Guild Wars 2

Disclaimer: When I’m referring to gameplay, I don’t mean the combat system. What I’m really referring to is the entirety of the player to world interaction and all that it entails, part of which is the game’s combat.

For those of who aren’t Google savvy, when something is endogenous it originates within a living system. You sometimes hear term used in the life sciences, but I believe it applies to imaginary game worlds as well because they’re akin to living systems.

Games are a unique medium because to immerse the player into a “living world” they not require suspension of disbelief, but they need to also provide secondary belief (or secondary internal logic) due to the player’s agency and their ability to interact with the details of the world. This is because players often progress through the narrative through their own paths rather than the one laid out to them by the designer; their interaction with the setting details often becomes a part of their story. The most immersive game worlds are created by designers who make sure that most details and systems that the players are able to interact with are endogenous, because if these details and systems aren’t they can easily destroy secondary belief and, by extension, remove the player from immersion.

Now I’m pretty sure you know where I’m going with this, but before I start lambasting Guild Wars 2 again, I want to give an example of the power of a world with tightly sewn elements of immersion, one that has been the top seller on steam for nearly a year and whose expansions are currently in the top 10 and 20…

Skyrim

Everyone I know who’s played it loves Skyrim, even people I wouldn’t expect to like action adventure games. However every time someone tries to explain why they liked Skyrim by breaking the game down to individual gameplay elements, they seem find that the individual elements weren’t that great. The combat in Skyrim was fun, but it was nowhere near as good as, say, Dragon’s Dogma and you could even say it was comparably primitive and clunky. The loot was interesting, but alone each unique item wasn’t that powerful or even visually impressive. And the questing was really simple and not that interesting. I mean, it was just run through X dungeon and beat up X. But was everything endogenous? Oh god, yes!

You see Skyrim was a game that did everything in service to its world and the themes it explored. Despite how restrictive this may sound, I would say that it’s a superlative direction of the game’s designs. It certainly didn’t pull punches during the tutorial, and in fact by making sure players were aware of the central themes of the game everything following the tutorial became more approachable and engrossing(You see, ANet? Tutorials can be great!).

How this relates to Guild Wars 2

Now if I were to compare vanilla Skyrim’s world (sans mods) to a constantly updated and “evolving” triple A MMO world in Guild Wars 2, I would say that the Skryim’s world feels more alive and evolving. Why is this? Both games have their own worlds, characters, storylines and quests (heart quest if you want to be specific), but only Skyrim manages to keep the experience almost entirely endogenous. It’s better at being a consistent world, and therefore better at keeping me within the confines of it. It is far more immersive than Guild Wars 2.

Annoying things that prevent gameplay from being endogenous in Guild Wars 2.

This is usually the part where I post suggestions, but I’m certainty not going to tell ANet what to do (not any more anyway); they’re the desingers after all and its their job to figure out what to do, and it’s the wrong subsection anyway. But as a customer my only responsibility is to complain, and complain I shall!

• Dailies and the Reward System are arbitrary time-grabbers and gates

Keyword: arbitrary. I’ve certainly poured many hours into other themepark mmos with their treadmills, but why is Guild Wars 2’s system so grating? My guess is that it’s not endogenous! There should be an organization or something telling me to help the world through daily tasks and rewarding duly. Why isn’t the Zaishan doing this already? Is there some aversion to starting tasks with NPC interaction? How can one be afraid of the boogeyman one invented? cough cough

• Mundane and Generic NPCs

Why are there so many generic NPCs that have generic dialogue? Why do DE and quest NPCs say their generic lines when I try to loot around them. Why are they trying to talk to me as I loot? There are enemies around! Those NPCs shouldn’t be having a conversation with me!

• Guild Missions

Who’s assigning these guild missions to me? I don’t need no UI to tell me what to do. An NPC would make more sense. Why do I need so many points to unlock them if I’m only doing them to get the BiS gear? If it’s not contributing the immersion I probably won’t keep doing them after I get my shineys!

• Achievement system

Why is the game putting assigning merit to the mundane tasks I normally do anyway? If it’s for a title, shouldn’t an NPC do this? Is an NPC doing this? Are they watching me doing every little task and writing it down somewhere without first informing me? That’s super creepy!

• Why did this Skelk drop a breastplate?

I mean look at the thing. It’s tiny. Is there some kind time space distortion inside of it? It wouldn’t make sense even then!

• Why is the writing so bad?

Not entirely related, but honest question. Really. Who conceived of Trahearne and where can I find him!?

