Curse

Fril Estelin · Dec 16, 2007, 06:27 PM // 18:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinraith

I hope you're right, but it's fairly clear you haven't read the bulk of available information on GW2 at this point.

Probably not, but I read no piece of information so big as "there won't probably be H/H in GW2". Do you remember where you read that?

Quote:

I think Anet's come to the conclusion that they don't need gamers like me, and from a financial standpoint they're probably right.

I think you're completely misreading into Anet's statement, but you're probably right that GW is not a good game for people who hate change. Honestly, there's been no such thing as "PvP intrusion into PvE", it's an over-statement, it's like saying that because people are standing in front of your house they're "intruding".

(I had comments on the rest of your post but I will not state them so that the thread can come back on its feet)

Balan Makki · Dec 16, 2007, 06:44 PM // 18:44

Seems like lots to look forward to. Though I'm not at all excited about "High" and "Low" levels in Mists PvP. You'd think they'd learned something over the past few years.

Bryant Again · Dec 16, 2007, 06:45 PM // 18:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinraith

Ah, you're one of those people. Let's piss on single player/small group gamers, what rights do they have to be here anyway? Yeah, I really want to play a game where I'm forced to group with people who think their fun is more important than mine.

You won't be forced to group with people. You won't be forced to group at all. You can 1-man persistant areas and missions. That's why this point-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinraith

No more AI party management (and no, one companion doesn't count)? Check.

-is moot.

In other words, think Hellgate:London. That sounds like how GW2 will be in terms of parties.

Vinraith · Dec 16, 2007, 07:05 PM // 19:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

You won't be forced to group with people. You won't be forced to group at all. You can 1-man persistant areas and missions. That's why this point-

-is moot.

In other words, think Hellgate:London. That sounds like how GW2 will be in terms of parties.

I'm aware of that, but it's clear enough that Symeon thinks I *should* be forced to group, hence my response.

And "no party management" is not moot, not at all. Playing a single character in a world scaled for a single character is considerably less interesting than playing a party through an area scaled for a party. The level of skill interaction and interplay, the tactical possibilities, everything is markedly better in the latter set up. One of the things that made GW interesting was that SP and small group (2 or 3 real people) players didn't lose out on the more interesting combat dynamics created by an 8 player party.

Vinraith · Dec 16, 2007, 07:07 PM // 19:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

Probably not, but I read no piece of information so big as "there won't probably be H/H in GW2". Do you remember where you read that?

It's from one of the earliest interviews, but it's restated on the official wiki here:

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_2

Scroll down to "companions."

Gaile Gray · Dec 16, 2007, 07:09 PM // 19:09

I just posted in the other thread, as well, to let you know that this is not new information. The interview was given at the same time all the other interviews were given about Guild Wars 2, GW:EN, etc. I don't have a date for the time it took place, but I date it as Spring or Summer of this year. If you go back and read the others, and particularly if you read the PC Gamer announcement of GW2, you'll see that it's the same timeframe. I think -- I need to ask -- that some of what has been mentioned has changed already.

Vinraith · Dec 16, 2007, 07:12 PM // 19:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile Gray

I just posted in the other thread, as well, to let you know that this is not new information. The interview was given at the same time all the other interviews were given about Guild Wars 2, GW:EN, etc. I don't have a date for the time it took place, but I date it as Spring or Summer of this year.

That's interesting, thanks Gaile. So some of what I'm taking as confirmation of design direction isn't, since it's just what was being said back in spring/summer.

That puts us back to "major game design elements may change without notice," which is honestly a better place to be IMO. *crosses fingers*

Neo Nugget · Dec 16, 2007, 07:14 PM // 19:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile Gray

I just posted in the other thread, as well, to let you know that this is not new information. The interview was given at the same time all the other interviews were given about Guild Wars 2, GW:EN, etc. I don't have a date for the time it took place, but I date it as Spring or Summer of this year. If you go back and read the others, and particularly if you read the PC Gamer announcement of GW2, you'll see that it's the same timeframe. I think -- I need to ask -- that some of what has been mentioned has changed already.

