Guild Wars 2

This is something that is still somewhat alluding me, and perhaps I misunderstand what is what exactly, if there is a difference…

See from my perspective these are two separate things, but from how the forum is set up, as well as where the focus of the updates is concerned, it seems these two are very much related, to a point where I am wondering if they are being perceived as the same thing. What is your pov on this?

See, most of what the ‘Living Story’ entails I fully understand, the whole ‘the story continues regularly’ is captivated very well in the words ‘Living Story’. So that’s pretty clear to me…

But the ‘Living World’ is where my brain starts to produce ‘syntax error’ like effects. Sure in LS1 I could see how the living story effected some parts in the world to make it more then apparent that the story wasn’t something happening on some illusive story plane, but had true implication on the game world as well. But is that it? I mean, ‘living world’ seems to imply way more than just an influence of the Living Story upon the game world? At least in my mind it does… What about you all?

So, mostly I wondered what people here thought about what these terms imply and whether they are reflected as such in the game…

ArenaNet uses the terms interchangeably but what they imply are certainly different and yet neither hold true to what we are given (at least, in my view).

To me, a living story is a plotline that expands and evolves based off of your decisions and actions – rather than a story that is on a single railroad. Dishonored, the Mass Effect trilogy, Dragon Age, The Witcher (from what I’ve heard as I’ve yet to play it) and to a small degree the personal story are such stories to various degrees and designs. What we’re given via season 1 and season 2 are very much a railroaded story – the play player decision change being whether Kiel or Econ won the election, and whether you have Rox or Braham join you during the Concordia step (the latter having no effect at all).

Living World instead implies the background of the story’s world – things both related and unrelated to the plot – being expanded as time goes on, both reflecting player interaction, and the lack thereof.

We get neither.

As far as the LS goes, I personally think (hope) this in part due to how LS1 was set up (with the large open world events), to then move towards LS2 with largely instanced story and the systems to support that. Which sort of diffused the ‘living story’ bit as far as agency is concerned. My expectation is that these things will improve for the continuation of the LS as ANet finds out what works and doesn’t work within their new LS-diary setup.

One major concern though, I made 2 threads:
- https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/livingworld/lwd/Implementing-Storytelling/first#post4225443
- https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/livingworld/lwd/PDPSI-How-to-put-MMO-back-into-LS/first#post4334149

And from the participation I got in these threads (being 0) it would seem that the large majority doesn’t give a kitten’s tail about having choice or agency, nor would they care whether or not open world stuff returns. Actually based upon the hearts-reset thread I made, it’s fairly clear to me that people only care about rewards, aka. loot & gold. Hopefully ANet themselves care enough though…

About the LW I have to agree with you, and this is one of my bigger peeves, instead of a ‘living’ world, we get a world in stasis/limbo. While I can see that rotational DE’s lift the world over the ‘set in time’ experience of GW1, it is still far off from an actual Living World. Or at least the association I personally have with the words ‘living world’.

Tyria is a Living World and in it are many Living Stories.

You asked, here’s my opinion: The living story is alright. Not AWESOME but it’s a huge improvement from the last season. I like the game having the living story BUT I do not like that it is the focus of the developers and I don’t feel like it makes the world feel “alive” or as “happening” as they wanted it to. The game needs more content and more story than just the living story and personal story. More to do and work towards. Horizontal progression. And this can be done in a way that works WITH the living story and helps to create a bigger sense of a “living world.”

Just to throw it in here, I made a post about adding in small factions with singular purposes such as eliminating the risen or mordrem. Players would gain reputation or favor by killing X type of creature and unlock new item skins recipes maybe even skills or skill points. Do this with the 3 Orders and give them missions that tell a unique side story about the main characters of the Order, their current campaign and politics. Tie some of these mission in with current episode of the living story and bam, horizontal progression, more playable and achievable content, more story supporting the living story and a stronger feeling of the world actually being alive and moving. Not to mention the Orders would finally have a place in the world again outside of the personal story….
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Factions-and-Reputation/first#post4347230

Living Story has negative connotations from the tepid reception of season one.

