Curse

Balan Makki · Jan 17, 2008, 07:06 PM // 19:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmr819

What struck me as mildly interesting about the text was that, old or not, (i) it appeared in PC GAMER UK in January 2008 and (ii) it stated/intimated a couple of things I had not read elsewhere before (i.e., players having the option to join up with an "AI party"). It may not be accurate, as you say, but it was interesting to me nonetheless..

Yes, and the Word "Grind" struck me as a rather peculiar way for Arena Net to endear it's fan base, as well as the fact that neither article quotes a valid source.

Arena Net will definitely do what's best for their company, if they feel that WoWs style of gaming is what's best for a non-subscription game then they'll have a lot of selling to do to their current fanbase. They'll likely not release game altering details until they have a huge amount of promotional content to follow it up -- To sugar coat what might turn-off some GW1 fans.

There will likely be a huge promotional for Hall of Monuments title/achievement transfers/rewards revealed, to get players interested in GW1 prior to GW2.

Vinraith · Jan 17, 2008, 07:12 PM // 19:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

The instancing, for me, makes it feel less like a gameworld and more like Diablo. Each outpost just feels like a chatroom on Battle.net.

For some of us, that's precisely its appeal. I never signed up for an MMOG, and I've never understood why so much of the GW player base is so intent on turning it into one. I guess with GW2 they've finally gotten their way, though.

Balan Makki · Jan 17, 2008, 07:43 PM // 19:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinraith

For some of us, that's precisely its appeal. I never signed up for an MMOG, and I've never understood why so much of the GW player base is so intent on turning it into one. I guess with GW2 they've finally gotten their way, though.

Don't be so sure, I'm only guessing but the entire persistent world may have many optional Instanced areas. Enter an area, talk to an npc or whatever, and you're fired into your own private instance of the persistent area. Do this with the entire Game World and you get the best of both worlds: persistent and entirely instanced, just pick your poison. Think of the persistent world as one very large GW1 outpost.

Longasc · Jan 17, 2008, 10:04 PM // 22:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balan Makki

Arena Net will definitely do what's best for their company, if they feel that WoWs style of gaming is what's best for a non-subscription game then they'll have a lot of selling to do to their current fanbase. They'll likely not release game altering details until they have a huge amount of promotional content to follow it up -- To sugar coat what might turn-off some GW1 fans.

I have the sad feeling that they detected that 95% of their players are PvE players that really embrace GRIND of all kinds, and impossible-to-fail-gameplay with overpowered skills so that they do not have to think that much.

This mentality actually fits the standard grinder-MMO, but it is even duller, as level-progression-games at least field a steady challenge, if it is too hard they grind to level up, whereas GW would stagnate on a very low level of gameplay.

I hope ANet tries to give us more diverse and challenging PvE gameplay. This will automatically make people become better and find more enjoyment in the many possibilities (skill choices etc.) the game offers, or hopefully will offer.

Numa Pompilius · Jan 18, 2008, 01:02 AM // 01:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isileth

So the fact that GW uses fully instanced areas stops it from being a massively multiplayer game.

...and hence World of Warcraft is not a MMO, because it uses fully instanced areas. QED.

"MMORPG" is not a rigorously defined term, and no universal agreement on how big it has to be to be "massive", how many players are required for "multiplayer", whether it has to be 100% "online", and just what the hell is required for something to be a "role playing game" anyway.

It's a fluff marketing term, and one ArenaNet avoided because they felt it gave the wrong connotations to Guild Wars - specifically that it has the connotation "monthly fees".

Guild Wars is a "CORPG" due to marketing reasons, not some sort of universally agreed upon definition of "MMORPG". I personally refer to GW as a MMORPG, because it clearly belongs to that class of games, while the class "CORPG" doesn't exist, and no-one knows what it is, outside ANet marketing jargons.

Vinraith · Jan 18, 2008, 01:25 AM // 01:25

I guess that means Diablo was an MMO too, who knew? You can redefine any term broadly enough as to make it meaningless, but there's little enough point in doing it outside of simple intellectual dishonesty.

Gio · Jan 18, 2008, 02:31 AM // 02:31

I'm really anticipating Guild Wars 2! I think It will be a huge hit if the creators and all the people working behind it put all their effort at this project. I really liked the short article at Games Radar.

