Leo G.4501

> @"Tasida.4085" said:

> Oh come on. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I think some people are taking this a little too seriously. People and pc today, they act like it personally affects their lives if some1 has their own opinion. She never POINTED anyone specific out. Some people are just way to sensitive. It doesn't affect the players game time in anyway, so everyone keep chiving on and playing the game as you normally do.

I think she did. She literally quoted some guy's tweet with a caption of something like "A day in the life of a female game developer: someone telling me how to do my job" or some such.

> @"Haleydawn.3764" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > I think you misunderstand the purpose of this thread.

>

> When you start a thread titled 'Branching Dialogue', people will comment about that as well as the content of your post. If you wanted opinions about 'flavour' of choices, and not branching dialogue, that would have been the thread title, no?

> It's asking for opinions, and I gave you mine. Adding any sort of variance is redundant when you come to the same arc cadence, adding 'personality' to predefined options would be ok, but it was scrapped for a reason.

>

Well the title says "branching dialog" not "branching story" which is why I feel you misunderstood. The topic is focused on exactly that, the branching of the dialog, not the branching of the resulting story. Anything that requires making new story instances or story steps is likely out of the question. You're free to discuss that but I am obligated to steer the conversation on topic when there is a misunderstanding.

> @"joneirikb.7506" said:

> The problem with branching dialogue is that it's rare to see it actually well done.

>

> I mean, if all you want is basically the old character system (charm, pride, ferocity) as a way to give character themed "grunts of approval" sure, I could get behind that (I actually miss that).

I think that might allude to my main issue in that, the system itself wasn't bad, they just wanted to use it for certain things and didn't follow through. It was a dialog option, a means of getting buffs and goods from NPCs and probably a few other things. Just because that amalgomated system was canned doesn't mean a facet of that system couldn't work (i.e. just the dialog part).

>

> But actual branching dialogue with any meaning at all ? I honestly think that is beyond what ANet can pull off (reliably enough to be worth it). They did try with the earlier parts of the Personal Story, and while it's mostly passable, it isn't stellar. And Iirc was another thing they basically ran out of time on, that they would have loved to have done more with.

I just think it would take some slight author consideration and a few extra lines (from non-player characters) per choice. Of course, I'm not thinking of a grande branching tree dialog set-up, merely [make my commander sound stern], [make my commander sound empathetic], [make my commander sound aloof], etc.

Also, the main reason I wanted to discuss this is because I've heard it was nearly impossible to do and I vehemently disagree with that conclusion.

> @"Haleydawn.3764" said:

> We already do get certain branching dialogues, but it can't be extreme so to sway the main story (obviously).

> Then you have to factor in extra costs to put more VO in place for the dialogue, then you have to write more arcs to bring the story back to the same cadence. Which renders a lot of that variance of dialogue, redundant.

I think you misunderstand the purpose of this thread.

You list several issues here, but the purpose is to fix those issues. Come up with a solution or work-around that circumvents those problems.

The issue that I'd initially tackle is the inability to have personality in the PC's dialog. Having the branched dialog suggested in my post, for example, wouldn't require more arcs or writing to bring anything back into cadence because the only variance is the tone of the player's dialog.

>If players RP their 'Commander', the Devs are better using a more blander slate for the story, to allow for our own interpretation of our character, regardless of how many dialogue options there are.

This is just false.

> So, I honestly believe if it was do-able, time and cost wise, Anet would have done it. Is it absolutely neccessary for more dialogue branches to be added? No. I'd much rather Devs evolved their narrative to keep me hooked into the story of NPC characters, allowing me space to keep my own character interpretation how I want her/them to be.

I never see a problem as "if it was do-able". Everything is do-able, you just have to put in the work and or make the sacrifices necessary. The point is, if time and cost are a sacrifice, then sacrifice something else to make it work.

Just curious to see other people's opinion of such a feature and how you'd make it work or what you'd want from it.

IMO, making branching dialog would be very costly *IF* it's all completely voiced. But an interesting work-around could be partially voiced choices/canned dialog that accompanies the branching choice or simply no voiceover for the choice itself and let the other NPCs play out their dialog depending on the choice.

