Curse

Fril Estelin · Jan 27, 2009, 09:57 PM // 21:57

This was post #106 on page 6 and I'm up-ing it so that everyone can think about it. I'm in agreement with this view and hope Anet doesn't cave in so that GW2 can have the marketing edge it needs to succeed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hallomik

I don't know whether Anet's radio-silence-until-the-big-bang-reveal strategy is the right one, but the constant-hype-machine strategy used by some developers has backfired spectacularly. Look at Spore. In many ways, this was an incredibly original game. Each stage of the game follows the evolution of your created race but also mimics the "evolution" of video and computer games themselves. Content can be shared, and the character creation model is one of the most flexible ever created.

The hype machine communicated these and other features constantly to those who were paying any attention, and by the time the game came out, the details were so fully understood, any gee whiz factor was gone. Instead, people focused on the DRM issues which were in no way unique to Spore. But because the studio over-hyped their product, gamers decided to make an example of them.

If this game had been released with no details until close to the release date, the DRM issues would have been ignored and the reaction to the novelty of the game would have been much better. And all that money and time they spent doing interviews with journalists could have been spent, you know, making a better game.

Also, let's say Anet was trickling out screenshots and details. The people on this forum would be ripping apart every little detail. They just announced they're giving us more storage account-wise and character-wise, and the reaction on this forum has been 90% negative to 10% positive. Free, additional storage! Who could possibly be against that? And yet, that is taken as an opportunity to launch attack after attack on Anet. There is frankly extremely little upside to developers giving interviews. It takes them away from, you know, developing the game and provides opportunities for "fan" grief.

I'm convinced that most people posting in this thread don't really believe GW2 is a giant hoax and will never be released. What I think they are hoping is that this tactic will force Anet to reveal details. "No one willl buy your game unless you give us details" they whine. It's possible Anet will cave and start to show their hand a bit. If they do, they will be duly punished.

Shadowmoon · Jan 27, 2009, 10:09 PM // 22:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Risky Ranger

So are you saying that ANET is paying people just to mislead us that they are working on a game that does not exist?

They are working on something, but that doesn't mean it gw2. Izzy's interview in Germany never said gw2, only future products. And even then there is no evidence that whatever they are working on will go to market or not.
I suspect they are there to mislead us from thinking that major development delay are happening. The moving of the beta and the lack of fruition any of Gaile's resolutions make me believe this. I believe they mislead us with an idea of a 08 beta, which many people saw as an 09 release, heck look at these forums, people still think it is coming out in 09.
For all we know, gw2 might end up like Ghost Busters, end up in limbo until a new publisher comes along.

Rocky Raccoon · Jan 28, 2009, 12:18 AM // 00:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowmoon

They are working on something, but that doesn't mean it gw2. Izzy's interview in Germany never said gw2, only future products. And even then there is no evidence that whatever they are working on will go to market or not.
I suspect they are there to mislead us from thinking that major development delay are happening. The moving of the beta and the lack of fruition any of Gaile's resolutions make me believe this. I believe they mislead us with an idea of a 08 beta, which many people saw as an 09 release, heck look at these forums, people still think it is coming out in 09.
For all we know, gw2 might end up like Ghost Busters, end up in limbo until a new publisher comes along.

I have heard of conspiracy theories that are much less complicated than what you are stating. I can see the people at ANET coming to Guru when ever they need a good laugh. If I am wrong about GW2 I will be the first to admit it, but as things are right now I see no reason to believe I will have to.

seut · Jan 28, 2009, 01:00 AM // 01:00

another conspiracy theory:

summer'08
NCSoft Korea: Hey Anet, we are kicking out the Garriot Brothers and make some of your founders bosses of our new formed NCSoft West, because we like your quality work and trust you guys
Anet: Thx, btw. here is our GW 1.5 prototype NC Interactive forced us to produce in short time...we don't like it and can do better with more time.
NCSoft Korea: Forget it and make GW2 a real AAA title. Take all the time you need..
Anet: \o/

Alleji · Jan 28, 2009, 01:18 AM // 01:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by seut

another conspiracy theory:

summer'08
NCSoft Korea: Hey Anet, we are kicking out the Garriot Brothers and make some of your founders bosses of our new formed NCSoft West, because we like your quality work and trust you guys
Anet: Thx, btw. here is our GW 1.5 prototype NC Interactive forced us to produce in short time...we don't like it and can do better with more time.
NCSoft Korea: Forget it and make GW2 a real AAA title. Take all the time you need..
Anet: \o/

draxynnic · Jan 28, 2009, 02:05 AM // 02:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ctb

Yea, that's the point. All we have as "evidence" is employees of ANET and NCSoft saying it exists. Which is fine early on, but two years into development you really ought to see something coming of all the work that's supposedly being done.

