1. #2441
    Quote Originally Posted by UnifiedDivide View Post
    Almost like one is a brand new game, while the other has been out for the better part of 2 decades.
    Vanilla had more content.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post

    Because they want a player driven economy? Why does the game need NPC vendors?

    Edit: Most of your posts seem to boil down to, "This isn't like MMO's I'm familiar with and therefor bad." which is...odd. Most folks would get that the MMO just isn't for them and that's fine, not sure why you stick around to complain that the game that is very much not designed to be like a traditional second generation MMO theme park...isn't a traditional second generation MMO theme park? I mean, folks should know that going in if they did a bit of casual reading about the game before buying it (be an informed consumer!), and if they didn't that's their mistake.
    No, because this was supposed to be full loot PVP game. But it's not anymore.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Haha man, and covenant seems to be generally unpopular overall based on Steam achieves (13% kek) and they've lost the last piece of territory on my server. Definitely looking like I'll be transferring to hopefully find a server with a covenant presence.

    They really need to get to work on some aggressive methods to encourage more balanced factions and deter folks from just joining the strongest faction to begin with.
    But joining the strongest faction is the most logical think to do in this game, since the faction fantasy is so weak it doesn't really matter which one.

  2. #2442
    Quote Originally Posted by LazarusLong View Post
    Vanilla had more content.
    Did it though? Did 1.0 World of Warcraft really have more content? 1.12 sure. But 1.0? I doubt it.


    On topic:

    I like the gameplay a lot. But the quest and enemy design is quite lacking imo.
    There are 5 kinds of enemies (Ghosts, Zombies, Skeletons, Pirates and animals of different kinds) and 2 types of quests (Kill, and loot (out of chests or enemies) ) for all of level 1 to 60. I hope they add on to that in future content.

  3. #2443
    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    Nah. It's easy to disagree with all his points because they are subjective and speculative.
    Most of his points are neither subjective nor speculative. Have you even watched the video? I mean where he compared both cities and just showed that they're carbon copies, that's subjective and speculative? lol

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Witchblade77 View Post
    ESO. technically WoW. I mean even GW2 has an overreaching story arch. Secret world. off the top of my head anyways.

    from what I can tell, New world seems more about exploring gorgeous environments and emergent play with other people. which is fine. doesn't mean there aren't plenty of MMO's that put narratives at the center.
    Basically every non-Asian AAA-MMORPG nowadays has an overarching story that's clearly presented. ESO, WoW since at least WoD, GW2, heck even GW back in 2006 had an overarching story.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Wrathson View Post
    Did it though? Did 1.0 World of Warcraft really have more content? 1.12 sure. But 1.0? I doubt it.
    Yes it did. Two raids, 16 dungeons, over 30 zones and for sure 50 times more quests than New World. Just take the initial launch version of Classic (which had the content of early Vanilla, only the fixes that came in 1.12) as comparison minus the one new questhub in Hinterlands they already integrated earlier. I'm pretty sure in Barrens alone you had a bigger variety in enemies than in the entire New World.
    _______

    To add something positive: just switched to Musket and like it a lot. It's very different and new to see this kind of weapon in an MMORPG.
    Last edited by Nyel; 2021-10-14 at 02:11 PM.
    MAGA - Make Alliance Great Again

  4. #2444
    Quote Originally Posted by Nyel View Post


    Basically every non-Asian AAA-MMORPG nowadays has an overarching story that's clearly presented. ESO, WoW since at least WoD, GW2, heck even GW back in 2006 had an overarching story.
    that actualy reminded me, I'm 99.99% sure that Final Fantasy 14 also has central core narratives. I just haven't played it through far enough to be certain, but from what i did play and what I saw in videos about it as well as talking to a friend who loves it, the story is pretty core there, and that it improves greatly in expansions is one of the selling points.

    that said.... there is absolutely nothing wrong with going in sandbox direction. its not really for me, but there are a LOT of people who prefer sandboxes to themeparks. it seems to me like New World is trying to fit that niche. is it doing it well? I don't know, the few sandbox elements I personaly enjoy (housing and associated roleplay) I'm already getting from ESO, and it seems like New World doesn't offer anything new there, so... /shrug

  5. #2445
    This thread is giving me flashbacks to the old Wildstar general.

