The idea of just grouping with people to fill spots because there are no real concrete ROLES doesnt appeal. I already loathe the mostly solo anti social path MMOS seem to be taking and I think GW2 is championing that path like a beast lol..
there are roles just not the traditional roles
theres still a trinity, Damage - Support - Control
You could say instead of DPS/heal/tank, we have our own trinity of damage, support, and control,
but we prefer to think of them as the variety of elements that create a diverse and dynamic combat system that gives each player a toolbox to work with to solve any encounter we might throw their way. If that sounds like the kind of combat you are interested in, Guild Wars 2 is going to be a great place for you and your friends to fight together for many years to come.
There is, just it isn't so relied on, as we can all heal, we all have actions that are usable.
Change your thoughts and you change your world. -
Norman Vincent Peale
You only need one reason to try this game...it's B2P saving you hundreds of dollars over the years that you will be playing it as it offers more then a P2P game offering less.
You only need one reason to try this game...it's B2P saving you hundreds of dollars over the years that you will be playing it as it offers more then a P2P game offering less.
This is another big reason why my group of locals decided to play this game. It was between GW2, SWTOR and TSW and this won out in no small part because it was B2P. However, there were several other reasons like dynamic events, personal stories, and the races and classes. Not the same thing as most fantasy based games. We now have variety folks. And this is coming from someone who is NOT a fan of fantasy genre MMOs. My friend showed me WoW on his account and I wasn't wowed at all. Not motivated whatsoever. I uninstalled DnD Online as fast as I installed it after playing it. I'm trying LoTR now and I can feel it's losing the battle. But GW2...it'll be different and I'm happy for it because I've got the geek feeling for the game.
This is not to say the other games are not as good or bad. It's to say this is the game that appeals to me the most. I actually was heavily thinking about trying SWTOR but the deal breaker was B2P vs. P2P. And I don't play a plethora of MMOs. Once I play a game, I want to conitue to play the game for a very long time so I don't just play the new thing just because it's the new thing. Two tops. I've tried a lot but the vast majority just don't cut it (probably because they are fantasy genres).
The social structure of any MMO is based on the kind of players you're trying to attract. This may take a little time and patience as you search for them but they come around eventually. The problem is that most people just grab whoever to grind through an instance or event which, though practical in some cases, really kills any lasting social interaction in the long run with solid players. But I can't say I agree with GW2 killing that social interaction. I believe it'll make it more immersive than most MMOs. However, it's just really what you make of the game.
You only need one reason to try this game...it's B2P saving you hundreds of dollars over the years that you will be playing it as it offers more then a P2P game offering less.
This is another big reason why my group of locals decided to play this game. It was between GW2, SWTOR and TSW and this won out in no small part because it was B2P. However, there were several other reasons like dynamic events, personal stories, and the races and classes. Not the same thing as most fantasy based games. We now have variety folks. And this is coming from someone who is NOT a fan of fantasy genre MMOs. My friend showed me WoW on his account and I wasn't wowed at all. Not motivated whatsoever. I uninstalled DnD Online as fast as I installed it after playing it. I'm trying LoTR now and I can feel it's losing the battle. But GW2...it'll be different and I'm happy for it because I've got the geek feeling for the game.
This is not to say the other games are not as good or bad. It's to say this is the game that appeals to me the most. I actually was heavily thinking about trying SWTOR but the deal breaker was B2P vs. P2P. And I don't play a plethora of MMOs. Once I play a game, I want to conitue to play the game for a very long time so I don't just play the new thing just because it's the new thing. Two tops. I've tried a lot but the vast majority just don't cut it (probably because they are fantasy genres).
The social structure of any MMO is based on the kind of players you're trying to attract. This may take a little time and patience as you search for them but they come around eventually. The problem is that most people just grab whoever to grind through an instance or event which, though practical in some cases, really kills any lasting social interaction in the long run with solid players. But I can't say I agree with GW2 killing that social interaction. I believe it'll make it more immersive than most MMOs. However, it's just really what you make of the game.
Immersion and social are big concepts in the world of MMORPG's, but also every feature has an impact. I must agree.
Change your thoughts and you change your world. -
Norman Vincent Peale
Hoping this system brings diversity and dynamics into battles...
Best encounter that I can remember from all the MMOs I have played would have to be in a 5 man- group playing as a Druid in original EQ... Our puller grabbed a few too many and during the fight I ended up using almost every tool at my disposal... I had to heal fellow group members, root, snare, and kite mob's for CC, DOT and Blast for damage, and I think I remember even smacking a mob or two in the back to try and finish them off... all of this while buffing before the fight and being prepared to cast an evacuate to get us out of this if the fight went south...
By the time that fight was over I felt like I had finally mastered my class and it was a very rewarding feeling... Hoping to get that feeling again from another game...
Originally posted by assault3hro I think these are good reasons, are you guys going to buy the game? Honestly I only have one problem, it's with the dynamic events. I don't know if they will be all that much fun compared to the traditional MMORPG.
Yep, buying it.
Getting this, STWOR, TSW, and whatever else is coming soon. It's been too long playing the same old mmos so I'm eagerly looking forward to something else, don't care what it is.
That said, I'm perfectly level in my expectations. I don't think any game (even GW2) is going to "knock my socks off". If it does, great. But all I'm hoping for is a decent game that fun and engaging that has real immersion and story.
Any of these games that can give me that with LESS crazy-assed raiding, grinding and reputation slavery as the main feature has got my money for awhile.
