Main Gw2 story (LW) based on raid story
1 2
They have never side raid story are gonna be compeletly unrelated to main story. They said it doesnt gate main story which means that they are going to be presented it in a different way , its basically going to be retold in lw3. People keep twistin Anet words and saying raids are not gonna be related to main plot which is just not the case.
Some must fight so that all may be free.
I’m struggling to understand how the story in the raids being presented to the Living World is gating it, cuz it really looks like giving it to everyone
Rev, Ele, Burnzerker
“Beware he who would deny you access to information,
for in his heart he dreams himself your master.”
“Beware he who would deny you access to information,
for in his heart he dreams himself your master.”
Thanks for not being lazy like me and actually finding the correct quotes.
But indeed, this is a rather asinine move. That’s like playing a game on easy or normal difficulty and the game suddenly telling you that unless you play on hardcore or insane difficulties, some story parts will be censored for you. Or more analogous: playing Uncharted with the game telling you halfway through: “We’ll now skip chapters 15-17 and only give you a brief summary of what’s happened in them. If you want to experience it for yourself, complete the first act of Dark Souls.”
It’s stupid, it’s unfair, it penalises players that are not “hardcore enough” (and many even have the skill for raids, but can be kitten d to spend half a day looking for nine other people) and it drives away another segment of your playerbase.
Between PVP people being annoyed, WvW people being annoyed, that’s quite a dangerous thing for the game’s future to do.
Thanks for not being lazy like me and actually finding the correct quotes.
But indeed, this is a rather asinine move. That’s like playing a game on easy or normal difficulty and the game suddenly telling you that unless you play on hardcore or insane difficulties, some story parts will be censored for you. Or more analogous: playing Uncharted with the game telling you halfway through: “We’ll now skip chapters 15-17 and only give you a brief summary of what’s happened in them. If you want to experience it for yourself, complete the first act of Dark Souls.”
It’s stupid, it’s unfair, it penalises players that are not “hardcore enough” (and many even have the skill for raids, but can be kitten d to spend half a day looking for nine other people) and it drives away another segment of your playerbase.
Between PVP people being annoyed, WvW people being annoyed, that’s quite a dangerous thing for the game’s future to do.
All story related content in raids will be covered in the LS in some form.
What Anet has said is that any story elements presented in raids that are relevant for the main story will also be presented in a different way for non-raid players. So you can quit your fearmongering.
Thanks for not being lazy like me and actually finding the correct quotes.
But indeed, this is a rather asinine move. That’s like playing a game on easy or normal difficulty and the game suddenly telling you that unless you play on hardcore or insane difficulties, some story parts will be censored for you. Or more analogous: playing Uncharted with the game telling you halfway through: “We’ll now skip chapters 15-17 and only give you a brief summary of what’s happened in them. If you want to experience it for yourself, complete the first act of Dark Souls.”
It’s stupid, it’s unfair, it penalises players that are not “hardcore enough” (and many even have the skill for raids, but can be kitten d to spend half a day looking for nine other people) and it drives away another segment of your playerbase.
Between PVP people being annoyed, WvW people being annoyed, that’s quite a dangerous thing for the game’s future to do.
All story related content in raids will be covered in the LS in some form.
Well, you have two bad options on your hands:
Either people who DO raids will feel stupid for having to do the same story AGAIN, just with more boring bossfights, or you just give a brief retelling of what happened in the raids, in which case you tell the non-raiders “Oh, we’re not showing you that until you get good, noob, so here’s the digested version.”
I don’t want to be a doomsayer, I want to be proven wrong and if I am proven wrong and the story interwoven in an intelligent manner, I’ll be happy as a flea. But form current point of view, it just looks like the “non-hardcore audience” who can’t raid just got shived in the eye with a rusty spoon.
I haven’t played in weeks. This doesn’t encourage me to get back in.
It’s been my impression that the raid story would be supplementary, but not required to understand it. I’m guessing the raid story will end up being a sort of prologue, or related side-story, but not something I’ll need to follow LS3, anymore than I needed to read the Ghosts of Ascalon novel to understand the current situation in Ascalon and Ebonhawke.
No need to panic about it until next week, when we see for sure what we’re missing. It can’t be anything more egregious than Mordemoth’s name coming out of nowhere.
~The Storyteller – Elementalist – Jade Quarry~
Either people who DO raids will feel stupid for having to do the same story AGAIN, just with more boring bossfights, or you just give a brief retelling of what happened in the raids, in which case you tell the non-raiders “Oh, we’re not showing you that until you get good, noob, so here’s the digested version.”
I don’t want to be a doomsayer, I want to be proven wrong and if I am proven wrong and the story interwoven in an intelligent manner, I’ll be happy as a flea. But form current point of view, it just looks like the “non-hardcore audience” who can’t raid just got shived in the eye with a rusty spoon.
Ah, so you’re saying expecting the worst is the reasonable position? I’m going to respectfully disagree.
Thanks for not being lazy like me and actually finding the correct quotes.
But indeed, this is a rather asinine move. That’s like playing a game on easy or normal difficulty and the game suddenly telling you that unless you play on hardcore or insane difficulties, some story parts will be censored for you. Or more analogous: playing Uncharted with the game telling you halfway through: “We’ll now skip chapters 15-17 and only give you a brief summary of what’s happened in them. If you want to experience it for yourself, complete the first act of Dark Souls.”
It’s stupid, it’s unfair, it penalises players that are not “hardcore enough” (and many even have the skill for raids, but can be kitten d to spend half a day looking for nine other people) and it drives away another segment of your playerbase.
