Hang on... Why is Guild Wars 2 and Diablo 3 being compared? Diablo 3 isn't a MMO, from what I understand its main function is a single player game with online features afterwards, like the two previous games.
It is like saying will Dead or Alive effect Need for Speed? Two different genres.
you beat me to it >< its completely stupid to even make a thread like this tbh.
Genres aren't the focus here. It's 2 well known titles which are slated, according to rumors and leaks, to release around the holidays of 2011. Look at how many MMOs, not just games, were forced to be released early, and none that I can name that were actually in a non-beta stage, because Blizzard was launching one of their massively great titles. A great example is when Burning Crusade caused Warhammer Online to launch early and look at how that has went.
If you ask any gamer chances are they know something about the Diablo series. The same might be said about Guild Wars also. While I agree that Diablo 3 looks like Diablo 2 with update graphics people are still going to buy it because it's a game that you can leave for months at a time and come back to much like Guild Wars. One of the main selling points for both games is no subscription fees (at least not for D3 atm).
The term MMO no longer means what it used to mean so calling Diablo 3 a non-MMO isn't legit these days. You are online with massive amounts of people. Yes there is a limit on how many people can go into certain areas but the fact is you still can interact with massive amounts of people. People consider games like Vindictus and Global Agenda MMOs, but the only thing they really have different is an more lively and updated lobby area for the masses to meet, greet, and troll. Like I stated before this poll wasn't a focus on genres but more of a focus on Diablo 3's release date having an effect on Guild Wars 2's.
I guess I can understand that. However I am still pretty sceptical on classing Diablo 3 as an MMO or MMORPG. In my mind it is a single player game with some online features for replayability. Where as a game like Guild Wars 2 or any current or upcoming MMORPG has its primary focus as on online play.
So I still find it very strange for it to even make an appearance here.
This is very funny. People claim gw2 won't compete against wow because it doesn't have a sub, but other people claim gw2 won't compete against d3 because one is an mmo and on is single player. I wonder if people understand that gw2 will end up competing with both simply because they are all video games.
There is absolutely no reason for Blizzard to do so. Both games appear to be B2P. What would then be the point of release both a the same time and counter the other? They want as many box sales. It would in fact be unwise to try to compete with something else in that case as that WILL reduce your own box sales as well.
Although I see why Diablo 2 was awesome, and I think it was pretty cool...
I didn't play it past a week. Yea, it was a great game I guess, but not for me. It was just 'whatever' to me.
It was cool. It was awesome when I played. It was a blast. It's a great game. But I never played more than 1 or 2 weeks. Ever.
So I'm not hyped about Diablo 3 at all. I am not really that interested actually.
I also loved Starcraft, so I purchased Starcraft 2. That was a waste, bc I barely have played it. It's identical to Starcraft 1, which I thought would be awesome and what I and everyone else would want. Well... I never realized how boring and stupid Starcraft 1 would be in 2010. I'm sorry, it was great, it was fun, but I never really liked the actual game. It was lame, with tons of lame tactics.
I only ever played Starcraft 1 and loved it to death because of the Use Map Settings games. Well... those were AMAZING! Of course, now-a-days those games are everywhere, so Starcraft 2's versions just aren't that appealing. It's just not the same at all. Although I didn't get a chance at Zergling Blood in SC2, which I'd love.
WoW is amazing though. Can't say anything is bad about that game. Well, all of their games seem great. But WoW is the only one I ever really played, besides Starcraft 1, which was only great because it was the 90's. The reason I'm not playing Starcraft 2 right now is the same reason I'm not playing Ultima Online or Starcraft 1 or Anarchy Online.
Alright...before I get flamed for saying Blizzard isn't THAT great, I have to conclude with the fact that GW2 is all hype. I promise you, the "innovation" is purely hype. It won't be THAT great. It'll end up just like WAR's Public Quest innovation. It SOUNDS amazing. It will BE cool. It won't be THAT great though. And no, it won't revolutionize anything, or change the genre in any way. GW2 will be a cooler GW1, not a new fresh take on a burnt out genre. I promise.
Now that I've sealed my fate, let me tell you what games I felt ARE great:
Sanitarium. That is one hell of a game.
Company of Heroes. This innovative masterpiece destroys Starcraft 2 in every way, and it's old compared to SC2.
Empire Earth 1.
