Curse

Dr Strangelove · Jul 22, 2008, 06:17 PM // 18:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

This is head-in-the-sand rationale, frankly. The devs have indicated what they think they've learned from making GW, both explicitly in interviews and implicitly through the changes they've implemented in GW. Unless you think that all of the GW-related changes to-date have just been random "why not?" larks to jerk around the playerbase, I'd say that GW2 will fall right in line with the design trend that they've been following. And if the changes to GW are examples of Anet trying to "fix their mistakes", GW2 can't be anything but disappointing to me.

That said, I'm still keeping track of what the devs are doing with this game, as it makes for an interesting game design case study. At this point, I no longer care which way they take their game, but it's interesting to examine what they think they've learned, and how they put their acquired knowledge to use.

Thing is, as much as I'm annoyed with the changes they've made, I'm still confident that GW2 will be worth the 50 bucks for the box (or even less if I wait a few months). The lack of a subscription fee is and has always been Guild Wars' most powerful selling point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EPO bot

If WoW had no fees, no one would pick guildwars over it.

WoW without fees wouldn't be WoW. The game is so heavily structured around artificially drawing out play to drag out subs that it wouldn't be the same without them. Other than the obvious money issues, there are very serious gameplay differences between different payment models, be it microtransactions, optional monthly subs, mandatory subs, or expansion-based.

Thizzle · Jul 22, 2008, 06:28 PM // 18:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by slowerpoke

well i hope they learnt well from GWEN

..not to include anything like that in guildwars again

If they do this then Guild Wars 2 already sounds better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EPO Bot

Is there honestly anyone around here who bought GW for it's level cap of twenty instead of it having no fees? The only reason why i (and presumably most others) play guildwars is because WoW has fees. That's it. If WoW had no fees, no one would pick guildwars over it.That's completely out of the question. So yes, i DO love that Anet is making GW PVE a little more rewarding then that big, skippable PVP tutorial Prophecies was.

It's true I picked Guild Wars over WoW because of the pay once deal, but I picked Guild Wars over anything that had pay to play. If I got a trial to WoW and GW right now and had never played either game then I would most likely pick Guild Wars. It seemed to me like it was easier to pick up and I love how 1k armor is the same thing as Obsidian. In WoW you have to grind and raid hours on end and I tried WoW for a month awhile ago and it just seemed totally boring to me. The quests were always go kill X number of boars then come back and get almost level 2. I think the perfect level cap is 50. Guild Wars is a little low, but WoW is too high. I can't even begin to explain why the 8 skill bar system is better than 6 bars of skills like WoW has.

pamelf · Jul 22, 2008, 10:17 PM // 22:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epo Bot

Is there honestly anyone around here who bought GW for it's level cap of twenty instead of it having no fees? The only reason why i (and presumably most others) play guildwars is because WoW has fees. That's it. If WoW had no fees, no one would pick guildwars over it.That's completely out of the question. So yes, i DO love that Anet is making GW PVE a little more rewarding then that big, skippable PVP tutorial Prophecies was.

Actually yes, I never had any inclination to play Wow. I bought guild wars because it was pretty, and penny arcade had an ad for it on their site, also because I liked a level cap, because the ridiculous levels for D2 was the only thing I didn't like about the game. No other reasons. Wow is graphically horrible, and lets face it, Wow players tend to be the biggest losers I've ever met (at least in my experience). If I had to spend a day in the company of those idiots I'd probably gouge my eyes out with rusty spoons.

THAT is the appeal of guild wars; that it's NOT Wow. Seriously, Wow's, biggest downpoint is its player base.

Cjad the Nord · Jul 22, 2008, 10:34 PM // 22:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

This is head-in-the-sand rationale, frankly. The devs have indicated what they think they've learned from making GW, both explicitly in interviews and implicitly through the changes they've implemented in GW. Unless you think that all of the GW-related changes to-date have just been random "why not?" larks to jerk around the playerbase, I'd say that GW2 will fall right in line with the design trend that they've been following. And if the changes to GW are examples of Anet trying to "fix their mistakes", GW2 can't be anything but disappointing to me.

That said, I'm still keeping track of what the devs are doing with this game, as it makes for an interesting game design case study. At this point, I no longer care which way they take their game, but it's interesting to examine what they think they've learned, and how they put their acquired knowledge to use.

You can call it what you will, it's true that I am giving them the benefit of the doubt. It might even be cheery, nostalgic optimism on my part, because I recall following GW from when it was announced. However, what I said is true about people already making up their minds concerning GW2, and that includes both you and me. I should explain that I am not convinced to buy it because I think it will be that which I love about GW, and could very well be turned off to it.

Likewise, I think you shouldn't completely section off the idea that it could change your mind.

Burst Cancel · Jul 23, 2008, 12:50 AM // 00:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Strangelove

Thing is, as much as I'm annoyed with the changes they've made, I'm still confident that GW2 will be worth the 50 bucks for the box (or even less if I wait a few months). The lack of a subscription fee is and has always been Guild Wars' most powerful selling point.

