I'm addmitedly biased twoards GW2, since I played and loved the original GW. So I will try to run this down as evenly as I can.
SWTOR, Bioware is a good developer that tends to make good games. I greatly enjoyed ME and ME2, so I'm going to assume the gameplay will at least be solid, whatever it is going to be in SWTOR. Storyline should be nice, considering its unique per class and branches, with decisions effecting gameplay. Combat could be fun and interesting, depending on how formulatic it is. Planets is just another way of saying differently themed areas, but still interesting and possibly very large, and my own spacecraft sounds fun, especially since I'm a fan of KOTOR and Star Wars in general, but IP's don't matter much. Should be polished. I HATE the art direction though, and the voicing sounds like a nice idea but there will still be those few characters/voices that grate at me. At the moment, it seems too traditional for my taste, but worth a look/try. PvP is really the only thing I'm truly worried about, as Bioware, to my knowledge, has yet to do PvP in their games.
GW2, ArenaNet has proven that they can make a solid game in the MMO market, even if it wasn't a true MMO in the first place. The world is supposed to be larger than the original, which excites me since the original was fairly large. The Personal Story excites me, for the possiblilities that it has entailed within it. And dynamic events sound incredible, if they can pull it off well. If the PvP in GW is indicative of anything in the 2nd it should be deep and exciting. They way they are handling the skill system and fighting mechanics in general seems to be entirely different from things I've seen in other MMOs.
Overall, I'm more excited for GW2 than SWTOR, but I think SWTOR will do better because of the IP and developer. Then again, GW2 is leading in the polls atm. And the mmorpg.com hype meter thingy
Oh, and Warband, the GW2 engine is completely new and different from the GW engine, thats why we have GW2. They wanted to do too many new things with Utopia. They may have canibalized a few components, but on the whole I'm sure its completely different, but no less solid than the first.
SWTOR is leading in total hits in 1 week, 1 month, 6 months and years by a hell of a lot.
Hah, seems pretty even. Personally, it's TOR for me. I don't care about how "innovative" or "awesome" GW2 will be. The art style turns me off and I wasn't impressed with GW. I'll keep an open mind, though, and may end up getting both if GW2 gets overwhelmingly positive reviews.
Wrong. We're not talking about NCSoft but ANet, and they know how to NOT fuck up too. So a gaming company with one AAA title= a gaming company with about four?
Just like to talk about this one point. Regardless of how you look at it that's a massive advantage. That 1 AAA title turns out to give more experienece in regards to producing an mmo than all of Biowares.
The gw2 engine is simply a massive improved version of gw1 engine. That means they didn't have to waste a bunch of time producing an the game engine from scratch like bioware did and that obviously took a fairly long time. They can also look back at they're own past mistakes throughout the entire lifetime of gw1 and learn from them as they craft gw2. That cuts out a massive amount developement time and help them avoid possible future mistakes.
You people do realize that most of the devs that BW hired have worked on other MMO's? So what is the difference with experience, one company knows how to make good games, the other doesn't.
Look at it this way a game built from scratch vs a game that improves on an already made engine with rpobelems from that specific game. It's like the difference between your personal GP and some random good doctor. Sure they're both good doctors but that random doctor requires a heck of a lot of information about you personally and experience you you first hand in order to provide the same level of service as someone whose been your gp for years providing that they're have the same level of understanding of medicine.
So the Hero Engine wouldn't actually count as an "already made engine" would it? Thats the exact engine BioWare is using, and its a very versatile engine. Aside from that, this isn't choosing a doctor, people don't choose new doctors because they are "bored" of their old ones, or a newer version of your doctor has come out.
The hero engine wasn't even complete when they bought it they had to write most of the code themselves...... Even simply having the engine means very little as you still have to produce the building blocks for which you will create the rest of the game in. As in the actual scripts and codes for that particular game. You cannot start properly producing without it.
They're producing something from scratch from something they are for the most part unfamiliar sure they have expertise but you'll have to get the rest of the team up to scratch write the core codes and scripts for the "engine" etc before with A-Net they are very familiar with mmo's and have first hand experience, heck some of them were in the development of Wow for goodness sake plus they're simply improving an upgrading an already existing game using ethe first hand experience and most of the members that have worked together before to create the first game.
I don't really see the difference here. Reusing an old engine doesn't validate that a game will be any more advanced, better playing or more fun. The original guild wars was an arena based game with hubs, thats not a large persistent world at all. Thats like saying Phantasy Star Universe could turn around and create the next EverQuest. Theres nothing indicative stating that they are any more or less capable of doing better or worse in those endeavors as any other company judging from the game they've created and their experience.
I'd say the collective experience of the developers on BioWares end is at least as talented if not moreso then the development team from Arenanet.
The only thing that I would say would give arenanet any kind of advantage, is that they already know most of the code, which is prevalent in the way their combat looks, its basically the old Guild Wars with a couple new twists. This may expedite the release and some expansions, but it doesn't shine poorly on BioWare at all.
Your not getting it at all...... Arenanet with a few tweaks gw1 engine to make it persistant which really isn't all that hard and a heck lot of concept art could could start producing gw2 from the get go. Bioware couldn't and wouldn't have been able to do so for at least a good year and that's disregarding the fact that a large part of it's workforce have never made an mmo before and would need to be brought up to speed.
That's a massive difference. Producing an mmo from the scratch is so completely different to altering an existing game that's it's laughable that your considering it the same thing. There's a thousand and one choice's you have to make before you even start making the game, another thousand choices tweeking what you've made over and over and over again. These things are very time consuming you'll have literally thousands of ideas and only really 20 are actually viable and you have to figure out which 20, that goes for even the most veteran mmo developers.
