Nothing to discuss here. We all know that compare the the two, ArenaNet is the only one that polishes their game as they go. The other two polishes at the end, which will undoubtly result on many things being overlooked.
ArenaNet's re-iteration process is the key to insure that the game is polished in a certain phase of the game before moving on to the next phase. And they don't announce features unless they are complete and polished. Even though they changed features that they already polished, the new feature is polished before they announce it.
As you can see, it's not about the numbers or the math. ArenaNet's development process is superb compare to the other two which I believe will set GW2 way way apart from the rest.
Just watch the game play videos (not cinematics), you can tell a big difference already on how polished GW2 is compare to the other two.
Yea, and I have noticed SW looks far more polished then GW2. GW at launch wasn't very polished either. And by development process, do you mean the lack of information they've released over the last 5 years or so? Sorry, not sippin the koolaid.
Nothing to discuss here. We all know that compare the the two, ArenaNet is the only one that polishes their game as they go. The other two polishes at the end, which will undoubtly result on many things being overlooked.
Well, um... what I know is that I've played several games by Funcom and many games by BioWare. I did a trial of GW and uninstalled it shortly after entering the game.
So uh, what "most of us" know... is not to speak for everybody.
The thread is about which game is going to be most polished at release.
Did you uninstall GW because you didn't like it, or did you uninstall it because it was unplayably buggy? The latter is relevant to this thread, the former is not.
"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'd argue that in a fashion, SWTOR does have a cash shop. It is in the way CE versions are done these days. You are no longer just buying fluff with your CE, you're buying in game advantages.
Look at RIFT - CE version came with a mount and a larger bag. The mount was originally going to be at level 20, but it became level 1. Purchasing the CE version provides in game advantages. Then they added the AoH edition...which allows you buy bank access anywhere in Telara. Yet another game advantage - think of the person gathering mats without it and the person with it.
So we look at the TOR-CE:
Flare Gun: Fire flares into the air
Training Droid: Hovers at your side for combat assistance
HoloDancer: Project your own holographic dancer
HoloCam: Keep visual records of in-game adventures
STAP: Sleek and unique in-game vehicle
Exclusive Mouse Droid: Spunky Droid to join your adventures
Exclusive Collector's Edition Store: Unique in-game vendor with an assortment of items
Do any of those look like they will provide you an in game advantage over just buying the regular version?
These items though:
Exclusive Gentle Giant Darth Malgus statue
Game disks collectible metal case
The Journal of Master Gnost-Dural as annotated by Satele Shan
The Old Republic galaxy map
Music of Star Wars: The Old Republic CD
High-quality Collector's Edition box
Custom Security Authentication Key
Now those are what one might think of with a normal CE version of a game... that extra nifty stuff for the, oh yeah - Collector!
So I'd argue that right off the back, that with the CE version - there is a cash shop - since you're buying an advantage through a RMT.
You're not buying an advantage though. Firstly, nothing in the CE shop is bought with real money, its simply another normal ingame vendor for items/armour. Secondly, nothing in the CE shop gives any advantage to the player, its all purely cosmetic (or at the very best, the exact same stats as other armour you get at the same point in the game normally, only with a different appearance). So no, you're not buying an advantage, you're buying - as you put it, "fluff" - as it is all cosmetic.
Arenanet is at almost 300 staff now. been well over 150 for at least 4 years. they have 200 people playing the demo along with the public at game conventions. beta is starting next month and the game uses the engine from the first guild wars, with modifications.
Nothing to discuss here. We all know that compare the the two, ArenaNet is the only one that polishes their game as they go. The other two polishes at the end, which will undoubtly result on many things being overlooked.
Well, um... what I know is that I've played several games by Funcom and many games by BioWare. I did a trial of GW and uninstalled it shortly after entering the game.
So uh, what "most of us" know... is not to speak for everybody.
First of all, the game in question is not GW1, mind you, therefore that argument is irrelevant.
Second, you didn't even address the points I made that the only way that you wouldn't know about how ArenaNet polishes their game as they go is if you are ignorant of that fact. Because if you are not ignorant of that fact, then you would agree that "we all know" because of the facts provided to us.
Third, Funcom botched Age of Conan, FYI.
Lastly, there's nothing in the post ever suggest that I speak for everybody, that's just your twisted way of reading things.
