Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
... LastLast
  1. #21
    Herald of the Titans Ynna's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,736
    I don't think it's too different. It does quite a lot of things different from conventional MMO's but it's not some completely alien game. It still looks like an MMO and it borrows heavily from other genres, especially online shooters. If someone has played a game of the following genres, they'll understand Guild Wars 2. (MMORPG, Class Based Shooter-and all shooters are class based nowadays-, Action RPG, Western RPG).
    Retired Holy Priest
    As a rule, I try to act on the internet as I would in real life. If I have offended you, feel free to point it out. Unless I meant to offend you, I will probably apologize.

  2. #22
    Field Marshal
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    74
    I will most definitely buy GW2 just because the developers have the balls to be different. In a world of MMOs that basically play exactly the same, that takes serious guts.
    I really hope I am going to enjoy playing GW2, and if this turns out to be the case then I will not be at all bothered if the game is commercially successful or not.
    Conversely, if I don't enjoy GW2, then it's not a disaster, I'll just play something else. But I will have been happy to have given my money to the developers, because they were brave enough to try to be different. For this I believe they deserve our respect.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Hraklea View Post
    If games that are too different wouldn't be successful, we would be playing pong and galaxy until today.

    On a more serious answer, I don't think it is "too different". It is new, but it is just an improvement of what already exists. If there were a "WoW 2", that's exactly how I would expect it to be.

    Things that might make GW2 fail, in my opinion:
    - It is too cheap, I'm really worried about no-subscription MMOs
    - Poor support/bugged/lagged (I'm not familiar with ANet quality)
    - Fanboyism ("WoW is the best eva! /thread" kind of people)
    - Newbie unfriendly (I don't know if it is the case)
    1.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns-IIn-DG-c watch it to address the first concern
    2.) Anets support has always been top quality through the years of GW even with Gw2 in the workings and a very small team left to work on GW1 they are doing regular content patches. its NCsoft that can be a bit iffy.
    3.) I feel like even though WoW still has a very large fanboy crowd its been steadily losing numbers since catatclysm do to many players (myself included) feel that WoW has gotten stale. It definitely was a great game and still is, but for those of us who have been playing MMO's since before its release I think a breathe of fresh air needed to be brought to the genre.
    4.) If I know ArenaNet and if the demos are anything to go by this system should be easy to learn, after take a few hours to adjust from the standard MMO players will flow through without thinking about their new responsibilities.


    I wouldn't be concerned about them being a success or not. GW1 has sold over 7 million copies and its a steadily rising figure even after years without a Campaign release and I believe GW2 will appeal to a much larger audience.
    Last edited by Balfire; 2011-10-24 at 08:37 PM.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Hraklea View Post
    Things that might make GW2 fail, in my opinion:
    - It is too cheap, I'm really worried about no-subscription MMOs
    - Poor support/bugged/lagged (I'm not familiar with ANet quality)
    - Fanboyism ("WoW is the best eva! /thread" kind of people)
    - Newbie unfriendly (I don't know if it is the case)
    On your first point check out "Guild Wars 2: WTF No Subscription Fee?" The nuts and bolts of it is the bandwidth maitnence and suport costs per player is a tiny fraction of what we pay in subscription fees. We are also not really paying for continuing content update development. Just look at how much you pay between patches vs the amount of content we receive in said patches, then compare that to the cost/content in a boxed expansion. If you combined all the content released in every patch between 2 wow expansions it would be less content than any given expansion. with a 2 year average gap between expansions and 180 a year in sub fees and the cost/content ratio is abysmal.

    On your other points though I've generaly had no problems with suport in GW1, wow's was slightly quicker soemtimes but not by much. Lag was no worse than any other MMO, often better, and bugs were stomped on very quickly. Part of the bug thing was helped by the fact that they would roll out each fix as it became avalible and not wait 4 months or more for a major patch. Just roll it out and all the players get it the next time they relog or try to zone. Fanboyism is a blight on the game market as a whole and wont be any worse here than anywhere else. The game is also designed to lead you in and teach you how to play the game. It will be very easy to get into and learn but can be more difficult to master depending on your goals, exactly how a game should be.