ArenaNet had the game engine for the most part and knew pretty much exactly what they wanted to do with the sequel before they even started making the game. They knew exactly what they wanted to do because they went through all that other crap with the first game and have experienced problems produced by specific game they created and focused on improving a game rather than making a completely new game which is a heck of lot harder.
They had a big head start that's all there is to it, whether that means a lot or nothing at all we don't know but they did have one.
How do you know how hard or easy it was for them to turn GW1 into a persistent world? How do you know how many developers BioWare has on staff that have worked on MMOs before? You don't, plain and simple. What exactly is your point anyway? That Arenanet can rehash their old game, put some shine on it, and sell it?
Its already been stated that BioWare has spent many years, with an enormous staff creating the most content heavy game they have ever created. We already know that there are developers from many other MMOs working on BioWares game too. Whether its been built from scratch, or created using an established engine, all that really matters is what it plays like in the end. Look at BioWares staple choice system, even if it had to be changed and reprogrammed, its obviously emulated the same format that is prevalent in all other BioWare games. Save for the Type of game this is now, BioWare has proven that not only do that have the tools and the engine, but they have the talent.
This in no way validates or invalidates GW2 as a good or bad game. Saying that they have experience with MMOs means very little compared to a company that has absorbed a developmental department with experience in 3 actual persistent world MMOs and a number of other developers from other games. In no way does them rehashing their old mechanics make them better developers, nor does them putting out CORPG make them stronger in persistent world development then, say, Mythic that is now part of BioWare.
I don't think you understand what I mean by engine. A company doesn't simply use an engine like the hero engine and simply produce their entire game from it. They alter it to their needs add short cuts pre made textures, animations, monster designs and host of other things they use to actually generate content. Those programmes are what I'm referring to when I say engine sort of like the free game editor's that come with certain games. Once you have these set in stone it's very easy to generate content but they're extremely hard to create and take a lot time.
ArenaNet already had one from producing gw1 and upgraded it to make gw2. Bioware had to produce one from scratch which takes a very long time as simple as that.
On the how easy it is to make gw1 persistant well they have said they already had the infa-structure to make gw1 persistant but chose not to. Can't really get a much better answer than that from a developer. Anyway we've already seen some of Mythics work and that was WAR. Huge budget also very large loss not sure why your so adament to push their involvement......
No, I didn't misunderstand you, I understand what a game engine is perfectly well, as does BioWare as they've been able to monetize their game engine to many different companies. Thats not the point at you were trying to make at all when you say things like
"they are very familiar with mmo's and have first hand experience, heck some of them were in the development of Wow for goodness sake plus they're simply improving an upgrading an already existing game using ethe first hand experience and most of the members that have worked together before to create the first game."
You take the developers, then add in that they worked on WoW, then go back to the point that they've worked on GW1. This is what we call a double standard. You say they've worked on WoW, yet then you can turn around and somehow dismiss the other developers from BioWare that have worked on other projects. And, Mythic? Really? They've released 2 very good MMOs, one of which DAOC was very popular and WAR which was also a good game believe it or not.
So good in fact, GW2 decided to take and modify their public quest system. Easy to turn a blind eye to their accomplishments to accentuate your point.
I voted Star wars but i really wanted to vote neither as in the end i am happy with eve.
As for GW2 i was put off by the CORPG predecessor called GW and the bad community in the nicely designed chatrooms.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
Guild Wars 2 used to gain my interest, after introducing the no death penalty, no healer bullshit I'm done with the game. Swtor has yet to release some more group play videos.
Currently my hopes are heavily on Tera (US - fu Frogster!), FFXIV
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play." "Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
Wrong. We're not talking about NCSoft but ANet, and they know how to NOT fuck up too. So a gaming company with one AAA title= a gaming company with about four?
Just like to talk about this one point. Regardless of how you look at it that's a massive advantage. That 1 AAA title turns out to give more experienece in regards to producing an mmo than all of Biowares.
The gw2 engine is simply a massive improved version of gw1 engine. That means they didn't have to waste a bunch of time producing an the game engine from scratch like bioware did and that obviously took a fairly long time. They can also look back at they're own past mistakes throughout the entire lifetime of gw1 and learn from them as they craft gw2. That cuts out a massive amount developement time and help them avoid possible future mistakes.
You people do realize that most of the devs that BW hired have worked on other MMO's? So what is the difference with experience, one company knows how to make good games, the other doesn't.
Look at it this way a game built from scratch vs a game that improves on an already made engine with rpobelems from that specific game. It's like the difference between your personal GP and some random good doctor. Sure they're both good doctors but that random doctor requires a heck of a lot of information about you personally and experience you you first hand in order to provide the same level of service as someone whose been your gp for years providing that they're have the same level of understanding of medicine.
So the Hero Engine wouldn't actually count as an "already made engine" would it? Thats the exact engine BioWare is using, and its a very versatile engine. Aside from that, this isn't choosing a doctor, people don't choose new doctors because they are "bored" of their old ones, or a newer version of your doctor has come out.
The hero engine wasn't even complete when they bought it they had to write most of the code themselves...... Even simply having the engine means very little as you still have to produce the building blocks for which you will create the rest of the game in. As in the actual scripts and codes for that particular game. You cannot start properly producing without it.
They're producing something from scratch from something they are for the most part unfamiliar sure they have expertise but you'll have to get the rest of the team up to scratch write the core codes and scripts for the "engine" etc before with A-Net they are very familiar with mmo's and have first hand experience, heck some of them were in the development of Wow for goodness sake plus they're simply improving an upgrading an already existing game using ethe first hand experience and most of the members that have worked together before to create the first game.