Isileth · Jan 18, 2008, 10:16 AM // 10:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

...and hence World of Warcraft is not a MMO, because it uses fully instanced areas. QED.

"MMORPG" is not a rigorously defined term, and no universal agreement on how big it has to be to be "massive", how many players are required for "multiplayer", whether it has to be 100% "online", and just what the hell is required for something to be a "role playing game" anyway.

It's a fluff marketing term, and one ArenaNet avoided because they felt it gave the wrong connotations to Guild Wars - specifically that it has the connotation "monthly fees".

Guild Wars is a "CORPG" due to marketing reasons, not some sort of universally agreed upon definition of "MMORPG". I personally refer to GW as a MMORPG, because it clearly belongs to that class of games, while the class "CORPG" doesn't exist, and no-one knows what it is, outside ANet marketing jargons.

Of course you are free to take it how you will, but that doesnt mean there isnt a common accepted meaning for the term.

Guild wars is not massively multiplayer because there is a fixed limit of 1 team in each instance (with exception for a couple of missions).

WoW is massively multiplayer because for the majority of the game you are in areas containing other players.

You also have to remember that the terms arent only there to define the level of instancing either. Just 1 thing wont swing it either way.

Also as for CORPG not "existing" I must say thats incorrect. Sure the average gamer wont know the term, but you go to a proper gaming community and people will.

Its the same as FPS-Z, a lot of casual gamers wont know what that means, but again, go to a gaming community and everyone will.

Cacheelma · Jan 18, 2008, 01:09 PM // 13:09

Can we not turn this into another GW vs. the World thread? I'm sick and tired of that already.

Focus on the game you come here to talk about, WITHOUT bashing some other games because it would make you (and your favorite game) feel (and look) better.

Thanks.

Numa Pompilius · Jan 18, 2008, 02:08 PM // 14:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isileth

Guild wars is not massively multiplayer because there is a fixed limit of 1 team in each instance (with exception for a couple of missions).

WoW is massively multiplayer because for the majority of the game you are in areas containing other players.

The words "exception" and "majority" mean that it's a gliding scale, not a discrete one. It's like debating whether this bluegreen color is blue, or green?

My point is simply that it's pointless to debate definitions. Partly because definitions by necessity are 100% subjective.

As for the subject... the more I hear about GW2, the less interested I get.
Removing henches/heroes, making the world persistent, those aren't necessarily deal-breakers for me as long as the game is soloable, but they're sure not selling points either.
However, the biggest reason I increasingly think I wont like GW2 is the direction in which GW1 has been moving the last year or so - it's obvious from recent changes that ArenaNet consider PvE players functional idiots unable to design their own skillsets or deal with any kind of challenge, and that ArenaNet now consider PvE = grind.

Guild Wars PvE used to be not at all about grind, now it's all about grind, and I assume that this change of heart on ArenaNets part will carry over into GW2.

garethporlest18 · Jan 18, 2008, 02:16 PM // 14:16

If you want GW 2 to have challenge, having persistent worlds is the way to do it. Having mobs respawn on you trapping you=challenge. Although some of you sissy boys won't think so!

Also I'm sure they'll follow their "quest to cap" formula hopefully.

Mordakai · Jan 18, 2008, 02:18 PM // 14:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isileth

WoW is massively multiplayer because for the majority of the game you are in areas containing other players.

So, because Guild Wars gives you the option to play the game with AI controlled parties, it ceases to be a MMORPG?

And if you enter an area in WoW where there are NO other people (I've done this before, so it is possible), then does it cease to be a MMORPG?

While there may be "accepted" meaning of words, that doesn't mean they are correct.

For example, ask people what "grind" is and you'll get different answers (there was a whole thread on the subject somewhere). "MMORPG" is the same thing...

For me, a MMORPG has to have two main features:

Someway to customize your character, and the ability to change that character's abilities through online play.

The ability to play with other people online. I think Guild Wars meets that definition, but regardless, this discussion is about Guild Wars 2, which certainly will be a MMORPG under any definition.