I know a ton of people who hated Skyrim coming from Oblivion, since you lost several skills and viable methods of play, not to mention it wasn’t nearly as open or free. I really don’t see how a single player world is more engaging than one where you actually interact with people.

Not trying to play devil’s advocate here but it’s like comparing pop tarts and avocados, and I really don’t see a problem with not having to run back to town/ the quest hub every 5 minutes.

Instantly, your concept is flawed. You’re comparing a single player experience to an online MMO experience. Two completely different things with completely different mechanics. You can’t put a single player experience in an MMO, as it would never work.

In a single player game, they can do all that and make everything revolve around you and immerse you in everything perfectly. There is no competition, no balance needed, nothing. It is all about you and no one else.

But in an MMO, you have to set rules and requirements. There is millions of players at one time and they have to all be considered in everything. It doesn’t just revolve around you and balance is needed to keep everything in check for everyone.

You just can’t compare the two, sorry. They will never work together.

Way to try to rationalise your preference as somehow applicable to others.

I disagree.

I found that Skyrim’s (your example) disparate gameplay elements didn’t gel together all that well, and went from being blown away by the atmosphere of the game to extreme meh in approximately 100 hours.

It’s been uninstalled ever since.

Gameplay elements in GW2 gel together so smoothly (to me) that even after nearly 600 hours of play I still have a growing feeling that the best is yet to come.

To each his or her own. No need to feel your (or my) taste is somehow relevant to others.

on guild missions:

i will probably keep doing them for as long as my guild holds events to do them more for the company than for the reward. while some kind of immersion would make the experience better, a lot of why i get online is for the friends.

SpyderArachnid.5619:

Instantly, your concept is flawed. You’re comparing a single player experience to an online MMO experience. Two completely different things with completely different mechanics. You can’t put a single player experience in an MMO, as it would never work.

In a single player game, they can do all that and make everything revolve around you and immerse you in everything perfectly. There is no competition, no balance needed, nothing. It is all about you and no one else.

But in an MMO, you have to set rules and requirements. There is millions of players at one time and they have to all be considered in everything. It doesn’t just revolve around you and balance is needed to keep everything in check for everyone.

You just can’t compare the two, sorry. They will never work together.

You are completely wrong. His comparison is entirely valid.

Early MMOs were endogenous in the way he describes, including GW1 (EQ1 was a perfect example of such). So your counter-argument ends there. His comparison is valid. That he chose Skyrim instead of EQ1 just helps more people to understand it.

You don’t have to agree with him on his preferences, but EQ1 and others show you have no point to make.

skyrim is a masterpiece.
a rpg changer.
everybody knows that, to say otherwise is to be part of the minority.

comparing it to gw2 is kind of flattering, but unfair
i played more hours in gw2 than skyrim.
i think the combat is better tweaked in gw2.
there a lot of better thing in gw2.

but skyrims art style, music, voices, sounds… i mean; its well done.

the guild wars universe is more a “star wars” type universe. but unfortunately, its more star wars 1-2-3 thakitten6…
for whatever reason, you dont feel it.

it doesnt help when they throw content like the fractals that have basically no lore and that most content is meant to be replayable and that you kill zaithan and all that…

actually, the gw2 universe isnt as good as the warcraft universe..(but i much prefer gw2 as a game, dont get me wrong).

im really looking forward to see how (or if) teso will be able to put some life into their world.
its a difficult task with mmos.
and gw2 “wow” approach is ok but not new nor super well done.

Playing Skyrim felt like walking through a wax museum.

@Spyder
Aside from the presence of other players, I don’t see what’s so different about an MMO world and a single player world. I’m really talking about the player’s interaction with the world, which seems largely dead in Guild Wars 2. And besides why can’t an MMO have the same level of immersion as a single player game? Surely ANet’s decision of making players not be the hero had to do something with there being other players and the decision behind the living story must have had something to do with make the experience more endogenous.

diabluz.2860:

Playing Skyrim felt like walking through a wax museum.

The uncanny valley effect, maybe? Nords look stylish and realistic at the same time. I admit they looked kind of startling at first.

diabluz.2860:

Playing Skyrim felt like walking through a wax museum.

Isn’t that the truth.

If you want an alive world, affected by player agency and with the strongest ability to generate stories in gaming, Skyrim pales in comparison to Dwarf Fortress.
MMOs could learn a lot from DF, but the current culture among triple-A MMO developers is only really interested in producing closed systems that are heavily scripted and easily controlled by the developer.
Sure, these games can be fun, but they’ll never be revolutionary until they realise that the players are the content and that they should allow the players more control over the world and its systems.