I don't really see the difference here. Reusing an old engine doesn't validate that a game will be any more advanced, better playing or more fun. The original guild wars was an arena based game with hubs, thats not a large persistent world at all. Thats like saying Phantasy Star Universe could turn around and create the next EverQuest. Theres nothing indicative stating that they are any more or less capable of doing better or worse in those endeavors as any other company judging from the game they've created and their experience.
I'd say the collective experience of the developers on BioWares end is at least as talented if not moreso then the development team from Arenanet.
The only thing that I would say would give arenanet any kind of advantage, is that they already know most of the code, which is prevalent in the way their combat looks, its basically the old Guild Wars with a couple new twists. This may expedite the release and some expansions, but it doesn't shine poorly on BioWare at all.
Your not getting it at all...... Arenanet with a few tweaks gw1 engine to make it persistant which really isn't all that hard and a heck lot of concept art could could start producing gw2 from the get go. Bioware couldn't and wouldn't have been able to do so for at least a good year and that's disregarding the fact that a large part of it's workforce have never made an mmo before and would need to be brought up to speed.
That's a massive difference. Producing an mmo from the scratch is so completely different to altering an existing game that's it's laughable that your considering it the same thing. There's a thousand and one choice's you have to make before you even start making the game, another thousand choices tweeking what you've made over and over and over again. These things are very time consuming you'll have literally thousands of ideas and only really 20 are actually viable and you have to figure out which 20, that goes for even the most veteran mmo developers.
ArenaNet had the game engine for the most part and knew pretty much exactly what they wanted to do with the sequel before they even started making the game. They knew exactly what they wanted to do because they went through all that other crap with the first game and have experienced problems produced by specific game they created and focused on improving a game rather than making a completely new game which is a heck of lot harder.
They had a big head start that's all there is to it, whether that means a lot or nothing at all we don't know but they did have one.
How do you know how hard or easy it was for them to turn GW1 into a persistent world? How do you know how many developers BioWare has on staff that have worked on MMOs before? You don't, plain and simple. What exactly is your point anyway? That Arenanet can rehash their old game, put some shine on it, and sell it?
Its already been stated that BioWare has spent many years, with an enormous staff creating the most content heavy game they have ever created. We already know that there are developers from many other MMOs working on BioWares game too. Whether its been built from scratch, or created using an established engine, all that really matters is what it plays like in the end. Look at BioWares staple choice system, even if it had to be changed and reprogrammed, its obviously emulated the same format that is prevalent in all other BioWare games. Save for the Type of game this is now, BioWare has proven that not only do that have the tools and the engine, but they have the talent.
This in no way validates or invalidates GW2 as a good or bad game. Saying that they have experience with MMOs means very little compared to a company that has absorbed a developmental department with experience in 3 actual persistent world MMOs and a number of other developers from other games. In no way does them rehashing their old mechanics make them better developers, nor does them putting out CORPG make them stronger in persistent world development then, say, Mythic that is now part of BioWare.
I don't think you understand what I mean by engine. A company doesn't simply use an engine like the hero engine and simply produce their entire game from it. They alter it to their needs add short cuts pre made textures, animations, monster designs and host of other things they use to actually generate content. Those programmes are what I'm referring to when I say engine sort of like the free game editor's that come with certain games. Once you have these set in stone it's very easy to generate content but they're extremely hard to create and take a lot time.
ArenaNet already had one from producing gw1 and upgraded it to make gw2. Bioware had to produce one from scratch which takes a very long time as simple as that.
On the how easy it is to make gw1 persistant well they have said they already had the infa-structure to make gw1 persistant but chose not to. Can't really get a much better answer than that from a developer. Anyway we've already seen some of Mythics work and that was WAR. Huge budget also very large loss not sure why your so adament to push their involvement......
No, I didn't misunderstand you, I understand what a game engine is perfectly well, as does BioWare as they've been able to monetize their game engine to many different companies. Thats not the point at you were trying to make at all when you say things like
"they are very familiar with mmo's and have first hand experience, heck some of them were in the development of Wow for goodness sake plus they're simply improving an upgrading an already existing game using ethe first hand experience and most of the members that have worked together before to create the first game."
You take the developers, then add in that they worked on WoW, then go back to the point that they've worked on GW1. This is what we call a double standard. You say they've worked on WoW, yet then you can turn around and somehow dismiss the other developers from BioWare that have worked on other projects. And, Mythic? Really? They've released 2 very good MMOs, one of which DAOC was very popular and WAR which was also a good game believe it or not.
So good in fact, GW2 decided to take and modify their public quest system. Easy to turn a blind eye to their accomplishments to accentuate your point.
Actually no we've known about the event system since early 2007 that includes the fact it scales and that one event leads into another. They didn't take the idea and modify it, it was their idea to begin with they just came up with to similar ideas to Mythic simultaneously since it's unlikely that ArenaNet would have known much if anything about WAR's ideas back then. Sure they may have altered a few things after WAR came out as they may have learned some possible problems with their idea but the idea has largely remained the same they didn't copy anything they thought of it completely on their own.
I think you need to learn what a double standard is... I said they had a similar amount of experience as Mythic as well as working on an already existing engine there's no contradiction there. If Mythic were working on a sequel to WAR they would be in the same position as ArenaNet has they have developed another mmo before and are working on an existing engine as well as knowing specific problems with that game. They're not so they're at a disadvantage. It's not a difficult concept to understand.
"So good in fact, GW2 decided to take and modify their public quest system"
The problem is the PQ system is only good for a short time, then it becomes deserted theme-park ride.