    Back to one point in the OP about the trinity though. The fact that they are doing away with the trinity is not a bad thing. Yes at this point many MMO players are comfortable with it but why did it origonaly come about? It was not from the table top RPG's, with limited spells per day you couldnt have one guy takeing all the dragons damage with a priest in the back spaming heals till the dragon dies. It came about because early MMO's did not have the technology to have more than very simpile mob AI. Every action has a simpile threat value associated with it and the mob goes down the list from highest threat to lowest, there was no other way to control who the mob attacked. While this system worked it kept being copied till today every boss is a dumb brute that is to stupid to realize he cant kill the tank that does little damage and cant reason enough to figure out that healer back there is the bigest threat, kill him and the group folds in seconds. Its comfortable, predictable, and more importantly lazy developing of fight mechanics. The problem is most MMO's have their class design built so solidly around the core of the trinity that its all but impossible to break away from it and it is going to take a new MMO willing to jump in with both feet to change the system.

    Who is John Galt?

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Malthurius View Post
    MMORPG gamers are used to certain things, things like grinding, gear conveyor belts, skinner psychology, and subscription fees. Which GW2 is said to have none of these.

    For those who don't know, WoW became successful by being the first MMORPG to do things right to appeal to a larger audience of people by being approachable and easy to understand.
    We can pretty much stop right there,* because that's the crux of the issue. Some of history's most successful games, or series, have been those that are accessible. Most of us might agree that the Super Mario or Legend of Zelda games are great examples of this.

    Is Guild Wars 2 addressing this? Oh yes, and beyond!

    Firstly, their dynamic event system might actually be EASIER to understand. While the diehard quester might initially be a bit put off by the idea of not having to talk to an NPC to get/turn in a quest (except for personal story), they'll quickly adjust to the fact that the entire top-right side of their UI is DEDICATED to tracking quests/events. More importantly, updates to this tracker come with a flash, which will draw the eyes to it when the player should take note of this new information, so a system of goal tracking is persistent throughout the game. Even without that, any player with even a hint of natural curiosity will be drawn to dynamic events when they see "stuff happening."

    Next, a step that even WoW wasn't very accessible with: more visual feedback during combat. For all intents and purposes, Guild Wars 2 plays more like a 3D Legend of Zelda game set in an MMO shell. Admittedly I'm comparing on an extremely basic level, but the idea is that it's a lot easier to tell what's going on in this game compared to previous MMOs.

    Finally, assuming Arena Net implements a decent tutorial on it, the waypoint system will be absolutely loved by the more casual members of the MMO crowd. In fact, everyone will love it! Less need to spend excessive time hiking to your destination is a good thing!

    Now, what I find a bit amusing is that you didn't mention the one thing that I see as being Guild Wars 2's critical downfall. Marketing. This game's popularity levels is pretty much going to live or die by the marketing, and Arena Net is playing a fairly cost-efficient gamble. Granted, it's one that could pay off. Though Star Wars: TOR is undeniable in the pre-release hype hot seat right now, Guild Wars 2 is a very close second for hype. What Guild Wars 2 has lost on mass proliferation from venues like E3 it has gained from the likes of PAX and Gamescom, where eager gamers lined up to play, video-tape, and post videos and reactions of their time with the game. It's basically got a viral marketing campaign supporting it, and if we're lucky this might just be the thing that gets it a decent sized audience.

    *(Oh, don't worry. I finished reading).

  6. #26
    Im not worried bout nosub fee model at all - I checked GW1 store... and well... I would end up paying more to NC/AN than I pay for wow in a shorter time for some extra goodies Id want (but could live without). Its an amazing model.

    Most of my friends who arent into wow (but like LOL, HON, SC2, Diablo series) know wth it is and are really interested in GW2, so thats a good sign.

  7. #27
    Mechagnome
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    The cold, cold, north.
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolo View Post
    Guild Wars is attempting to be the RPG equivalent of Counter-Strike more than it's attempting to be another MMO. Obviously it will have considerably more depth than a shooter but the idea is to keep people playing because they like playing the game and not because a new pixel told them they had to.
    I'd say this answears the skinner box must keep playing for gear question pretty good.
    They don't want you to play because you want the next shiny. So that they can milk you for more of your money.
    They want you to play because you think it is an awesome way to spend your time.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Malthurius View Post
    MMORPG gamers are used to certain things, things like grinding, gear conveyor belts, skinner psychology, and subscription fees. Which GW2 is said to have none of these.

