edit: also whats WvWvW? i've seen multiple people mention this but i just attempted to stop gaping in confusion and move on with the posts xD
I don't know if the OP needs this clarified or not, but It doesn't appear that anybody clarified why it's W v W v W and not just W v W.
A lot of games have two factions on the same server (alliance vs horde, guardians vs defiant, etc). One problem with this is that if the populations are imbalanced, one side always has an advantage. WoW went as far as to try to rectify this with a buff for the side with fewer people.
When you have three factions, it's easier for the sides to balance themselves. If one faction is winning, the other two can gang up on them. One problem with doing this all on one server though is that one faction is always the big dog.
GW2 also goes a step further with balance and has servers playing other servers. So for a week or two weeks three servers will play against each other and the game will keep track of the records. Winning servers will play other winning servers. Not only will that balance the gameplay by pitting your server against two other servers of comparable strength, it also keeps things fresher because you won't know from week to week which server is the big dog.
I'm sure I'm not alone in hoping server pride in that W/L record will keep people very motivated to PVP.
Btw, don't just gape in confusion. If you've got questions or doubts and you express them sincerely then I'm sure the people here will be happy to address them.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it."-Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
but wauh, theres been a lot going on in here even tho i've held back with poking at it, lot of reading material and a lot of different opinions ;D awesome
I had post number 101.
i seeee what you did there, i see what you did there
They're the latest installent of developers promising the world and then underdelivering.
IF (and this a a huge if given the scale of what they're hyping) they can deliever on everything they've shown us, then it will be worth the hype it's received here. However, given how much I thought GW1 sucked, I have serious doubt they can deliever.
The 2.3 million people that bought the first game and each of its campaigns disagree with you.
Heh, this is so true. Most people tend to treat ArenaNet like Blizzard, SOE, or any other old MMORPG company, but unlike those, if they make a promise, they'll come through on it. Every time. The reason the game is still in development when it was originally supposed to come out in mid 2008(!) is because they wanted to make sure that the game had fulfilled every promise, and more than that, they want to make a game that can compete with MMORPGs that have been out for years, content-wise, that have had multiple expansions already.
And as a Guild Wars 1 fan myself, I know that they come through on what they say, and they never fail to. And they'e the only online game dev to continue to provide free content after the game is released. And meaningful content, too, content that even excels what Valve offers. A great example of this is the recent War of Kryta content for the original Guild Wars. (Though I didn't bother with that, myself, I did appreciate that they did it. Tyrian humans are my least favourite, I'm far more fond of Eloanians myself.)
They do have a reputation for coming through and providing what they say they will, to my memory since the earliest announcement of the original Guild Wars, they haven't failed at this. The only reason that people aren't aware of this is that the original Guild Wars was a very niche game, unlike Guild Wars 2, so many didn't take notice of it. I almost overlooked it myself, I admit, since humans only is kind of meh. (Though I did like the Elonians.)
But now Guild Wars 2 has some serious mass appeal, and people are going to learn what you and I already know: ArenaNet delivers on their promises.
“We sold around seven million copies of Guild Wars 1,” Mike (OBrien) says, “and have been really successful
2.3 million people buying each campaign would be 6.9 million copies sold would it not?
I'm just assuming that 2.3mil people stuck with the game and bought every campaign, of course this is innacurate because people could have bought only one campaign but I like to think that it helps in measuring the approximate amount of people who are fans of the game.
Originally posted by Zeroxin Originally posted by Nadia
Originally posted by Zeroxin
The 2.3 million people that bought the first game and each of its campaigns disagree with you.
obviously some of the same players bought the other games too but GW has sold over 7 million http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/05/15/guild-wars-2-preview-2/ We sold around seven million copies of Guild Wars 1, Mike (OBrien) says, and have been really successful 2.3 million people buying each campaign would be 6.9 million copies sold would it not? I'm just assuming that 2.3mil people stuck with the game and bought every campaign, of course this is innacurate because people could have bought only one campaign but I like to think that it helps in measuring the approximate amount of people who are fans of the game. The Trilogy was available shortly after EOtN.
Originally posted by Zeroxin Originally posted by dreamscaper They're the latest installent of developers promising the world and then underdelivering. IF (and this a a huge if given the scale of what they're hyping) they can deliever on everything they've shown us, then it will be worth the hype it's received here. However, given how much I thought GW1 sucked, I have serious doubt they can deliever.
The 2.3 million people that bought the first game and each of its campaigns disagree with you. Ive purchased games and expansions that sucked. So, not every person that bought gw1 or any of its expansions is a guaranteed satisfied customer.
They're the latest installent of developers promising the world and then underdelivering.
IF (and this a a huge if given the scale of what they're hyping) they can deliever on everything they've shown us, then it will be worth the hype it's received here. However, given how much I thought GW1 sucked, I have serious doubt they can deliever.
The 2.3 million people that bought the first game and each of its campaigns disagree with you.
Ive purchased games and expansions that sucked. So, not every person that bought gw1 or any of its expansions is a guaranteed satisfied customer.
That's a straw-man. The argument wasn't whether people were satisfied with their purchases or not. Personal or mass satisfaction never came into this little discourse at any point. No, this was about whether people thought that ArenaNet could deliver on what they promised before the release of Guild Wars. And around the Internet, and in many reviews by renowned critics, it was generally agreed upon that what ArenaNet had promised for their games and expansions, they had delivered.
