GW2 won't steal WoW subscriptions because it's F2P with the purchase of a box and people could easily afford to play both games without having to drop a subscription.
This isn't saying that GW2 won't get a WoW level playerbase and I hope it does.
Now I know that maybe it is unfair of me to predict that GW2 will be the Next WoW... No I take that back it is shaping up to be better then CATA ever thought bout being.
So I truly believe that the debs at Blizz should come up with yet another achievement for all who play WoW into 2011 that is "Endgame Slayer"
Perhaps it is bout time I picked up GW and starting playing it.
Gods, I hope it will be far from the next Wow. The fact that Strain quit after the engine was done scares me a bit, I don't want a next Wow, I want a game that actually feel fresh to play.
We already had Wow for 6 years now, time for something new and I hope ANET still remembers that too even without Strain.
And yes, you should pick GW up but don't expect it to be a MMO, it isn't. Expect it to be an online version of Diablo instead and you will get a lot of fun for the 35 bucks or so GW Platinum cost.
If you expect it to be a MMO in the style with EQ and Wow you are sadly mistaken, it did not have enough budget to be something like that and it have many devs from the original Diablo so it have more evolved from that game than Meridian 59 which Wow comes from.
It's not diablo style, not even close, it's actually closer to WoW if anything. It has a large active community, with lots of good guilds to join and lots of nice people to meet.
The only thing you say it's not an MMO over is it's lack of open world spaces, which doesn't disqualify it from being an MMO just because it's different.
GW2 doesnt have to be p2p to take subscriptions away from wow. Blizzard know WoW is running its course soon(Around 2 years) and is setting up its future based on that. I guarentee there will be some kind of combo subscription deal with its next NEW mmo at blizzard. Basically making WoW a $5.00 a month thing in the end.
Also I would say lore is a bigger part of WoW then some may think. Your loots means nothing if the world around you means nothing. GW2 is building that. The goal is to make the world simple enough to see and know the "bad guys" yet complicated enough to make the player think there is another bad guy even worse just behind that wall there.
People seem not to give enough credit to the lore of WoW that drew people in the game. RP servers remained the most popular for many reasons. One reason is the simple RPers went there. The other is that many many players who dont RP love the enviroment RPing brings to the world. Again GW2 has some of this.
Innovation? Its all over the place there. Cataclysm offers little in innovation when it comes to WoWs next expansion. People are looking for a fresh feeling away from their home(WoW) but they still want their family(other players) there and home cooking(basic gameplay elements)available. SWtOR does this.. but the innovation part worries me.
Gameplay for hardcore, medium... soft...We will see..
Lots of this is basically up to if GW2 lives up to what we have read.
It's not diablo style, not even close, it's actually closer to WoW if anything.
It has a large active community, with lots of good guilds to join and lots of nice people to meet.
The only thing you say it's not an MMO over is it's lack of open world spaces, which doesn't disqualify it from being an MMO just because it's different.
It's not an MMO and certainly not when the devs themselves deny it. I thought people have gone over this.
Innovation? Its all over the place there. Cataclysm offers little in innovation when it comes to WoWs next expansion. People are looking for a fresh feeling away from their home(WoW) but they still want their family(other players) there and home cooking(basic gameplay elements)available.
Not really. Few of Wows mechanics and features were not used in another game before. Innovation never really been Blizzard strong point, they go for well programed games aimed for the average joe (or jane).
I am not really sure why you think the lore is so great, but of course taste matters. I don't see myself reading a book soon based on Wow lore and quests myself.
Here is actually where games like GW2 and Copernicus have an advantage, their lore is written by actual authors who sold millions of copies (Grubb and Salvatore). I actually have read their books long before they started working with computer games.
But that is of course just my (and possibly the people who also read those books) opinion.
It's not diablo style, not even close, it's actually closer to WoW if anything.
It has a large active community, with lots of good guilds to join and lots of nice people to meet.
The only thing you say it's not an MMO over is it's lack of open world spaces, which doesn't disqualify it from being an MMO just because it's different.
Listen now, they say themselves in their FAQ that it isn't a MMO.
It is a great game I myself play regularly but the game is not massive. The big difference between GW and Diablo is the fact that GW have graphical hubs (outposts).
I am not bad mouthing the game but people should not compare the game to a MMO.
Guild Wars is a CORPG, or Competitive/Cooperative Online Role Playing Game developed for Windows by ArenaNet and published by NCsoft. The first campaign of Guild Wars, Guild Wars Prophecies was released on April 28, 2005. The different genre was chosen (as opposed to the classic "Massively Multiplayer Online (MMO) RPG") due to the perceived differences between the game and other, more traditional MMOs: the focus on Player versus Player (PvP) rather than Player versus Environment (PvE) play made it almost a unique case at the time, players received their own instanced copy of explorable zones and parties were limited to 8 players each, a tiny number compared to the massive caps of other games, which often allowed for up to 64 players in a single party (and unlimited players in non-instanced zones, which were the norm).
From GWs homepage written by Jeff Strain, creator of the game and lead designer. He if anyone should know.