    For those who don't know, WoW became successful by being the first MMORPG to do things right to appeal to a larger audience of people by being approachable and easy to understand. They did this by taking features from other MMOs (EQ and Ultima) and making them easier to understand and making them more appealing to a casual audience. They didn't change a lot, but what they did change was small enough to be familiar to old EQ and Ultima players, but different enough to appeal to a larger audience and overall be a better, funner game.

    Here is my great fear. Guild Wars 2 isn't doing this "Small change" They are attempting to revolutionize the entire genre in one fell swoop by taking out and replacing long lasting features like Raids, Quests, and the Trinity. It's very different from what WoW is, and is very different from any other MMO that's come out in a while. Will this attempt to change everything attract a large audience of players? Or doom it to underground popularity by being too different.

    That's not to say all games that have attempted to change the formula a little like WoW has have always come out on top. But does the MMORPG community need tiny steps to accept innovation? Or is such a large leap in another direction for the MMORPG genre too much to take, to the point that it feels alien to common experiences.

    Just to clarify, I look forward to the game and I know I'm posting this is a forum that is generally excited for the game, but honest opinions are a virtue.

    TL;DR If you don't have the time to read, you don't have the time to comment, get out.
    Usually things like this that are forward thinking and highly innovative don't catch a large audience. I think that GW2 will be a successful game but it won't suddenly become the #1 MMO in the world because it takes a while for things to catch on.

    Not many people realized they payed $105.00 for Firelands, if they did and that fact sunk in they would realize how much of a rip off sub based games are. So if there is another game that is its equal the choice wouldn't be difficult to make imo.

  9. #29
    Titan smrund's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    11,957
    Hardly. While GW2 is certainly providing some brand new ideas to an otherwise fairly stale MMO market, I think we're all going to find that they are reasonable, good changes, and not ZOMGWTFBBQ changes.
    Sometimes life gives you lemons, other times life gives you boobies. Life is always better with more boobies.
    The most accurate history of the USSR ever.
    And thus I give you: MALE contraception!
    Give a man a fish and you can beat him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll sell well at auction.

  10. #30
    They said TF2 was being too different. They said LoL was being too different.

    Look where they are now.

    A good example is Battlefield. When Medal of Honor came out, it was a CoD clone with a few tweaks. It failed HARD, because if people wanted to play CoD, they'd play CoD. What makes Battlefield so good (and successful) is that it's sufficiently different from CoD, enough to offer a different experience.
    Norn Mesmer: GW2
    Rattataki Sniper: SWTOR

  11. #31
    Making a fun game with replay value doesn't require conventional thinking.

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Alatian View Post
    They said TF2 was being too different. They said LoL was being too different.

    Look where they are now.

    A good example is Battlefield. When Medal of Honor came out, it was a CoD clone with a few tweaks. It failed HARD, because if people wanted to play CoD, they'd play CoD. What makes Battlefield so good (and successful) is that it's sufficiently different from CoD, enough to offer a different experience.
    I agree with you as far as LoL goes. It's just another MOBA game with some interesting, but not revolutionizing, features. TF2, however, is different, in many ways. For the sake of this thread, I'll leave it at classes and their roles.

    I truly believe that Guild Wars 2 will be different. Perhaps I'm being biased, but regardless, they're doing some very cool things with the game, and they can effectively change MMOs forever if this model succeeds.

  13. #33
    For me, GW2 will be a supplementary MMO. I'll play it alongside SWTOR or WoW. Is this a bad business model to have? Nope! The game will make most of it's income from the retail purchase which it will be getting from me. It won't have a monthly fee which also means that they won't really care how much time I spend playing the game so long as I also purchase the future expansions and stuff. I guess microtransactions will also be a big part of this game, but it doesn't require the gamer to play every day for 6+ hours a day.
    "It's not what we don't know that gets us into trouble; it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." ~Mark Twain
    "The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time"

  14. #34
    GW 2 will probably have a good start but not great simply because of the apprehension people will have just like the OP, but after 2-3 months once word gets around about how good the game is then you’ll see a huge spike in sales

  15. #35
    I see your point, OP, but I'm of the opinion that it has to be done at some point. You have to realize that World of Warcraft was released in 2004; it's now nearing 2012. WoW has been the persistent standard for MMOs and, of course, is a common target for emulation in MMO development, but it can't be the game forever. I recognize that a lot of games that have tried to be different have failed, but I think the time is just right for some genre-bending innovation. There are a lot of new MMOs in development or nearing release, and the community's desire for change is far more noticeable than it has been in years past. To reference Crowe's post on the first page, Guild Wars 2 isn't radically changing what we know and love about MMOs, the game is just evolving.

