Tera, from personal experience, is seamless all right. And if all the videos of aerial and naval travel are any indication, Archage is seamless as well. I am also not so sure about the big battles. I've seen footage of archage siege warfare, so that's big. I don't believe I've seen something similar from Tera, but they run on the same engine, so I doubt that it can't be done.
In any case, I believe you missed my points entirely. What I was trying to say is:
High graphics and detailed seamless worlds are possible.
I'm ok with GW2 having zoned areas, considering the purchase model they follow.
Those games are seamless, but they don't run on the same engine. Tera uses Unreal Engine 3, whereas Archeage uses Cryengine 3. Also I too don't mind having zoned areas, as long as each one is interesting and unique. Rift has a seamless world also minus Ember Isle, but each zone is pretty much forgettable and dull. I'd trade the seamless world in that game for something a bit more interesting thats for sure.
I mean, where has it been advertised as a PvP game? It's a honest question.
I'm interested in where Adalwulff heard this too.
Especially considering that they didn't even start showing pvp until Gamescom last year.
So, you guys are saying that GW2 was shown as a Raiders game, like WoW? Show me where?
GW1 and GW2 were both built around PvP mechanics, not PvE. Most MMO's of late were built the other way around, with PvP being added last because of player demand, WoW included. Yes, there was a time when WoW had no BG's.
So your telling me, either you didnt know GW1 and 2 were built around PvP mechanics, or you think that isnt important. Which is it?
I'm not saying such things. I just asked a question.
You are not "just asking a question"...lol
You are demanding proof, that GW2 is not built around PvP, when you cannot prove otherwise. And, you wont be able too either, because there is none.
Yes I am, a question that could be answered simply by saying where has it been advertised as a PvP game. Maybe a specific trailer about PvP, dunno. Don't bother with all that defensiveness, I'm not attacking you, the game, or the PvP of the game.
I mean, where has it been advertised as a PvP game? It's a honest question.
I'm interested in where Adalwulff heard this too.
Especially considering that they didn't even start showing pvp until Gamescom last year.
So, you guys are saying that GW2 was shown as a Raiders game, like WoW? Show me where?
GW1 and GW2 were both built around PvP mechanics, not PvE. Most MMO's of late were built the other way around, with PvP being added last because of player demand, WoW included. Yes, there was a time when WoW had no BG's.
So your telling me, either you didnt know GW1 and 2 were built around PvP mechanics, or you think that isnt important. Which is it?
Guild Wars wasn't built around PvP, it was designed to accommodate both PvP and PvE style play. Arenanet is doing the same thing with Guild Wars 2. Both games really do have a bit of a split personallity. Within Guild Wars you can play exclusively PvE and have a full featured game without a lot of exposure to PvP (a bit, here and there, but not a lot of exposure). You can also play exclusively PvP and not feel that you have only part of a game. I'm going to guess that Guild Wars 2 will be quite similar in this way.
Note: Guild Wars did get the reputation of being a PvP game, which is not the same as being designed as a PvP game. This reputation came after the initial release, and was supported by Arenanet through several e-sport type events. I remember it well. As bad as I am at PvP, I took part in one of the early events. It was fun, but I did feel sorry for my team mates!
Yes it was, you even defined it without realizing it.
The game was designed around the PvP mechanics like I said before, the classes were balanced, taht is why it became popular with e-sports. They took that same concept and built GW2, only they expanded both the PvP and the PvE, but seperated them to access more players.
Games that are built around PvE, the PvP is usually unbalanced. Even as good as DAOC was, the classes were not balanced, becasue the game was not built around PvP mechanics.
I mean, where has it been advertised as a PvP game? It's a honest question.
I'm interested in where Adalwulff heard this too.
Especially considering that they didn't even start showing pvp until Gamescom last year.
So, you guys are saying that GW2 was shown as a Raiders game, like WoW? Show me where?
GW1 and GW2 were both built around PvP mechanics, not PvE. Most MMO's of late were built the other way around, with PvP being added last because of player demand, WoW included. Yes, there was a time when WoW had no BG's.
So your telling me, either you didnt know GW1 and 2 were built around PvP mechanics, or you think that isnt important. Which is it?
I'm not saying such things. I just asked a question.