You misunderstand - I'm not confident it will be worth my time; the $50 doesn't really concern me.

As for fees, GW's mechanics were always the selling point for me. At release, it was the only game I knew pushing a balanced, skill > time angle without level grinding and farming for l33t gear. Frankly, a $10~$15 monthly fee for quality entertainment is peanuts. People blow ten times that amount every Friday night.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cjad the Nord

You can call it what you will, it's true that I am giving them the benefit of the doubt. It might even be cheery, nostalgic optimism on my part, because I recall following GW from when it was announced. However, what I said is true about people already making up their minds concerning GW2, and that includes both you and me. I should explain that I am not convinced to buy it because I think it will be that which I love about GW, and could very well be turned off to it.

Likewise, I think you shouldn't completely section off the idea that it could change your mind.

Here's the key problem though: even if GW2 looks promising on release, there's no telling what the game will look like 6 months in, 1 year in, etc. Their handling of GW showed a disappointing lack of consistency, direction, and forethought. I don't expect that to change in GW2.

Chasing Squirrels · Jul 23, 2008, 01:05 AM // 01:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sniper22

Honestly I don't know where all the D3 hype is coming from. I watched the gameplay trailer and nearly fell asleep. Just seems average, graphics, and everything else, just looks average... Seems like you are only limited to 5 classes as well. Although its not like any of the games have subscription fees too, so its not like you are limited to one game.

All of blizzards games that I know are high quality.

Red Sonya · Jul 23, 2008, 01:16 AM // 01:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infectious

If D3 comes out before GW2, I won't be getting GW2 put it that way.
Im guessing alot of other people feel the same way.

I'm with you there mostly, but, I won't say I won't get GW2 unless they don't put in more powerful weapons and stat based equipment. Since it's going to have a more detailed crafting game it does sound like the weapons/equipment are going to be much better than the boring static weapons/equipment now in GW. If not there's no reason to upgrade since we already have a stale weapon/equipment game already. GW2 needs to add more power and lots more levels and power from those levels.

1 up and 2 down · Jul 23, 2008, 01:19 AM // 01:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sonya

I'm with you there mostly, but, I won't say I won't get GW2 unless they don't put in more powerful weapons and stat based equipment. Since it's going to have a more detailed crafting game it does sound like the weapons/equipment are going to be much better than the boring static weapons/equipment now in GW. If not there's no reason to upgrade since we already have a stale weapon/equipment game already. GW2 needs to add more power and lots more levels and power from those levels.

Why can't you get both? They are both F2P.

Red Sonya · Jul 23, 2008, 01:28 AM // 01:28

Because after playing Diablo III and knowing all the kewl loot and upgrades it will have it would be boring to go back to 15^50 and +30hp only again. You see the difference is that all the other NORMAL mmo's and mmorpgs and even offline rpgs give you not only kewl looking new skins BUT, more power as well. I personally like both tied to leveling as that has always been the norm and as you can see from the population of players that play online and offline games that is also what the majority prefer most of all as well or they wouldn't be paying such outlandish prices to play these games online.

I'm actually going back to play the FREE version(s) of Anarchy Online. I used to play the pay to play by the month, but, that got expensive. Now you can play the origional and Notum Wars for FREE just like Guild Wars and Anarchy Online offers a whole lot more really in content and play value than GW does now. GW's is like over once you've completed the stories and missions/quests unless you just want to grind for titles. I much prefer grinding for more powerful and valueable loot myself that doesn't get reduced to nothing like ectoes and green weapons and even more popular golds now have in GW. The economy (if you can call it an economy) in GW is just no more and really mostly valueless now that everyone can do everything and get to everywhere with Ursans Blessing.

vaxmor · Jul 23, 2008, 01:51 AM // 01:51

LotRO shouldnt be mentioned in the same class as Vanguard. LotRO is very nicely for itself and is gaining players. Next, who cares if GW:1 is losing players, just as long as they come back for moar GW:2. Thats the ESSENCE of the ENTIRE business model, buy - play - leave - no worries.

Whirlwind · Jul 23, 2008, 02:30 AM // 02:30

You make some good points but i dont see how any of it relates to your title? What are they waiting for a reason to do.

Gotejjeken · Jul 23, 2008, 04:01 AM // 04:01

Guild Wars was a great concept when it first released, now it's really nothing more than a title grind as others have mentioned. Although, if we have no proof that GW2 is even coming out, why in the world would we grind for titles? At thel least, I would like to know what 'benefits' are going to carry over to GW2 so I know what titles to go for, if any.

The sad thing is that the entire game is pretty much broken now. I bought EoTN months ago, however I have no motivation to actually play it, and even after a 4 month break, my motivation hasn't changed one bit. If anything, it's gotten worse since now I'm hearing of this Ursan's blessing and it supposedly destroying PvE.

