Curse

BahamutKaiser · Nov 14, 2006, 06:34 AM // 06:34

Z-axis is crucial, there are alot of instances where false physics exsist because of a simple lack of programming.

I appreciate GW ability to run on low end computers and connections, but it isn't like it can run on any dated piece of trash, and computer technology multiplies in efficiency on a yearly basis. As I was saying, GW has plenty of room to grow, they shouldn't stop working on it just because they reached a conclusion with their third release. And, it would be alot simpler to release a seperate game with alot of the appeal but next generation gameplay. But improvements to this series are a neccessity, they have to keep improving the game, they need to make improvements. They can be added to the exsisting engine, and they are expected for the full game price they are sticking every 6 months.

Crytek engine means very little to me, I don't research new programs, but what is obvious is that most of you are weighing down extreme opposites when centralized thinking is the solution. There are ways to improve this engine whether you understand that or not, there are alternatives for a great game of this calibur without abandoning this one, significant improvement is a neccessity, and we can have a rational conversation about it, or fling completely shortsighted and immature opinions about it.

If Guild Wars is popular enough to last another 3 years, there will be a sequel, believe it. By such time, playing something on computers of this era will be like watching black and white television, and major game companies will not produce for the uncommon POS. For now, there are already future chapters in planning, Anet is probably already past concept stages for 4, and they are likely starting concept stages for 5. that means at least another year unless they quit on 5, and as long as they don't make another factions, they will likely go to 6. Making speculations past that is pointless, and even if they did make more, they would likely produce something else as well.

Personally, I see this is just the next generation of Diablo and Diablo II, all the differences noted, it is just the next generation of cooperative and competative online play without a monthly fee. And like Diablo II, it would be better for them to break from previous successes and make new ones rather than ride one success into the grave. If we compare other successful RPGs as an example, even if they make a sequel to the same game, it is vastly new and original, with little more than a resemblance to previous games, and basicly, that is what GW II would need to be in order to create success.

As for the continuation of GW, many of you know that I want to see some of the most radical things happen to GW, and if they can't ante up the stakes exponentially, I foresee a windy path to a finished legacy, and no sequel. If they intend to maintain a growth in player aquisition and following, they need to bring new attractions to the table, and that means above and beyond added storyline, graphics, content and professions, all of that is standard.

Rhedd · Nov 14, 2006, 09:40 AM // 09:40

I can't believe I'm taking the time to write this, but in the interest of killing misinformation...

Horizontal movement is along the X and Y axes. Vertical (flying, jumping, overlapping terrain, etc.) is on the Z.

Don't bother arguing this or I'll pull out the big guns and remind you all that I'm a game dev, and I hate doing that. I pride myself on humility. ^_^

Now, back to our regularly scheduled discussion...

Bale_Shadowscar · Nov 14, 2006, 05:19 PM // 17:19

^ I think the confusion arises, because when you think of drawing bar charts/graphs in Maths, the y axis goes vertically.

I'm not fussed about the level of graphics in the game really. I think they should just keep it as it is.

bamm bamm bamm · Nov 14, 2006, 06:08 PM // 18:08

Firstly, you'll notice that the three 'big' upcoming middleware engines (Unreal 3, Crytek and Source, and I suppose the Doom 3 engine) all originate, or are showcased by, first person shooters. Comparing them to GW is just stupid. GW won't be there for a good while, mostly dictated by hardware common-denominator (which is itself usually dictated by OS requirements, thank the Microsoft monopoly, heavy graphical requirements for Vista and preinstall agreements with vendors). Honestly though, higher res textures, normal (tick) and parallax mapping and double the poly count per mesh and you're already 75% there. The rest is physics (not really necessary for GW) and a real-time lighting engine (a little trickier but something I would love to see in GW). I personally think a weather & day/night cycle would bring an immeasurable benefit to the game, which would require a more advanced lighting system. My point is, the vast majority of these improvements don't require licensing any kind of middleware.

The only part of GW that lacks a Z-axis is the damage model. If the game lacked one you would be playing pacman (or diablo, I suppose).

Stranger The Ranger · Nov 14, 2006, 06:24 PM // 18:24

Gameplay > Graphics
New Engine > My PC

/not signed

BahamutKaiser · Nov 14, 2006, 07:09 PM // 19:09

Recognizing the Z axis is no revelation, that is so petty it should be humiliating to bring up your so called game developement abilities to back a elementary geometric construct.

