Living World Content Considered Harmful

Living World Content Considered Harmful

in Living World

Posted by: Andred.1087

Andred.1087

If you understood the joke in the title, read this, otherwise skip past

For a number of years I have been familiar with the observation that the quality of MMO developers is a decreasing function of the density of temporary content in the games they produce. More recently I discovered why the use of temporary content has such disastrous effects, and I became convinced that temporary content should be abolished from all “higher level” MMORPG’s (i.e. everything except, perhaps, World of Warcraft). At that time I did not attach too much importance to this discovery; I now submit my considerations for publication because in very recent discussions in which the subject turned up, I have been urged to do so.

Real post starts here

Out-of-place computer science references aside, there is a serious concern being raised by many players over the value of the Living World content being produced with respect to the priority placed on it by the team over at ArenaNet. While a fantastic avenue for creative story-telling, the frequency of these Living World updates would seem to stretch thin the already limited resources that the development team is able to commit toward the game, leaving improvements to the quality of the existing game pages deep in the to-do list, and significant, permanent content in a faraway, dystopian future. Now, perhaps we who raise this concern are mistaken. After all, we have no inkling of ArenaNet’s true intentions. However, the lack of communication on these matters is troubling.

In years gone by, it was ArenaNet’s foremost endeavor to humbly seek the guidance of the Guild Wars player-base in their attempts to create the most satisfying sequel they could, and transparency in their intentions for the sake of the feedback, and general information, of the audience. But recent days have not brought the assurance of those times, that our voices would be heard and that considerations would be made. Surely the China release is a large part of this apparent silence: a huge effort that would no doubt require much attention. In any case, we the players are worried. Worried that the impermanence of the Living World will ultimately result in decreased value of sustained play.

I only bring this matter to such serious light because the number of players who share this concern with me is far beyond what I expected. Initially I imagined I was simply bored of the game by my own device, a victim of my own refusal to rely on strangers for support in the more difficult portions of the end-game content. But visiting these forums I can see that many others also find themselves at a loss for challenging or otherwise enticing objectives. Top-tier loot is obtainable only by sinking cash into the gem store or offering tribute to the RNG gods. Fractals offer little incentive for replay, and the main draw for dungeons is relatively high output of gold, but what purpose does the gold serve if there is nothing to do but get more of it? PvP has its own pro’s and con’s, but PvP should not be the answer to players tired of repetitive PvE gameplay.

How does all this tie together? The Living World appears to be eating away ArenaNet’s precious time, time that could be used on permanent content, large-scale content, content that pays for itself not with recycled cash shop merchandise, but because it costs money to access: I speak of course, of expansions. One year after Guild Wars Prophecies hit shelves, Factions sat next to it, daring players new and old to add it to their experiences. A mere 6 months later came Nightfall, offering its own additions to the rich lore of Tyria. As for Guild Wars 2, we have already passed that time frame, and what is there to show for it? All the content experienced through the Living World is long gone, showing only the scars it left on the face of Tyria and its inhabitants, never to be played again. How long can this continue before new players are lost, and all the existing players have exhausted the permanent content of the game, leaving them nothing but to check in every 2 weeks for a few hours of gameplay?

I, and many others like me, fear for the future of Guild Wars 2 if this pattern is to continue. Living World is certainly a great feature, telling a never-ending story that gives a notion of consequence to the happenings of Tyria, but that effect only lasts so long as a player continues to play without intermission, and is almost entirely lost on those who are just now beginning the game. Large-scale, permanent additions to gameplay seem the only appropriate course for ensuring that Guild Wars 2 stands the test of time, set forth by its predecessor.

TL;DR I wanted to make an awful, esoteric joke in the title/first paragraph but I realized I would need to follow with a relatively well-thought out post to justify it. Living World is cool but I’d sure like to see another campaign, too.

Thoughts?

“You’ll PAY to know what you really think.” ~ J. R. “Bob” Dobbs

(edited by Andred.1087)

Living World Content Considered Harmful

in Living World

Posted by: Tranc.6780

Tranc.6780

Yes, I find temporary content repugnant. I have a baby on the way, so I won’t be playing to Anet’s bi-weekly schedule. I could conceivably find chunks of time to play in the future, but I won’t be coming back if there isn’t any significant new permanent content to enjoy (e.g., new zones, campaigns like Factions & Nightfall).

Living World Content Considered Harmful

in Living World

Posted by: Andred.1087

Andred.1087

Update: I found this article in another thread that seems to indicate that expansion-sized content is in the works

You Thought That Was It For Guild Wars 2

I don’t anticipate Anet will let the game fail because of lack of permanent content, but they really need to get it in gear.

