Nothing to discuss here. We all know that compare the the two, ArenaNet is the only one that polishes their game as they go. The other two polishes at the end, which will undoubtly result on many things being overlooked.
ArenaNet's re-iteration process is the key to insure that the game is polished in a certain phase of the game before moving on to the next phase. And they don't announce features unless they are complete and polished. Even though they changed features that they already polished, the new feature is polished before they announce it.
As you can see, it's not about the numbers or the math. ArenaNet's development process is superb compare to the other two which I believe will set GW2 way way apart from the rest.
Just watch the game play videos (not cinematics), you can tell a big difference already on how polished GW2 is compare to the other two.
On what exactly do you base that neither Bioware nor Funcom polishes as they go?
I know there's a blog out by ANet about their QA process. But how exactly does ANet doing it that way imply that other companies are doing it another way?
I mean looking at some of the SWToR blogs you get a glimpse of an entire system of peer reviews that are being done for all writing after which everything is rewritten and peer reviewed again.
Their content teams are scripting the quests before the concept artists are finished so they can start testing, receiving feedback and making revisions.
The basic layout of each world goes through several revisions and tests before the environmental art teams actually start building the world.
Once that is done the combat and gameplay teams start building all their systems and will tweak spawns and who knows what until all of it matches the desired gameplay experience.
Their QA team hasn't even touched it so far and they're going to go through everything all over again until it's exactly right.
How is that not polishing as they go? It sounds basically the same as ANet, where each team also does QA on it's own and other team's work constantly and always making changes based on that.
Seriously, before you start comparing games you might want to make sure you don't have just the knowledge about one game but actually about both games.
Source (among others, read their entire dev blog section at the very least before doing another comparison).
Do you know how ArenaNet does it why I said they polish as they go?
Seems like you don't.
In comparison, the QA is part of the team building the game, compare to what you stated about Bioware that "Their QA team hasn't even touched it so far"
Do you know how ArenaNet does it why I said they polish as they go?
Seems like you don't.
In comparison, the QA is part of the team building the game, compare to what you stated about Bioware that "Their QA team hasn't even touched it so far"
"QA is also one of the biggest departments at ArenaNet. Because of our iterative design process, we embed QA members in almost every production team."
Now compare.
They embed QA people in every team. As such their actual QA team also doesn't touch it until the last. Just QA people.
Those QA people become part of whatever team they're assigned to, they're not part of the QA team any longer.
QA team as in the team that performs QA once everything is done.
Hell, even in ANet's blog they aren't talking about a single all-encompassing QA team. They've got several, and the members of all these teams don't make up the entirety of their QA staff because, just like Bioware, they've embedded some into non-QA teams so that those can test and revision stuff while they're building it.
That's what the whole freaking blog is about. That you don't leave QA to a single team at the end of the cycle. But that you make sure that every single team does QA whilst producing.
We are the bunny. Resistance is futile. ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\ ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o) (")("),,(")("),(")(")
Do you know how ArenaNet does it why I said they polish as they go?
Seems like you don't.
In comparison, the QA is part of the team building the game, compare to what you stated about Bioware that "Their QA team hasn't even touched it so far"
"QA is also one of the biggest departments at ArenaNet. Because of our iterative design process, we embed QA members in almost every production team."
Now compare.
They embed QA people in every team. As such their actual QA team also doesn't touch it until the last. Just QA people.
Those QA people become part of whatever team they're assigned to, they're not part of the QA team any longer.
QA team as in the team that performs QA once everything is done.
Hell, even in ANet's blog they aren't talking about a single all-encompassing QA team. They've got several, and the members of all these teams don't make up the entirety of their QA staff because, just like Bioware, they've embedded some into non-QA teams so that those can test and revision stuff while they're building it.
That's what the whole freaking blog is about. That you don't leave QA to a single team at the end of the cycle. But that you make sure that every single team does QA whilst producing.
"They embed QA people in every team. As such their actual QA team also doesn't touch it until the last. Just QA people."
You can't be a "QA people" unless you are part of the "QA team". Being embeded means, the QA is touching it as it's being developed.