SWTOR gets first crack, then whenever GW2 comes out. Although it's looking like this is going to be summer next year so that would mean TSW gets second crack.
See my problem with this game is it seems very very easy mode. Maybe im wrong, i do not know. But from what i read and seen its going to be just a plow through. I most likely will get it cause its only 60 bucks, but i just have a bad feeling i will be done and bored after the first month. One of my concerns
See my problem with this game is it seems very very easy mode. Maybe im wrong, i do not know. But from what i read and seen its going to be just a plow through. I most likely will get it cause its only 60 bucks, but i just have a bad feeling i will be done and bored after the first month. One of my concerns
I know gw1 and gw2 are different games. I also know that ANet is the same. That said I highly doubt gw2 will be a plow through. Hell...GW1 plows through me all the time instead.....wait...
See my problem with this game is it seems very very easy mode. Maybe im wrong, i do not know. But from what i read and seen its going to be just a plow through. I most likely will get it cause its only 60 bucks, but i just have a bad feeling i will be done and bored after the first month. One of my concerns
The explorable mode of the dungeons is said to be very hard. Here's a quote.
When I played it on Fanday, the explorable version WAS hard. It was 3+ hours of wipefest. You don't just have to learn the fights, you also have to fine-tune your group synergy. Any combination of professions can beat it, but you absolutely HAVE to work together to make it happen. Honestly, I never had so much fun in a dungeon before, even with the wipes.
And you're right, after we finally beat it at 11:30 at night, it was this awesome rush of endorphins. The people in the group were my brother, and three devs from Content Design; Matt, Devon and Leah. I've always felt close to my brother, obviously, but I now also feel this connection with those three devs. It was like we'd all been friends for ages and had just got together for a night of games and good times.
One of the lead devs in charge of designing the catacombs dungeon was standing over my should when we finished it. And I remember turning to him and telling him to not change a thing by way of difficulty. I honestly do not think you'll be disappointed.
That's the level 35 dungeon, and he's playing with 3 developers so you know it has to be legitimately difficult. Who knows what the level 80 dungeons are doing to look like, or whether there will be even higher level endgame ones.
Even in the open world, DEs have a level associated with them so you can always go to higher level ones if you want a bit more of a challenge. And we do know there will be "elite" events that will be even more difficult.
"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 just wanted to address a comment that the game was designed to really support the "solo, anti-social" form of MMO play. I see this game as breaking out of the stagnant MMO framework that has created the anti-social MMO player mind set. The game doesn't try to force you to group, which, let's face it, would not be acceptable to the player base in the current day and age. However, the game has been designed from the ground up to remove barriers to playing with others.
The game is solo friendly, for when people want to play solo, but the game also always rewards you for playing with others, even if you don't formally group. Replacing static quest chains with Dynamic Events means that people playing in proximity to you will always have the same content available to them as you are experiencing, since you experience it by being there, rather than by accepting a quest via a wall of text from some quest giver.
There is no mob tagging or kill stealing in GW2, since everyone who does a minimal amount of damage to a mob (5% to 10%, depending on the number of participants) gets full XP and full Loot. Not an equal split, but the same exact XP and loot you would have got killing the mob solo!
Dynamic Events scale up based on the number of participants, with the rewards scaling as well. The scaling is active and is based on activity of participants, not just the mere presence of other players. If five people are tackling an event, it scales up for five players. If two players decide to stop helping, just to see how the other three will fare with out them, the event scales back down for three players. When it's all said and done, rewards are based on how actively you participated over what portion of the event. You aren't competing with other players for the Gold, Silver or Bronze levels of reward. Your reward is based on thresholds of participation in the event and if everyone participated enough to earn for the Gold Level, they all earn Gold Level reward. (Unlike some other games, where only the top participants get certain rewards).
The side-kicking system is also key to cooperative play in this game. Most obviously, it allows people of any level range to join up and meaningfully participate in content together. However, it also serves as an anti-griefing mechanism. Since the game auto scales characters down for lower level content, higher level characters can't come in and trivialize and ruin lower level content for lower level players.
Another factor is that there are no targeted heals or buffs. They are all proximity, directional or area of effect in nature and they effect friendly players, whether they are grouped together or not. A small group of players thrust together by circumstance doesn't have to formally group to be able to work together.
It should never, ever be anything but a positive to have other players show up and tackle the same content as you. There is no decrease in your rewards and cooperation is in fact rewarded by the game.
As far as formal grouping goes, the way the game handles classes (professions) and group roles also makes it easier for people to join up together. All professions can handle multiple roles, sometimes switching roles mid combat, but otherwise being able to change skill load outs easily while out in the world. Since the game does away with the "Holy Trinity" of role based encounter design, even though almost any combination of professions could field a Tank, a DPSer and a Supporter, you don't always need to tackle content with a focus on people dedicated to those particular roles. Group success is going to depend on good players, rather than a particular mix of professions.
For those who like to group, not only are the barriers to grouping with others mostly removed from the game, but with success being mostly about player skill, there will be an opportunity for good players to earn reputations as good players and get group invites based on that, rather than based on the class they play or a particular role they fill. Being a great tank in other games doesn't matter much when the group looking for another player is already heavy on Tanks and needs healers. You won't run into that problem in GW2.
GW2 aims to help players unlearn all the anti-social habits most other MMOs have instilled in them via "broken" game design. The more you work with others, the better it will be, but if it takes you a while to transition, or you sometimes just prefer to do your own thing, the game doesn't punish you for those choices either.