If Abedeus's figure of Diablo 3 having been developed for three years before launch is to be believed, two years into Diablo 3's development, all that was known was some rumours that Blizzard was working on some secret project that might be Diablo 3.

GW2 is likely in roughly the same state Diablo 3 was in a year before it was announced. The difference is that ANet was put in a position that they had to announce what they were working on years before it was ready to be presented. They have another year before they can be negatively compared to Blizzard on grounds of time taken before information is released... let alone DNF. (Two, at most two and a half or so years... well within a period of development where some companies that could be mentioned might not even admit that they're making a game at all... verses over ten years not just from announcement but from the first announced release date, which is needless to say well outside the bounds of a normal development cycle? No comparison. Come back in eight years... heck, I'll even be generous and give you half that, and if GW2 hasn't been released, then you can compare it to DNF.)

snaek · Jan 28, 2009, 02:59 AM // 02:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winstar

Feel free to read my post next time. I never suggested GW2 was a hoax. I was pointing out that the suggestion that GW2 was a marketing ploy - a hoax - is misguided. There is a not so subtle difference between claiming that something is a hoax, and claiming that those who think it is a hoax are wrong.

feel free to read my post...
i never mentioned anything bout a hoax either
it was -your- word, and will stay -your- word

Quote:

You are basically speculating on no information yes, and you said not that "perhaps problems have arisen" or "maybe what is holding them is a major design roadblock" you said;

"its not the matter of lying about gw2 and nevar intending to make it its a matter of wanting to make it, but problems have arisen problems that may either slow or cease production completely"

Which is a much stronger statement . This sounds like your stating some facts about the process which in you don't have.

you have taken this out of context
even still...
anet (gaile) originally announced 2008 beta
if there were no problems...then we'd be playin beta rite now
whether it was because of a poorly estimated date, or they're slackin off, or wutever else the reason may be...
its still a problem

Quote:

Finally, I was referring to your to your claim about Anet "being all ideas and no execution" regarding GW2, which is speculation. I know the limitations of the GW1 engine was one of the motivations for GW2.

and speculation is always bad?
i didnt come to this conclusion randomly
anet is likely to exhibit similar behaviour on gw2 with that they exhibited on gw1

Gigashadow · Jan 28, 2009, 07:01 AM // 07:01

Well after much digging, I managed to find a screenshot of gw2. In a pretty bold move, it looks like they're going for the retro look!

Apollo Smile · Jan 28, 2009, 07:05 AM // 07:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigashadow

Well after much digging, I managed to find a screenshot of gw2. In a pretty bold move, it looks like they're going for the retro look!

Preordered.

seut · Jan 28, 2009, 07:28 AM // 07:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigashadow

Well after much digging, I managed to find a screenshot of gw2. In a pretty bold move, it looks like they're going for the retro look!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBS620H12HA

Apollo Smile · Jan 28, 2009, 07:30 AM // 07:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by seut

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBS620H12HA

Further proves it isn't a good idea to show a game til' it is presentable.

Nereyda Shoaal · Jan 28, 2009, 03:27 PM // 15:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ctb

Guild Wars is the second most popular game in the narrow field of MMOs and brought only one relatively revolutionary feature to the genre (which hasn't caught on): no monthly fee. Unless you count the lack of a z-axis or any of the two or three dozen other basic MMO features it lacks. It has no imitators, failed to capture a significant market share away from it's chief competitor, and has yet to release a true sequel that would prove or disprove it's ability to turn one success into another.

Stop comparing unlike things.

Dude do you ever stick your nose outside of GW world?
I've been playing RPG (computer and paper) for more than 10 years, GW is full of character names taken from Forgotten Realms, not mentioning guild names. That excludes your theory of "narrow field of MMO"
I'm also involved in Unreal/Unreal Tournament community which is completely different type of game. For your information people over there are perfectly aware what GW is. They were fighting over 10hrs trial keys when I had few spare ones
Couple months ago I had a guy at my house trying to sell me new windows. He sat in my living room looked at my screen and said "Is that Guild Wars? I never played it but looks like Guild Wars"

Shadowmoon · Jan 28, 2009, 04:45 PM // 16:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apollo Smile

Further proves it isn't a good idea to show a game til' it is presentable.

I think you missed the point, that "screenshot" is actually an alpha screenshot of gw1, because they do appear to have many similarity. Possibly if someone who was involved with the closed alpha of gw1 was around they could enlighten me if it is or isn't, or its a photoshop job.

kupp · Jan 28, 2009, 05:43 PM // 17:43

I believe that he knows that was an alpha screenshot of GW1. He's using it as an example as to when GW1 was showed in it's alpha stage looking awful. The same thing would happen if GW2 was showed at this moment.

