Twyn.7320

My other question: On the basis that the world can't end because we wouldn't have a game if it did, is consideration being made to reduce the scale of the threats in the Guild Wars 2 storyline? It takes a certain kind of suspension of disbelief to keep world-ending threats relevant, but in a game where the world itself is pivotal to the longevity of the game, it's impossible for the world to end in a meta-narrative sense. As a follow-up question to this: How difficult do you find scaling in the Guild Wars 2 storyline, when thinking about this in the story development meetings? And have there been any moments in the past where you've wanted to do something on the cataclysmic side and had to reel it in for the sake of maintaining a degree of scaling? I can imagine that some people want to destroy large areas of land, and another person steps in and puts down a financial form as a counter argument. ;)

I think the best and most concise way that I can ask my question is: Will death be used in the Guild Wars 2 storyline as a lasting consequence or vehicle to drive a storyline forward, without it being diluted for the sake of another character's techno-babble; interrupted because it's 'taking too long in the story'; or bait-and-switched to mitigate fan outrage? The perfect example of this is Eir and Braham, and how her death could've had lasting implications on Braham's arc. Instead, it feels like it's been poorly handled for a bit of 'edge' in LWS3. And then, essentially forgotten about until LWS4 E2, where we had an amazing moment with the Commander and Braham in a realm of death and decay. However, just as it was getting poignant and interesting, Taimi interrupted with her techno-babble and I personally feel that she ruined the moment. Since then, Braham's acted normally towards us, and nothing's been brought up as he's become a bit of comic relief and nothing more. Additionally, Aurene's resurrection is the perfect example of a bait-and-switch, which seems to have been made for the purpose of mitigating the inevitable backlash of a portion of the community. By doing so, it reduced the connection between the player and Kralkatorrik, thus limiting his threat to the world because the death of Aurene became irrelevant within 5 minutes of loading the first instance. I just have the viewpoint that you have all of the components to make an amazing storyline that satisfies the majority of people, but it's mish-mashed together at the end and spoils it for a large portion.

Outstanding post Thank you! I might condense this down for the upcoming Dev Feedback thing, just to explain one of the angles that people may have with the Aurene moment and the general structure of the narrative! Also, I suppose that my writing background shows ;)

It'd be nice if people could look at a story [that I personally disliked but that's beside the point] and not give it a free pass of mediocrity 'because it's a game/MMO'. If a story's average, a story's average. Copping out a reason that it's a game doesn't excuse the fact that a story is bad, average, good or anywhere in-between. Gaming is just another form of media, we wouldn't do the same for TV, radio, movies etc. It'd be like saying: 'Well, The Last Airbender movie doesn't need a good story, because it's just a movie and you just need to watch a movie because of how pretty it looks.' And ironically, I think that's where my gripe with GW2 comes in. The maps look gorgeous, the sound design is 11/10, the voice acting is a bit hit and miss from time to time but generally okay. The music has really improved in recent years, actually evoking sympathy for a change. But IMO, the writing is below average, full of plot-holes and rushed. Everything gets tied up in a nice bow, with nothing left to be explored and no lasting consequences. The only reason why people are invested in what comes next is that we've been told that Season 5 is coming shortly, outside of the game itself. There's very little in this Episode that actually sets up a long-lasting narrative. Ultimately, I feel the need to speak to those who disagree with my stance. People aren't looking for Game of Thrones in a Guild Wars 2 re-skin when it comes to character deaths. However, people are looking for lasting consequences that build up to something that we have a role in. With Aurene's death in E5, it created the connection between us and Kralkatorrik. People wanted to end him, because of the absence of Aurene. Sometimes, it's best to leave people's emotions to drive the story, rather than bringing something back to life for the sake of fan feedback and potential outrage mitigation. If people are feeling sorrow and grief for a character's death, that's brilliant. It's exactly what you want as a story-teller. That allows a player to push onwards and actually connect with this 'force of nature' that serves as the antagonist. If the root connection of our emotion is brought back to us, with no lasting consequences or hardships, the link breaks down between the protagonist and the antagonist. This is why a portion of the player-base hate the resurrection of Aurene. It reduced Kralkatorrik's threat to Dragon's Watch and the world of Tyria to nothing and broke down our connection with him as an antagonist. If Aurene's return was necessary, we needed to experience the devastation of Kralkatorrik on Tyria before she entered the story again. I've seen some amazing ideas above, regarding the first, two chapters and how we could've brought Aurene back to life ourselves, through a trial of fire. For instance, imagine if the initial chapters involved us travelling around the major cities of the core world, and discussing with the world's leaders about the threat of Kralkatorrik. We could discover that portions of existing zones have been branded, causing Kralkatorrik's minions to pillage the world's settlements at an increased rate. I'm aware that this would've been a financial challenge, but something along these lines would've been beneficial before Aurene's resurrection, in my opinion. To prevent myself from rambling on and on about the storyline, I just need to conclude with a final statement: People are allowed to have a negative opinion. If they feel that their time has been wasted, then they're allowed to get heated and vent. That's what the forums are designed for. If there's a noticeable surge in negative feedback, it proves that something has gone wrong with a recent addition. Just because you disagree with them, it doesn't mean that there isn't an issue with delivery. The recent example is Aurene's resurrection, and from what I've personally seen, the community's split in half. There's an issue here, and ignoring it is silly. The way that I see it: If you dislike the Skyscale Acquisition and have complained about it, don't tell others that complaining about Aurene's resurrection is 'casual' or 'wrong'. Debate the extent of the problems, and bring alternative solutions. Don't just shut someone down because you disagree with them.