Nothing to discuss here. We all know that compare the the two, ArenaNet is the only one that polishes their game as they go. The other two polishes at the end, which will undoubtly result on many things being overlooked.
ArenaNet's re-iteration process is the key to insure that the game is polished in a certain phase of the game before moving on to the next phase. And they don't announce features unless they are complete and polished. Even though they changed features that they already polished, the new feature is polished before they announce it.
As you can see, it's not about the numbers or the math. ArenaNet's development process is superb compare to the other two which I believe will set GW2 way way apart from the rest.
Just watch the game play videos (not cinematics), you can tell a big difference already on how polished GW2 is compare to the other two.
Yea, and I have noticed SW looks far more polished then GW2. GW at launch wasn't very polished either. And by development process, do you mean the lack of information they've released over the last 5 years or so? Sorry, not sippin the koolaid.
Again GW1 is not in question here. And what "lack of information"?
GW2 has tons of info in its own website and it's own wiki, just like the other two.
But the question here is, which game will be more polished, not which game has more of other things.
Nothing to discuss here. We all know that compare the the two, ArenaNet is the only one that polishes their game as they go. The other two polishes at the end, which will undoubtly result on many things being overlooked.
ArenaNet's re-iteration process is the key to insure that the game is polished in a certain phase of the game before moving on to the next phase. And they don't announce features unless they are complete and polished. Even though they changed features that they already polished, the new feature is polished before they announce it.
As you can see, it's not about the numbers or the math. ArenaNet's development process is superb compare to the other two which I believe will set GW2 way way apart from the rest.
Just watch the game play videos (not cinematics), you can tell a big difference already on how polished GW2 is compare to the other two.
Yea, and I have noticed SW looks far more polished then GW2. GW at launch wasn't very polished either. And by development process, do you mean the lack of information they've released over the last 5 years or so? Sorry, not sippin the koolaid.
Again GW1 is not in question here. And what "lack of information"?
GW2 has tons of info in its own website and it's own wiki, just like the other two.
But the question here is, which game will be more polished, not which game has more of other things.
If you're going to judge how ArenaNet polishes, then all we have to go by is the one game they have released, making GW1 completely part of the equation. Given that.... yah, not so much polish.
Has Funcom ever released a polished product with a succesful launch?
Arenanet has. I remember another thread from way back which concluded that GW1 and Final Fantasy XI had the only launches that could be considered succesful. Then again Rift was rather good, or so I hear. Anyway, there's not too many.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Nothing to discuss here. We all know that compare the the two, ArenaNet is the only one that polishes their game as they go. The other two polishes at the end, which will undoubtly result on many things being overlooked.
Well, um... what I know is that I've played several games by Funcom and many games by BioWare. I did a trial of GW and uninstalled it shortly after entering the game.
So uh, what "most of us" know... is not to speak for everybody.
The thread is about which game is going to be most polished at release.
Did you uninstall GW because you didn't like it, or did you uninstall it because it was unplayably buggy? The latter is relevant to this thread, the former is not.
I uninstalled it because it was fugly... a polished turd is still a turd. It was simply fugly. The graphics, the GUI, etc, etc. The game play was awkward, etc, etc. I did not experience enough of the game to determine whether I liked it or not, because of how poorly it presented itself.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Nothing to discuss here. We all know that compare the the two, ArenaNet is the only one that polishes their game as they go. The other two polishes at the end, which will undoubtly result on many things being overlooked.
Well, um... what I know is that I've played several games by Funcom and many games by BioWare. I did a trial of GW and uninstalled it shortly after entering the game.
So uh, what "most of us" know... is not to speak for everybody.
First of all, the game in question is not GW1, mind you, therefore that argument is irrelevant.
Second, you didn't even address the points I made that the only way that you wouldn't know about how ArenaNet polishes their game as they go is if you are ignorant of that fact. Because if you are not ignorant of that fact, then you would agree that "we all know" because of the facts provided to us.
Third, Funcom botched Age of Conan, FYI.
Lastly, there's nothing in the post ever suggest that I speak for everybody, that's just your twisted way of reading things.
Thank you for your time.
GW1 is the only game you could have played at the production level. So it is the only game that is relevant in comparison to games from Funcom and BioWare.