Dark Age of Camelot at every stage except dead, but especially Pre-TA. *droolz* Although Classic was fun too before the population died. ESpecially DAoC in beta, when it first released. Oh my GOD DROOLZ!!!!!!!
City of Vilains, the first month I ever played it. Champions Online beta, before release ruined the game's amazing pvp.
Starcraft 1, because of Use Map Settings games in the 90's.
Ultima Online because it was the 90's.
Everquest because it was the 90's.
Shogun Total War, the very first one when that genre released for the first time.
Not diablo. Not diablo 2. Not diablo 3. Not starcraft 1's real game. Not starcraft 2.
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
Although I see why Diablo 2 was awesome, and I think it was pretty cool...
I didn't play it past a week. Yea, it was a great game I guess, but not for me. It was just 'whatever' to me.
It was cool. It was awesome when I played. It was a blast. It's a great game. But I never played more than 1 or 2 weeks. Ever.
So I'm not hyped about Diablo 3 at all. I am not really that interested actually.
I also loved Starcraft, so I purchased Starcraft 2. That was a waste, bc I barely have played it. It's identical to Starcraft 1, which I thought would be awesome and what I and everyone else would want. Well... I never realized how boring and stupid Starcraft 1 would be in 2010. I'm sorry, it was great, it was fun, but I never really liked the actual game. It was lame, with tons of lame tactics.
I only ever played Starcraft 1 and loved it to death because of the Use Map Settings games. Well... those were AMAZING! Of course, now-a-days those games are everywhere, so Starcraft 2's versions just aren't that appealing. It's just not the same at all. Although I didn't get a chance at Zergling Blood in SC2, which I'd love.
WoW is amazing though. Can't say anything is bad about that game. Well, all of their games seem great. But WoW is the only one I ever really played, besides Starcraft 1, which was only great because it was the 90's. The reason I'm not playing Starcraft 2 right now is the same reason I'm not playing Ultima Online or Starcraft 1 or Anarchy Online.
Alright...before I get flamed for saying Blizzard isn't THAT great, I have to conclude with the fact that GW2 is all hype. I promise you, the "innovation" is purely hype. It won't be THAT great. It'll end up just like WAR's Public Quest innovation. It SOUNDS amazing. It will BE cool. It won't be THAT great though. And no, it won't revolutionize anything, or change the genre in any way. GW2 will be a cooler GW1, not a new fresh take on a burnt out genre. I promise.
Now that I've sealed my fate, let me tell you what games I felt ARE great:
Sanitarium. That is one hell of a game.
Company of Heroes. This innovative masterpiece destroys Starcraft 2 in every way, and it's old compared to SC2.
Empire Earth 1.
Dark Age of Camelot at every stage except dead, but especially Pre-TA. *droolz* Although Classic was fun too before the population died. ESpecially DAoC in beta, when it first released. Oh my GOD DROOLZ!!!!!!!
City of Vilains, the first month I ever played it. Champions Online beta, before release ruined the game's amazing pvp.
Starcraft 1, because of Use Map Settings games in the 90's.
Ultima Online because it was the 90's.
Everquest because it was the 90's.
Shogun Total War, the very first one when that genre released for the first time.
Not diablo. Not diablo 2. Not diablo 3. Not starcraft 1's real game. Not starcraft 2.
The dynamic events aren't the only thing that arenanet are saying is innovative just to let you know.
Although I see why Diablo 2 was awesome, and I think it was pretty cool...
I didn't play it past a week. Yea, it was a great game I guess, but not for me. It was just 'whatever' to me.
It was cool. It was awesome when I played. It was a blast. It's a great game. But I never played more than 1 or 2 weeks. Ever.
So I'm not hyped about Diablo 3 at all. I am not really that interested actually.
I also loved Starcraft, so I purchased Starcraft 2. That was a waste, bc I barely have played it. It's identical to Starcraft 1, which I thought would be awesome and what I and everyone else would want. Well... I never realized how boring and stupid Starcraft 1 would be in 2010. I'm sorry, it was great, it was fun, but I never really liked the actual game. It was lame, with tons of lame tactics.
I only ever played Starcraft 1 and loved it to death because of the Use Map Settings games. Well... those were AMAZING! Of course, now-a-days those games are everywhere, so Starcraft 2's versions just aren't that appealing. It's just not the same at all. Although I didn't get a chance at Zergling Blood in SC2, which I'd love.