I wish I could like this 100 times. Absolutely spot on. The story is a predictable cadence at this point, and nothing shocking actually happens. Some scenes in Long Live the Lich were pretty good, funny even, albeit predictable. We all knew Joko would be no more after this. But that is the point of how any game is, you're the hero, they're the enemy. Ofcourse you'll triumph.There's no sense of desperation, nothing that makes you feel for the story, the characters, or the call of battle. I don't know if this is because I've gotten older, or if it's down to the writing, but good writing should give me this sense of, 'The world needs me, or we're truly doomed'. This was, oh plague, ok, let's squish some bugs. Joko's personality is what I like in an enemy, cunning, smart, and his monologue at the very end was probably the best dialogue of the entire Episode. Some home truths, and self reflection. If the two of you knew before hand that Joko was not going to live beyond this episode that is prescient, there was actually no reason to think we would be taking him down this episode at all. As a matter of fact the more logical(and groan worthy) step would have been for us to attempt to defeat him only to lose and have to regroup, however, once it became clear he was going down the method of his demise was perfectly well orchestrated(yes, it was orchestrated, if you didn't know that Aurene would kill him then you didn't pay attention in the first instance). As for your contention, it's a game, it has to flow from point A to B to C to end, it really can't deviate from that script without throwing everything for a loop, and believe it or not, you do not have to do the hearts to continue the story(in all cases, sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't), they are ancillary and not integral to completing the story line.It's not actually prescient. It's a trend with Guild Wars 2's story-telling, and that's why the format's become extremely predictable. It basically works like this: Does the character do something that could result in a world-ending or race-ending threat? If yes, they'll die in the next story that involves them. This was the case with Caudecus. He posed a real threat to Divinity's Reach in Out of the Shadows, and so, he was executed in the Lake Doric narrative. It was also the case with Lazarus. He posed a real threat if he was able to be resurrected in the White Mantle narrative, so Livia put an end to him with our help in One Path Ends. It was also the case with Balthazar. He posed a world-ending threat in Draconis Mons, and became the villain of Path of Fire, so he died in its conclusion. Joko is just the most recent villain to die in the next story that involved him. He posed a threat to all of the Human nations by collecting the Scarab Plague in A Bug in the System that could wipe them out in days or weeks, so he was going to die in Long Live the Lich. This is what I meant by 'the narrative is very predictable', because the formula never changes. The villains never win in any large or small way, except in one instance: Scarlet. Even though Scarlet died, her effect on the world still exists to this date. She caused the awakening of Mordremoth, which in turn, led to the magical explosions that we've seen in recent Episodes. It's not a surprise that this type of story-telling died with LWS1. Anet is petrified of repeating LWS1's formula, due to its controversial history. It's been several years since then, and I doubt that they'd mess it up like that again. Just because one aspect of LWS1 went wrong, it doesn't mean that the whole thing was terrible. As for the hearts, you actually have to complete them in some Episodes to progress the narrative. For instance, Daybreak made the player complete the Astralarium heart in order to progress into the Sunspears' sanctuary. Without doing that, you couldn't carry on with the story, and it was ultimately dull story-telling to introduce players to the hearts in the zone of Istan. As for the 'it's a game, it can't deviate from a set formula or script', that isn't the case. A script goes through multiple edits as the chapter's being made, so it's possible to deviate from a formula, they're just choosing not to. For instance, Peter Fries admitted that LWS4 was originally going to have a huge sub-plot where Joko instructed an Awakened Assassin, likely a lore character, to hunt down and eliminate members of Dragon's Watch to weaken his opposition. At the end of Episode 3, we'd have to fight the Awakened versions of the eliminated Dragon's Watch members. However, they decided to cut this because it was 'too dark'. Despite being the most interesting idea to come from the Narrative Team in a LONG time IMO, they're very quick to cut anything or edit anything that may deviate from the traditional formula of Guild Wars 2's story-telling. And finally, as for Aurene killing Joko. I think that's one of the most predictable aspects of Long Live the Lich. By the time that they hadn't introduced anything to do with 'how to kill Joko', which was just before Be My Guest, I knew that Aurene would be the cause. I just hoped that Aurene wouldn't be the cause of Joko's death because the narrative needed a few more Episodes with Joko, IMO. However, I'd already said my goodbyes to Joko when the Official Trailer released for Long Live the Lich. The title basically gave it away, because at the death of a monarch, the people usually chant: 'Long Live the Queen/King'. Anyway, this is why I feel that the story is noticeably predictable, and why I've been able to predict the narrative trends since Living World Season 3. You may choose to disagree with me, as if I can't be a prophet in that way. However, it's very simple to work out what's going to happen if you look at the narrative trends of Guild Wars 2. Until this changes, I'm going to be a really snazzy prophet with a diamond crown and a golden goblet of wine. ;)