The OP, including other posters, really do provide compelling enough information to consider GW2. Though without factions and open-world community-centric, incentivised, meaningful. cooperative and competitive pvp, organically community-controlled open-world settings and control, it really doesn't appear to cross that 'massively-multiplayer' game-play line.
Perhaps the dynamic events is what will barely edge this game into the massively-multiplayer game-play category, as I believe Rift had accomplished. But none-the-less, it appears to have all the makings for an excellently entertaining CORPG in an exclusively focused and emphasized PvE environment.
The OP, including other posters, really do provide compelling enough information to consider GW2. Though without factions and open-world community-centric, incentivised, meaningful. cooperative and competitive pvp, organically community-controlled open-world settings and control, it really doesn't appear to cross that 'massively-multiplayer' game-play line.
Perhaps the dynamic events is what will barely edge this game into the massively-multiplayer game-play category, as I believe Rift had accomplished. But none-the-less, it appears to have all the makings for an excellently entertaining CORPG in an exclusively focused and emphasized PvE environment.
I for one will be buying it for the Journey.
GW2 is NOT a CORPG. It's a true MMORPG. CORPG was the term coined for GW1, with it's completely instanced game world, connected to player hubs. GW2 is not like GW1. There are 25 large world zones and 6 large cities that are persisitant and not instanced, but shared by all players on the game server. There is some instanced content in GW2. Personal Story and Dungeons are instanced, a couple key buildings are instanced for story related reasons, but otherwise, it's an open, expansive game world. They don't even use phasing. If you help defend a village from an invasion, the village is saved for everyone on the server, until some future threat comes along to threaten it again.
GW2 is an MMORPG that encourages cooperative game play, how ever, it is not a CORPG, which is used to denote an online RPG lacking an open, persistant world, but is rather based on almost entirely instanced content.
The OP, including other posters, really do provide compelling enough information to consider GW2. Though without factions and open-world community-centric, incentivised, meaningful. cooperative and competitive pvp, organically community-controlled open-world settings and control, it really doesn't appear to cross that 'massively-multiplayer' game-play line.
Perhaps the dynamic events is what will barely edge this game into the massively-multiplayer game-play category, as I believe Rift had accomplished. But none-the-less, it appears to have all the makings for an excellently entertaining CORPG in an exclusively focused and emphasized PvE environment.
I for one will be buying it for the Journey.
GW2 is NOT a CORPG. It's a true MMORPG. CORPG was the term coined for GW1, with it's completely instanced game world, connected to player hubs. GW2 is not like GW1. There are 25 large world zones and 6 large cities that are persisitant and not instanced, but shared by all players on the game server. There is some instanced content in GW2. Personal Story and Dungeons are instanced, a couple key buildings are instanced for story related reasons, but otherwise, it's an open, expansive game world. They don't even use phasing. If you help defend a village from an invasion, the village is saved for everyone on the server, until some future threat comes along to threaten it again.
GW2 is an MMORPG that encourages cooperative game play, how ever, it is not a CORPG, which is used to denote an online RPG lacking an open, persistant world, but is rather based on almost entirely instanced content.
Ok. I'll bite. What is specifically massively-multiplayer about it. . .
. . .whats so massively-multiplayer about it that involves 100's of player cooperating and competing simultaneously, in a coordinated game-play means toward a collectively entertaining game-play accomplishment or community-meaningful endeavor.
What? Other than a server being able to host 100's of players simultaneoulsy while players accomplish solo, party-based pick-up or dungeon team-based cooperative dungeons.
The OP, including other posters, really do provide compelling enough information to consider GW2. Though without factions and open-world community-centric, incentivised, meaningful. cooperative and competitive pvp, organically community-controlled open-world settings and control, it really doesn't appear to cross that 'massively-multiplayer' game-play line.
Perhaps the dynamic events is what will barely edge this game into the massively-multiplayer game-play category, as I believe Rift had accomplished. But none-the-less, it appears to have all the makings for an excellently entertaining CORPG in an exclusively focused and emphasized PvE environment.
I for one will be buying it for the Journey.
/sigh why does it feel like an uphill battle to comment on this game anymore? People please, at the very least, read up on the features of a game before posting thoughts on said specific features. I am honestly asking to look before leaping. The game is in every way a MMO and I also am looking forward to the journey although I am finding it tougher and tougher to help people better understand what we know about the game since some don't feel they need know information before coming to conclusions.
Not attacking the person quoted, only using you as an example of what I am finding to be a common problem in regards to this game. Opinions without justification i suppose is the normal and I need to accept it...
Ok. I'll bite. What is specifically massively-multiplayer about it. . .
. . .whats so massively-multiplayer about it that involves 100's of player cooperating and competing simultaneously, in a coordinated game-play means toward a collectively entertaining game-play accomplishment or community-meaningful endeavor.
What? Other than a server being able to host 100's of players simultaneoulsy while players accomplish solo, party-based pick-up or dungeon team-based cooperative dungeons.
Ok I'll bite on yours.
Everything about the game and its devs philosophy is to steer players towards playing together. The WvW PvP is going to have a rewards system that benefits your server if you win. While this won't make people play cooperatively, it is a tool and incentive put in place to encourage it. the PvE is set up to not force grouping, while encouraging it through scaling and rewarding players for playing together by making it less competitive. No longer will I see other players and be annoyed because they are killing mobs I want. Another tool set in place to encourage playing together. So much more but I don't want a large wall for you to read through so I'll settle for those two examples.