He stated specifically that the fun of GW2 is that is doesn't have to compete with any other games, WoW least of all. The Buy 2 Play model allows gamers to come and go freely without a sub, and that was the aim from the beginning since that's basically was most players do anyway; they play hardcore for a while, burn out, then go play something else for a bit. I do it, even with games I adore. You can only play the same thing for so long before you need a break, even if it's just a weekend dedicated to your poor, lonely, forgotten console you spend like $300 on + games and never actually get around to playing...*cough* >_>
So ya, not a competition. Once you buy it, they've basically gotten all the money they're gonna get out of you unless you decide to splurge on unnecessary crap like, aesthetic items or whatev'. At that point, they don't really care if you play or not, of if you're playing something else at the same time ;3
Though, I do! And everyone else that intends to play. More players generally = better economy so like...feel important! N' stuff. Just don't feel tied and chained to the game. Yanno, the way you do when you're paying for something monthly.
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
You are right, I don't mindlessly accept that GW2 will be awesome because it is not yet proven. Though I don't agree that you know what you are talking about because generally there is quite a bit of inexperience and bias permeating from some posters.
GW2 is as of yet unproven, you can sit there and go "OMG THIS GAME WILL ROOL ALL" but that isn't objective at all.
Thank you for telling me I was right, I don't exactly know what I was right about because I made that post without reading any post in this thread.
But from my knowledge of forums, there was another thread that you were aruging with people in and I figured you were saying the same crap here so im just going to post something.
I guess I read the title, was that all I needed to be right?
You were right that I won't just mindlessly accept that gw2 is "awesome" but you were not right in that you thinking you are right for automatically accepting that gw2 is "awesome". This was stated clearly already though, guess you just couldn't really understand it.
It's not diablo style, not even close, it's actually closer to WoW if anything.
It has a large active community, with lots of good guilds to join and lots of nice people to meet.
The only thing you say it's not an MMO over is it's lack of open world spaces, which doesn't disqualify it from being an MMO just because it's different.
Listen now, they say themselves in their FAQ that it isn't a MMO.
It is a great game I myself play regularly but the game is not massive. The big difference between GW and Diablo is the fact that GW have graphical hubs (outposts).
I am not bad mouthing the game but people should not compare the game to a MMO.
Guild Wars is a CORPG, or Competitive/Cooperative Online Role Playing Game developed for Windows by ArenaNet and published by NCsoft. The first campaign of Guild Wars, Guild Wars Prophecies was released on April 28, 2005. The different genre was chosen (as opposed to the classic "Massively Multiplayer Online (MMO) RPG") due to the perceived differences between the game and other, more traditional MMOs: the focus on Player versus Player (PvP) rather than Player versus Environment (PvE) play made it almost a unique case at the time, players received their own instanced copy of explorable zones and parties were limited to 8 players each, a tiny number compared to the massive caps of other games, which often allowed for up to 64 players in a single party (and unlimited players in non-instanced zones, which were the norm).
From GWs homepage written by Jeff Strain, creator of the game and lead designer. He if anyone should know.
It's not diablo style, not even close, it's actually closer to WoW if anything.
It has a large active community, with lots of good guilds to join and lots of nice people to meet.
The only thing you say it's not an MMO over is it's lack of open world spaces, which doesn't disqualify it from being an MMO just because it's different.
Listen now, they say themselves in their FAQ that it isn't a MMO.
It is a great game I myself play regularly but the game is not massive. The big difference between GW and Diablo is the fact that GW have graphical hubs (outposts).
I am not bad mouthing the game but people should not compare the game to a MMO.
Guild Wars is a CORPG, or Competitive/Cooperative Online Role Playing Game developed for Windows by ArenaNet and published by NCsoft. The first campaign of Guild Wars, Guild Wars Prophecies was released on April 28, 2005. The different genre was chosen (as opposed to the classic "Massively Multiplayer Online (MMO) RPG") due to the perceived differences between the game and other, more traditional MMOs: the focus on Player versus Player (PvP) rather than Player versus Environment (PvE) play made it almost a unique case at the time, players received their own instanced copy of explorable zones and parties were limited to 8 players each, a tiny number compared to the massive caps of other games, which often allowed for up to 64 players in a single party (and unlimited players in non-instanced zones, which were the norm).
From GWs homepage written by Jeff Strain, creator of the game and lead designer. He if anyone should know.
It's still an MMO.
Not at all, since everything was districted/instanced. Luckily anet themselves do not claim gw1 was an mmo, cause they know it was closer to diablo than an mmorpg.
Originally posted by darkgamerx
Is it me or is every "Big name" title that passes is given "OMG WOW-KILLER".....what ever happened to those games ?
Reality set in for their fans when the games finally came out and they could no longer delude themselves about how the game was "going" to be.
Some mmo players have a ton of experience and wisdom, they understand proposed mechanics and how they flesh out in an actual game world, others who aren't as experienced don't really fully grasp that so they don't have a real understanding of how the game is going to play out.
It's not diablo style, not even close, it's actually closer to WoW if anything.
It has a large active community, with lots of good guilds to join and lots of nice people to meet.