You are not "just asking a question"...lol
You are demanding proof, that GW2 is not built around PvP, when you cannot prove otherwise. And, you wont be able too either, because there is none.
So basically you make a claim that you cannot prove and infact demand that others, when challenged, that they produce proof that you are wrong instead?
The burdon of proof is on you. YOU made the statement to which the question of 'Where?' was prompted. It is up to you to show where you heard this. Not simply come back and say that those who question you and your mighty opinion should show you different. That's not how it works and just makes you seem foolish.
Bottom line, GW2 has not 'always' been advertised as a PvP game as you incorrectly claim. Infact the devs have always said that they saw no reason to focus all their resources on just one area and as such their game has equal focus for both PvE and PvP.
I already did explain it, the game was designed around PvP mechanics, that is why its one of the most balanced PvP games around.
You guys actually expect me to spend hours searching around the internet and provide you with links? When you are not willing to do the same? I find that interesting.
Your right, they did decide to focus on both PvE and PvP, and they even seperated the 2 to atracts more players of different tastes. But, the fact remains, that GW! and 2 are built around PvP mechanics. In other words the PvP was figured out before the PvE was, that is why it is so much more balanced.
Tera, from personal experience, is seamless all right. And if all the videos of aerial and naval travel are any indication, Archage is seamless as well. I am also not so sure about the big battles. I've seen footage of archage siege warfare, so that's big. I don't believe I've seen something similar from Tera, but they run on the same engine, so I doubt that it can't be done.
In any case, I believe you missed my points entirely. What I was trying to say is:
High graphics and detailed seamless worlds are possible.
I'm ok with GW2 having zoned areas, considering the purchase model they follow.
Those games are seamless, but they don't run on the same engine. Tera uses Unreal Engine 3, whereas Archeage uses Cryengine 3. Also I too don't mind having zoned areas, as long as each one is interesting and unique. Rift has a seamless world also minus Ember Isle, but each zone is pretty much forgettable and dull. I'd trade the seamless world in that game for something a bit more interesting thats for sure.
For me, from what I can see in the videos and press, things I'd like to see in WoW (that are seen in the GW2 pre-beta buzz):
1.) dynamic zones
2.) organic questing
3.) active combat with things like active dodging, rolling, etc.
4.) targetless healing
5.) interactive skills (shooting arrows through another player's fire = fire arrows, for example)
6.) more emphasis on 5man dungeons as "tests of skill"
7.) more open world "events"
8.) a focus on the "world" instead of instances
9.) large scale "AV style" pvp
10.) less focus on "endgame" gear grinds.
11.) competitive obtective based pvp (instead of arena deathmatches).
12.) organic objectives in large scale pvp (build/defend that siege weapon) instead of carrying flags and huttballs.
13.) more compelling animations where what happens on the screen matters more than having a NASA styled UI
14.) Dropping the holy trinity is probably not viable in WoW, but I like how the way GW2 did it in that it seems to make gameplay look more dynamic (no more just stand in place and press a memorized button sequence).
15.) Not having "raids" as the premier content. I have nothing against raids per se, but raiding has essentially snuffed out the oxygen from the rest of the wow pve game.
16.) multi-tapping of resource nodes... no more ninjaing
17.) shared interests in pve... no more kill steals.
18.) organic encouragment to play together... hopefully no more artificial measures like LFD, LFR
I mean, where has it been advertised as a PvP game? It's a honest question.
I'm interested in where Adalwulff heard this too.
Especially considering that they didn't even start showing pvp until Gamescom last year.
So, you guys are saying that GW2 was shown as a Raiders game, like WoW? Show me where?
GW1 and GW2 were both built around PvP mechanics, not PvE. Most MMO's of late were built the other way around, with PvP being added last because of player demand, WoW included. Yes, there was a time when WoW had no BG's.
So your telling me, either you didnt know GW1 and 2 were built around PvP mechanics, or you think that isnt important. Which is it?
I'm not saying such things. I just asked a question.
You are not "just asking a question"...lol
You are demanding proof, that GW2 is not built around PvP, when you cannot prove otherwise. And, you wont be able too either, because there is none.
So basically you make a claim that you cannot prove and infact demand that others, when challenged, that they produce proof that you are wrong instead?