For the red I am getting the feeling you think forced grouping is what determines wether a game is a MMO or not? I don't agree if that is the case but maybe that one will boil down to a difference of opinions. I think what you say here means that a majority of so called MMO's out there aren't actually MMO's either? If that is what you meant by that statement.
The game is an open world game where a massive number of players will be interacting with one another and that, to me, is the main thing that makes a game a MMO . The first wasn't but GW2 will be.
. . .whats so massively-multiplayer about it that involves 100's of player cooperating and competing simultaneously, in a coordinated game-play means toward a collectively entertaining game-play accomplishment or community-meaningful endeavor.
Hm... how about the large-scale dynamic events in the game, like the two dragon battles that have already been demo'd. Both those dynamic events require many players to take on multiple different aspects of the encounter and work cooperatively. All the large-scale dynamic events are capable of scaling up to provide up to 100 players with a challenging single open-world encounter with a big chain of events story leading up to it, and rewards for everyone if you win.
How about the combat system itself? Yet another example of how the game actively encourages social play by making things more fun and interesting when you work with others. A couple quick examples of this would be the way that spells like some heals or regens can be placed on the ground so that all players in the area can benefit from them. Or the cross-profession combo system, which allows players to use skills and spells in combination with other players to create new effects or additional damage.
Oh, and then there's WvWvW PvP, which is a huge 4-zone "open-world" PvP match that has three servers (unlimited players from each server) battling it out for two weeks at a time, with the winner getting rewards for their whole server.
Sounds pretty social to me. Maybe not in the traditional "I get to hang with my little clique of a guild and do exclusive things with them" type of MMO social play...but instead in a real community-building, make-new-friends, server-wide social kind of way.
Flaw, Philosophy doesn’t make something massively-multiplayer.
I was being sincere. And my challenge isn’t levied against GW2 only. My perception that Wintergrasp-like instanced battleground WvW PvP doesn’t make a game massively-multiplayer.
For the red highlights, again, It’s not a personal attack on this game, but a reality-check about what one considers massively-multiplayer other than the development studio says it is.
Now Fozzik, I did say that “perhaps the dynamic events is what will barely edge this game into the massively-multiplayer game-play category, as I believe Rift had.” I would agree there.
Combat system and being a social platform for socializing and chatting in no way makes any game’s game-play massively-multiplayer; that’s just a ruse in order to falsely justify a label.
However, you did remind me of the WvWvW reveals I read about a long while ago. Now granted, that faded and I began thinking of ANets WvWvW as being more like WoW’s Wintergrasp, but because my mind didn’t hold as much information as it once did, or if it ever did, I do recall WvWvW PvP appearing bigger. But is it relevant to the gaming community at large?
If what you say is true about a huge 4-zone "open-world" PvP match that has three servers (unlimited players from each server) battling it out for two weeks at a time, with the winner getting rewards for their whole server; that in addition to their open-world dynamic events could make GW2 more massively-multiplayer than most CORPG’s listed on this site that deceptively stamp their games as massively-multiplayer.
I was being sincere. And my challenge isn’t levied against GW2 only. My perception that Wintergrasp-like instanced battleground WvW PvP doesn’t make a game massively-multiplayer.
Why is WvWvW a instanced battleground and isnt the PvE world a huge instanced raid?
As i plan to stay 90% of the game in that "batleground", to me, i see the PvE world as instanced content
If what you say is true about a huge 4-zone "open-world" PvP match that has three servers (unlimited players from each server) battling it out for two weeks at a time, with the winner getting rewards for their whole server; that in addition to their open-world dynamic events could make GW2 more massively-multiplayer than most CORPG’s listed on this site that deceptively stamp their games as massively-multiplayer.
Well, if you have your own standard for what constitutes an MMORPG and it's more restrictive than what other people would consider an MMORPG, then of course we're going to have trouble discussing it.
If your idea is that a game needs to have 100s of people being able to work together, what games would you even consider to have been MMORPGs? I think one time in WoW 120 people on my server tried to attack Stormwind and it crashed the server.
As Fozzik pointed out, there are dynamic event boss battles in the PVE open world in GW2 that do scale up to 100 people. Here is a poor quality, but developer VO'ed video of the one from Gamescom 2010, The Shatterer.
Here's the one from this Gamescom, Tequatl the Sunless. Again, that scales up to 100 people, not sure how many are actually at either of these events. There's also structured PVP and other stuff in that video, but that's not world PVP.
World PVP is 3 server PVP and that it's against other servers is important because it doesn't divide up the playerbase. If 300 people on each server want to do it, it's not 100 vs 100 vs 100, it's 300 vs 300 vs 300. It's either supposed to be no limit on the number of players or so large a number it shouldn't be reached. They haven't demoed it so we don't have a ton of details, but here is part of a leaked map. http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:2011_August_world_vs_world_map.jpg It's got fog of war on it still, but imagine a equilateral triangle putting a North Portal Hill above the map to get a sense of the size (at East Keep Vale there's a trail where a player has run), and then there's also 3 more zones to go with this one.
I can only assume this game will meet your criteria for massively multiplayer. I know I've never played a game which intends to offer these opportunities for so many people to work together/against one another.
"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
Flaw, Philosophy doesn’t make something massively-multiplayer.
I was being sincere. And my challenge isn’t levied against GW2 only. My perception that Wintergrasp-like instanced battleground WvW PvP doesn’t make a game massively-multiplayer.