WoW is amazing though. Can't say anything is bad about that game. Well, all of their games seem great. But WoW is the only one I ever really played, besides Starcraft 1, which was only great because it was the 90's. The reason I'm not playing Starcraft 2 right now is the same reason I'm not playing Ultima Online or Starcraft 1 or Anarchy Online.
Alright...before I get flamed for saying Blizzard isn't THAT great, I have to conclude with the fact that GW2 is all hype. I promise you, the "innovation" is purely hype. It won't be THAT great. It'll end up just like WAR's Public Quest innovation. It SOUNDS amazing. It will BE cool. It won't be THAT great though. And no, it won't revolutionize anything, or change the genre in any way. GW2 will be a cooler GW1, not a new fresh take on a burnt out genre. I promise.
Now that I've sealed my fate, let me tell you what games I felt ARE great:
Sanitarium. That is one hell of a game.
Company of Heroes. This innovative masterpiece destroys Starcraft 2 in every way, and it's old compared to SC2.
Empire Earth 1.
Dark Age of Camelot at every stage except dead, but especially Pre-TA. *droolz* Although Classic was fun too before the population died. ESpecially DAoC in beta, when it first released. Oh my GOD DROOLZ!!!!!!!
City of Vilains, the first month I ever played it. Champions Online beta, before release ruined the game's amazing pvp.
Starcraft 1, because of Use Map Settings games in the 90's.
Ultima Online because it was the 90's.
Everquest because it was the 90's.
Shogun Total War, the very first one when that genre released for the first time.
Not diablo. Not diablo 2. Not diablo 3. Not starcraft 1's real game. Not starcraft 2.
The dynamic events aren't the only thing that arenanet are saying is innovative just to let you know.
I've been around the MMO genre for too long to believe any of this is innovative. I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced. And 10 times out of 10, I have been right. I severely doubt I'm wrong about this one.
World vs World PvP and "everyone is a healer" is not enough to convince me. Sorry.
Hype is hype, and experience teaches you to know it when you see it.
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
Although I see why Diablo 2 was awesome, and I think it was pretty cool...
I didn't play it past a week. Yea, it was a great game I guess, but not for me. It was just 'whatever' to me.
It was cool. It was awesome when I played. It was a blast. It's a great game. But I never played more than 1 or 2 weeks. Ever.
So I'm not hyped about Diablo 3 at all. I am not really that interested actually.
I also loved Starcraft, so I purchased Starcraft 2. That was a waste, bc I barely have played it. It's identical to Starcraft 1, which I thought would be awesome and what I and everyone else would want. Well... I never realized how boring and stupid Starcraft 1 would be in 2010. I'm sorry, it was great, it was fun, but I never really liked the actual game. It was lame, with tons of lame tactics.
I only ever played Starcraft 1 and loved it to death because of the Use Map Settings games. Well... those were AMAZING! Of course, now-a-days those games are everywhere, so Starcraft 2's versions just aren't that appealing. It's just not the same at all. Although I didn't get a chance at Zergling Blood in SC2, which I'd love.
WoW is amazing though. Can't say anything is bad about that game. Well, all of their games seem great. But WoW is the only one I ever really played, besides Starcraft 1, which was only great because it was the 90's. The reason I'm not playing Starcraft 2 right now is the same reason I'm not playing Ultima Online or Starcraft 1 or Anarchy Online.
Alright...before I get flamed for saying Blizzard isn't THAT great, I have to conclude with the fact that GW2 is all hype. I promise you, the "innovation" is purely hype. It won't be THAT great. It'll end up just like WAR's Public Quest innovation. It SOUNDS amazing. It will BE cool. It won't be THAT great though. And no, it won't revolutionize anything, or change the genre in any way. GW2 will be a cooler GW1, not a new fresh take on a burnt out genre. I promise.
Now that I've sealed my fate, let me tell you what games I felt ARE great:
Sanitarium. That is one hell of a game.
Company of Heroes. This innovative masterpiece destroys Starcraft 2 in every way, and it's old compared to SC2.
Empire Earth 1.
Dark Age of Camelot at every stage except dead, but especially Pre-TA. *droolz* Although Classic was fun too before the population died. ESpecially DAoC in beta, when it first released. Oh my GOD DROOLZ!!!!!!!
City of Vilains, the first month I ever played it. Champions Online beta, before release ruined the game's amazing pvp.
Starcraft 1, because of Use Map Settings games in the 90's.
Ultima Online because it was the 90's.