The thing that gets me most is that GW has gone from skill based to grind based. No longer can you form even a decent group of players to tackle an elite mission, it's all about title rank. Even if you do have the title, no one is willing to join you and you're best off just paying for a run, which is really no fun whatsoever. The really bad thing is, you can't even find a good guild anymore, all of them seem hastily put together.

I really want to like GW and be excited for GW2, however all of this title grind crap has really ruined it for me. I haven't bothered to try PvP in the 3 years I've played, but I'm sure if I did PvP I would be even more disappointed =(. From the looks of it, I can't get into PvP now if I tried, with all this rank crap going on.

Bahumhat · Jul 23, 2008, 04:03 AM // 04:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

Here's the key problem though: even if GW2 looks promising on release, there's no telling what the game will look like 6 months in, 1 year in, etc. Their handling of GW showed a disappointing lack of consistency, direction, and forethought. I don't expect that to change in GW2.

I do hope you realize, that Anet has stated that Guild Wars was a test. And the main reason they announced that they are working on GW2 is to have a fresh start with the new information they have gathered from their experiment, instead of a giant re-do of the current game(I'm sure they also thought the game was "Bloated"). I'm sure they will be more consistent in the updates, expansions and various skill changes.

Although I can't remember where I got my info, I am trying to find it and when I do.... I'll send it to you in a PM.... Unless you wish otherwise.

Angelica · Jul 23, 2008, 08:36 AM // 08:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infectious

If D3 comes out before GW2, I won't be getting GW2 put it that way.
Im guessing alot of other people feel the same way.

I will get both!

Abedeus · Jul 23, 2008, 09:04 AM // 09:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by vaxmor

LotRO shouldnt be mentioned in the same class as Vanguard. LotRO is very nicely for itself and is gaining players. Next, who cares if GW:1 is losing players, just as long as they come back for moar GW:2. Thats the ESSENCE of the ENTIRE business model, buy - play - leave - no worries.

Too bad when it's buy -> play/don't play -> leave -> less come back. Or barely anyone remembers about the game. Because that's what A.Net is risking. I mean, they announced GW2 such long time ago and there have been what, 2-3 updates regarding it? Even Diablo 3 had more. Well, it already has a beta-version and there is a gameplay video...

EPO Bot · Jul 23, 2008, 09:04 AM // 09:04

I won't have the time to play both.

-Sonata- · Jul 23, 2008, 03:20 PM // 15:20

In a world of unfinished, unpolished, glitchy released online games, I'm glad they're taking their time with GW2.

I really don't want screenshots, or movie clips, of a game that won't be anything like what I'll be playing come beta.

I don't want the game rushed to a key release date just to jump ahead of competition at risk of getting an unfinished game full of client bugs, glitches, and simple in-game things that don't work when it should have worked from the start. Yes, I'm looking at you AoC.

I have every intention on buying GW2. I have every intention on buying DIII. I have every intention on buying Warhammer and I'm anticipating Darkfall as calmly as I can.

Whether, or not, all of them will live up to expectations has yet to be determined. The ones I end up loving I'll play, even if it's all of them. Freedom is a wonderful thing..

Tarun · Jul 23, 2008, 03:37 PM // 15:37

Diablo 3 will probably kill GW2's player market.

zwei2stein · Jul 23, 2008, 03:44 PM // 15:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by -Sonata-

I don't want the game rushed to a key release date just to jump ahead of competition at risk of getting an unfinished game full of client bugs, glitches, and simple in-game things that don't work when it should have worked from the start. Yes, I'm looking at you AoC.

That is double sided sword.

They also risk that people will forget about them and that they will not wait for them, give up, and instead start playing other games.

Both is bad for obvious reasons: People will have less motivation to check out GW2. Especially if they already invested some time on other online games.

I used to follow TCO Spellforce closely, but they pushed their release time by two years already, by checking out my old beta account last week i discovered that game is already way above release-quality (i am not talking about AOC version of release quality). Guess they have some overzealous QA fanaticism going on.

Result is that most of people gave up on this game as it is likely that by time its released it would be perfect, but obsolete.

slowerpoke · Jul 23, 2008, 05:08 PM // 17:08

..and the waiting continues

Quote:

That's unlikely. We won't be making any announcements about Guild Wars 2 at PAX, nor will we be showing Guild Wars 2. I'm not sure what information you'd like, apart from write-ups / summaries of what happened at our panels, and an in-game chat is not the best vehicle for that by a long stretch. Perhaps someone from Massively, Joystiq, or another blog or even one of the fansites may be at PAX to cover the panels, who knows? ArenaNet staff will be appearing at some panels, but it would be logistically difficult for our team to run all our tournaments at PAX, for me to be present at the booth with the other staff speaking to con-goers, and for me to also be holding another PAX event in-game, as our panels are scheduled during or very close to times when I will be working on other events, such as the party. --Regina Buenaobra Image:User Regina Buenaobra sig.png 16:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

yep, nothing to see at ANets only yearly con appearance.

man they sure do know how to keep us pumped about GW2