The only thing you say it's not an MMO over is it's lack of open world spaces, which doesn't disqualify it from being an MMO just because it's different.
Listen now, they say themselves in their FAQ that it isn't a MMO.
It is a great game I myself play regularly but the game is not massive. The big difference between GW and Diablo is the fact that GW have graphical hubs (outposts).
I am not bad mouthing the game but people should not compare the game to a MMO.
Guild Wars is a CORPG, or Competitive/Cooperative Online Role Playing Game developed for Windows by ArenaNet and published by NCsoft. The first campaign of Guild Wars, Guild Wars Prophecies was released on April 28, 2005. The different genre was chosen (as opposed to the classic "Massively Multiplayer Online (MMO) RPG") due to the perceived differences between the game and other, more traditional MMOs: the focus on Player versus Player (PvP) rather than Player versus Environment (PvE) play made it almost a unique case at the time, players received their own instanced copy of explorable zones and parties were limited to 8 players each, a tiny number compared to the massive caps of other games, which often allowed for up to 64 players in a single party (and unlimited players in non-instanced zones, which were the norm).
From GWs homepage written by Jeff Strain, creator of the game and lead designer. He if anyone should know.
It's still an MMO.
Not at all, since everything was districted/instanced. Luckily anet themselves do not claim gw1 was an mmo, cause they know it was closer to diablo than an mmorpg.
Originally posted by darkgamerx
Is it me or is every "Big name" title that passes is given "OMG WOW-KILLER".....what ever happened to those games ?
Reality set in for their fans when the games finally came out and they could no longer delude themselves about how the game was "going" to be.
If you want to create your own specific definition of an MMO that somehow requires no districts or instances, then perhaps you are right... but you're not.
Is it me or is every "Big name" title that passes is given "OMG WOW-KILLER".....what ever happened to those games ?
Reality set in for their fans when the games finally came out and they could no longer delude themselves about how the game was "going" to be.
Exacly, it's sad too see so many hopefuls actually thinking it's "The next big thing". I was actually shocked when people were calling Warhammer a WoW killer.
It's not diablo style, not even close, it's actually closer to WoW if anything.
It has a large active community, with lots of good guilds to join and lots of nice people to meet.
The only thing you say it's not an MMO over is it's lack of open world spaces, which doesn't disqualify it from being an MMO just because it's different.
Listen now, they say themselves in their FAQ that it isn't a MMO.
It is a great game I myself play regularly but the game is not massive. The big difference between GW and Diablo is the fact that GW have graphical hubs (outposts).
I am not bad mouthing the game but people should not compare the game to a MMO.
Guild Wars is a CORPG, or Competitive/Cooperative Online Role Playing Game developed for Windows by ArenaNet and published by NCsoft. The first campaign of Guild Wars, Guild Wars Prophecies was released on April 28, 2005. The different genre was chosen (as opposed to the classic "Massively Multiplayer Online (MMO) RPG") due to the perceived differences between the game and other, more traditional MMOs: the focus on Player versus Player (PvP) rather than Player versus Environment (PvE) play made it almost a unique case at the time, players received their own instanced copy of explorable zones and parties were limited to 8 players each, a tiny number compared to the massive caps of other games, which often allowed for up to 64 players in a single party (and unlimited players in non-instanced zones, which were the norm).
From GWs homepage written by Jeff Strain, creator of the game and lead designer. He if anyone should know.
It's still an MMO.
Not at all, since everything was districted/instanced. Luckily anet themselves do not claim gw1 was an mmo, cause they know it was closer to diablo than an mmorpg.
Originally posted by darkgamerx
Is it me or is every "Big name" title that passes is given "OMG WOW-KILLER".....what ever happened to those games ?
Reality set in for their fans when the games finally came out and they could no longer delude themselves about how the game was "going" to be.
If you want to create your own specific definition of an MMO that somehow requires no districts or instances, then perhaps you are right... but you're not.
Try again.
Even anet understands that MMOs consist of a "massive multiplayer" interaction in a persistent world. Perhaps you should understand the connotation of labels like being an MMO before you go on believe gw1 is rainbows and butterflies and an mmo.
Also your blind loyalty has gotten the best of you, no one said MMOs couldn't have districts and instances, they simply can't be exclusively districts and instances.
I mean it's pretty stubborn when the devs themselves admit it isn't an MMO, yet the fans are so blindly loyal that they still don't accept it.
Originally posted by darkgamerx
Originally posted by RobertDinh
Originally posted by darkgamerx
Is it me or is every "Big name" title that passes is given "OMG WOW-KILLER".....what ever happened to those games ?
Reality set in for their fans when the games finally came out and they could no longer delude themselves about how the game was "going" to be.
Exacly, it's sad too see so many hopefuls actually thinking it's "The next big thing". I was actually shocked when people were calling Warhammer a WoW killer.
I knew warhammer was fail when I saw some of the early videos for their visions. You can't make a carebearish pvp game, it is pointless.
It's sad to see what happened to mythic entertainment, I remember playing magestorm and splatterball and having a blast with those multiplayer games.
It's not diablo style, not even close, it's actually closer to WoW if anything.
