I've seen the footage: Sure, it touts a lot of features that we've seen in Rift, Warhammer etc., but .. is that it
Yep you are wrong and here's your correction.
DE's are nothing like what's happening in Rift, Warhammer I've played War and I'm playing Rift now.... nothing like those.
How in the world does GW2 remind you of GW1? There are no "target, then macro macro macro" attacks, you heal yourself, every melee ability is AOE... the list goes on of how different from the combat of Rift War and GW1 this game is.
If you don't like hotkeys use point and click or actually WAIT for the game to be released with the game pad functionality.... sheesh.
Edit: Not a SWTOR biobot but i have to say most of his posts are like this, complaining about weird nonsensical things seems to be this guys bag.
No, they don't. It's to provide some continuity instead of INNOVATIVE, or NOT INNOVATIVE.
It's decreasing witih respect to innovation after the second option and the options are consistent. I don't think anybody needs further clarification as long as their English is sound. I probably should have made the first option the last, but people should be able to read and understand that much, I hope..
Things aren't just black and white, I realize that.
"Innovative, but only to an extent" doesn't say anything about how innovative it is. 'To an extent' can mean any number/part/degree. This can be put anywhere between entirely and not at all. You also can't tell if it is more or less then 'somewhat' or 'barely'.
You can't even tell if there is a difference between 'somewhat' and 'barely' from just your poll options. The two words can mean the exact same amount depending on context.
The skills being weapon-based, at least how they were for warriors, but they extended it to other clases as well. The synergy between skills with particular weapons as well e.g. warrior bleeds for particular weapons, or the buff-oriented horn. There also seems to be a favored "combo" dependent on weapon just like in GW1; the knockdown hammer combo by using complementary skills with the hammer/secondary class etc.
The mission-oriented approach and difficulty, etc.
The acquisiton of skills is different, but sort of in the same vein in the sense that you don't do it by leveling up and visiting a trainer, but using different items (weren't you awarded new skills by completing missions/objectives in GW1? my memory has gone..)
If any of the above is wrong, please feel free to correct me.
If I am wrong about any of the aforementioned
It's definitely a lot more intricate than GW1, but the same gist is there.
This is not directed to you at all, but for the previous posters:
If you are a fanboy, I will not respond to your comments, so don't waste your time as I won't read them past the first line. I am an adult and I am not interested in ARGUING with you. I am merely trying to find out more about a game that I know relatively little about, since I still have some hope that it will be a great game.
From your original post it sounds like you already know so much that you have compared it to so many games from videos you have watched. Do you contridict yourself much? because everything that you have posted seems to have done so. There is an enourmous amount of information out their if you could be bothered, coming onto the boards and flaming the game before you have any information that you seem to dont have only baits people on these forums.
Go to the fan sites that have more information than you can shake a stick at, if you really care to find out.
People say they're tired of hotkeys... What else could you have?
The only thing I can think of that isn't really a hotkey game is "Mortal Kombat" style fighters... You have 5 or 6 buttons and depending on when/how you use them different things happen. Is that what you want?
Pretty much seems like GW2 as you have like 6 buttons that change depending on what weapon you have equipped...
Actually, I think a console MMO similar to Mortal combat and Soul calibur would be really fun.
For PC it would suck badly.
You are right, there are not many options. You could use Bethesdas old combat system from "Daggerfall", I guess it would work. You could use a more advanced version of Spellborns rolling hotbar as well. If you made your choices since earlier, the terrain, your weapon and in some cases what the opponent did last affect your options it could be really cool.
You could also use the mechanics from mount and blade.
There are other options but they would take a lot of work to get right, and for some you need a great ping. GW2s is at least somewhat different and lets you choose half of the skills you bring along.
Why would the second game in a series reminding you of the first but having evolved into something better i.e. ability to jump(hated not being able to in GW), open persistant world, more action based combat, dynamic world changing events be a bad thing? It should remind you of the first game hell it is even in the name "Guild Wars" 2 and it is the same world just a later time period.