Any negativity toward the game was either entirely on a more subjective basis, or down to problems that some people might have had with the mechanics (such as balance via heroes, for one). Out of curiousity, I did a few web searches to see if I could find any evidence as to why ArenaNet might have failed to deliver on their promises, the results I got were all positive threads or posts on well known news sites about how reliable ArenaNet is in this regard. >_>
edit: also whats WvWvW? i've seen multiple people mention this but i just attempted to stop gaping in confusion and move on with the posts xD
I don't know if the OP needs this clarified or not, but It doesn't appear that anybody clarified why it's W v W v W and not just W v W.
A lot of games have two factions on the same server (alliance vs horde, guardians vs defiant, etc). One problem with this is that if the populations are imbalanced, one side always has an advantage. WoW went as far as to try to rectify this with a buff for the side with fewer people.
When you have three factions, it's easier for the sides to balance themselves. If one faction is winning, the other two can gang up on them. One problem with doing this all on one server though is that one faction is always the big dog.
GW2 also goes a step further with balance and has servers playing other servers. So for a week or two weeks three servers will play against each other and the game will keep track of the records. Winning servers will play other winning servers. Not only will that balance the gameplay by pitting your server against two other servers of comparable strength, it also keeps things fresher because you won't know from week to week which server is the big dog.
I'm sure I'm not alone in hoping server pride in that W/L record will keep people very motivated to PVP.
Btw, don't just gape in confusion. If you've got questions or doubts and you express them sincerely then I'm sure the people here will be happy to address them.
Yes, to emphasize three factions instead of two because it is very rare at the moment to have more than two and many have been looking for a good 3 way battle since DAoC. Personally, I think WvWvWvWvW would be fun. Make it a month long instead of a week with neat diplomacy gameplay, please
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Originally posted by Dream_Chaser Originally posted by Foomerang
Originally posted by Zeroxin
Originally posted by dreamscaper They're the latest installent of developers promising the world and then underdelivering. IF (and this a a huge if given the scale of what they're hyping) they can deliever on everything they've shown us, then it will be worth the hype it's received here. However, given how much I thought GW1 sucked, I have serious doubt they can deliever.
The 2.3 million people that bought the first game and each of its campaigns disagree with you.
Ive purchased games and expansions that sucked. So, not every person that bought gw1 or any of its expansions is a guaranteed satisfied customer. That's a straw-man. The argument wasn't whether people were satisfied with their purchases or not. Personal or mass satisfaction never came into this little discourse at any point. No, this was about whether people thought that ArenaNet could deliver on what they promised before the release of Guild Wars. And around the Internet, and in many reviews by renowned critics, it was generally agreed upon that what ArenaNet had promised for their games and expansions, they had delivered. Any negativity toward the game was either entirely on a more subjective basis, or down to problems that some people might have had with the mechanics (such as balance via heroes, for one). Out of curiousity, I did a few web searches to see if I could find any evidence as to why ArenaNet might have failed to deliver on their promises, the results I got were all positive threads or posts on well known news sites about how reliable ArenaNet is in this regard. >_> Really?
You should read all that stuff you quoted because Dreamscaper said, "However, given how much I thought GW1 sucked, I have serious doubt they can deliever."
Then Zerroxin replied to that saying, "The 2.3 million people that bought the first game and each of its campaigns disagree with you."
So yeah, this particular tangent here is about those 7 million people all loving GW1. Which is bs but whatev, I was just pointing out that people use sales figures to equate satisfied customers, which isn't always true. For the record, I paid ten bucks for GW1 a few years ago and felt it was worth 20.
They're the latest installent of developers promising the world and then underdelivering.
IF (and this a a huge if given the scale of what they're hyping) they can deliever on everything they've shown us, then it will be worth the hype it's received here. However, given how much I thought GW1 sucked, I have serious doubt they can deliever.
The 2.3 million people that bought the first game and each of its campaigns disagree with you.
Ive purchased games and expansions that sucked. So, not every person that bought gw1 or any of its expansions is a guaranteed satisfied customer.
Out of curiousity, I did a few web searches to see if I could find any evidence as to why ArenaNet might have failed to deliver on their promises, the results I got were all positive threads or posts on well known news sites about how reliable ArenaNet is in this regard. >_>
Then you didn't searched well enough.
As someone who followed GW years before it came out, I can tell you that they did not deliver on many things, and even some things they did the deliver on, could not be considered a success. I'm not going to recite all of them, but ask any player of the last 5-6 years and they will tell the same.
ArenaNet is a great company, but a company is not one person. Just like their are people with hearts at gold Activision, Bioware and EA, there are also idiots at ArenaNet and Valve. Companies are not one person. Stop treating it like a good or bad entity.
2.3 million people buying each campaign would be 6.9 million copies sold would it not?
I'm just assuming that 2.3mil people stuck with the game and bought every campaign, of course this is innacurate because people could have bought only one campaign but I like to think that it helps in measuring the approximate amount of people who are fans of the game.
I am not sure where 2.3 millions comes from, Anet said 3,5 million separate accounts (that was 6 months ago BTW) on their homepage, I checked it out last time we discussed it here.
That sounds pretty likely to me, not everyone bought more than one box and some people either bought Platinum or the old collection with the 3 first boxes in. On the other hand did many people like me buy all 4 boxes.