I can see how some of you might get y-axis mixed with hieght, but when you look at your calculator in....10th grade....... your looking at a 2 dimentional plane. Technically if your looking at it laying down on a flat surface you have length and width. Height only comes into play with 3 dimentional objects, in which x and y only measure the space it takes 2 dimentionally, and z marks the variable in hieght.

Now that the grade school explaination is out of the way, this is why the Z axis that is already in the game should be easy to modify.

Notice that there is a Z-axis, it is just undeveloped, anyone who plays ranger (and isn't a moron) will recognize that their attack range and damage alters depending on the difference in hieght between him and his target. There is a Z-axis at work measuring that factor, so all of you can drop the "it can't be added" BS. Now taking that measurement and disabling melee attacks, flag and other item access, and blocking from units which are at a different hieght value corrects the faulty mechanics. Objects on only a slightly different hieght than you may simple be on a slope, but if it retains the same value as to allow an arrow to fly twice as far based on hieght value, or even 50% further, on a directly adjacent location, than it is obviously seperated from that moving plain, and should act accordingly.

No Duh, it will change the way the game works, exactly the way it should be, perhaps a higher load on computing power, but since the factors are already being calculated, the only real difference is triggers which cause blocking and allow attacking. The honest truth is that it takes no more function than the arrow calculation, and it is extremely poor that it has not been revised already.

Ignorance would lead some to believe that it is difficult, kind of like changing a law or some political issue, but it is really just indecision and rejection which prevents it from happening, not programming. Too much work?, BS, we pay enough for a brand new game every chapter, if they can't revise the engine on the same cost as creating the game in entirety, than they arn't spending their resources wisely, because it is certainly being paid for.

Hollerith · Nov 14, 2006, 07:49 PM // 19:49

I've been thinking about Guild Wars v2.0 a lot recently. Guild Wars II implies a different game, but in my mind there's no reason v1 and v2 can't coexist on the same servers (just with different graphic engines).

I don't understand the technicalities of it, but I know it's possible. DAoC progressively upgraded their engines through their expansions. Mythic probably had this in mind when creating the game, but it's analogous to the kind of engine upgrade I'd expect.

Loviatar · Nov 14, 2006, 08:01 PM // 20:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by BahamutKaiser

Now that the grade school explaination is out of the way, this is why the Z axis that is already in the game should be easy to modify.

.

can the misinformed crap.

JEFF STRAIN SAID THE ENGING DOES NOT AND WILL NOT SUPPORT JUMPING Z AXIS

he also said that in retrospect they might have designed the engine differently using 20/20 hindsight.

do i believe you or Jeff Strain?

easy choice

Alias_X · Nov 14, 2006, 08:16 PM // 20:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by BahamutKaiser

Recognizing the Z axis is no revelation, that is so petty it should be humiliating to bring up your so called game developement abilities to back a elementary geometric construct.

I can see how some of you might get y-axis mixed with hieght, but when you look at your calculator in....10th grade....... your looking at a 2 dimentional plane. Technically if your looking at it laying down on a flat surface you have length and width. Height only comes into play with 3 dimentional objects, in which x and y only measure the space it takes 2 dimentionally, and z marks the variable in hieght.

Now that the grade school explaination is out of the way, this is why the Z axis that is already in the game should be easy to modify.

Notice that there is a Z-axis, it is just undeveloped, anyone who plays ranger (and isn't a moron) will recognize that their attack range and damage alters depending on the difference in hieght between him and his target. There is a Z-axis at work measuring that factor, so all of you can drop the "it can't be added" BS. Now taking that measurement and disabling melee attacks, flag and other item access, and blocking from units which are at a different hieght value corrects the faulty mechanics. Objects on only a slightly different hieght than you may simple be on a slope, but if it retains the same value as to allow an arrow to fly twice as far based on hieght value, or even 50% further, on a directly adjacent location, than it is obviously seperated from that moving plain, and should act accordingly.

No Duh, it will change the way the game works, exactly the way it should be, perhaps a higher load on computing power, but since the factors are already being calculated, the only real difference is triggers which cause blocking and allow attacking. The honest truth is that it takes no more function than the arrow calculation, and it is extremely poor that it has not been revised already.