Everquest because it was the 90's.
Shogun Total War, the very first one when that genre released for the first time.
Not diablo. Not diablo 2. Not diablo 3. Not starcraft 1's real game. Not starcraft 2.
The dynamic events aren't the only thing that arenanet are saying is innovative just to let you know.
I've been around the MMO genre for too long to believe any of this is innovative. I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced. And 10 times out of 10, I have been right. I severely doubt I'm wrong about this one.
World vs World PvP and "everyone is a healer" is not enough to convince me. Sorry.
Hype is hype, and experience teaches you to know it when you see it.
Well they did have a demo at PAX and Gamescom where many people felt that the game was very fun and people have said that everything arenanet has revealed before the demo was in it. I personally believe that gw2 is overhyped, but it isn't overhyped without good reason.
Originally posted by Emergence I only ever played Starcraft 1 and loved it to death because of the Use Map Settings games. Well... those were AMAZING!
Yeah, that just speaks WONDERS about your credibility, mate. Sounds to me like you don't like games which require ingenuity or skill.
That being said, Guild Wars 2 is in a totally different world than Diablo. Diablo 3 is not an MMO and appeals to a separate fan base. I highly doubt that the two games will be released near each other (they wouldn't want to battle for attention), but even if they do it wouldn't impact their bottom line that much.
Originally posted by romanator0but it isn't overhyped without good reason.
Like Starcraft 2?
:P
I am impressed with some of their common-sense innovations (which aren't really innovations, but things they should have done A LONG time ago in WoW-based MMO's. That's cool though, and lots of nice things and pretty animations and effects.
Of course, nothing is innovative. They are adding some nice, clean features to the WoW-based MMORPG. But in the end, it will still be exactly that. Yet another cookie cutter MMORPG design based off of the success of WoW, polished with nice features to give older games (like WoW) a run for their money, maybe one or two innovative features...which steer the genre to an even more WoW-based casual non-gamer playerbase.
I applaud them, they will probably have a lot of success making the genre even more friendly to the farmville crowd. I just am not excited because I've already played WoW, and just recently played Rift. They're awesome games... but it's time for something innovative. Something different. Not something that will steer the genre and gamers to even more themepark, WoW-based over-simplified gameplay.
A lot of what I read is exactly that. Something that caters more towards non-gamers than gamers. Something that brings the genre more towards the side WoW took it-- not the side EQ, DAoC, or UO took it.
It's like pulling the genre even further away from the dreams of the opposite direction of idealogy. Not of oversimplified farmville gameplay for XBOX gamers... but of exploration, immersion, and complex character development for traditional gamers. Bring me a game like EQ, UO, or DAoC-- but 2011 with the annoying timesinks destroyed. Not a game that is WoW 2011.
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
Originally posted by romanator0but it isn't overhyped without good reason.
Like Starcraft 2?
:P
I am impressed with some of their common-sense innovations (which aren't really innovations, but things they should have done A LONG time ago in WoW-based MMO's. That's cool though, and lots of nice things and pretty animations and effects.
Of course, nothing is innovative. They are adding some nice, clean features to the WoW-based MMORPG. But in the end, it will still be exactly that. Yet another cookie cutter MMORPG design based off of the success of WoW, polished with nice features to give older games (like WoW) a run for their money, maybe one or two innovative features...which steer the genre to an even more WoW-based casual non-gamer playerbase.
I applaud them, they will probably have a lot of success making the genre even more friendly to the farmville crowd. I just am not excited because I've already played WoW, and just recently played Rift. They're awesome games... but it's time for something innovative. Something different. Not something that will steer the genre and gamers to even more themepark, WoW-based over-simplified gameplay.
A lot of what I read is exactly that. Something that caters more towards non-gamers than gamers. Something that brings the genre more towards the side WoW took it-- not the side EQ, DAoC, or UO took it.
It's like pulling the genre even further away from the dreams of the opposite direction of idealogy. Not of oversimplified farmville gameplay for XBOX gamers... but of exploration, immersion, and complex character development for traditional gamers. Bring me a game like EQ, UO, or DAoC-- but 2011 with the annoying timesinks destroyed. Not a game that is WoW 2011.
Company of Heroes. This innovative masterpiece destroys Starcraft 2 in every way, and it's old compared to SC2.
Empire Earth 1.