"Those QA people become part of whatever team they're assigned to, they're not part of the QA team any longer."
Sorry but you're wrong. An FBI agent being part of a SWAT team is still anf FBI agent.
"QA team as in the team that performs QA once everything is done."
Not in ArenaNet.
Hell, even in ANet's blog they aren't talking about a single all-encompassing QA team. They've got several, and the members of all these teams don't make up the entirety of their QA staff because, just like Bioware, they've embedded some into non-QA teams so that those can test and revision stuff while they're building it.
Might want to read it again.
That's what the whole freaking blog is about. That you don't leave QA to a single team at the end of the cycle. But that you make sure that every single team does QA whilst producing.
I didn't feel like I was baiting, nor did I feel like he was baiting. Was it a disagreement? Yep. Is there some dislike there? On a certain level. But we were still arguing about the quality of launches, polish of games, and were on topic...for the most part.
It is a touchy subject, discussing different games. You know that well - most of us that have posted here over any period of time (or anywhere for that matter) - know how it ends up. Might as well be out at the mud pit with the Ford and Chevy guys arguing (both of them are laughing at the Dodge guys, btw).
I don't think that we'd reached any level of rabid fanism as seen in some threads.
It's a case of trying to cut through the PR BS, acknowledge that history is no guarantee of failure nor success, and basically realize that to an extent we are left with a comparitive thread that has taken on a competitive edge that will be inherent in the games...
...at least imho.
My apologies to the boards though, if I did cross any lines.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Do you know how ArenaNet does it why I said they polish as they go?
Seems like you don't.
In comparison, the QA is part of the team building the game, compare to what you stated about Bioware that "Their QA team hasn't even touched it so far"
"QA is also one of the biggest departments at ArenaNet. Because of our iterative design process, we embed QA members in almost every production team."
Now compare.
They embed QA people in every team. As such their actual QA team also doesn't touch it until the last. Just QA people.
Those QA people become part of whatever team they're assigned to, they're not part of the QA team any longer.
QA team as in the team that performs QA once everything is done.
Hell, even in ANet's blog they aren't talking about a single all-encompassing QA team. They've got several, and the members of all these teams don't make up the entirety of their QA staff because, just like Bioware, they've embedded some into non-QA teams so that those can test and revision stuff while they're building it.
That's what the whole freaking blog is about. That you don't leave QA to a single team at the end of the cycle. But that you make sure that every single team does QA whilst producing.
"They embed QA people in every team. As such their actual QA team also doesn't touch it until the last. Just QA people."
You can't be a "QA people" unless you are part of the "QA team". Being embeded means, the QA is touching it as it's being developed.
"Those QA people become part of whatever team they're assigned to, they're not part of the QA team any longer."
Sorry but you're wrong. An FBI agent being part of a SWAT team is still anf FBI agent.
"QA team as in the team that performs QA once everything is done."
Not in ArenaNet.
Hell, even in ANet's blog they aren't talking about a single all-encompassing QA team. They've got several, and the members of all these teams don't make up the entirety of their QA staff because, just like Bioware, they've embedded some into non-QA teams so that those can test and revision stuff while they're building it.
Might want to read it again.
That's what the whole freaking blog is about. That you don't leave QA to a single team at the end of the cycle. But that you make sure that every single team does QA whilst producing.
Ok, that didn't made any sense.
From ANet's blog:
"We have a team responsible for testing each and every one of the hundreds of dynamic events. Another team combs over each map, making sure no seam goes uncovered and no gap goes unfilled. We even have a “mercenary” team, which helps any team or department facing a particularly large workload."
There isn't a singular QA team consisting of all QA people. There are several teams all doing QA and all focussing on different tasks. The QA team I mentioned in my post is focussed on checking all the content of a planet. It doesn't consist of every single QA person Bioware has employed, it doesn't work like that with Bioware nor with ANet.
"Beyond that, individual QA members serve on ArenaNet’s strike teams. These strike teams, who are assembled from several departments, focus on one specific aspect of the game: crafting, PvP, story, and other cool things that I can’t tell you about yet."
