PVP:Yes | Distribution:Download,Retail | Retail Price:n/a | Pay Type:Free | Monthly Fee:n/a
Desktop Client | System Req:
Guild Wars 2 News - Injecting Role-Playing into Tyria
Posted by Suzie Ford on Sep 06, 2010 | 72 comments in our forums
MMORPG.com writer Bill Murphy has some interesting observations about how role-playing, arguably missing from many MMORPGs these days, will actually have a fighting chance of success in Guild Wars 2. ArenaNet is giving players the chance to breathe life into their characters and to meaningfully alter the world around them. Read it and then give us your thoughts.
BioWare has long been considered the leader in creating personality for the player-character in its single-player games. Through dialog choices and actions, games like Mass Effect and Dragon Age let you interact with the world and shape how the NPC inhabitants will see you. None of this ever really has a huge effect on the game’s outcome, but it allows a certain level of player-driven character building that’s welcome and indeed an integral part of an RPG. It’s not surprising then that BioWare hopes to bring this to its forthcoming MMORPG. What is more surprising however is that ArenaNet seems to be taking a stab at it themselves in the forthcoming sequel to Guild Wars.
Read more Injecting Role Playing into Tyria.
I think storyline MMOs are a step backwards after all in terms of gameplay. They enforce instancing and linear path even more than quests do. I disagree with the whole "everyone wants to be a hero" mentality, because if everyone is a hero, no one is. If GW2 storyline can be finished in three days, and there's nothing left to do, bleh, I'd really prefer it to have kill x quests (no, having a quest to kill 10 mobs ISN'T grind).
Roleplaying should be made by players, not forced upon you by your character creation and "choices" (yeah, what choice is it, be good guy and take the reward or be a bad guy and get no reward and you lose the chances to follow up the quest chain)
I think this is excellent as long as it is optional. You shouldn't really force players to roleplay and do similar things but it is great if those who wants to have the options.
If on the other hand someone just want to PvP or group play instead that should also be an option. MMOs should be all about freedom and while you can argue that a Dragon age styled campaign isn't freedom it really is if you can choose not to.
I hope GW2 walk that way unlike TOR who forces this kind of plot.
I will play this campaign at least with my first character but I am not sure I will with several alts, if I have the option to ignore it, that is.
I really would like to hear something official about this even though what I seen so far suggest that most of this is optional, 'cept that centaur tutorial.
I really don't see how you are forced into the type of choices that are presented to you. It would be impossible to roleplay with the NPCs, to have them react to the choices you've made. I think they've made it clear it is not black and white, no definite good guy or absolute bad guy. Unlike WoW, when you choose your race, you are not split between two sides. You do not have to follow your " personal storyline". You've go the freedom to roam around the world. This is something they mentioned in the demo.
I don't think it's as much 'roleplay' as it is added story/quest immersion by adding (singleplayer) RPG elements.
Because that's what's being done, in SW:TOR as well as in GW2 and other story quest-heavy MMO's.
Besides that, it's the eternal argument between the people who see quests as nothing but a means to reach level cap, and the people who see quests as a means for added immersion and connection with the MMO world.
You see now a number of MMO companies who're investing in that connection by deepening and personalising the quest component and in an extended way the story they're telling with it: by nature the second group of MMO gamers will be more happy with this than the first group.
If it's successful depends on a lot of factors, but especially how free you are in your choices to play the MMO.
In some ways the back story goes against RP as does the personal storyline, true RP is about the freedom to be who you really want to be with no constraints. The personal storyline and back story will force a story on you, one that may not suit how you envision your character in the world.
For people who like RP in smaller doses (like myself) it's a good kick start in to developing a character, I think a lot of people who normally wouldn't have bothered will find themselves becoming attached to their characters place in the world and choose to expand on it.
It has been stated that choices with your characters personality will NOT exclude you from any content, it is only about how NPC's react, they'll still give you that quest, sell you that armour but they aren't going to do it with a smile if you've arrived in town with a bad reputation.
It's unfortunate that people believe the level grind is the correct way to go. I feel disconnected to all MMOs so far, but everytime I play say Fallout 3 I can feel my heart beating faster and faster as the enemy sounds like it's getting closer and closer. I get chills from looking at it just because the storyline and lore and just so well thought out. MMO's could use a dose of story. They're not just a chain of quests but instead it feels like there is a reason to do it. I don't even stay to listen to the quests in any game but well thought out quests also mean that the world is more fleshed out and can be seen in the graphical details placed through out the world. Those that are only providing a world in which to kill x monsters for no good reason shows a huge lack of world detail.
Also remember, this is completely my point of view and I will not ever look in these comments again so anything said to me will be for all intents and purposes will be ignored.
I rather agree with this. (Edit- with the linear progression somethign has been lost, however, storylines are good).
Interestingly, GW2 has some open world story tellign via its dynamic quest line. While some maysay this is not real story line, they would be correct as its not a line but a cause and effect open world experience. I think more questing/storyline in mmos should occur as such. ATM it seems beyond dev.s abilities but in the future i can see it happening (just takes someone with the correct vision and know how to make a presitant world that tells a story area by area without the traditional themepark quest list).