Why people get so nit picky over a game that will cost them no more than buying a single player RPG but gives the ability to play in it as a co-op with other people is beyond me.
People say they're tired of hotkeys... What else could you have?
The only thing I can think of that isn't really a hotkey game is "Mortal Kombat" style fighters... You have 5 or 6 buttons and depending on when/how you use them different things happen. Is that what you want?
Pretty much seems like GW2 as you have like 6 buttons that change depending on what weapon you have equipped...
Actually, I think a console MMO similar to Mortal combat and Soul calibur would be really fun.
For PC it would suck badly.
You are right, there are not many options. You could use Bethesdas old combat system from "Daggerfall", I guess it would work. You could use a more advanced version of Spellborns rolling hotbar as well. If you made your choices since earlier, the terrain, your weapon and in some cases what the opponent did last affect your options it could be really cool.
You could also use the mechanics from mount and blade.
There are other options but they would take a lot of work to get right, and for some you need a great ping. GW2s is at least somewhat different and lets you choose half of the skills you bring along.
I think a Borderlands type game but as an MMO would be a blast. I'm really tired of the tab target crap I guess. As for number of specific powers/skills to use I think the GW2 model is nice in that it is simple enough to use on consoles with a controller. So I guess maybe I'd like to see a mix of Borderlands and GW2 and put it on the consoles: I bet it would be a blockbuster.
GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind" 1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN 2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements
"Something entirely innovative" is really winning this pole? cmon people lets be realistic here sure, its got a couple things you could call innovative for an mmorpg but everything in this game has been done before in an mmorpg or not.
Why exactly do you feel the need to compare it to a variety of different games. Heck, you don't even know what game to compare it to yourself. No it is not Rift, Warhammer, WoW, EQ, DAoC or Guild Wars 1. It is simply Guild Wars 2. Sure it has taken a variety of features that have worked in many games (not just MMORPGs), but there are also vast improvements made to those features.
The skills being weapon-based, at least how they were for warriors, but they extended it to other clases as well. The synergy between skills with particular weapons as well e.g. warrior bleeds for particular weapons, or the buff-oriented horn. There also seems to be a favored "combo" dependent on weapon just like in GW1; the knockdown hammer combo by using complementary skills with the hammer/secondary class etc.
The two are nothing alike. In GW1 yes some skills had a prerequisite that you used to correct weapon, however you were free to put whatever 8 skills you wanted in your hotbar, nothing stopped you from using no hammer skills at all and still wielding a hammer. And once you left an outpost, you were stuck with those 8 skills. In GW2 the first 5 skills (out of 10 now) are directly linked to what weapon you are using, and you can have two weapon sets equipped which allows you to switch between skills on the fly in combat. There are no secondary classes in GW2 and you are free to use whatever weapon combination you want to get the skills you are after.
The mission-oriented approach and difficulty, etc.
GW2 is not mission oriented like GW1, it has Dynamic Event chains scattered around the world instead as the bread and butter of the content, as well as a personal storyline like SWTOR.
The acquisiton of skills is different, but sort of in the same vein in the sense that you don't do it by leveling up and visiting a trainer, but using different items (weren't you awarded new skills by completing missions/objectives in GW1? my memory has gone..)
Some starter quests in GW1 offered base skills as rewards, later on you did get them from trainers or you captured them using a Signet of Capture (which you purchased from a trainer) on a boss you had killed which had the elite skill you wanted.
If any of the above is wrong, please feel free to correct me.
If I am wrong about any of the aforementioned
It's definitely a lot more intricate than GW1, but the same gist is there.
This is not directed to you at all, but for the previous posters:
If you are a fanboy, I will not respond to your comments, so don't waste your time as I won't read them past the first line. I am an adult and I am not interested in ARGUING with you. I am merely trying to find out more about a game that I know relatively little about, since I still have some hope that it will be a great game.