It’s too dry and impenetrable for most of the userbase, but the biggest player-controlled system in Guild Wars 2 is the trading post. It ebbs and flows based on player interactions, with surges occurring when new economic variables are introduced.
Unfortunately, it makes for incredibly dull stories.

We need more things that the players can influence in MMOs. I’m not sure ArenaNet even want to go that way.
But if they do, they could do worse than looking at WvW and revamping it with more permanent goals, some decent political and diplomatic features and dynamic, unscripted quests that evolve around player presence.
One thing they could start with here is different borderlands maps for every server, with finite resources to allow proper failstates.

They should also work on allowing some of those things that are currently considered exploits.
For example, if you are clever enough to get to an area where you can attack an NPC enemy yet they can’t reach you, you’re not rewarded for your efforts. The game simply makes the NPC invulnerable (or as near as darnit). This rips the player out of immersion. The game is immediately telling them that it doesn’t reward clever play, but rather punishes it.
The same goes for teleport moves. Why can’t players teleport over gaps? It’s silly, and it screams “Balance”.
The defense against teleportation invasion in WvW shouldn’t be a game system being crippled; it should be a group of players being observant and preventing it from happening in the first place.
At the moment, once you’ve capture a tower or keep in WvW, there is no reason to stay behind and defend it. This strikes me as ridiculous. If unattended defences were easier to capture, this would provide more reason to protect them actively.

There’s far too much nannying in games these days with developers believing they know best.
Let’s open it up a little and see what comes out.

Avatar.1923:

skyrim is a masterpiece.
a rpg changer.
everybody knows that, to say otherwise is to be part of the minority.

Oh my. Hyperbole much? I found Skyrim incredibly boring after about 30 hours. There are about 2,720,000 Google results for “Skyrim boring” and only 611,000 for “Skyrim masterpiece” so it’s definitely not a minority opinion.

As to the topic, I agree that comparing a single player game to an mmo just doesn’t work. To me, they are night and day. I expect themepark when I play a single player. In mmos, I expect much more interaction with other players that make things far less predictable.

TwoBit.5903:

@Spyder
Aside from the presence of other players, I don’t see what’s so different about an MMO world and a single player world. I’m really talking about the player’s interaction with the world, which seems largely dead in Guild Wars 2. And besides why can’t an MMO have the same level of immersion as a single player game? Surely ANet’s decision of making players not be the hero had to do something with there being other players and the decision behind the living story must have had something to do with make the experience more endogenous.

You mean aside from the fact that an SP game can tailor the experience specifically to the player, to the point that the game completely revolves around them, as opposed to an MMO where the experience must be broad enough to encompass a huge variety of needs, desires and interests. You mean aside from that?

well your text of wall is impressive but.. i have different opinion. it probably has something to with me not liking Skyrim.

also not sure what you mean with term Endogenous. as it has nothing to do with living or inanimate stuff. it simply means being created from inside the system, as opposite to Exogenous coming from outside the system.

so if game world is the system you are talking about, then everything created inside, lootz, monsters etc.. are Endogenous.

and the only thing that can be created and enter system from the ‘outside’ are player characters and gems.

and when you say Endogenous gameplay… what do you mean sir? synonimus for immersive? then why not using immersive, that word would make more sense with the context you provided – poor lore related to events, poor NPC performance (not that i expect them to be smart), fantasy game logic (bigger lewts then poor monsters can carry.. tho you can cary like 10 different armors and 20 weapons, and you don’t mention problem with it.. L O L)

Saulius.8430:

well your text of wall is impressive but.. i have different opinion. it probably has something to with me not liking Skyrim.

also not sure what you mean with term Endogenous. as it has nothing to do with living or inanimate stuff. it simply means being created from inside the system, as opposite to Exogenous coming from outside the system.

It was a horrible misapplication of the word.

At any rate, I’m happy that I see games as just….games.

Makes life so much easier.

TwoBit.5903:

Aside from the presence of other players, I don’t see what’s so different about an MMO world and a single player world. I’m really talking about the player’s interaction with the world, which seems largely dead in Guild Wars 2. And besides why can’t an MMO have the same level of immersion as a single player game? Surely ANet’s decision of making players not be the hero had to do something with there being other players and the decision behind the living story must have had something to do with make the experience more endogenous.