RPGs have lost multiplayer functionality, whilst MMORPGs keep roleplaying as far away as possible, under the cheers of approval from their audience.
Good times, good times.
I do not play single player RPGS but the way characters are developed in that manner does interest me. I hope Guild Wars 2 can do it well and fit it with the MMO mechanic.
It's entirely OPTIONAL!
It has been said that you can level to 80 without touching the personal story aspect of the game at all! You can stick to the persistent world's dynamic events or even fight in World vs World PvP battles from the start and for infinity. The storyline and RPG aspects just make the entire game much more rich and deep. You can play however you want, ignore some aspects of the game and still have a lot of stuff to do. This is what makes GW2 sooo good.
Cant wait to play the personal story. But i think i even may try out Role-Playing too.
Agreed. Mixing things isn't bad as long as it doesn't force you to do certain things. Don't want it just play in the dynamic world or the mists instead.
TOR is aiming a lot more on this and less on group actions/open world and that is rather dangerous. That is a big risk to turn the game into a sologame only.
A good MMO have always have solo and group play. Open world and instances have also been included even if not as long and I think a good MMO needs a bit of all those things.
No soloplay and you turn off many players and make certain hours hard, I work night and at times I just can't get any players for a PUG or something. On the other hand do too much soloplay turn the game away from that MMO part and turn the game into Dragon age or Diablo instead. No instances means that if you play top hours dungeons will be overcrowded while too many instances also take away the massive from the game.
I see it as 2 different sliders. Solo-Group (I want about 60-70% group action in a game). open world-Instances (I want 70-80% open world and the rest instances). GW2 seems to be about right to my taste. Not all will be happy with that, FF XI have almost no soloplay. GW have no open zones.
You can't please everyone but this seems good to me at least.
I sense your positive marketing spin. How is this different from standard faction point mechanics? Didn't for example EverQuest 2 have the same global good/evil setup?
Because merchants will run and hide behind their shops if you are barbaric. Nothing innovative, but still a nice touch. Also, if you have done something REALLY great, like taking back a city single-handedly, the city folk will adress you as such. "That's the fella who took back BlahCity" They point and praise you as you walk by. Just a nice touch IMO. :D
Fitting that they included a picture of a minotaur looking thing enjoying some Goldshire level 'roleplay' with one of those shambling flesh and skulls creatures in an article talking about the state of roleplay these days.
It's obvious you know little about GW2 and its development. Fact is, GW2 is doing what other MMO's have wanted to do, tried and failed.
GW2 does to not force a storyline upon you. You can chose to play it like your "traditional MMO" and skip the storyline completely. You won't be penilized.
GW2 offers a storyline that many, many people have been craving for years in MMOs.
Also to presume their will be no content post-storyline is ludicrous.
It's a game of leveling, zoning, and instances. While this idea is a good one, it won't overcome that game design. It would have been great in a "Sandbox" game without extremes in power gaps such as the class movies show will be "in", where there's one world that players interact in instead of instances, and where you aren't driven from zone to zone.
Diablo is more of a multiplayer experience than half the MMORPGs out there where you just grind to max level alone just because it's more efficient. Grouping in MMOs before cap has become a royal pain in the a**. I don't see why not get a proper story cause I will be soloing to cap anyway as will most MMO players.
WoW has servers devoted to Role Playing...i am not really sure how they do...
EVe has a dedicated system that people enjoy Roleplaying in...and they also have Active Newscasts..and great fan fiction
In both of these cases I would assume that their success is determined by the players want and or need to RP, not Blizz or CCP
I agree with most of what you're saying. I believe these games need to become much more actively immersive. The world has to be affected by players, not this typcal spawn points that re-spawn within X-minutes. The npc critter populations need to be affected by player action/in-action. This opens up a whole possible system of quests that makes people more responsible for whats going on in the world. I know there was (?) a company working on a title that would have this kind of system. npc in x village wants you to go kill off some undead, if no one killed them off (or not enough) the population would grow and they would eventually come attack (possibly even destroy) the town. Play actions/in-actions would have real consequences. This makes things alot more interesting in my opinion. I don't want to follow the same linear quest line as everyone else, or even all my "class"/race, etc. Things need to be individual, personal.
The WoW servers for RP are just the same as non RP servers to be honest.
I think this is great and it doesn't make the MMO anymore linear than leveling up. It just adds a story to it. Throwing in dynamic events also proves that it will not be too linear so there is plenty of MMO stuff to do. This is just another of the many layers of Guild Wars 2.
It's a step forward for sure.
Saker, I encourage you to read up on ArenaNet's Dynamic Event system. Most of what you are requesting for an MMO experience is in place (no "typical spawn points that respawn in X minutes", if nobody kills the creatures attacking a village, the village will be lost, etc.) in Guild Wars 2. I also encourage you to read about the Personal Storyline system in GW2. These are both readily available from the Guild Wars 2 website.