I did not address any further points, because I was only addressing your first point... you should not speak for everybody. Most of us know that.
As for you stating here you did not speak for everybody...it is in your first sentence of what I quoted: "We all know..."
You even quoted it in saying that you had not done it when you had...
...sheesh, really?
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
AoC is over 3 years old and was relaunched with a hybrid payment model.
WoW is #1 on that list. Is WoW still going? Is WoW still the most commonly referenced MMO?
BioWare does not have a MMO history. They do have a long and storied history with RPG fans out there...of many polished games. How will that translate into a MMO? Folks won't know until launch day, will they?
ArenaNet....well, they have the one game. Some say it had a great launch. Honestly, I do not remember.
Thus, given this information - the OP has asked we look at just a certain set of information... but we can't really just do it with that; because it is most definitely a combination of quality as well as quantity...
If a game has a great launch, great! The way I see it, when you've got games that had horrible launches and are still going 7-10 years later... maybe that launch did not matter as much as people might think.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
The thread is about which game is going to be most polished at release.
Did you uninstall GW because you didn't like it, or did you uninstall it because it was unplayably buggy? The latter is relevant to this thread, the former is not.
I uninstalled it because it was fugly... a polished turd is still a turd. It was simply fugly. The graphics, the GUI, etc, etc. The game play was awkward, etc, etc. I did not experience enough of the game to determine whether I liked it or not, because of how poorly it presented itself.
Again, sorry, but this thread is about which game will be polished at release, not which game people might like better. You might think the game was a turd, but if you're saying it was a polished turd, you're providing evidence that GW1 was polished.
Originally posted by VirusDancer
GW1 is the only game you could have played at the production level. So it is the only game that is relevant in comparison to games from Funcom and BioWare.
I did not address any further points, because I was only addressing your first point... you should not speak for everybody. Most of us know that.
As for you stating here you did not speak for everybody...it is in your first sentence of what I quoted: "We all know..."
You even quoted it in saying that you had not done it when you had...
...sheesh, really?
In my opinion, he's saying "we all know" as in "it's a fact and not an opinion" that ArenaNet iterates their games and polishes as they go. This blog post http://www.arena.net/blog/assuring-quality-qa-at-arenanet (and I could provide other sources if I had to) back that up. If you have evidence that the other two companies polish their games as they go instead of waiting until the end, or that ArenaNet is lying, please present it.
Also, GW1 isn't the only relevant game for comparison here. Demos of GW2 are certainly relevant information about the state of the release of GW2, especially as extensive as they are (7/8 classes, 5 zones, 3 cities, appearance, dyes, traits, achievements, crafting, structured pvp. Journalists also played 2 dungeon paths), as well as that the first demo was considered polished and it debuted over a year ago.
"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
Can't say I understand the point to this thread. How many people are part of the development of the game has been proven time and time again by many an Indie wonder (*cough* Minecraft *cough*) to be irrelevant to the quality and success of the game.
What matters is the game itself. To that end I'm looking forward to TSW and GW2. WoW in space is still WoW; as much as I love Bioware (so much that I still buy new DA2 Add-ons when they come out and I will be buying ME3), no part of being in the SWTOR Beta was a pleasant experience. It was an absolute chore to play. GW2 was a blast at the conventions, and while I haven't played TSW yet the more free-form mechanics of combat I've seen from videos look very promising. The only reason TSW is behind GW2 at this point is because Funcom has a shitty reputation.
EDIT: in case the last line was too subtle, Anet has proven finesse and polish far more often than Funcom has, and Bioware as well for that matter. Bioware, unlike Funcom, has a history of making great games, but they frequently require tons of patching to fix various bugs and glitches, largely because they try to be such big games right out of the box.
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
The thread is about which game is going to be most polished at release.
Did you uninstall GW because you didn't like it, or did you uninstall it because it was unplayably buggy? The latter is relevant to this thread, the former is not.
I uninstalled it because it was fugly... a polished turd is still a turd. It was simply fugly. The graphics, the GUI, etc, etc. The game play was awkward, etc, etc. I did not experience enough of the game to determine whether I liked it or not, because of how poorly it presented itself.
Again, sorry, but this thread is about which game will be polished at release, not which game people might like better. You might think the game was a turd, but if you're saying it was a polished turd, you're providing evidence that GW1 was polished.