“You’ll PAY to know what you really think.” ~ J. R. “Bob” Dobbs

Living World Content Considered Harmful

in Living World

Posted by: Valandil Dragonhart.2371

Valandil Dragonhart.2371

I keep thinking back to another thread made almost a year ago by someone else with the same concerns. It was titled something like “Why temporary content can only harm GW2”. It shed light on the fact that the Living Story is in essence a rather bad idea, fundamentally because of many of the same reasons the OP outlined. That it’s content of a temporary nature, people who first buy the game after the fact are going to wonder why they missed out on ‘all the good stuff’ ie. the limited time only drops, backpieces, skins, etc. and why they can’t make their character look the same.

To me it pushes people away from the story that everyone else got to experience, and it’s like Anet is saying “ok you missed out on the first bit, too bad let’s just move on” and for a lot of people I’ve talked to in-game, that’s not the right attitude to employ for people who want to take the game seriously.

People have been itching for Anet to get a full campaign out the door and into consumer’s PC’s but no, they want to stay this course, and like any kind of resistance, you’re going to find some (or a lot) of your most valued players walk out of the game and play something else that the players want. The lack of communication has always been an issue with the Anet dev’s that made GW2. There wasn’t as much hesitance or resistance to communicating with the players in GW1 days, but this is much different. It’s as if they’re deliberately ignoring us and any good ideas that we have aren’t getting through. Anet has to think of these ideas themselves and anything that’s not the company’s idea isn’t good enough to be considered.

Then we enter the CDI. All things (on the surface at least) seem to be considered, but then you quickly realise that if you’re not flowing with Anet’s pre-conceived ideas of where they want to go in the game, you’re going to be just as ignored as the rest of the players on the forums, who are constantly saying that there’s something wrong with the game. It’s not always the same people either. There’s a good amount of people who actually play the game, and in all seriousness, they can’t be all wrong.

The old-school Arrow-Key warrior.
“Obtaining a legendary should be done through legendary feats…
Not luck and credit cards.”

Living World Content Considered Harmful

in Living World

Posted by: Pipra.7580

Pipra.7580

The Living Story is, honestly, what is keeping me in this game.

We’re edging up on two years since release. My attention span for an MMO has historically been about 12-18 months, going back about ten years. Having new achievements and content to look forward to every couple of weeks has kept the game fresh for me in a way that no other has managed before.

More than that too though, I really like the sense of history that the game is building. Events that happen do matter and the world is gradually changing. I dig that.

Living World Content Considered Harmful

in Living World

Posted by: Tim.6450

Tim.6450

I think this needs some time to grow since I see some interesting stuff in living story namely the recycling of old content. Right now the festival of the four winds is reopening, the arena in divinity’s reach is reopening, SAB stilll has a world to open and don’t forget wintersday and halloween. These types of content are not permament but they are not lost forever.

EverythingOP

Living World Content Considered Harmful

in Living World

Posted by: Sirius.4510

Sirius.4510

Just like the concept to which the title refers, it’s not really intrinsically harmful – it depends how it’s used and you probably shouldn’t rely on it exclusively.

In the case of temporary content, it depends if your dev team is big enough.

Just a random PuGgle.
Stormbluff Isle ( http://www.stormbluffisle.com )

Living World Content Considered Harmful

in Living World

Posted by: Einlanzer.1627

Einlanzer.1627

The Living Story is, honestly, what is keeping me in this game.

We’re edging up on two years since release. My attention span for an MMO has historically been about 12-18 months, going back about ten years. Having new achievements and content to look forward to every couple of weeks has kept the game fresh for me in a way that no other has managed before.

More than that too though, I really like the sense of history that the game is building. Events that happen do matter and the world is gradually changing. I dig that.

It’s fine that you like it, but, frankly, you’re in the minority, and there are lots of reasons why that are difficult to argue against.

The main issue with it is that GW2 is a game designed to appeal to casual gamers, but casual gamers are likely to play intermittently rather than consistently, and Anet, despite their best attempts, has no ability to control that. This means that as they miss story events that they can’t experience, they are much more likely than they would be if the content was permanent to just become disengaged from the game and move on to something else.

A disproportionate focus on temporary content also makes the game not feel like it’s grown much, and it’s hard to generate hype to attract players when the world feels largely the same as it did at launch.

Living World Content Considered Harmful

in Living World

Posted by: Dromar.1027

Dromar.1027

Just to pitch in my two cents, I left GW2 because of the direction Anet took and I played GW1 and 2 from 2005-2013. The reason the game seems disastrous too many is they fail to appease the hardcore crowd in any long term way, not to mention some aspects of the game have been there since launch that contribute toward harming the game and community as a whole

Indeed the OP is right in that Anets LW content has completely let the deep rooted problems since launch persist and it keeps them from creating anything meaningful or fixing anything.

Since I know all the problems that ruined my gaming experience are still there and that I have missed 3 months of LS I won’t be logging in anytime soon.