Because they just dont follow the same type of mmorpg where u have to grind and quest ur way to lvl cap without having fun
actualy gw2 will remove the quests and add dynamic events wich will be alot more fun than quests and dont forget the personal story wich is awesome add to that one of the strongest and fun pvp WvWvW and closing quotes with the buy to play model no monthly fees .
and heres a video that has 60 reason on 60 sec on why u should be hyped :P
Because they just dont follow the same type of mmorpg where u have to grind and quest ur way to lvl cap without having fun
actualy gw2 will remove the quests and add dynamic events wich will be alot more fun than quests and dont forget the personal story wich is awesome add to that one of the strongest and fun pvp WvWvW and closing quotes with the buy to play model no monthly fees .
and heres a video that has 60 reason on 60 sec on why u should be hyped :P
Watched the long version and I'd probably buy it if it turns out that way.
So when does it come out?
Couple weeks ago I re-installed guild wars 1, and spent 12 hours thinking about and building a new 8 player team, and 30 minutes playing it. I hope that's gone. While I enjoy the strategic options involved with building an 8 player team, even thinking and pondering what kind of build I'd like to try, it's a tad too complicated. 6 hours instead of 12 hours would be fine with me.
They're the latest installent of developers promising the world and then underdelivering.
IF (and this a a huge if given the scale of what they're hyping) they can deliever on everything they've shown us, then it will be worth the hype it's received here. However, given how much I thought GW1 sucked, I have serious doubt they can deliever.
The 2.3 million people that bought the first game and each of its campaigns disagree with you.
Ive purchased games and expansions that sucked. So, not every person that bought gw1 or any of its expansions is a guaranteed satisfied customer.
Out of curiousity, I did a few web searches to see if I could find any evidence as to why ArenaNet might have failed to deliver on their promises, the results I got were all positive threads or posts on well known news sites about how reliable ArenaNet is in this regard. >_>
Then you didn't searched well enough.
As someone who followed GW years before it came out, I can tell you that they did not deliver on many things, and even some things they did the deliver on, could not be considered a success. I'm not going to recite all of them, but ask any player of the last 5-6 years and they will tell the same.
ArenaNet is a great company, but a company is not one person. Just like their are people with hearts at gold Activision, Bioware and EA, there are also idiots at ArenaNet and Valve. Companies are not one person. Stop treating it like a good or bad entity.
No, wait, I've been playing for over 5 years and I'm curious as to what things ANet didn't deliver on as well. Do tell!
Because they just dont follow the same type of mmorpg where u have to grind and quest ur way to lvl cap without having fun
actualy gw2 will remove the quests and add dynamic events wich will be alot more fun than quests and dont forget the personal story wich is awesome add to that one of the strongest and fun pvp WvWvW and closing quotes with the buy to play model no monthly fees .
and heres a video that has 60 reason on 60 sec on why u should be hyped :P
Watched the long version and I'd probably buy it if it turns out that way.
So when does it come out?
Couple weeks ago I re-installed guild wars 1, and spent 12 hours thinking about and building a new 8 player team, and 30 minutes playing it. I hope that's gone. While I enjoy the strategic options involved with building an 8 player team, even thinking and pondering what kind of build I'd like to try, it's a tad too complicated. 6 hours instead of 12 hours would be fine with me.
Sadly, there's no release date yet, however there's closed beta testing scheduled for some time this year. The open beta and release (which are going to be quite close to one another) are supposed to be based on the results of the closed beta.
There are no 8-man team builds in GW2, and since there are no heroes you'll have to worry only about how to play your own character.
About the things Arenanet didn't deliver on... I want to know as well. I've also had the game for around 6 years and am curious.
Not sure why everyone is so hyped about this game myself. I mean, its sounds interesting but one thing keeps bugging me and it is the one thing that everyone else seems so excited for. The idea that everyone can do everything. People complain that MMORPG's are too easy, that the classes are boring and homogenous. Well, now you want a game where everyone can be everything and there is nothing to distinguish people from one another. Sounds so bloody boring. Yes, it will make grouping easier but it makes people disposable. Do you really want a game where people have to depend on people even less than they do now?
aion i found rather interesting, but i lost interest after grinding like a ..stone.. while being pked off my ..ground.. in the pk area- as there were nowhere else to level up, as team up places were deserted completely- could never find a team and so on-
That was glaringly obvious long before Aion launched. If you were hyped about Aion but don't like grinding or getting ganked, then you weren't paying attention.
One big reason for the hype in Guild Wars 2 is the "2". A sequel to the best game ever made should have a lot of hype. ArenaNet isn't just some random developer making crazy claims. They've tried to be innovative before and delivered, so there's reason to believe that they might be able to do it again.
Lol, too funny to pass up. Guild Wars was the best game ever made? Guild Wars was mediocre at best and a short-lived fad at worse. It was an online single player rpg and really did/does not fit into the mmorpg genre. And another lol for Areanet. Other than posters on these boards who sing the praises of Guild Wars, Areanet has a pretty poor track record and have failed to produce any market share worthy titles.
As for the other posters, I would urge restraint. To think that GW2 is going to completely revolutionalize the genre is setting yourself up for disappointment. It will likely be a very good game, but it is really not going to change much. Dynamic events are just modified quests, most still begin by speaking with a NPC and triggering an event. And the Holy Trinity is merely being tweaked.
Not sure why everyone is so hyped about this game myself. I mean, its sounds interesting but one thing keeps bugging me and it is the one thing that everyone else seems so excited for. The idea that everyone can do everything. People complain that MMORPG's are too easy, that the classes are boring and homogenous. Well, now you want a game where everyone can be everything and there is nothing to distinguish people from one another. Sounds so bloody boring. Yes, it will make grouping easier but it makes people disposable. Do you really want a game where people have to depend on people even less than they do now?