Seems to me the name `Living World´ came about essentially to set season two apart, even though it is exactly the same thing in every way.

Arghore.8340:

Living Story = Living World ?

I use the terms interchangeably. Yes you could argue that there is a difference between “story” and “world” (with “story” being the transition of the states of the world, while the “world” is the subject that is being changed by the story) but that sounds somewhat like making simple things seem more complicated than they actually are.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

To me, a living story is a plotline that expands and evolves based off of your decisions and actions – rather than a story that is on a single railroad. Dishonored, the Mass Effect trilogy, Dragon Age, The Witcher (from what I’ve heard as I’ve yet to play it) and to a small degree the personal story are such stories to various degrees and designs.

You raise a very important point here and I agree with your take that “Living” usually implies (should imply) that the players’ actions drive the story. But I think your examples are not valid for that concept, since they do (as one-time releases) lack the “evolution based on based off of player decisions and actions.” Yes, those games do ask the player for decision, but the outcome of those decisions is preconceived and all possible outcomes are already implemented. There is no evolution along the road.

I’d argue a more fitting example would be the living story of the Legend of the Five Rings CCG. (While I am at it, best regards to Ree Soesbee.) L5R has a vast lore behind the card game with a storyline that spans over multiple generations, and that is moving on continuously. From time to time, IRL card tournaments are held and the outcome of the tournaments (i.e., which deck won and how) are interpreted by the lore writers to define smaller or greater details of the continuing story. So the story might go on in one or another direction based on the fact that a corrupted Mantis clan deck won the Origins tournament, and not a Lion clan one. IMO, this is an approach that provides a truly Living Story in its purest form, where the community decides how to move forward.

Based on that definition, the only part of GW2 that we have seen so far and that is truly Living Story/Living World is the outcome of Cutthroat Politics, with Ellen Kiel established as a Captain and the mysterious E … pardon, I mean Evon Gnashblade been put in his place. I really hope Anet will revisit this concept and will find ways to give player decisions more impact in the future. Ultimately, I think we would all be very happy if we could make decisions like “Who are going to stomp next after Mordi, will it be Kralk or Jormag?” But even very small or mundane decisions would be very welcome.

However, I also understand that a PC game of a quality like GW2 has a much, much harder time to adopt flexibly to player decision than “just” the written lore of a card game.

(… rewind …)

Konig Des Todes.2086:

The Witcher (from what I’ve heard as I’ve yet to play it)

Dude, by all means, go play that game! With respect to story and immersion, The Witcher is awesome. Well, the controls are a little bit strange and combat might be considered too simplistic, but that’s the only bad thing I will ever say about that gem. Since Season 2 is on hiatus anyways, NOW would be a perfect time to play it. (Actually I am myself currently catching up on The Witcher 2.)

~MRA

a plotline that expands and evolves based off of your decisions and actions

Carried away from thinking about it, I came up with some examples how the GW Living Story could make players’ actions really matter:

Example 1: Rytlock, the ghost buster (moderate impact)

I assume we all know what happened at the end of the Dragon’s Reach Part I release. If you don’t and you don’t want to be spoiled, please skip ahead to Example 2.

Now assume that after the boss battle, Rytlock did not immediately rush heedlessly after his sword. Instead, first, the mysterious rift opens. Then, before anything else happens, a timed dialog box (say, 5 seconds?) would appear for the PC and give her/him two options:

• Stop Rytlock!
• Trust Rytlock that he will do the right thing.

If the second option is chosen then we end up with what actually happened in the story. If the first option is chosen, the PC tackles Rytlock just in time, and the rift closes, leaving Rytlock without Sohothin in Tyria. In that case, Rytlock would be of course be totally upset of the player and maybe even refuse to talk to her/him anymore. (But hey, Rytlock isn’t resentful, or is he?)

