Originally posted by Torgrim

Originally posted by Roxtarr

I had forgotten about this video that demonstrates what GW2 dynamic events can do at times.  Some people who haven't played GW2 or only gave it a short glimpse might not understand how involved DE's can actually get.

Wandering into Awesomeness

 

That video demonstrate how DEs works to it's fullest.

What many people miss is really stick around and see what happends next, that's why I've seen so many write on this boards that DE are just circles on the map and they run there do em and win win and then run off and don't see the whole circle why this DE began and it progressed and how it ended.

That's what I was trying to get across.  So many people waiting on the wings listen to people say, "It's like WAR or RIFT" when it really isn't at all.  The only thing they have in common is that they are dynamic events.  GW2's version is really a different way of doing it.  People that say that GW2 DE's don't tell the story aren't really listening or watching what's happening on their screen.  The glue that connects various chains aren't usually accompanied by a sound or UI element guiding them.  The player actually has to pay attention. A lot of players probably have their sound off and just don't notice since there isn't a big text wall that tells you what to do in between chains.

I still don't understand how people can try to claim DE's are influenced by Rift at all, considering they were developing both games in parallel and the DE concept actually pre-dates GW2 development (See Guild Wars: Utopia, which was "well underway" in development in 2006). 

Like all evolution it is a minor difference on an existing pattern.

 

Fun - sure!

Groundbreaking, awe inspiring, worth so much excitement and such an involved argument over semantics? Not even remotely. Dress it up as much as you want - Its just a questchain with no questgiver.

Originally posted by atuerstar

Like all evolution it is a minor difference on an existing pattern.

 

Fun - sure!

Groundbreaking, awe inspiring, worth so much excitement and such an involved argument over semantics? Not even remotely. Dress it up as much as you want - Its just a questchain with no questgiver.

 

Well, it's a quest chain with no quest giver that can be passed or failed at each link in the chain kicking off the appropriate event, that scales to the number of players involved, that can happen with or without players even present in the area, that can interact with other event chains, that can reach points where they hold (instead of reset automatically)... so yeah, aside from all the differences they're exactly the same.

Originally posted by karmath
[mod edit]

The OP is actually quite right. If you don't care to find out actual information about GW then what are you doing here?

honestly ,these inepcy are frivolous ,i played rift  it isnt the same at all,gw2 story make more sense as a lot of with ,they play with the mood a lot in gw2 the other 2 mention?no so much!it is all small detail clear the map (everything ,look up etc say for the norn frozen content ,i tell you you will have a grin .it isnt all rose (they are at war vs the ice dragon after all,but some stuff is very nice!

would i add to gw2?yes ,i would reuse most of the puzzle zone as pvp zone with goal etc(ya they re that great!aside from that ,i love3 gw2 ,wvw need polish ,too wide open or they should add penality to the winner (to prevent same faction from always winning and if they do its because they are good!

[mod edit]. Let me run down this on a strike by strike basis.

In Warhammer they are permanently located on the map on a small parcel of space.

You mean opposed to how Guild Wars 2 has zone-wide events, or events that move around so that they don't always start in exactly the same place? Oh, wait. Yes, that was sarcasm. GW2's events also are permanently located in the same parcel of space. WAR and GW2 are just alike in this respect.

They run in a cycle [...]

You mean when renown or dynamic events are done in GW2, they change the world completely, and never run again? Oh wait. Just because GW2 is dishonest enough to hide the cycle, doesn't mean that they don't. The same cycle of events happens in the same way. The event runs again and again, in the same spot, doing the same thing, basically resetting the world so that the event can run again. WAR and GW2 are just alike in this respect.

[...] that is clearly visible in the UI with a countdown timer that clearly shows what stage a player is on.

So what you're saying is that the GW2 UI is worse because it provides less information? Since the same mechanics apply in both games. Okay, I can agree with that. One point up for WAR, then.

At the end of the event, contribution is weighed and a random lottery [...]

Uh. No. When I played it back in beta it allots it to players based upon their contribution score. It clearly shows the contribution score at the end of the public mission. Unless they've drastically changed things since then, it still does that. What else bases reward upon contribution score? Oh, right - GW2 does. So... WAR and GW2 are just alike in their allotment of rewards. The only difference is that WAR has a little more competition involved in regards to participation.

These events do not scale based on a player level so higher level players can make quick work of them [...]

This is a lol comment, because it assumes that GW2's do. Have you seen the scaling in GW2? It's made of fail. If you take a level 80 back to an earlier zone, no matter what zone, then you're going to just stomp through events with the greatest of ease. It's pitifully easy. It's because gear matters more than levels or traits in GW2, and the gear isn't scaled. So GW2 and WAR are, once again, very much alike in this respect.

Really, the scalilng in GW2 is so pitiful and poorly executed that they may as well not have bothered including it at all.

Conclusion!

Going by the above, GW2 is pretty much just a cheap rip-off of WAR. The thing is is that, yes, whilst it is undeniably true that Rift shares no similarity with GW2, that doesn't make GW2 any less of a WAR rip-off. It's kind of like saying that because Warcraft isn't anything like D&D, it can therefore not be a Warhammer IP rip off.

Poor Warhammer, so frequently ripped off.

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

I think GW2's events are a bit more varied gameplay-wise than Rift and WAR, even if not necessarily any more fun. You get to sometimes click stuff in different ways, while in WAR and Rift you pretty much only kill stuff until the timer runs out, then start killing the next wave, etc.

GW2 does hide the stage timers from the UI, but that does not mean there aren't stages. It also hides the event reset timers, but that does not mean the events are any less repetitive. After running through a given set of stages it will reset just like in the other games. Don't really see any difference in the gameplay mechanic here.