  6. #2446
    Quote Originally Posted by LazarusLong View Post
    No, because this was supposed to be full loot PVP game. But it's not anymore.
    I'm aware of that. So they maintained the player driven economy that they originally envisioned. Simple as that.

    Quote Originally Posted by LazarusLong View Post
    But joining the strongest faction is the most logical think to do in this game, since the faction fantasy is so weak it doesn't really matter which one.
    What does "faction fantasy" even mean? I mean they've each got their themes - purps are the witch doctor sneaky people or whatever, green are the warlike fighters or whatever, yellow are the religious faction. They've got their themes and flavors, but they're more a means to the end of territory combat and PvP.

    The problem right now is that I think there's both a lack of folks interested in PvP seriously (which isn't surprising) and that the benefits for PvE when holding faction outweight the benefits of fighting over territory.

    It makes logical sense for PvE only players for sure if they're going for "optimal", but that's something for Amazon to work on addressing via adding incentives to joining underpopulated factions or minor deterrants for folks to just stack on the most populous faction.

  7. #2447
    Quote Originally Posted by dope_danny View Post
    This thread is giving me flashbacks to the old Wildstar general.
    How so? Because some folks like it and some don't? Because there aren't many other parallels in terms of design or its initial sales or reception.

  8. #2448
    Quote Originally Posted by Bovinity Divinity View Post
    There's definitely an element of that.

    Although honestly, Wildstar had a ton of personality and "soul" to it. And was honestly pretty fun to just sit down and play.
    Yeah, alone those grumpy fluffballs had so much personality to them. I really miss Wildstar, for me it was a fanastic game.
    MAGA - Make Alliance Great Again

  9. #2449
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    I'm aware of that. So they maintained the player driven economy that they originally envisioned. Simple as that.



    What does "faction fantasy" even mean? I mean they've each got their themes - purps are the witch doctor sneaky people or whatever, green are the warlike fighters or whatever, yellow are the religious faction. They've got their themes and flavors, but they're more a means to the end of territory combat and PvP.

    The problem right now is that I think there's both a lack of folks interested in PvP seriously (which isn't surprising) and that the benefits for PvE when holding faction outweight the benefits of fighting over territory.

    It makes logical sense for PvE only players for sure if they're going for "optimal", but that's something for Amazon to work on addressing via adding incentives to joining underpopulated factions or minor deterrants for folks to just stack on the most populous faction.
    I mean that there is no intrinsic motivation for doing PVP for your faction since its fantasy is not developed at all. No "faction pride" and not much place for eve-style player-driven stories either.

  10. #2450
    Quote Originally Posted by LazarusLong View Post
    I mean that there is no intrinsic motivation for doing PVP for your faction since its fantasy is not developed at all. No "faction pride" and not much place for eve-style player-driven stories either.
    Does it really need it? I mean, PvP exists for its own sake mostly, and bragging rights and shit are usually key drivers of PvP. I'm not saying that this system is perfect or hell, even very good right now since it clearly results in massive server faction imbalances.

    But "faction pride" is kinda a silly thing to me, same with "faction fantasy". I'm not the target audience for that stuff and generally can't grok it (the old Blizzcon years ago where "class fantasy" was repeated endlessly almost made me go blind from rolling my eyes into the back of my skull), but I don't think that's the source of the problem.

    The source of the problem is that there aren't any real bonuses/reasons to join less populated factions or actually battle over territory too much. There's more benefits, at least for more PvE oriented players which I imagine make up a good chunk, if not a decent majority of the overall players, to stack a single faction that controls the world so they can always have access to territory bonuses and their stashes anywhere.

    Which is a very solvable problem, without ever needing to add another word of lore to any of the factions.

  11. #2451
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post

    Which is a very solvable problem, without ever needing to add another word of lore to any of the factions.
    Adding another extrinsic motivation might not work at all, just like with the War Mode in WoW.

  12. #2452
    Quote Originally Posted by Witchblade77 View Post
    ESO. technically WoW. I mean even GW2 has an overreaching story arch. Secret world. off the top of my head anyways.

    from what I can tell, New world seems more about exploring gorgeous environments and emergent play with other people. which is fine. doesn't mean there aren't plenty of MMO's that put narratives at the center.
    That is slightly shocking to me. I play ESO, SW, and GW2. I would say they have "quests" but narrative? I never even noticed. Those games have narrative the way Runescape has "story quests". With Runescape being the best among them too.