So yeah, you were wrong. Its going to be nothing like GW1 aside from the lore / setting and some skill names being reused.
I'm going to do my best to answer, but difficult question to answer is difficult, so bear with me. Okay?
Right. In Guild Wars 1, you had something similar. But it was broken and it wasn't entirely there, yet. What Guild Wars 2 has is, indeed, an evolution over GW1 rather than an evolution. However, keep in mind this: Guild Wars 1 is still massively and almost completely original versus almost every other MMORPG out there despite its age.
Why? Everyone keeps trying to clone WoW. GW1 did its own thing. And many have said that the system of GW1 actually works better than the system WoW had. This is true, but GW1's system had its rough edges and lack of intricacy.
There was an obvious problem in GW1. Let me lay it out for you.
In Guild Wars 1, you had, say, skills which relied on weapons. So those were hammer skills, and those were sword skills. You could also switch weapons. But switching weapons didn't switch skills. So if you switched weapons you'd end up with a suboptimal fighter. If you tried to make a build that used more than one weapon but you weren't good at it, you'd end up with a suboptimal build. If you tried to make a build dedicated to one weapon, you wouldn't be as good as someone with a build for multiple weapons that knew what they were doing.
So, the evolution in GW2 is that skills are tied to weapons. When you switch your weapons, your skillset itself changes. Now, in Guild Wars 1, you couldn't actually change your skills unless you were at a town or an outpost. In GW2 your skills switch on the fly when you switch weapons.
So let's say that an Engineer has a flamethrower, you have a set of fully damaging skills, but let's say that in the midst of battle they switch to a pistol and shield, yeah? Now they have a build that does mild damage and good support. You can shift back and forth between these playstyles. So instead of trying to design your skills to fit a number of weapons, your skills change depending on your weapons.
The end result of this is two obvious things: The first of which is that you can no longer have suboptimal builds, the second of which is that you can now change your role on the field of battle.
So it's evolving the original (and highly innovative) systems in GW1. Is it the same? Sort of, but on the other hand, not that much. It's a massively innovative system compared to any other MMO system out there, and it's a marked improvement compared to GW1.
The problem with your post, OP, is that you assume that something can become 'tired' after one instance. Not the case. The reason WoW has become tired is because it has over 100 clones which all uset he same system. Even recent games use a WoW-like system and it doesn't benefit anyone in the long run. And there'll no doubt be games which will continue to emulate WoW. But the only thing even similar to GW2 is GW1.
So, is it innovative? Yes, yes it is. It is very innovative.
"Something entirely innovative" is really winning this pole? cmon people lets be realistic here sure, its got a couple things you could call innovative for an mmorpg but everything in this game has been done before in an mmorpg or not.
I hate when people talk about "innovation" in the context of MMORPGs because no one agrees on what it really means. Sure we know that innovation means "something new."
But does that only mean something new to you? Something new to the MMORPG genre? Something completely new that has never been done before?
Also, how different does something have to be to qualify as innovative? Is a new play on an old concept innovative? Or does something have to completely reinvent the wheel to be innovative?
There's just so much grey area when you talk about innovation...
To a hardcore sandbox fan, GW2 will not seem innovative at all...it's just another themepark after all. But to a gamer that has only played WoW and its clones, GW2 may seem radically innovative to the point of insanity.
TLDR, talking about innovation just leads to pointless arguments over semantics...we should talk about if the game is "different from the norm of the genre" instead of if it's innovative.
I could post 1000 links explaining why but the fact is I have not played it so I can't tell you how different it feels from gw 1.
In gw1 you had an autofacing autoattack - tab then space XD. That would automatically run you into range of a mob to do whatever action you chose. Spells would also autorun you into range of target mobs.
In gw2 I am lead to believe I will not have an autoattack that automatically gets me into range so I would have to move into range (akin to wow/eq) before activating skill. However I can activate skills at any given time so I won't get some error telling me i'm out of range. The projectile will fire but it may say 'out of range' in combat text.
Oh yeah and there's dodge.