The problem with the two sides of the debate is that one side believes in one extreme, and the other believes in the other extreme. Objectively, neither side wants full Disney, or Game of Thrones. Clarification: Game of Thrones is a beautiful expression of character development between Seasons 1-5, after that it becomes predictable. All of the deaths in Game of Thrones S1-S5 have a reason to exist, and are driven by the needs of the narrative. Disney have regularly shown that they can conjure the most thought-provoking characters through animation, however, each character has a degree of maturity despite being used for comedic purposes. Death in both cases happens because the narrative demands it, and because the characters cause it. The comment about not enjoying overly emotional and manipulative writing is obviously subjective, but I think people would be hard-pressed to find someone who actually enjoys that. Forced deaths are always badly written. Forced hero moments are always badly written. Forced representation is always badly written. This is a trend in modern media, however. Passive viewership is actually the worst thing to come out of this generation's media, because it allows companies to make bare-minimum narratives with superficial connections to push a contemporary political message. I adore Game of Thrones and Disney for different reasons, but it's like the two aren't compatible to some people. It's very faction-based. The problem lies in flipping between the two in storytelling. They're polar opposites, despite sharing the same depth in narrative focus. It's why aspects of Episode 3 (Long Live the Lich) felt so jarring, especially Canach's whistling outside the gates of Gandara, whilst we fought off Joko's hordes in a desperate hour. This forced comedy might be funny on paper, but in the experience, it takes away from the moment and reminds the player that they're just a player in a game. The immersion's lost in this instance, and Guild Wars 2 frequently does this. In a tense moment, humour can be beautiful, but it can't happen every single time, otherwise, it loses its impact. The timing of humour is 90% of the joke, and I feel as if Guild Wars 2 fails on the timing, and often has cringe-worthy jokes in the place of dry, witty humour, such as 'KA-BRAHAM'. It didn't work for me, and it's subjective, but the 'E-P-I-D-E-M-I-C' part without the 'KA-BRAHAM' would've been quite amusing. To take the Canach example, the humour shouldn't have hit during the fighting, only after the barrier was up and the gate was destroyed. So, we destroy the gate, it's a tense moment, the Awakened hordes try to rush out etc etc. The barrier goes up and Canach says: "Well, that was close." However, throughout the fighting, the members of Dragon's Watch are trying to get Canach to speed up, adding to the tension. The moment that they're in the clear, Canach says that line, and it's a bit amusing because it's relevant to both his character and alleviates the tension that we've just felt building up in the combat section. And afterwards, that can be followed by Braham stating: "You don't say. Next time, you could shave off a few seconds before we die, you know?" Canach replies: "I can only go as fast as my fingers allow me to." I don't enjoy critiquing without offering an alternative solution. Obviously, my solutions are also subjective and some people may dislike the alternative, that's fine! I'll let you read this bit for now, but try not to stick to extremes. There's always a middle-ground for narratives.