Dark Age of Camelot at every stage except dead, but especially Pre-TA. *droolz* Although Classic was fun too before the population died. ESpecially DAoC in beta, when it first released. Oh my GOD DROOLZ!!!!!!!
City of Vilains, the first month I ever played it. Champions Online beta, before release ruined the game's amazing pvp.
Starcraft 1, because of Use Map Settings games in the 90's.
Ultima Online because it was the 90's.
Everquest because it was the 90's.
Shogun Total War, the very first one when that genre released for the first time.
Not diablo. Not diablo 2. Not diablo 3. Not starcraft 1's real game. Not starcraft 2.
Some off topic (but just to show people are different).
Here is my list of awesome games. Star Raiders (Atari PC, 1980 and full 3D space flights yep), Close Combat 1, Donkey Kong 64, WOW.
If you played the highly realistic WW2 orginal Close Combat 1 in 1996 on line, you would know Company of Heroes is a laughing joke (really making WW2 troops on beaches ). And Total War series .... brrrr any dead historical wargamer now turns in his grave...
The LAN made historical Sid Meier's Gettysburg preceded the "historical joke" series of Total War by at least 5 years.
If you make a game at least attach some connection to it that makes it believable even IF the world itself is pure fantasy
Donkey Kong 64 is more "realistic" than Company of Heroes. And I am not too fond on your other games too since they "lack the surroundings" to be a believable gaming world (CoV - CO to name the worst).
That was personal opinion, but at least one with a logical explanation.
On topic: May the best game win over the most players.
Yeah, that just speaks WONDERS about your credibility, mate. Sounds to me like you don't like games which require ingenuity or skill.
That being said, Guild Wars 2 is in a totally different world than Diablo. Diablo 3 is not an MMO and appeals to a separate fan base. I highly doubt that the two games will be released near each other (they wouldn't want to battle for attention), but even if they do it wouldn't impact their bottom line that much.
Whatever. Since neither have monthly fees anyone who wants to can buy both. The competiton of both games relesed say in August would be which one you bought in August and which one you bought in september.
D3 is the kind of games most people play a lot for a month and then somewhat for another 6 months. That means you easily could play GW2, Wow or another MMO after the fist month together with some D3.
GW2 is a MMO and that requires some more time but not enough so you can't play anything else. As I see it will most people buy D3 a bit before and play the campaign and then get GW2 if they both release the same time, it would make more sense since GW2 will take more time.
I can of course only talk for myself but I will buy both and I don't see why anyone who are interested in both games shouldn't do the same. You have to be pretty poor to only afford one B2P game every 6 month or so and in that case you probably don't own a computer good enough to run the games anyways.
In all honesty I can see a lot of people just buying both or just going with D3. D2 was a game that seemingly everyone played when I was younger and just because you play GW2 does not mean you can't play D3. I just hope that D3 can live up to what we all expect out of a diablo game.
Although I see why Diablo 2 was awesome, and I think it was pretty cool...
I didn't play it past a week. Yea, it was a great game I guess, but not for me. It was just 'whatever' to me.
It was cool. It was awesome when I played. It was a blast. It's a great game. But I never played more than 1 or 2 weeks. Ever.
So I'm not hyped about Diablo 3 at all. I am not really that interested actually.
I also loved Starcraft, so I purchased Starcraft 2. That was a waste, bc I barely have played it. It's identical to Starcraft 1, which I thought would be awesome and what I and everyone else would want. Well... I never realized how boring and stupid Starcraft 1 would be in 2010. I'm sorry, it was great, it was fun, but I never really liked the actual game. It was lame, with tons of lame tactics.
I only ever played Starcraft 1 and loved it to death because of the Use Map Settings games. Well... those were AMAZING! Of course, now-a-days those games are everywhere, so Starcraft 2's versions just aren't that appealing. It's just not the same at all. Although I didn't get a chance at Zergling Blood in SC2, which I'd love.
WoW is amazing though. Can't say anything is bad about that game. Well, all of their games seem great. But WoW is the only one I ever really played, besides Starcraft 1, which was only great because it was the 90's. The reason I'm not playing Starcraft 2 right now is the same reason I'm not playing Ultima Online or Starcraft 1 or Anarchy Online.
Alright...before I get flamed for saying Blizzard isn't THAT great, I have to conclude with the fact that GW2 is all hype. I promise you, the "innovation" is purely hype. It won't be THAT great. It'll end up just like WAR's Public Quest innovation. It SOUNDS amazing. It will BE cool. It won't be THAT great though. And no, it won't revolutionize anything, or change the genre in any way. GW2 will be a cooler GW1, not a new fresh take on a burnt out genre. I promise.