- There’s a ton of differences between single-player RPGs and MMOs. I’ll give some examples:

Combat: killing a monster is only immersive if the monster you’ve slain stays dead. This is easy to do in single player, but in MMO you’d end up with a world where most of the players would run around without anything to kill. That’s why monsters have to respawn.

NPCs: NPCs can acknowledge your actions better in single player. NPC tells you to save the town from centaurs and after you’ve saved the town she thanks you. What if in MMO same NPC would say that town in under attack to one player and be thankful that the town is safe to another? There can be no real permanence in MMO and that’s why every NPC just says generic stuff that is true regardless of what happens around you. Even in single player games it can be a pain to have convincing NPCs who aren’t trying to teach you basic stuff when you revisit starting areas.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/endogenous

In the context of this wall o’ text it means originating from within the game’s living world, or internal logic if you will, and therefore a part of it. Think of how there’s lore to many of the usable abilities in videogames.

The gameplay elements come together to immerse because they’re endogenous to the game’s living world.

@Blacklight

EQ 1 did it apparently, so did Star Wars Galaxies. And I can argue that many f2p mmos do it as well, like Mabinogi. Too bad those f2p games turn out terrible for other reasons.

And Skyrim was in no way tailor made. It was a bunch of inter-related quests on a large map. Players made the story to their liking as they went along, and that’s why it was able to capture so many different players.

@ Zenith: The important part is where the developer draws the line. They need to figure out what hinges on ridiculous, like no despawning corpses, and treat it as the noise.

I’ve also played some f2p games that had instanced NPC dialogues, the kind that only appears for certain players. It was a nice touch and really added to the immersion.

Edit: Wrong link, grammar, clarification.

Sigh, just read through the topic again, this time not half asleep from work. Am I right in saying that no one thinks GW2 is immersive because they don’t think that MMOs can be? What’s the point of having lore then if you don’t expect the game to immerse you in it? I think it’s a truly sad day for gaming when everyone agrees that distilled mechanics and achievements are more important than aesthetics. I may as well go build myself a hamster wheel if I want to experience games then. At least that way I’d get some exercise.

You cannot compare a single player game to a MMORPG.

And Skyrim, imo, was boring. After 32 hours and playing through the storyline in 4, completing most of the daedric quests, I was just bored.

(850 hrs in here)

SpyderArachnid.5619:

Instantly, your concept is flawed. You’re comparing a single player experience to an online MMO experience. Two completely different things with completely different mechanics. You can’t put a single player experience in an MMO, as it would never work.

In a single player game, they can do all that and make everything revolve around you and immerse you in everything perfectly. There is no competition, no balance needed, nothing. It is all about you and no one else.

But in an MMO, you have to set rules and requirements. There is millions of players at one time and they have to all be considered in everything. It doesn’t just revolve around you and balance is needed to keep everything in check for everyone.

You just can’t compare the two, sorry. They will never work together.

The funny thing is.

Skyrim being a single player experience felt more MMORPG like than Guildwars 2 ever does.. If it wasn’t for the little MSN chat down in the corner sometimes i’d feel like im in a singleplayer experience..

So yes i can easily compare the two.. and yes OP i agree..

Eurhetemec.9052:

SpyderArachnid.5619:

Instantly, your concept is flawed. You’re comparing a single player experience to an online MMO experience. Two completely different things with completely different mechanics. You can’t put a single player experience in an MMO, as it would never work.

In a single player game, they can do all that and make everything revolve around you and immerse you in everything perfectly. There is no competition, no balance needed, nothing. It is all about you and no one else.

But in an MMO, you have to set rules and requirements. There is millions of players at one time and they have to all be considered in everything. It doesn’t just revolve around you and balance is needed to keep everything in check for everyone.

You just can’t compare the two, sorry. They will never work together.

You are completely wrong. His comparison is entirely valid.

Early MMOs were endogenous in the way he describes, including GW1 (EQ1 was a perfect example of such). So your counter-argument ends there. His comparison is valid. That he chose Skyrim instead of EQ1 just helps more people to understand it.

You don’t have to agree with him on his preferences, but EQ1 and others show you have no point to make.

Gw1 was not an MMO. Have no clue about EQ, never played it, heard it described more than once as a grindy, broken mess though.

Levistis.8356:

You cannot compare a single player game to a MMORPG.

And Skyrim, imo, was boring. After 32 hours and playing through the storyline in 4, completing most of the daedric quests, I was just bored.

(850 hrs in here)

Why not? Isn’t there some commonality between the techniques of games in all genre?

And what’s with this overly solipsistic attitude with Skyrim? You don’t necessarily have to enjoy a work in order to appreciate its quality or its capacity for engrossing other players.