It's a natural progression to 1. WOW (ie) take quests and link them into WAR (ie) chains (PQ's stage1-3/4). BUT then it's ANOTHER natural progression to link those chains into GW2 (ie) webs or Dynamic Events.
Result: linear quest to chains of quests to webs of chains of quests.
This will improve on this core aspect of PvE: Longevity, repeatability, veneer of causation and veneer of dynamic PvE, and more complex stories with different threads initiated from 1 original simple quest, and possibility for single player to involve other players at different stages entering the story. Very difficult to pull of if it falls into the same problem PQ's ended up having. All that content sitting around doing nothing.
Though I have to say GW2 will be far more successful based on it's franchise's last outing, and the payment model involved. There's no real dropoff when there is no sub to begin with, you just sit on it without playing for a long time.
SW:ToR on the other hand will *have to* kick total ass to keep people paying 15$ a month past the moment they start getting bored with it, and that will destroy the game if the publisher's expectations are not met.
As for what *I* am hyped about; neither. Prolly won't bother with either one.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Its simple for me to choose. SW:ToR wins. One reason was enough GW2 = NCSOFT. Did play Aion and im not impressed with NCSOFT at all. Besides that, whats new in GW2 that have not been seen before?
Aion was made by NcSoft.
GW and GW2 is made by ArenaNet
Alot of new stuff in GW2 and they have taken good features from other games,features that was a success. I love Guild Wars lore and their stories,the races,their map everything.
I voted Guild Wars 2. Star Wars is so overrated,how many star wars games have they made?? seriously it's enough...make a new IP.
"So good in fact, GW2 decided to take and modify their public quest system"
The problem is the PQ system is only good for a short time, then it becomes deserted theme-park ride.
It's a natural progression to 1. WOW (ie) take quests and link them into WAR (ie) chains (PQ's stage1-3/4). BUT then it's ANOTHER natural progression to link those chains into GW2 (ie) webs or Dynamic Events.
Result: linear quest to chains of quests to webs of chains of quests.
This will improve on this core aspect of PvE: Longevity, repeatability, veneer of causation and veneer of dynamic PvE, and more complex stories with different threads initiated from 1 original simple quest, and possibility for single player to involve other players at different stages entering the story. Very difficult to pull of if it falls into the same problem PQ's ended up having. All that content sitting around doing nothing.
Thats just the thing though, is that the only major differences are that A) the NPCs hang around when people aren't around they scale and C) theres a small chance that two quests my overlap.
If you've ever played a PQ, you have to WIN to keep the quest going. In the "event" system, it doesn't matter if you win or lose, the quest still progresses. Longevity though? Doubtful. According to Arenanet there are only two choices for each "Event" --- pass, or fail. If you fail it moves forward, if you pass it moves backwards. If we want to call that dynamic thats fine, but dynamic it is hardly.
When people hear about this system they think about it just like you said, they think this is a web, when actually, it is more of a line. You move forwards or backwards, you pass, or you fail.
As for Arenanet deciding to do this on their own in 2007... Mythic announced the public quest system in early 2007, go back and read the interviews and see the explanations of this quest system and how amazed reviewers were about this system and the buzz it created. At this same time Arenanet still had at least 8 months away before releasing EOTN. It appears more developers other than just CRYPTIC were influenced by the PQ system that year.
Haven't seen much footage of GW2 being played, their dynamic events seem interesting, but it's success will depend on the presentation.
I don't see what is so different about the classes released so far that they can claim to not have the trinity, just throwing in a lot more CC and special buffs won't make it fundamentally different; although it might make it more interesting.
I also did not enjoy GW1 for long.
Overall, I'm more hyped for SW:TOR, as I've seen more of it and I feel like I have a clear idea of what I'm getting, not in the least because of previous BW games played.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
"So good in fact, GW2 decided to take and modify their public quest system"
The problem is the PQ system is only good for a short time, then it becomes deserted theme-park ride.
It's a natural progression to 1. WOW (ie) take quests and link them into WAR (ie) chains (PQ's stage1-3/4). BUT then it's ANOTHER natural progression to link those chains into GW2 (ie) webs or Dynamic Events.
Result: linear quest to chains of quests to webs of chains of quests.
This will improve on this core aspect of PvE: Longevity, repeatability, veneer of causation and veneer of dynamic PvE, and more complex stories with different threads initiated from 1 original simple quest, and possibility for single player to involve other players at different stages entering the story. Very difficult to pull of if it falls into the same problem PQ's ended up having. All that content sitting around doing nothing.
Thats just the thing though, is that the only major differences are that A) the NPCs hang around when people aren't around they scale and C) theres a small chance that two quests my overlap.
If you've ever played a PQ, you have to WIN to keep the quest going. In the "event" system, it doesn't matter if you win or lose, the quest still progresses. Longevity though? Doubtful. According to Arenanet there are only two choices for each "Event" --- pass, or fail. If you fail it moves forward, if you pass it moves backwards. If we want to call that dynamic thats fine, but dynamic it is hardly.
When people hear about this system they think about it just like you said, they think this is a web, when actually, it is more of a line. You move forwards or backwards, you pass, or you fail.
As for Arenanet deciding to do this on their own in 2007... Mythic announced the public quest system in early 2007, go back and read the interviews and see the explanations of this quest system and how amazed reviewers were about this system and the buzz it created. At this same time Arenanet still had at least 8 months away before releasing EOTN. It appears more developers other than just CRYPTIC were influenced by the PQ system that year.
You realise EoTN was the direct result of ArenaNet's ideas for gw2 right? Meaning they had these ideas BEFORE they started even thinking about producing EoTN way before. In fact I read stuff about the event system before I even heard about PQ.