    World of Warcraft having a narrative absolutely blows my mind as a concept. When in the fuck...

  13. #2453
    Quote Originally Posted by LazarusLong View Post
    Adding another extrinsic motivation might not work at all, just like with the War Mode in WoW.
    War Mode is purely tied to your character though, not really anything else (unless I've missed it). NW has more levers to pull than just changes to character perks for being on underpopulated factions and engaging in PvP, they could add bonuses to the underpopulated factions themselves that would benefit both characters or the overall faction, they could alter rules and incentives for territory bonuses to try to encourage territory changing hands more rather than endlessly holding territory forever (i.e. it's in your interest to lose X territory and take Y territory due to diminishing returns on bonuses for holding X territory until you lose it).

    Mechanically they have a lot of options that are likely going to be more effective than simply giving each faction more lore, which as we're continuing to see likely isn't going to do a lot since so many folks either strongly dislike the writing/lore/story (what little there is) in the game or are simply ignoring it altogether.

  14. #2454
    Quote Originally Posted by Nyel View Post
    Most of his points are neither subjective nor speculative. Have you even watched the video? I mean where he compared both cities and just showed that they're carbon copies, that's subjective and speculative?
    Don't be stupid or ridiculous. I just told you I am subbed to his channel for a long time. I watched the video and he says in the video these are his opinions.

    "Soulless", "Emotional", etc, these are not objective quantifiers. These are his feelings. He even admits some of the points are not necessarily needed, only what he thinks is best based on his long-established preferences, and further outlines how HE plays the game, in HIS style in the game.

    He even uses language like "seems to be", "most likely" and "it appears". He uses analogy and metaphor. That is not the language used in object critique or analysis.

    I work in Market Research and Industrial Organisation and Psychology. If I delivered an analysis to Samsung with "seems to be", "feels like" that would be faulty. They would ask for their money back. Josh says in his video he came up with the premise/title to appeal to emotion in the very video.

    Did YOU watch the video?

    You can not quantify fun as an objective measure. It's his feelings on the game, which are fine either way, but all of that can be easily disagree with.

    Josh: "I can not remember the Faction leader names. There is no soul in the game."
    Me: "I remember the faction leader names. I am invested in the story."

    Easily and simply disagreed with, it's not that complicated. We aren't any more right or wrong in this whatsoever.

  15. #2455
    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    That is slightly shocking to me. I play ESO, SW, and GW2. I would say they have "quests" but narrative? I never even noticed. Those games have narrative the way Runescape has "story quests". With Runescape being the best among them too.

    World of Warcraft having a narrative absolutely blows my mind as a concept. When in the fuck...
    GW2 has the main quest that movies into expansions while also being expanded by living world stories. main quests come with rudimentary cutscenes. (rudimentary as in characters on either side of the screen talking at each other, but its still there). Lore backing up those stories is a big deal.

    ESO starts with the Vestige storyline as the overreaching story arch, but each alliance has their own story arcs. DLC's started out by having self contained stories, but starting with Elsweyr dungeons and shorter mid year story DLC - are part of continuous story. I mean... technically it started earlier, where clockwork city lead into the Summerset expansion story, but they are now making an effort to actualy make them into more cohesive narrative across content packs. they are also tied between expansions as some of the main characters were set up back in original game. character that sets the Elsweyr story in motion, for example is the same mage that was one of 5 companions for the "prophet", he was the one that helped you defeat the principal villain and he is the one that set events of Elsweyr in motion.... BUT... a side character from original vestige story is also the core character in that story and you finally learn why he is the way that he is. that story flows directly into Greymoor etc etc.

    if you skip the dialogue and in game character interactions - sure there is no story, cause you are ignoring all of it. but narrative is a huge driving force of how ESO progresses, and which zones get added in which order. current expansion concerns Merhunes Dagon and upcoming DLC is going to finish that particular story.

    WoW not only has a story, but that story is baked into vanilla game redesign. that story progresses across expansions, it is referenced, it affects what happens next. it gets retconned regularly and fleshed out in occasionally questionable ways... but its there and it has in game cutscenes now to flesh it out and had those for years and years. I mean the whole covenant chapter releases. those were gated STORY releases. expansion trailers freaking introduce that story for god's sakes. I mean we took what... 6 years? to finish the story arc that got started in Warcraft 3, you know with the Lich king and all?

    so I reiterate. you not paying attention to it doesn't somehow make it not exist. I haven't checked if there is a dedicated lore person for GW2, but if you'd like to brush up on WoW story - I recommend https://www.youtube.com/c/Nobbel87 channel.

    for ESO, https://www.youtube.com/c/Whitefox1225/videos seems to be doing a bang up job.

    and to take it back on topic - I have a feeling that even New World has some story. it just doesn't seem to be flashed out or told through quests.