Between PVP people being annoyed, WvW people being annoyed, that’s quite a dangerous thing for the game’s future to do.
All story related content in raids will be covered in the LS in some form.
Well, you have two bad options on your hands:
Either people who DO raids will feel stupid for having to do the same story AGAIN, just with more boring bossfights, or you just give a brief retelling of what happened in the raids, in which case you tell the non-raiders “Oh, we’re not showing you that until you get good, noob, so here’s the digested version.”
I don’t want to be a doomsayer, I want to be proven wrong and if I am proven wrong and the story interwoven in an intelligent manner, I’ll be happy as a flea. But form current point of view, it just looks like the “non-hardcore audience” who can’t raid just got shived in the eye with a rusty spoon.
From an Anet writer:
It’s a thematic tie with events that are happening in the larger game. If any information from the raids are pertinent to events outside them, that information will be conveyed in the appropriate spots.
In story-focused PvE, definitely. But raids have different gameplay, and they also have different narrative needs and constraints. Because of that, they’re built differently.
You’ll have to wait until episode 1 to find out. And no, you won’t need to raid to understand the basic developments that happened in Forsaken Thicket (that the White Mantle are active, and no one knows what happened with Lazarus—WP summed this up nicely in his Stronghold of the Faithful video).
There’s a difference between redoing a piece of a story covered in raids and summarizing the events.
It is looking more and more like the raid was indeed chapter one of the next living story. Even if they cover it again at this point, they have let that cat out of the bag – providing the story experience to only a small percentage of their players.
As interested as I am in this particular story, this is bad form and bad storytelling.
But the reason it is bad has more to do with the exclusionary nature of raids than anything else. This just proves that they need to focus on developing PVE content for the entire PVE community, even if that means tiered difficulties in raids.
It is looking more and more like the raid was indeed chapter one of the next living story. Even if they cover it again at this point, they have let that cat out of the bag – providing the story experience to only a small percentage of their players.
As interested as I am in this particular story, this is bad form and bad storytelling.
But the reason it is bad has more to do with the exclusionary nature of raids than anything else. This just proves that they need to focus on developing PVE content for the entire PVE community, even if that means tiered difficulties in raids.
They can always include a synopsis within the LS that covers everything that occurred in the raid.
It is looking more and more like the raid was indeed chapter one of the next living story. Even if they cover it again at this point, they have let that cat out of the bag – providing the story experience to only a small percentage of their players.
As interested as I am in this particular story, this is bad form and bad storytelling.
But the reason it is bad has more to do with the exclusionary nature of raids than anything else. This just proves that they need to focus on developing PVE content for the entire PVE community, even if that means tiered difficulties in raids.
They can always include a synopsis within the LS that covers everything that occurred in the raid.
That is far from the same as giving the players the experience of being the central hero in the first part of their story – which is what players should expect (and experience is not the same as hearing about, reading about, or walking through a cleared instance).
It kills excitement and makes players (rightfully) feel left out by the developers – and it didn’t have to happen.
The moment has passed.
We can only hope Anet learns something from this and doesn’t repeat this mistake in the future.
It’s been my impression that the raid story would be supplementary, but not required to understand it. I’m guessing the raid story will end up being a sort of prologue, or related side-story, but not something I’ll need to follow LS3, anymore than I needed to read the Ghosts of Ascalon novel to understand the current situation in Ascalon and Ebonhawke.
No need to panic about it until next week, when we see for sure what we’re missing. It can’t be anything more egregious than Mordemoth’s name coming out of nowhere.
I’ve always seen the Raid story as equivalent to what the dungeon stories were for the personal story. Extra information that helps fill in some gaps in background lore but overall you don’t need any of it to get the entirety of the personal story and understand what is going on.
It is looking more and more like the raid was indeed chapter one of the next living story. Even if they cover it again at this point, they have let that cat out of the bag – providing the story experience to only a small percentage of their players.
As interested as I am in this particular story, this is bad form and bad storytelling.
But the reason it is bad has more to do with the exclusionary nature of raids than anything else. This just proves that they need to focus on developing PVE content for the entire PVE community, even if that means tiered difficulties in raids.
They can always include a synopsis within the LS that covers everything that occurred in the raid.
That is far from the same as giving the players the experience of being the central hero in the first part of their story – which is what players should expect (and experience is not the same as hearing about, reading about, or walking through a cleared instance).
It kills excitement and makes players (rightfully) feel left out by the developers – and it didn’t have to happen.
The moment has passed.
We can only hope Anet learns something from this and doesn’t repeat this mistake in the future.
Should players have the option to play through events referenced from GW1? There’s nothing wrong with providing a synopsis or summary. The story within the raid was fairly small anyway so it’s not as if a large summary would be needed.
Also:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/dungeons/Raid-Narrative-and-Lore/first#post6195598
in other words if lord of the ring story looked like that:
1 The Fellowship of the Ring – story in raids
1.5 The Fellowship of the Ring story short summary – first chapter of LW
2 The Two Towers – rest of LW episodes
3 The Return of the King – second expansion
then you are ok with that? No thats not ok you cant put main story in places that most of the people would not see it. Its not spin of or different story. As we know now it is the MAIN story.
in other words if lord of the ring story looked like that:
1 The Fellowship of the Ring – story in raids
1.5 The Fellowship of the Ring story short summary – first chapter of LW
2 The Two Towers – rest of LW episodes
3 The Return of the King – second expansion
then you are ok with that? No thats not ok you cant put main story in places that most of the people would not see it. Its not spin of or different story. As we know now it is the MAIN story.