The burdon of proof is on you. YOU made the statement to which the question of 'Where?' was prompted. It is up to you to show where you heard this. Not simply come back and say that those who question you and your mighty opinion should show you different. That's not how it works and just makes you seem foolish.
Bottom line, GW2 has not 'always' been advertised as a PvP game as you incorrectly claim. Infact the devs have always said that they saw no reason to focus all their resources on just one area and as such their game has equal focus for both PvE and PvP.
I already did explain it, the game was designed around PvP mechanics, that is why its one of the most balanced PvP games around.
You guys actually expect me to spend hours searching around the internet and provide you with links? When you are not willing to do the same? I find that interesting.
Your right, they did decide to focus on both PvE and PvP, and they even seperated the 2 to atracts more players of different tastes. But, the fact remains, that GW! and 2 are built around PvP mechanics. In other words the PvP was figured out before the PvE was, that is why it is so much more balanced.
Paragons want to know what you're smoking. A subpar PvE class and subpar PvP class, sounds balanced. Not to mention the past 6 months of having 1-4 Dervishes on a single team. Overrepresentation much?
I mean, where has it been advertised as a PvP game? It's a honest question.
I'm interested in where Adalwulff heard this too.
Especially considering that they didn't even start showing pvp until Gamescom last year.
So, you guys are saying that GW2 was shown as a Raiders game, like WoW? Show me where?
GW1 and GW2 were both built around PvP mechanics, not PvE. Most MMO's of late were built the other way around, with PvP being added last because of player demand, WoW included. Yes, there was a time when WoW had no BG's.
So your telling me, either you didnt know GW1 and 2 were built around PvP mechanics, or you think that isnt important. Which is it?
I'm not saying such things. I just asked a question.
You are not "just asking a question"...lol
You are demanding proof, that GW2 is not built around PvP, when you cannot prove otherwise. And, you wont be able too either, because there is none.
So basically you make a claim that you cannot prove and infact demand that others, when challenged, that they produce proof that you are wrong instead?
The burdon of proof is on you. YOU made the statement to which the question of 'Where?' was prompted. It is up to you to show where you heard this. Not simply come back and say that those who question you and your mighty opinion should show you different. That's not how it works and just makes you seem foolish.
Bottom line, GW2 has not 'always' been advertised as a PvP game as you incorrectly claim. Infact the devs have always said that they saw no reason to focus all their resources on just one area and as such their game has equal focus for both PvE and PvP.
I already did explain it, the game was designed around PvP mechanics, that is why its one of the most balanced PvP games around.
You guys actually expect me to spend hours searching around the internet and provide you with links? When you are not willing to do the same? I find that interesting.
Your right, they did decide to focus on both PvE and PvP, and they even seperated the 2 to atracts more players of different tastes. But, the fact remains, that GW! and 2 are built around PvP mechanics. In other words the PvP was figured out before the PvE was, that is why it is so much more balanced.
What links would you request of me? What do I need to prove to you?
Just mention where, man, no need to make a compilation of links.
They had instanced PvP in Guildwars so I have problems understanding why they would bother to design the game around PvP when it is instanced. That is only necessary where the two mix. Isn't 2 similar or am I wrong.
They had instanced PvP in Guildwars so I have problems understanding why they would bother to design the game around PvP when it is instanced. That is only necessary where the two mix. Isn't 2 similar or am I wrong.
This is what I've been trying to explain to adal, even if there 500 players in wvw and it lags, it won't affect players out in the world. But he just call me wow fanboys >.<
but I agree with him sitting at orgi waiting for battleground to start is boring, unlike wvw which you can join and leave anytime.
so ultimately pvp is not the reason for zone world.
GW is nothing but little instanced zones with static mobs and restricive pathways you are forced to take.
The "ONLY" reason the crowed is excited about this game is the fact that its FREE to play. This is the spoiled entitlement generation that feels that like owes them something, just because they were indulged by their parents, and given a free ride through the public school system.
Have fun playing your "the world owes me" game.
"Don't corpse-camp that idea. Its never gonna rez" Bladezz (The Guild)
GW is nothing but little instanced zones with static mobs and restricive pathways you are forced to take.
The "ONLY" reason the crowed is excited about this game is the fact that its FREE to play. This is the spoiled entitlement generation that feels that like owes them something, just because they were indulged by their parents, and given a free ride through the public school system.