That's about all I can tell from the videos. As for questing and all that stuff I don't really know. I can tell you that GWEN dungeons (not missions) on hard mode is some of the hardest content I've ever done. Slavers Exile - Dungeon - Killed me many times. It's like 5 dungeons in one.
Realm of Torment - Post end game zone - Each zone has global negative effects. Real nasty ones like take damage if you perform an action or perma health degen or skill activations cost 40% more energy. It is called the Realm of Torment for a reason.
That's about all I can say about the difficulty of zones and dungeons...how did I get here?
Look I really can't tell you because I haven't played GW2.
Play for fun. Play to win. Play for perfection. Play with friends. Play in another world. Why do you play?
Well OP, if you feel that way from watching the videos, you are free to run back to Azeroth/Norrath/Rubi-Ka, but I would suggest going back to the bridge.
Maybe instead of just watching videos, Maybe just maybe, you could first read about the game to see how its different THEN watch videos to see if the videos correlate to the information they released?
I've seen the footage: Sure, it touts a lot of features that we've seen in Rift, Warhammer etc., but .. is that it?
You're right, it touts a lot of features we have seen in Rift, Warhammer, etc. Bags, inventory, avatars that move around, a mouse cursor... Wait, are you talking about dynamic events? Gee, you say it is a feature that has been seen in Rift, Warhammer, etc... So lets start by asking if you are saying that public quests in WAR are the same as Rifts in Rift? Ok, lets say they are(though there are significant differences)... Does that make them the same as dynamic events? Well, lets talk about the differences...
In WAR public quests were scripted events that:
1) Went through 1 or more stages
2) Were the same every time
3) Had a victory or failure condition
4) Once the condition was met, a timer appeared indicating how long until the event begins again.
In GW2, dynamic events are scripted events that:
1) Go through 1 or more stages
2) May be the same, or may be different based on player action, environmental variables(i.e. day/night, weather), and other events.
3) Have multiple progression conditions which lead to different outcomes and/or more events.
4) Make changes to the world which are persistent until such time as player actions cause them to change.
5) Scale to the number of players participating
6) Scale the players to the difficulty of the event
7) etc. etc. etc.
Doesn't seem like they are the same to me...
Every time I watch a video it basically reminds me of GW1, which is fine, but .. it doesn't actually inspire awe or any desire to feel what it's like playing it. Already it feels too much like a heavily modified EQ with a touch of DAoC, but with much more functionality.
So you are saying that GW1 is a blend of EQ and DAOC? I would completely disagree... I do agree that there are things there that are reminiscent of EQ and DAOC, but that is exactly as it should be. Those games had magic which has never been recaptures to this day, and you can't go back to those games and recapture the magic(for most people) because they are so dated. Are they influenced by the original EQ and by DAOC? You bet... They are trying to recapture the things that people are nostalgic for, without all the dross that drags it down today.
I don't know, maybe I'm just getting too old for gaming, but the whole hotkey thing is slowly wearing on my sanity and has long been forsaken by my interest.
You don't like hotkeys? What other system would you prefer? Do you want the mouse click combo system like DCUO has? Do you want a point-and-click adventure game(a la quest for glory)? Do you want a system like D2 where you selected 2 skills and they are on your left and right buttons? What possible alternative could you have for hotkeys that would account for using multiple skills? I mean, do you think everyone should go out and buy an OCZ Neural Impulse Actuator? Sure, would be cool if that tech were sufficiently good and it went mainstream, but if you don't like hotkeys then most games aren't for you.
Hell, Mortal Kombat on the original console had hotkeys(A, B, etc.)
It feels like Rift all over again: You get to play 5 minutes of it and you feel like you're back in Azeroth/Norrath/Rubi-Ka.
Have you played it? Have you gone to a con and gotten to play the demo? Are you in the beta?
Having spoken to people who have done both, I don't think you have... But you could prove me wrong... Please, tell us how much time you have spent playing it.
My answers are above in red...