There is no single race storyline, no single class storyline in Guild Wars 2. Two Norn Warriors can have two wildly branching storylines based on the choices the player makes at character creation and beyond.
As for whether there should be a dev-imposed storyline in MMORPGS or not, I think there's room for both options, as there's nothing in the acronym that designates how the RPG experience need be delivered. I don't like single-player RPGs because I want to play with my friends, but I do like the story experience that can be found in single-player RPGs. So if ArenaNet (and BioWare) want to bring that experience to a multi-player vehicle, they speak to my heart and I am all for trying out their titles. What they propose is exactly what I want in a game.
I love chocolate cake without chocolate. I like my macroni and cheese with no cheese. How stupid does that sound? Thats about as crazy as a few people on here sound. MMO... RPG. You can shorten it all day long but like your litle brother its still going to follow.
The early MMOs, based on HUDs, had really good amounts of role playing, and for some reason it was all but abandoned as the genre only adhered to a specific type of gamer. A type of gamer too unforseeing that they dont realize that a game without story will quickly tire. You want to know why there are so many people who just jump from MMO, to MMO, its because the game does not sustain them anymore. There's no reason to play.
GW2 and Old Republic has revised a lot of real role players interests in checking them out.
Story optional? I hope not. IT's far too easy to make it option for the player who doesnt care. Just forward through the cut scenes or go back to the game and grind away at x things all day.
Also, I think many of you are failing to understand wht the efintion of role playing is in a console/computer game. It is not like tabletop role playing (which role playing servers attempt to do, and do poorly in every mmo i've ever tried). Console rpging is what the article said, its not "pretending" you are the player. It is being immersed in that players story and making choices for that player that effect his life or adventure. These choices are limited, because its a game with a finite amount of options. It's these choices that creates the "RPG" computer or console game.
In modern MMOs, there is no choice. Your weapon and armor choice is usually chosen by what is "best", not what is best for the situation. Everyone has the same quests, and there's a lack of reaility as to why in my RPG world I have killed the centaur village and yet they still exist 10 minutes later because it must respawn for the next player.
If anything pvp should be optional. It's areal silly part of mmos that only relates to a certain type of gamer that would probably be beter off playing a first person shooter than a... wait for it... role playing game. This above all is the most non-rpging thing games include. I've never read 1 book, out of the 100s of fantasy books i've read, where one supposed good adventuring party or person would ever attack or kill another. This should be relagated to minigames and selected instances.
I'm of the complete opposite spectrum, I think more needs to be forced on me during my MMO experience. That's what separates an MMO from an RPG to me, at least the biggest underlining factor behind the separation. Forced scenarios create more tension as well as a greater scense of immersion (at least IMO). Forced PVP as an example, without forced PVP, I get very little thrill out of current MMO models. It just doesn't feel like there is anything to fear within the game world.
Where TOR and GW will possibly change that, is by forcing me to care about what's happening on the PVE side of things. As it can have an effect on my overall experience. I just hope they succeed in making me care.
, ((or hell save them and take nothing!))
mmoRPG...nuff said
Wow, I'm getting old when we're arguing that the inclusion of a "personal storyline" and a some "dynamic events" makes this game a step ahead of the pack in terms of role-playing.
True enough, role-playing has been RPG-ified since the first Final Fantasy game on the NES. You can "play a role", I suppose, as long as you stay within proscribed lines of interaction and choices. These types of games transmute Character Development into a statistic, and rate it level 1 to 10. Ha! I'm a level 10 role-player! I win!
Now, before I rant on, let me make a couple of statements:
It's my belief that every time you log into a MMO, you are role playing. Maybe not in the sense of period role play, but in the sense of an MMO is a community. If you're a prick, to people in the community and then outcast, it's the same thing as playing the villian role in a D&D game, and not recieving any cooperation from the group.
However, the Community system is broken, as people don't care anymore. That's where the me, me, me attitude, pushes away hard role play, and in my opinon why people go through MMO's these days faster than most of them shower.
I just realized the title is inaccurate. The name of the continent in Guild Wars 2 is Tyria.
That reminds me, there was an article on what some of the mmorpg.com staff members were excited about seeing at PAX, and GW2 was included. Can we expect an article on how those expectations turned out, or will there be a seperate one for everything? I'm really wondering what the staff thought of it all.
I'm most intrigued by the choice of which personality type to go with, and I've been wondering when a game would ever introduce such a thing.
As someone who values choice in games, how could I justfiy my preference for this system over one which might offer more dialogue choices? I think its because consistency is more important than the option to suddenly switch tracks and go with some schitzophrenic course of action.
Look at it this way. In real life only in theory do we have a range of reply options in conversations. If you are personally predisposed towards politeness, then that's how you'll likely respond under normal circumstances. The option to punch someone in the face without an excuse is really only an option if you're keen to explore your drooling insanity, or if we're talking about an aggressive personalty type.