It was a case of calling into question what some consider polished.
Originally posted by VirusDancer
GW1 is the only game you could have played at the production level. So it is the only game that is relevant in comparison to games from Funcom and BioWare.
I did not address any further points, because I was only addressing your first point... you should not speak for everybody. Most of us know that.
As for you stating here you did not speak for everybody...it is in your first sentence of what I quoted: "We all know..."
You even quoted it in saying that you had not done it when you had...
...sheesh, really?
In my opinion, he's saying "we all know" as in "it's a fact and not an opinion" that ArenaNet iterates their games and polishes as they go. This blog post http://www.arena.net/blog/assuring-quality-qa-at-arenanet (and I could provide other sources if I had to) back that up. If you have evidence that the other two companies polish their games as they go instead of waiting until the end, or that ArenaNet is lying, please present it.
Your evidence is a link to a blog from the company itself? I mean...really?
Also, GW1 isn't the only relevant game for comparison here. Demos of GW2 are certainly relevant information about the state of the release of GW2, especially as extensive as they are (7/8 classes, 5 zones, 3 cities, appearance, dyes, traits, achievements, crafting, structured pvp. Journalists also played 2 dungeon paths), as well as that the first demo was considered polished and it debuted over a year ago.
Did you miss the part where I stated "production"...by any chance?
You cannot compare a demo... if you want to compare launches, then you need to compare launches.
And as I stated elsewhere in the thread, launches have been misleading...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Nothing to discuss here. We all know that compare the the two, ArenaNet is the only one that polishes their game as they go. The other two polishes at the end, which will undoubtly result on many things being overlooked.
Well, um... what I know is that I've played several games by Funcom and many games by BioWare. I did a trial of GW and uninstalled it shortly after entering the game.
So uh, what "most of us" know... is not to speak for everybody.
First of all, the game in question is not GW1, mind you, therefore that argument is irrelevant.
Second, you didn't even address the points I made that the only way that you wouldn't know about how ArenaNet polishes their game as they go is if you are ignorant of that fact. Because if you are not ignorant of that fact, then you would agree that "we all know" because of the facts provided to us.
Third, Funcom botched Age of Conan, FYI.
Lastly, there's nothing in the post ever suggest that I speak for everybody, that's just your twisted way of reading things.
Thank you for your time.
GW1 is the only game you could have played at the production level. So it is the only game that is relevant in comparison to games from Funcom and BioWare.
I did not address any further points, because I was only addressing your first point... you should not speak for everybody. Most of us know that.
As for you stating here you did not speak for everybody...it is in your first sentence of what I quoted: "We all know..."
You even quoted it in saying that you had not done it when you had...
...sheesh, really?
Reading comprehension?
Let me ask you a question. Do you know or do you not know how ArenaNet polishes GW2 thru re-iterations?
If you dont know, then that says a lot on how insufficient your information are when it comes to ArenatNet, because the information is out there and we all know about it, except you of course, since you distance yourself from the start.
If you would use GW1 as the standard, then to be fair, you should also use Age of Conan as standard to evaluate what "wonderful" job Funcom did in polishing their game.
As for Bioware, they have not touched the MMO market...this is their first MMO game.
So now tell me how relevant GW1 is in comparing the three, when one of the three don't even have an MMO to use as a material for comparison.
So for your sake, please stay on topic and use the three games in development as your material for comparison.
And since you don't know anything about ArenaNet, you might want to look it up.
Nothing to discuss here. We all know that compare the the two, ArenaNet is the only one that polishes their game as they go. The other two polishes at the end, which will undoubtly result on many things being overlooked.
ArenaNet's re-iteration process is the key to insure that the game is polished in a certain phase of the game before moving on to the next phase. And they don't announce features unless they are complete and polished. Even though they changed features that they already polished, the new feature is polished before they announce it.
As you can see, it's not about the numbers or the math. ArenaNet's development process is superb compare to the other two which I believe will set GW2 way way apart from the rest.
Just watch the game play videos (not cinematics), you can tell a big difference already on how polished GW2 is compare to the other two.
Yea, and I have noticed SW looks far more polished then GW2. GW at launch wasn't very polished either. And by development process, do you mean the lack of information they've released over the last 5 years or so? Sorry, not sippin the koolaid.