TL;DR
OP, It sounds like you are griping for the sake of griping and I don't see the sense in what you are saying.
"Something entirely innovative" is really winning this pole? cmon people lets be realistic here sure, its got a couple things you could call innovative for an mmorpg but everything in this game has been done before in an mmorpg or not.
Yeah, it is... I suppose it depends on how you try and define innovative, but at least for me it is innovative because is putting a new spin on things that had potential but didn't live up to them, trying to bring out that potential... As well as introducting new features.
Why is this topic being created again? We've already had a ton of threads about this incredibly pointless issue. All it boils down to is semantics, and whether or not the OP will even bother enough to:
A) Actually read the info available for this game (of which there is a massive amount of it)
Actually be open minded enough to listen to other's points of view.
I haven't really seen either yet, and it's already 5? pages deep.
When Arenanet set out to design GW2, they started from scratch, taking lessons from the MMORPGs that had come before, but with out being beholden to them. They didn't reject things just because they had been done in a similar fashion before, if that's what works in their game design. They have also had to make some minor concessions to existing MMO players to aid in the transition to playing GW2.
GW2 is recognizable as a Fantasy MMORPG on the surface, but there is so much innovation going on that it's amazing that it can still offer some measure of familiarity.
As they then set down to make theory into a game, they had a very robust iterative process. They took ideas and if something seemed promising, they actually coded it into the game and tried it. Tweaking things that seemed like they really worked, dumping things that didn't, always careful to make sure everything blended together into a coherent whole that is far greater than the sum of it's parts. They are still iterating, tweaking, polishing and even fairly recently, making major changes to things they thought could be even better.
There are many, many differences in game design between GW2 and the defacto MMORPG design standard. There are even more differences between GW2 and GW1. The premise of the OP is just completely misinformed.
Comments
Yep you are wrong and here's your correction.
DE's are nothing like what's happening in Rift, Warhammer I've played War and I'm playing Rift now.... nothing like those.
How in the world does GW2 remind you of GW1? There are no "target, then macro macro macro" attacks, you heal yourself, every melee ability is AOE... the list goes on of how different from the combat of Rift War and GW1 this game is.
If you don't like hotkeys use point and click or actually WAIT for the game to be released with the game pad functionality.... sheesh.
Edit: Not a SWTOR biobot but i have to say most of his posts are like this, complaining about weird nonsensical things seems to be this guys bag.
"Innovative, but only to an extent" doesn't say anything about how innovative it is. 'To an extent' can mean any number/part/degree. This can be put anywhere between entirely and not at all. You also can't tell if it is more or less then 'somewhat' or 'barely'.
You can't even tell if there is a difference between 'somewhat' and 'barely' from just your poll options. The two words can mean the exact same amount depending on context.
From your original post it sounds like you already know so much that you have compared it to so many games from videos you have watched. Do you contridict yourself much? because everything that you have posted seems to have done so. There is an enourmous amount of information out their if you could be bothered, coming onto the boards and flaming the game before you have any information that you seem to dont have only baits people on these forums.
Go to the fan sites that have more information than you can shake a stick at, if you really care to find out.
Actually, I think a console MMO similar to Mortal combat and Soul calibur would be really fun.
For PC it would suck badly.
You are right, there are not many options. You could use Bethesdas old combat system from "Daggerfall", I guess it would work. You could use a more advanced version of Spellborns rolling hotbar as well. If you made your choices since earlier, the terrain, your weapon and in some cases what the opponent did last affect your options it could be really cool.
You could also use the mechanics from mount and blade.
There are other options but they would take a lot of work to get right, and for some you need a great ping. GW2s is at least somewhat different and lets you choose half of the skills you bring along.
Why would the second game in a series reminding you of the first but having evolved into something better i.e. ability to jump(hated not being able to in GW), open persistant world, more action based combat, dynamic world changing events be a bad thing? It should remind you of the first game hell it is even in the name "Guild Wars" 2 and it is the same world just a later time period.