Even if they only have three personalty types to choose from, its a major leap forward (with usual caveat: if done well) for immersive roleplay. Bioware have no such thing in their games and as such you'll probably hurt yourself trying to form a character's personalty around anything other than picking one side of the moral compass. Oh, I suppose you could pick them at random and end up with a shade of grey. Not much of a personality in that. Very very little in fact.
The best option for personality type I've ever seen in a game is when you 're Malcavian in Vampire: the Masquerade.
This is not the case for all mmorg games,some still follow the old code of great community and the journey rather than getting to top level. Vanguard is one such mmorpg that has the old customs and is great. Perhaps the best example of great RP and community is LOTRO europen RP server Laurelin. Spend an evening in the prancing pony or meet in hobbiton and you will see that the last bastion of RP is alive and kicking in that game on that server, it really is magical.these games like GW2 are MMOG and not MMORPG......if you can find me 5 REAL MMORPG games it will be alot.
Most of the games these days dont even have the abbility to roleplay because people all just want to hurry up and lvl.
I liked games where everyone was a average joe, and it actually took something to make your mark in the game... Good example is SWG. Everyone was pretty un heroic. Yet you had people did crafting, you had your "average crafters", you had your "Good crafters", then you had your "Infamous crafters", which everyone would kill to befriend and have armor/weapons custom made for them. If you knew an amazing crafter, you were pretty lucky. Word of mouth even promoted good crafters and set them apart from your average joe.
I don't like the idea of everyone being a hero. I want everyone to feel like a nobody, but a nobody who does cool stuff. Then be able to make a difference in the social aspect of the game. Where SWG excelled was the fact that the way it was set up promoted socialization. If you have a bland crafting system and everyone is a hero, you will have crafters spamming 50 million swords of justice on the AH, and nobody will feel compelled to brag about getting the sword of justice... Sure the lore says it's the most power and rare weapon in all of history, but what good is it when everyone else has one.
Wow you said you saved the princess and she fell in love with you after slaying the dragon? Woah cool dude, a princess fell in love with me after I slayed a dragon too, what a coincidence!
Woah, hey guys me too! Really wtf seriously guys, I did the same thing, wow we are all 4 of us badass heroes who saved a princess by slaying a dragon, we are ub3r l33t. Nobody else has done what we have.
"Actually dude, I slayed a dragon to save a princess too"
"Orly, what was her name? Because my princesses name was fiona"
"Her name was fiona"
"Woooah dude, my princesses name was fiona too, she gave me cloak of divinity for saving her, she said to cherish it because it was passed down as a royal heirloom for generations!"
"DEWD YOU STOLE MY CLOAK OF DIVINITY GIVE IT BACK YOU MOTHER F*%&#%" "Oh wait I still have mine on wtf?"
"Haha look at that everyone is wearing cloak of divinity knockoffs, they must all be statless pieces of crap, mine give +15 to luck"
"So does mine"
"There is only one explanation guys, princess fiona must come from an alien planet of princess in destress clones who are sent to our planet and put in a castle guarded by a dragon.
"It makes perfect sense! As long as we RP our identicle princess fiona's as clones sent from a alien planet, it can still fit into the lore and hence we are all still origional!!"
roleplaying has to happen between players. NPCs should be there for background.
Sigh, I'm always amazed at the crap people post here. Do some reading about the games before you ask questions, make assumptions, or start conspiratorial concerns, please. Most if not everything everyone has mentioned here has already been addressed.
The story is not OPTIONAL in that you don't need to do it to understand the lore or even the purpose of the game, it's optional in that if you really felt like it, you could go kill random things over and over and over until you leveled. Why the hell you'd want to, I don't know, but it's there if you want to. You don't need an NPC's permission to kill shit. And to the person that felt like this game mechanic was the better one and storyline was a step backward, I recommend you pick any number of the grindy failures that are traditional Korean MMO's and stay there. Rappelz is a good choice; 150ish levels of nothing but killing crap for .000001% of your exp bar per kill. Enjoy.
Also, no, parties/solo experiences should not be forced on you. If you guys had taken a moment to watch videos or read some of the PAX Press releases, you'd see people fighting solo...and people fighting together...and ending up with similar rewards regardless. Open world events where 10 people can fight a monster attacking a city, or 100 can help, and they'll all recieve the same reward regardless. Why is this good? Because it encourages people to play together. If there is no loot/exp/gold greed to interfere with participation, people have no reason NOT to fight together. By eliminating the need for greed, people start working together. If only that boiled over into the real world.
It's also been stated that there would be dungeons and instances and uber bosses just like traditional persistant MMO's that would likely require a team to get through efficiently. It was also stated that despite this, teams would not be necessary in order to advance and enjoy the game's key features in their entirety. And to stop the question before it's asked, this is not going to be one of those "Get to the end of the game then grind for months for dungeon gear" games; it's been stated when you enter these dungeons, you will leave with your gear, no buts about it. Whether you get it all at once or little by little (this seems more likely), that we don't know. Maybe the more you do it, the stronger it gets? Or you can combine/upgrade the gear with things you get the next time through? Who knows, there are a lot of possibilities and they haven't been fully discussed yet.