Except the raid story is not some massive story on par with the living story. It more along the lines of a single dungeon story which would then be summarized in the LS.
It would be like if there was a raid story that covered what happened to the Asura in Rata Novus. It would be a side story that complemented the main story but the main story would not depend on it.
It is looking more and more like the raid was indeed chapter one of the next living story. Even if they cover it again at this point, they have let that cat out of the bag – providing the story experience to only a small percentage of their players.
As interested as I am in this particular story, this is bad form and bad storytelling.
But the reason it is bad has more to do with the exclusionary nature of raids than anything else. This just proves that they need to focus on developing PVE content for the entire PVE community, even if that means tiered difficulties in raids.
They can always include a synopsis within the LS that covers everything that occurred in the raid.
That is far from the same as giving the players the experience of being the central hero in the first part of their story – which is what players should expect (and experience is not the same as hearing about, reading about, or walking through a cleared instance).
It kills excitement and makes players (rightfully) feel left out by the developers – and it didn’t have to happen.
The moment has passed.
We can only hope Anet learns something from this and doesn’t repeat this mistake in the future.
Should players have the option to play through events referenced from GW1? There’s nothing wrong with providing a synopsis or summary. The story within the raid was fairly small anyway so it’s not as if a large summary would be needed.
Also:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/dungeons/Raid-Narrative-and-Lore/first#post6195598
The amount of story isn’t the point. It was (most likely) the introduction to/beginning of the next story, and they chose to leave the vast majority of players out of it, when they didn’t need to.
You don’t start reading a book 20 pages in or starting a movie at the 15 minute mark – even if one of the characters roughly recaps the story at that point.
It is bad storytelling and a significant misstep by the developers and the narrative team.
It’s been my impression that the raid story would be supplementary, but not required to understand it. I’m guessing the raid story will end up being a sort of prologue, or related side-story, but not something I’ll need to follow LS3, anymore than I needed to read the Ghosts of Ascalon novel to understand the current situation in Ascalon and Ebonhawke.
No need to panic about it until next week, when we see for sure what we’re missing. It can’t be anything more egregious than Mordemoth’s name coming out of nowhere.
I’ve always seen the Raid story as equivalent to what the dungeon stories were for the personal story. Extra information that helps fill in some gaps in background lore but overall you don’t need any of it to get the entirety of the personal story and understand what is going on.
This.
What they are doing seems perfect sense to me and a perfectly logical way to build a story across multiple platforms – all in game.
It is looking more and more like the raid was indeed chapter one of the next living story. Even if they cover it again at this point, they have let that cat out of the bag – providing the story experience to only a small percentage of their players.
As interested as I am in this particular story, this is bad form and bad storytelling.
But the reason it is bad has more to do with the exclusionary nature of raids than anything else. This just proves that they need to focus on developing PVE content for the entire PVE community, even if that means tiered difficulties in raids.
They can always include a synopsis within the LS that covers everything that occurred in the raid.
That is far from the same as giving the players the experience of being the central hero in the first part of their story – which is what players should expect (and experience is not the same as hearing about, reading about, or walking through a cleared instance).
It kills excitement and makes players (rightfully) feel left out by the developers – and it didn’t have to happen.
The moment has passed.
We can only hope Anet learns something from this and doesn’t repeat this mistake in the future.
Should players have the option to play through events referenced from GW1? There’s nothing wrong with providing a synopsis or summary. The story within the raid was fairly small anyway so it’s not as if a large summary would be needed.
Also:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/dungeons/Raid-Narrative-and-Lore/first#post6195598
The amount of story isn’t the point. It was (most likely) the introduction to/beginning of the next story, and they chose to leave the vast majority of players out of it, when they didn’t need to.
You don’t start reading a book 20 pages in or starting a movie at the 15 minute mark – even if one of the characters roughly recaps the story at that point.
It is bad storytelling and a significant misstep by the developers and the narrative team.
They can provide a synopsis of what occurred. This is done frequently in moves and books. How is that difficult to understand?
It is looking more and more like the raid was indeed chapter one of the next living story. Even if they cover it again at this point, they have let that cat out of the bag – providing the story experience to only a small percentage of their players.
As interested as I am in this particular story, this is bad form and bad storytelling.
But the reason it is bad has more to do with the exclusionary nature of raids than anything else. This just proves that they need to focus on developing PVE content for the entire PVE community, even if that means tiered difficulties in raids.
They can always include a synopsis within the LS that covers everything that occurred in the raid.
That is far from the same as giving the players the experience of being the central hero in the first part of their story – which is what players should expect (and experience is not the same as hearing about, reading about, or walking through a cleared instance).
It kills excitement and makes players (rightfully) feel left out by the developers – and it didn’t have to happen.
The moment has passed.
We can only hope Anet learns something from this and doesn’t repeat this mistake in the future.
Should players have the option to play through events referenced from GW1? There’s nothing wrong with providing a synopsis or summary. The story within the raid was fairly small anyway so it’s not as if a large summary would be needed.
Also:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/dungeons/Raid-Narrative-and-Lore/first#post6195598
The amount of story isn’t the point. It was (most likely) the introduction to/beginning of the next story, and they chose to leave the vast majority of players out of it, when they didn’t need to.
You don’t start reading a book 20 pages in or starting a movie at the 15 minute mark – even if one of the characters roughly recaps the story at that point.