Now that I've sealed my fate, let me tell you what games I felt ARE great:
Sanitarium. That is one hell of a game.
Company of Heroes. This innovative masterpiece destroys Starcraft 2 in every way, and it's old compared to SC2.
Empire Earth 1.
Dark Age of Camelot at every stage except dead, but especially Pre-TA. *droolz* Although Classic was fun too before the population died. ESpecially DAoC in beta, when it first released. Oh my GOD DROOLZ!!!!!!!
City of Vilains, the first month I ever played it. Champions Online beta, before release ruined the game's amazing pvp.
Starcraft 1, because of Use Map Settings games in the 90's.
Ultima Online because it was the 90's.
Everquest because it was the 90's.
Shogun Total War, the very first one when that genre released for the first time.
Not diablo. Not diablo 2. Not diablo 3. Not starcraft 1's real game. Not starcraft 2.
The Diablo and Starcraft series are widely acclaimed and considered to be much better games than anything you listed because the majority of gamers preferred them to the ones you listed. Just because you didn't enjoy these games does not make them bad, it just means your opinion doesn't jive with the majority.
Along that line of thinking when you say you've been around long enough to know that GW2 is all hype, I know that your tastes just don't match with mine or the majority of gamers. GW2 and D3's success will be based on how well they sell and how long the playerbase lasts in those games and I can pretty much guarantee that both will be considered great successful games.
You're entitled to your opinion as everyone is, but don't think that just because you don't like a game that it will not be a great game. Based on the track record of games you like I'd be more worried for these titles if you did think they would be great.
The idea that Blizzard would release a limited multiplayer, non-subscription action RPG to take on a subscription based MMORPG is laughable. It's a silly notion and I have no reason why this topic is being discussed.
The idea that Blizzard would release a limited multiplayer, non-subscription action RPG to take on a subscription based MMORPG is laughable. It's a silly notion and I have no reason why this topic is being discussed.
You all need to get out more.
Which MMO are we talking about? Not GW2 I guess, though that was originally the topic of this thread.
The idea that Blizzard would release a limited multiplayer, non-subscription action RPG to take on a but to play, microtransaction based MMORPG is laughable. It's a silly notion and I have no reason why this topic is being discussed.
You all need to get out more.
Which MMO are we talking about? Not GW2 I guess, though that was originally the topic of this thread.
Regardless, the notion is silly whatever payment model is being used. The idea that Diablo 3 is being designed to compete with a crop of MMORPGs - which is a notion that people seem to be subscribing to, not just with GW2 but with other titles such as SWTOR - is a ridiculous idea indeed.
It's like saying, "BOEING ARE RELEASING THEIR NEW PLANE TO COMPETE WITH FORDS NEW SUV."
Comments
I guess I can understand that. However I am still pretty sceptical on classing Diablo 3 as an MMO or MMORPG. In my mind it is a single player game with some online features for replayability. Where as a game like Guild Wars 2 or any current or upcoming MMORPG has its primary focus as on online play.
So I still find it very strange for it to even make an appearance here.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/Cloudsol/
Wow....
Just... wow.... what. a. stupid. thread.
This is very funny. People claim gw2 won't compete against wow because it doesn't have a sub, but other people claim gw2 won't compete against d3 because one is an mmo and on is single player. I wonder if people understand that gw2 will end up competing with both simply because they are all video games.
There is absolutely no reason for Blizzard to do so. Both games appear to be B2P. What would then be the point of release both a the same time and counter the other? They want as many box sales. It would in fact be unwise to try to compete with something else in that case as that WILL reduce your own box sales as well.
Although I see why Diablo 2 was awesome, and I think it was pretty cool...
I didn't play it past a week. Yea, it was a great game I guess, but not for me. It was just 'whatever' to me.
It was cool. It was awesome when I played. It was a blast. It's a great game. But I never played more than 1 or 2 weeks. Ever.
So I'm not hyped about Diablo 3 at all. I am not really that interested actually.
I also loved Starcraft, so I purchased Starcraft 2. That was a waste, bc I barely have played it. It's identical to Starcraft 1, which I thought would be awesome and what I and everyone else would want. Well... I never realized how boring and stupid Starcraft 1 would be in 2010. I'm sorry, it was great, it was fun, but I never really liked the actual game. It was lame, with tons of lame tactics.