The latter was done very often in the early story but not a good example because those choices usually branched off into other outcomes. But the point is that, yes, it would require more voiceover work but only for the NPCs and not the x amount of voice actors that play the PC. This is the optimal choice and I could write out an example of this using an in-game example with added dialog options to demonstrate how many extra lines could be estimated for any given instance.

The canned dialog suggestion is more a flavor type option. Think of it being like having 3 options, a yes, a no and a maybe (with expanded written dialog that takes that tone) and the PC spoken line would basically be [basic racial flavored approval], [gruff racial flavored disagreement] and [general apprehension] that's given with the text dialog line that then leads to the NPCs reacting to those lines. The benefit is, you can reuse those same canned voiceovers for other choices (and have more types of general choice canned responses for other types of options).

Ultimately though, this is only to flavor the words from your PC's mouth, not to branch the story. Branching story is a whole other discussion.

Opinions? Criticisms? Bueller?

Maybe resetting the instance might help?

> @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> Really don't follow what you are trying to say here, bud. Wanna spell it out for the audience?

Partially that, if it were someone criticizing a woman or liberal author for typical feminine or progressive used tropes, that isn't allowed or will be reported and silenced but when it's criticizing a man for some sort of common power fantasy-esque trope or whatever, it's a-okay and not sexism.

But mainly that, I'm positive there are female writers on the team that read and/or approved of and/or came up with and/or took credit for the characters of the main guild (to include Kasmeer) but we're only going to blame the men writers for the faults of the story or writing? Accountability is the key and while individuals can be held accountable for the writing in the game, what is between those individuals' legs cannot.

As for subverting common tropes, it's nice when it's unexpected but it won't be unexpected if you expect it. There's a reason some tropes are common and it's one-part them being good story tools and 2 parts people expecting them to be there. It's all the more easier to subvert a trope when you actually use them with the goal to subvert them within the story.

> @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > @"Lord Krilik.3692" said:

> > I think the discussion has started to focus more on her annoying hiccup thing than her power boost. I agree, the hiccup makes it seem like she was written by a 12 year old fangirl

>

> *cough* wrong gender there, I think. That sort of less than awesome choice is generally not made by people who have actually met women. ;)

Mmm, the hypocrisy ;)

> @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said:

> > @"RoseofGilead.8907" said:

> > > @"Blocki.4931" said:

> > > Why can't it just be a nervous tick whenever she is stressed out?

> >

> > That's exactly what they were going for with it, honestly. It just annoys the crap out of me.

>

> It feels like a poor choice, since it plays into the mediocre stereotype applied to blonde, white women by so many terrible writers. They just can't have agency, or competence, without *something* to show that they are also really actually kinda damsals in distress, needing rescue...

>

> I'd rather than Braham or someone got it as a tic, than Kasmer. *shrug*

So you're annoyed by a benign stereotype that doesn't change anything but accept the whole "glamour ditzy sparkle mage" stereotype? I mean, if you're going to give Braham the nervous tic, why not give him the reality bending illusion powers while you're at it?

Or how about those "Nepoleon" complex little genius tropes? Why not make the salad people the story's ex machina tool generator?

Reading some of the replies, I feel everyone has their approvals and disapprovals with regard to how Anet releases its content.

Even though my answer to buying an expansion is a "maybe", it's not because I don't like how Anet handles anything (personally think they're pretty good compared to other MMOs out there) but rather I've just developed a disconnect with the genre. Ever since breaking away from that first MMO hit, I've learned how these games draw players in and keep them and the best thing you can get in return as a player is something in return besides a time-sink. The market for time-sinks is saturated beyond compare.

I know this game's lore and set-up does not lend itself to developing unique characters well but any little bit helps. If Anet released an expansion with playable Tengu, I'd have to put my money where my mouth is and buy it despite not being able to make a developed unique character out of it. If they also took steps and made plans to release more races down the line with perhaps "voice-over diversification" and other tidbits, I'd have to further put my money in my talkie hole and pre-order it. I can at least pretend to develope some unique characters for a couple more years with that.