It has a large active community, with lots of good guilds to join and lots of nice people to meet.
The only thing you say it's not an MMO over is it's lack of open world spaces, which doesn't disqualify it from being an MMO just because it's different.
Listen now, they say themselves in their FAQ that it isn't a MMO.
It is a great game I myself play regularly but the game is not massive. The big difference between GW and Diablo is the fact that GW have graphical hubs (outposts).
I am not bad mouthing the game but people should not compare the game to a MMO.
Guild Wars is a CORPG, or Competitive/Cooperative Online Role Playing Game developed for Windows by ArenaNet and published by NCsoft. The first campaign of Guild Wars, Guild Wars Prophecies was released on April 28, 2005. The different genre was chosen (as opposed to the classic "Massively Multiplayer Online (MMO) RPG") due to the perceived differences between the game and other, more traditional MMOs: the focus on Player versus Player (PvP) rather than Player versus Environment (PvE) play made it almost a unique case at the time, players received their own instanced copy of explorable zones and parties were limited to 8 players each, a tiny number compared to the massive caps of other games, which often allowed for up to 64 players in a single party (and unlimited players in non-instanced zones, which were the norm).
From GWs homepage written by Jeff Strain, creator of the game and lead designer. He if anyone should know.
It's still an MMO.
Not at all, since everything was districted/instanced. Luckily anet themselves do not claim gw1 was an mmo, cause they know it was closer to diablo than an mmorpg.
Originally posted by darkgamerx
Is it me or is every "Big name" title that passes is given "OMG WOW-KILLER".....what ever happened to those games ?
Reality set in for their fans when the games finally came out and they could no longer delude themselves about how the game was "going" to be.
If you want to create your own specific definition of an MMO that somehow requires no districts or instances, then perhaps you are right... but you're not.
Try again.
No, he is in fact, right. Guild Wars doesn't do things that are found in every MMO out there and hence why people and the devs distinct their game from the others. Vindictus can be put in the same category in that it doesn't have a persistent world and the fact that the lobby is called outposts doesn't change the fact that they are, well...lobbies.
Except... Pass/Fail is incorrect. Fail branches out into new content I.E. scripted event and Pass goes into another direction. It isn't the "Mechanics of the issue" that people are excited about. It's the fact that even after a player passes the farm where the event is happening, they can come back later and something different will be going on. No other game can make that claim.
In fact, since you have a terrible habit of picking and choosing what you want to hear, I'll do you one better. Even given the fact that eventually, you are absolutely positively bound to do the same event in the same place without trying to be present for that event in particular...
It doesn't change the fact that there are certain events that are worth based on fun factor in every game I have spent time in, that I would want to do a second, third and fourth time but cannot without making a new character. GW2 effectively puts the chance in the game that regardless of what quest it is that you like or dislike, you can choose to do it either a hundred times - or none by just walking away. DE's are part of a choice, and choice is what gamers have demanded - choice is what GW2 allegedly offers.
Cyclical events may to you, be mechanically boring but to 9/10 people they sound like a blast. However, I am sure you will find some way to pad your ego out of this post, effectively insulting me in the process because you are incapable of holding an objective conversation.
Good day to you sir.
Looks like you aren't grasping the pass/fail mechanic at play. You pass or fail and the next chapter in the event takes place, then you can pass/fail that and then a chapter takes place... etc etc...
It is pass/fail. If you were supposed to defend an outpost from centaurs and they take over it and the outpost is razed. It is failing that event, and then the next chapter in the dynamic quest will begin.
You have cited multiple times that Pass/Fail is "Just like quests in other MMORPGs" - What you just said, is nothing like any other MMORPG.
If what you just said is your actual definition of Pass/Fail then you may want to go back and edit some of your earlier topics on the same subject lest you are left to contradict yourself...
Rein I am sorry you don't understand the very simple and basic concept of passing and failing an event.
You are basically hung up on the name of dynamic events in gw2, and the fluff from things like the manifesto. "But it says it is dynamic!!! How can it be pass/fail??!?!?!" Look at the actual mechanics, instead of what you are HOPING for.
The Pass/Fail aspect of the event isn't what I think makes it Dynamic or not so I'm not sure what the point of this argument is.
Dynamic is when I walk to a town and two things could happen.
Traditional quest: Talking to a quest giver telling me he's under attack and I need to save him when if I choose not to do so he will never actually be attacked and there will be no consequences based on my decision. If I fail I abandon the quest and the world resets to accommodate me.
Dynamic quest: I see a town actually under attack and I either save the town OR there are consequences for not doing so. The big difference here is that things are actually happening dynamically at the point of the town. Furthermore if I fail or choose not to try the world will dynamically carry on without me one way or the other.
Except... Pass/Fail is incorrect. Fail branches out into new content I.E. scripted event and Pass goes into another direction. It isn't the "Mechanics of the issue" that people are excited about. It's the fact that even after a player passes the farm where the event is happening, they can come back later and something different will be going on. No other game can make that claim.
In fact, since you have a terrible habit of picking and choosing what you want to hear, I'll do you one better. Even given the fact that eventually, you are absolutely positively bound to do the same event in the same place without trying to be present for that event in particular...