For the red highlights, again, It’s not a personal attack on this game, but a reality-check about what one considers massively-multiplayer other than the development studio says it is.
Now Fozzik, I did say that “perhaps the dynamic events is what will barely edge this game into the massively-multiplayer game-play category, as I believe Rift had.” I would agree there.
Combat system and being a social platform for socializing and chatting in no way makes any game’s game-play massively-multiplayer; that’s just a ruse in order to falsely justify a label.
However, you did remind me of the WvWvW reveals I read about a long while ago. Now granted, that faded and I began thinking of ANets WvWvW as being more like WoW’s Wintergrasp, but because my mind didn’t hold as much information as it once did, or if it ever did, I do recall WvWvW PvP appearing bigger. But is it relevant to the gaming community at large?
If what you say is true about a huge 4-zone "open-world" PvP match that has three servers (unlimited players from each server) battling it out for two weeks at a time, with the winner getting rewards for their whole server; that in addition to their open-world dynamic events could make GW2 more massively-multiplayer than most CORPG’s listed on this site that deceptively stamp their games as massively-multiplayer.
Okay…I shall bow and play the wait and see card.
The philosophy behind a design is the only thing that defines what it will be, and is always the first thing I try to discover about each new game in development. It's very easy to hide a lot of things behind marketing and buzzwords, but when you discover the philosophy that drives any developer or company, it's almost always correct as a predictor of what the game will be like. If a game company sets out to create a game that facilitates and encourages a server-wide community...people making friends, playing together as a community, and being excited when they see new people show up (whether strangers or friends or guildmates)...that philosophy should inform their whole design from the ground up.
Granted, some companies claim they want to do those things, and never actually do...but that comes down to bad design and execution. ArenaNet doesn't have those issues...they are building a game from the ground up to focus on social play and community, and from everything I've seen of their mechanics and systems, they are hitting the nail on the head a lot more often than we've seen in a long time...and doing it in some pretty innovative and fresh ways.
I don't believe Rift's "dynamic" content was even remotely like what we'll see in GW2...and I believe that Rift was designed squarely around the WoW-formula solo task grind game play and then bait-and-switch to all raid grind at max level. Their design from the ground up actively discourages social play...and their "dynamic" events simply provide easy facility for playing in proximity with other players, there's little or no incentive (and sometimes actually a penalty) for trying to play cooperatively or being interdependant with other players. I said all that just to point out that it's probably a bad idea to make a comparison between Rift and GW2 just because they both use the words "dynamic content". The difference in design philosophy and in the mechanics and systems themselves are night and day...and I believe you'll find that the game play will be just as contrasting between the two.
I was being sincere. And my challenge isn’t levied against GW2 only. My perception that Wintergrasp-like instanced battleground WvW PvP doesn’t make a game massively-multiplayer.
Why is WvWvW a instanced battleground and isnt the PvE world a huge instanced raid?
As i plan to stay 90% of the game in that "batleground", to me, i see the PvE world as instanced content
I plan to stay 90% of the game in character creation, which really makes the game a screen-saver to me. See what I did there.
While I respect your opinion Cik_ Asalin, since it wasn't an attack and that is rare in the GW2 forums, I'll just have to agree to disagree. Maybe our understanding or idea of what a MMO actually means is where we see differences. Like Fozzik explained and I tried to, the Devs are doing a lot of things to make players want to play together. To me that buids communities better than having forced groupling. As to the PvP portion, do you mean it's not an MMO because it is instanced vs world? You compare it to WG but the huge difference is scale and maybe reward, not to mention requirements and design.
I have played a lot of MMO's and this is the first time I have heard of a team trying to break this many of the barriers that I feel impede fun. We all have to wait and see if they can deliver on all of it, I still love discussing the ideas they are implementing to bring the multiplayer back in MMO.
Comments
I personally think this game will be an absolute blast as a side MMORPG, hopefully will become my main MMORPG.
There is, just it isn't so relied on, as we can all heal, we all have actions that are usable.
lol......I don't make sense very often, so hey......just trying to stay recognizeable.
Not really directed at anyone, more like an assertion that many SWTOR fans find GW2 "lacking" because it's not SWTOR. That's all.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
You only need one reason to try this game...it's B2P saving you hundreds of dollars over the years that you will be playing it as it offers more then a P2P game offering less.
This is another big reason why my group of locals decided to play this game. It was between GW2, SWTOR and TSW and this won out in no small part because it was B2P. However, there were several other reasons like dynamic events, personal stories, and the races and classes. Not the same thing as most fantasy based games. We now have variety folks. And this is coming from someone who is NOT a fan of fantasy genre MMOs. My friend showed me WoW on his account and I wasn't wowed at all. Not motivated whatsoever. I uninstalled DnD Online as fast as I installed it after playing it. I'm trying LoTR now and I can feel it's losing the battle. But GW2...it'll be different and I'm happy for it because I've got the geek feeling for the game.
This is not to say the other games are not as good or bad. It's to say this is the game that appeals to me the most. I actually was heavily thinking about trying SWTOR but the deal breaker was B2P vs. P2P. And I don't play a plethora of MMOs. Once I play a game, I want to conitue to play the game for a very long time so I don't just play the new thing just because it's the new thing. Two tops. I've tried a lot but the vast majority just don't cut it (probably because they are fantasy genres).
The social structure of any MMO is based on the kind of players you're trying to attract. This may take a little time and patience as you search for them but they come around eventually. The problem is that most people just grab whoever to grind through an instance or event which, though practical in some cases, really kills any lasting social interaction in the long run with solid players. But I can't say I agree with GW2 killing that social interaction. I believe it'll make it more immersive than most MMOs. However, it's just really what you make of the game.