> @"Ruadan.9301" said:

> > @"zealex.9410" said:

> > Id rather see them doing most if not all of se5 on one/ two maps that simply arent complete from the getgo and each episode expands them with events and more areas.

> >

> > Sick and tired of getting a map for the sake of getting it and then forgeting it event exists come the next episode.

> >

> > Dont get me wrong i like all the maps we got but jesus christ its like they dont exist after the new wpisode is out.

>

> It's you as an individual who decides to treat them as if they didn't exist. They are all still playable.

The context of the post is likely the majority of players migrating to the newer maps and leaving the old ones behind OR that the story never revisits these places, forgetting they exist.

> @"starlinvf.1358" said:

> The trap here is "what can they offer that simply isn't just more 'stuff', that will burn out like all the previous content has? The burn out Rate of POF was slow at first, but its pretty clear now most people who was at the Xpac launch are bored with it. Force feeding "content" and achievement shinnies seems to have also peaked in effectiveness. The Bless refugees were a lucky break, and buying Anet some time before their income has another around of stress...... but its only a matter of time before they burn through most of whats on offer and hit the same wall the rest of us have.

>

> The market has changed substantially the last couple of years, and I'm now unsure of what way most of us have forward without a new game crumbling the existing MMO paradigms. I can only hope when that happens, it'll be with a new reward system that people will latch on to, and finally shake every modern game's biggest sustainability problem...... the constant struggle with rewards and "reward creeping". Its like power creeping, but its the rewards having to be continually more bombastic and better then previous ones just to spark any form of interest.

This is very much my perspective too. All in all, though, I think the game can continue and be profitable but it just needs to be run more efficently and with fewer devs going forward. There are plenty of people who are entranced with the game, play it every day and build communities within it and I think that aspect that should be catered to eventually. More personal things like emotes, environment interaction (like sitting in chairs), player housing, player created content and customization would be most beneficial to start improving so when they can't put out a new map every 5 months or a raid wing every year anymore, there will still be aspects for those dedicated players to fall back on and make them feel comfortable to continue supporting the game.

> @"runeblade.7514" said:

> > @"Lord Krilik.3692" said:

> > I'd be open to receiving half a map with one release and the rest unlocks later, like season 2, and also with shorter release windows. Some new maps are great, but I'd rather see 3-4 new maps throughout an 8 episode season than 8 new maps that get discarded. Sadly, I think this format is here to stay. They added those portal books after all.

>

> I am not open to that. I expect full maps every 3 months, nothing less than that.

And when you don't get your full map in 3 months?

The way the zone releases work is that when they make the expansion, they plan out all the zones for the release and the living story chapters. The release of new zones is just part of the expansion content with a delayed release.

The question could be, should the expansion zone content be more concentrated with fewer zones. The answer is, people have complained that the PoF zones are just flat and spread out and feel empty (not my words, I quite like the density of the zones). There's your answer.

I think they could have gotten away with layering the zones a bit, even keeping some places blocked off until the story chapters release them open up that section or layer of the zone.

Just like anything in excess, there will be overexposure leading to fatigue.

> @"Magnus Godrik.5841" said:

> I like me some jerk asura.

Jerked asura? So you're taking advantage of some poor male asura's propensity for experimentation?

> @"Endless Soul.5178" said:

> > @"Rysdude.3824" said:

> > > @"Endless Soul.5178" said:

> > > > @"Tasida.4085" said:

> > > > > @"Eekasqueak.7850" said:

> > > > > Can people stop making these thinly veiled "stop liking what I don't like!" Threads? It's honestly getting kinda tiring.

> > > >

> > > > Relax and laugh along with the thread. I'll take an order of sylvari fed asura that way I get my greens for the day while you're at it.

> > >

> > > Laugh along with racism? No thanks.

> >

> > Um, you know this is a video game race, right? There are no asura in RL.

>

> Oh, so it's ok to be racist in a videogame. Got it.