"There are times when you feel that you can't play that character because you're going to advance past that area, and you want to save those things so you can do them with your friends. So the Event System circumvents a lot of that stuff, for instance in an area you might have a dragon that shows up occasionally. It'll send a big event message to everybody in that zone saying that "Hey, the dragon is here!" You'll be able to see that and try to fight the dragon off with as many players that want to participate in that - and all those players will get rewarded."
That was 04/04/2007 So yeah A-Net totally copied those ideas. A-Net started thinking up ideas for they're expansion that would later become gw2 straight after the release of Nightfall which was October 2006 so they had clearly thought of the idea by late 2006-early 2007. Do some research before you make assumptions.
I love Guild Wars 1, so definately going to get Guild Wars 2. And because GW2 doesnt need a subscription, Im also going to try SW:TOR. Guild Wars 2 will replace GW1 for me as MMO to play when Im not playing a subscription based MMO.
EDIT : Just to comment on some other posts.
-Who cares if War had PQ already. The system in GW2 will be the next step, because its not the same type of PQ that keeps repeating even when players arent near.
-Guild Wars (1 and 2) are being developed by Arenanet and not NCSoft. So stop talking about/comparing with Aion already.
"So good in fact, GW2 decided to take and modify their public quest system"
The problem is the PQ system is only good for a short time, then it becomes deserted theme-park ride.
It's a natural progression to 1. WOW (ie) take quests and link them into WAR (ie) chains (PQ's stage1-3/4). BUT then it's ANOTHER natural progression to link those chains into GW2 (ie) webs or Dynamic Events.
Result: linear quest to chains of quests to webs of chains of quests.
This will improve on this core aspect of PvE: Longevity, repeatability, veneer of causation and veneer of dynamic PvE, and more complex stories with different threads initiated from 1 original simple quest, and possibility for single player to involve other players at different stages entering the story. Very difficult to pull of if it falls into the same problem PQ's ended up having. All that content sitting around doing nothing.
Thats just the thing though, is that the only major differences are that A) the NPCs hang around when people aren't around they scale and C) theres a small chance that two quests my overlap.
If you've ever played a PQ, you have to WIN to keep the quest going. In the "event" system, it doesn't matter if you win or lose, the quest still progresses. Longevity though? Doubtful. According to Arenanet there are only two choices for each "Event" --- pass, or fail. If you fail it moves forward, if you pass it moves backwards. If we want to call that dynamic thats fine, but dynamic it is hardly.
When people hear about this system they think about it just like you said, they think this is a web, when actually, it is more of a line. You move forwards or backwards, you pass, or you fail.
As for Arenanet deciding to do this on their own in 2007... Mythic announced the public quest system in early 2007, go back and read the interviews and see the explanations of this quest system and how amazed reviewers were about this system and the buzz it created. At this same time Arenanet still had at least 8 months away before releasing EOTN. It appears more developers other than just CRYPTIC were influenced by the PQ system that year.
I think you are right.
It's more of a tree diagram of pass or fail, than a true web. I think I read something about one of them imvolving a king rat story/quest that led me on to thinking it could be a web, ie multiple routes, but you distinguish the key properties: NPC's persistence, scale, overlap is not a huge reason to get over-excited about this system, as it's still in those PQ dangerous water of going stagnant quickly.
But a step in the right direction, even if they only choose 3 layers to this design, that's still 8 different ending ie pass leads to the next stage and fail leads to the alternative stage, ie just draw a tree diagram, so in theory it's still impressive number of routes and multiplies with each layer 1,2,4,8.
Check: Does a fail move back or does it still move forward down another line with another pass/fail fork as per the tree diagram? Think it does from memory.
So huge leap in content to make these link up, but still very vulnerable to the PQ curse of being empty if people understand them too quickly or the increase in challenge is not sufficient.
As for "Dynamic Events" it could be as buzzy as PQ's were, if it advances them in complexity enough and they are more durable to usage/repeatability/solo and group friendly.
"Guild Wars 2 vs SW:ToR which you more hyped for?"
Neither and Both.
I consider each game to be so different than the other that comparing them by hype right now is pointless to me personally... to me it's the comparing apples to oranges thing and neither has been released yet.
I am carefully watching both GW2 and SW:TOR. Depending on how each turns out as a final retail product at launch, depending on what the Beta Testers and the retail Players report on each, and depending on each Company's track record of customer service and dedication to the Player Base will determine how hyped I will or will not be for each game. Post release Hype, aka reputation, to me is what matters.
I don't allow myself to get hyped over MMOs like I used to get... too many disappointments with previous products in the genre in the last few years. This is of course taking into account what I personally am looking for in a MMO as compared to what most Players look for.
I am the Player that wonders... "What the %#*& just happened?!" ............... "I Believe... There should be NO financial connection or portals between the Real World and the Virtual in MMOs. " __Ever Present Cockroach of the MMO Verses__ ...scurrying to and fro... .munching on bits of garbage... always under foot...
"So good in fact, GW2 decided to take and modify their public quest system"
The problem is the PQ system is only good for a short time, then it becomes deserted theme-park ride.
It's a natural progression to 1. WOW (ie) take quests and link them into WAR (ie) chains (PQ's stage1-3/4). BUT then it's ANOTHER natural progression to link those chains into GW2 (ie) webs or Dynamic Events.
Result: linear quest to chains of quests to webs of chains of quests.
This will improve on this core aspect of PvE: Longevity, repeatability, veneer of causation and veneer of dynamic PvE, and more complex stories with different threads initiated from 1 original simple quest, and possibility for single player to involve other players at different stages entering the story. Very difficult to pull of if it falls into the same problem PQ's ended up having. All that content sitting around doing nothing.