CoH Supergroup: The Millennium Paladins
Immersion and social are big concepts in the world of MMORPG's, but also every feature has an impact. I must agree.
Hoping this system brings diversity and dynamics into battles...
Best encounter that I can remember from all the MMOs I have played would have to be in a 5 man- group playing as a Druid in original EQ... Our puller grabbed a few too many and during the fight I ended up using almost every tool at my disposal... I had to heal fellow group members, root, snare, and kite mob's for CC, DOT and Blast for damage, and I think I remember even smacking a mob or two in the back to try and finish them off... all of this while buffing before the fight and being prepared to cast an evacuate to get us out of this if the fight went south...
By the time that fight was over I felt like I had finally mastered my class and it was a very rewarding feeling... Hoping to get that feeling again from another game...
Getting this, STWOR, TSW, and whatever else is coming soon. It's been too long playing the same old mmos so I'm eagerly looking forward to something else, don't care what it is.
That said, I'm perfectly level in my expectations. I don't think any game (even GW2) is going to "knock my socks off". If it does, great. But all I'm hoping for is a decent game that fun and engaging that has real immersion and story.
Any of these games that can give me that with LESS crazy-assed raiding, grinding and reputation slavery as the main feature has got my money for awhile.
SWTOR gets first crack, then whenever GW2 comes out. Although it's looking like this is going to be summer next year so that would mean TSW gets second crack.
"TO MICHAEL!"
I am looking for something more immersive really, much more fun.
See my problem with this game is it seems very very easy mode. Maybe im wrong, i do not know. But from what i read and seen its going to be just a plow through. I most likely will get it cause its only 60 bucks, but i just have a bad feeling i will be done and bored after the first month. One of my concerns
I know gw1 and gw2 are different games. I also know that ANet is the same. That said I highly doubt gw2 will be a plow through. Hell...GW1 plows through me all the time instead.....wait...
The explorable mode of the dungeons is said to be very hard. Here's a quote.
When I played it on Fanday, the explorable version WAS hard. It was 3+ hours of wipefest. You don't just have to learn the fights, you also have to fine-tune your group synergy. Any combination of professions can beat it, but you absolutely HAVE to work together to make it happen. Honestly, I never had so much fun in a dungeon before, even with the wipes.
And you're right, after we finally beat it at 11:30 at night, it was this awesome rush of endorphins. The people in the group were my brother, and three devs from Content Design; Matt, Devon and Leah. I've always felt close to my brother, obviously, but I now also feel this connection with those three devs. It was like we'd all been friends for ages and had just got together for a night of games and good times.
One of the lead devs in charge of designing the catacombs dungeon was standing over my should when we finished it. And I remember turning to him and telling him to not change a thing by way of difficulty. I honestly do not think you'll be disappointed.
http://www.guildwars2guru.com/forum/william-fairfield-designing-dungeons-t18337p3.html
That's the level 35 dungeon, and he's playing with 3 developers so you know it has to be legitimately difficult. Who knows what the level 80 dungeons are doing to look like, or whether there will be even higher level endgame ones.
Even in the open world, DEs have a level associated with them so you can always go to higher level ones if you want a bit more of a challenge. And we do know there will be "elite" events that will be even more difficult.
"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 just wanted to address a comment that the game was designed to really support the "solo, anti-social" form of MMO play. I see this game as breaking out of the stagnant MMO framework that has created the anti-social MMO player mind set. The game doesn't try to force you to group, which, let's face it, would not be acceptable to the player base in the current day and age. However, the game has been designed from the ground up to remove barriers to playing with others.
The game is solo friendly, for when people want to play solo, but the game also always rewards you for playing with others, even if you don't formally group. Replacing static quest chains with Dynamic Events means that people playing in proximity to you will always have the same content available to them as you are experiencing, since you experience it by being there, rather than by accepting a quest via a wall of text from some quest giver.
There is no mob tagging or kill stealing in GW2, since everyone who does a minimal amount of damage to a mob (5% to 10%, depending on the number of participants) gets full XP and full Loot. Not an equal split, but the same exact XP and loot you would have got killing the mob solo!
Dynamic Events scale up based on the number of participants, with the rewards scaling as well. The scaling is active and is based on activity of participants, not just the mere presence of other players. If five people are tackling an event, it scales up for five players. If two players decide to stop helping, just to see how the other three will fare with out them, the event scales back down for three players. When it's all said and done, rewards are based on how actively you participated over what portion of the event. You aren't competing with other players for the Gold, Silver or Bronze levels of reward. Your reward is based on thresholds of participation in the event and if everyone participated enough to earn for the Gold Level, they all earn Gold Level reward. (Unlike some other games, where only the top participants get certain rewards).
The side-kicking system is also key to cooperative play in this game. Most obviously, it allows people of any level range to join up and meaningfully participate in content together. However, it also serves as an anti-griefing mechanism. Since the game auto scales characters down for lower level content, higher level characters can't come in and trivialize and ruin lower level content for lower level players.
Another factor is that there are no targeted heals or buffs. They are all proximity, directional or area of effect in nature and they effect friendly players, whether they are grouped together or not. A small group of players thrust together by circumstance doesn't have to formally group to be able to work together.
It should never, ever be anything but a positive to have other players show up and tackle the same content as you. There is no decrease in your rewards and cooperation is in fact rewarded by the game.