Everybody can't do everything though.
Every class can fulfill every role, but not all at the same time, and not in the same ways.
You can't specialize in DPS, control and support simultaneously, you have to pick one, or maybe two at a time.
... and when everybody can respec their character in a variety of ways (So anybody who has a warrior and earns the appropriate skill/traits can do anything else another warrior can do), what seperates the players is SKILL.
Then, only sucky people are disposable. So it's really only a big concern if you're severely lacking in skill, and... well, they can still get parties! It's just they're not valued as much by other players.
I'm not sure I'd want to play an MMORPG where people with little to no skills are just as valued and useful as somebody who is skillful though.
... and people can't do everything at once, and they certainly can't rez themselves all the time (During a very, very close fight they might be able to get back up, but that's it). ... and they can't do cross-class combos by themselves. So I'm not sure where you're getting this 'no depending on other people' thing.
Not sure why everyone is so hyped about this game myself. I mean, its sounds interesting but one thing keeps bugging me and it is the one thing that everyone else seems so excited for. The idea that everyone can do everything. People complain that MMORPG's are too easy, that the classes are boring and homogenous. Well, now you want a game where everyone can be everything and there is nothing to distinguish people from one another. Sounds so bloody boring. Yes, it will make grouping easier but it makes people disposable. Do you really want a game where people have to depend on people even less than they do now?
This might very well be the biggest risk in GW2. I don't think the idea is to reduce the dependence on others though. I think it's just to shift it. My assumption is that while every profession can contribute to control, damage, mitigation, and support, you won't be successful with group content unless you coordinate. I'm envisioning a more fluid and shared division of responsibility. Regardless of what profession you play, I think you'll be expected to "shift roles" on the fly in response to the encounter. At least I think that's what's intended.
If they pull this off, I think it will be tons of fun for those of us who like tactical encounters and have good situational awareness and group coordination. If the system devolves into everyone just running around like 5 year olds playing soccer, I suppose I'll just move on to some other game. No harm; no foul. :-)
Lol, too funny to pass up. Guild Wars was the best game ever made? Guild Wars was mediocre at best and a short-lived fad at worse. It was an online single player rpg and really did/does not fit into the mmorpg genre. And another lol for Areanet. Other than posters on these boards who sing the praises of Guild Wars, Areanet has a pretty poor track record and have failed to produce any market share worthy titles.
As for the other posters, I would urge restraint. To think that GW2 is going to completely revolutionalize the genre is setting yourself up for disappointment. It will likely be a very good game, but it is really not going to change much. Dynamic events are just modified quests, most still begin by speaking with a NPC and triggering an event. And the Holy Trinity is merely being tweaked.
Some people really really like GW. For them, GW is the best game ever made. This is one of those cases where it amounts to personal taste. There's no OBJECTIVE best game, it's all subjective.
It... wasn't really a single player RPG. It was a (non-massive) multiplayer RPG. Even Arenanet called it a "CORPG" for 'Cooperative RPG". They never called it an MMORPG.
... and that 'pretty poor track record' involves selling nearly 7 million copies. That's a 'pretty poor track record' most game companies would love to have.
Also, you're confusing dynamic quests with personal storyline. Dynamic events aren't triggered by speaking with NPCs.
... and totally removing the dedicated healer and removing all aggro management skills seems like a bit much to qualify as 'tweaking'. There aren't even any party member targeted heals in the game, and the most powerful healing spell that effects other people is a low level regen that stacks in duration, rather than healing power.
Lol, too funny to pass up. Guild Wars was the best game ever made? Guild Wars was mediocre at best and a short-lived fad at worse. It was an online single player rpg and really did/does not fit into the mmorpg genre. And another lol for Areanet. Other than posters on these boards who sing the praises of Guild Wars, Areanet has a pretty poor track record and have failed to produce any market share worthy titles.
Ah, yes, that's why it's one of the best sold PC games ever. Look it may not have appealed to you, but then again, it was never trying to be an MMO and was never advertised as being an MMO by it's developers either (it was called a CORPG, a Competitve Online Roleplaying Game by the developers). So it may have failed at being something it was not trying to be but it succeeded at being something it WAS trying to be. Further more, the core group of Anet's developers consists of ex-Blizzard employers so what do you mean when you say 'Arenanet has a pretty poor track record and have failed to produce any market share worthy titles'?
Lol, too funny to pass up. Guild Wars was the best game ever made? Guild Wars was mediocre at best and a short-lived fad at worse. It was an online single player rpg and really did/does not fit into the mmorpg genre. And another lol for Areanet. Other than posters on these boards who sing the praises of Guild Wars, Areanet has a pretty poor track record and have failed to produce any market share worthy titles.
As for the other posters, I would urge restraint. To think that GW2 is going to completely revolutionalize the genre is setting yourself up for disappointment. It will likely be a very good game, but it is really not going to change much. Dynamic events are just modified quests, most still begin by speaking with a NPC and triggering an event. And the Holy Trinity is merely being tweaked.
What GW1 is or isn't is entirely personal opinion. For me it was a great game. No it's not an MMO, it never was and Arenanet never advertised it as one, so if anyone was expecting something else... well, it was their problem.
Funny, you mention track record. I don't know what kind of track record they can have with only one game out. And whether or not it is poor... I don't think you are the one to make such estimations. Apparently, their track record is good enough for NCSoft to give them the green light for GW2 and to leave them take their sweet time with it. And I believe NCSoft know better about what is good for their investors than anyone on these boards.