It doesn't change the fact that there are certain events that are worth based on fun factor in every game I have spent time in, that I would want to do a second, third and fourth time but cannot without making a new character. GW2 effectively puts the chance in the game that regardless of what quest it is that you like or dislike, you can choose to do it either a hundred times - or none by just walking away. DE's are part of a choice, and choice is what gamers have demanded - choice is what GW2 allegedly offers.
Cyclical events may to you, be mechanically boring but to 9/10 people they sound like a blast. However, I am sure you will find some way to pad your ego out of this post, effectively insulting me in the process because you are incapable of holding an objective conversation.
Good day to you sir.
Looks like you aren't grasping the pass/fail mechanic at play. You pass or fail and the next chapter in the event takes place, then you can pass/fail that and then a chapter takes place... etc etc...
It is pass/fail. If you were supposed to defend an outpost from centaurs and they take over it and the outpost is razed. It is failing that event, and then the next chapter in the dynamic quest will begin.
You have cited multiple times that Pass/Fail is "Just like quests in other MMORPGs" - What you just said, is nothing like any other MMORPG.
If what you just said is your actual definition of Pass/Fail then you may want to go back and edit some of your earlier topics on the same subject lest you are left to contradict yourself...
Rein I am sorry you don't understand the very simple and basic concept of passing and failing an event.
You are basically hung up on the name of dynamic events in gw2, and the fluff from things like the manifesto. "But it says it is dynamic!!! How can it be pass/fail??!?!?!" Look at the actual mechanics, instead of what you are HOPING for.
The Pass/Fail aspect of the event isn't what I think makes it Dynamic or not so I'm not sure what the point of this argument is.
Dynamic is when I walk to a town and two things could happen.
Traditional quest: Talking to a quest giver telling me he's under attack and I need to save him when if I choose not to do so he will never actually be attacked and there will be no consequences based on my decision. If I fail I abandon the quest and the world resets to accommodate me.
Dynamic quest: I see a town actually under attack and I either save the town OR there are consequences for not doing so. The big difference here is that things are actually happening dynamically at the point of the town. Furthermore if I fail or choose not to try the world will dynamically carry on without me one way or the other.
The Pass/Fail aspect of the event isn't what I think makes it Dynamic or not so I'm not sure what the point of this argument is.
Dynamic is when I walk to a town and two things could happen.
Traditional quest: Talking to a quest giver telling me he's under attack and I need to save him when if I choose not to do so he will never actually be attacked and there will be no consequences based on my decision. If I fail I abandon the quest and the world resets to accommodate me.
Dynamic quest: I see a town actually under attack and I either save the town OR there are consequences for not doing so. The big difference here is that things are actually happening dynamically at the point of the town. Furthermore if I fail or choose not to try the world will dynamically carry on without me one way or the other.
...And eventually reset to what it was before.
Dynamic does not mean non-cyclical, I never said that anywhere. Dynamic is the fact that the world and it's "Dynamic" events are happening regardless of you.
Now if you want to get into traditional quests and dynamic events regarding their cyclical nature then sure we can discuss that.
Dynamic events: You arrive at something happening dynamically and choose to intercede or not. Based on your actions the dynamic event flows back and forth until history eventually repeats itself.
EXAMPLE 1: Centaurs attacking village I save the people and move along until the next Centaur warband decides the village is ripe for the picking. This is logical and makes sense.
EXAMPLE 2: I escort the village diplomatic representative and fail in getting him to a diplomatic meeting. He dies, there is a consequence of no peace being made between the villagers to band together against the centaurs. Eventually the cycle resets where a new village diplomatic representative chosen to vie for peace again. This is logical and makes sense.
Traditional quest: You arrive at a quest giver telling you something is happening that isn't and you can choose to follow along or not. No consequences other than requirements for follow up quests. You can abandon to reset.
Example 1: Centaurs are hanging out in a field that you are told will attack the village. If you succeed the centaurs respawn within minutes and the quest is reset only you no longer have access to it, or maybe you do if it's a repeatable quest, but either way they'll never attack. This does not make sense.
Example 2: You fail in escorting the village diplomat to his meeting and he dies. You abandon the quest and all of a sudden the world has reset the guy is standing right where you left him with no memory of what happened in the previous attempt. That does not make sense.
The Pass/Fail aspect of the event isn't what I think makes it Dynamic or not so I'm not sure what the point of this argument is.
Dynamic is when I walk to a town and two things could happen.
Traditional quest: Talking to a quest giver telling me he's under attack and I need to save him when if I choose not to do so he will never actually be attacked and there will be no consequences based on my decision. If I fail I abandon the quest and the world resets to accommodate me.
Dynamic quest: I see a town actually under attack and I either save the town OR there are consequences for not doing so. The big difference here is that things are actually happening dynamically at the point of the town. Furthermore if I fail or choose not to try the world will dynamically carry on without me one way or the other.
...And eventually reset to what it was before.
Dynamic does not mean non-cyclical, I never said that anywhere. Dynamic is the fact that the world and it's "Dynamic" events are happening regardless of you.