Thats just the thing though, is that the only major differences are that A) the NPCs hang around when people aren't around they scale and C) theres a small chance that two quests my overlap.
If you've ever played a PQ, you have to WIN to keep the quest going. In the "event" system, it doesn't matter if you win or lose, the quest still progresses. Longevity though? Doubtful. According to Arenanet there are only two choices for each "Event" --- pass, or fail. If you fail it moves forward, if you pass it moves backwards. If we want to call that dynamic thats fine, but dynamic it is hardly.
When people hear about this system they think about it just like you said, they think this is a web, when actually, it is more of a line. You move forwards or backwards, you pass, or you fail.
As for Arenanet deciding to do this on their own in 2007... Mythic announced the public quest system in early 2007, go back and read the interviews and see the explanations of this quest system and how amazed reviewers were about this system and the buzz it created. At this same time Arenanet still had at least 8 months away before releasing EOTN. It appears more developers other than just CRYPTIC were influenced by the PQ system that year.
You realise EoTN was the direct result of ArenaNet's ideas for gw2 right? Meaning they had these ideas BEFORE they started even thinking about producing EoTN way before. In fact I read stuff about the event system before I even heard about PQ.
"There are times when you feel that you can't play that character because you're going to advance past that area, and you want to save those things so you can do them with your friends. So the Event System circumvents a lot of that stuff, for instance in an area you might have a dragon that shows up occasionally. It'll send a big event message to everybody in that zone saying that "Hey, the dragon is here!" You'll be able to see that and try to fight the dragon off with as many players that want to participate in that - and all those players will get rewarded."
That was 04/04/2007 So yeah A-Net totally copied those ideas. A-Net started thinking up ideas for they're expansion that would later become gw2 straight after the release of Nightfall which was October 2006 so they had clearly thought of the idea by late 2006-early 2007. Do some research before you make assumptions.
Whatever you say, at this point it won't matter that Mythic did it first, announced it first and produced it first, you just have to defend the game at all costs, defend it from what? I don't know. You want to make it seem like GW2 is reinventing everything, but in actuality much of what they are offering is just like what other MMOs do, just take things from other games and package them up differently. Go back and see when Mythic announced the PQ system (there are even older links than that), when they actually had it to test and oh, yeah, when they released it. in comparison to when GW2 actually decided to announce their "dynamic" "event" system.
"So good in fact, GW2 decided to take and modify their public quest system"
The problem is the PQ system is only good for a short time, then it becomes deserted theme-park ride.
It's a natural progression to 1. WOW (ie) take quests and link them into WAR (ie) chains (PQ's stage1-3/4). BUT then it's ANOTHER natural progression to link those chains into GW2 (ie) webs or Dynamic Events.
Result: linear quest to chains of quests to webs of chains of quests.
This will improve on this core aspect of PvE: Longevity, repeatability, veneer of causation and veneer of dynamic PvE, and more complex stories with different threads initiated from 1 original simple quest, and possibility for single player to involve other players at different stages entering the story. Very difficult to pull of if it falls into the same problem PQ's ended up having. All that content sitting around doing nothing.
Thats just the thing though, is that the only major differences are that A) the NPCs hang around when people aren't around they scale and C) theres a small chance that two quests my overlap.
If you've ever played a PQ, you have to WIN to keep the quest going. In the "event" system, it doesn't matter if you win or lose, the quest still progresses. Longevity though? Doubtful. According to Arenanet there are only two choices for each "Event" --- pass, or fail. If you fail it moves forward, if you pass it moves backwards. If we want to call that dynamic thats fine, but dynamic it is hardly.
When people hear about this system they think about it just like you said, they think this is a web, when actually, it is more of a line. You move forwards or backwards, you pass, or you fail.
As for Arenanet deciding to do this on their own in 2007... Mythic announced the public quest system in early 2007, go back and read the interviews and see the explanations of this quest system and how amazed reviewers were about this system and the buzz it created. At this same time Arenanet still had at least 8 months away before releasing EOTN. It appears more developers other than just CRYPTIC were influenced by the PQ system that year.
You realise EoTN was the direct result of ArenaNet's ideas for gw2 right? Meaning they had these ideas BEFORE they started even thinking about producing EoTN way before. In fact I read stuff about the event system before I even heard about PQ.
"There are times when you feel that you can't play that character because you're going to advance past that area, and you want to save those things so you can do them with your friends. So the Event System circumvents a lot of that stuff, for instance in an area you might have a dragon that shows up occasionally. It'll send a big event message to everybody in that zone saying that "Hey, the dragon is here!" You'll be able to see that and try to fight the dragon off with as many players that want to participate in that - and all those players will get rewarded."
That was 04/04/2007 So yeah A-Net totally copied those ideas. A-Net started thinking up ideas for they're expansion that would later become gw2 straight after the release of Nightfall which was October 2006 so they had clearly thought of the idea by late 2006-early 2007. Do some research before you make assumptions.
Whatever you say, at this point it won't matter that Mythic did it first, announced it first and produced it first, you just have to defend the game at all costs, defend it from what? I don't know. You want to make it seem like GW2 is reinventing everything, but in actuality much of what they are offering is just like what other MMOs do, just take things from other games and package them up differently. Go back and see when Mythic announced the PQ system, when they actually had it to test and oh, yeah, when they released it. in comparison to when GW2 actually decided to announce their "dynamic" "event" system.
I get the impression that you are more caught up in the similar naming then the actual systems. The event system in Guild Wars 2 is very different from WAR.
In WAR they are static repeating quests with just one outcome. The stages repeat no matter if there are players near.