These are two options. But how does the story continue? In the background, Anet would count how many times either option has been taken. After two weeks (i.e., with the next release) the option that has been chosen more often would be declared canon, and the writers would have to work with that turn of event.

The actual difference to the developers might be not always be as big as one might think at first. Here is how the stories might go on: With the currently canon story of Rytlock missing, NPC X might approach us with an idea on how we could follow Rytlock, rescue him and retrieve the sword. (My money is on Magdaer being used for that.) So we will open a rift to wherever-that-is and go on a rescue mission in ghostland. In the other plot option, we might be approached by the same NPC X with a story of Rytlock having retrieved Magdaer from the smith who reforged it. He used some some magical mojo on it, and now he is vanished and there is a mysterious rift in his office. Imperator Smodur has commanded all of his subordinates to stay away from that kitten thing, but maybe the PC can help and go on a rescue mission in ghostland?

We, the players, would of course never know that the differences were just minor, since we will only ever learn the one and only canon storyline anyways. But we will know that it was our decision that was shaping this story.

(continued)

Example 2: “… leader will die. Rest will fall in line” (high impact)

Imagine that at some future release we will learn of an assassination attempt. After some investigation we learn that there is not only one, but actually two possible targets: Queen Jennah and Marshall Trahearne. Both targets are to be taken out by assassins at two totally different locations. In a classical cliche climax, time is running out and we have to split up the party. So the player has to decide:

• Join Marjory and Kasmeer to save Queen Jennah. After a hard boss fight, the Queen is saved. But sad news arrive: Rox and Braham were stopped from meeting with Trahearne by some overzealous Pact captain, and now the Marshall is lost …

• Join Rox and Braham to save Trahearne. After a hard boss fight, the Marshal is saved. But sad news arrive: Marjory and Kasmeer were unable to fight off the assassin, and now the Queen is lost …

• Or, as a surprise twist of events, after choosing one of the above options, the story will turn out to be just like the sick mind game the Joker played on Batman in The Dark Knight movie. (Enough said, I don’t want to spoil that movie for anyone.)

So after two weeks Anet will again go with the option that has been chosen by the majority, and a major recurring character will be lost. (Although, the third option might actually only work when only the very first try per account is counted.) This will, of course, pose quite a challange to the writers, but in the end it will have been the players’ choice.

Example 3: What a difference a silver makes (low impact)

Assume that in the Gates of Maguuma release, in the township of Prosperity, there would have been a quaggan named Drooburt. Drooburt was having a hard time, and he desperately needed a drink, but he made some poor decisions in the past and now he is out of money. Hence, he started asking anybody passing by for some spare copper, or even just a spare fish, to help him out.

Unknown to the players, Anet would track in the background how much money had been donated to Drooburt, and how many players talked to him. There would also have been a reasonably high target amount (like: 5s per player who talked to Drooburt). Depending on whether that target amount is met or not, it is later disclosed that one of two scenarios happened.

• If the total amount collected was too small, then in a later release the players would learn that Prosperity had been overrun by mordrum. Not far from the ruins of the town players can meet a bar regular who escaped the assault. He would be telling the players a sad story of poor Drooburt who was just out of luck. He wanted to leave town, but he just didn’t have the money. He even started begging, but people were cold-hearted and he was not able to raise enough money to leave. And now, he has been killed by the Mordrem and his cold yet smelly body is rotting in the hot sun of Dry Top.

• If the amount was high enough, Prosperity would still be overrun, but Drooburt is nowhere to be found. Instead, he can later be found having bought a piece of land in central Lions Arch. (The property prices had been pretty low for some strange reason!) He is happy to meet the players again and tells them that their donation really made a difference for him and helped him to get out of that awful town just in time. He also tells the players that, using the money, he had some luck investing in linen lately, and that he is considering to open a business in LA once the city has been rebuild. Some people warned him from doing so since a certain Evoon Gnooshbloob (if he remembers the name correctly) would control the linen prices in LA and he would not be amused by a competition. But hey, how bad can that Evoon guy be?