Ignorance would lead some to believe that it is difficult, kind of like changing a law or some political issue, but it is really just indecision and rejection which prevents it from happening, not programming. Too much work?, BS, we pay enough for a brand new game every chapter, if they can't revise the engine on the same cost as creating the game in entirety, than they arn't spending their resources wisely, because it is certainly being paid for.

Are you really trying to take that hit without getting embarrassed and turn the embarrassment onto the gamedev?
You just lost all credibility in my mind.

Titan Chrae · Nov 14, 2006, 08:45 PM // 20:45

I'd like to see future development in GW with the same portablility that has always been there. I'm perfectly happy with GW the way it is.

Too, often techonology ruins a series. Ultima IV was basically the same technology as the original Ultima. In my mind IV was the best ultima ever. When they changed the technology, although I was impressed with the graphics, the series lost something.

Instead of making a GW II, if GW is as successful as they anticipated, then they should expand ANET into other Genre’s. Keep developing GW but expand the company and start on other games in popular settings and maintain the same things in those games that makes GW great.

Personally I'd like to see a free, online, CORPG sci-fi game based on the same concept as GW. Instead of different classes we could have different races from different planets and PvP could be space combat or something new and fresh. (Imagine something like X-wing Vs Tie Fighter with a skill bar for each ship)

Of course that WOULD require a 3-axis game engine but, ... if x-wing could do it in the early 90's...

BahamutKaiser · Nov 14, 2006, 10:18 PM // 22:18

I said nothing about jumping, although that in itself is just a graphic which allows you to move over objects. Your lack of persecptive really means little to me, if height recognition were already functional we would already reap the benifits, obviously it has to be upgraded, and using the functions already in the game it can be added, only a moron points out what we don't have as something we cannot have.

As one who has repeatedly pointed out the advancements which can be added and end up in the game beyond all manner of disapproval, I don't give a crap what you think, bring up a valid example or your persective is forfeit.

I'm glad you can make an unlinked referance to what "Jeff Strain" said, and I doubt those were his words. Likewise, Anet developers said they thought jumping was a good idea and considered adding it, Anet developers have said there would be classes every chapter and that they would not have them in some chapters, they claim alot of things but they are just claims, not explainations. You can believe whatever you like, but you don't know anything until you do the investigation for yourself. All jumping aside, we are talking about Z-axis functions besides jumping, and if you have the resources to find something on the topic which we are discussing rather than something related than post a link wile your at it. As for jumping, that isn't the topic I discussed, and bringing up a comment from Jeff Strain or God, on a topic other than what I discussed is ignorant and misapplied, believe what you like moron.

Whether you believe it or not, you cannot disprove the function of the hieght recognition which is in the game, just pull out a bow and test it. It doesn't take any amount of skill to rationalize that it exsists, but your easily lead instead of learning for yourself, and thus you opinion is worth nothing more than gossip on the wind, second and thrid hand rumors which you swear by.

Personally, I am beyond asking others what could, should and would be done, I have known on my own recognition what is possible without the confirmation of any game developer, and to the denial of any who disagree, you can follow my early work to be sure.

P.S. GW isn't a cartridge, it can be changed, all of it can be changed.

guinevere · Nov 14, 2006, 10:35 PM // 22:35

I think a total new look and engine (besides all the character problems there could be) would ruin the 'guild wars feeling'

If I want to play a next-gen I'll go play obli. If I want to have some fun with friends and pvp Guild Wars just still beats any other game I've played.
I tried FPS, still play them, but I still like this game best of all.

Guild Wars II as in new story, yes... with my characters I have right now. New engine? I dont see why we would need to have walls of superb looking fire/ice.
Also it would ask a lot from the players PC... Most people have good gaming PCs but theres still a lot of players that dont have the money or need to upgrade their stuff. Why force them to do so...? I can understand GW will need a new look in a year or 3 but after 3 campaigns a TOTAL new look? I mean look at WoW, still a lot of players keep playing it, fans of it are loyal to blizzard as my dog is to me. I see more problems then 'fun' with this...

besides this, it will cost a lot of money changing all this, both for players and Anet... I would think of quiting if this game becomes a P2P instead of F2P (besides the one time payment) Why? I travel a lot, for 1 week Im out of town, next Im home for 2 weeks, then I can be away for a month... I have friends that play WoW too, but it would be pointless for me to play any monthly fee game since I wont be able to play 70% of the time you would pay for.