I'd say, the notion to inherently vilify someone for their perceptions and held beliefs without context is far worse than racism. At least with racism, there is some underlying source that could be addressed or enlightened upon.

> @"Carighan.6758" said:

> > @"Boogiepop Void.6473" said:

> > I'm very much concerned for content in general. I was floored when, at the release of PoF, they announced that they were segmenting the game. This meant that EVERYTHING added in HoT and LS3, from gliding to lavatubes to grappling vines, can NEVER EVER be reused. No new map can EVER make use of these elements ever again. This represents a HUGE waste of ideas and resources. Instead of truly expanding the game, it turns it into a bunch of mini-sequels.

> >

> > I'm very concerned that this is going to continue into the next expansion, with all mount content being abandoned in favor of whatever the new mechanic is then. We just got the beetle and it's not even clear if we are going to keep seeing content for it going forward. Are the breakable walls in Kourna the only breakable walls that will ever exist? We just don't know.

>

> But that constant cycle of Tabula Rasa -> new stuff -> repeat is the core of MMORPG expansion strategy. And has been since forever. The only difference in GW2 is that without a rising player level, our power increases have to come from elsewhere (new and slightly more optimal gear stat combos, elite specs, etc), but mechanically speaking making the old maps "outdated" is just as much an important part of it as it was for any other MMORPG.

>

> Sure, they're still there. Just as in all other MMOs. But you're supposed to interact with the new stuff, where the new and actively supported mechanics are!

>

> The reason this is done is usually to save on development costs: As MMOs age, they accrue more and more and more mechanics and elements. Supporting all or even many of these would be **far** too taxing a task for any dev team. To alleviate it, you constantly cut out existing content "after it's done", making room for new things.

>

And the thing is, this is true for practically any aspect of the game and shortcuts, compromises and such are the only way to keep this aspect of culling accumulated elements. Few players either understand or acknowledge that, as the game adds more story, dialog, zones, abilities, skins, etc, the ability to support or update the older elements becomes more thinly stretched.

By saying the college they went to produced nothing but snowflakes and bookahs.

I did enjoy the previous expansions and wouldn't be against purchasing another but there would have to be something extraordinary to pique my interest. For a while now, I'm peeking on the forums more than I am in the game. So we'll see...

I wanted to be able to play a Tengu so I could make a plague doctor themed Necromancer without actually copying the theme from common media.

I'm indifferent to a plague doctor's mask. I'll still wait for tengu.

> @"otto.5684" said:

> Most classes have color schemes.

>

> Gurdian, light blue.

> Necro, dark green/Black.

> Warrior, SB, gold.

> Ranger, green.

> Rev, grayish mists.

> Eng, holo, whatever the glow would be (glowing light blue?)

>

> So.. I do not see it much of an issue Mesmer being pink/purple. It meshes well with Mesmer design and skills. If it was black, it would not look as good.

Could the differing colors associated with the Elite Specs have any correlation to the schools of magic combined to create the effects? Doesn't Choronomancer utilize more white and blue in its abilities? And I know Scourge uses more yellow...Berserker has a hot red going too.

> @"Sojourner.4621" said:

> > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > @"Sojourner.4621" said:

> > > > @"sorudo.9054" said:

> > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > > > @"Dreamy Lu.3865" said:

> > > > > > I do love the visual effect on mesmer. But it is true that it is all pink and purple: For someone who doesn't like it... Well, I see the problem.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > @Blude.6812: The Dreamer is a short bow. The longbow one is Kudzu. And yes, the Dreamer is lot of pink too. :)

> > > > > > Now it is not exactly the same than for mesmer, because that bow is optional. Someone who does not like the visual effects can just ignore it. There is even an alternative: Chuka and Champawat. For mesmer, it is different: There is no alternative mesmer. That makes the pinky pink side of it mandatory to play the profession.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This thread made me realize that mesmer is the only profession with such a unique dedicated color affecting all of it. The elementalists and necromancers have different color for their visual effects depending what they use. The other professions have no real color. Mesmer is the unique one like that.