  16. #2456
    Quote Originally Posted by Witchblade77 View Post
    so I reiterate. you not paying attention to it doesn't somehow make it not exist. I haven't checked if there is a dedicated lore person for GW2, but if you'd like to brush up on WoW story - I recommend https://www.youtube.com/c/Nobbel87 channel.

    for ESO, https://www.youtube.com/c/Whitefox1225/videos seems to be doing a bang up job.

    and to take it back on topic - I have a feeling that even New World has some story. it just doesn't seem to be flashed out or told through quests.
    Hold on here. I am not disputing that a quest text exists, but that is different than a narrative. And I legitimately did not know any of these games had a "story" because it was meaningless to the gameplay as & when I played these games.

    What happens to the gameplay in ESO because of the story? I hit max level in ESO & GW2 (ages ago) and I don't recall anything involved with a narrative affecting gameplay.

    I am not interested in brushing up on the story of any of these games, but I appreciate the link and effort. I am not that interested in video game stories though.

    However, I am slightly shocked by the interpretation of quest text as a narratively driven gameplay experience. Which was what that other post seemed to suggest and why SWTOR came prominently to mind. Because you have to do the story in SWTOR, not to level per see, but to access the gameplay modes and attributes such as the companions that directly tie into the gameplay.

    If a quest text is a "narrative" then basically every MMORPG has a "story". That seems loose and poorly conceived to me.

  17. #2457
    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    Hold on here. I am not disputing that a quest text exists, but that is different than a narrative. And I legitimately did not know any of these games had a "story" because it was meaningless to the gameplay as & when I played these games.

    What happens to the gameplay in ESO because of the story? I hit max level in ESO & GW2 (ages ago) and I don't recall anything involved with a narrative affecting gameplay.

    I am not interested in brushing up on the story of any of these games, but I appreciate the link and effort. I am not that interested in video game stories though.

    However, I am slightly shocked by the interpretation of quest text as a narratively driven gameplay experience. Which was what that other post seemed to suggest and why SWTOR came prominently to mind. Because you have to do the story in SWTOR, not to level per see, but to access the gameplay modes and attributes such as the companions that directly tie into the gameplay.

    If a quest text is a "narrative" then basically every MMORPG has a "story". That seems loose and poorly conceived to me.
    heh, I didn't realize that the only way narrative matters if it directly affects gameplay? and what do you mean by that anyways? do books not count as narrative because they are text? does narrative not count when quests directly take you to locations to progress that narrative, whether its to protect, to rescue to help rebuild, to decide who becomes a new ruler, etc etc?

    assuming you mean narratives unlock things - in ESO vestige story is the only way to unlock and level a specific skill line and several other DLC's also tie story to skill lines. also, all of the main stories come with skill points that are needed to invest into both passive and active skills. they are not the only way to get skill points, but those skill points still help when you are trying to level up variety of possible builds. you also need to progress the story to unlock certain locations that are unavailable otherwise. in case of Dragonhold DLC - that location includes a set of craftable armor.

    in WoW progressing a story unlocks reputation, acess to places, acess to skill lines, etc.

    in GW2 as far as I know story = acess to certain areas as well - and it is told through gameplay, even if you can level to max level via random shit or just reading some skill books.

    but if you mean narrative as an actual narrative of events happening in a world, leading up to other events, fleshing out the lore etc? it doesn't have to affect gameplay to be valid as long as its told THROUGH gameplay.

    why does SWTOR story count (even though you can skip it nowadays) but other stories do not? because it unlocks things? so it does in ESO. because there are choices? they are not as extensive in ESO, but they ARE there.

    so I reiterate. just because you are not interested in MMO narratives - doesn't mean they do not exist or that they are not central to game design of those MMO's everything from zones and how they are designed, to characters you interact with in those zones, to enemies you fight in those zones.