GW is nothing but little instanced zones with static mobs and restricive pathways you are forced to take.
The "ONLY" reason the crowed is excited about this game is the fact that its FREE to play. This is the spoiled entitlement generation that feels that like owes them something, just because they were indulged by their parents, and given a free ride through the public school system.
Have fun playing your "the world owes me" game.
I think you need to calm down.
Wow. He has some issues I think need addressing.
Not by us of course. We'd likely just mess him up even further.
I think hes one of the SWTOR fans who is upset at the hate the game received. Naturally he wants a similar fate to befall GW2... but unfortunately for him GW2 is shaping up quite well so far.
(btw.. free to play is just a bonus for me. I would happily pay a subscription for GW2 if that was necessary)
I recall some of the ppl that were bashing the shit out of AOC for being instanced ,every time u go from one area to the next has load screen etc... are now defending GW2 for being instanced.. How ironic...
Are you paying a subscription for GW2:
Yes?
No?
If no, wouldn't you be a bit laxer regarding certain features from a game that is milking you every month to maintain the servers?
Im demanding alot from paying products as a potential customer whether it is cloths or cars or books or a videogame.
Regaurding GW2 i must remind u its not f2p its b2p so it requires our money no matter if it additionally requires a sub fee as extra income or not.
Suffice to say, I just found it odd that some ppl wierdely enough changed their minds regaurding Instanced squares gameplay in mmorpg's which in my opinion takes out alot of that little sense of realistic solid full world to explore fewling u could get from a medieval fantasy mmo RPG.
I almost can't tell them apart. I love boths graphic but too say Rifts graphics are anything less then great is just funny.
I never said that Rifts graphics were anything less than great...I said that the game world is dull and uninteresting. I'm in an instance queue for Rift as I'm typing this, it's not as though I dislike the game, but if there is only one criticism you can throw Rift's way, it's that the world design was masively lacking. A lot of the zones look and feel like the next, and the world has very little charm, scope or personality. You can find nice screenshots of any game you ever care to mention if you look hard enough...you should post some comparing say Sanctum to Divinity's Reach or Meridian to the Black Citedal and see if you almost can't tell them apart then, but that wasn't the point I was making and it is irrelevant to the thread.
You can demand a lot but you're not a realist if you demand the same. Are you honestly expecting the same performance from a car that costs $1000 and a car that costs $100.000?
The difference between B2P and P2P during launch is zero. You pay for both a box price. The similarities end there, simply because the subscription fees for a year's worth of gaming add up to three times the box price minimum. So by the end of the first year, one game still cost you $50 while the other cost you $200.
Do you still have the same expectations from both those products?
You can demand a lot but you're not a realist if you demand the same. Are you honestly expecting the same performance from a car that costs $1000 and a car that costs $100.000?
The difference between B2P and P2P during launch is zero. You pay for both a box price. The similarities end there, simply because the subscription fees for a year's worth of gaming add up to three times the box price minimum. So by the end of the first year, one game still cost you $50 while the other cost you $200.
Do you still have the same expectations from both those products?
I blame GW2 fans for this because Anet never made any claims that they are going to kill P2P market and make B2P a new standard. I think people are expecting so much because of the hype surrounding it and assumption that B2P model gives same content and quality as P2P..which is yet to be proven and seen.
In how many zones is Kryta divided up in GW2? I dont mean cities btw. In the videos so far I mainly saw loading screens for personal story instances and entering/leaving city.
I mean, where has it been advertised as a PvP game? It's a honest question.
I'm interested in where Adalwulff heard this too.
Especially considering that they didn't even start showing pvp until Gamescom last year.
So, you guys are saying that GW2 was shown as a Raiders game, like WoW? Show me where?
GW1 and GW2 were both built around PvP mechanics, not PvE. Most MMO's of late were built the other way around, with PvP being added last because of player demand, WoW included. Yes, there was a time when WoW had no BG's.
So your telling me, either you didnt know GW1 and 2 were built around PvP mechanics, or you think that isnt important. Which is it?
I'm not saying such things. I just asked a question.
You are not "just asking a question"...lol
You are demanding proof, that GW2 is not built around PvP, when you cannot prove otherwise. And, you wont be able too either, because there is none.