Again GW1 is not in question here. And what "lack of information"?
GW2 has tons of info in its own website and it's own wiki, just like the other two.
But the question here is, which game will be more polished, not which game has more of other things.
If you're going to judge how ArenaNet polishes, then all we have to go by is the one game they have released, making GW1 completely part of the equation. Given that.... yah, not so much polish.
lol, nice try. If that is so, what does Age of Conan makes Funcom?
Nothing to discuss here. We all know that compare the the two, ArenaNet is the only one that polishes their game as they go. The other two polishes at the end, which will undoubtly result on many things being overlooked.
ArenaNet's re-iteration process is the key to insure that the game is polished in a certain phase of the game before moving on to the next phase. And they don't announce features unless they are complete and polished. Even though they changed features that they already polished, the new feature is polished before they announce it.
As you can see, it's not about the numbers or the math. ArenaNet's development process is superb compare to the other two which I believe will set GW2 way way apart from the rest.
Just watch the game play videos (not cinematics), you can tell a big difference already on how polished GW2 is compare to the other two.
On what exactly do you base that neither Bioware nor Funcom polishes as they go?
I know there's a blog out by ANet about their QA process. But how exactly does ANet doing it that way imply that other companies are doing it another way?
I mean looking at some of the SWToR blogs you get a glimpse of an entire system of peer reviews that are being done for all writing after which everything is rewritten and peer reviewed again.
Their content teams are scripting the quests before the concept artists are finished so they can start testing, receiving feedback and making revisions.
The basic layout of each world goes through several revisions and tests before the environmental art teams actually start building the world.
Once that is done the combat and gameplay teams start building all their systems and will tweak spawns and who knows what until all of it matches the desired gameplay experience.
Their QA team hasn't even touched it so far and they're going to go through everything all over again until it's exactly right.
How is that not polishing as they go? It sounds basically the same as ANet, where each team also does QA on it's own and other team's work constantly and always making changes based on that.
Seriously, before you start comparing games you might want to make sure you don't have just the knowledge about one game but actually about both games.
Source (among others, read their entire dev blog section at the very least before doing another comparison).
We are the bunny. Resistance is futile. ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\ ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o) (")("),,(")("),(")(")
Nothing to discuss here. We all know that compare the the two, ArenaNet is the only one that polishes their game as they go. The other two polishes at the end, which will undoubtly result on many things being overlooked.
ArenaNet's re-iteration process is the key to insure that the game is polished in a certain phase of the game before moving on to the next phase. And they don't announce features unless they are complete and polished. Even though they changed features that they already polished, the new feature is polished before they announce it.
As you can see, it's not about the numbers or the math. ArenaNet's development process is superb compare to the other two which I believe will set GW2 way way apart from the rest.
Just watch the game play videos (not cinematics), you can tell a big difference already on how polished GW2 is compare to the other two.
Yea, and I have noticed SW looks far more polished then GW2. GW at launch wasn't very polished either. And by development process, do you mean the lack of information they've released over the last 5 years or so? Sorry, not sippin the koolaid.
Again GW1 is not in question here. And what "lack of information"?
GW2 has tons of info in its own website and it's own wiki, just like the other two.
But the question here is, which game will be more polished, not which game has more of other things.
If you're going to judge how ArenaNet polishes, then all we have to go by is the one game they have released, making GW1 completely part of the equation. Given that.... yah, not so much polish.
lol, nice try. If that is so, what does Age of Conan makes Funcom?
So I suggest that we should stay on topic.
That is completely on topic and completely the point here, which is why many of us are worried about what state TSW will be in at release.
I find it odd how many have referenced the launch of RIFT as polished. I assume that is going with the "actual" launch as opposed to what happened during the "headstart"...
...have to figure more companies are going to go with "headstarts" to make the "actual" launch look better than it was.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Comments
Yea, and I have noticed SW looks far more polished then GW2. GW at launch wasn't very polished either. And by development process, do you mean the lack of information they've released over the last 5 years or so? Sorry, not sippin the koolaid.
The thread is about which game is going to be most polished at release.
Did you uninstall GW because you didn't like it, or did you uninstall it because it was unplayably buggy? The latter is relevant to this thread, the former is not.
