Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Guild Wars 2: It Is a Sequel
SBFord
Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
When something is the second in a series, a sequel, there are certain things that players will look for as improvements over the first. In today's Guild Wars 2 column, we look at some of the bigger improvements that have been made since the original came out. Read on!
I love writing these columns each week. I also love to read the comments that you guys throw up on the site, and one has recently stood out. You see, Guild Wars 2 is Guild Wars TWO, meaning that it’s a sequel. Any article we read, or in my case write, should also really look at it as a second game to a series, and should focus on the improvements it's made over ArenaNet’s first game, not just the genre. It’s time to go ahead and remedy this situation.
Read more of David North's Guild Wars 2: It Is a Sequel.
)
Two different warriors, two different destinies.
Comments
Wouldn't being a different genre make it less of a sequel? More of a spinoff? The devs for GW1 have even been quoted as saying GW1 was more of a Co-op Online RPG than an MMORPG and that GW2 is a full fledged MMORPG.
Heck, even when I think about GW2 I don't consider it a sequel to GW1 except in name. It's just far too different and honestly, what I was hoping GW1 would have been. But that's another topic for another day.
Back to my original point, it's like saying World of Warcraft is a sequel to Warcraft 3. Yet..it's not. Different genre, different gameplay.
I think "Sequel" is used wrong here. Sequel usually refers to a continuation of something. Like a story. ArenaNet also has come out and said GW2 is not referred as a sequel as its story/lore is 200 or so years later.
I know what David is saying, but sequel I believe is the wrong term to use.
Elocke brings up a good point...
"it's like saying World of Warcraft is a sequel to Warcraft 3. Yet..it's not. Different genre, different gameplay. "
se·quel/?s?kw?l/
Noun:
A published, broadcast, or recorded work that continues the story or develops the theme of an earlier one.
Something that takes place after or as a result of an earlier event.
GW 2.0 its what id like to think of it- I NEVER heard of GW until GW2 artwork-videos and videos, so i did backround check on gw1 and tbh I would have never played GW1.
that said - as far as lore = maybe a sequel. as far as game mechanics and design- a whole new spectrum.
Only thing common with GW1 and GW2 is the B2P approach to payment method.
GW2 will be success because it's nothing like GW1 :>
A sequel implies that the first needs to be experienced in order for the second to have context. Playing GW1 is not necessary to playing GW2. Certainly you will get some additional story background if you have played the first but it far from necessary. The original campaigns were a few years apart story wise. over the course of all 3 and the EotN expansion I think some 7 years past storywise. Those are sequels. They choose to move GW2 forward 250 years so that there would be some connection to the original but also be far enough away that a whole new story could be told. GW2 is a whole new game. The game that they wanted GW to be but it ended up making more sense to start over. GW2 is a successor to GW but to say it is a sequel is a bit like saying that the War in Afganistan is the sequel to the French and Indian War. There is a whole lot that has happened in between the two.
All die, so die well.
scouter not scooter
well it's a continuation from the guild wars universe storyline so to say, Things that happend in GW1 affect things in guild wars 2. You walk the same grounds as you walk on in GW1
.
For me it's a sequel.
With 6 Million combined sales for GW1 I would say it was quite succesful.
agree
there's been past threads suggesting GW2 could have been named better
but im looking forward to GW2 regardless
EQ2 fan sites
GW2 feels very much like a sequel to me and even a change of listed genre isn't cause to say otherwise imo.
The theme still has similarities such as the races, the world and a few other things and GW2 takes place 250 years after GW1
That did not want to quote your definition table
I don't agree that gw1 and gw2 share the same style in graphics. Gw1 was more realistic while Gw2 is more artistic.
Guild Wars 2 Youtube Croatian Maniacs
My Guild Wars titles
guild Wars 1 had better ui and it's customisation than gW2 so far.
Guild Wars "ends" with GWEN (Eye of the North). During Eye of the North, you are introduced to the storyline and plot, darn near in its entirety, for Guild Wars 2. You even get to see "Bubbles" under the ice in the Norn area. The Guild Wars: Beyond series bridges the gap between GW1 and 2 a bit more closely, but the continuity is still there, hence GW2 being a sequel. Further, you are basically playing descendants (even if not by blood) of the heroes of GW1, and many important NPCs are direct descendants of NPCs from GW1 (Logan as just one example) whose fates and destinies are impacted by their lineage. Heck, even the Sylvari as an entire race, you get to meet one of their fathers in GW1 if you know what to look for (hint: it all started from a soldier, a centaur and a seed).
It is a sequel. By the very definition used to say it isn't, it is.