Now if you want to get into traditional quests and dynamic events regarding their cyclical nature then sure we can discuss that.
Dynamic events: You arrive at something happening dynamically and choose to intercede or not. Based on your actions the dynamic event flows back and forth until history eventually repeats itself.
EXAMPLE 1: Centaurs attacking village I save the people and move along until the next Centaur warband decides the village is ripe for the picking. This is logical and makes sense.
EXAMPLE 2: I escort the village diplomatic representative and fail in getting him to a diplomatic meeting. He dies, there is a consequence of no peace being made between the villagers to band together against the centaurs. Eventually the cycle resets where a new village diplomatic representative chosen to vie for peace again. This is logical and makes sense.
Traditional quest: You arrive at a quest giver telling you something is happening that isn't and you can choose to follow along or not. No consequences other than requirements for follow up quests. You can abandon to reset.
Example 1: Centaurs are hanging out in a field that you are told will attack the village. If you succeed the centaurs respawn within minutes and the quest is reset only you no longer have access to it, or maybe you do if it's a repeatable quest, but either way they'll never attack. This does not make sense.
Example 2: You fail in escorting the village diplomat to his meeting and he dies. You abandon the quest and all of a sudden the world has reset the guy is standing right where you left him with no memory of what happened in the previous attempt. That does not make sense.
What you don't realize is that while dynamic events may be a little more immersive than traditional quest chains, the fact that they are cyclical ruins any true feeling of accomplishment.
Other games suffer from the quests repopping for other players as well, but at least those other games understand what their game is fully.
Just remember when anet preaches their dynamic world that you can impact, it all resets over time.
What you don't realize is that while dynamic events may be a little more immersive than traditional quest chains, the fact that they are cyclical ruins any true feeling of accomplishment.
Why?
Other games suffer from the quests repopping for other players as well, but at least those other games understand what their game is fully.
Don't understand this.
Just remember when anet preaches their dynamic world that you can impact, it all resets over time.
What you don't realize is that while dynamic events may be a little more immersive than traditional quest chains, the fact that they are cyclical ruins any true feeling of accomplishment.
Other games suffer from the quests repopping for other players as well, but at least those other games understand what their game is fully.
Just remember when anet preaches their dynamic world that you can impact, it all resets over time.
Yes, quests chains have always been around, however this implementation is definitely far more immersive, as you pointed out. Making them a step in the right direction. Why should we have to run back to motionless moron B to get quest 3 of a chain? We should be able to see it happening!
They've also never said the dynamic chains are permanently affected, only the personal storyline is. They've made it very clear.
Also, yes, doing something that everyone has done a million times like killing 50 rats definitely imbues me with a feeling of accomplishment
Tell me rob, what is your favourite MMO? i want to see how it scales with your views, because you are definitely the most moronic troll on these forums, so i want to see which game you're scared of becoming a desolate graveyard upon the release of guild wars 2
Yes, quests chains have always been around, however this implementation is definitely far more immersive, as you pointed out. Making them a step in the right direction. Why should we have to run back to motionless moron B to get quest 3 of a chain? We should be able to see it happening!
They've also never said the dynamic chains are permanently affected, only the personal storyline is. They've made it very clear.
ANet uses the word 'persistent', in that you see the results of your and your friends' actions, only over time things will change again.
They also mentioned that there are all kinds of various triggers, some are triggered by player actions, some are time affected, some by other influences like day/nigh or weather. This means that for a number of events if there are no players around to change the situation, then the local area will stay as it is, at one of the end stages of an event chain.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Yes, quests chains have always been around, however this implementation is definitely far more immersive, as you pointed out. Making them a step in the right direction. Why should we have to run back to motionless moron B to get quest 3 of a chain? We should be able to see it happening!
They've also never said the dynamic chains are permanently affected, only the personal storyline is. They've made it very clear.
ANet uses the word 'persistent', in that you see the results of your and your friends' actions, only over time things will change again.
They also mentioned that there are all kinds of various triggers, some are triggered by player actions, some are time affected, some by other influences like day/nigh or weather. This means that for a number of events if there are no players around to change the situation, then the local area will stay as it is, at one of the end stages of an event chain.
ndeed, which itself is a far better beginning to a quest than a guy saying 'go and kill 25 trolls plz. thxbai!', it's easily the best system seen in any MMO so far. Simply because most, if not all, MMO's are just terrible with regards to content.
Comments
GW2 won't steal WoW subscriptions because it's F2P with the purchase of a box and people could easily afford to play both games without having to drop a subscription.
This isn't saying that GW2 won't get a WoW level playerbase and I hope it does.
Gods, I hope it will be far from the next Wow. The fact that Strain quit after the engine was done scares me a bit, I don't want a next Wow, I want a game that actually feel fresh to play.
We already had Wow for 6 years now, time for something new and I hope ANET still remembers that too even without Strain.
And yes, you should pick GW up but don't expect it to be a MMO, it isn't. Expect it to be an online version of Diablo instead and you will get a lot of fun for the 35 bucks or so GW Platinum cost.