EDIT: Just realized my definition would fit some of the new shooters coming out. Made me think: would you characterize shooters that permanently increase you character's abilities as a MMORPG? If not, what makes it different?

tmr819 · Jan 18, 2008, 02:18 PM // 14:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cacheelma

Can we not turn this into another GW vs. the World thread? I'm sick and tired of that already.

Focus on the game you come here to talk about, WITHOUT bashing some other games because it would make you (and your favorite game) feel (and look) better.

Thanks.

Well, originally, I just posted the article link because it seemed to offer an admittedly small, thin, and flimsy shred of hope that Heroes and henches (aka "AI party") might be making an encore in GW2. In the arid wasteland of LITTLE TO NO NEWS from ArenaNet, it was ... something. A crumb, a crust. Perhaps even a false hope. But something.

Ya see, it is the fate of the Heroes/henches in GW2 that most concerns me. All of the other GW2 innovations I've heard of sound either pretty good to me or at least not bad. But <<to the tune of "I Want My MTV">>, "I Want My Henchies …" (yeah, I know it doesn't rhyme.

). I have long felt that these poor guys (Koss and me, we go WAAAY back!) are a critical feature and one that separates GW from the rest of the herd of generic MMOs. This "single NPC companion" thing sounds like such a backward step. It's better than nothing but still ... subpar.

If they restrict its use to the persistent areas and make it "summonable" like a WoW ranger pet or WoW warlock minion, that'd be OK, I guess. Maybe even really good.

Ideally, I'd like to see at least four fully customizable Heroes (i.e., you could make them all smiting monks for a particular instance if you wanted to) for use in instanced areas only in GW2 (assuming the party size maximum in GW2 is, say, five, as in WoW). I do hope GW2 reduces the requisite party size from 8 to 4 or 5. Eight is cumbersome and unwieldy, imo. Moreover, assuming Heroes are still around, four Heroes would, I think, be fairly "micromanageable."

Just some "thinking out loud" here...

Numa Pompilius · Jan 18, 2008, 02:28 PM // 14:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by garethporlest18

If you want GW 2 to have challenge, having persistent worlds is the way to do it. Having mobs respawn on you trapping you=challenge. Although some of you sissy boys won't think so!

My favorite challenge from EQ2 was arriving at the place where I was to kill some Badguy and save the world from a fate worse than death - only to find that someone had just killed him. Or was in the process of killing him. So I had to wait while he respawned, so I could kill him again. And then during the fight have two random guys watching and commenting on how slow and noobish my killing of him was.

That really felt truly epic. Yeah.

Maybe it's just me, but I really don't see why one'd want random other people around when questing. In battlegrounds-style PvP yeah, sure, but during normal questing? I just don't see why that's supposedly fun or desirable.

Isileth · Jan 18, 2008, 02:34 PM // 14:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

So, because Guild Wars gives you the option to play the game with AI controlled parties, it ceases to be a MMORPG?

Where on earth did you pick that up from?

The point is its only 1 team per instance, you cant go and hook up with other players mid mission.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

And if you enter an area in WoW where there are NO other people (I've done this before, so it is possible), then does it cease to be a MMORPG?

Why would it no longer be an MMORPG? Just because there isnt someone there at that point doesnt mean the option for them to be isnt.

Is a single player game not a single player game when no one is playing it? Does the game somehow change?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

While there may be "accepted" meaning of words, that doesn't mean they are correct.

For example, ask people what "grind" is and you'll get different answers (there was a whole thread on the subject somewhere). "MMORPG" is the same thing...

Certainly many people have different views, grind is also a much broader term so its obvious you get a lot more different views on it.

The discussion of the meaning was based more on the original meaning rather than now how its used to describe a game of that nature. Before it simply did mean a game that was massively multiplayer, so a game where you had a lot of players in the same area at a time.

Now just having that doesnt make it an MMORPG for obvious reasons, so its a more a discussion on the fact that the game isnt massively multiplayer rather than it not having MMORPG features.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

For me, a MMORPG has to have two main features:

Someway to customize your character, and the ability to change that character's abilities through online play.

The ability to play with other people online. I think Guild Wars meets that argument, but regardless, this discussion is about Guild Wars 2, which certainly will be a MMORPG under any definition.

Well the ability to customize and change your char through online play fits into any online RPG, regardless of if its MMORPG, CORPG etc Hell even some online FPS have the options to customize chars, skills, eq etc.