I really hate to say this but OP seems to have a bad case of purple prose.

vince.5937:

I really hate to say this but OP seems to have a bad case of purple prose.

LMAO! That’s the first thought I had reading through OP’s post.

Anyways, to an extent I agree. There seems to be heavy disconnects between immersion and the gameplay itself in some areas. Whenever there’s supposed to be “major battles” (like some missions in the personal story such as Claw Island) it doesn’t feel like one. They did execute it pretty well in other instances though (like Light in the Darkness, Source of Orr). Plus some quests and dynamic events don’t really make sense at all. I’m pretty kitten sure dragon champions can wipe out an entire zerg, but yet they do so little damage. Oh, and despite the fact they can move around, they don’t actually move around.

With that, I think there’s places where this game actually hits immersion pretty well. Many places in the Shiverpeaks for example reflect the atmosphere to the player quite well (the music, etc). Some of the dungeon environments aren’t bad either.

vince.5937:

I really hate to say this but OP seems to have a bad case of purple prose.

Seriously? :/
Well it’s a forum post so I was typing colloquially. More periods and less commas, then?

My Opinion:

1. The combat is excellent. I love that it’s more action-oriented, however, skills do get tedious over time. Giving us more depth via new trait lines, and a secondary skill set for the weapons already in game, would be worth the effort to implement it.

2. The characters, the story and your supposed personality are all very bland. The artistic approach was an extraordinary success. The story and emotion between characters is a failure. So much needs to be done to make me want to care about the people living in Tyria. I’d look at games like Dragon Age and Mass Effect for an idea on how to bring GW2 some more life besides art.

3. The feeling is lacking realism. It’s important for realism to be in any story, it’s what helps us define and establish a connection so we can relate to and immerse ourselves into the story.

In GW2 there’s this underlining tone of heroism which is felt through every aspect of the game. From Jeremy’s score down to the very small risen chicken in Orr. It’s this tone that destroys any shred of realism. Reality carries extraordinary weight with it’s diverse emotions. Just take the feelings between life and death, metaphorically or literal, it’s chaotic how potent those emotions are. None of that is felt in GW2.

@Blackmoon

Realism in games, espcially nonlinear ones, needs to come from the setting. The setting is what the player interacts with the most, after all.

And I agree that the themes the designers wanted to impose didn’t naturally arise from the setting. That or the setting they designed just wasn’t adequate to get the point across. I can already assume from the fact that there’s a prequel book that ANet may have had the plot done before the setting.

I’ve never played Skyrim, but I am happy with the gameplay in GW2. I don’t get an `exogenous` vibe from it at all. Though to be honest, I may be missing your intended use of the word.
I am an evolutionary biologist and I am more than familiar with the word in a biological context.

Avatar.1923:

skyrim is a masterpiece.
a rpg changer.
everybody knows that, to say otherwise is to be part of the minority.

A minority who knows that Skyrim really didn’t change that much, lost quite a bit and gave an experience on par with what people had managed with tweaking it’s predecessors years before.

The one really new thing Skyrim did was apply massive marketing.

Avatar.1923:

skyrim is a masterpiece.
a rpg changer.
everybody knows that, to say otherwise is to be part of the minority.

Please don’t give your opinions on RPG’s ever again.

And to address the point, since you seem to be comparing the game so much to Skyrim, OP, the game world itself was obtusely static. I don’t know what your experience was like but, your first time through, everything’s new and novel but, say 100 hours later, the magic’s gone and you’re either fighting dragons that spawn in a way that feels so unnatural it’s almost hilarious or you’re off on fetch quests for your respective guilds or you’re exploring the same copy-pasta fortress/cave/dwarven ruin motif.

Skyrim does a great job of world building, I’ll agree, but let’s not jump the shark here and act like the game plays so naturally that you can immerse yourself endlessly. It gets to a point where backstabbing a dragon to death that’s stuck in the most awkward land battle with a giant I’ve ever seen breaks any sense of world building.

And on the point of the story: It’s pretty mediocre and I really wish they had the people who write their kitten world lore, which is fascinatingly complex and rich in detail, write the main plot instead of some post-grad English major using every fantasy trope on the planet. But I imagine the simplicity of the plot stems from the fact that the choices branch, because early on the story is pretty good. It’s only when it homogenizes into that mixed soup of orders and ultimately the Pact that it starts to get pretty bad.