Anyway, that covers the questions I glazed over before my eye started twitching. To anyone who feels storyline and immersion is a step backward in an MMO, I encourage you to go back to your roots; the Ultimas, the Dungeons & Dragons, then pens and papers, and remember what the hell started this all in the first place.
Thnx.
There really isnt anything a dev can do to make rp better in their game. Roleplayers are an extreme minority in mmorpgs. In fact most rp'ers (myself included) have experienced harassment by non-rp'ers on a regular basis, even on dedicated rp servers. its just the way it is right now unfortunately.
a decent set of emotes and a bio page: thats all i really need from a dev. the rest is up to the community.
well, storyline has me worried because of two things:
- when you finiished 'storyline' content in GW1, all that was left was grinding dungeons. Even quests were kinda useless because they weren't worth it for the time they took
- personal storyline in GW2 is going to be major, but it's solo. You can invite friends to play it, but otherwise it is solo in INSTANCED areas.
I think the thing that people aren't getting is that the devs of GW2 are trying to expand you RP beyond the human to human interaction. If you're an RPer and you want to make your character feel rather rogueish, you can decide to get what you want from an NPC by punching them in the face after giving him a few threatning words. But if you want to be the charmer you can get what you want by being cool and friendly, and this makes your RP extend beyond the confines of just you and your human companion.
If you guys don't think that's great... well, good on you. Imma just play ma game.
Arent we roleplaying by playing the game in the first place? Im not a Level 34 dragon king in real life. I dont go around killing people and taking their stuff, then gloating about it from my castle. I dont kill monsters, collect their pelts then gouge people for leather armor in real life.
Neocron 1 + 2, Ultima Online, RuneScape (though its a clone of UO), Dungeons and Dragons online, and Second Life.
5 MMO's with high roleplaying capabilities... Though i do hope that GW2 wont tread the same path as all the clones have, this game has a lot of potential since its original creation of the GW universe, if they sellout they will probably lose a lot of fans and players.
That was a great phrase, well typed "if everyone is a hero, no one is"
I agree. I want atmosphere over story, gameplay over hype.
About time someone showed Bioware they lost the plot!
Just being ingame and enjoying the content of the game is enough to establish a roleplay environment
Not true. Old definition: the abilities of your avatar/toon/character is represented by a sheet of paper with numbers on them that would determine how "good" it was in a given situation, using math (stochastic, die rolls etc). So it's not the "the real you" abilities that mattered, like how good you are at wielding swords, but rather this number on the sheet of paper that represented some imaginary dude in a fantasy world. There was no amateur dramatic performance involved at all, as RPGs evolved out of complicated war games, cross-pollinated with Lord of the Rings. That's why earlier games were obsessed with numbers and "simulating" situations using probability.
When computers hit the scene, they figured that the CPU could do the number crunching. Early CRPGs where still about dungeon crawling or about "adventure" type object based puzzle solving (which would become it's own genre). In the meantime, people have developed the pen/paper variants further (up to real enactment called LARP), and added other layers of storytelling and "in-character" play and all that. Roleplayers should learn that their hobby is appreciated and accepted, but not a dogma that must be applied to anything that has RPG printed on a box.
Or another simple check: How can you "roleplay" when there was no chat, back then? And those games were really called RPGs (commonly CRPG for computer RPG or JRPG for japanese RPG).
/sorry for the history lesson
Having A quest to kill 10 mobs isn't a grind your right. But having 80% of quests "kill 10 mobs" IS a grind.
well, I am devided on this issue, I like story, I like the idea of players actions affecting the world and how people react to them, I think it would be awsome to have an element in games which would allow for say player 1 draws a mission to take out so many of the creatures attacking a given city and if he/she fails the creatures attack and destroy the city therby making the city useless to all others, player 2 them comes along and can't do the stuff at that city because it was destroyed. It is a sad fact though that there are a great many people out there that would get on an alt if it were allowed and fail it just to cut others off from the content for no reason other then they enjoy being an ass.
I think that story is a good thing but, the penaltys should be more personal not affecting others such as if player 1 comes along and saves the city from impending doom then there after he/she will be hailed as a hero and have access to further npc missions in said city. player 2 comes along and fails and is no longer able to talk to the npcs in that city and is shuned as being less then a hero. The problem remains the same in an open world tho with jerks messing with your quest and causeing you to fail just to be jerks.
The only solution to that is instancing your special quest to save or not the city in question, then the npc's would react to your positivly because you were capable of saving them or negativly because you failed. The trouble I see here tho is that they would have to have at least twice as much content so that the guy that failed here can try again at another city or they would lose people and the game would fail.
Personally I think making people responsable for there actions would be a awsome addition to games so many people do what ever and hurt others because they don't give a damn because there are no penaltys, case in point in SWG you were playing a game about a war and the war was to be the focal point yet, as the game degraded into a mindless grind with factions being pointless no one took them seriously or cared about them at all except in a pvp zone when they were looking for someone to battle with.