> > > > >

> > > > > Well it's hard to play a guardian without seeing blue flame, and it's almost impossible to play a necro without seeing green all over the place, including death shroud. Every profession really does have a color theme and it's more prevalent in mesmers because of the colors being so flamboyant. I mean I see blue fire all the time playing my guardian.

> > > >

> > > > the problem here is that the blue flame suggests guardians use gas (or propane) as fuel for their attacks, blue flames don't happen without any kind of gas fuel.

> > >

> > > That's not true at all.... any flame that is especially hot can turn blue.... flames gain a blue tint either from particular chemicals contaminating the flames or from reaching a temperature of roughly 1500 K (~2240° F or 1226° C) at which point the flames entirely consume and convert any impure material in to invisible vapors. Flames burn blue when the air that is burning with them is uncontaminated by excess carbon. The reason that gases like Oxyacetylene and Propane burn blue is because of their composition and the fact that they convert the clean gas used to burn them entirely in to carbon dioxide and water vapor. It is carbon impurities that cause the flame to be yellow. Guardian flames are made directly from magic... there is zero impurity so why would they be anything but blue?

> >

> > But it would be cool to have a, "powered by natural gas," sticker on my guardian.

>

> Hah, that would be a fun title....

>

> To expound further... if anything it's much stranger that Elementalist flames AREN'T blue. Any flames conjured directly in to being from magic should be unless you're deliberately lowering the temperature or the oxygen flow enough to make them look more orange and "flamey."

Well if this were CoH, I'd say if the color of your flames are a strange color, its because they likely have a specific origin or effect unique to an individual. I remember a player having an origin that utilized dragon magic where the dragon's blood (they had its heart trapped in a crystal) was the origin of the flame and so the flames were deep crimson and ink-like. Considering there was a Rain-of-Fire skill and seeing the inky red flames pouring from the sky, it was an interesting spectacle.

And I've always assumed that Guardian's fire isn't actually that hot unless you're evil or a sinner...or maybe that's DnD Paladin...

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > It was never a choice we got to make. It wasn't a vote like if you Choose Evon you get more armor in the Gem shop, and we picked Keil so Outfits it is. It's a choice they made on their own. There has been support for both.

> It was exactly like that. They said: we can do one of two things and asked which we preferred: armor earned in game or armor earned in gem shop.

> The consensus was that we wanted to earn in game.

>

> > > I don't particularly mind the way they're doing it, though I don't like Outfits, but don't pretend it was our doing, it wasn't.

> I don't understand why you think anyone is pretending what happened. Sure, we didn't get to choose to have both and we didn't get to choose whether ANet would drop e.g. map artists for more fashion artists. But we were asked for our preference for this particular decision and they respected the overall consensus.

>

> > When they make all but two pieces of a suit, why not just finish it and offer the whole suit. That's what they're doing now, they make a piece, like the gloves, and then the boots, then the shoulders, but they aren't finishing the suits, and I think they should be.

> Read what they've said about the difference between armor and outfits and pieces (such as gloves, boots, or shoulders). It's not as simple as "just finish it" — leggings and coat pieces are more complex, especially for different races, especially in terms of mixing & matching.

>

> We'd all like to see more full sets and more chest and leggings, but they have limited resources. They are never going to keep up with our appetite for more options.

>

> > I'd assume that the reason the "9 months" factoid was dropped was with regards to the shift from selling armor to earning armor.

> It was mentioned in regards to why they can deliver outfits much more quickly.

>

> > While it may not have been presented as a choice, we don't actually get to make such decisions. We can only express what we want and if players wanted more earnable armor pieces, the devs likely had to make decisions to make that happen.

> But in this case, they asked us. You're right that they don't usually do that.

>

> > Part of that decision likely had to do with revenue and that's likely not going to be something the player will decide to set.

> Yes, of course it had to do with revenue. And, in this case, more importantly, expenses. There just aren't enough artists to do everything even ANet would like to see.

>

> tl;dr they literally gave us a choice between earning armor sets in game or buying with gems. Maybe it's time to ask if we have changed our preferences, since many, many things have changed since.