If you expect it to be a MMO in the style with EQ and Wow you are sadly mistaken, it did not have enough budget to be something like that and it have many devs from the original Diablo so it have more evolved from that game than Meridian 59 which Wow comes from.
How is GW not an MMO?
It's not diablo style, not even close, it's actually closer to WoW if anything.
It has a large active community, with lots of good guilds to join and lots of nice people to meet.
The only thing you say it's not an MMO over is it's lack of open world spaces, which doesn't disqualify it from being an MMO just because it's different.
GW2 doesnt have to be p2p to take subscriptions away from wow. Blizzard know WoW is running its course soon(Around 2 years) and is setting up its future based on that. I guarentee there will be some kind of combo subscription deal with its next NEW mmo at blizzard. Basically making WoW a $5.00 a month thing in the end.
Also I would say lore is a bigger part of WoW then some may think. Your loots means nothing if the world around you means nothing. GW2 is building that. The goal is to make the world simple enough to see and know the "bad guys" yet complicated enough to make the player think there is another bad guy even worse just behind that wall there.
People seem not to give enough credit to the lore of WoW that drew people in the game. RP servers remained the most popular for many reasons. One reason is the simple RPers went there. The other is that many many players who dont RP love the enviroment RPing brings to the world. Again GW2 has some of this.
Innovation? Its all over the place there. Cataclysm offers little in innovation when it comes to WoWs next expansion. People are looking for a fresh feeling away from their home(WoW) but they still want their family(other players) there and home cooking(basic gameplay elements)available. SWtOR does this.. but the innovation part worries me.
Gameplay for hardcore, medium... soft...We will see..
Lots of this is basically up to if GW2 lives up to what we have read.
- ya I'm here
It's not an MMO and certainly not when the devs themselves deny it. I thought people have gone over this.
Not really. Few of Wows mechanics and features were not used in another game before. Innovation never really been Blizzard strong point, they go for well programed games aimed for the average joe (or jane).
I am not really sure why you think the lore is so great, but of course taste matters. I don't see myself reading a book soon based on Wow lore and quests myself.
Here is actually where games like GW2 and Copernicus have an advantage, their lore is written by actual authors who sold millions of copies (Grubb and Salvatore). I actually have read their books long before they started working with computer games.
But that is of course just my (and possibly the people who also read those books) opinion.
Listen now, they say themselves in their FAQ that it isn't a MMO.
It is a great game I myself play regularly but the game is not massive. The big difference between GW and Diablo is the fact that GW have graphical hubs (outposts).
I am not bad mouthing the game but people should not compare the game to a MMO.
Guild Wars is a CORPG, or Competitive/Cooperative Online Role Playing Game developed for Windows by ArenaNet and published by NCsoft. The first campaign of Guild Wars, Guild Wars Prophecies was released on April 28, 2005. The different genre was chosen (as opposed to the classic "Massively Multiplayer Online (MMO) RPG") due to the perceived differences between the game and other, more traditional MMOs: the focus on Player versus Player (PvP) rather than Player versus Environment (PvE) play made it almost a unique case at the time, players received their own instanced copy of explorable zones and parties were limited to 8 players each, a tiny number compared to the massive caps of other games, which often allowed for up to 64 players in a single party (and unlimited players in non-instanced zones, which were the norm).
From GWs homepage written by Jeff Strain, creator of the game and lead designer. He if anyone should know.
So...ya...
NY Post recently did an interview with the devs of GW2 and they went into this already:
http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/gamereport/guild_wars_VLBHkktdTgcqtpP063qkxO
He stated specifically that the fun of GW2 is that is doesn't have to compete with any other games, WoW least of all. The Buy 2 Play model allows gamers to come and go freely without a sub, and that was the aim from the beginning since that's basically was most players do anyway; they play hardcore for a while, burn out, then go play something else for a bit. I do it, even with games I adore. You can only play the same thing for so long before you need a break, even if it's just a weekend dedicated to your poor, lonely, forgotten console you spend like $300 on + games and never actually get around to playing...*cough* >_>
So ya, not a competition. Once you buy it, they've basically gotten all the money they're gonna get out of you unless you decide to splurge on unnecessary crap like, aesthetic items or whatev'. At that point, they don't really care if you play or not, of if you're playing something else at the same time ;3
Though, I do! And everyone else that intends to play. More players generally = better economy so like...feel important! N' stuff. Just don't feel tied and chained to the game. Yanno, the way you do when you're paying for something monthly.
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
You were right that I won't just mindlessly accept that gw2 is "awesome" but you were not right in that you thinking you are right for automatically accepting that gw2 is "awesome". This was stated clearly already though, guess you just couldn't really understand it.
It's still an MMO.
Is it me or is every "Big name" title that passes is given "OMG WOW-KILLER".....what ever happened to those games ?
Not at all, since everything was districted/instanced. Luckily anet themselves do not claim gw1 was an mmo, cause they know it was closer to diablo than an mmorpg.
Reality set in for their fans when the games finally came out and they could no longer delude themselves about how the game was "going" to be.