Anet could disclose that this decision was based on the players actions afterwards. Such a change might not be a big one, but it would add some nice complexion to the world.

~MRA

Aedelric.1287:

Living Story has negative connotations from the tepid reception of season one.

Seems to me the name `Living World´ came about essentially to set season two apart, even though it is exactly the same thing in every way.

I’m pretty sure it’s been officially called Living World since at least summer 2013. It’s just that most players stuck to calling it by its first name from Flame and Frost, Living Story.

Stephane Lo Presti.7258:

Konig Des Todes.2086:

ArenaNet uses the terms interchangeably but what they imply are certainly different and yet neither hold true to what we are given (at least, in my view).

When we started communicating about this (more than a year ago), the term “Living Story” floated around but we decided to call this the “Living World” for reasons we’ve explained. In season 1, players discovered (among a lot of other things) Southsun Cove, the Zephyr Sanctum and the Tower of Nightmares appeared and was then destroyed. So was Lion’s Arch. You can still see some remnants of Scarlet’s influence here and there with Energy Probes for example. In Season 2, released updates included more than new story steps. They included new zones and changes to existing ones. And obviously new threats changing the dynamic of the world of Tyria. That’s the idea behind Living World.

I do not believe that altering one location in every 6 months (yes, yes, an exaggeration) is really meritable to call the process a “living world”.

A “living world” implies the whole world moving at a certain pace – yet the charr/human peace negotiations are still underway, with no progress seen, just because the story doesn’t focus on it (or so that’s how players can view it – I certainly do). What you gave as an example is little more than tidbits of expansion content.

I do not think that this content is “living world” – nor is it “living story” since we’re on a railroad. No player decisions altering the path of Season 2 thus far – despite a promise that there’d be more than the one situation in Season 1.

This is no “living story” nor a “living world”. This is “parts of expansion content released on a timely schedule.”

Stephane Lo Presti.7258:

When we started communicating about this (more than a year ago), the term “Living Story” floated around but we decided to call this the “Living World” for reasons we’ve explained. In season 1, players discovered (among a lot of other things) Southsun Cove, the Zephyr Sanctum and the Tower of Nightmares appeared and was then destroyed. So was Lion’s Arch. You can still see some remnants of Scarlet’s influence here and there with Energy Probes for example. In Season 2, released updates included more than new story steps. They included new zones and changes to existing ones. And obviously new threats changing the dynamic of the world of Tyria. That’s the idea behind Living World.

While stating what ‘your’ idea is, doesn’t negate the associations a certain word causes with it’s recipients.

While I can see how LS1 had an impact on the world at large, it was still mostly within the confines of the story, after the story past, apart from a few places, nothing changed. It was as such ‘an impactful story’, or at least that is how I view it. And within that ‘impact’ the response from the world on the events was even less. There was this big nightmare tower in a map, with all sorts of different new foes, and the Centaur just kept doing their thing… just as base line example …and as the story moved on, the Centaur just keep doing their thing.

As far what a living world implies, after having played the game for a longer time period. The world feels very much ‘in limbo’, sure it feels a tad more alive than GW1 which was basically ‘stuck in time’; the repetition of events do at some point loose their charm. I mean, the basis of this system is perfect, but in longer term experience it doesn’t make the world feel more alive, as there are no large changes to the world. Instead of the world feeling stuck in one moment in time, it feels being stuck in ‘a short period of time’ … kind off like that movie ‘Groundhog day’.

In this sense I hope you understand how using certain words and explaining them, doesn’t necessarily change how somebody else perceives these words (even more so after the explanation has sunk to the perceptive background), and the expectations these words imply.