Ahhh i knew thats where I read it

Fril Estelin · Dec 16, 2007, 07:14 PM // 19:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile Gray

I just posted in the other thread, as well, to let you know that this is not new information. The interview was given at the same time all the other interviews were given about Guild Wars 2, GW:EN, etc. I don't have a date for the time it took place, but I date it as Spring or Summer of this year. If you go back and read the others, and particularly if you read the PC Gamer announcement of GW2, you'll see that it's the same timeframe. I think -- I need to ask -- that some of what has been mentioned has changed already.

Dear Gaile,

Could you confirm that the caption of the first picture of the article (talking about GW2 being released earlier than we may think) does not change the other announcements regarding GW2 timelime (i.e., 2008 for beta, 2009/2010 for game)? I'm also intrigued by this "some campaigns which were in the works for Guild Wars 1" which may be a reference to the BMP ... or not ... ?

Many thanks!

Gaile Gray · Dec 16, 2007, 07:31 PM // 19:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

Dear Gaile,

Could you confirm that the caption of the first picture of the article (talking about GW2 being released earlier than we may think) does not change the other announcements regarding GW2 timelime (i.e., 2008 for beta, 2009/2010 for game)? I'm also intrigued by this "some campaigns which were in the works for Guild Wars 1" which may be a reference to the BMP ... or not ... ?

Many thanks!

Now that you know the timeframe for the interview, it may jog your memory about the PC Gamer announcement, which had the splashy "Guild Wars Expansion Cancelled!" headline. Of course, that was pretty over the top, because what the articles were really saying was, "Instead of producing a new campaign, the GW team is making their first expansion pack -- Guild Wars: Eye of the North -- after which they will continue to support Guild Wars while working on the development of Guild Wars 2."

We did not have multiple campaigns under develoment. We moved from a campaign to an expansion pack for a variety of reasons -- some development, some business -- and we're now working hard on GW2. (The Bonus Mission Pack was not part of the campaign project, either.) As for timeframes, I'm sorry, but I cannot give you any beyond this: There will be a Guild Wars 2 Beta in 2008. (I honestly don't know what form it will take at this point, from beta test with signups to beta event -- that remains to be decided.) We have never said a day, date, month, or year for the release of Guild Wars 2. Many article writers have assumed a day/month/year, but that is not something we have ever stated, nor will we be able to provide that information for some time to come.

Inde · Dec 16, 2007, 07:33 PM // 19:33

That's interesting they waited so long to release the interview.

Fril Estelin · Dec 16, 2007, 07:38 PM // 19:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile Gray

Now that you know the timeframe for the interview, it may jog your memory about the PC Gamer announcement, which had the splashy "Guild Wars Expansion Cancelled!" headline. Of course, that was pretty over the top, because what the articles were really saying was, "Instead of producing a new campaign, the GW team is making their first expansion pack -- Guild Wars: Eye of the North -- after which they will continue to support Guild Wars while working on the development of Guild Wars 2."

We did not have multiple campaigns under develoment. We moved from a campaign to an expansion pack for a variety of reasons -- some development, some business -- and we're now working hard on GW2. (The Bonus Mission Pack was not part of the campaign project, either.) As for timeframes, I'm sorry, but I cannot give you any beyond this: There will be a Guild Wars 2 Beta in 2008. (I honestly don't know what form it will take at this point, from beta test with signups to beta event -- that remains to be decided.) We have never said a day, date, month, or year for the release of Guild Wars 2. Many article writers have assumed a day/month/year, but that is not something we have ever stated, nor will we be able to provide that information for some time to come.

Thanks a lot for the reply!

I preferred to use the term "timeline" rather than to start discussing months/days/hours which difficult for any significant SW project. If it were only me, I'd preferred to wait even a few months if they're necessary for the project to be ready. But I can understand the problem since some people are so eagerly anticipating GW2!