People should be held responsable for there actions yeah, they are just games but, for many it increases the fun facter if they have to actually make choices that affect them in some way or another. I do think it should be optional but, not in the way that you can do what ever you want while others are tring to follow the story and held accountable for there actions, to this end I think that seperate servers is the way to go those that want to play that way go to this server and those that don't care who they harm being ass's can go play on another server.
If there is a chance that failing at say taking a city from the enemy is going to have a negative affect on your charactor then maybe some of these kids that think zerging in all the time is a good idea will actually start to think about how to do it right or if they are just that determined not to think then they can go play on the server where no one thinks. For games like SWG where you can talk to the enemy there should be a penalty for associtating with them and selling them gear or giving them things. These would be great additions to modern gaming imo. Those that see no point in playing the game by the idea it was designed on can go to the brainless server.
Different people enjoy games for different reasons I think game companys need to figure that out and make there games in a fashion that caters to both the thinkers and the mindless grinders, not because I think mindless gamers have anything to offer aside from a montly fee payment but, in the end it is about money and how much they can make. I for one am tired of all the people that just click through and later when they relize they missed a vital bit of info they clog up the chat channel wanting to know the answers they would have gotten had they read the info they clicked over. Make there choices mean something or put them on a server away from the people that want there choices to mean something so they can get back to gaming without the low capacity thinkers.
Spoken like a person who never pen and paper roll played or played with bad GM's. Your stats determined what your charactor could or could not do, if you had a good GM then your actiona dictated how the world reacted around you.
The GM I played with the most took into account your actions when it came to dealing with npc's and in the case or D&D took into account the charactors alignment so if a chaotic good charactor did something chaotic evil there would be a penalty either in the way people reacted to them or in the case of a charactor that might be a profession that depensed on alignment they might lose some ablitys or an npc having heard or seen there actions would not help them any further.
The stats were simplely a base line of how hard you might hit that thing with that sword you have or even if you had a chance to pick up that sword in the first place. A good GM let you play your charactor the way you wanted to play it and then adapted the world around your actions. That was truely role playing which happens to be pretending to be that charactor and involves not only the GM but, the player taking into account how the charactor, not the player, might react to a given situation.
early PC games basically took the Role Playing out of the game you could approach a npc and say " hi how you doing ?" or " Your ugly and I hate you and everyone that looks like you !" and there was no difference, thats assumeing there was the option to say anything at all which in most cases there was not, again a good GM would make the npc react differently based on the statements and the negative one would in the future affect how that npc reacted to you just as much as the good statement, sometimes this came in the form of a roll to see you you made the npc mad enough to not deal with you or sometime the GM would make the choice and ROLE PLAY the npc's reaction.
Game developers lost that concept in the name of chasing the all mighty doller not because the choice was not there.
I was under the impression that you would not be penalized for these character choices. So if your a good guy they just give you a reward but if you are bad you may have to beat it out of them but in the end you still get the reward.
I dont think your going to have to be a hero to participate in dynamic events. What i mean is saving a chicken farm from bandits may at first seem very heroic , but it really isn't if you only did it so you could shake down the farmer for the egg money.
As for quest chains i haven't seen any info on this at all. I've only seen dynamic events and the ones that do chain into other dynamic events i think just start on there own. So there shouldn't be anything to keep you from continuing to participate.
This is purely speculation on my part but these were the impressions i was under.
There are a few things i really like as to story line over quest line. One is that once i get a character finshed and decide to make another. I don't have to have the exact same experience i did the first time. Where with quest chains i'd end up doing the exact same thing over again. I'd then get to a part of the chain i remember hating but have to do because it leads to the next part. In GW2 i'm told i'm not really forced to do this and can just skip what i dont like. This will largely depend on how much content is in the game though.
Also playing a charming commoner should feel different than playing an overbearing noble type. Your experince may still be very similar but atleast it offers some change. I think alt-aholics will enjoy this.
many people would have you believe that the sun revolves around them but it doesn't. a story in the background helps show that actions in that world are still in play and that it wont wait for you to catch up showing that time waits for no man . it is how ever your choice to follow the story or not and guild wars 2 has it prepared consequences for if you do chose to leave it alone. i find that most of the time people who play just to make there character fight, eat, drink, sleep and fart just so boring and lacking in imagination amongst other thing. and i find repetition in game boring as hell.
/edit wrong post
I'm not interested in talking "in character" or performing any sort of artistic enactment under the guise of roleplaying. I do think that given the opportunity to become renown for specific traits is definately interesting. I would really like to see a much greater diversity in cause and effect situations through verbal dialogue or questing. I think that there is a great potential for increasing the whole roleplaying mechanism, while not alienating the non-roleplaying crowd (as I would consider myself)
The idea is noble, and with their event system, perhaps they are closer than anyone has been to creating a world that feels natural and real, but having a story, however non-linear, that includes the same characters and similar choices for all characters can only have a negative affect on roleplaying. If every human that is a noble starts out with the same person being their best friend, how will it be possible to roleplay different characters with different lives as nobles before the game began? The simple answer is that you cannot, and this will hurt roleplaying.