And again playing with others goes for any online game.

So by your 2 main features some FPS are MMORPGS.

And thats why we have different genres that are accepted by a common defenition, yes there is wiggle room and features cross over.

But GW is most deffinately in its own category of CORPG, hell the main reason being its the game that created that category. CORPG is now another accepted genre, generally considered a sub genre or split off from MMORPGs due to the obvious similarities.

As I said before, its very much like FPS-Z. A lot of players will say FPS-Z games are FPS games. Because they are again very similar.
That however doesnt make them not FPS-Z games. Thats the point of the different category for them. The difference may be small but its enough of a change to the core gameplay for it to be different.

Mordakai · Jan 18, 2008, 02:37 PM // 14:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isileth

As I said before, its very much like FPS-Z. A lot of players will say FPS-Z games are FPS games. Because they are again very similar.
That however doesnt make them not FPS-Z games. Thats the point of the different category for them. The difference may be small but its enough of a change to the core gameplay for it to be different.

Have to admit, I've never heard the term FPS-Z.

Is that the term for the new MMOFPSRPG games?

The more I think about it, the more I hate the whole term "Massive Multiplayer Online." And the acronym MMORPG is just rediculous.

Someone needs to come up with a better name, with a pronounceable acronym for bonus points.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

My favorite challenge from EQ2 was arriving at the place where I was to kill some Badguy and save the world from a fate worse than death - only to find that someone had just killed him. Or was in the process of killing him. So I had to wait while he respawned, so I could kill him again. And then during the fight have two random guys watching and commenting on how slow and noobish my killing of him was.

That really felt truly epic. Yeah.

Worst part of persistant areas, for sure. Hopefully, Anet will think of someway around it, the obvious being no quests that require you to wait for something to respawn.

Isileth · Jan 18, 2008, 02:46 PM // 14:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

Have to admit, I've never heard the term FPS-Z.

Is that the term for the new MMOFPSRPG games?

An FPS-Z is simply a FPS that makes heavy use of the Z axis.
Normally done through the use of jet packs and such.

So you can see how on the surface its a fairly small difference but when you get down into it, its a core game change that really does effect gameplay.

Mordakai · Jan 18, 2008, 02:48 PM // 14:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isileth

An FPS-Z is simply a FPS that makes heavy use of the Z axis.
Normally done through the use of jet packs and such.

So you can see how on the surface its a fairly small difference but when you get down into it, its a core game change that really does effect gameplay.

Ah, OK. The fact I never even knew that kind of reinforces my point I don't think many people care about the technical differences between a MMORPG or CORPG.

Back to the blending of RPG with FPS...

what do you think these new persistant characters in FPS games should be called?

tmr819 · Jan 18, 2008, 03:06 PM // 15:06

Well, I consider GW an MORPG (dropping the "massive" because it doesn't really fit) and WoW an MMORPG. The purpose of any term is to convey as clearly as possible some meaning to as many people as possible. Most people know what is meant by "MMORPG" and "MORPG" and that's good enough for me. The rest is just ... pointless semantics, in my opinion. Like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

--TOTALLY OFF TOPIC--
Mordakai, have you run Deadmines yet? I am curious to find out what you think of the instanced part of WoW. When it "works", instancing in WoW can be very very good. It's just getting it to work that was always a problem for me. Like getting all the planets -- time, people, etc. -- to align in a particular way. Van Cleef and his crew, well, it's a fun dungeon. Good luck with it, if you haven't already been. And bear in mind that after killing many of the bosses a patrol sneaks up on your group from behind.

--BACK ON TOPIC--
So ... it's settled. GW is a MORPG. (Aren't you glad you have me to settle the matter once and for all?

)

Bryant Again · Jan 18, 2008, 05:47 PM // 17:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

Back to the blending of RPG with FPS...

what do you think these new persistant characters in FPS games should be called?

It depends on what the emphasis of the gameplay is, I guess. Bioshock has few RPG elements into it but it mostly just feels like a (very kick ass) shooter. Mass Effect has a very deep character creation and customization system so it feels more like an RPG.

So, if it focuses more on player skill and blowing stuff up, just a shooter. The more deep you get into customization and advancement, the more it becomes an RPG.