Overall, this puts the article in perspective: far, far away in terms of uptodate-ness

~ Dan ~ · Dec 16, 2007, 07:48 PM // 19:48

Interesting to read.

Quote:

If a hundred of the people of your world are out there, that’s great, but if 200 are, that’s even better. And I think that this is a much more casual form of PvP than in Guild Wars 1.

I only hope by this they mean; as well as competitive organized PvP, you have open PvP and that areas are not instanced. Always loved that style

Bryant Again · Dec 16, 2007, 07:56 PM // 19:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinraith

And "no party management" is not moot, not at all. Playing a single character in a world scaled for a single character is considerably less interesting than playing a party through an area scaled for a party. The level of skill interaction and interplay, the tactical possibilities, everything is markedly better in the latter set up. One of the things that made GW interesting was that SP and small group (2 or 3 real people) players didn't lose out on the more interesting combat dynamics created by an 8 player party.

The party system is GW1 is pretty cool, I won't deny. It had a lot of problems, though. If you're an inexperienced player, you're gonna have a harder time getting a group. You can't take heroes because you really need to know your shit (and unlock a series of skills) for them to be successful. Henchmen have been known to be less than reliable.

It's actually making things a helluva lot more easier on the casual player. While it was fun configuring a party to go out and kickass (much like Baldur's Gate, god bless it!) I'd much rather they make things more accessible for everyone.

In GW2, it'll be "hey anyone wanna do this mission? No? Okay np, I can just go by myself." In GW1, "hey anyone wanna do this mission? No? Okay um, I'll wait a bit longer, I guess," or "hey, anyone wanna- oh, there's no one here..."

zwei2stein · Dec 16, 2007, 08:07 PM // 20:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inde

That's interesting they waited so long to release the interview.

Wonderign why ... end of year and weeked before xmass is not cucubmer season for gaming mags.

Vinraith · Dec 16, 2007, 08:16 PM // 20:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

The party system is GW1 is pretty cool, I won't deny. It had a lot of problems, though. If you're an inexperienced player, you're gonna have a harder time getting a group. You can't take heroes because you really need to know your shit (and unlock a series of skills) for them to be successful. Henchmen have been known to be less than reliable.

It's actually making things a helluva lot more easier on the casual player. While it was fun configuring a party to go out and kickass (much like Baldur's Gate, god bless it!) I'd much rather they make things more accessible for everyone.

In GW2, it'll be "hey anyone wanna do this mission? No? Okay np, I can just go by myself." In GW1, "hey anyone wanna do this mission? No? Okay um, I'll wait a bit longer, I guess," or "hey, anyone wanna- oh, there's no one here..."

It's definitely more friendly to the casual player, it's just a hell of a lot less interesting IMO. In the end it's not so much that I think GW2 will be a terrible game, it's that everything we seem to be hearing strikes me as being a downgrade from the equivalent in the first game. From my perspective, they're simply going the wrong way.

Dreikki · Dec 16, 2007, 08:23 PM // 20:23

Am I the only one who finds those faces and eyes on top of the article a bit disturbing?

netniwk · Dec 16, 2007, 08:25 PM // 20:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreikki

Am I the only one who finds those faces and eyes on top of the article a bit disturbing?

yup,and these smiles...
I wont be sleeping tonight

sucks that the article was old though,wonder when they will finaly release some GwII info.

Dreikki · Dec 16, 2007, 08:27 PM // 20:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by netniwk

I wont be sleeping tonight

tmr819 · Dec 16, 2007, 08:28 PM // 20:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kakumei

This is pretty interesting, thanks for the link!

Not that it really reveals much that's new. I can't wait until they start giving us some real information about GW2.

That's it, right there. I agree completely. This article was OK but revealed little to nothing about what GW2 is actually going to be like in specific terms. I really don't give a flying rip about the PvP improvements and options. So, a big yawn to all of that.

Maybe, the next interview will have something for the PvE players out there, preferably the casual/solo ones.