And what if the character should be forced out of the story because they don't have anything left to give? Whether they leave of their own accord, die or just vanish, sometimes it has to happen. For me, Taimi needs to die or disappear because she has nothing to give for the setting or the narrative. It's the same with Braham and Canach. They have nothing left to give. If I'm calling for the death of a fictional character, it's my opinion. It's not real life, it's not like I'm stating that someone at Anet should die because of a narrative. That's nonsensical. If you're not happy with the fact that characters have to die to make room for others who are more relevant, I feel as if you need to start branching out into other fantasy universes. This isn't controversial, this is common in all settings, apart from Guild Wars 2, from my experience. I believe that this kind of thinking is a very 'bubble-wrap and ice-cream' approach to story-telling, and it's detrimental to the literary world. Escapism only works when reality is present. Without reality, escapism loses its connectivity to the players. In a world without emotional death and departure, any player that wishes for a degree of realism will backlash, and so, a section of the community feels disillusioned with Guild Wars 2's narrative focus.

[The original quote was removed because someone reported their message, so this is a repost from before, but I feel like it needs to be said. Now, it doesn't refer to a direct person's message.] I need to highlight something, because it misses the point of why members of the community dislike the current direction of the Living World. It's not because we're negative and psychopathic. I can enjoy positive characters when they have relevance and their antics aren't forced down my throat. When they actually fit the setting, it can be a really snazzy thing. I could easily say that people who like Taimi and the cast of characters are passive viewers, who aren't actually engaging with the narrative, but engaging with stereotypes that provide escapism. I'm not going to generalise, however. The section of the community that dislikes this cast of characters want emotion from the narrative. Characters without emotion are boring, stereotypical husks with no relevance. This is why Braham had a lot of potential before he was character-assassinated in this Episode. His deviation from the typical trend of: 'We're heroes in white' was actually interesting. The section of the community that generally disliked Braham tended to bring up that it wasn't a part of his character to do that. The point is: Braham didn't really have character before Episode 3 of Living World Season 3. He was just a walking stereotype, and Anet tried something and for me, it worked. I actually clapped when Braham rebelled, sue me. The issue that my section of the community has is that we aren't 'represented' in the narrative. Before someone says: 'We don't need to force representation, stop contradicting yourself.' What I mean is: There's a disagreement of philosophies in how people enjoy the Living World because we haven't been shown anything other than a tunnel vision approach of keeping everything the same way across multiple stories. In every single story, it starts and ends with the same outcome: The main heroes survive and we win, we push back the darkness. We never lose. To elaborate the point a bit more: LWS3 Episode 1: We push back the White Mantle. 'Lazarus' escapes, but the White Mantle are threatened.LWS3 Episode 2: We save Aurene and the Ring of Fire.LWS3 Episode 3: We locate Braham and save him from peril, along with Rox. We prevent the spread of Jormag.LWS3 Episode 4: We defeat Caudecus and the White Mantle. Demmi dies, but she appears in the same Episode. She's a side character, not a main hero.LWS3 Episode 5: We stop Balthazar's plan and the Dragons go to sleep. Marjory gets injured, but survives.LWS3 Episode 6: We kill Lazarus, Livia survives.Path of Fire: We kill Balthazar, Vlast dies but enters as a really meaningless side character, no main hero dies permanently.LWS4 Episode 1: We stop the mass invasion from becoming far worse. Taimi survives.LWS4 Episode 2: We prevent the Awakened from wiping out the Olmakhan. Rata Primus is destroyed. Everyone survives. Joko runs off with a sample of the Plague.LWS4 Episode 3: We kill Joko. The Scarab Plague is destroyed. We all survive. Faren gets injured but survives. So, in 30 months (presuming 3 months between each Episode), not a single Main Hero has died. The sudden shift in story-telling began with Living World Season 3, so it's the best starting point IMO. This narrative with the Dragons has lasted almost 5-6 years, and the Main Heroes that have died are: Trahearne, Eir, Personal Story Mentor. And that's all that I can remember vividly. If I've missed anyone, let me know. This isn't meant to be an attack on people who have a positive outlook of Guild Wars 2, but an objective attempt to elaborate on the issues that a section of the community has against the Living World in its current format. Something really needs to change.