Though, to be fair, Guild Wars Prophecies through Eye of the North had some pretty horrendous storywriting, too. And I wouldn’t even say Trahearne is their worst character.

Lest we forget: KORMIR.

Video’s got some language that’s NSFW. Watch at your own discretion.

Mr Crazy Moose.5760:

Avatar.1923:

skyrim is a masterpiece.
a rpg changer.
everybody knows that, to say otherwise is to be part of the minority.

A minority who knows that Skyrim really didn’t change that much, lost quite a bit and gave an experience on par with what people had managed with tweaking it’s predecessors years before.

The one really new thing Skyrim did was apply massive marketing.

Yep. Most of the new features in Skyrim were based on oblivion mods (which isn’t a bad thing exactly, as it showed the developers were responding to the desires of their players). A lot of minor “two-step back” decisions have really prevented me from enjoying skyrim. Not to mention the way in which the game handles mods this time around. Better be happy with the mod you installed, cause it’ll be there until you start a new save. Doesn’t matter if you uninstall the mod or not.

Anyway, I do think people who use phrases like “it’s just a game” don’t understand how MMO’s achieved there popularity. Housing, fishing, and all manner of fluff is what keeps people attached to a “world”. I think this transition into dailies and number crunching is what leads a lot of MMO to there doom — because MMO’s end up competing with single player games, netflix, itunes and all manner of other new and hyped forms of entertainment.

I think the original poster has some good points. The dailies are very contrived and there are a number of other game elements with poor concepts. On the other hand the open world event systems are very good compared to other MMOs.

Eurhetemec.9052:

SpyderArachnid.5619:

Instantly, your concept is flawed. You’re comparing a single player experience to an online MMO experience. Two completely different things with completely different mechanics. You can’t put a single player experience in an MMO, as it would never work.

In a single player game, they can do all that and make everything revolve around you and immerse you in everything perfectly. There is no competition, no balance needed, nothing. It is all about you and no one else.

But in an MMO, you have to set rules and requirements. There is millions of players at one time and they have to all be considered in everything. It doesn’t just revolve around you and balance is needed to keep everything in check for everyone.

You just can’t compare the two, sorry. They will never work together.

You are completely wrong. His comparison is entirely valid.

Early MMOs were endogenous in the way he describes, including GW1 (EQ1 was a perfect example of such). So your counter-argument ends there. His comparison is valid. That he chose Skyrim instead of EQ1 just helps more people to understand it.

You don’t have to agree with him on his preferences, but EQ1 and others show you have no point to make.

What?

Neither of those games were even remotely as immersive as any good single player RPG. Not even close. And to say GW1 was an MMO is stretching it. By that logic Diablo 3 is also an MMO.

@Facepunch
It’s more about what you don’t feel at times.

It helps to think of endogenous gameplay elements as natural products of a living system; I made the initial comparison for that purpose, after all. These elements come naturally from the game’s themes and lore without contrivance.

As mentioned by a previous poster, prominent gameplay elements such as dailies simply don’t fit in. I’d argue that endgame goals such as legendaries are just as contrived. This is probably why these system get so much hate.

TwoBit.5903:

@Facepunch
It’s more about what you don’t feel at times.

It helps to think of endogenous gameplay elements as natural products of a living system; I made the initial comparison for that purpose, after all. These elements come naturally from the game’s themes and lore without contrivance.

As mentioned by a previous poster, prominent gameplay elements such as dailies simply don’t fit in. I’d argue that endgame goals such as legendaries are just as contrived. This is probably why these system get so much hate.

I think part of it is that when you boil it down, there really isn’t that much to do in the game world that’s engaging. When something like the redone achievement system pops up it kind of breaks people out of the little rhythm they’ve gotten into.

In a way it feels like the game was built with stuff like activities in mind to take the edge off a bit but they overextended themselves (I think they said they wanted something like thirty on launch and it launched with one) and we’ve only just started to see indication of a second of the launch “built into the main cities” activities might be coming “soon”.

It also probably doesn’t help that the world is so predictable, with sites set up to predict exactly when world bosses will spawn and so on. It makes it seems artificial, like the Shatterer has a 9-5 job and he has set times he can attend to the world.

Okay, I read the thread, and saw this point was made but it bears repeating.

Single player games are conceived differently than Multiplayer ones. Single player games can be focused, honed, and shaped in ways that MMOs can’t be. Or rather should not be. In a single player game you can realistically predict things and if the player breaks something or unbalances the game . . . it will not affect anyone.