It is bad storytelling and a significant misstep by the developers and the narrative team.
They can provide a synopsis of what occurred. This is done frequently in moves and books. How is that difficult to understand?
A big part of this game is being the hero of the story – not reading about other players who got to be the hero of our story.
That isn’t hard to understand.
This only shows one thing. LS3 started with the raid. Everyone should be happy, these 8 months of no major releases ACTUALLY had 3 LS releases inside the raid. It hasn’t been a content drought after all. I personally can’t wait for LS3 chapter 4. I hope its another raid.
It is looking more and more like the raid was indeed chapter one of the next living story. Even if they cover it again at this point, they have let that cat out of the bag – providing the story experience to only a small percentage of their players.
As interested as I am in this particular story, this is bad form and bad storytelling.
But the reason it is bad has more to do with the exclusionary nature of raids than anything else. This just proves that they need to focus on developing PVE content for the entire PVE community, even if that means tiered difficulties in raids.
They can always include a synopsis within the LS that covers everything that occurred in the raid.
That is far from the same as giving the players the experience of being the central hero in the first part of their story – which is what players should expect (and experience is not the same as hearing about, reading about, or walking through a cleared instance).
It kills excitement and makes players (rightfully) feel left out by the developers – and it didn’t have to happen.
The moment has passed.
We can only hope Anet learns something from this and doesn’t repeat this mistake in the future.
Should players have the option to play through events referenced from GW1? There’s nothing wrong with providing a synopsis or summary. The story within the raid was fairly small anyway so it’s not as if a large summary would be needed.
Also:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/dungeons/Raid-Narrative-and-Lore/first#post6195598
The amount of story isn’t the point. It was (most likely) the introduction to/beginning of the next story, and they chose to leave the vast majority of players out of it, when they didn’t need to.
You don’t start reading a book 20 pages in or starting a movie at the 15 minute mark – even if one of the characters roughly recaps the story at that point.
It is bad storytelling and a significant misstep by the developers and the narrative team.
They can provide a synopsis of what occurred. This is done frequently in moves and books. How is that difficult to understand?
A big part of this game is being the hero of the story – not reading about other players who got to be the hero of our story.
That isn’t hard to understand.
So no events in the game can possible occur without the player being directly involved?
They can provide a synopsis of what occurred. This is done frequently in moves and books. How is that difficult to understand?
Why bother playing the game at all? Just have a friend who’ll tell you about it instead. He or she will tell you all you need to know to understand the story. Or why bother watching a movie or reading a book? Just google the summary.
I hope you see the difference.
It is looking more and more like the raid was indeed chapter one of the next living story. Even if they cover it again at this point, they have let that cat out of the bag – providing the story experience to only a small percentage of their players.
As interested as I am in this particular story, this is bad form and bad storytelling.
But the reason it is bad has more to do with the exclusionary nature of raids than anything else. This just proves that they need to focus on developing PVE content for the entire PVE community, even if that means tiered difficulties in raids.
They can always include a synopsis within the LS that covers everything that occurred in the raid.
That is far from the same as giving the players the experience of being the central hero in the first part of their story – which is what players should expect (and experience is not the same as hearing about, reading about, or walking through a cleared instance).
It kills excitement and makes players (rightfully) feel left out by the developers – and it didn’t have to happen.
The moment has passed.
We can only hope Anet learns something from this and doesn’t repeat this mistake in the future.
Should players have the option to play through events referenced from GW1? There’s nothing wrong with providing a synopsis or summary. The story within the raid was fairly small anyway so it’s not as if a large summary would be needed.
Also:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/dungeons/Raid-Narrative-and-Lore/first#post6195598
The amount of story isn’t the point. It was (most likely) the introduction to/beginning of the next story, and they chose to leave the vast majority of players out of it, when they didn’t need to.
You don’t start reading a book 20 pages in or starting a movie at the 15 minute mark – even if one of the characters roughly recaps the story at that point.
It is bad storytelling and a significant misstep by the developers and the narrative team.
The beginning of GW2 was told in two or three novels (depending on if you count Sea of Sorrows), various blog posts (most importantly The Movement of the World) and an entirely different game (GW1, specifically Eye of the North and Guild Wars Beyond). Was that also bad storytelling?
You don’t start reading a book 20 pages in or starting a movie at the 15 minute mark – even if one of the characters roughly recaps the story at that point.
It is bad storytelling and a significant misstep by the developers and the narrative team.
100% agree.
It is possible that raids introduces our new main villain. (Lazarus) and anet want to tell that to majority of the players in recap? That just dont feel good.
It is looking more and more like the raid was indeed chapter one of the next living story. Even if they cover it again at this point, they have let that cat out of the bag – providing the story experience to only a small percentage of their players.
As interested as I am in this particular story, this is bad form and bad storytelling.
But the reason it is bad has more to do with the exclusionary nature of raids than anything else. This just proves that they need to focus on developing PVE content for the entire PVE community, even if that means tiered difficulties in raids.
They can always include a synopsis within the LS that covers everything that occurred in the raid.
That is far from the same as giving the players the experience of being the central hero in the first part of their story – which is what players should expect (and experience is not the same as hearing about, reading about, or walking through a cleared instance).
It kills excitement and makes players (rightfully) feel left out by the developers – and it didn’t have to happen.
The moment has passed.
We can only hope Anet learns something from this and doesn’t repeat this mistake in the future.
Should players have the option to play through events referenced from GW1? There’s nothing wrong with providing a synopsis or summary. The story within the raid was fairly small anyway so it’s not as if a large summary would be needed.