The nature of roleplaying they are using is the same kind Bioware uses, and while it is amazing and tons of fun for single-player games, I do not see a way in which it can work for a multiplayer game. If we are all living the same lives, how can our roleplaying be realistic?
Its amazing to me how resistant the MMO community is to change. When someone like Bioware or ArenaNet comes along and tries to mix things up by adding another pillar to the MMO framework, half the community freaks out. I really don't get it...
Personally I think MMOs as they are today have become very very stale. We NEED to change up the formula... and I'm personally glad some people are willing to try.
UG, not this again!!
Gary Gygax did allot to popularize "Role playing" games but also was one of the first to mate them with statistics, dice and the sort from military boardgames.
This was both a good thing AND a bad thing.
The military games where complex (sometimes hyper complex) but basically "risk" type war games (simplistic but more or less accuriate) strategy and chance.
"Role playing" games where what theater and actors did to sharpen there ability to . .well play roles . . others also did this to have fun at party's etc.
Merging the two allowed people that tended to add immersion to the war games which they lacked and structure to the Role playing games which could get wild.
People tend to migrate to the extremes but the TRUE goal is a nice mix of the two.
Some stereotypes that fit.
1. The old school D&D or AD&D player - Character sheets, dice, to hit tables, graph paper, and books of rules. These tend to like the "enter room, check for traps, kill badies, get loot, repeat in next room till dragon/etc. Effectively Diablo and most MMO's . . story is secondary, uber loot and gold is everything as everyone rushes to the end/max level. Very minimal RP if at all. The GM is there to describe what is next and to hand out loot . . story is there as a framework only (computers are good at this)
2. Old style RP, You are given a role (or have to figure it out on the fly) and talk/banter with others doing the same . . sometimes there is a theme or plot but just as often freestyle. The ability to stay in character is the main goal. can get rather chaotic. This requires skill and often a bit of a powerful personality . . not something everyone can or wants to do. the GM if one exists at all - mainly just starts the ball rolling. (Computers are bad at human banter.)
3. The something in the middle of the two (some people pointed this out above talking about "GOOD" GMs) is a game system light enough for players to understand the world and to have some basis (fighting the Chaos of pure RP) but also not heavy where it bogs down the game and makes it a statistics battle . . The STORY comes into play in this version . . more fluid then a map, less caotic and more focused then banter RP. Single player RPG's have come close to good GM based modern paper RPG's.
The difference here is the what game is being played. . . an arcade game? and freestyle banter game? or a Story based game? (sure things are not so cut and dry but that only complicates the issue)
From my point of view if I want old school D&D I would just play Diablo or it's like . . fun, kill, loot. . etc . . Old style RP well not that good at it but not bad . . hate period-isms and accents though. The Story based? is my favorate . . as it is effectively a immersive movie/story that adapts to your/groups actions but at the same time pushes you/group along also.
MMORPGs really have not gotten past old school D&D . . attempts at story are fragmented and often lame. The rush to massive loot, gear and max level may be fun for a time but seems . . immature.
some of this has to do with computer capability for sure but also mindset. (easy $$ from obsessives).
Story based games are HARD to do . . and on computers (because of limited resources and possable content) it all seems to be on a rail and you can't do something radical or unique. (unlike a good paper GM that can think on the fly)
GWII seems to be making a living world full of interconnected content and triggers. The more interconnected the more complex the world seems. . .
I for one look forward to WGII for getting off the main MMO template.
Sometimes the bad guys get more cash I suppose. I have a feeling that it will even out in the long run and sometimes bad guys get themselves into trouble.
Knowing MMO community will we surely get guides if you are truly greedy and want max reward from everything.
Firstly GW2 is a mmorpg. Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game. The lore and the npc interaction is a vital part of any mmorpg.
That said the people playing the game are not all roleplayers. Some play the game to win they want the best gear and the most efficent maxed out build. they can not care less about lore or any reason to make a decsion outside of the ingame benefits offered. To be honest no matter what lore is put in these players will ignore it. I always consider these platers to be the Leet players. They want to win they aim to be the highest scorers the aim to be the first to accomplish something. They rush to the end game and will skip all content that slows them down.
Then there are the "roleplayers" these are the players who check listen to all the lore they hunt down obscure references and see all the sights expore all the nooks and cranies. A roleplayer will spend months on a single goal if it matches his roleplaying paradim. Often roleplayers will ignore optimu or even advantageous builds for unreliable and in some cases unplayable ones because they match their vision. A roleplayer, often refuses to adapt his vison to the game. Furthermore many roleplayers find themselves trapped in the middle levels of the game as they are unable to progress due to flawed builds or playing style. The roleplayer will enjoy the lore only as long as it does not conflict with his interpretation of the game world. Also he will enjoy roleplaying choices as long as said choices fit his concept.