I only ever played Starcraft 1 and loved it to death because of the Use Map Settings games. Well... those were AMAZING! Of course, now-a-days those games are everywhere, so Starcraft 2's versions just aren't that appealing. It's just not the same at all. Although I didn't get a chance at Zergling Blood in SC2, which I'd love.
WoW is amazing though. Can't say anything is bad about that game. Well, all of their games seem great. But WoW is the only one I ever really played, besides Starcraft 1, which was only great because it was the 90's. The reason I'm not playing Starcraft 2 right now is the same reason I'm not playing Ultima Online or Starcraft 1 or Anarchy Online.
Alright...before I get flamed for saying Blizzard isn't THAT great, I have to conclude with the fact that GW2 is all hype. I promise you, the "innovation" is purely hype. It won't be THAT great. It'll end up just like WAR's Public Quest innovation. It SOUNDS amazing. It will BE cool. It won't be THAT great though. And no, it won't revolutionize anything, or change the genre in any way. GW2 will be a cooler GW1, not a new fresh take on a burnt out genre. I promise.
Now that I've sealed my fate, let me tell you what games I felt ARE great:
Sanitarium. That is one hell of a game.
Company of Heroes. This innovative masterpiece destroys Starcraft 2 in every way, and it's old compared to SC2.
Empire Earth 1.
Dark Age of Camelot at every stage except dead, but especially Pre-TA. *droolz* Although Classic was fun too before the population died. ESpecially DAoC in beta, when it first released. Oh my GOD DROOLZ!!!!!!!
City of Vilains, the first month I ever played it. Champions Online beta, before release ruined the game's amazing pvp.
Starcraft 1, because of Use Map Settings games in the 90's.
Ultima Online because it was the 90's.
Everquest because it was the 90's.
Shogun Total War, the very first one when that genre released for the first time.
Not diablo. Not diablo 2. Not diablo 3. Not starcraft 1's real game. Not starcraft 2.
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
The dynamic events aren't the only thing that arenanet are saying is innovative just to let you know.
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/473/view/forums/thread/287180/Everything-We-Know-about-GW2.html
I took a list of ALL of those features.
I admit, it does sound awesome.
That's the point.
I've been around the MMO genre for too long to believe any of this is innovative. I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced. And 10 times out of 10, I have been right. I severely doubt I'm wrong about this one.
World vs World PvP and "everyone is a healer" is not enough to convince me. Sorry.
Hype is hype, and experience teaches you to know it when you see it.
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
Well they did have a demo at PAX and Gamescom where many people felt that the game was very fun and people have said that everything arenanet has revealed before the demo was in it. I personally believe that gw2 is overhyped, but it isn't overhyped without good reason.
Yeah, that just speaks WONDERS about your credibility, mate. Sounds to me like you don't like games which require ingenuity or skill.
That being said, Guild Wars 2 is in a totally different world than Diablo. Diablo 3 is not an MMO and appeals to a separate fan base. I highly doubt that the two games will be released near each other (they wouldn't want to battle for attention), but even if they do it wouldn't impact their bottom line that much.
Like Starcraft 2?
:P
I am impressed with some of their common-sense innovations (which aren't really innovations, but things they should have done A LONG time ago in WoW-based MMO's. That's cool though, and lots of nice things and pretty animations and effects.
Of course, nothing is innovative. They are adding some nice, clean features to the WoW-based MMORPG. But in the end, it will still be exactly that. Yet another cookie cutter MMORPG design based off of the success of WoW, polished with nice features to give older games (like WoW) a run for their money, maybe one or two innovative features...which steer the genre to an even more WoW-based casual non-gamer playerbase.
I applaud them, they will probably have a lot of success making the genre even more friendly to the farmville crowd. I just am not excited because I've already played WoW, and just recently played Rift. They're awesome games... but it's time for something innovative. Something different. Not something that will steer the genre and gamers to even more themepark, WoW-based over-simplified gameplay.
A lot of what I read is exactly that. Something that caters more towards non-gamers than gamers. Something that brings the genre more towards the side WoW took it-- not the side EQ, DAoC, or UO took it.
It's like pulling the genre even further away from the dreams of the opposite direction of idealogy. Not of oversimplified farmville gameplay for XBOX gamers... but of exploration, immersion, and complex character development for traditional gamers. Bring me a game like EQ, UO, or DAoC-- but 2011 with the annoying timesinks destroyed. Not a game that is WoW 2011.