I present to you as Exhibit A . . . Morrowind. A predecessor to Skyrim and somehow I understand it feels much bigger despite covering a smaller area. But importantly, in this game you could work with your Alchemy skill to create potions which would make it possible to win the game within 20 minutes for sure, but I think the record was within 15 minutes. This would be an unacceptable problem in an MMO.

Exhibit B. There are ways of fooling the training system, in Morrowind and I think in its successors. “(Skill) Destruction” could be made to self target and reduce your skill by any amount. If your skill went low enough you could train for free to a level most trainers could put you to . . . and then the spell wears off and you keep the new gains on top of what you had. Who needs Grandmaster trainers? Again, if this was left in an MMO? Heads roll on DAY ONE. Single player game? Eh, so what? It only helps and hurts the player’s experience.

This is why you can’t take a single player game and hold it against a massively multiplayer online game in comparison for “how to do games right”.

I agree with the op 100 percent and back up EVERYTHING he has said.

Ive often been saying that WvW should have some story driven things in it, perhaps a clash of guilds story or some sort of power their, same with pvp its just sort of their.

And fractals lore is weak and silly.

no immersion whatsoever

and the storys and dialogue are not good, too lighthearted and cheesy.

I mean man some of the dialogue is horrid gives me those “what were they thinking moments”

Sometimes i wish i worked as a story director (whatever their called) for gw2.

Gw2 needs more immersion.

i remember when i played skyrim…but then i took an arrow to the knee.

ps: accepting gold donations

TwoBit.5903:

• Dailies and the Reward System are arbitrary time-grabbers and gates

Lorewise, the Zaishen aren’t quite as big as they used to be far as I can tell. Nor as ubiquitous. Your complaint by the way does nothing to erase the point you make that they are arbitrary time-sinks. Even if attributed to some organization or individual . . . they’d still be that way and your complaint could morph into:

“So why is he/they having us do these?”

• Mundane and Generic NPCs

Same thing can go on in Skyrim or other games. Also, fleshing out more specific lines takes time and money. Which might not have been in full supply. So, yes.

• Guild Missions

Who’s assigning these guild missions to me?

The Guild Trek is handled through the Tyrian Explorer’s Society. The Bounties are not explicitly stated who is setting the bounties but does it matter too much? The bounties are picked up and you’re expected to cash in on them. Would you prefer some Cowboy action here? We do have Steve Blum voicing Rytlock . . .

• Achievement system

I’m not sure what your point is. Which mundane tasks, do you mean crafting, salvaging . . . what?
As for why? If anyone can successfully answer why my character should care about an arbitrary achievement score I’ll forgive the concept from ever being established. However, it is fun to have something to go “hey . . . I did that” for a few games.

• Why did this Skelk drop a breastplate?

Now you’re descending into nitpicking lil fiddly bits and crying about tropes which were old when the Elder Scrolls were yet to be written.

• Why is the writing so bad?

Not entirely related, but honest question. Really. Who conceived of Trahearne and where can I find him!?

The problem is not with the conception of Trahearne. It’s with the execution.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Okay, I read the thread, and saw this point was made but it bears repeating.

Single player games are conceived differently than Multiplayer ones. Single player games can be focused, honed, and shaped in ways that MMOs can’t be. Or rather should not be. In a single player game you can realistically predict things and if the player breaks something or unbalances the game . . . it will not affect anyone.

I present to you as Exhibit A . . . Morrowind. A predecessor to Skyrim and somehow I understand it feels much bigger despite covering a smaller area. But importantly, in this game you could work with your Alchemy skill to create potions which would make it possible to win the game within 20 minutes for sure, but I think the record was within 15 minutes. This would be an unacceptable problem in an MMO.

Exhibit B. There are ways of fooling the training system, in Morrowind and I think in its successors. “(Skill) Destruction” could be made to self target and reduce your skill by any amount. If your skill went low enough you could train for free to a level most trainers could put you to . . . and then the spell wears off and you keep the new gains on top of what you had. Who needs Grandmaster trainers? Again, if this was left in an MMO? Heads roll on DAY ONE. Single player game? Eh, so what? It only helps and hurts the player’s experience.

This is why you can’t take a single player game and hold it against a massively multiplayer online game in comparison for “how to do games right”.

Yourcomparisons are too linear and way off base. Those gameplay mechanics and conventions you mentioned are specific to aesthetic of Morrowind. You can leave them out of mmos and still find a way to have an immersive experience through other means. In fact, many games fail because they adopt seemingly realistic mechanics that don’t fit in their world. My argument isn’t that GW2 is not as immersive as Skyrim because it doesn’t have the same mechanics. My argument is that GW2 is not immersive because it takes its specific world for granted with respect to its mechanics, whereas Skyrim uses mechanics that fit in its very specific world.