QA people serving on teams that aren't QA teams. Teams that are made up from all kinds of departments to iterate, test and reiterate.
Let me give you an example since you seem to be having trouble with it.
We've got 5 people: Bob, Jake, Alice, Eve and Thomas.
Bob, Jake and Alice work on a QA team, once something is actually playable they test it. Thus they're near the end of a development cycle (one of many).
Eve also does QA but she's not part of the above QA team. She works with the quest writers to test basic quest paths, dialogue choices etc. as soon as the scripting is done.
Thomas does QA as well. But again he's not part of that QA team, he works with the combat team and tests singular encounters as they're being made so he can help adjust spawn counts, NPC abilities etc.
Through the development cycle Eve and Thomas are continaully doing QA work and assisting the teams they're embedded in as they go.
The actual QA team doesn't touch anything during the start of that development cycle. Only when that development cycle nears it's end, and the following one is about to begin, do they start testing everything. While they're testing and giving feedback all those other teams are still working and they'll use that feedback in the following development cycle to improve the systems they're working on.
The term "QA team" as both I and ANet are using it does not refer to all QA people. It refers of a singular team of people in the development process whose main purpose is QA.
We are the bunny. Resistance is futile. ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\ ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o) (")("),,(")("),(")(")
Critc scores are always skewed. Lets look at what the users think.
Guild Wars 8.5
Guild Wars Factions 8.3
Guild Wars Nightfall 8.8
Guild wars EOTN 8.7
Honestly, you state that critic scores are skewed but that player scores are not? Seriously? I mean, really?
Your trend falls apart there.
Was not my trend.
What game do you root for then since apparently its not GW2. Is it Bioware?
Mass Effect 8.5
Mass Effect 2 8.7
Mass Effect 2: LotSB (DLC) 8.6
Dragon Age 8.3
Dragon Age 2 4.4
Dragon Age 2: Legacy (DLC) 3.1
None of those are MMORPGs and really do not belong in a discussion about a possible MMORPG launch being polished or not, do they? Or are you saying they do? Perhaps we should track the various employees for each company - the other projects they have worked on and the like as well?
And er, why is it a case of rooting for a game? I'm not rooting for a game to succeed - for that matter, I'm not rooting for a game not to succeed either.
It really looks like Bioware who is slipping to the gamers themselves.
Again, we're supposed to believe gamers? Look around the forums... next to devs themselves, gamers are the last people anybody should trust...lol.
Funcom's isnt much better either.
I'll be playing all three of these games after each of their launches. I'm just saying, dont try to skew facts
Four numbers, presented in their chronological order. How does one skew that?
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
It's tough to say... In all honesty TSW will probably have the roughest launch, followed by TOR, then GW2... simply looking at track-records and not numbers.
The numbers are pointless, here's the only thing that matters;
SW:TOR Will rule all because the star wars fanbois will play shiatsu on a shingle if it lets them run around with their glow in the dark johnsons casting spells at each other and pretending they are in a poorly written galaxy far far away from their mom's basement.
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire: Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
All three could be great games, depending on what you're looking for. They're all somewhat different from each other. It could revive the genre and dare developers to take more interesting risks in future mmo's. If they all suck, it could also have the same effect, devs will realize they have to bring something genuinely new to the table. No matter how you look at it, there's some interesting times ahead for the genre.
Can someone explain the purpose of this thread? Is someone trying to use quantitative analysis on upcoming games or something? What baseline are we using? And since this is a math thread, what numbers and variables do we use?
Critc scores are always skewed. Lets look at what the users think.
Guild Wars 8.5
Guild Wars Factions 8.3
Guild Wars Nightfall 8.8
Guild wars EOTN 8.7
Honestly, you state that critic scores are skewed but that player scores are not? Seriously? I mean, really?
Your trend falls apart there.
Was not my trend.
What game do you root for then since apparently its not GW2. Is it Bioware?
Mass Effect 8.5
Mass Effect 2 8.7
Mass Effect 2: LotSB (DLC) 8.6
Dragon Age 8.3
Dragon Age 2 4.4
Dragon Age 2: Legacy (DLC) 3.1
None of those are MMORPGs and really do not belong in a discussion about a possible MMORPG launch being polished or not, do they? Or are you saying they do? Perhaps we should track the various employees for each company - the other projects they have worked on and the like as well?
And er, why is it a case of rooting for a game? I'm not rooting for a game to succeed - for that matter, I'm not rooting for a game not to succeed either.
It really looks like Bioware who is slipping to the gamers themselves.
Again, we're supposed to believe gamers? Look around the forums... next to devs themselves, gamers are the last people anybody should trust...lol.
Funcom's isnt much better either.
I'll be playing all three of these games after each of their launches. I'm just saying, dont try to skew facts
Four numbers, presented in their chronological order. How does one skew that?
Critic reviews can be VERY unreliable. Additioinally, there are many more player reviews on meta critic that compose those scores. In most cases is more than the approx 20 that makes up the critic score. Also, I put biowares single player games in there because it still reflects the company. Just like if Blizzard decides to make an FPS your going to look at thier previous games to see if blizzard is even good at making games. If a company is known for making amazing single player games then people expect them to have a desire for quality, and thus believe they can succeed in a similar genre.
You cant make much from GW1's trend either because the last one was released in 2007. Thats a long time in game terms. Also, most people dont even consider GW1 an MMO, and in all truths it really isnt. So the bioware SPRPG's belong there just as much as it does.
And you can't take the forum goers and say those represent the majority because its pretty easy to say that we dont.
It's tough to say... In all honesty TSW will probably have the roughest launch, followed by TOR, then GW2... simply looking at track-records and not numbers.
And that is where most of us are kind of going back and forth...does that history matter?
BioWare has not put out a MMO. They've done well with other games. They've got EA folks that are going to be there for this as well, presumably. Speaking of EA, they signed on as a co-pub for TSW earlier this year.
EA-BioWare...SWTOR
EA-Funcom...TSW
Funny, eh? Yes, the relationship between BioWare and EA is different than EA and Funcom...but there you go all the same.
Funcom's had some bad launches - some of the worst. Yet one game is going 10 years later and the other still 3 years later. How bad could those launches have been, eh?
AutoAssault had a great launch...but the servers were empty. Meh. Game got pulled pretty damn fast.
ArenaNet and GW2... folks want to point to GW1, but not everybody agrees that was as good as everybody else. Then you have GW2 trying to do their actual first MMORPG...kind of. Kind of in the sense that they do not claim GW1 to be a MMORPG, and while GW2 is going to be more of a persistent world...more MMORPGish...they're still not really, well - you know, right? They've also changed the process for GW2 from GW1. So though we have history there, it is debatable history and it is not really applicable because of changes ArenaNet has made...oddly enough, changes away from what people are citing as the reason that GW2 will be good. Kind of...mind boggling.
But yep, yep - definitely the point that has come up in this thread multiple times...
...how can we do this by the numbers?
...how can we do this with just math?
I'm hanging around in the hopes that somebody breaks out some sort of funkafied math to do it... lol, maybe? Meh...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Can someone explain the purpose of this thread? Is someone trying to use quantitative analysis on upcoming games or something? What baseline are we using? And since this is a math thread, what numbers and variables do we use?
Oddly enough, the OP has only posted twice more in the thread - and the issue of the math has never been addressed as such.
It may have been bait to trap us all in here!
As an aside, one of the few things that almost everybody agrees on through all the kidney punches, boots to the head, and compromising photos posted online...
...is that you cannot conduct a quantitiative analysis of the matter, since quality itself matters so much in the end.
Can build a house with X number of fired bricks. Could build a house with Y number of baked bricks. Y could be greater than X. Does not mean the baked brick house is better than the fired brick house in the least...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Well I for one will be playing both TSW and GW2, the one Im passing on is SWTOR. i just can't justify $15 a month for a game I know in my heart should be released as a single player RPG.
im still thinking about TSW and the fact that theres 3 factions and none can fight each other on sight makes me stay away from this.... no open world pvp in a game as big as TSW seems to be its just not good (at least make pvp servers apart from pve servers)....
im not an avid pvper but i tend to get bored of mmos where everyone is forced to be lovely in an open world and just kill computarized mobs (instanced pvp battlegrounds are not my cup of tea)...... that open world limitation could keep me playing GW2, swtor and or WoW instead
edit: GW2 has no enemy factions but i mentioned cos i will still play it cos its free
Well I for one will be playing both TSW and GW2, the one Im passing on is SWTOR. i just can't justify $15 a month for a game I know in my heart should be released as a single player RPG.
im still thinking about TSW and the fact that theres 3 factions and none can fight each other on sight makes me stay away from this.... no open world pvp in a game as big as TSW seems to be its just not good (at least make pvp servers apart from pve servers)....
im not an avid pvper but i tend to get bored of mmos where everyone is forced to be lovely in an open world and just kill computarized mobs (instanced pvp battlegrounds are not my cup of tea)...... that open world limitation could keep me playing GW2, swtor and or WoW instead
edit: GW2 has no enemy factions but i mentioned cos i will still play it cos its free
It is...The Secret War of The Secret World. If it were fought out in the open...that would not be very secret would it?
Comments
Do you know how ArenaNet does it why I said they polish as they go?
Seems like you don't.
In comparison, the QA is part of the team building the game, compare to what you stated about Bioware that "Their QA team hasn't even touched it so far"
Do you understand the difference now?
If not, you can read this. (link: http://www.arena.net/blog/assuring-quality-qa-at-arenanet)
Here's a quote:
"QA is also one of the biggest departments at ArenaNet. Because of our iterative design process, we embed QA members in almost every production team."
Now compare.
Ready for GW2!!!
Cut out the baiting guys. Thanks.
They embed QA people in every team. As such their actual QA team also doesn't touch it until the last. Just QA people.
Those QA people become part of whatever team they're assigned to, they're not part of the QA team any longer.
QA team as in the team that performs QA once everything is done.
Hell, even in ANet's blog they aren't talking about a single all-encompassing QA team. They've got several, and the members of all these teams don't make up the entirety of their QA staff because, just like Bioware, they've embedded some into non-QA teams so that those can test and revision stuff while they're building it.
That's what the whole freaking blog is about. That you don't leave QA to a single team at the end of the cycle. But that you make sure that every single team does QA whilst producing.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
Why people post PR...yes, PR...from a company blog - I just do not understand.
I'm sure Exxon had statements about their QA, their concern for the environment, and all the rest... before Valdez.
A better judge of ArenaNet might be to follow the scores on MetaCritic, eh?
Guild Wars 89
Guild Wars Factions 84
Guild Wars Nightfall 84
Guild Wars Eye of the North 79
Did it go up?
Did it go down?
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
"They embed QA people in every team. As such their actual QA team also doesn't touch it until the last. Just QA people."
You can't be a "QA people" unless you are part of the "QA team". Being embeded means, the QA is touching it as it's being developed.
"Those QA people become part of whatever team they're assigned to, they're not part of the QA team any longer."
Sorry but you're wrong. An FBI agent being part of a SWAT team is still anf FBI agent.
"QA team as in the team that performs QA once everything is done."
Not in ArenaNet.
Hell, even in ANet's blog they aren't talking about a single all-encompassing QA team. They've got several, and the members of all these teams don't make up the entirety of their QA staff because, just like Bioware, they've embedded some into non-QA teams so that those can test and revision stuff while they're building it.
Might want to read it again.
That's what the whole freaking blog is about. That you don't leave QA to a single team at the end of the cycle. But that you make sure that every single team does QA whilst producing.
Ok, that didn't made any sense.
Ready for GW2!!!
GWEotN is an expansion, the rest are stand alone. O.o MMORPG.com dont even list EotN. Nice try.
Ready for GW2!!!
I didn't feel like I was baiting, nor did I feel like he was baiting. Was it a disagreement? Yep. Is there some dislike there? On a certain level. But we were still arguing about the quality of launches, polish of games, and were on topic...for the most part.
It is a touchy subject, discussing different games. You know that well - most of us that have posted here over any period of time (or anywhere for that matter) - know how it ends up. Might as well be out at the mud pit with the Ford and Chevy guys arguing (both of them are laughing at the Dodge guys, btw).