In GW2 they are only triggered through player action and are event chains. They have multiple possible outcomes and a player can chose which side to assist. The winning side will depend the outcome and the possible next event to trigger. Because events in GW2 can be chained. The result can also be a lot more worldchanging then in WAR. For example a town can get occupied with a different force. Or it leads to new sieges on the next outposts. Its a more immersive system then in WAR.
Comments
SWTOR is leading in total hits in 1 week, 1 month, 6 months and years by a hell of a lot.
I don't care about innovation I care about fun.
GW2 For me (^o^)/
If SWTOR was being release before GW2, I probably wouldn't even bother buying GW2. Just not a fan of the skill system.
SWTOR. GW2 could suprise me, but I really didn't like GW. I didn't like the combat or the progression system.
Hah, seems pretty even. Personally, it's TOR for me. I don't care about how "innovative" or "awesome" GW2 will be. The art style turns me off and I wasn't impressed with GW. I'll keep an open mind, though, and may end up getting both if GW2 gets overwhelmingly positive reviews.
No, I didn't misunderstand you, I understand what a game engine is perfectly well, as does BioWare as they've been able to monetize their game engine to many different companies. Thats not the point at you were trying to make at all when you say things like
"they are very familiar with mmo's and have first hand experience, heck some of them were in the development of Wow for goodness sake plus they're simply improving an upgrading an already existing game using ethe first hand experience and most of the members that have worked together before to create the first game."
You take the developers, then add in that they worked on WoW, then go back to the point that they've worked on GW1. This is what we call a double standard. You say they've worked on WoW, yet then you can turn around and somehow dismiss the other developers from BioWare that have worked on other projects. And, Mythic? Really? They've released 2 very good MMOs, one of which DAOC was very popular and WAR which was also a good game believe it or not.
So good in fact, GW2 decided to take and modify their public quest system. Easy to turn a blind eye to their accomplishments to accentuate your point.
I voted Star wars but i really wanted to vote neither as in the end i am happy with eve.
As for GW2 i was put off by the CORPG predecessor called GW and the bad community in the nicely designed chatrooms.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
Without doubt SW:TOR. I've loved Star Wars since I was a wee child, loved KOTOR and the idea of an epic Bioware story just pulls me right in.
GW2 however looks amazing as well, but against SW:TOR there is only one clear winner in my eyes. GW2 is definitely my second choice MMO atm though.
cake or steak: wich you more hyped for?
this are complete different games. you cant compare em! and oh by the way: i dislike em both.
Guild Wars 2 used to gain my interest, after introducing the no death penalty, no healer bullshit I'm done with the game. Swtor has yet to release some more group play videos.
Currently my hopes are heavily on Tera (US - fu Frogster!), FFXIV
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play."
"Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
RIFT Online for me, sorry. SW:ToR and GW2 will be great games but RIFT is my number 1 on my list.
Actually no we've known about the event system since early 2007 that includes the fact it scales and that one event leads into another. They didn't take the idea and modify it, it was their idea to begin with they just came up with to similar ideas to Mythic simultaneously since it's unlikely that ArenaNet would have known much if anything about WAR's ideas back then. Sure they may have altered a few things after WAR came out as they may have learned some possible problems with their idea but the idea has largely remained the same they didn't copy anything they thought of it completely on their own.
I think you need to learn what a double standard is... I said they had a similar amount of experience as Mythic as well as working on an already existing engine there's no contradiction there. If Mythic were working on a sequel to WAR they would be in the same position as ArenaNet has they have developed another mmo before and are working on an existing engine as well as knowing specific problems with that game. They're not so they're at a disadvantage. It's not a difficult concept to understand.
"So good in fact, GW2 decided to take and modify their public quest system"
The problem is the PQ system is only good for a short time, then it becomes deserted theme-park ride.
It's a natural progression to 1. WOW (ie) take quests and link them into WAR (ie) chains (PQ's stage1-3/4). BUT then it's ANOTHER natural progression to link those chains into GW2 (ie) webs or Dynamic Events.
Result: linear quest to chains of quests to webs of chains of quests.
This will improve on this core aspect of PvE: Longevity, repeatability, veneer of causation and veneer of dynamic PvE, and more complex stories with different threads initiated from 1 original simple quest, and possibility for single player to involve other players at different stages entering the story. Very difficult to pull of if it falls into the same problem PQ's ended up having. All that content sitting around doing nothing.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
I think both games will be great but im more hyped for sw:tor since i love kotor and star wars and bioware's games
Wow... that's pretty even so far.
Though I have to say GW2 will be far more successful based on it's franchise's last outing, and the payment model involved. There's no real dropoff when there is no sub to begin with, you just sit on it without playing for a long time.
SW:ToR on the other hand will *have to* kick total ass to keep people paying 15$ a month past the moment they start getting bored with it, and that will destroy the game if the publisher's expectations are not met.
As for what *I* am hyped about; neither. Prolly won't bother with either one.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Aion was made by NcSoft.
GW and GW2 is made by ArenaNet
Alot of new stuff in GW2 and they have taken good features from other games,features that was a success. I love Guild Wars lore and their stories,the races,their map everything.
I voted Guild Wars 2. Star Wars is so overrated,how many star wars games have they made?? seriously it's enough...make a new IP.
Thats just the thing though, is that the only major differences are that A) the NPCs hang around when people aren't around
they scale and C) theres a small chance that two quests my overlap.
If you've ever played a PQ, you have to WIN to keep the quest going. In the "event" system, it doesn't matter if you win or lose, the quest still progresses. Longevity though? Doubtful. According to Arenanet there are only two choices for each "Event" --- pass, or fail. If you fail it moves forward, if you pass it moves backwards. If we want to call that dynamic thats fine, but dynamic it is hardly.