Why people get so nit picky over a game that will cost them no more than buying a single player RPG but gives the ability to play in it as a co-op with other people is beyond me.
I think a Borderlands type game but as an MMO would be a blast. I'm really tired of the tab target crap I guess. As for number of specific powers/skills to use I think the GW2 model is nice in that it is simple enough to use on consoles with a controller. So I guess maybe I'd like to see a mix of Borderlands and GW2 and put it on the consoles: I bet it would be a blockbuster.
GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind"
1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN
2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements
"Something entirely innovative" is really winning this pole? cmon people lets be realistic here sure, its got a couple things you could call innovative for an mmorpg but everything in this game has been done before in an mmorpg or not.
C
Mass info for the uninitiated:
http://www.guildwars2guru.com/forum/guild-wars-2-mass-info-t25557.html
Op would have seen this if they looked at the stickies first...
So yeah, you were wrong. Its going to be nothing like GW1 aside from the lore / setting and some skill names being reused.
Mreh.
I'm going to do my best to answer, but difficult question to answer is difficult, so bear with me. Okay?
Right. In Guild Wars 1, you had something similar. But it was broken and it wasn't entirely there, yet. What Guild Wars 2 has is, indeed, an evolution over GW1 rather than an evolution. However, keep in mind this: Guild Wars 1 is still massively and almost completely original versus almost every other MMORPG out there despite its age.
Why? Everyone keeps trying to clone WoW. GW1 did its own thing. And many have said that the system of GW1 actually works better than the system WoW had. This is true, but GW1's system had its rough edges and lack of intricacy.
There was an obvious problem in GW1. Let me lay it out for you.
In Guild Wars 1, you had, say, skills which relied on weapons. So those were hammer skills, and those were sword skills. You could also switch weapons. But switching weapons didn't switch skills. So if you switched weapons you'd end up with a suboptimal fighter. If you tried to make a build that used more than one weapon but you weren't good at it, you'd end up with a suboptimal build. If you tried to make a build dedicated to one weapon, you wouldn't be as good as someone with a build for multiple weapons that knew what they were doing.
So, the evolution in GW2 is that skills are tied to weapons. When you switch your weapons, your skillset itself changes. Now, in Guild Wars 1, you couldn't actually change your skills unless you were at a town or an outpost. In GW2 your skills switch on the fly when you switch weapons.
So let's say that an Engineer has a flamethrower, you have a set of fully damaging skills, but let's say that in the midst of battle they switch to a pistol and shield, yeah? Now they have a build that does mild damage and good support. You can shift back and forth between these playstyles. So instead of trying to design your skills to fit a number of weapons, your skills change depending on your weapons.
The end result of this is two obvious things: The first of which is that you can no longer have suboptimal builds, the second of which is that you can now change your role on the field of battle.
So it's evolving the original (and highly innovative) systems in GW1. Is it the same? Sort of, but on the other hand, not that much. It's a massively innovative system compared to any other MMO system out there, and it's a marked improvement compared to GW1.
The problem with your post, OP, is that you assume that something can become 'tired' after one instance. Not the case. The reason WoW has become tired is because it has over 100 clones which all uset he same system. Even recent games use a WoW-like system and it doesn't benefit anyone in the long run. And there'll no doubt be games which will continue to emulate WoW. But the only thing even similar to GW2 is GW1.
So, is it innovative? Yes, yes it is. It is very innovative.
I hate when people talk about "innovation" in the context of MMORPGs because no one agrees on what it really means. Sure we know that innovation means "something new."
But does that only mean something new to you? Something new to the MMORPG genre? Something completely new that has never been done before?
Also, how different does something have to be to qualify as innovative? Is a new play on an old concept innovative? Or does something have to completely reinvent the wheel to be innovative?
There's just so much grey area when you talk about innovation...
To a hardcore sandbox fan, GW2 will not seem innovative at all...it's just another themepark after all. But to a gamer that has only played WoW and its clones, GW2 may seem radically innovative to the point of insanity.