About the posters on these boards... well, I don't think these boards really represent much of the original game's playerbase or much of the playerbase waiting for GW2 either. However, the fact is that GW1 is still up and kicking with plenty of people who currently play it, although it's been 4 years since the last major update. And it apparently was good enough to leave plenty of people waiting for more.
It wasn't a game for everyone. Some didn't like the instancing, some didn't like the lack of jumping, some found the game too hard. And some just never really understood what the game was about and why it appealed so much to people. Personally, that's the only game coming close to an MMO that has held my interest for more than a month straight. Lineage 2 didn't do it, WoW didn't do it, Aion didn't do it and Rift didn't do it. And yet, I have over 2500 hours spent in GW1. That online single player RPG as you put it. And that's not a really high number compared to plenty of other people I've met through the game.
As for GW2, I'm sorry, but you obviously do not know much about the dynamic events, so I have a hard time taking your other arguments seriously, either.
It was about time some devs removed the healer class. Either give every class healing abilities or just remove the class for good. I am a casual player, and don't find it funny to be waiting for a healer. Another thing is, a healer shouldn't be the reason why a group of PvPers are face rolling. No thank you. Good riddance!
Not sure why everyone is so hyped about this game myself. I mean, its sounds interesting but one thing keeps bugging me and it is the one thing that everyone else seems so excited for. The idea that everyone can do everything. People complain that MMORPG's are too easy, that the classes are boring and homogenous. Well, now you want a game where everyone can be everything and there is nothing to distinguish people from one another. Sounds so bloody boring. Yes, it will make grouping easier but it makes people disposable. Do you really want a game where people have to depend on people even less than they do now?
Everybody can't do everything though.
Every class can fulfill every role, but not all at the same time, and not in the same ways.
You can't specialize in DPS, control and support simultaneously, you have to pick one, or maybe two at a time.
... and when everybody can respec their character in a variety of ways (So anybody who has a warrior and earns the appropriate skill/traits can do anything else another warrior can do), what seperates the players is SKILL.
Then, only sucky people are disposable. So it's really only a big concern if you're severely lacking in skill, and... well, they can still get parties! It's just they're not valued as much by other players.
I'm not sure I'd want to play an MMORPG where people with little to no skills are just as valued and useful as somebody who is skillful though.
... and people can't do everything at once, and they certainly can't rez themselves all the time (During a very, very close fight they might be able to get back up, but that's it). ... and they can't do cross-class combos by themselves. So I'm not sure where you're getting this 'no depending on other people' thing.
Meowhead is right on, but I just want to expand on his answer and say that the professions are each designed with unique mechanics so they play and just simply "feel" differently. For instance, everybody has a self heal and at first glance we might consider that to be evidence that the professions are bland. But professions have choices when it comes to what their heal does and they vary to fit a class's theme. A warrior could get a heal that also gives them adrenaline, letting it be used offensively. One of the thief's heals also does a backflip away from combat. A necromancer can summon a lifetapping minion which you press the button again to sacrifice for a heal.
There will still be roles in combat. The difference is the roles won't be locked in. And with a limited skill bar you'll have to plan ahead. A warrior might start out with mace and shield to "control" the mob (GW2's version of tanking since mobs will try to kill the squishies not just be held in place by threat mechanics). If they die someone else who had been just DPSing can swap to their backup weapon and jump in. An elementalist might start off in fire attunement but then switch to the healing water attunement if it's needed. It's not that you'll have to depend on people less, it's that everybody shares the burden, not just the tank and healer.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it."-Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Dynamic events are just modified quests, most still begin by speaking with a NPC and triggering an event.
The demo videos are actually a little confusing in this regard because when you're starting out you're actually working on your personal storyline. As Meowhead has stated, the green symbols above people's heads are for personal story and dynamic events don't have them.
Dynamic events are NOT just modified quests, they're actually a huge innovation.
Traditional quests like in WoW are isolating. They're soloable so there's no need for a group. You don't want to group because then you have to get double the number of ground spawns. The mobs become too easy to kill. You only get half the xp and loot. If you're not on the same stage of a questline you have to wait for one person to catch up. They make you not want to play the game and get ahead of your friend because you'll just have to redo the content later when they get on. You don't want to see other players because then you're fighting them for spawns, or they screw you by starting that escort quest without you. If you do group up like for an elite quest, you disband immediately after and go your separate ways. And if you have a guy on your friends list who is now 10 levels below, you might as well defriend them because you can't group without trivializing it.
They've also got some other issues. You need to pick up the quest first and turn it in after. If you accidently do the quest before you have it, you don't get credit for it. You only get credit for full completion. With the exception of escort quests, they're hard to fail, you are going to kill those rats eventually. You can't redo quests you like. You have to read a wall of text to get the story, and then when you do it there's no threat, the evil things are just standing in a field not attacking anybody.
Dynamic events address ALL those points.
First, they build community. There's no griefing or spawn tagging. Everybody gets full credit for helping. They scale up in difficulty when more people show up so not only does it stay challenging, it also gets more interesting. You WANT to see other people. Events chain together to keep people working together longer, no just scattering when it's over. When doing an event you're scaled down to a level for it. You can group with that guy 10 levels below you.
Because the events run all the time whether players are there or not, they're immediate and threatening. Failure is possible. You don't need to pick up the quest, you can just see it and help. You don't have to worry about being on the same stage, people can join late or leave early (and still get partial credit). Because the events cycle, you can redo them. Because of the sidekicking down, the entire game's content is open to you when you're max level.