Lastly we have the gamer. These are in the middle, they enjoy the lore. They iconise their characters, but they also adapt their visons to take into account the game mechanics. A gamer is driven to see all that a game has to offer. But he is not in a rush, he wants to take his time and see it all. The gamer often roleplays his character according to a broad ideal he follows. For example his character is dark and violent warrior who is prone to hit first and ask questions afterwards so his decsions follow this path. On the flipside another gamer may play a paladin type with nobility and heroism shaping his decsions.
The majority of games cater to the Gamer. Largely because no matter what rpg elements thay add the Leet player will ignore it and the roleplayer will complain its suppressing his vision and hence often disregard it. Only the gamer will actually enjoy it.
Gadareth
I believe you should be able to play an mmorpg how u want and that shapes your character, not just choices via quest choices/answers. I loved KOTOR for the light/dark side and how giving the right answer was a game in its self. But I pefer a sandbox existance where how you play and what you do, with freedom of choice or how you react to situations defines your character - simply put if I become a gather profession I get dynamic & quest style events that allow me to delve deeper into that. I remember in my WoWcrack days that people wanted to know where I got a certain unique staff or where stoked when in a dungeon I handed out unique potions. GW2 extends that with skill drops but I like the idea of choosing something to achieve and allowing me to go off and do it, let it be grinding a mob for a drop or following a chain that has a reward or soft gameplay (crafting ) but add depth, discovery and freedom.
E
It's odd how we keep seeing storytelling and roleplaying used as if they mean the same thing. One can be a part of the other, but neither one creates the other. They're completely different things that can, at best, support one another.
Its just a tiny little step toward what MMORPGS are about. Choices and RP(g) a true MMORPG is a game whit no limmets at all and all choices made by the play giving the player a deep connection to its character. this is only possible is a full sandbox game.
The game company's now have rediscoverd that the RPG element were a player "bonds" whit his/her character actualy increases the lifetime of said subcriber. ( as in play more or longer) and thus create more income.
Its only logical that they remain in the "linair" story driven MMO game bussines as its far saver to create sutchs a game then a complicated player driven sandbox. for in sutch a game a developer has to create and for modern games even invent compleetly new controol mechanics for the gamer to play whit.
its a small step back to were we once were and a welcome addition to any mmo.
PS: Kinda funny title, Injecting Role-playing , In to a Role-playing game. ... .. ..
Actually, to my mind, a story has the opposite effect. When I play a single-player game, when I am finished, I am finished. When the story is completed, I feel no desire to continue playing.
With a MMO, the idea is to have a realistic world in which players can live and create a virtual life for themselves. That is part of why most of them still have tips of their hat to this idea (think crafting, fishing, etc.)
If you have me play through a "personal story," it seems like it will feel like a single-player game, and I will feel like I "beat the game" at the end of it, and that is not conducive to roleplaying.
A personal story that is run in the way this seems like it is going to be run will have exactly the opposite effect from what seems to be desired. People that roleplay more than character progression in various fields, people that take on a persona in the game and act as if they are that character, neither need nor want a story fed to them during their progression. Their story is something they create themselves to make their character realistic. When you put people through the same story, with the same NPCs, everyone's life will have been the same, thus preventing any roleplaying.
What is interesting to me is that while GW had no roleplaying, Anet seems to want roleplaying in GW2. And mechanics like the personality in conversations and dynamic events seem to point towards an emphasis on roleplaying in a realistic world that changes and is affected by the people living in it. I simply cannot understand why they would put worldbuilding mechanics and roleplaying mechanics in a game that will feed players a story the very existence of which will prevent roleplayers from roleplaying without blatantly ignoring it completely. Everything else they do seems so well-done and well-planned.
If they can pull it off, it’ll be awfully hard not to end every annoying conversation with a punch to the face or a knife to the eye. But maybe that’s just me.
"Scoundrel William" - probably gonna be his title :).
I have to really agree, Im at the point with MMO's it feels like an upgraded version of D2 or similar single player dungeon hackers. Im excited to see story line make a come back. and i dont think it will give you any LESS CHOICE as some may think it just gives you FLAVOUR and ATMOSPHERE that is highlty lacking.
you obviously dont like "roleplaying" games... go play call of duty... kill x people and level up ..
Ah Many people look at RPG=Story Telling as when you play a RPG its telling a story that you are playing. And same goes with pencil&paper,The GM/Storyteller/DM's (depending on what game is your flavour) job was to create compeling stories/adventures/quests for the Players to imbark apon,tackle,and make their story while Role Playing their character.If you ever did play P&P you know that the GM had the last say too..lol.
Funny.
After years with this discussion (I can't remember how many times I've participated in threads nearly identical to this) all we've learned is that there is no common definition from role-playing. We all bring different thoughts to the table, and different interpretations of the "history" of the term, as well as our game experiences.
So, yep...I'm a fan of almost all MMORPGs, whether it's all computer-officiated, or whether the players have an impact.
But let me tell you about the game I'd LOVE to see someone make. It has some traits like this:
With all the talk around this, if ArenaNet can pull all of this off... this will become the greatest MMORPG of all time.