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
I want to know what you see that is wow-based.
Some off topic (but just to show people are different).
Here is my list of awesome games. Star Raiders (Atari PC, 1980 and full 3D space flights yep), Close Combat 1, Donkey Kong 64, WOW.
If you played the highly realistic WW2 orginal Close Combat 1 in 1996 on line, you would know Company of Heroes is a laughing joke (really making WW2 troops on beaches
). And Total War series .... brrrr any dead historical wargamer now turns in his grave...
The LAN made historical Sid Meier's Gettysburg preceded the "historical joke" series of Total War by at least 5 years.
If you make a game at least attach some connection to it that makes it believable even IF the world itself is pure fantasy
Donkey Kong 64 is more "realistic" than Company of Heroes. And I am not too fond on your other games too since they "lack the surroundings" to be a believable gaming world (CoV - CO to name the worst).
That was personal opinion, but at least one with a logical explanation.
On topic: May the best game win over the most players.
Diablo will compete more with WoW than any other MMO.
Diablo and WoW can't compete with each other because they are both Blizzard. What an odd thing to say.
Whatever. Since neither have monthly fees anyone who wants to can buy both. The competiton of both games relesed say in August would be which one you bought in August and which one you bought in september.
D3 is the kind of games most people play a lot for a month and then somewhat for another 6 months. That means you easily could play GW2, Wow or another MMO after the fist month together with some D3.
GW2 is a MMO and that requires some more time but not enough so you can't play anything else. As I see it will most people buy D3 a bit before and play the campaign and then get GW2 if they both release the same time, it would make more sense since GW2 will take more time.
I can of course only talk for myself but I will buy both and I don't see why anyone who are interested in both games shouldn't do the same. You have to be pretty poor to only afford one B2P game every 6 month or so and in that case you probably don't own a computer good enough to run the games anyways.
Diablo 3 competes just as much with GW2 as does Elder Scrolls 5: Skyrim, not.
Will be a mistake if Anet releases Gw2 in the same time as D3, just because of marketing power of blizzard.
I know that some people could buy both, but D3 launches will be huge.
Who said that D3 playerbase is diferent?? Everyone who plays mmo wants to play D3 or know Diablo' franchise.
And dont forget that D3 will have multiplayer...that will hook the players for months before they try another game.
In all honesty I can see a lot of people just buying both or just going with D3. D2 was a game that seemingly everyone played when I was younger and just because you play GW2 does not mean you can't play D3. I just hope that D3 can live up to what we all expect out of a diablo game.
The Diablo and Starcraft series are widely acclaimed and considered to be much better games than anything you listed because the majority of gamers preferred them to the ones you listed. Just because you didn't enjoy these games does not make them bad, it just means your opinion doesn't jive with the majority.
Along that line of thinking when you say you've been around long enough to know that GW2 is all hype, I know that your tastes just don't match with mine or the majority of gamers. GW2 and D3's success will be based on how well they sell and how long the playerbase lasts in those games and I can pretty much guarantee that both will be considered great successful games.
You're entitled to your opinion as everyone is, but don't think that just because you don't like a game that it will not be a great game. Based on the track record of games you like I'd be more worried for these titles if you did think they would be great.
Must be with all this discussion.
Get thee back under thy bridge!
"Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth."
The idea that Blizzard would release a limited multiplayer, non-subscription action RPG to take on a subscription based MMORPG is laughable. It's a silly notion and I have no reason why this topic is being discussed.
You all need to get out more.
http://www.themmoquest.com - MMO commentary from an overly angry brit. OFFICIALLY LAUNCHED!
Which MMO are we talking about? Not GW2 I guess, though that was originally the topic of this thread.
They started making Diablo 3 long before GW2 was on the talk, so I think you have been missinformed.
Regardless, the notion is silly whatever payment model is being used. The idea that Diablo 3 is being designed to compete with a crop of MMORPGs - which is a notion that people seem to be subscribing to, not just with GW2 but with other titles such as SWTOR - is a ridiculous idea indeed.
It's like saying, "BOEING ARE RELEASING THEIR NEW PLANE TO COMPETE WITH FORDS NEW SUV."
http://www.themmoquest.com - MMO commentary from an overly angry brit. OFFICIALLY LAUNCHED!