Whoever wins, we lose.

Whoever wins, we lose.

in Cutthroat Politics

Posted by: synk.6907

synk.6907

I quite like how folks are getting behind one or the other here — whether everyone’s just playing along with the political campaign setting or truly interested in one over the other, it’s actually pretty fun to read this section in a way.

However, I feel like we, the players, are losing overall.

It seems that whichever of the two fractals is created will be completed at the exclusion of the other as a consequence of the in-game vote.

To me, dangling cool content in front of players and then locking some of it away to never be seen is very unfortunate. Worse, even, than giving us the chance to see it and have fun with it even in a limited time window (i.e. the previous LS dungeons).

Is there any hope that down the line the one that loses the vote will still get implemented? There’s got to be a way that it can be done without pulling the teeth from the choice inherent in this campaign story arc.

Whoever wins, we lose.

in Cutthroat Politics

Posted by: shox.3971

shox.3971

Maybe they are on a deadline and only have time to develop one fractal, and instead of them just throwing one out there, letting us decide on which one it gets to be.

They could be working on an expansion or something similar and don’t have time to be implementing all of the fractals they want to add.

Whoever wins, we lose.

in Cutthroat Politics

Posted by: pswendel.8179

pswendel.8179

Maybe they are on a deadline and only have time to develop one fractal, and instead of them just throwing one out there, letting us decide on which one it gets to be.

They could be working on an expansion or something similar and don’t have time to be implementing all of the fractals they want to add.

QFT. They don’t have unlimited resources, so they are letting you in on the discussion of, “What shall we do for content in the future of this game?” before the conversation is over.

Options are better than none. I am grateful to be able to let Anet know what I would enjoy more as a setting.

Whoever wins, we lose.

in Cutthroat Politics

Posted by: Rouven.7409

Rouven.7409

Well, look at it this way, usually we are not even asked. They sit at the round table, everyone is like “another conference” with cookies, sparkling water and coffee and decide it there.

“Whose Kitten is this?” – “It’s a Charr baby.”
“Whose Charr is this?”- “Ted’s.”
“Who’s Ted?”- “Ted’s dead, baby. Ted’s dead.”

Whoever wins, we lose.

in Cutthroat Politics

Posted by: Parisalchuk.9230

Parisalchuk.9230

Maybe they are on a deadline and only have time to develop one fractal, and instead of them just throwing one out there, letting us decide on which one it gets to be.

They could be working on an expansion or something similar and don’t have time to be implementing all of the fractals they want to add.

I think the point is that if you only knew 1 existed you would be ok with it because its something new. Knowing there are 2 options and we get to pick, the people who wanted the one that isnt implemented will be upset because while they get new things, its not the thing they want.

Its like when your young and your parents always got you the same kind of shoes, or bought clothes for you. At the time it was just fine because you didnt know there were other options. But once you learn about your options that thing that was just fine before isnt alright anymore.

O O O O I I I O – Spoons and Sporks [Soup] (Retired)
http://www.twitch.tv/parisalchuk

Whoever wins, we lose.

in Cutthroat Politics

Posted by: synk.6907

synk.6907

The intent was to lead up to the question at the end of my post -- about any prospects of the losing choice still making an appearance in the game ever. I’m quite sure real-life constraints are playing a role in all of this, and yes I would agree that letting the players as a collective whole take part in directing development is kind of neat. I didn’t think I argued against any of that.

But, ultimately, what’s at stake is that we’ve more or less been told that one means of developing the lore further for the Guild Wars world/universe/canon will never get visited as a result. The winner will get developed, further Living Story content in the pipeline will be revealed to us, and Tyria will move on.

The split interests of the players -- and seemingly the development team -- shows, at least to me, that both ideas would get played and be welcome additions to the game. I worry that choices like this will continue to leave Tyrian lore un-expanded upon, and the cynic in me further worries that we’ll end up with more loose ends from new content as well.

edit: Parisalchuk makes a good point, as well -- knowing a choice exists brings along some (unintended?) negative consequences for players, or at least for those whose choice loses. That, however, seems to me to be an unavoidable trade-off for even having the choice at all, though, unless the losing content has a chance to eventually see development.

(edited by synk.6907)

Whoever wins, we lose.

in Cutthroat Politics

Posted by: ZudetGambeous.9573

ZudetGambeous.9573

You can either make choices that matter or not make choices that matter, but you can’t have both.

If they had this vote then implemented both fractals then our choices didn’t really change anything did they?

They also don’t have unlimited time and money.

Whoever wins, we lose.

in Cutthroat Politics

Posted by: Jamais vu.5284

Jamais vu.5284

The intent was to lead up to the question at the end of my post — about any prospects of the losing choice still making an appearance in the game ever. I’m quite sure real-life constraints are playing a role in all of this, and yes I would agree that letting the players as a collective whole take part in directing development is kind of neat. I didn’t think I argued against any of that.

But, ultimately, what’s at stake is that we’ve more or less been told that one means of developing the lore further for the Guild Wars world/universe/canon will never get visited as a result. The winner will get developed, further Living Story content in the pipeline will be revealed to us, and Tyria will move on.

The split interests of the players — and seemingly the development team — shows, at least to me, that both ideas would get played and be welcome additions to the game. I worry that choices like this will continue to leave Tyrian lore un-expanded upon, and the cynic in me further worries that we’ll end up with more loose ends from new content as well.

edit: Parisalchuk makes a good point, as well — knowing a choice exists brings along some (unintended?) negative consequences for players, or at least for those whose choice loses. That, however, seems to me to be an unavoidable trade-off for even having the choice at all, though, unless the losing content has a chance to eventually see development.

You just discovered the pains of adulthood, chap.

Whoever wins, we lose.

in Cutthroat Politics

Posted by: rgrwng.4072

rgrwng.4072

they should combine both dungeons into a super-awesome-mega-turbo-tastic dungeon that takes 10 hours to complete, and comes with like, 100 achievements, and put it on a 2 week temporary content schedule. and gives 50 silver, and maybe 300 karma.

players required, 3 zerkers and 2 mesmers for portals.