Gorrik is basically 'Phlunt Lite', being 'on the spectrum' and still has more potential than Taimi. Honestly like, they could save Kasmeer and Rytlock, kill off the rest and the Dragon's Watch story wouldn't lose anything and would probably become better. They've character-assassinated Braham, Rox is basically invisible, along with Marjory, Taimi's never been developed and acts as a stereotype, and Canach's devolving every single episode. There's a misguided argument at the moment that there's too much death in Guild Wars 2. There isn't enough consequence in the narrative. The Commander walks into one of the most dangerous places in the world, with almost the full roster of Dragon's Watch, and no one dies or gets injured. The only character that gets injured off-screen is Faren, and everyone on the forums claps and cries: 'Amazing story, best thing ever.' It's beyond predictable and terribly written. I can't understand how people play through the same formula over and over, and feel that it's amazing. The Living Story Formula: Instance, Instance, Hearts, Final Instance. It never deviates, and it never works. The Hearts aspect is just lazy, at least they changed it slightly for Episode 3 so we're not just doing the Hearts, but it just sets up the Hearts for a later date, as everything that we do contributes to the yellow bar. The first Instance always has a dramatic event, and it's poorly handled. The second Instance involves travelling to the new zone. The final Instance is the big conclusion that always has a strange ending. It never changes. We wait 3 months, and we get the same formula. Why can't we deviate from this? How about we travel to the zone in the first Instance, and then the whole story takes place in that zone? How about we do a mini-quest that isn't tied to the Hearts and takes place in a ruin, or something? You can't change the final Instance, I understand that... but at least handle the dramatics with good writing. ANet has only hit the mark once with an ending, and that was: Living World Season 3 Episode 1, which still remains the best Living World Episode IMO, and probably the best story that they've ever told. Everything else has either been filler or a huge let-down with missed opportunities, and most of these missed opportunities comes from character-assassinations, or just bad writing. It's actually quite frustrating to see so much potential wasted by a family-friendly, predictable narrative team, and forced representation. A final note: Forced Representation + Bad Writing = Horrendous, Insulting Characters. Gorrik is actually an insult to people who are 'on the spectrum'. Anet's portrayal of Gorrik isn't accurate, and it's just glorifying something that's quite intricate to write. There are positives and negatives to all situations, but if you only focus on the positives, the character loses all sense of reality and becomes forced.

Just for clarification: Is this just locked to WvW, or will it affect every other map in the game? So, if this system was a thing in the Crystal Oasis, would it have World 1, World 2 and World 3? And players from World 3 couldn't join World 1 if it had 90%+ capacity?

I don't want Anet to force Cantha into the storyline if it makes no sense. This was one of my concerns with PoF forcing us into Elona because 'people want Elona', when the PoF story really could've happened anywhere. It's only until the added layers of the Sunspears and the Mordant Crescent appeared that it made sense, ngl. :P

The worrying part about this is that this fight has always been easy af. It's just about destroying a break-bar, and it's even more worrying that people can't work that out in a game that's full of break-bars. Also, before someone says: "Try doing it on a Thief." I did my first playthrough of the PoF story in about 9 hours on a Daredevil, on release night. It's really not difficult.

