisions having limited impacted on the game as a negative (correct me if I'm wrong).  I don't see it as a positive or a negative.  It is what it is.

A rich dynamic world > static world or do you like the static crap we have been seeing since MMOs were invented ?

come on now.

Maybe you like a dynamic world.  Others do not.  Some people like WoW, other like Eve.  2 very different game styles.  Not one is better than the other.

 

Just because you like a dynamic world better, doesn't make it objectively better.  Plus, who says you can't have a rich static world?

  RizelStar

Advanced Member

Joined: 8/12/11
Posts: 2818

We all breathe and we all die.

2/10/12 10:06:08 PM#78
Originally posted by leojreimroc
Originally posted by allegria
Originally posted by leojreimroc

Question:  Why is having a lasting an effect on the mmo world a required, or even an important aspect for the game to have? 

Let's say that choices affect nothing past cutscenes.  I'm sure some people are satisfied with this, or even prefer it.  I don't think one is better than the other. 

 

A game where  where decisions have some impact on the world is interesting, yes.  But it's a completely different game.  I would probably like a game like that, but I also like a game like this one, where choices affect your own personal story and other people's choices doesn't affect how you play your own story.  Two different game styles, none are better than the other imo. 

 

I think the OP see the decisions having limited impacted on the game as a negative (correct me if I'm wrong).  I don't see it as a positive or a negative.  It is what it is.

A rich dynamic world > static world or do you like the static crap we have been seeing since MMOs were invented ?

come on now.

Maybe you like a dynamic world.  Others do not.  Some people like WoW, other like Eve.  2 very different game styles.  Not one is better than the other.

 

Just because you like a dynamic world better, doesn't make it objectively better.  Plus, who says you can't have a rich static world?

Lol I pray this is a satire.

 

 

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.

  Msenge

Novice Member

Joined: 1/05/12
Posts: 90

2/10/12 10:52:38 PM#79
Originally posted by Cavod
Originally posted by Msenge
Originally posted by Cavod
Originally posted by Msenge

While that is partially true about GW2 you are forgetting that those events are not a part of the player's personal story in the game.  On top of those event you also have an individual story wherein the player can make meaningful choices.  The most commonly known example of this is when human characters have to choose to save an orphanage or a military hospital from being burned down (there isn't enough time to save both).  If you save the hospital the orphange is then forever burnt down leaving a bunch of sad orphans milling about and vice versa.  How the story branches off after that we don't yet know but seeing the orphange or hospital burnt husk forever afterwards seems to me to be a meaningful effects from the choices you make.

No, I am not forgetting, you completely missed my point.

 

Letting one burn down and saving the other is much like letting Praven die vs turning him to the light side.(as mentioned earlier)  So now, not only does your point miss it's mark, it's simply wrong too.

 

Back on topic, you can also gain more credits from certain dialog options.  It was one of the nice things playing along side a dark character.  You still get your LS points when they win, but you also get the credits they shook out of the NPC.

I disagree.  If you let him die or live he disapears.  If you let him die he's just gone forever.  If he lives he goes poof until much later in the game (and again after he serves his purpose he disappers from your story yet again).  The orphange or hospital are there either in good shape (if you saved it) or a burn out husk (if you didn't save it) with sad orphans or sick/injured soldiers milling/lying about.  You will see this every time you go there (after that part of the story anyway).  That is a permanent and much more tangible change in my opinion.  Plus that's not even considering that we don't yet know how the story branches off from that choice.

You may disagree, but I believe one of those is a much more meaningful choice.  I feel that the TOR example you made is much more ephermal.  So no, I was not simply wrong

So if I turn a sith to the light side he should forever dedicate himself to me as an indentured servant and stand around my ship taking up space doing nothing like the husk of a building?


I get it, the GW2 example takes it a smidge further but ephemeral is ephemeral and there is no getting around it.(p.s. I'm a HUGE GW2 fan... heck, I'm an actual fanboi for it, if you will)  Just because it's always there in my personal INSTANCE forever to be forgotten having no impact at all on anything.... yes you're simply wrong.  Ultimately I guess we're arguing over the difference of invisible in plain sight vs invisible out of sight?  lol w/e


Lest we forget, this has nothing to do with my original point about how even an ambitious game like GW2 is acknowledging the very issues that caused others to complain earlier in the thread.  Simply put, it's unavoidable because reward will always be greater than choice, thus eliminating choice despite it technically being present.