Also:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/dungeons/Raid-Narrative-and-Lore/first#post6195598
The amount of story isn’t the point. It was (most likely) the introduction to/beginning of the next story, and they chose to leave the vast majority of players out of it, when they didn’t need to.
You don’t start reading a book 20 pages in or starting a movie at the 15 minute mark – even if one of the characters roughly recaps the story at that point.
It is bad storytelling and a significant misstep by the developers and the narrative team.
in medias res (Classical Latin: [?n m?dia?s re?s], lit. “into the middle things”) opens in the midst of action. (cf. ab ovo, ab initio).1 Often, exposition is bypassed and filled in gradually, either through dialogue, flashbacks or description of past events.
It is looking more and more like the raid was indeed chapter one of the next living story. Even if they cover it again at this point, they have let that cat out of the bag – providing the story experience to only a small percentage of their players.
As interested as I am in this particular story, this is bad form and bad storytelling.
But the reason it is bad has more to do with the exclusionary nature of raids than anything else. This just proves that they need to focus on developing PVE content for the entire PVE community, even if that means tiered difficulties in raids.
They can always include a synopsis within the LS that covers everything that occurred in the raid.
That is far from the same as giving the players the experience of being the central hero in the first part of their story – which is what players should expect (and experience is not the same as hearing about, reading about, or walking through a cleared instance).
It kills excitement and makes players (rightfully) feel left out by the developers – and it didn’t have to happen.
The moment has passed.
We can only hope Anet learns something from this and doesn’t repeat this mistake in the future.
Should players have the option to play through events referenced from GW1? There’s nothing wrong with providing a synopsis or summary. The story within the raid was fairly small anyway so it’s not as if a large summary would be needed.
Also:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/dungeons/Raid-Narrative-and-Lore/first#post6195598
The amount of story isn’t the point. It was (most likely) the introduction to/beginning of the next story, and they chose to leave the vast majority of players out of it, when they didn’t need to.
You don’t start reading a book 20 pages in or starting a movie at the 15 minute mark – even if one of the characters roughly recaps the story at that point.
It is bad storytelling and a significant misstep by the developers and the narrative team.
in medias res (Classical Latin: [?n m?dia?s re?s], lit. “into the middle things”) opens in the midst of action. (cf. ab ovo, ab initio).1 Often, exposition is bypassed and filled in gradually, either through dialogue, flashbacks or description of past events.
What’s the point of that non sequitur?
They can provide a synopsis of what occurred. This is done frequently in moves and books. How is that difficult to understand?
Why bother playing the game at all? Just have a friend who’ll tell you about it instead. He or she will tell you all you need to know to understand the story. Or why bother watching a movie or reading a book? Just google the summary.
I hope you see the difference.
Exaggeration. You’re acting as if the raid story is some major piece of the LS. There can be events that occur outside of the story that the player sees. You see this done in movies and books.
So, as OP quoted:
“It will not be necessary to play Forsaken Thicket—or any future raid—in order to complete Living World or expansion stories. Raids do not gate main story progress.”
This doesn’t say that raid story won’t be relevant to the open world story, only that it won’t block it.
I don’t necessarily think they will go the synopsis route either, since that would make the raid story itself sort of pointless.
I think what they’ll do is take an alternate path in the first part of the first episode that takes us to approximately the same story point where raids stopped, and then progress the story from there. Something closer to a “Meanwhile in location b” set up, like the initial branching of the original story.
Don’t look at me like that. Whatever you’ve heard, it’s probably not true.
Exaggeration. You’re acting as if the raid story is some major piece of the LS. There can be events that occur outside of the story that the player sees. You see this done in movies and books.
That would be logical thought, but problem is, the footage from raids doesn’t seem to be offhand or small feature, it makes up the bulk of the trailer and makes it sound that the “Out of the Shadows” will be a direct sequel to the raids, and that’s far beyond the “separated lore update”.
Which either makes it a bad trailer in terms of information, or bad decision in terms of storytelling if the presumption is correct.
It is looking more and more like the raid was indeed chapter one of the next living story. Even if they cover it again at this point, they have let that cat out of the bag – providing the story experience to only a small percentage of their players.
As interested as I am in this particular story, this is bad form and bad storytelling.
But the reason it is bad has more to do with the exclusionary nature of raids than anything else. This just proves that they need to focus on developing PVE content for the entire PVE community, even if that means tiered difficulties in raids.
They can always include a synopsis within the LS that covers everything that occurred in the raid.
That is far from the same as giving the players the experience of being the central hero in the first part of their story – which is what players should expect (and experience is not the same as hearing about, reading about, or walking through a cleared instance).
It kills excitement and makes players (rightfully) feel left out by the developers – and it didn’t have to happen.
The moment has passed.
We can only hope Anet learns something from this and doesn’t repeat this mistake in the future.
Should players have the option to play through events referenced from GW1? There’s nothing wrong with providing a synopsis or summary. The story within the raid was fairly small anyway so it’s not as if a large summary would be needed.
Also:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/dungeons/Raid-Narrative-and-Lore/first#post6195598
The amount of story isn’t the point. It was (most likely) the introduction to/beginning of the next story, and they chose to leave the vast majority of players out of it, when they didn’t need to.
You don’t start reading a book 20 pages in or starting a movie at the 15 minute mark – even if one of the characters roughly recaps the story at that point.