TwoBit.5903:

• Mundane and Generic NPCs

Why are there so many generic NPCs that have generic dialogue? Why do DE and quest NPCs say their generic lines when I try to loot around them. Why are they trying to talk to me as I loot? There are enemies around! Those NPCs shouldn’t be having a conversation with me!

Okay, hold on just a minute here.

You’re comparing GW2 to Skyrim, right?

Did we play the same Skyrim? Because the Skyrim I played sounded like they used a cast of 12 random people to voice an entire game. I hear the same lines and voices coming out of ‘different’ people all over Skyrim. GW2 suffers exactly the same, except since GW2’s cast of important-to-some-story-or-other list is bigger than the number of unique voices done for Skyrim’s plot, GW2 has wider variety there.

Now considering Skryim’s NPCs need to be much more immersive than GW2’s (because seriously, nobody expects single-player immersion levels from an MMO, and rightly so), this really stuck out as an incredibly lazy blemish on Skyrim’s believability.

@Tobias
It would fix the arbitrary part.

Skyrim’s NPCs each had some unique thing to say that added to the setting. Even unnamed guards helped immerse you.

The UI is still dictating guild missions rather than the world. It’s the same as saying that giving references to the ascended gear you obtain from the missions makes it a part of the world. It’s not. It’s just as arbitrary because of the manner of aquisition.

Thinly Veiled Sarcasm, although the main issue is with the UI giving you recognition rather than the actual world

Thinly veiled Sarcasm

He was a contrived Mary Sue officially stated by one of the writers to have been conceived to do whatever the game didn’t want the player to do. Contrivance. He needs to be grounded into mulch.

@ Scumbag Mawile

Those voice actors did a good job, considering all their lines. Using the same voice actors gave a sense of dialect and familiarity. Not to mention, it was financially a good decision.

I kind of see what you’re saying, the game’s world doesn’t feel living to me. I think these might help:

1) Fewer/no armor drops. Have most equip-able things be player-made. This would also make karma vendors more worthwhile while leveling. As it is, it’s so hopelessly easy to keep your stuff up to date that any cost in doing so is negligible and there’s little reason to craft anything, or buy from someone who crafts.

2) More events, higher stakes. There need to be real consequences for failure and an actual chance to not succeed in chasing off the centaurs (or whatever). In other words, we need a modicum of difficulty. As it currently sits, events feel like exp/karma pinatas.

2b) I also think one should be able to turn off cues on the map that show you that there’s a new event nearby or whatever. If you had to rely on the visual cue of the centaurs (or whatever) invading, that’d be more endogenous.

3) Fishing.

TwoBit.5903:

@Tobias
He was a contrived Mary Sue officially stated by one of the writers to have been conceived to do whatever the game didn’t want the player to do. Contrivance.

Citation requested.

Honestly, though a lot of these complaints do potentially fall under “time/money constraints”. Remember, voice actors are not cheap.

TwoBit.5903:

@ Scumbag Mawile

Those voice actors did a good job, considering all their lines. Using the same voice actors gave a sense of dialect and familiarity. Not to mention, it was financially a good decision.

r u tryna bamboozle me m8

No, seriously. I really hope you’re baiting. Reusing the same lines and voice actors over and over is in no way immersive. After hearing the same bland statement for the sixtieth time, all it is is grating.

Grating isn’t good for keeping you involved. Annoyance with the game itself means you’re actively thinking about it as a game. That kills immersion, hard.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

TwoBit.5903:

@Tobias
He was a contrived Mary Sue officially stated by one of the writers to have been conceived to do whatever the game didn’t want the player to do. Contrivance.

Citation requested.

Honestly, though a lot of these complaints do potentially fall under “time/money constraints”. Remember, voice actors are not cheap.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/18z681/bobby_stein_on_trahearne/

I don’t know. For me they could have been remedied some of the problems with more NPC text. Text, not voice acting. Just some kind of explanation to make it all make sense.

Generic voiced dialogue is better off disabled in my opinion.

@Scumbag Mawile
We’re talking about Skryim, right? Most named NPCs in Skyrim had several lines of unique dialogue and you weren’t expected to speak with them more than a few times.

Okay, I see what you’re talking about.

He’s still not a Mary Sue, the player character is.

Mary Sue’s hate to be bound within a fusion narrative engine.