  18. #2458
    Quote Originally Posted by Witchblade77 View Post
    heh, I didn't realize that the only way narrative matters if it directly affects gameplay?
    As concerns video games, of course. The only purpose of a video game is gameplay. They don't exist otherwise. Even narrative drive games, such the game novel, are compelled through gameplay. Interacting with the story is the required behavior of the game- how you must play it.

    and what do you mean by that anyways?
    The rules or methods presented in the game that govern how a player interacts or interfaces with the game.

  19. #2459
    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    As concerns video games, of course. The only purpose of a video game is gameplay. They don't exist otherwise. Even narrative drive games, such the game novel, are compelled through gameplay. Interacting with the story is the required behavior of the game- how you must play it.

    The rules or methods presented in the game that govern how a player interacts or interfaces with the game.
    that... is a very narrow way of looking at it IMO. there are no musts in most video games. I do not have to interact with say dungeons, for them to be viable mode of interacting with gameplay with other people. optional =/=invalid or nonexistent. the purpose of a video game is interactivity, IMO. it doesn't have to be 100% mandatory at all times to be a driving force for game design. for example, in SWTOR, you can just level up to the point where most recent story becomes available and just skip all that came before it. doesn't make the narrative any less of a crucial part of that game's design.

  20. #2460
    Quote Originally Posted by Witchblade77 View Post
    that... is a very narrow way of looking at it IMO. there are no musts in most video games.
    Conceptually, correct. Functionally, no. You have to interface with a game. That's what makes 'em video games.

    I must code what the jump button does, for example. I must have a way for the player to not only interact with the game, but I have to quantifiably establish the rules or parameters of that interaction.

    We can't play video games by imagination.

    I do not have to interact with say dungeons, for them to be a viable mode of interacting with gameplay with other people.
    Sure, but it's still gameplay existing within the parameters of the design. It is just not mandatory to the play experience that you partake in this particular mode of gameplay (which is likely not gameplay itself but a method commonly). This is what I was talking about earlier in the thread w/r/t "mandatory pvp".

    optional =/=invalid or nonexistent.
    This doesn't seem in line with the discussion. We might have a misunderstanding here, not sure.

    the purpose of a video game is interactivity, IMO.
    Which is gameplay. This ain't a debate. They have to exist this way.

    Make a game for me without gameplay. It's impossible.

    t doesn't have to be 100% mandatory at all times o be a driving force for game design.
    Agreed, I am not sure why/where this concept is coming from though.

    I was talking about the story or narrative of these games previously. That ALWAYS implies gameplay. Because all gameplay exists as a metaphor.

    For example, say we play Cops & Robbers. Neither of us is actually a Cop or a Robber. But we use the metaphor to suppose one position from another in the context of the game. But the gameplay of Cops & Robbers is relatively bound by the rules, which are absolute.

    We can make a game where the process of pressing X 30 times levels an arbitrary number. That's it. That's the game.

    However, we can also use the same mechanism but present it differently without changing the underlying gameplay; pressing X is tied to an animation routine of a clown doing a backflip. Press X 30 times and the clown will do a somersault. That's the (same) game.

    What I am saying is not revelatory or complex. This is how games are made and how they work- how you interface with them, in whatever way the design chooses, has to be gameplay. Because you can't interact with it at all otherwise.

    If no animation routine is tied to pressing X, the game still exists. The game can still be played and interfaced with by the player. However, if there is no interaction to pressing X, there is no game. We can add a million different buttons here but they would be metaphorical to what you are interfacing with fundamentally.

    I've worked on video games for a living and sat in many design meetings about creating games. Even more so, we made children's educational games where communication through interaction was paramount. What I am saying is exactly the principle concept of a DDT.

    Hell, GW2's entire content delivery system revolved around the ongoing narrative. Every content drop, every expansion, every event, the entire main story chain. Living World's entire purpose was to deliver an ongoing narrative in the form of expanded gameplay areas and quests.

    Even if you didn't bother with any of it, it's kind of hard to pretend you just didn't notice unless you just logged in and hid in sPvP or WvW every day
    I didn't bother playing GW2 when they introduced the living stories. So if that has changed it's not relevant to me personally- which goes without saying is whom I am speaking for.

    I genuinely did not keep up with GW2 for a few years now. I did not play that new stuff, don't know about it, and would be surprised if you absolved me of my ignorance with information on it different from what I did experience. My shock would be genuine.
    Last edited by Fencers; 2021-10-15 at 01:27 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •