Curse

tummlykins · Feb 02, 2012, 03:06 PM // 15:06

I was reading the Good/Bad/Ugly thread and a couple of posts really stood out to me as something, which in hindsight, seems really bizarre.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shayne Hawke

The Worst:

Guild Wars 2 - The sequel to GW2, and the way that ANet practically threw its entire team off from GW and onto GW2, was the single most disastrous decision to ever come to GW. As a result of it, GW has since never had (and does not look like it ever will have) the manpower behind it that it needs in order to put out the kind of service it deserves for the kind of game that it is. The scaling back from an entire studio to only about enough people to be counted on one's fingers killed any potential for GW to continue thriving as it once had, and hastened its plummet into disorder. It's not as though there haven't been great things that have happened in GW since the announcement of GW2, but without moving on to the sequel, or at least not with such gusto as to leave GW in the hands of only a handful of people, we could have seen today a much more appropriately treated GW. With only the perspective to see what has happened to GW, it remains to be seen whether this sacrifice was worth it or not by what GW2 eventually becomes, but GW2's success or failure won't make up for lost potential in GW.

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Aphotic_

The Ugly

Hall of Monuments/EotN Provided the entire selling point of EotN, as well as preparation for GW2. Congratulations ANet, your team rocks at marketing for the fanboys/masses. Sure, there's no cosmetic bonuses, but plenty of people will probably want "that cool GW1 exclusive" gear everyone else has come GW2. Not to mention, shortly after the release EotN, practically ALL of ANet abandoned GW to work on GW2 (see shayne's post above). Cheers to slower content releases.

Why did they stop making campaigns and expansions? I understand the argument they made about campaigns. They didn't like having to recreate the tutorial part which most experienced players disliked and they didn't want to invest a lot of their resources into something few people were going to use, but they found another way to add content in the form of Eye of the North. Now they had expansions with all max level content that could be linked to any of the already released campaigns and it didn't cripple the world with new classes or large numbers of new skills.

I don't understand why they never even tried to continue making Guild Wars expansions, especially considering it's taking them so long to release Guild Wars 2. The game we all loved was essentially abandoned when there was still a player base and an active population wanting to play it. They could have had a healthy and thriving game population enjoying new content for at least two more years - they essentially abandoned the players and gave them a token skeleton crew. Is it so ridiculous to expect them to hire a new team to use the tools and game engine that already existed to create new content for their game? Why did they choose to essentially dump Guild Wars and never try to capitalise on it's potential in the time they were taking to develop Guild Wars 2? It doesn't seem fair to the fans that already invested so much into the franchise and the company at that point.

I didn't think it at the time, but in hindsight it seems like a really bizarre decision.

Tullzinski · Feb 02, 2012, 03:16 PM // 15:16

From what I remember the development team could not implement the new ideas/directions in GW1 and decided to move on to GW2 to do so. Something to do with the software.

MisterB · Feb 02, 2012, 03:27 PM // 15:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by tummlykins

Why did they stop making campaigns and expansions?

-snip-

I don't understand why they never even tried to continue making Guild Wars expansions, especially considering it's taking them so long to release Guild Wars 2.

They explained that in the May, 2007 PC Gamer article that first announced GW2. I don't know if the full contents of that article are (legally) on the web. I can't post scans because of copyright.

Summary:

6 month campaign model, the game engine, and game mechanics limited the features they wanted to include in Utopia(GW's canceled 4th campaign). Each successive campaign introduced new mechanics and new skills, and increased the tutorial portion in the beginning to explain said skills and mechanics. They wanted to add new features and new designs without increasing complexity of GW1 even further, so they started over.

Rook Parcade · Feb 02, 2012, 03:38 PM // 15:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by MisterB

They explained that in the May, 2007 PC Gamer article that first announced GW2. I don't know if the full contents of that article are (legally) on the web. I can't post scans because of copyright.

The guru thread probably has most of the info from it if you have a read through the thread:
http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/p...t10133090.html

Anyways, the TL

R is that I don't think they thought it would take 6 years to make GW:2.

Kymeric · Feb 02, 2012, 03:39 PM // 15:39

This might be helpful.

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/p...t10133090.html

In a way, GW2 is an expansion of GW1. It's just that they felt there needed to be significant reworking of the game in order to go forward with their ideas on how to develop the world and the game.

It's the reason it's being called Guild Wars 2... it really is Guild Wars 2.0. They'd gotten to 1.5, and realized there wasn't enough room to keep making 1.6, 1.7, etc.

It makes more sense to work with GW1 in a minimal way and focus largely on GW2, rather than splitting their resources more evenly between the two and compromising both in the process.

I've enjoyed my time in GW1, but just the simple fact that they get to transfer the Guild Wars franchise into a <i>real</i> MMORPG rather than "CORPG", makes me very, very happy.

GW1 has had a pretty good run. It's sad to see something we love go, but clinging to the old can also lead to stagnation. Look at WoW. As wildly successful as it is, even Blizzard has realized it can't last forever. At some point something new needs to be brought forward.

Edit: Ninja'ed!

Martin Alvito · Feb 02, 2012, 03:46 PM // 15:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by MisterB

They explained that in the May, 2007 PC Gamer article that first announced GW2.

That answer isn't really an answer, since they also stated in that article that they expected to beta GW2 in 2008.

The truth is that they made a horrible business decision based on an unrealistic estimate of GW2's release date. I guarantee you that the bosses would like to go back in time and derive some extra revenue from another PvE-focused expansion or two. Those expansions would have been cost-effective, even if they'd had to hire to put the content out and keep GW2 trucking along. They also would have helped with marketing the microtransactions that are currently the studio's only source of revenue.

Kymeric · Feb 02, 2012, 03:58 PM // 15:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Alvito

The truth is that they made a horrible business decision based on an unrealistic estimate of GW2's release date. I guarantee you that the bosses would like to go back in time and derive some extra revenue from another PvE-focused expansion or two. Those expansions would have been cost-effective, even if they'd had to hire to put the content out and keep GW2 trucking along. They also would have helped with marketing the microtransactions that are currently the studio's only source of revenue.

I guess that remains to be seen. They've managed to stick it out to a launch this year without losing their backing, and if GW2 pays off in increased revenue over GW1, it will ultimately be a good business decision.

jazilla · Feb 02, 2012, 04:06 PM // 16:06

If someone had a time machine and told ArenaNet that they wouldn't be shipping GW2 until 2012, we would have seen more GW1 content after Eye of the North. It's sad to me because they could have told a more complete story in terms of bridging GW1 to GW2 with more content in between the two games. In the same way that Star Wars: The Old Republic is a few hundred years removed from Knights of the Old Republic, the stories are disjointed and only mildly connected. There are a lot of cliff hangers in GW1 that I don't see them ever explaining. It's too bad there won't really be any closure for some of the tales in GW1.

In my opinion, the PvE only skills in Eye of the North were a brilliant marketing scheme for the short term. When viewed from the long term, they really ended up hurting the overall feel of GW1.

Swingline · Feb 02, 2012, 04:20 PM // 16:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Alvito

That answer isn't really an answer, since they also stated in that article that they expected to beta GW2 in 2008.

I remember the article and that makes me lol.

The problem was they kept adding ideas to GW2 till it became this behemoth of a game that would take 5 years of development. I'm glad its the game most other game companies fear but GW1 players suffer at the hands of GW2's massive resource requirement. Not to mention the content they are bringing out is lackluster and can be completed in two days, one if you have the day off from work. The saddest part is they gave GW1 to a team that has no experience in skill balance.

To correctly answer the OP its because GW1 is RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOed due to the massive skill pool and there isnt enough money with GW2 being developed.

enter_the_zone · Feb 02, 2012, 04:28 PM // 16:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Alvito

That answer isn't really an answer, since they also stated in that article that they expected to beta GW2 in 2008.

The truth is that they made a horrible business decision based on an unrealistic estimate of GW2's release date. I guarantee you that the bosses would like to go back in time and derive some extra revenue from another PvE-focused expansion or two. Those expansions would have been cost-effective, even if they'd had to hire to put the content out and keep GW2 trucking along. They also would have helped with marketing the microtransactions that are currently the studio's only source of revenue.

You know, I was just saying this to my brother earlier today, that they should have made at least one more full campaign, maybe two or three but without any new classes and minimal new skills. Oh, and finished the realms of the Gods as a purchasable add-on.

Kanda · Feb 02, 2012, 04:30 PM // 16:30

The important factor right now, in my opinion, is that if they had not started GW2 back then and if they had continued with their campaign / expansion model:

they would have been frustrated with the increasing amount of cool things that they could not have included, and either:
1. they would have grown bored of the game and slowly stopped caring for it, instead of really caring for it (or at least saying so) but not having the power to translate it into actual updates;
2. they would have grown bored of the game and sold it to a random MMO-herding society;
3. they would have started working on GW2 later anyway, with less optimal enthousiasm (and we would be waiting 2014 or so);
we would have grown bored of the game, as it happens with any seven years old game however often there is new content; instead of being a company with a bright (if slightly uncertain) future like now, they would have been a company of the past, releasing new-but-always-the-same content in a dated game with dated graphics and mechanics;
the skill balance, counting several more hundreds of them (and several more professions) would be even worse than now, and those who quit because of it would have quit anyway.

I for one think it was a good decision in the right time (even though I am still not sure if I will like GW2).

Swingline · Feb 02, 2012, 04:37 PM // 16:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by enter_the_zone

..and finished the realms of the Gods as a purchasable add-on.

ummmm no... hell no. It is a terrible idea to create microtransaction content that splits the community.

----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanda

The important factor right now, in my opinion, is that if they had not started GW2 back then and if they had continued with their campaign / expansion model:

they would have been frustrated with the increasing amount of cool things that they could not have included, and either:
1. they would have grown bored of the game and slowly stopped caring for it, instead of really caring for it (or at least saying so) but not having the power to translate it into actual updates;
2. they would have grown bored of the game and sold it to a random MMO-herding society;
3. they would have started working on GW2 later anyway, with less optimal enthousiasm (and we would be waiting 2014 or so);
we would have grown bored of the game, as it happens with any seven years old game however often there is new content; instead of being a company with a bright (if slightly uncertain) future like now, they would have been a company of the past, releasing new-but-always-the-same content in a dated game with dated graphics and mechanics;
the skill balance, counting several more hundreds of them (and several more professions) would be even worse than now, and those who quit because of it would have quit anyway.

I for one think it was a good decision in the right time (even though I am still not sure if I will like GW2).

Its not about what they want its about what the customer wants. Doing what they wanted is what caused all this angst towards Anet. By the time GW2 does come out the only thing people will be thinking when installing the game is its about RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOing time Anet. Then their going to run through content that they watched on youtube 100 times because they had to feed their fans something while GW1 collects dust.

JONO51 · Feb 02, 2012, 04:58 PM // 16:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by enter_the_zone

You know, I was just saying this to my brother earlier today, that they should have made at least one more full campaign, maybe two or three but without any new classes and minimal new skills. Oh, and finished the realms of the Gods as a purchasable add-on.

I agree, and I bet in hindsight they think the same. GW was pretty successful (7m copies) so i'm sure NC would have let them get more staff etc if needed. IMO just an EotN style ex-pack with no new skills/classes (maybe a few pve only ones) and throw in a few new pvp maps (for free) for all formats every 9-12months. Then, they could also sell the extra realms for say $10 (for all) which would be great too. Perhaps even break them up and sell through the down time between expacks for ~$4.

enter_the_zone · Feb 02, 2012, 05:05 PM // 17:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swingline

ummmm no... hell no. It is a terrible idea to create microtransaction content that splits the community.

The primary reason I suggest that is because it's the first thing I would have done to give the community something to do while the next campaign was completed.

When the new campaign launched, I'd have made the new realms freely available to everyone who had it, and given the people who bought the DLC an equivalent discount for the new campaign.

Swingline · Feb 02, 2012, 06:43 PM // 18:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by enter_the_zone

The primary reason I suggest that is because it's the first thing I would have done to give the community something to do while the next campaign was completed.

When the new campaign launched, I'd have made the new realms freely available to everyone who had it, and given the people who bought the DLC an equivalent discount for the new campaign.

That's a retarded business model that will only piss people off. Give them the content in between for free then charge the full price for the campaign.

cormac ap dunn · Feb 02, 2012, 10:03 PM // 22:03

WiK, HotN, WoC all say hello... All free content...

StormDragonZ · Feb 02, 2012, 10:09 PM // 22:09

We're forgetting the most important reason:

NCSoft told ANet to make a new game because not many people were PvP playing, so they assumed GW wouldn't last another year or so.

Also, am I the only person that would have been okay if they couldn't generate new campaigns in six months? I mean, I could wait a year and be perfectly fine, maybe 18 months tops, but it felt like they forced themselves to work at that kind of spitfire rate and instead of explaining why they could take extra time to make it better, they just said screw it and start fresh.

Zebideedee · Feb 03, 2012, 03:21 AM // 03:21

I thought it was because of the graphics. The game graphics have gotten better as each of the campaigns came out. With EotN the gfx were pretty damn good. Maybe the devs wanted to push the graphics further, cue GW2?

Essence Snow · Feb 03, 2012, 04:17 AM // 04:17

Tbh I can't believe it's b/c of the grahics...pc's are capable of soo much more than any of the of the screens or vids I've seen fom GW2. On the same note they really don't look that much better than GW1.

Zebideedee · Feb 03, 2012, 04:44 AM // 04:44

But you have to remember that the game has the potential to be big. It will no doubt cater for lower end PC's while giving peeps with high end computers allowance to run the game with drooly graphics.

If the requirements to run GW2 are too much then they'll lose potential sales.

I doubt GW2 will look as awesome as a modded Skyrim but it's a different type of game!