It is bad storytelling and a significant misstep by the developers and the narrative team.
in medias res (Classical Latin: [?n m?dia?s re?s], lit. “into the middle things”) opens in the midst of action. (cf. ab ovo, ab initio).1 Often, exposition is bypassed and filled in gradually, either through dialogue, flashbacks or description of past events.
What’s the point of that non sequitur?
It’s not a non sequiter, it’s explaining a commonly used narrative technique, addressing the claim that it’s bad storytelling to say that the claim is not necessarily true.
Rev, Ele, Burnzerker
“Beware he who would deny you access to information,
for in his heart he dreams himself your master.”
“Beware he who would deny you access to information,
for in his heart he dreams himself your master.”
You don’t start reading a book 20 pages in or starting a movie at the 15 minute mark – even if one of the characters roughly recaps the story at that point.
It is bad storytelling and a significant misstep by the developers and the narrative team.
100% agree.
It is possible that raids introduces our new main villain. (Lazarus) and anet want to tell that to majority of the players in recap? That just dont feel good.
Yeah, it’s not like he was introduced to raiders on a cinematic or something like that :P
Exaggeration. You’re acting as if the raid story is some major piece of the LS. There can be events that occur outside of the story that the player sees. You see this done in movies and books.
That would be logical thought, but problem is, the footage from raids doesn’t seem to be offhand or small feature, it makes up the bulk of the trailer and makes it sound that the “Out of the Shadows” will be a direct sequel to the raids, and that’s far beyond the “separated lore update”.
Which either makes it a bad trailer in terms of information, or bad decision in terms of storytelling if the presumption is correct.
The Bulk? 6 Seconds out of the Trailer are Footage from the Raids and it is possible that we see like 4 Seconds from it in the Trailers also in LS3. Its not being close to making up the Bulk of the Trailer
It is looking more and more like the raid was indeed chapter one of the next living story. Even if they cover it again at this point, they have let that cat out of the bag – providing the story experience to only a small percentage of their players.
As interested as I am in this particular story, this is bad form and bad storytelling.
But the reason it is bad has more to do with the exclusionary nature of raids than anything else. This just proves that they need to focus on developing PVE content for the entire PVE community, even if that means tiered difficulties in raids.
They can always include a synopsis within the LS that covers everything that occurred in the raid.
That is far from the same as giving the players the experience of being the central hero in the first part of their story – which is what players should expect (and experience is not the same as hearing about, reading about, or walking through a cleared instance).
It kills excitement and makes players (rightfully) feel left out by the developers – and it didn’t have to happen.
The moment has passed.
We can only hope Anet learns something from this and doesn’t repeat this mistake in the future.
Should players have the option to play through events referenced from GW1? There’s nothing wrong with providing a synopsis or summary. The story within the raid was fairly small anyway so it’s not as if a large summary would be needed.
Also:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/dungeons/Raid-Narrative-and-Lore/first#post6195598
The amount of story isn’t the point. It was (most likely) the introduction to/beginning of the next story, and they chose to leave the vast majority of players out of it, when they didn’t need to.
You don’t start reading a book 20 pages in or starting a movie at the 15 minute mark – even if one of the characters roughly recaps the story at that point.
It is bad storytelling and a significant misstep by the developers and the narrative team.
in medias res (Classical Latin: [?n m?dia?s re?s], lit. “into the middle things”) opens in the midst of action. (cf. ab ovo, ab initio).1 Often, exposition is bypassed and filled in gradually, either through dialogue, flashbacks or description of past events.
What’s the point of that non sequitur?
It’s not a non sequiter, it’s explaining a commonly used narrative technique, addressing the claim that it’s bad storytelling to say that the claim is not necessarily true.
It’s a narrative technique that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
He responded to someone saying: “You don’t start reading a book 20 pages in or starting a movie at the 15 minute mark – even if one of the characters roughly recaps the story at that point.”
In media res storytelling still starts at page one of a book or the very start of a movie. In this situation, there actually is something that goes before, but less conveniently accessed. Like you said, “in media res” is a narrative technique, entirely dissimilar to what’s happening here, which is just narrative clumsiness.
(edited by Manasa Devi.7958)
Yeah, a synopsis would be great. Reading a wall of text in my mail would give me the same satisfaction as finding out about the White Mantle from gameplay.
It is looking more and more like the raid was indeed chapter one of the next living story. Even if they cover it again at this point, they have let that cat out of the bag – providing the story experience to only a small percentage of their players.
As interested as I am in this particular story, this is bad form and bad storytelling.
But the reason it is bad has more to do with the exclusionary nature of raids than anything else. This just proves that they need to focus on developing PVE content for the entire PVE community, even if that means tiered difficulties in raids.
They can always include a synopsis within the LS that covers everything that occurred in the raid.
That is far from the same as giving the players the experience of being the central hero in the first part of their story – which is what players should expect (and experience is not the same as hearing about, reading about, or walking through a cleared instance).
It kills excitement and makes players (rightfully) feel left out by the developers – and it didn’t have to happen.
The moment has passed.
We can only hope Anet learns something from this and doesn’t repeat this mistake in the future.
Should players have the option to play through events referenced from GW1? There’s nothing wrong with providing a synopsis or summary. The story within the raid was fairly small anyway so it’s not as if a large summary would be needed.
Also:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/dungeons/Raid-Narrative-and-Lore/first#post6195598
The amount of story isn’t the point. It was (most likely) the introduction to/beginning of the next story, and they chose to leave the vast majority of players out of it, when they didn’t need to.
You don’t start reading a book 20 pages in or starting a movie at the 15 minute mark – even if one of the characters roughly recaps the story at that point.