    Combat shifting from standstill rotations and button mashing to more involved, dynamic action is a desperately needed change to traditional MMO combat. The same can be said for many other developments, but I trust you roughly understand what GW2 is attempting to do. I'm not sure that change, at this point, should be all that concerning given the largely positive reception to these changes rather than the "don't fix it if it isn't broken" criticism we might have had a couple of years ago. If you take a deep look at all of GW2's systems and changes, you might find that these developments might not be all that different... they're just base concepts that have been noticeably improved upon (to the point of looking really different to the outsider).

    Sengura mentioned a good point as well: a lot of people are so interested in GW2's innovations that they might just simply buy and play it as a supplementary MMO. While I think it would be silly to dismiss GW2 as a supplementary MMO rather than a full-fledged, attention-grabbing MMO, people aren't really having to go out on a huge limb to experience ArenaNet's vision. I have a hunch that many people going in expecting to be playing on the side will appreciate these changes and move to GW2 full time.

  16. #36
    The Patient
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    308
    Being different will lead to GW2's success. Most MMOs out now work pretty much the same way, and are in need of change. ANet is all about taking risks and making a great game that gamers will enjoy, and so far from what I have seen, I think they have succeeded.

  17. #37
    GW1 was already quite a different genre when it came out, and it still had a lot of success at that time. As always, not everyone will like it.

    some are complaining because GW2 doesn't include everything WoW has while still wishing GW2 won't be a WoW-like MMO, go figure...

  18. #38
    I think every game is different.

    WoW is unique, Rift is unique, D3 is unique, Hellgate was unique, GW1 is unique, Warhammer was unique, etc.

    Yes, I'm pretty sure Guild Wars 2 will be successful, but I don't get the hate towards WoW. WoW never really sat on a "throne" to me to begin with. I like it, so I play it, and today, seven years later, I'm still playing it and having a good time. Just because WoW is older, doesn't mean it's any less unique than a brand new MMO like GW2. Most people just want to try something different, and I don't blame them (but please don't bash WoW or SWTOR, even if you didn't personally like it).

    Honestly, I'll be playing a ton of games come 2012 (WoW, GW2, D3, Rift, etc), and I hope to see some of you in-game.

  19. #39
    Dreadlord Anthoren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    939
    Quote Originally Posted by Crowe View Post
    I see your point OP but I disagree.

    1. Had Guild Wars 2 been released 2 years ago, then yes, it might have been too innovative for its own good. But taking the current Zeitgeist into consideration, I don't think it's true any longer. Especially over the past year people have become more and more open-minded towards some of the concepts innovated by GW2. Even WoW is adapting some of those philosophies in MoP (PvE scenarios e.g.)

    2. Despite all the marketing, Guild Wars 2 really doesn't PLAY all that different from a regular MMO. I know all the marketing likes to focus on what's different but there's still so much that's staying the same. Dynamic Events aren't that different from regular quests if you think about it. They just don't have a quest-giver. But you're still pursuing a pre-determined objective served to you by the game. The RPG systems too really isn't all that different if you think about it.
    What I'm trying to convey is that despite all the marketing, Guild Wars 2 will feel pretty familiar once we get our hands on it. After all, ANet is evolving the genre, not re-defining it.
    Wel I played it and it does PLAY very differently, and I'm just talking about mechanic wise. It is far more active then any mmo I've ever played now in terms of Dynamic events I can understand your point but we have to look at the game as a whole. Essentially it is a game where you can do dynamic events, Personal Story(more traditional quests) or just pvp to level up. they took out a considerable amount of grind to make the game much easier to just pick up and play. It also destroyed the traditional trinity system into a much more fluid and dynamic combat experience. Now imo because of all of the parts, I think it has a chance, a very small one, but enough to be the next WoW. Now I do not know if they will have millions playing or whatever but just with the quality in this game alone, it will be incredibly popular. Lets just hope all the spiteful WoW players go to TOR instead.....After watching all the MoP hate nonsense I doubt anyone would want them(no offense).

  20. #40
    Mechagnome Berteh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    The Sticks, Australia
    Posts
    544
    What fun is it to not revolutionise? You're just another statistic that did the same as everyone else.

Posting Permissions

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