So basically you make a claim that you cannot prove and infact demand that others, when challenged, that they produce proof that you are wrong instead?
The burdon of proof is on you. YOU made the statement to which the question of 'Where?' was prompted. It is up to you to show where you heard this. Not simply come back and say that those who question you and your mighty opinion should show you different. That's not how it works and just makes you seem foolish.
Bottom line, GW2 has not 'always' been advertised as a PvP game as you incorrectly claim. Infact the devs have always said that they saw no reason to focus all their resources on just one area and as such their game has equal focus for both PvE and PvP.
I already did explain it, the game was designed around PvP mechanics, that is why its one of the most balanced PvP games around.
You guys actually expect me to spend hours searching around the internet and provide you with links? When you are not willing to do the same? I find that interesting.
Your right, they did decide to focus on both PvE and PvP, and they even seperated the 2 to atracts more players of different tastes. But, the fact remains, that GW! and 2 are built around PvP mechanics. In other words the PvP was figured out before the PvE was, that is why it is so much more balanced.
What links would you request of me? What do I need to prove to you?
Just mention where, man, no need to make a compilation of links.
I did, once your done reading all about GW1 development, come back and let me know if you have any more questions.
In how many zones is Kryta divided up in GW2? I dont mean cities btw. In the videos so far I mainly saw loading screens for personal story instances and entering/leaving city.
You can walk across the whole world and never hit one, so long as you dont fast travel or enter a city/dungeon.
Which is why this whole thread is just silly nonsense.
Comments
Those games are seamless, but they don't run on the same engine. Tera uses Unreal Engine 3, whereas Archeage uses Cryengine 3. Also I too don't mind having zoned areas, as long as each one is interesting and unique. Rift has a seamless world also minus Ember Isle, but each zone is pretty much forgettable and dull. I'd trade the seamless world in that game for something a bit more interesting thats for sure.
Yes I am, a question that could be answered simply by saying where has it been advertised as a PvP game. Maybe a specific trailer about PvP, dunno. Don't bother with all that defensiveness, I'm not attacking you, the game, or the PvP of the game.
Yes it was, you even defined it without realizing it.
The game was designed around the PvP mechanics like I said before, the classes were balanced, taht is why it became popular with e-sports. They took that same concept and built GW2, only they expanded both the PvP and the PvE, but seperated them to access more players.
Games that are built around PvE, the PvP is usually unbalanced. Even as good as DAOC was, the classes were not balanced, becasue the game was not built around PvP mechanics.
You're right about the game engines, I stand corrected.
I already did explain it, the game was designed around PvP mechanics, that is why its one of the most balanced PvP games around.
You guys actually expect me to spend hours searching around the internet and provide you with links? When you are not willing to do the same? I find that interesting.
Your right, they did decide to focus on both PvE and PvP, and they even seperated the 2 to atracts more players of different tastes. But, the fact remains, that GW! and 2 are built around PvP mechanics. In other words the PvP was figured out before the PvE was, that is why it is so much more balanced.
Best comment all day.
Rift
http://oyster.ignimgs.com/ve3d/images/03/86/38602_Motorstorm2-Screens-52.jpg
http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/995/20112513514.jpg
GW2
http://www.totalvideogames.com/img/uploaded/www.totalvideogames.com_69318_2.jpg
http://www.rpgreporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/15-Timberline-Falls.jpg
I almost can't tell them apart. I love boths graphic but too say Rifts graphics are anything less then great is just funny.
I found a thread on us.battlenet.net, link
Just wait when WoW starts to copy GW2.
Quote ( Grimmrage, 85 Orc Shaman ):
For me, from what I can see in the videos and press, things I'd like to see in WoW (that are seen in the GW2 pre-beta buzz):
1.) dynamic zones
2.) organic questing
3.) active combat with things like active dodging, rolling, etc.
4.) targetless healing
5.) interactive skills (shooting arrows through another player's fire = fire arrows, for example)
6.) more emphasis on 5man dungeons as "tests of skill"
7.) more open world "events"
8.) a focus on the "world" instead of instances
9.) large scale "AV style" pvp
10.) less focus on "endgame" gear grinds.
11.) competitive obtective based pvp (instead of arena deathmatches).
12.) organic objectives in large scale pvp (build/defend that siege weapon) instead of carrying flags and huttballs.
