Guild Wars 2

So What I mean by different sides is, why do we have to be inherently good?
There are two sides to each race that are against one another
What would it mean if we got the choice to choose our path in a more in depth way? Maybe to try and destroy something from within, feeling helpless or mislead, seeking another path through different means. So many different options as to why our heroes would take a turn. Here’s more of an example- Just hear me out
-Sylvari walking away from the dream and joining the nightmare? Our hero finds themselves without a purpose and feels abandoned by the Pale Tree but hears a whisper in the wind – following the “voice” they are led through dark terrain and comforted by the voice – finding another “pale tree” who welcomes them with open arms and convincing our hero to join the Nightmare Court.
-Our Norn becomes an outcast due to a horrific event that where the blame is solely theirs. The Norn wanders aimlessly until through some event becomes involved with helping Svanir, however they get a taste of the power and twisting their mind as their friends from Dragon’s watch witness their commander seek a darker path. (maybe even more expansion on Norn Spirits/animal form and guidance.)
-Asura searching for greater knowledge through the Inquest. Knowing their methods are unorthadox – but when push comes to shove, there is no limit to knowledge gained and the Inquest have their perks.
And so on.
Maybe even introduce specialized vendors for this adaptation for both sides. ex) The dream/The Nightmare. A point system similar to karma or unbound magic used to purchase special items from these vendors to represent what side you’re on.
It’s just an idea!

What would be ways to expand upon this? I think it would make living story interesting instead of always following someone else and dealing with having to clean up after another character.

They don’t want to split the playerbase and this change would do that due to how maps are set up with heart vendors and such.

Not to mention the various world events would pot player against player and PvE isn’t set up for that.

No

This has been discussed a lot on these very forums, including recently (and currently) in: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/lwd/There-is-no-living-world-in-GW2/6633920

It’s a great idea that isn’t practical for most MMOs (at least, not yet) and especially not for GW2. GW2 is designed to be a cooperative effort by the players — we have to be on the same side (although, I suppose, that side need not be ‘good’). Besides that, instead of just one story per episode, we’d need multiple versions of each story, which would double the overhead of producing new episodes.

Only if choosing a different side shows the natural result of betrayal:
Death at the hands of a legion of heroic murderhobos.

Because ANet didn’t want an open world faction based MMO. That’s one of the reasons for the Elder Dragons being the unifying enemy all the races can get behind.

I think playing the bad guys works better for something like Fractals, or the LS episodes playing as Caithe (not saying she is a bad guy, just that sort of thing). Not really creating a villainous character so much as getting to experience a predefined character’s perspective on historical events.

perilisk.1874:

I think playing the bad guys works better for something like Fractals, or the LS episodes playing as Caithe (not saying she is a bad guy, just that sort of thing). Not really creating a villainous character so much as getting to experience a predefined character’s perspective on historical events.

It does work okay for the stories, except… I really hate being forced into one role/one set of skills. It’s fine playing Caithe once, but I like to repeat stories to get different perspectives and, well, Caithe’s always got the same skill sets.

Whilst it would be a cool idea one big problem is they’d have to make 2 or more versions of every single storyline.

Members of the enemy racial factions would not be allowed into the Orders, they would not join the Pact, they probably wouldn’t try to kill the dragons (the Savnir especially), they were more likely to join Scarlet than try to stop her.

All of that would have to be accommodated. For accuracy it would have to extend to other areas of the game as well – bandits would not help the Seraph fight other bandits, the Inquest would not protect skritt, the Svanir wouldn’t do anything a female character told them to do…

So everything Anet make would have to have two versions, at least, if not more. That means double the development time for the same amount of content per character.

As I said it’s a cool idea, but even in single-player games that level of choice doesn’t quite work yet. I keep hoping they’ll get there – every time a game offers you choices I make at least 2 characters and pick different ones to see how far it goes. Sometimes the choices are interesting on an individual level – at least a few times I’ve found myself thinking “I know I wanted to make an evil character but I didn’t expect that!” but overall it only has a minor impact on the storyline – for exactly this reason – otherwise they basically have to make 2 games and most people will only ever play 1 of them.

I think this might be a good idea – but I don’t really see the point in making DRASTIC differences. Your character isn’t inquest, svanir or a bandit, this is well established in the story by now. By level 80, your character is a somewhat reputable person in society, and their motivations should function with that in mind. They don’t want to be a dragon minion, or sabotage the war effort against the dragons.

I think, ideally, we would ideally want to see something akin to Renegade and Paragon from Mass Effect, whereby the same actions are taken for different reasons. For this reason, I think it would be nice if the Charm, Dignity and Threaten options saw more widespread use.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

It does work okay for the stories, except… I really hate being forced into one role/one set of skills. It’s fine playing Caithe once, but I like to repeat stories to get different perspectives and, well, Caithe’s always got the same skill sets.

It was interesting as a challenge and a chance to feel a little OP, but they’d get the same narrative effect by casting you as a random henchman (with your own profession/build) who was observing the events, if it was plausible for one to be present.

perilisk.1874:

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

It does work okay for the stories, except… I really hate being forced into one role/one set of skills. It’s fine playing Caithe once, but I like to repeat stories to get different perspectives and, well, Caithe’s always got the same skill sets.

It was interesting as a challenge and a chance to feel a little OP, but they’d get the same narrative effect by casting you as a random henchman (with your own profession/build) who was observing the events, if it was plausible for one to be present.

If it was done that way, I could get behind it. Maybe there’s an OP caithe/thief set of skills, but also a friend-of-caithe skill set for the other profs, too.