Shadowmoon · Jan 28, 2009, 06:21 PM // 18:21

Then why did he present it as a gw2 screen shot then? Even though it is an alpha build, you can see many concept that made it the final product. Most of the skills are very close to the same, except dark bond. It was limited to only 8 skills to the bar. But only in hindsight you know what all though things mean. Who would know what the > on the bars mean without playing the game.

-Sonata- · Jan 28, 2009, 06:46 PM // 18:46

Quote:

Then why did he present it as a gw2 screen shot then?

Probably for kicks knowing that someone, or even a few would fall for it. I'm sure some already have. But you'd just have to ask him about why he presented it as GW2.

Reality is it's not GW2. You can image google Guild Wars Alpha and pull quite a few screens of it. Most dated 2003.

Martin Firestorm · Jan 28, 2009, 09:43 PM // 21:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowmoon

Then why did he present it as a gw2 screen shot then?

Its a joke!!! Can you really not see that?

HawkofStorms · Jan 29, 2009, 12:31 AM // 00:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Firestorm

Its a joke!!! Can you really not see that?

No. GW2 news is serious business.

strcpy · Jan 29, 2009, 09:21 AM // 09:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by goodrix

Even if I didn't agree with the term vaporware which is used too loosely (and it really doesn't apply here; I still have faith in the Anet team), I'd have to point out he is still making some very valid points sometimes.
I wonder if the "big silence" strategy will pay off or whether the "big splash' will turn out to be "meh, took you so long to come up with this?" type of welcome. (I can see that happening if gw2 turns out to be Wow-cloned)

This is pretty much my take on it.

I've been in the software business for quite a number of years - GW2 is not yet vaporware. For such a project to slip by a good 6 months is more normal than not and we are still realistically not 6 months out of "late 2008". Now, mid 2009 rolls around and no beta and, well, assuming that the huge amount of information we have now being pretty much the same and I will start to agree with the term, until then not a big deal.

Though I do also agree with the "big silence" thing probably being a bad idea. As of right now I do not see how they can make people happy. I've been playing Lord of the Rings Online and it seems about as perfect a blend of GW has to a real 100% MMO and, well, if that is the best they can do then as of now I can't say I will be anything more than neutral. The announcements followed by dead silence raise expectations (especially when the official reason is that they are spending too much time in development).

At this point too many are going to expect a true master piece. I recall an older game called "Strike Commander" that did something quite similar in marketing along with a VERY delayed release from their original promise It, well, failed quite miserably (in fact, had we not had the decade+ long running joke of Duke Nukem 3-D it would have filled its place). It was actually a decent game, on par with most average games released that year - yet after the announcement of how wonderful it would be, years of dead silence, and then a release an "average" game it failed miserably instead of doing average.

I truly hope GW2 does well, I've been here since about 2 months after release and still play - if I had not have tried LOTRO in the last two months I would have still spent those hours here. Indeed, I would say once I hit 60 there, most of my deeds, and a decent legendary I will most likely split my time between the two. Anet has disappointed me since a little after EOTN in some of their changes in direction, yet they are still one of the better companies out there.

I'll wait and see, I think they tried the whole fairly transparent thing and had issues with it and are now trying the whole silent thing - I suspect that the silent thing will work out worse in the end, though they have pretty much backed themselves into a corner now (suddenly becoming verbose will be seen as trying to overcome failure and more silence will only raise the bar higher).

GoodApollo1234 · Jan 29, 2009, 01:37 PM // 13:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by shoyon456

No, Utopia was created with an entirely different theme in mind. Judging from the original appearance of the Sylvari, they would have been dark forest ents, living in place like echovald.

It may be used for inspiration, but Utopia and everything that might have been, died with the Disaster of the North.

No.... Anet said themselves that there was so much they wanted to do with Utopia, they just couldn't fit it all into a single campaign. They wanted to add a Z-axis (jumping, climbing, etc.), dual-wielding weapons, more two-handed weapons, new professions ("Chronomancer") and new playable races. That's when they decided that it was too much for one chapter, and trashed the idea for EoTN and started making plans to incorporate a lot of it into GW2. Obviously, that's not directly quoted, but I'm 99.99999% sure that if you do a little bit of hunting, you'll find the spot where they talk about it.

Even if Utopia were something totally different (different themes are NOT the same as entirely different concepts), don't you think it'd be kind of silly of them to not use what they came up with (may I remind you, we were never really intended to see that concept art) when making GW2? Come on, man. They're not THAT stupid. I don't think even they would take concept art that far without intending to do something with it.

I'm well aware that none of this rules out the idea of GW2 being sort of "accidental" vaporware (I'm fully convinced that Anet WANTED to make this game when they announced it. The idea of it being nothing more than an eleborate marketing ploy is clever, but absurd). Whether they're actually making it now is anyone's call, but the fact that Regina used the word "if" in one of her quotes is hardly a reason to believe they aren't.