Do you think that it's possible GW2 may not become the new standard for MMOs?

[omlech]

I know my topic title stands out, but it's the best way to get my point across. So what I mean is not that I don't want it to become the standard, but what if developers are simply too lazy to do all the work that ANet is putting into GW2 into their own games? ANet is making a AAA game, not just a AAA MMO so if it becomes the standard then other MMO devs are going to have their work cut out for them to say the least. So instead of mimicking GW2, they just stick to making WoW clones forever because it's a hell of a lot easier than what ANet is doing. Thoughts?

[Cuchulainn]

It's been stated by ANet 9001 times (remember, that's over 9000): They don't care about becoming the new standard. They just want to make a great game for people to play and for them to play too. Isn't that how video games started out in the first place? The money will naturally flow with time as people buy books, shirts, cosmetic gear, pets, expansions, etc., so they don't have to worry about that. I'd have to say the standard of GW2 is going old-school, and I fucking love it.

[Mif]

Think about people playing their first MMO.

Wow
-90 levels of killing 10 rats
-Have to buy 5 boxes (Wow and 4 expansions by the time GW2 is out)
-Monthly fee

GW2
-80 levels of fun dynamic events
-Only have to buy 1 box
-No monthly fee

The old MMO model that Wow plays by is on deaths door, and any company making an MMO by it's rules instead of GW2's are very very foolish.

[Acquiesce of Telara]

I know my topic title stands out, but it's the best way to get my point across. So what I mean is not that I don't want it to become the standard, but what if developers are simply too lazy to do all the work that ANet is putting into GW2 into their own games? ANet is making a AAA game, not just a AAA MMO so if it becomes the standard then other MMO devs are going to have their work cut out for them to say the least. So instead of mimicking GW2, they just stick to making WoW clones forever because it's a hell of a lot easier than what ANet is doing. Thoughts?

Perusing through past articles on GW2, I've noticed a trend where many interviews describe the game as an mmo OR as an RPG. Keep that in mind when you think about GW2; it needn't sustain the developmental status-quo of an MMO or play on a console to be an RPG. It's like one of those novels that could be shelved with Fantasy but somehow managed to get classified as General Fiction alongside Stephen King.

It's a beautiful blend of old and new. Let other MMOs set the standard for traditional raids, spell rotations, and such. Let other RPGs be cutting edge and totally unique from the UI down to the protagonist. GW2 is a dynamic hybrid of the 2 formats, starting from conception and pushing through to character gameplay.

[Borzo]

If SWTOR is a huge success... except many more old-school MMORPGs in the near future.

If SWTOR barely makes it... then developers will have no choice but to move on and try something new.

Your question has a huge flaw though: You assume that if developers continue to make crap, people will continue to buy it. Aion, Conan, Warhammer, et al should prove otherwise. Apparently you can add WOW to that list as well now.

It's not like the developers can make whatever shit they want... they're not in control since they're not the ones with the $$$. It all comes down to YOU and ME - the consumer.

[jayremy]

People will see the way GW2 combat works, the open world+reward system for players and "bring everybody with you" mentality.

GW2 is actually encouraging group play but not forcing it or making it an obligation, like most other games including WoW its only because you need people, and if they aren't in your group they are just competing against you. Also with the change to the trinity system making everybody ultimately responsible for themselves, because they can be no matter if you have somebody being a support or trying to hold mob attention longest and dodge/mitigate its attacks.

I think for group play and combat it will be what MMORPGs will find is the best. Most nay sayers to the non-trinity system obviously haven't tried a well designed multiplayer RPG to see how it actually works - here's a hint NOBODY IS DPS 100% of the time, not even close.

It will definitely make it harder for P2P games to come out against unless they have strong PR and hype to them.

I think filling on on what they stated/promised the game will be awesome from the moment you enter til max level and beyond, they really are the biggest innovative RPG title to release in the next 5 months and since the last years of gaming.



This is all going off of what they are saying, if they don't deliver on their statements then they will fail, but if they manage to deliver on their promises I can guarantee a great game.

[Fencers]

Doubtful GW2 will be become a "new standard" for the industry. Many of GW2's features will likely be copied by future games however. Anet are doing some wildly inventive things to create greater playability within a persistent MMO.

Things like sub fees are already being phased out. B2P/F2P is pretty clearly the leading business model going forward.

[Deleted]

Doesnt matter how innovative GW2 or SW:TOR are, or how great the Flashpoints/synchronized quest text/dynamic events are - they're still look like rubbish graphic wise. If they want to be a truly AAA game, then they should look like MMOs released in 2011/2012 instead of 2000.

Hell, even Lineage 2 was better looking than those two games and its almost as old as WoW. I'm glad to know that games like this wont ever set a new standard for future MMOs or normal games.