Some mmo players have a ton of experience and wisdom, they understand proposed mechanics and how they flesh out in an actual game world, others who aren't as experienced don't really fully grasp that so they don't have a real understanding of how the game is going to play out.
If you want to create your own specific definition of an MMO that somehow requires no districts or instances, then perhaps you are right... but you're not.
Try again.
Exacly, it's sad too see so many hopefuls actually thinking it's "The next big thing". I was actually shocked when people were calling Warhammer a WoW killer.
Even anet understands that MMOs consist of a "massive multiplayer" interaction in a persistent world. Perhaps you should understand the connotation of labels like being an MMO before you go on believe gw1 is rainbows and butterflies and an mmo.
Also your blind loyalty has gotten the best of you, no one said MMOs couldn't have districts and instances, they simply can't be exclusively districts and instances.
I mean it's pretty stubborn when the devs themselves admit it isn't an MMO, yet the fans are so blindly loyal that they still don't accept it.
I knew warhammer was fail when I saw some of the early videos for their visions. You can't make a carebearish pvp game, it is pointless.
It's sad to see what happened to mythic entertainment, I remember playing magestorm and splatterball and having a blast with those multiplayer games.
No, he is in fact, right. Guild Wars doesn't do things that are found in every MMO out there and hence why people and the devs distinct their game from the others. Vindictus can be put in the same category in that it doesn't have a persistent world and the fact that the lobby is called outposts doesn't change the fact that they are, well...lobbies.
The Pass/Fail aspect of the event isn't what I think makes it Dynamic or not so I'm not sure what the point of this argument is.
Dynamic is when I walk to a town and two things could happen.
Traditional quest: Talking to a quest giver telling me he's under attack and I need to save him when if I choose not to do so he will never actually be attacked and there will be no consequences based on my decision. If I fail I abandon the quest and the world resets to accommodate me.
Dynamic quest: I see a town actually under attack and I either save the town OR there are consequences for not doing so. The big difference here is that things are actually happening dynamically at the point of the town. Furthermore if I fail or choose not to try the world will dynamically carry on without me one way or the other.
...And eventually reset to what it was before.
Dynamic does not mean non-cyclical, I never said that anywhere. Dynamic is the fact that the world and it's "Dynamic" events are happening regardless of you.
Now if you want to get into traditional quests and dynamic events regarding their cyclical nature then sure we can discuss that.
Dynamic events: You arrive at something happening dynamically and choose to intercede or not. Based on your actions the dynamic event flows back and forth until history eventually repeats itself.
EXAMPLE 1: Centaurs attacking village I save the people and move along until the next Centaur warband decides the village is ripe for the picking. This is logical and makes sense.
EXAMPLE 2: I escort the village diplomatic representative and fail in getting him to a diplomatic meeting. He dies, there is a consequence of no peace being made between the villagers to band together against the centaurs. Eventually the cycle resets where a new village diplomatic representative chosen to vie for peace again. This is logical and makes sense.
Traditional quest: You arrive at a quest giver telling you something is happening that isn't and you can choose to follow along or not. No consequences other than requirements for follow up quests. You can abandon to reset.
Example 1: Centaurs are hanging out in a field that you are told will attack the village. If you succeed the centaurs respawn within minutes and the quest is reset only you no longer have access to it, or maybe you do if it's a repeatable quest, but either way they'll never attack. This does not make sense.
Example 2: You fail in escorting the village diplomat to his meeting and he dies. You abandon the quest and all of a sudden the world has reset the guy is standing right where you left him with no memory of what happened in the previous attempt. That does not make sense.
What you don't realize is that while dynamic events may be a little more immersive than traditional quest chains, the fact that they are cyclical ruins any true feeling of accomplishment.
Other games suffer from the quests repopping for other players as well, but at least those other games understand what their game is fully.
Just remember when anet preaches their dynamic world that you can impact, it all resets over time.
The next WoW will be WoW2.
The WoW-Killer will be a virus infecting WoW's servers, shutting them down. Permanently.
That is all.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
Yes, quests chains have always been around, however this implementation is definitely far more immersive, as you pointed out. Making them a step in the right direction. Why should we have to run back to motionless moron B to get quest 3 of a chain? We should be able to see it happening!
They've also never said the dynamic chains are permanently affected, only the personal storyline is. They've made it very clear.
Also, yes, doing something that everyone has done a million times like killing 50 rats definitely imbues me with a feeling of accomplishment
Tell me rob, what is your favourite MMO? i want to see how it scales with your views, because you are definitely the most moronic troll on these forums, so i want to see which game you're scared of becoming a desolate graveyard upon the release of guild wars 2
ANet uses the word 'persistent', in that you see the results of your and your friends' actions, only over time things will change again.
They also mentioned that there are all kinds of various triggers, some are triggered by player actions, some are time affected, some by other influences like day/nigh or weather. This means that for a number of events if there are no players around to change the situation, then the local area will stay as it is, at one of the end stages of an event chain.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
ndeed, which itself is a far better beginning to a quest than a guy saying 'go and kill 25 trolls plz. thxbai!', it's easily the best system seen in any MMO so far. Simply because most, if not all, MMO's are just terrible with regards to content.