"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
You're not buying an advantage though. Firstly, nothing in the CE shop is bought with real money, its simply another normal ingame vendor for items/armour. Secondly, nothing in the CE shop gives any advantage to the player, its all purely cosmetic (or at the very best, the exact same stats as other armour you get at the same point in the game normally, only with a different appearance). So no, you're not buying an advantage, you're buying - as you put it, "fluff" - as it is all cosmetic.
The last update of that wiki page was 2008. In the ArenaNet retrospective video they said they had over 270 employees at the time of the video.
Secret World's numbers sure look impressive until you're confronted with this:
http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/10/19/ccp-layoffs-affect-20-of-worldwide-staff-company-focusing-on-e/
Friend of mine was laid off who was working on that project, sadly
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The Secret World is developed by Funcom, not CCP.
You might be thinking of World of Darkness.
First of all, the game in question is not GW1, mind you, therefore that argument is irrelevant.
Second, you didn't even address the points I made that the only way that you wouldn't know about how ArenaNet polishes their game as they go is if you are ignorant of that fact. Because if you are not ignorant of that fact, then you would agree that "we all know" because of the facts provided to us.
Third, Funcom botched Age of Conan, FYI.
Lastly, there's nothing in the post ever suggest that I speak for everybody, that's just your twisted way of reading things.
Thank you for your time.
Ready for GW2!!!
Again GW1 is not in question here. And what "lack of information"?
GW2 has tons of info in its own website and it's own wiki, just like the other two.
But the question here is, which game will be more polished, not which game has more of other things.
Ready for GW2!!!
If you're going to judge how ArenaNet polishes, then all we have to go by is the one game they have released, making GW1 completely part of the equation. Given that.... yah, not so much polish.
Has Funcom ever released a polished product with a succesful launch?
Arenanet has. I remember another thread from way back which concluded that GW1 and Final Fantasy XI had the only launches that could be considered succesful. Then again Rift was rather good, or so I hear. Anyway, there's not too many.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I uninstalled it because it was fugly... a polished turd is still a turd. It was simply fugly. The graphics, the GUI, etc, etc. The game play was awkward, etc, etc. I did not experience enough of the game to determine whether I liked it or not, because of how poorly it presented itself.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
GW1 is the only game you could have played at the production level. So it is the only game that is relevant in comparison to games from Funcom and BioWare.
I did not address any further points, because I was only addressing your first point... you should not speak for everybody. Most of us know that.
As for you stating here you did not speak for everybody...it is in your first sentence of what I quoted: "We all know..."
You even quoted it in saying that you had not done it when you had...
...sheesh, really?
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Stay on topic please.
All in all, I have to say a discussion of the most polished launch does not really mean as much as some people think...imho.
I mean, we had this list earlier in the year: http://www.mmorpg.com/showFeature.cfm/loadFeature/4862/The-Worst-MMORPG-Launches.html
Funcom has two on that list: AO and AoC.
AO has been running for over 10 years.
AoC is over 3 years old and was relaunched with a hybrid payment model.
WoW is #1 on that list. Is WoW still going? Is WoW still the most commonly referenced MMO?
BioWare does not have a MMO history. They do have a long and storied history with RPG fans out there...of many polished games. How will that translate into a MMO? Folks won't know until launch day, will they?
ArenaNet....well, they have the one game. Some say it had a great launch. Honestly, I do not remember.
Thus, given this information - the OP has asked we look at just a certain set of information... but we can't really just do it with that; because it is most definitely a combination of quality as well as quantity...
If a game has a great launch, great! The way I see it, when you've got games that had horrible launches and are still going 7-10 years later... maybe that launch did not matter as much as people might think.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Again, sorry, but this thread is about which game will be polished at release, not which game people might like better. You might think the game was a turd, but if you're saying it was a polished turd, you're providing evidence that GW1 was polished.
In my opinion, he's saying "we all know" as in "it's a fact and not an opinion" that ArenaNet iterates their games and polishes as they go. This blog post http://www.arena.net/blog/assuring-quality-qa-at-arenanet (and I could provide other sources if I had to) back that up. If you have evidence that the other two companies polish their games as they go instead of waiting until the end, or that ArenaNet is lying, please present it.