I'm still undercaffeinated so I can't even tell if I've addressed everything. Anyway, I hope you see what I mean when I say dynamic events are a big deal.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it."-Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Comments
I don't know if the OP needs this clarified or not, but It doesn't appear that anybody clarified why it's W v W v W and not just W v W.
A lot of games have two factions on the same server (alliance vs horde, guardians vs defiant, etc). One problem with this is that if the populations are imbalanced, one side always has an advantage. WoW went as far as to try to rectify this with a buff for the side with fewer people.
When you have three factions, it's easier for the sides to balance themselves. If one faction is winning, the other two can gang up on them. One problem with doing this all on one server though is that one faction is always the big dog.
GW2 also goes a step further with balance and has servers playing other servers. So for a week or two weeks three servers will play against each other and the game will keep track of the records. Winning servers will play other winning servers. Not only will that balance the gameplay by pitting your server against two other servers of comparable strength, it also keeps things fresher because you won't know from week to week which server is the big dog.
I'm sure I'm not alone in hoping server pride in that W/L record will keep people very motivated to PVP.
Btw, don't just gape in confusion. If you've got questions or doubts and you express them sincerely then I'm sure the people here will be happy to address them.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
i seeee what you did there, i see what you did there
Heh, this is so true. Most people tend to treat ArenaNet like Blizzard, SOE, or any other old MMORPG company, but unlike those, if they make a promise, they'll come through on it. Every time. The reason the game is still in development when it was originally supposed to come out in mid 2008(!) is because they wanted to make sure that the game had fulfilled every promise, and more than that, they want to make a game that can compete with MMORPGs that have been out for years, content-wise, that have had multiple expansions already.
And as a Guild Wars 1 fan myself, I know that they come through on what they say, and they never fail to. And they'e the only online game dev to continue to provide free content after the game is released. And meaningful content, too, content that even excels what Valve offers. A great example of this is the recent War of Kryta content for the original Guild Wars. (Though I didn't bother with that, myself, I did appreciate that they did it. Tyrian humans are my least favourite, I'm far more fond of Eloanians myself.)
They do have a reputation for coming through and providing what they say they will, to my memory since the earliest announcement of the original Guild Wars, they haven't failed at this. The only reason that people aren't aware of this is that the original Guild Wars was a very niche game, unlike Guild Wars 2, so many didn't take notice of it. I almost overlooked it myself, I admit, since humans only is kind of meh. (Though I did like the Elonians.)
But now Guild Wars 2 has some serious mass appeal, and people are going to learn what you and I already know: ArenaNet delivers on their promises.
2.3 million people buying each campaign would be 6.9 million copies sold would it not?
I'm just assuming that 2.3mil people stuck with the game and bought every campaign, of course this is innacurate because people could have bought only one campaign but I like to think that it helps in measuring the approximate amount of people who are fans of the game.
This is not a game.
http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/05/15/guild-wars-2-preview-2/
We sold around seven million copies of Guild Wars 1, Mike (OBrien) says, and have been really successful
2.3 million people buying each campaign would be 6.9 million copies sold would it not?
I'm just assuming that 2.3mil people stuck with the game and bought every campaign, of course this is innacurate because people could have bought only one campaign but I like to think that it helps in measuring the approximate amount of people who are fans of the game.
The Trilogy was available shortly after EOtN.
Ive purchased games and expansions that sucked. So, not every person that bought gw1 or any of its expansions is a guaranteed satisfied customer.
That's a straw-man. The argument wasn't whether people were satisfied with their purchases or not. Personal or mass satisfaction never came into this little discourse at any point. No, this was about whether people thought that ArenaNet could deliver on what they promised before the release of Guild Wars. And around the Internet, and in many reviews by renowned critics, it was generally agreed upon that what ArenaNet had promised for their games and expansions, they had delivered.
Any negativity toward the game was either entirely on a more subjective basis, or down to problems that some people might have had with the mechanics (such as balance via heroes, for one). Out of curiousity, I did a few web searches to see if I could find any evidence as to why ArenaNet might have failed to deliver on their promises, the results I got were all positive threads or posts on well known news sites about how reliable ArenaNet is in this regard. >_>
Yes, to emphasize three factions instead of two because it is very rare at the moment to have more than two and many have been looking for a good 3 way battle since DAoC. Personally, I think WvWvWvWvW would be fun. Make it a month long instead of a week with neat diplomacy gameplay, please
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
The 2.3 million people that bought the first game and each of its campaigns disagree with you.
Ive purchased games and expansions that sucked. So, not every person that bought gw1 or any of its expansions is a guaranteed satisfied customer.
That's a straw-man. The argument wasn't whether people were satisfied with their purchases or not. Personal or mass satisfaction never came into this little discourse at any point. No, this was about whether people thought that ArenaNet could deliver on what they promised before the release of Guild Wars. And around the Internet, and in many reviews by renowned critics, it was generally agreed upon that what ArenaNet had promised for their games and expansions, they had delivered.
Any negativity toward the game was either entirely on a more subjective basis, or down to problems that some people might have had with the mechanics (such as balance via heroes, for one). Out of curiousity, I did a few web searches to see if I could find any evidence as to why ArenaNet might have failed to deliver on their promises, the results I got were all positive threads or posts on well known news sites about how reliable ArenaNet is in this regard. >_>
Really?
You should read all that stuff you quoted because Dreamscaper said, "However, given how much I thought GW1 sucked, I have serious doubt they can deliever."