As far as formal grouping goes, the way the game handles classes (professions) and group roles also makes it easier for people to join up together. All professions can handle multiple roles, sometimes switching roles mid combat, but otherwise being able to change skill load outs easily while out in the world. Since the game does away with the "Holy Trinity" of role based encounter design, even though almost any combination of professions could field a Tank, a DPSer and a Supporter, you don't always need to tackle content with a focus on people dedicated to those particular roles. Group success is going to depend on good players, rather than a particular mix of professions.
For those who like to group, not only are the barriers to grouping with others mostly removed from the game, but with success being mostly about player skill, there will be an opportunity for good players to earn reputations as good players and get group invites based on that, rather than based on the class they play or a particular role they fill. Being a great tank in other games doesn't matter much when the group looking for another player is already heavy on Tanks and needs healers. You won't run into that problem in GW2.
GW2 aims to help players unlearn all the anti-social habits most other MMOs have instilled in them via "broken" game design. The more you work with others, the better it will be, but if it takes you a while to transition, or you sometimes just prefer to do your own thing, the game doesn't punish you for those choices either.
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
The OP, including other posters, really do provide compelling enough information to consider GW2. Though without factions and open-world community-centric, incentivised, meaningful. cooperative and competitive pvp, organically community-controlled open-world settings and control, it really doesn't appear to cross that 'massively-multiplayer' game-play line.
Perhaps the dynamic events is what will barely edge this game into the massively-multiplayer game-play category, as I believe Rift had accomplished. But none-the-less, it appears to have all the makings for an excellently entertaining CORPG in an exclusively focused and emphasized PvE environment.
I for one will be buying it for the Journey.
GW2 is NOT a CORPG. It's a true MMORPG. CORPG was the term coined for GW1, with it's completely instanced game world, connected to player hubs. GW2 is not like GW1. There are 25 large world zones and 6 large cities that are persisitant and not instanced, but shared by all players on the game server. There is some instanced content in GW2. Personal Story and Dungeons are instanced, a couple key buildings are instanced for story related reasons, but otherwise, it's an open, expansive game world. They don't even use phasing. If you help defend a village from an invasion, the village is saved for everyone on the server, until some future threat comes along to threaten it again.
GW2 is an MMORPG that encourages cooperative game play, how ever, it is not a CORPG, which is used to denote an online RPG lacking an open, persistant world, but is rather based on almost entirely instanced content.
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
Ok. I'll bite. What is specifically massively-multiplayer about it. . .
. . .whats so massively-multiplayer about it that involves 100's of player cooperating and competing simultaneously, in a coordinated game-play means toward a collectively entertaining game-play accomplishment or community-meaningful endeavor.
What? Other than a server being able to host 100's of players simultaneoulsy while players accomplish solo, party-based pick-up or dungeon team-based cooperative dungeons.
/sigh why does it feel like an uphill battle to comment on this game anymore? People please, at the very least, read up on the features of a game before posting thoughts on said specific features. I am honestly asking to look before leaping. The game is in every way a MMO and I also am looking forward to the journey although I am finding it tougher and tougher to help people better understand what we know about the game since some don't feel they need know information before coming to conclusions.
Not attacking the person quoted, only using you as an example of what I am finding to be a common problem in regards to this game. Opinions without justification i suppose is the normal and I need to accept it...
RIP Jimmy "The Rev" Sullivan and Paul Gray.
Ok I'll bite on yours.
Everything about the game and its devs philosophy is to steer players towards playing together. The WvW PvP is going to have a rewards system that benefits your server if you win. While this won't make people play cooperatively, it is a tool and incentive put in place to encourage it. the PvE is set up to not force grouping, while encouraging it through scaling and rewarding players for playing together by making it less competitive. No longer will I see other players and be annoyed because they are killing mobs I want. Another tool set in place to encourage playing together. So much more but I don't want a large wall for you to read through so I'll settle for those two examples.
For the red I am getting the feeling you think forced grouping is what determines wether a game is a MMO or not? I don't agree if that is the case but maybe that one will boil down to a difference of opinions. I think what you say here means that a majority of so called MMO's out there aren't actually MMO's either? If that is what you meant by that statement.
The game is an open world game where a massive number of players will be interacting with one another and that, to me, is the main thing that makes a game a MMO . The first wasn't but GW2 will be.
RIP Jimmy "The Rev" Sullivan and Paul Gray.
Hm... how about the large-scale dynamic events in the game, like the two dragon battles that have already been demo'd. Both those dynamic events require many players to take on multiple different aspects of the encounter and work cooperatively. All the large-scale dynamic events are capable of scaling up to provide up to 100 players with a challenging single open-world encounter with a big chain of events story leading up to it, and rewards for everyone if you win.
How about the combat system itself? Yet another example of how the game actively encourages social play by making things more fun and interesting when you work with others. A couple quick examples of this would be the way that spells like some heals or regens can be placed on the ground so that all players in the area can benefit from them. Or the cross-profession combo system, which allows players to use skills and spells in combination with other players to create new effects or additional damage.
Oh, and then there's WvWvW PvP, which is a huge 4-zone "open-world" PvP match that has three servers (unlimited players from each server) battling it out for two weeks at a time, with the winner getting rewards for their whole server.
Sounds pretty social to me. Maybe not in the traditional "I get to hang with my little clique of a guild and do exclusive things with them" type of MMO social play...but instead in a real community-building, make-new-friends, server-wide social kind of way.