13.) more compelling animations where what happens on the screen matters more than having a NASA styled UI
14.) Dropping the holy trinity is probably not viable in WoW, but I like how the way GW2 did it in that it seems to make gameplay look more dynamic (no more just stand in place and press a memorized button sequence).
15.) Not having "raids" as the premier content. I have nothing against raids per se, but raiding has essentially snuffed out the oxygen from the rest of the wow pve game.
16.) multi-tapping of resource nodes... no more ninjaing
17.) shared interests in pve... no more kill steals.
18.) organic encouragment to play together... hopefully no more artificial measures like LFD, LFR
Paragons want to know what you're smoking. A subpar PvE class and subpar PvP class, sounds balanced. Not to mention the past 6 months of having 1-4 Dervishes on a single team. Overrepresentation much?
What links would you request of me? What do I need to prove to you?
Just mention where, man, no need to make a compilation of links.
They had instanced PvP in Guildwars so I have problems understanding why they would bother to design the game around PvP when it is instanced. That is only necessary where the two mix. Isn't 2 similar or am I wrong.
This is what I've been trying to explain to adal, even if there 500 players in wvw and it lags, it won't affect players out in the world. But he just call me wow fanboys >.<but I agree with him sitting at orgi waiting for battleground to start is boring, unlike wvw which you can join and leave anytime.
so ultimately pvp is not the reason for zone world.
RIP Orc Choppa
GW is nothing but little instanced zones with static mobs and restricive pathways you are forced to take.
The "ONLY" reason the crowed is excited about this game is the fact that its FREE to play. This is the spoiled entitlement generation that feels that like owes them something, just because they were indulged by their parents, and given a free ride through the public school system.
Have fun playing your "the world owes me" game.
"Don't corpse-camp that idea. Its never gonna rez"
Bladezz (The Guild)
I think you need to calm down.
I think hes one of the SWTOR fans who is upset at the hate the game received. Naturally he wants a similar fate to befall GW2... but unfortunately for him GW2 is shaping up quite well so far.
(btw.. free to play is just a bonus for me. I would happily pay a subscription for GW2 if that was necessary)
Im demanding alot from paying products as a potential customer whether it is cloths or cars or books or a videogame.
Regaurding GW2 i must remind u its not f2p its b2p so it requires our money no matter if it additionally requires a sub fee as extra income or not.
Suffice to say, I just found it odd that some ppl wierdely enough changed their minds regaurding Instanced squares gameplay in mmorpg's which in my opinion takes out alot of that little sense of realistic solid full world to explore fewling u could get from a medieval fantasy mmo RPG.
I never said that Rifts graphics were anything less than great...I said that the game world is dull and uninteresting. I'm in an instance queue for Rift as I'm typing this, it's not as though I dislike the game, but if there is only one criticism you can throw Rift's way, it's that the world design was masively lacking. A lot of the zones look and feel like the next, and the world has very little charm, scope or personality. You can find nice screenshots of any game you ever care to mention if you look hard enough...you should post some comparing say Sanctum to Divinity's Reach or Meridian to the Black Citedal and see if you almost can't tell them apart then, but that wasn't the point I was making and it is irrelevant to the thread.
You can demand a lot but you're not a realist if you demand the same. Are you honestly expecting the same performance from a car that costs $1000 and a car that costs $100.000?
The difference between B2P and P2P during launch is zero. You pay for both a box price. The similarities end there, simply because the subscription fees for a year's worth of gaming add up to three times the box price minimum. So by the end of the first year, one game still cost you $50 while the other cost you $200.
Do you still have the same expectations from both those products?
I blame GW2 fans for this because Anet never made any claims that they are going to kill P2P market and make B2P a new standard. I think people are expecting so much because of the hype surrounding it and assumption that B2P model gives same content and quality as P2P..which is yet to be proven and seen.
Bite Me
In how many zones is Kryta divided up in GW2? I dont mean cities btw. In the videos so far I mainly saw loading screens for personal story instances and entering/leaving city.
I did, once your done reading all about GW1 development, come back and let me know if you have any more questions.
You can walk across the whole world and never hit one, so long as you dont fast travel or enter a city/dungeon.
Which is why this whole thread is just silly nonsense.