"Something that takes place after or as a result of an earlier event."
Everything that happens in GW2 is a result of GW1. Why are we even arguing about this? Stop trying to get cute with definitions >_>
As for the article, the only thing that concerns me is the character customization. So far, between videos and what I've heard from a friend, there are tons of different sliders but they don't really seem to change much going from one extreme to the other. I don't want the wierd looking characters that were running around in Aion, but I would like more control over my character's facial features, especially since some of those pre-made heads are proportioned a bit oddly.
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
Two Warrors different destinies? Are we sure about that? Are the personal story endings different from person to person?
This is not a game.
So GW was not a success,6 million+ unit including expansion is not a success,okay lol.
This.
So, GW2?
I don't think he was knocking GW1, but rather implying since it isn't a clone of GW1 it will be more succesfull. I think
The "Youtube Pro": Someone who watches video's on said subject, and obviously has a full understanding of what is being said about such subject.
Eew? PG13 PG13!
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
LMAO You know what, I almost put "Get those dirty thoughts out of your head" in parenthases cuz I ~knew~ someone was thinking it.
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
I agree Sequel is appropiate
why I dont like its use is, at least with games, players may expect "more of the same" if the game is labeled a sequel
some EQ1 players trying EQ2 expecting the gameplay of EQ1 were disappointed, EQ2 only had lore in common
a minority of GW1 players wont like GW2 -- because its significantly different from GW1
EQ2 fan sites
I hope it isn't a sequel....GW1 was a bad game with a bad community......Im hoping for alot better this time around.
Ugh.
It's a frickin' sequel, people. Unquestionably, undeniably. The lore and setting are continuous, there are tons of references from the first that players of the original GW will appreciate that will completely fly over the heads of new players, and (most importantly) the basic design philosophies are consistent. What are those philosophies?
1) Restricted skillbar, and the importance of build creation. In GW1, you were stuck with 8 unchanging skills once you went into a mission or quest zone, period, with very few exceptions. This restriction, in turn, made build creation much more important, and therefore experimenting with your build was free and actively encouraged by the fact that some skills would simply be useless in certain areas, while being very effective in others. This is completely different from most MMOs on the market, where any specialization you take is done at the exclusion of any others (barring some steep penalty), and all of the abilities that your spec has access to are available on your skillbar at all times.
Yes, build creation has become easier in GW2. Thank god. I don't want to be running around doing DEs in a persistent zone with people with terrible builds, and it was extraordinarily easy to make a terrible build in GW1. However, the philosophy of giving players the ability to customize their skill set out of combat freely (or mostly freely, now...) and then locking them into it once they've entered combat is the same. Experimentation is encouraged. Considering the number of trait, sigil, rune, weapon set, utilities, healing skills, and elites we have access to, I think build creation is just as robust in GW2 as it was in GW1.
2) "Skill > time". Again, a basic tenet of GW1's design philosophy: if you want to spend 1000 hours playing GW, go ahead, you'll get money and shiny stuff, but don't expect to be significantly better (statistically speaking) than the guy who can only play half as long as you. In GW2, this philosophy is taken to an even further extreme; competitive PvP has instant-UAX for everyone, WvW boosts everyone to lvl80 stats even if they're a fresh lvl2 with no skills, and the best (stat-wise) PvE weapons and armor are available from merchants for reasonable prices throughout the game. This is clearly not a game where you're going to be able to grind for a significant statistical advantage. Money and time buy you shinies, and that's enough.
3) Don't waste the player's time. This encompasses a lot of the little things, like the instant waypoint system, or allowing you to keep your progress in a crafting profession if you switch to another one and then back again, or letting you craft 100 copper ingots in about the same amount of time as you can craft 10 ingots. GW2 is B2P, just like GW1, so ANet doesn't have any need to include stupid grindy BS just to keep you playing longer. Oh, sure, some things are going to require effort or time to acquire, because instant gratification is no gratification at all, but the unfun, unnecessary timesinks that plague other MMOs are absent in GW2, just as they were absent in GW1.
Anyone who believes that GW2 is not a sequel to GW1 is working off of a far, far too limited definition of "sequel". Yes, it's a persistent world, as opposed to an instanced world connected to persistent cities, but that's just because that was their chosen method of getting away from the griefing, kill stealing, and generally immersion-breaking nonsense that happens when you stick multiple players in a virtual world in most MMOs. I don't want to play with other players in WoW or LotRO! I didn't have to deal with that problem in GW1, and in GW2 they've made it so that I actively want to: two different solutions to the same problem.
There is far more connecting GW1 and GW2 than there is separating them.