It's a tiny bit late, but I love the map metas, the Brandstone Research collection (MORE OF THESE PLEASE!), and the general design of the map. However, I dislike the idea that Anet's suddenly against killing characters off after the Eir instance. That was the best time to kill Taimi and give the main character a personal reason to go after Joko for revenge, and show a darker side to the Commander, whereas characters like the Sunspears would step in to tell the Commander to show restraint, or Kasmeer etc. Overall, the story was average for a Living World Episode, but generally speaking, I think the map and the events saved it: 6/10!

So, like others, I've totes played a lot of MMOs over the years, and I enjoy GW2 because of its model, but also, the design. However, there's a larger issue to the trailers than just 'they don't look very good', it's the idea that they never show anything off in explicit terms. And in a crowded MMO market, you have to be explicit. A good example, and you're totes allowed to copy it Anet, is how Blizzard handle their Feature Overview trailers for both Expansions and Patches. This is the Battle for Azeroth Features Trailer, and it explicitly states everything that you can expect in the upcoming expansion, with a lot of 'hype-inducing' images to get people excited. For every feature, it has, in bold text: NEW CONTINENT - KUL TIRAS, NEW DUNGEONS AND RAIDS, WARFRONTS etc etc, rather than GW2's Living World and Expansion Trailers, which show nothing but images and flickers of content. When I first saw the Path of Fire Trailer, and the Daybreak Trailer, I didn't feel 'hype', I just felt 'relief' that there was content on the way. Luckily, the content delivered, but to someone without my 'resilience' (arrogant, I know hairflip), they wouldn't stick around and they'd ask: "Okay, so what am I getting?" I think my biggest point here is that, Anet, you're allowed to tell us what we'll be getting. I'd love to see a reworked Daybreak trailer that shows me the areas of Istan with bold text: NEW MAP - DOMAIN OF ISTAN, with images of the map metas that says: NEW MAP EVENTS - SUNSPEAR UPRISING & BRANDSTONE RESEARCH, and then a flicker away from the area of Istan to show the new Fractal with bold text: NEW FRACTAL - TWILIGHT OASIS, then a brief cut-away to the incredible: NEW LEGENDARY - BINDING OF IPOS, and then the big frame of: NEW RAID - HALL OF CHAINS, leading to the final, music-less, ambient frame of: The Brandstorm rolling over to Amnoon with a voice-over line from Rytlock who says: "We only handed an Elder Dragon the power of a God. What could go wrong?" And then fade into the GW2 logo with: LIVING WORLD SEASON 4 - EPISODE 1: DAYBREAK, COMING X NOVEMBER. If you build it up like this, people know that there's content in the patch/expansion, and then, you don't have people running around wondering what's coming. And then, you can release individual teasers for the Raid, and the Fractal, just 1 minute long each, but they show some tiny things about the raid to leave hints here and there. Ngl, a frame at the end of Dhuum in his throne would've been snazzy af, but that's just me. ;) As for the trailer that you're planning to release, look for actual reviews of PoF, I don't think my opinion holds any weight for convincing someone to join, compared to an 'established reviewer'. Yah, there's bias everywhere, but awards and review scores bring attention to the viewer. And make sure to have comments from reviewers in the Trailer, but a screen with all of the scores, like they do with big-budget films and their TV spots etc. Anyway, I hope this info is worthwhile! <3

sigh this again there is a couple big metas one near the mouth of torment in the desolation stands out there is no reason why arenanet should have to tie up the whole KITTEN GIGANTIC MAP for a "Meta event" all they do is cause Grief for people who are in that map for other reasons I am looking at you AB octovine blocking off the city when i want to do LWS3 stuff or get to the vender, or the Hero points It's not map metas that cause grief, it's how Anet designs them to operate around maps, locking out certain areas. So if Anet designed them without the need to lock off certain regions of the maps, they'd be completely fine.