It is bad storytelling and a significant misstep by the developers and the narrative team.
in medias res (Classical Latin: [?n m?dia?s re?s], lit. “into the middle things”) opens in the midst of action. (cf. ab ovo, ab initio).1 Often, exposition is bypassed and filled in gradually, either through dialogue, flashbacks or description of past events.
What’s the point of that non sequitur?
It’s not a non sequiter, it’s explaining a commonly used narrative technique, addressing the claim that it’s bad storytelling to say that the claim is not necessarily true.
It’s a narrative technique that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
You responded to someone saying: “You don’t start reading a book 20 pages in or starting a movie at the 15 minute mark – even if one of the characters roughly recaps the story at that point.”
In media res storytelling still starts at page one of a book or the very start of a movie. In this situation, there actually is something that goes before, but less conveniently accessed. Like you said, “in media res” is a narrative technique, entirely dissimilar to what’s happening here, which is just narrative clumsiness.
I suggest you reread the usernames, because you are replying to two different people. I did not put the “in media res” comment, I am merely explaining that it’s not a non sequitur.
Rev, Ele, Burnzerker
“Beware he who would deny you access to information,
for in his heart he dreams himself your master.”
“Beware he who would deny you access to information,
for in his heart he dreams himself your master.”
I blame the quote train not including the relevant posts. I hate that on these forums. It’s rubbish to have to go back pages to see the start of a conversation.
Anyway, I replaced the first word of my post with “He” and it’s a wrap.
(edited by Manasa Devi.7958)
They can provide a synopsis of what occurred. This is done frequently in moves and books. How is that difficult to understand?
Why bother playing the game at all? Just have a friend who’ll tell you about it instead. He or she will tell you all you need to know to understand the story. Or why bother watching a movie or reading a book? Just google the summary.
I hope you see the difference.
Exaggeration. You’re acting as if the raid story is some major piece of the LS. There can be events that occur outside of the story that the player sees. You see this done in movies and books.
Except this wasn’t some event from way in the past.
This was the (probable) introduction of the protagonist and major story conflict. Even if that occurs across the span of a few seconds or minutes, it is a major piece of the story – and not one that any good author would leave to 3rd party exposition or, even worse, a guided tour from the “real” heroes.
When you consider the goal of interactive storytelling and Anet’s emphasis on “This is my story,” then leaving players out of that introduction is a bigger deal – one that all players deserve – and should want – to be a part of.
I’m not saying that story cannot be told through 10 player content – I’m saying that, if it is, that content has to be designed in a way that is open and accessible to players regardless of their playstyle, builds, gear, etc – and it most definitely was not in this case.
This only shows one thing. LS3 started with the raid. Everyone should be happy, these 8 months of no major releases ACTUALLY had 3 LS releases inside the raid. It hasn’t been a content drought after all. I personally can’t wait for LS3 chapter 4. I hope its another raid.
What? No, that doesn’t make any sense. First of all content drought is content drought. You can’t come back after the fact and claim it wasn’t a drought because there was some story in the content. There was still a royal lack of content outside of the 3 raid wings.
And no, there were no LWS3 releases in the raids. There just weren’t.
I’m not saying that story cannot be told through 10 player content – I’m saying that, if it is, that content has to be designed in a way that is open and accessible to players regardless of their playstyle, builds, gear, etc – and it most definitely was not in this case.
Funny how no one ever said the same about dungeons. Why are Raids any different? Yes, raids restrict players more in playstyle, builds, gear etc than dungeons but dungeons in turn restrict players more in playstyle, builds, gear etc than open world content and the personal story. So by your logic, dungeons should be as severely judged as raids are, yet they are not. Everybody simply accepted that the dungeons had lore and story that not everybody would personally witness and moved on. The exception was of course the story mode of Arah which was neccesary for completing the personal story and thus people complained about it not being aimed at solo players.
This only shows one thing. LS3 started with the raid. Everyone should be happy, these 8 months of no major releases ACTUALLY had 3 LS releases inside the raid. It hasn’t been a content drought after all. I personally can’t wait for LS3 chapter 4. I hope its another raid.
What? No, that doesn’t make any sense. First of all content drought is content drought. You can’t come back after the fact and claim it wasn’t a drought because there was some story in the content. There was still a royal lack of content outside of the 3 raid wings.
And no, there were no LWS3 releases in the raids. There just weren’t.
1. I’m pretty sure Shadowmoon was being sarcastic.
2. There might have been a living story drought but that is not the same as a content drought. Content was introduced, i.e. raids and the ‘current events’. Not everybody enjoyed them but that does not mean they were not introduced. Living story is also not enjoyed by everybody, does that mean the drought will not be over next tuesday according to you?
(edited by Diovid.9506)
They can provide a synopsis of what occurred. This is done frequently in moves and books. How is that difficult to understand?
Why bother playing the game at all? Just have a friend who’ll tell you about it instead. He or she will tell you all you need to know to understand the story. Or why bother watching a movie or reading a book? Just google the summary.
I hope you see the difference.
Exaggeration. You’re acting as if the raid story is some major piece of the LS. There can be events that occur outside of the story that the player sees. You see this done in movies and books.
Except this wasn’t some event from way in the past.
This was the (probable) introduction of the protagonist and major story conflict. Even if that occurs across the span of a few seconds or minutes, it is a major piece of the story – and not one that any good author would leave to 3rd party exposition or, even worse, a guided tour from the “real” heroes.