[jayremy]

If SWTOR is a huge success... except many more old-school MMORPGs in the near future.

If SWTOR barely makes it... then developers will have no choice but to move on and try something new.

Your question has a huge flaw though: You assume that if developers continue to make crap, people will continue to buy it. Aion, Conan, Warhammer, et al should prove otherwise. Apparently you can add WOW to that list as well now.

It's not like the developers can make whatever shit they want... they're not in control since they're not the ones with the $$$. It all comes down to YOU and ME - the consumer.

It also means having some variety there has been no options out of WoW-like MMORPGS since money grubbing dev companies and publishers are only willing to do what they THINK will work because of what people will call "empirical evidence" but it wont. They try to introduce the same shit as Blizzard but fail to realize Blizzard has spent more time on their MMORPG than any other late releases and way more money, Blizzard's funds are multiple times that of the other developers who followed after and that they could compete with pocket change to make their game with.

SWTOR is a big player now because of its large investment and time put into developing it so it CAN compete. Problem still is, it being the same damn game. We get games like GW2 and other more action-combat based games coming out, not the hotkey+target based games and the MMORPGers will have other gameplay options, you never know more may like the action-combat style.

[Borzo]

Doesnt matter how innovative GW2 or SW:TOR are, or how great the Flashpoints/synchronized quest text/dynamic events are - they're still look like rubbish graphic wise. If they want to be a truly AAA game, then they should look like MMOs released in 2011/2012 instead of 2000.

Hell, even Lineage 2 was better looking than those two games and its almost as old as WoW. I'm glad to know that games like this wont ever set a new standard for future MMOs or normal games.

I can't tell if you're serious or joking. Sarcasm doesn't work on the internet well. Please clarify.

[Skelington]

Doesnt matter how innovative GW2 or SW:TOR are, or how great the Flashpoints/synchronized quest text/dynamic events are - they're still look like rubbish graphic wise. If they want to be a truly AAA game, then they should look like MMOs released in 2011/2012 instead of 2000.

Hell, even Lineage 2 was better looking than those two games and its almost as old as WoW. I'm glad to know that games like this wont ever set a new standard for future MMOs or normal games.

Shouldn't how the actual game plays be more important than whether or not it looks as fancy as is humanly possible? Or is Skelington just being silly?




Arenanet has said a lot of times that they don't care to be the next mmo model or the wowkiller or anything like that. If it really is as great as it seems, no doubt it would become the next "model."

[worprz]

Shouldn't how the actual game plays be more important than whether or not it looks as fancy as is humanly possible? Or is Skelington just being silly?




Arenanet has said a lot of times that they don't care to be the next mmo model or the wowkiller or anything like that. If it really is as great as it seems, no doubt it would become the next "model."

This

Also if you remember wow never had the best graphics for it's time either.

[jayremy]

Doesnt matter how innovative GW2 or SW:TOR are, or how great the Flashpoints/synchronized quest text/dynamic events are - they're still look like rubbish graphic wise. If they want to be a truly AAA game, then they should look like MMOs released in 2011/2012 instead of 2000.

Hell, even Lineage 2 was better looking than those two games and its almost as old as WoW. I'm glad to know that games like this wont ever set a new standard for future MMOs or normal games.

The problem with MMOs, I'll spell it out for you on graphics. More data graphicwise to produce will have a small affect on required bandwidth, but that's the lowest of issues, vs your system reqs. It will require more powerful servers and along with players having better systems. Single payer and small scale MP games even with worlds as big as Skyrim can get away with awesome graphics because its only drawing and taking information from mostly offline sources (which is yourself). The more players, effects and shit going on i the world takes a heavy affect, there are many players who wont simply be able to play a game with top end graphics on an MMO, and good luck with having a decent draw distance.

It really is a still a tech issue, minor on the devs' part but more on the player's. I mean you can just look at a game like Vindictus, in a small not-so-big town with no attack animations or any kind of animations besides movement being done by other players and objects you get lower frame rates and more lag than you would fighting against 20 mobs with a boss alone in a dungeon in a much larger room with much more action going on. You want Good graphic MMOs you will have to wait, nothing more or less companies either have to wait for new or more efficient tech for their games or find ways to improve upon using current engines efficiently.

Not all devs are techies either, they mostly aren't trying to push out technological feats, its usually the engineers of such systems, sometimes you see studios making their own engines and pushing them out with games (mainly to showcase their engines) like Crytek for example.

[Mif]

Doesnt matter how innovative GW2 or SW:TOR are, or how great the Flashpoints/synchronized quest text/dynamic events are - they're still look like rubbish graphic wise. If they want to be a truly AAA game, then they should look like MMOs released in 2011/2012 instead of 2000.