Then Zerroxin replied to that saying, "The 2.3 million people that bought the first game and each of its campaigns disagree with you."
So yeah, this particular tangent here is about those 7 million people all loving GW1. Which is bs but whatev, I was just pointing out that people use sales figures to equate satisfied customers, which isn't always true. For the record, I paid ten bucks for GW1 a few years ago and felt it was worth 20.
Then you didn't searched well enough.
As someone who followed GW years before it came out, I can tell you that they did not deliver on many things, and even some things they did the deliver on, could not be considered a success. I'm not going to recite all of them, but ask any player of the last 5-6 years and they will tell the same.
ArenaNet is a great company, but a company is not one person. Just like their are people with hearts at gold Activision, Bioware and EA, there are also idiots at ArenaNet and Valve. Companies are not one person. Stop treating it like a good or bad entity.
I am not sure where 2.3 millions comes from, Anet said 3,5 million separate accounts (that was 6 months ago BTW) on their homepage, I checked it out last time we discussed it here.
That sounds pretty likely to me, not everyone bought more than one box and some people either bought Platinum or the old collection with the 3 first boxes in. On the other hand did many people like me buy all 4 boxes.
Ill admit i knew next to nothing about GW2, but after watching them i have a very hyped feeling and a smile on my face.
I will be at the store buying these XD
Watched the long version and I'd probably buy it if it turns out that way.
So when does it come out?
Couple weeks ago I re-installed guild wars 1, and spent 12 hours thinking about and building a new 8 player team, and 30 minutes playing it. I hope that's gone. While I enjoy the strategic options involved with building an 8 player team, even thinking and pondering what kind of build I'd like to try, it's a tad too complicated. 6 hours instead of 12 hours would be fine with me.
No, wait, I've been playing for over 5 years and I'm curious as to what things ANet didn't deliver on as well. Do tell!
Sadly, there's no release date yet, however there's closed beta testing scheduled for some time this year. The open beta and release (which are going to be quite close to one another) are supposed to be based on the results of the closed beta.
There are no 8-man team builds in GW2, and since there are no heroes you'll have to worry only about how to play your own character.
About the things Arenanet didn't deliver on... I want to know as well. I've also had the game for around 6 years and am curious.
Not sure why everyone is so hyped about this game myself. I mean, its sounds interesting but one thing keeps bugging me and it is the one thing that everyone else seems so excited for. The idea that everyone can do everything. People complain that MMORPG's are too easy, that the classes are boring and homogenous. Well, now you want a game where everyone can be everything and there is nothing to distinguish people from one another. Sounds so bloody boring. Yes, it will make grouping easier but it makes people disposable. Do you really want a game where people have to depend on people even less than they do now?
Lol, too funny to pass up. Guild Wars was the best game ever made? Guild Wars was mediocre at best and a short-lived fad at worse. It was an online single player rpg and really did/does not fit into the mmorpg genre. And another lol for Areanet. Other than posters on these boards who sing the praises of Guild Wars, Areanet has a pretty poor track record and have failed to produce any market share worthy titles.
As for the other posters, I would urge restraint. To think that GW2 is going to completely revolutionalize the genre is setting yourself up for disappointment. It will likely be a very good game, but it is really not going to change much. Dynamic events are just modified quests, most still begin by speaking with a NPC and triggering an event. And the Holy Trinity is merely being tweaked.
Everybody can't do everything though.
Every class can fulfill every role, but not all at the same time, and not in the same ways.
You can't specialize in DPS, control and support simultaneously, you have to pick one, or maybe two at a time.
... and when everybody can respec their character in a variety of ways (So anybody who has a warrior and earns the appropriate skill/traits can do anything else another warrior can do), what seperates the players is SKILL.
Then, only sucky people are disposable. So it's really only a big concern if you're severely lacking in skill, and... well, they can still get parties! It's just they're not valued as much by other players.
I'm not sure I'd want to play an MMORPG where people with little to no skills are just as valued and useful as somebody who is skillful though.
... and people can't do everything at once, and they certainly can't rez themselves all the time (During a very, very close fight they might be able to get back up, but that's it). ... and they can't do cross-class combos by themselves. So I'm not sure where you're getting this 'no depending on other people' thing.
This might very well be the biggest risk in GW2. I don't think the idea is to reduce the dependence on others though. I think it's just to shift it. My assumption is that while every profession can contribute to control, damage, mitigation, and support, you won't be successful with group content unless you coordinate. I'm envisioning a more fluid and shared division of responsibility. Regardless of what profession you play, I think you'll be expected to "shift roles" on the fly in response to the encounter. At least I think that's what's intended.
If they pull this off, I think it will be tons of fun for those of us who like tactical encounters and have good situational awareness and group coordination. If the system devolves into everyone just running around like 5 year olds playing soccer, I suppose I'll just move on to some other game. No harm; no foul. :-)
Some people really really like GW. For them, GW is the best game ever made. This is one of those cases where it amounts to personal taste. There's no OBJECTIVE best game, it's all subjective.
It... wasn't really a single player RPG. It was a (non-massive) multiplayer RPG. Even Arenanet called it a "CORPG" for 'Cooperative RPG". They never called it an MMORPG.
... and that 'pretty poor track record' involves selling nearly 7 million copies. That's a 'pretty poor track record' most game companies would love to have.
Also, you're confusing dynamic quests with personal storyline. Dynamic events aren't triggered by speaking with NPCs.