I don't think that we'd reached any level of rabid fanism as seen in some threads.
It's a case of trying to cut through the PR BS, acknowledge that history is no guarantee of failure nor success, and basically realize that to an extent we are left with a comparitive thread that has taken on a competitive edge that will be inherent in the games...
...at least imho.
My apologies to the boards though, if I did cross any lines.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
You were speaking of the quality of their work...
...it has declined.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Critc scores are always skewed. Lets look at what the users think.
Guild Wars 8.5
Guild Wars Factions 8.3
Guild Wars Nightfall 8.8
Guild wars EOTN 8.7
Your trend falls apart there. What game do you root for then since apparently its not GW2. Is it Bioware?
Mass Effect 8.5
Mass Effect 2 8.7
Mass Effect 2: LotSB (DLC) 8.6
Dragon Age 8.3
Dragon Age 2 4.4
Dragon Age 2: Legacy (DLC) 3.1
It really looks like Bioware who is slipping to the gamers themselves.
Funcom's isnt much better either.
I'll be playing all three of these games after each of their launches. I'm just saying, dont try to skew facts
From ANet's blog:
"We have a team responsible for testing each and every one of the hundreds of dynamic events. Another team combs over each map, making sure no seam goes uncovered and no gap goes unfilled. We even have a “mercenary” team, which helps any team or department facing a particularly large workload."
There isn't a singular QA team consisting of all QA people. There are several teams all doing QA and all focussing on different tasks. The QA team I mentioned in my post is focussed on checking all the content of a planet. It doesn't consist of every single QA person Bioware has employed, it doesn't work like that with Bioware nor with ANet.
"Beyond that, individual QA members serve on ArenaNet’s strike teams. These strike teams, who are assembled from several departments, focus on one specific aspect of the game: crafting, PvP, story, and other cool things that I can’t tell you about yet."
QA people serving on teams that aren't QA teams. Teams that are made up from all kinds of departments to iterate, test and reiterate.
Let me give you an example since you seem to be having trouble with it.
We've got 5 people: Bob, Jake, Alice, Eve and Thomas.
Bob, Jake and Alice work on a QA team, once something is actually playable they test it. Thus they're near the end of a development cycle (one of many).
Eve also does QA but she's not part of the above QA team. She works with the quest writers to test basic quest paths, dialogue choices etc. as soon as the scripting is done.
Thomas does QA as well. But again he's not part of that QA team, he works with the combat team and tests singular encounters as they're being made so he can help adjust spawn counts, NPC abilities etc.
Through the development cycle Eve and Thomas are continaully doing QA work and assisting the teams they're embedded in as they go.
The actual QA team doesn't touch anything during the start of that development cycle. Only when that development cycle nears it's end, and the following one is about to begin, do they start testing everything. While they're testing and giving feedback all those other teams are still working and they'll use that feedback in the following development cycle to improve the systems they're working on.
The term "QA team" as both I and ANet are using it does not refer to all QA people. It refers of a singular team of people in the development process whose main purpose is QA.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
Of curious note in regard to the OP's information (other info has been pointed out to be incorrect)...
SWTOR development began late '05.
GW2 began in '07.
TSW began in '02.
...but once again, as we have noted - quantity of time does not equate to quality of time.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
It's tough to say... In all honesty TSW will probably have the roughest launch, followed by TOR, then GW2... simply looking at track-records and not numbers.
The numbers are pointless, here's the only thing that matters;
SW:TOR Will rule all because the star wars fanbois will play shiatsu on a shingle if it lets them run around with their glow in the dark johnsons casting spells at each other and pretending they are in a poorly written galaxy far far away from their mom's basement.
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire:
Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
All three could be great games, depending on what you're looking for. They're all somewhat different from each other. It could revive the genre and dare developers to take more interesting risks in future mmo's. If they all suck, it could also have the same effect, devs will realize they have to bring something genuinely new to the table. No matter how you look at it, there's some interesting times ahead for the genre.