Did I blow your mind?
Flaw, Philosophy doesn’t make something massively-multiplayer.
I was being sincere. And my challenge isn’t levied against GW2 only. My perception that Wintergrasp-like instanced battleground WvW PvP doesn’t make a game massively-multiplayer.
For the red highlights, again, It’s not a personal attack on this game, but a reality-check about what one considers massively-multiplayer other than the development studio says it is.
Now Fozzik, I did say that “perhaps the dynamic events is what will barely edge this game into the massively-multiplayer game-play category, as I believe Rift had.” I would agree there.
Combat system and being a social platform for socializing and chatting in no way makes any game’s game-play massively-multiplayer; that’s just a ruse in order to falsely justify a label.
However, you did remind me of the WvWvW reveals I read about a long while ago. Now granted, that faded and I began thinking of ANets WvWvW as being more like WoW’s Wintergrasp, but because my mind didn’t hold as much information as it once did, or if it ever did, I do recall WvWvW PvP appearing bigger. But is it relevant to the gaming community at large?
If what you say is true about a huge 4-zone "open-world" PvP match that has three servers (unlimited players from each server) battling it out for two weeks at a time, with the winner getting rewards for their whole server; that in addition to their open-world dynamic events could make GW2 more massively-multiplayer than most CORPG’s listed on this site that deceptively stamp their games as massively-multiplayer.
Okay…I shall bow and play the wait and see card.
Why is WvWvW a instanced battleground and isnt the PvE world a huge instanced raid?
As i plan to stay 90% of the game in that "batleground", to me, i see the PvE world as instanced content
Well, if you have your own standard for what constitutes an MMORPG and it's more restrictive than what other people would consider an MMORPG, then of course we're going to have trouble discussing it.
If your idea is that a game needs to have 100s of people being able to work together, what games would you even consider to have been MMORPGs? I think one time in WoW 120 people on my server tried to attack Stormwind and it crashed the server.
As Fozzik pointed out, there are dynamic event boss battles in the PVE open world in GW2 that do scale up to 100 people. Here is a poor quality, but developer VO'ed video of the one from Gamescom 2010, The Shatterer.
Here's the one from this Gamescom, Tequatl the Sunless. Again, that scales up to 100 people, not sure how many are actually at either of these events. There's also structured PVP and other stuff in that video, but that's not world PVP.
World PVP is 3 server PVP and that it's against other servers is important because it doesn't divide up the playerbase. If 300 people on each server want to do it, it's not 100 vs 100 vs 100, it's 300 vs 300 vs 300. It's either supposed to be no limit on the number of players or so large a number it shouldn't be reached. They haven't demoed it so we don't have a ton of details, but here is part of a leaked map. http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:2011_August_world_vs_world_map.jpg It's got fog of war on it still, but imagine a equilateral triangle putting a North Portal Hill above the map to get a sense of the size (at East Keep Vale there's a trail where a player has run), and then there's also 3 more zones to go with this one.
I can only assume this game will meet your criteria for massively multiplayer. I know I've never played a game which intends to offer these opportunities for so many people to work together/against one another.
"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 philosophy behind a design is the only thing that defines what it will be, and is always the first thing I try to discover about each new game in development. It's very easy to hide a lot of things behind marketing and buzzwords, but when you discover the philosophy that drives any developer or company, it's almost always correct as a predictor of what the game will be like. If a game company sets out to create a game that facilitates and encourages a server-wide community...people making friends, playing together as a community, and being excited when they see new people show up (whether strangers or friends or guildmates)...that philosophy should inform their whole design from the ground up.
Granted, some companies claim they want to do those things, and never actually do...but that comes down to bad design and execution. ArenaNet doesn't have those issues...they are building a game from the ground up to focus on social play and community, and from everything I've seen of their mechanics and systems, they are hitting the nail on the head a lot more often than we've seen in a long time...and doing it in some pretty innovative and fresh ways.
I don't believe Rift's "dynamic" content was even remotely like what we'll see in GW2...and I believe that Rift was designed squarely around the WoW-formula solo task grind game play and then bait-and-switch to all raid grind at max level. Their design from the ground up actively discourages social play...and their "dynamic" events simply provide easy facility for playing in proximity with other players, there's little or no incentive (and sometimes actually a penalty) for trying to play cooperatively or being interdependant with other players. I said all that just to point out that it's probably a bad idea to make a comparison between Rift and GW2 just because they both use the words "dynamic content". The difference in design philosophy and in the mechanics and systems themselves are night and day...and I believe you'll find that the game play will be just as contrasting between the two.
I plan to stay 90% of the game in character creation, which really makes the game a screen-saver to me. See what I did there.
(Tongue-in-cheek)
While I respect your opinion Cik_ Asalin, since it wasn't an attack and that is rare in the GW2 forums, I'll just have to agree to disagree. Maybe our understanding or idea of what a MMO actually means is where we see differences. Like Fozzik explained and I tried to, the Devs are doing a lot of things to make players want to play together. To me that buids communities better than having forced groupling. As to the PvP portion, do you mean it's not an MMO because it is instanced vs world? You compare it to WG but the huge difference is scale and maybe reward, not to mention requirements and design.
I have played a lot of MMO's and this is the first time I have heard of a team trying to break this many of the barriers that I feel impede fun. We all have to wait and see if they can deliver on all of it, I still love discussing the ideas they are implementing to bring the multiplayer back in MMO.
RIP Jimmy "The Rev" Sullivan and Paul Gray.