However, it’s pretty clear that ANet isn’t going to do that. In a recent comment, one of the devs said that it was a lot of extra work including profession-specific mechanics in story instances. They’ll do it occasionally (e.g. going after a certain minister in a recent LS episode); they just can’t afford the time to do it every episode.

Westenev.5289:

I think, ideally, we would ideally want to see something akin to Renegade and Paragon from Mass Effect, whereby the same actions are taken for different reasons. For this reason, I think it would be nice if the Charm, Dignity and Threaten options saw more widespread use.

I could’ve used a Paragon/Renegade set of options in Episode 3.

-Paragon/Dignity-
Weak, mincing Commander: “No Braham, don’t go away angry. Let’s talk this out ..and, he’s gone.”

-Renegade/Ferocity-
Commander: [Post face-punch] “How dare you pull this childish garbage on me? Do you have any idea what I’ve lost? My warband! The Pact! Eir was my friend! [second punch] Go on, go.” [Braham leaves crying.]
Rox: “Boss, don’t you think you were too hard on him?”
Commander: “No, but I bet this is going to bite me in the buttcape anyway. He’ll sort it out. I hope.”

It’s one of those “illusion of choice” things that doesn’t change the overall story, just the presentation of it.

Rauderi.8706:

Westenev.5289:

I think, ideally, we would ideally want to see something akin to Renegade and Paragon from Mass Effect, whereby the same actions are taken for different reasons. For this reason, I think it would be nice if the Charm, Dignity and Threaten options saw more widespread use.

I could’ve used a Paragon/Renegade set of options in Episode 3.

-Paragon/Dignity-
Weak, mincing Commander: “No Braham, don’t go away angry. Let’s talk this out ..and, he’s gone.”

-Renegade/Ferocity-
Commander: [Post face-punch] “How dare you pull this childish garbage on me? Do you have any idea what I’ve lost? My warband! The Pact! Eir was my friend! [second punch] Go on, go.” [Braham leaves crying.]
Rox: “Boss, don’t you think you were too hard on him?”
Commander: “No, but I bet this is going to bite me in the buttcape anyway. He’ll sort it out. I hope.”

It’s one of those “illusion of choice” things that doesn’t change the overall story, just the presentation of it.

That won’t work anymore…… the cost of voice acting is just too kitten high in this situation. Anet took a major philosophical shift for story presentation in HOT, in order to provide a more engaging, higher quality experience. This lead to a more focused story and plot line, which in turn allows for more dialog without costing tone or contextualization. That was, and still remains the biggest problem with previous Personal story… the inability to maintain consistent personality tone across story arcs. Sometimes it wouldn’t even maintain tone within the same conversation when its at a break/merger point in the story tree. “I never should had trusted you…. Cross me again, and I’ll bury you!” “So what do we do next?”

Choice in story ultimately doesn’t work because of the nature of Fate. All content has to be created, and thus is affirmative in design. In order to have choice that actually works as choice, or to even give the proper illusion of choice, all permutations of choice have to be either preordained or stripped of all contextual relevance. Using Skyrim as an example, the choice to run Melee or Ranged has no bearing on the story elements of the game. But all story elements, quests, and events are designed in advanced, and can only play out in a finite number of ways. On the flip side, you can kill every mudcrab in a river, leave the area and come back, it would be as if they were never gone.

Guildwars 2 has always been accused of being Content starved, and all of its players actions not having any kind of impact on the world, when the reality is the opposite. There is a TON of content available, and player interaction with world events have a very real impact on the state of the world. What players are really complaining about is not having persistent consequences. But as history has shown…. players can’t be trusted with decisions or actions which have lasting effects, as they will inevitably head down the path of destruction once all other options are explored. Not because of any moral grounding, or objective reasoning- but pure curiosity… A perverted sentimentality.

Even the mind set itself is breed from realization that the consequences ultimately don’t matter. That the effects of those actions start and end with the game, and don’t carry any personal responsibility the moment you close the game. You are free to walk away at any point, eventually starting the cycle again at a different point in the game, or even a different game if you so choose. But those destructive actions have already affected other…. and thats the real problem. A purposeful disconnect from the reality of the situation, the power to impose ones will, but no cost meaningful cost of the repercussions.
Looking at WoW, the dichotomy of Alliance and Hoard doesn’t matter since you as a player have the ability to change sides on a whim. Once you experience one, there is nothing preventing you from experiencing the other via a second account. Sometimes you’re even rewarded for this exploration of experience, despite the choice itself is advertised as having a moral weight.

So to create the paper thin illusion of choice comes with a cost. But those who play will not pay the cost if the illusion has no meaning. And even if the fates gave them a path filled with meaning and consequences, the player would reject it out of spite for his own insignificance of will. Yet when given real choice, the player laments the decisions and blames the creator for allowing the poor choice to be made. How can one learn from an experience, if the experience carries no true weight? And more importantly…. who will bear the cost if the player won’t?

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

If it was done that way, I could get behind it. Maybe there’s an OP caithe/thief set of skills, but also a friend-of-caithe skill set for the other profs, too.

However, it’s pretty clear that ANet isn’t going to do that. In a recent comment, one of the devs said that it was a lot of extra work including profession-specific mechanics in story instances. They’ll do it occasionally (e.g. going after a certain minister in a recent LS episode); they just can’t afford the time to do it every episode.

Oh, I didn’t mean as some sort of special build (other than maybe the occasional special action skill), just implementing a disguise like the Thaumanova or Urban Battleground fractals.