Hell, even Lineage 2 was better looking than those two games and its almost as old as WoW. I'm glad to know that games like this wont ever set a new standard for future MMOs or normal games.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/epi...vs.-aesthetics

[Wynnyelle]

http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/epi...vs.-aesthetics

That pretty much sums it up. I'm glad you linked that, because I always want to explain graphics vs. aesthetics to people but most of the the time my point never seems to get across. Graphics do not make or break a AAA game, sorry. =P Even though I believe Guild Wars 2 has quite nice textures and detail, but I suppose some people were expecting The Witcher 2 graphics in this day and age. When it comes to aesthetics, though, I think that Guild Wars 2 is gorgeous! So I don't think that it's wise to say that it won't set a new standard for future MMOs when it comes to something as subjective as aesthetics. My guess is that he was just trying to rile us up though. Because the argument itself is a bit silly.

But anyway, I think it's too soon to say. I certainly believe that Guild Wars 2 has potential to, but I'm not sure if there will be one set standard for MMOs in the future if GW2 proves that you don't need to use a WoW-style model to be successful. I think it might open the door for future innovations in other games if it does well.

[Deleted]

They try to introduce the same shit as Blizzard but fail to realize Blizzard has spent more time on their MMORPG than any other late releases and way more money.

You sire are absolutely clueless. It actually works quite well; 1 example? Rift.

[Fencers]

It also means having some variety there has been no options out of WoW-like MMORPGS since money grubbing dev companies and publishers are only willing to do what they THINK will work because of what people will call "empirical evidence"

There has been other viable MMOs. Players haven't supported them.

[Ynna]

It is indeed hard to survive in the MMO-market. And that market is dominated by a follow-the-leader mentality. Maybe Guild Wars 2 is just too different. Or people aren't truly willing to leave WoW/try something new.

However, Guild Wars 2 comes at an extremely opportune moment (speaking currently, things can change, but it doesn't seem likely). And it isn't too different, in my opinion. And the fact that it doesn't have a subscription makes it less of an investment, so people are probably more likely to try it out.

[jayremy]

You sire are absolutely clueless. It actually works quite well; 1 example? Rift.

Rift has put a good amount of time and money into their game, I don't see what I am wrong about, but even so its far inferior to that of how much SWTOR has done. Rift isn't no big player by any means, people thought before release it could stand a chance and if it had something compelling, but it wasn't the game wasn't all that big and triumphant over WoW it simply is not enough to draw huge success to it.

Trion is doing well with the title, but I wouldn't call Rift "big" any more than AoC was, Aion, and Warhammer. The only thing about Rift that has good promise of lasting is it has absolutely great Devs and producers behind it, they have a potential to either do something great with their title or any new title, where as It would be harder to expect smaller MMORPGs and WoW to do any major innovative changes, besides the usual revamps or social features.

---------- Post added 2011-12-18 at 02:32 AM ----------

There has been other viable MMOs. Players haven't supported them.

I'll use a game like Vindictus as an example, it's a great game, it should be more popular but isn't, why?

The game had so much issues in the beta and early release, and the release wasn't really clear if you weren't following it closely, since it was a free game anyways. Techwise they didn't support dedicate instance servers at all and there were many issues players encounter techwise that made playing frustrating and so little content (4 boats). Many players have played this game during this time and experienced it and learned about it. (There is about double to triple the content now than it started with in just a lil over a years time).

If you lose players initial attraction to your game they will likely not follow your game ever again, it was evident after the hundreds of people I have talked to who have played it before were saying shit that they didn't like about Vindictus that no longer existed and haven't existed for months.


Nexon didn't really put much money into it, comparatively speaking to other MMOs. Their advertisement wasn't large scale, not really hyped up whatsoever, by a total fluke of boredom and free time in a computer class at school I clicked a banner ad to see the game thinking it was some small browser based game i could DL in minutes, of course it wasn't and I tried at home. The game hasn't done much voice acting in that game at all, quests are all text based with 2d quest givers (lore figures). The open world part is really small and the whole game is just instances, there are no dedicated servers for instance/dungeon runs. It's all hosted by party members making it often unstable or lagtastic in large groups. -They didn't put much money into the game.


Many great works of art could've been released, so much potential we either got copy-cats, underfunded games or both of those in one game.

[Fencers]

I'll use a game like Vindictus as an example, it's a great game, it should be more popular but isn't, why?<snip>

I am a bg fan of Vindictus. Still play 2-3 times a week. Much of what you say is true and correct. But the distinction isn't so much Vindictus is it's own eccentric little game vis-a-vis Warcraft. It's that Warcraft enjoys monumental support, income and production quality.

If you want to see esoteric games thrive and be more common we must support them regardless of say Vindictus having that shoot-through-walls bug or the lack of 8+ years worth of content.

To some degree we are supporting a philosophy. There are many other MMOs on the market- players must be willing to support them.