TLDR, talking about innovation just leads to pointless arguments over semantics...we should talk about if the game is "different from the norm of the genre" instead of if it's innovative.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
buy 2 play is the number one reason
if any of the mmo's which came out in the last 3 years was buy to play then it to would have been the number one game
it makes the developers work for more money
Not at all
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innovation
I could post 1000 links explaining why but the fact is I have not played it so I can't tell you how different it feels from gw 1.
In gw1 you had an autofacing autoattack - tab then space XD. That would automatically run you into range of a mob to do whatever action you chose. Spells would also autorun you into range of target mobs.
In gw2 I am lead to believe I will not have an autoattack that automatically gets me into range so I would have to move into range (akin to wow/eq) before activating skill. However I can activate skills at any given time so I won't get some error telling me i'm out of range. The projectile will fire but it may say 'out of range' in combat text.
Oh yeah and there's dodge.
That's about all I can tell from the videos. As for questing and all that stuff I don't really know. I can tell you that GWEN dungeons (not missions) on hard mode is some of the hardest content I've ever done. Slavers Exile - Dungeon - Killed me many times. It's like 5 dungeons in one.
Realm of Torment - Post end game zone - Each zone has global negative effects. Real nasty ones like take damage if you perform an action or perma health degen or skill activations cost 40% more energy. It is called the Realm of Torment for a reason.
That's about all I can say about the difficulty of zones and dungeons...how did I get here?
Look I really can't tell you because I haven't played GW2.
Play for fun. Play to win. Play for perfection. Play with friends. Play in another world. Why do you play?
And that's bad?? What exactly are you after in an MMO?
(I'd say it has more than just a touch of DaoC tho..)
No, GW2= NOTHING CLOSE to GW1, just the story, BUT A WHOLE NEW GAME.... just following a story
Well OP, if you feel that way from watching the videos, you are free to run back to Azeroth/Norrath/Rubi-Ka, but I would suggest going back to the bridge.
Maybe instead of just watching videos, Maybe just maybe, you could first read about the game to see how its different THEN watch videos to see if the videos correlate to the information they released?
It's Gw1 with dodging and an open world. All the same ideals that went into the creation of GW1 are brought here but the execution is different.
I would go for plain old innovative, not extremely, not somewhat, not even similar to anything else, just innovative. Nothing more.
This is not a game.
My answers are above in red...
TL;DR
OP, It sounds like you are griping for the sake of griping and I don't see the sense in what you are saying.
Yeah, it is... I suppose it depends on how you try and define innovative, but at least for me it is innovative because is putting a new spin on things that had potential but didn't live up to them, trying to bring out that potential... As well as introducting new features.
Why is this topic being created again? We've already had a ton of threads about this incredibly pointless issue. All it boils down to is semantics, and whether or not the OP will even bother enough to:
A) Actually read the info available for this game (of which there is a massive amount of it)
I haven't really seen either yet, and it's already 5? pages deep.
When Arenanet set out to design GW2, they started from scratch, taking lessons from the MMORPGs that had come before, but with out being beholden to them. They didn't reject things just because they had been done in a similar fashion before, if that's what works in their game design. They have also had to make some minor concessions to existing MMO players to aid in the transition to playing GW2.
GW2 is recognizable as a Fantasy MMORPG on the surface, but there is so much innovation going on that it's amazing that it can still offer some measure of familiarity.
As they then set down to make theory into a game, they had a very robust iterative process. They took ideas and if something seemed promising, they actually coded it into the game and tried it. Tweaking things that seemed like they really worked, dumping things that didn't, always careful to make sure everything blended together into a coherent whole that is far greater than the sum of it's parts. They are still iterating, tweaking, polishing and even fairly recently, making major changes to things they thought could be even better.
There are many, many differences in game design between GW2 and the defacto MMORPG design standard. There are even more differences between GW2 and GW1. The premise of the OP is just completely misinformed.
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