 

Yes, thank you, I would very much like to see that reformed sith lord around.  But he needn't be stuck in my ship.  There are all kinds of instanced areas in TOR for them to added him and other npc characters from your story that you could visit later as you continued your story.  Like all those landing bays.  They could have added characters from that planet's story into your landing bay instance for the planet.  And they need not be in there permanently.  They could have been given X% chance for characters Y and Z being in the instance walking/lounging around (possibly with a nice short interactive bit as a cherry on top).  That way you still see these characters during and after your personal story reducing some of that ephemeral quality.

And, at this point w/o GW2 being released you have no idea how the orphanage/hospital choice affects the player story.  If you save the hospital the story could send you to Ebonhawke versus sending you to Demetra if you saved the orphanage.  Yes in both storys you'll probably later end up going to Lion's Arch, but the path you took to get there would have been different.  While this is all just a made up possibility on my part it is still a possibility.  So you can't just state as if it's a fact, at this point in time, that that choice does nothing for your story like it does in TOR.  Oh, and it's not just a husk of a building that lies forgotten lest you forget the sad orphans.  I mean I sure don't want mopey sad orphans in my home instance. 

Also, we have seen choices in GW2 that significantly change your story.  If you choose one legion (I forget if it's Iron or Blood) as a charr your story starts you off challenging the leader of your warband in a giant colessium.  If you choose Ash Legion your story starts you in a different direction where you're using stealth to help gather info on threats to the charr legions outside of a bar.  The rewards you gain from doing these first story missions are the same (same amount of gold/karma/ choice of weapon/armor rewards) but the story you played out was different. 

Lastly, the whole reason I replied to you in the first place was that I disagreed with your implication that for the most part the story choices in GW2 would be just as meaningless as those seen in TOR.  You are free to disagree to however an extent as you wish.  And the reason I replied to your next post was because you said I was simply wrong even though simply doesn't apply.  The world is filled with shades of grey.  What I see as meaningful is not going to be the same for everyone.  Such things are not simple-those shades of grey are some of the most complexing things around.

  leojreimroc

Novice Member

Joined: 7/07/09
Posts: 367

2/10/12 11:25:11 PM#80
Originally posted by RizelStar
Originally posted by leojreimroc
Originally posted by allegria
Originally posted by leojreimroc

Question:  Why is having a lasting an effect on the mmo world a required, or even an important aspect for the game to have? 

Let's say that choices affect nothing past cutscenes.  I'm sure some people are satisfied with this, or even prefer it.  I don't think one is better than the other. 

 

A game where  where decisions have some impact on the world is interesting, yes.  But it's a completely different game.  I would probably like a game like that, but I also like a game like this one, where choices affect your own personal story and other people's choices doesn't affect how you play your own story.  Two different game styles, none are better than the other imo. 

 

I think the OP see the decisions having limited impacted on the game as a negative (correct me if I'm wrong).  I don't see it as a positive or a negative.  It is what it is.

A rich dynamic world > static world or do you like the static crap we have been seeing since MMOs were invented ?

come on now.

Maybe you like a dynamic world.  Others do not.  Some people like WoW, other like Eve.  2 very different game styles.  Not one is better than the other.

 

Just because you like a dynamic world better, doesn't make it objectively better.  Plus, who says you can't have a rich static world?

Lol I pray this is a satire.

 

 

I assure you it's not.  Again, no one has really made the case to me as to why a dynamic world is objectively better than a static one.  WoW, LOTRO, FFXI are extremelly static worlds.  I consider those as pretty decent MMOs and rich static worlds.  For some people, these kinds of "static" MMOs are not for them.  Sure, no problem.  But to say that they're bad because they're static, or that static worlds are worse than dynamic ones doesn't make any sense to me.

Again, so far, to oppose this point of view, I've only seen people post one liners dismissing it.  So I ask again, why should I consider a dynamic world to be better than a static one.  There are in fact no objective reasons why it is.

 

-edit-

Also, don't get me wrong.  I find dynamic worlds to be fun as well.

5 Pages « 1 2 3 4 5 » Search