Also, GW1 isn't the only relevant game for comparison here. Demos of GW2 are certainly relevant information about the state of the release of GW2, especially as extensive as they are (7/8 classes, 5 zones, 3 cities, appearance, dyes, traits, achievements, crafting, structured pvp. Journalists also played 2 dungeon paths), as well as that the first demo was considered polished and it debuted over a year ago.
"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
Can't say I understand the point to this thread. How many people are part of the development of the game has been proven time and time again by many an Indie wonder (*cough* Minecraft *cough*) to be irrelevant to the quality and success of the game.
What matters is the game itself. To that end I'm looking forward to TSW and GW2. WoW in space is still WoW; as much as I love Bioware (so much that I still buy new DA2 Add-ons when they come out and I will be buying ME3), no part of being in the SWTOR Beta was a pleasant experience. It was an absolute chore to play. GW2 was a blast at the conventions, and while I haven't played TSW yet the more free-form mechanics of combat I've seen from videos look very promising. The only reason TSW is behind GW2 at this point is because Funcom has a shitty reputation.
EDIT: in case the last line was too subtle, Anet has proven finesse and polish far more often than Funcom has, and Bioware as well for that matter. Bioware, unlike Funcom, has a history of making great games, but they frequently require tons of patching to fix various bugs and glitches, largely because they try to be such big games right out of the box.
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
And as I stated elsewhere in the thread, launches have been misleading...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
How about comparing them based on their Glassdoor reviews, eh?
http://www.glassdoor.com/Overview/Working-at-Funcom-EI_IE101342.11,17.htm
http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/ArenaNet-Reviews-E255820.htm
http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/BioWare-Reviews-E22998.htm
There are so many different things that people might try to bring up in determining how well something is going to go...
...but we all know that little of it matters - we just look back in hindsight and say it went well or it went poorly.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Since when is TSW being considered a blockbuster?
Since when has GW2 been considered a MMORPG?
We know GW1 was not...
It is probably because TSW is in the Top 5 for games being developed.
Though personally, I have a problem with ArcheAge being listed there - since it still looks like vaporware to me.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Reading comprehension?
Let me ask you a question. Do you know or do you not know how ArenaNet polishes GW2 thru re-iterations?
If you dont know, then that says a lot on how insufficient your information are when it comes to ArenatNet, because the information is out there and we all know about it, except you of course, since you distance yourself from the start.
If you would use GW1 as the standard, then to be fair, you should also use Age of Conan as standard to evaluate what "wonderful" job Funcom did in polishing their game.
As for Bioware, they have not touched the MMO market...this is their first MMO game.
So now tell me how relevant GW1 is in comparing the three, when one of the three don't even have an MMO to use as a material for comparison.
So for your sake, please stay on topic and use the three games in development as your material for comparison.
And since you don't know anything about ArenaNet, you might want to look it up.
Ready for GW2!!!
lol, nice try. If that is so, what does Age of Conan makes Funcom?
So I suggest that we should stay on topic.
Ready for GW2!!!
On what exactly do you base that neither Bioware nor Funcom polishes as they go?
I know there's a blog out by ANet about their QA process. But how exactly does ANet doing it that way imply that other companies are doing it another way?
I mean looking at some of the SWToR blogs you get a glimpse of an entire system of peer reviews that are being done for all writing after which everything is rewritten and peer reviewed again.
Their content teams are scripting the quests before the concept artists are finished so they can start testing, receiving feedback and making revisions.
The basic layout of each world goes through several revisions and tests before the environmental art teams actually start building the world.
Once that is done the combat and gameplay teams start building all their systems and will tweak spawns and who knows what until all of it matches the desired gameplay experience.
Their QA team hasn't even touched it so far and they're going to go through everything all over again until it's exactly right.
How is that not polishing as they go? It sounds basically the same as ANet, where each team also does QA on it's own and other team's work constantly and always making changes based on that.
Seriously, before you start comparing games you might want to make sure you don't have just the knowledge about one game but actually about both games.
Source (among others, read their entire dev blog section at the very least before doing another comparison).
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
That is completely on topic and completely the point here, which is why many of us are worried about what state TSW will be in at release.
I find it odd how many have referenced the launch of RIFT as polished. I assume that is going with the "actual" launch as opposed to what happened during the "headstart"...
...have to figure more companies are going to go with "headstarts" to make the "actual" launch look better than it was.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%