When people hear about this system they think about it just like you said, they think this is a web, when actually, it is more of a line. You move forwards or backwards, you pass, or you fail.
As for Arenanet deciding to do this on their own in 2007... Mythic announced the public quest system in early 2007, go back and read the interviews and see the explanations of this quest system and how amazed reviewers were about this system and the buzz it created. At this same time Arenanet still had at least 8 months away before releasing EOTN. It appears more developers other than just CRYPTIC were influenced by the PQ system that year.
GW2 is yet another fantasy game, loads of those out there already... plus i never liked GW. We need more non-fantasy MMOs to choose from.
Haven't seen much footage of GW2 being played, their dynamic events seem interesting, but it's success will depend on the presentation.
I don't see what is so different about the classes released so far that they can claim to not have the trinity, just throwing in a lot more CC and special buffs won't make it fundamentally different; although it might make it more interesting.
I also did not enjoy GW1 for long.
Overall, I'm more hyped for SW:TOR, as I've seen more of it and I feel like I have a clear idea of what I'm getting, not in the least because of previous BW games played.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
You realise EoTN was the direct result of ArenaNet's ideas for gw2 right? Meaning they had these ideas BEFORE they started even thinking about producing EoTN way before. In fact I read stuff about the event system before I even heard about PQ.
"There are times when you feel that you can't play that character because you're going to advance past that area, and you want to save those things so you can do them with your friends. So the Event System circumvents a lot of that stuff, for instance in an area you might have a dragon that shows up occasionally. It'll send a big event message to everybody in that zone saying that "Hey, the dragon is here!" You'll be able to see that and try to fight the dragon off with as many players that want to participate in that - and all those players will get rewarded."
http://www.totalvideogames.com/Guild-Wars-2/feature-10962.html
That was 04/04/2007 So yeah A-Net totally copied those ideas. A-Net started thinking up ideas for they're expansion that would later become gw2 straight after the release of Nightfall which was October 2006 so they had clearly thought of the idea by late 2006-early 2007. Do some research before you make assumptions.
I love Guild Wars 1, so definately going to get Guild Wars 2. And because GW2 doesnt need a subscription, Im also going to try SW:TOR. Guild Wars 2 will replace GW1 for me as MMO to play when Im not playing a subscription based MMO.
EDIT : Just to comment on some other posts.
-Who cares if War had PQ already. The system in GW2 will be the next step, because its not the same type of PQ that keeps repeating even when players arent near.
-Guild Wars (1 and 2) are being developed by Arenanet and not NCSoft. So stop talking about/comparing with Aion already.
I think you are right.
It's more of a tree diagram of pass or fail, than a true web. I think I read something about one of them imvolving a king rat story/quest that led me on to thinking it could be a web, ie multiple routes, but you distinguish the key properties: NPC's persistence, scale, overlap is not a huge reason to get over-excited about this system, as it's still in those PQ dangerous water of going stagnant quickly.
But a step in the right direction, even if they only choose 3 layers to this design, that's still 8 different ending ie pass leads to the next stage and fail leads to the alternative stage, ie just draw a tree diagram, so in theory it's still impressive number of routes and multiplies with each layer 1,2,4,8.
Check: Does a fail move back or does it still move forward down another line with another pass/fail fork as per the tree diagram? Think it does from memory.
So huge leap in content to make these link up, but still very vulnerable to the PQ curse of being empty if people understand them too quickly or the increase in challenge is not sufficient.
As for "Dynamic Events" it could be as buzzy as PQ's were, if it advances them in complexity enough and they are more durable to usage/repeatability/solo and group friendly.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
"Guild Wars 2 vs SW:ToR which you more hyped for?"
Neither and Both.
I consider each game to be so different than the other that comparing them by hype right now is pointless to me personally... to me it's the comparing apples to oranges thing and neither has been released yet.
I am carefully watching both GW2 and SW:TOR. Depending on how each turns out as a final retail product at launch, depending on what the Beta Testers and the retail Players report on each, and depending on each Company's track record of customer service and dedication to the Player Base will determine how hyped I will or will not be for each game. Post release Hype, aka reputation, to me is what matters.
I don't allow myself to get hyped over MMOs like I used to get... too many disappointments with previous products in the genre in the last few years. This is of course taking into account what I personally am looking for in a MMO as compared to what most Players look for.
I am the Player that wonders... "What the %#*& just happened?!"
...............
"I Believe... There should be NO financial connection or portals between the Real World and the Virtual in MMOs. "
__Ever Present Cockroach of the MMO Verses__
...scurrying to and fro... .munching on bits of garbage... always under foot...
Whatever you say, at this point it won't matter that Mythic did it first, announced it first and produced it first, you just have to defend the game at all costs, defend it from what? I don't know. You want to make it seem like GW2 is reinventing everything, but in actuality much of what they are offering is just like what other MMOs do, just take things from other games and package them up differently. Go back and see when Mythic announced the PQ system (there are even older links than that), when they actually had it to test and oh, yeah, when they released it. in comparison to when GW2 actually decided to announce their "dynamic" "event" system.
I get the impression that you are more caught up in the similar naming then the actual systems. The event system in Guild Wars 2 is very different from WAR.
In WAR they are static repeating quests with just one outcome. The stages repeat no matter if there are players near.
In GW2 they are only triggered through player action and are event chains. They have multiple possible outcomes and a player can chose which side to assist. The winning side will depend the outcome and the possible next event to trigger. Because events in GW2 can be chained. The result can also be a lot more worldchanging then in WAR. For example a town can get occupied with a different force. Or it leads to new sieges on the next outposts. Its a more immersive system then in WAR.