When you consider the goal of interactive storytelling and Anet’s emphasis on “This is my story,” then leaving players out of that introduction is a bigger deal – one that all players deserve – and should want – to be a part of.
I’m not saying that story cannot be told through 10 player content – I’m saying that, if it is, that content has to be designed in a way that is open and accessible to players regardless of their playstyle, builds, gear, etc – and it most definitely was not in this case.
Doesn’t matter if it was in the past or not. It’s a side story to a bigger story.
in other words if lord of the ring story looked like that:
1 The Fellowship of the Ring – story in raids
1.5 The Fellowship of the Ring story short summary – first chapter of LW
2 The Two Towers – rest of LW episodes
3 The Return of the King – second expansion
then you are ok with that? No thats not ok you cant put main story in places that most of the people would not see it. Its not spin of or different story. As we know now it is the MAIN story.
You’re leaving out The Hobbit, The Silmarillion, and all of Tolkien’s other Middle Earth works. It’s interesting to know why Gandalf calls the Balrog the “flame of Udûn,” or that they were both Maiar, but that’s hardly critical to the plot. There’s no need to freak out over this, at least not until we actually see if anything important is missing.
~The Storyteller – Elementalist – Jade Quarry~
It is looking more and more like the raid was indeed chapter one of the next living story. Even if they cover it again at this point, they have let that cat out of the bag – providing the story experience to only a small percentage of their players.
As interested as I am in this particular story, this is bad form and bad storytelling.
But the reason it is bad has more to do with the exclusionary nature of raids than anything else. This just proves that they need to focus on developing PVE content for the entire PVE community, even if that means tiered difficulties in raids.
They can always include a synopsis within the LS that covers everything that occurred in the raid.
That is far from the same as giving the players the experience of being the central hero in the first part of their story – which is what players should expect (and experience is not the same as hearing about, reading about, or walking through a cleared instance).
It kills excitement and makes players (rightfully) feel left out by the developers – and it didn’t have to happen.
The moment has passed.
We can only hope Anet learns something from this and doesn’t repeat this mistake in the future.
Should players have the option to play through events referenced from GW1? There’s nothing wrong with providing a synopsis or summary. The story within the raid was fairly small anyway so it’s not as if a large summary would be needed.
Also:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/dungeons/Raid-Narrative-and-Lore/first#post6195598
The amount of story isn’t the point. It was (most likely) the introduction to/beginning of the next story, and they chose to leave the vast majority of players out of it, when they didn’t need to.
You don’t start reading a book 20 pages in or starting a movie at the 15 minute mark – even if one of the characters roughly recaps the story at that point.
It is bad storytelling and a significant misstep by the developers and the narrative team.
in medias res (Classical Latin: [?n m?dia?s re?s], lit. “into the middle things”) opens in the midst of action. (cf. ab ovo, ab initio).1 Often, exposition is bypassed and filled in gradually, either through dialogue, flashbacks or description of past events.
What’s the point of that non sequitur?
It’s not a non sequiter, it’s explaining a commonly used narrative technique, addressing the claim that it’s bad storytelling to say that the claim is not necessarily true.
It’s a narrative technique that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
He responded to someone saying: “You don’t start reading a book 20 pages in or starting a movie at the 15 minute mark – even if one of the characters roughly recaps the story at that point.”
In media res storytelling still starts at page one of a book or the very start of a movie. In this situation, there actually is something that goes before, but less conveniently accessed. Like you said, “in media res” is a narrative technique, entirely dissimilar to what’s happening here, which is just narrative clumsiness.
The point was that a story can start in the middle and still go just fine. And, that’s essentially what we’d be getting in the proposed “starting on the 20th page” situation. Sure you could read it as a strait through story, or it can be read as an in medias res start to the same story, both getting the same information.
If they do a crappy recap and leave key things out, then I can understand complaining, but I simply don’t see any issue with using the raids to tell what could be a potential prologue to LS3.
People should just wait until they complete the entire episode next week before making their conclusions.
We already have someone that made a doomsday thread in the WvW forums about the repair hammers and how it killed WvW before they’ve even been released to test.
(edited by Ayrilana.1396)
Attacking the new LS before it’s released makes as little sense as defending it right now. We should wait and see.
“Only problem with the Engineer is
that it makes every other class in the game boring to play.”
Hawks
that it makes every other class in the game boring to play.”
Hawks
2. There might have been a living story drought but that is not the same as a content drought. Content was introduced, i.e. raids and the ‘current events’. Not everybody enjoyed them but that does not mean they were not introduced. Living story is also not enjoyed by everybody, does that mean the drought will not be over next tuesday according to you?
The April patch was a big patch that fixed a lot of problems introduced in HoT and came with a ton of QoL improvements to the game. However, aside from 3 raid wings and the current events we haven’t had any actual content since HoT launched. That’s a content drought. 3 raid wings and a number of small events isn’t enough content for that time period to say that we weren’t in a content drought. Even some of the people who were doing raids got bored with them because there just wasn’t nearly enough new content.
I’m not trying to say that ANet hasn’t been working. The April patch was evidence that they are working hard. But that doesn’t change the fact that we haven’t had nearly enough new content for the better part of a year now
People should just wait until they complete the entire episode next week before making their conclusions.
Or they could not log in to play it because they’ve lost interest because of too many months of Jack Excrement.
People should just wait until they complete the entire episode next week before making their conclusions.
Or they could not log in to play it because they’ve lost interest because of too many months of Jack Excrement.
Only if they do the same on the forums and not bring their vitriol there as well.
1 2