>

FYI, the first part of your reply, you misquoted to me.

And I admitted I don't really know the actual context of the forum consensus that resulted in selling new armor skins in the gem store to earning them in game because I don't recall being around at the time that discussion was had. But I know the comment about the 9 months was in regards to the development time of armor vs outfits, I meant to say it was said as a result of the shift, i.e. it was after they made the shift. I just wasn't sure how soon the shift was made after outfits were introduced.

> @"Kal Spiro.9745" said:

> > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > @"Kal Spiro.9745" said:

> > > Also, no, the players definitely did not demand anything of the sort.

> > In fact, they gave us the option: fewer armor sets available via the game and more in the gem shop... or fewer in the gem shop and more available via content. The community at the time chose via content.

> >

> > Maybe ANet should revisit the question again, but in the meantime, it's fair to say that "players" made the decision.

>

> It was never a choice we got to make. It wasn't a vote like if you Choose Evon you get more armor in the Gem shop, and we picked Keil so Outfits it is. It's a choice they made on their own. There has been support for both.

>

> I don't particularly mind the way they're doing it, though I don't like Outfits, but don't pretend it was our doing, it wasn't. When they make all but two pieces of a suit, why not just finish it and offer the whole suit. That's what they're doing now, they make a piece, like the gloves, and then the boots, then the shoulders, but they aren't finishing the suits, and I think they should be.

>

I'd assume that the reason the "9 months" factoid was dropped was with regards to the shift from selling armor to earning armor. While it may not have been presented as a choice, we don't actually get to make such decisions. We can only express what we want and if players wanted more earnable armor pieces, the devs likely had to make decisions to make that happen. Part of that decision likely had to do with revenue and that's likely not going to be something the player will decide to set.

I must have been on one of my multi-month absenses from the net when this whole situation went down but I'm curious, was this "consensus" to take armor out of the gem store before or after they introduced outfits?

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > @"Rasimir.6239" said:

> > > > > One thing I don't understand: why would you want a new race if you restrict its visuals, story, or any of the other cuts suggested? What is it that will give you the feeling of getting something new and worthwhile?

> > > >

> > > > Personally? Because I think about 40% of the armor is gaudy garbage. If they were to cut most of the available armor for a new race to only specific distinct pieces (or just all together) and keep outfits (which I think about 20% is gaudy garbage, 40% is great looking and the other 40% is kinda meh but distinct enough to have a purpose to wear on certain occasions) I would be perfectly fine limiting the layered clothing for any new races because the game has nowhere to go but introduce more clothing options down the line anyway.

> > > Ah, but here lies the problem. No two players would agree on which skins belong to which category. So, you might end up with getting only the "garbage" options available for that new race, with all the ones you consider good being unavailable. What then?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Are you actually asking me? I already stated I prefer outfits anyway and if they only had garbage options, I'd use the outfits.

> >

> > Unless you're proposing a what if where no outfits are available and only the armor skins I personally don't like, that is a rather outlandish attempt at a gotcha argument.

> No. The "you" here was just an example. What i meant was that if you go only for a limited selection of options, you will find that there are people that would find that selection unappealing.

> I mean, good for you that you consider outfits to be good. Not everyone agrees with you though. For example, i personally consider 80% of outfits to be garbage, and of the remaining ones there's maybe one that i'd find okay on charr (if you don't know, Tengu, as a most commonly brought up example of a new race, happen to be based around the same wireframe as Charr, which would make most of the outfits not soo good for them).

>

> Basically, the more you limit the options (and the proposal would remove vast majority of them) the greater number of players that would find they do not like what was left.

The argument goes both ways, though. If MMOs are any indication, players will still utilize something they don't agree with and complain to get it changed all the while there will be people that enjoy the addition and any subsequent additions made to it.

And I'll reuse the same resturant analogy I used before: you can go to a diner and they will serve you your appetizers and chips and drinks before they bring you your main meal and dessert. Delaying or staggering options doesn't make the prospect of future additional or supplementary cosmetic items less attractive, espectially when you consider that GW2 has little else to add as content but more cosmetic options.