Can someone explain the purpose of this thread? Is someone trying to use quantitative analysis on upcoming games or something? What baseline are we using? And since this is a math thread, what numbers and variables do we use?
You just have to look to Duke Nukem Forever to realize development time has no bearing on game quality.
Critic reviews can be VERY unreliable. Additioinally, there are many more player reviews on meta critic that compose those scores. In most cases is more than the approx 20 that makes up the critic score. Also, I put biowares single player games in there because it still reflects the company. Just like if Blizzard decides to make an FPS your going to look at thier previous games to see if blizzard is even good at making games. If a company is known for making amazing single player games then people expect them to have a desire for quality, and thus believe they can succeed in a similar genre.
You cant make much from GW1's trend either because the last one was released in 2007. Thats a long time in game terms. Also, most people dont even consider GW1 an MMO, and in all truths it really isnt. So the bioware SPRPG's belong there just as much as it does.
And you can't take the forum goers and say those represent the majority because its pretty easy to say that we dont.
The only majority forum goers represent are bitter and jaded mmo enthusiasts.
Exactly my point. I can easily say I've tried many more games, and hated more games than any of my gamer friends that aren't forum goers.
And that is where most of us are kind of going back and forth...does that history matter?
BioWare has not put out a MMO. They've done well with other games. They've got EA folks that are going to be there for this as well, presumably. Speaking of EA, they signed on as a co-pub for TSW earlier this year.
EA-BioWare...SWTOR
EA-Funcom...TSW
Funny, eh? Yes, the relationship between BioWare and EA is different than EA and Funcom...but there you go all the same.
Funcom's had some bad launches - some of the worst. Yet one game is going 10 years later and the other still 3 years later. How bad could those launches have been, eh?
AutoAssault had a great launch...but the servers were empty. Meh. Game got pulled pretty damn fast.
ArenaNet and GW2... folks want to point to GW1, but not everybody agrees that was as good as everybody else. Then you have GW2 trying to do their actual first MMORPG...kind of. Kind of in the sense that they do not claim GW1 to be a MMORPG, and while GW2 is going to be more of a persistent world...more MMORPGish...they're still not really, well - you know, right? They've also changed the process for GW2 from GW1. So though we have history there, it is debatable history and it is not really applicable because of changes ArenaNet has made...oddly enough, changes away from what people are citing as the reason that GW2 will be good. Kind of...mind boggling.
But yep, yep - definitely the point that has come up in this thread multiple times...
...how can we do this by the numbers?
...how can we do this with just math?
I'm hanging around in the hopes that somebody breaks out some sort of funkafied math to do it... lol, maybe? Meh...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
They lack the passion to be a forum goer!
Or perhaps they have less free time?
Maybe they enjoy the games they play more?
Could be a mix of all three...
...or none of the above.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Oddly enough, the OP has only posted twice more in the thread - and the issue of the math has never been addressed as such.
It may have been bait to trap us all in here!
As an aside, one of the few things that almost everybody agrees on through all the kidney punches, boots to the head, and compromising photos posted online...
...is that you cannot conduct a quantitiative analysis of the matter, since quality itself matters so much in the end.
Can build a house with X number of fired bricks. Could build a house with Y number of baked bricks. Y could be greater than X. Does not mean the baked brick house is better than the fired brick house in the least...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
im still thinking about TSW and the fact that theres 3 factions and none can fight each other on sight makes me stay away from this.... no open world pvp in a game as big as TSW seems to be its just not good (at least make pvp servers apart from pve servers)....
im not an avid pvper but i tend to get bored of mmos where everyone is forced to be lovely in an open world and just kill computarized mobs (instanced pvp battlegrounds are not my cup of tea)...... that open world limitation could keep me playing GW2, swtor and or WoW instead
edit: GW2 has no enemy factions but i mentioned cos i will still play it cos its free
It is...The Secret War of The Secret World. If it were fought out in the open...that would not be very secret would it?
I take it that you watched this dev diary on it: http://www.mmorpg.com/newsroom.cfm/read/22235/PvP-and-World-Domination.html
Various scenarios, persistent and meaningful warzones... I think it works well for an idea of a Secret War for a Secret World...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%