I do think GW2's events have one real advantage over the WAR / Rift counterparts: the fact that some events, depending on their outcome, trigger follow-up events that are different enough to make the experience a little more like meaningful.

I know it's really just a overglorified "second stage" to the first event, but it does seem like most of the times things are different enough to make the whole thing seem a bit more like part of a living world, and not a looping whack-a-mole.

Even so, I think it's clear that the idea behind all three implementations is very similar, regardless of whether each was inspired by the other or not.

Not gonna address the level-scaling comparison from the OP as I feel it is not really a feature related to the events at all, but a more general game design decision.

 

 

Originally posted by Dream_Chaser

[mod edit] Let me run down this on a strike by strike basis.

In Warhammer they are permanently located on the map on a small parcel of space.

You mean opposed to how Guild Wars 2 has zone-wide events, or events that move around so that they don't always start in exactly the same place? Oh, wait. Yes, that was sarcasm. GW2's events also are permanently located in the same parcel of space. WAR and GW2 are just alike in this respect.

They run in a cycle [...]

You mean when renown or dynamic events are done in GW2, they change the world completely, and never run again? Oh wait. Just because GW2 is dishonest enough to hide the cycle, doesn't mean that they don't. The same cycle of events happens in the same way. The event runs again and again, in the same spot, doing the same thing, basically resetting the world so that the event can run again. WAR and GW2 are just alike in this respect.

[...] that is clearly visible in the UI with a countdown timer that clearly shows what stage a player is on.

So what you're saying is that the GW2 UI is worse because it provides less information? Since the same mechanics apply in both games. Okay, I can agree with that. One point up for WAR, then.

At the end of the event, contribution is weighed and a random lottery [...]

Uh. No. When I played it back in beta it allots it to players based upon their contribution score. It clearly shows the contribution score at the end of the public mission. Unless they've drastically changed things since then, it still does that. What else bases reward upon contribution score? Oh, right - GW2 does. So... WAR and GW2 are just alike in their allotment of rewards. The only difference is that WAR has a little more competition involved in regards to participation.

These events do not scale based on a player level so higher level players can make quick work of them [...]

This is a lol comment, because it assumes that GW2's do. Have you seen the scaling in GW2? It's made of fail. If you take a level 80 back to an earlier zone, no matter what zone, then you're going to just stomp through events with the greatest of ease. It's pitifully easy. It's because gear matters more than levels or traits in GW2, and the gear isn't scaled. So GW2 and WAR are, once again, very much alike in this respect.

Really, the scalilng in GW2 is so pitiful and poorly executed that they may as well not have bothered including it at all.

Conclusion!

Going by the above, GW2 is pretty much just a cheap rip-off of WAR. The thing is is that, yes, whilst it is undeniably true that Rift shares no similarity with GW2, that doesn't make GW2 any less of a WAR rip-off. It's kind of like saying that because Warcraft isn't anything like D&D, it can therefore not be a Warhammer IP rip off.

Poor Warhammer, so frequently ripped off.

Gear is scaled down.

GW2 doesn't reset the world - if players don't play, the mobs will have the map conquered forever.

GW2 rewards are based on the participation and don't prevent anyone from getting the same level of participation and the rewards are equal for every one in the same tier (out of 3, with bronze being most likely caused by you killing a mob involved in the DE but spawning far from it while you ran around, silver being caused by you doing some damage and gold for major damage or reviving/killing/destroying major DEs objectives).

If DEs changed world permanently they would be static one ofs. And it is absurd thinking it is technologicaly feasible to get continuous flowing content.

Rift and WAR and Tabula Rasa (which predates WAR, again the prejudice against Tabula Rasa) all have "invasion" type events - GW2 has short stories events.

And well, WAR and Rift must have done something wrong because just a few months after they were out PQs and Rifts were being ignored while GW2 DEs are sought after.

 

From the Tabula Rasa Wikipedia page a game that started development in 2001

 

Dynamic battlefield

"AFS and Bane forces are in constant battle with NPC forces warring over control points and bases. Which side controls these areas greatly impacts the players. Losing one of these to the Bane means that the respawn hospital, waypoints, shops, NPCs access, and base defenses are lost and turned to the Bane's advantage. Players were able to help NPC assaults to take over bases or defend ones under attack. Control of these points was meant to change back and forth commonly even without player involvement, although the current implementation rarely let the Bane muster enough forces to invade a control point during peak player times. The Control Point System was one of the main gameplay features. Players that are fighting to defend or capture a CP (control point) got Prestige points which they could trade in for item-upgrades, experience boosters, a reset of either their attributes or their learned abilities or the purchase of superior or rare equipment at grey market vendors. Prestige could also be earned by defeating bosses, looting rare items, getting the max XP multiplier and by completing special missions. Later in the game, Control points became more and more important to the players, as they were necessary to be either in Bane or AFS hands to accept or complete certain missions and they become the centerpoint of most of the later map"

 

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

Originally posted by Calerxes

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

Yep. Same concept but with some variations.

Originally posted by Yamota

Originally posted by Calerxes

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

Yep. Same concept but with some variations.

+1

 

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

 

 

Originally posted by jpnz

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by RizelStar

Originally posted by Yamota

Originally posted by Calerxes

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

Yep. Same concept but with some variations.

+1

 

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

 

 

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

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

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

Originally posted by Roxtarr

Originally posted by RizelStar

Originally posted by Yamota

Originally posted by Calerxes

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

Yep. Same concept but with some variations.

+1

 

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

 

 

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

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

Alright I understand what your saying.

In fact one could say DEs are nothing more than transposing GW1 missions and quests of the instanced world into a Open World and adapting them to more players and open world.

Originally posted by Roxtarr

Originally posted by jpnz

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Originally posted by Calerxes

 

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

 

 

Eric Flannum said:

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