... and totally removing the dedicated healer and removing all aggro management skills seems like a bit much to qualify as 'tweaking'. There aren't even any party member targeted heals in the game, and the most powerful healing spell that effects other people is a low level regen that stacks in duration, rather than healing power.
Ah, yes, that's why it's one of the best sold PC games ever. Look it may not have appealed to you, but then again, it was never trying to be an MMO and was never advertised as being an MMO by it's developers either (it was called a CORPG, a Competitve Online Roleplaying Game by the developers). So it may have failed at being something it was not trying to be but it succeeded at being something it WAS trying to be. Further more, the core group of Anet's developers consists of ex-Blizzard employers so what do you mean when you say 'Arenanet has a pretty poor track record and have failed to produce any market share worthy titles'?
What GW1 is or isn't is entirely personal opinion. For me it was a great game. No it's not an MMO, it never was and Arenanet never advertised it as one, so if anyone was expecting something else... well, it was their problem.
Funny, you mention track record. I don't know what kind of track record they can have with only one game out. And whether or not it is poor... I don't think you are the one to make such estimations. Apparently, their track record is good enough for NCSoft to give them the green light for GW2 and to leave them take their sweet time with it. And I believe NCSoft know better about what is good for their investors than anyone on these boards.
About the posters on these boards... well, I don't think these boards really represent much of the original game's playerbase or much of the playerbase waiting for GW2 either. However, the fact is that GW1 is still up and kicking with plenty of people who currently play it, although it's been 4 years since the last major update. And it apparently was good enough to leave plenty of people waiting for more.
It wasn't a game for everyone. Some didn't like the instancing, some didn't like the lack of jumping, some found the game too hard. And some just never really understood what the game was about and why it appealed so much to people. Personally, that's the only game coming close to an MMO that has held my interest for more than a month straight. Lineage 2 didn't do it, WoW didn't do it, Aion didn't do it and Rift didn't do it. And yet, I have over 2500 hours spent in GW1. That online single player RPG as you put it. And that's not a really high number compared to plenty of other people I've met through the game.
As for GW2, I'm sorry, but you obviously do not know much about the dynamic events, so I have a hard time taking your other arguments seriously, either.
It was about time some devs removed the healer class. Either give every class healing abilities or just remove the class for good. I am a casual player, and don't find it funny to be waiting for a healer. Another thing is, a healer shouldn't be the reason why a group of PvPers are face rolling. No thank you. Good riddance!
Meowhead is right on, but I just want to expand on his answer and say that the professions are each designed with unique mechanics so they play and just simply "feel" differently. For instance, everybody has a self heal and at first glance we might consider that to be evidence that the professions are bland. But professions have choices when it comes to what their heal does and they vary to fit a class's theme. A warrior could get a heal that also gives them adrenaline, letting it be used offensively. One of the thief's heals also does a backflip away from combat. A necromancer can summon a lifetapping minion which you press the button again to sacrifice for a heal.
There will still be roles in combat. The difference is the roles won't be locked in. And with a limited skill bar you'll have to plan ahead. A warrior might start out with mace and shield to "control" the mob (GW2's version of tanking since mobs will try to kill the squishies not just be held in place by threat mechanics). If they die someone else who had been just DPSing can swap to their backup weapon and jump in. An elementalist might start off in fire attunement but then switch to the healing water attunement if it's needed. It's not that you'll have to depend on people less, it's that everybody shares the burden, not just the tank and healer.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
The demo videos are actually a little confusing in this regard because when you're starting out you're actually working on your personal storyline. As Meowhead has stated, the green symbols above people's heads are for personal story and dynamic events don't have them.
Dynamic events are NOT just modified quests, they're actually a huge innovation.
Traditional quests like in WoW are isolating. They're soloable so there's no need for a group. You don't want to group because then you have to get double the number of ground spawns. The mobs become too easy to kill. You only get half the xp and loot. If you're not on the same stage of a questline you have to wait for one person to catch up. They make you not want to play the game and get ahead of your friend because you'll just have to redo the content later when they get on. You don't want to see other players because then you're fighting them for spawns, or they screw you by starting that escort quest without you. If you do group up like for an elite quest, you disband immediately after and go your separate ways. And if you have a guy on your friends list who is now 10 levels below, you might as well defriend them because you can't group without trivializing it.
They've also got some other issues. You need to pick up the quest first and turn it in after. If you accidently do the quest before you have it, you don't get credit for it. You only get credit for full completion. With the exception of escort quests, they're hard to fail, you are going to kill those rats eventually. You can't redo quests you like. You have to read a wall of text to get the story, and then when you do it there's no threat, the evil things are just standing in a field not attacking anybody.
Dynamic events address ALL those points.
First, they build community. There's no griefing or spawn tagging. Everybody gets full credit for helping. They scale up in difficulty when more people show up so not only does it stay challenging, it also gets more interesting. You WANT to see other people. Events chain together to keep people working together longer, no just scattering when it's over. When doing an event you're scaled down to a level for it. You can group with that guy 10 levels below you.
Because the events run all the time whether players are there or not, they're immediate and threatening. Failure is possible. You don't need to pick up the quest, you can just see it and help. You don't have to worry about being on the same stage, people can join late or leave early (and still get partial credit). Because the events cycle, you can redo them. Because of the sidekicking down, the entire game's content is open to you when you're max level.
I'm still undercaffeinated so I can't even tell if I've addressed everything. Anyway, I hope you see what I mean when I say dynamic events are a big deal.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007