Age · Nov 14, 2006, 10:51 PM // 22:51

I don't think it needs a new engine it is fine as it is and that is an FPS game.What needs to happen is to solve the current problems.

Loviatar · Nov 14, 2006, 11:48 PM // 23:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by BahamutKaiser

I
I'm glad you can make an unlinked referance to what "Jeff Strain" said, and I doubt those were his words. .

i said JEFF STRAIN REFERED TO DOING IT DIFFERENTLY IF THEY KNEW THEN WHAT THEY KNOW NOW.

THE QUOTE

As a first person shooter guy I have to ask what’s up with no jumping?

Quote:

(laughs) I think jumping is something in especially a corollary to that which is the ability to have a little more free form roaming and not be stymied by hills. It’s something that-- if we had to go back to do it all over again we probably would address that a little bit differently than we did because you do lose that visceral feel when interacting with your character. And I can guarantee you that that’s something we will address in the future.

THE LINKIE

http://exe.gotfrag.com/portal/story/32316?spage=2

gee whiz that looks close doesnt it?

BahamutKaiser · Nov 15, 2006, 04:10 AM // 04:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loviatar

can the misinformed crap.

JEFF STRAIN SAID THE ENGING DOES NOT AND WILL NOT SUPPORT JUMPING Z AXIS

he also said that in retrospect they might have designed the engine differently using 20/20 hindsight.

do i believe you or Jeff Strain?

easy choice

Actually, if you compare what you claimed and what was actually said, your completely wrong, and thanks for proving it. He said not a single thing about the disability for jumping there, only that it should have been added, and that they guarentee that it will be looked into in the future. Thank you for nailing your opinion into the ground, after such ignorant flaming as well. And for what?, that wasn't even what I was discussing, I was talking about the functionality of exsisting gameplay mechanic improvements with better hieght recognition, not the addition of jumping.

Everyone, clap for the clown, and clap for Alias to, who was stupid enough to take the third hand misinformation as gods word and question my credibility. Feel free to lose face. This is just another of scores of examples where my better logic is more credible than some moron who claims the game developers position.

But just in case you didn't catch it the 4th time you didn't read what was actually said, what is the difference between, "it does not and will not support jumping Z axis", and what Jeff Strain really said, "I can guarentee that it is something we will address in the future". He promised it would be considered and likely added, and your saying Jeff Strain said it couldn't happen, and then quoted the actual statement to your own disproval without even double checking yourself, you belong in kindergarden.

Next....

OH, I better copy the link here since you might feel the need to cover your beligerant ignorance.
http://exe.gotfrag.com/portal/story/32316?spage=2

holyjew888 · Nov 15, 2006, 04:20 AM // 04:20

gw is fine as is and that is all

PERIOD!

Riotgear · Nov 15, 2006, 05:01 AM // 05:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by BahamutKaiser

Z-axis is crucial, there are alot of instances where false physics exsist because of a simple lack of programming.

Z-axis and "proper" physics, as opposed to the 2D pathing model, also requires significantly more computational power, hence, hardware investment. World of Warcraft does it entirely on the client, which is why you see crap like speed cheats, flying cheats, teleporting into the ground, and ridiculously glitchy monster pathing which has to have an "evade" mode just to prevent exploitation of it. Nevermind getting stuck or finding abusive map glitches which then have to be fixed.

Guild Wars shows numerous signs of cost cutting, not doing true 3D physics may simply be one of them.

Quote:

There are ways to improve this engine whether you understand that or not

There have also BEEN improvements. The addition of bumpmapping props came with Nightfall, and is quite visible in the opening screen alone.

Being able to look great on modern hardware and being able to run on old junk are not mutually exclusive. If anything, the average price of a PC system is coming down, more and more people are picking up $600 desktops with crappy Intel GMA950 integrated video, and the market for stuff that NEEDS $100+ MSRP graphics cards is shrinking. I work at a computer store, I see this every day.

Quote:

If they intend to maintain a growth in player aquisition and following, they need to bring new attractions to the table, and that means above and beyond added storyline, graphics, content and professions, all of that is standard.

Guild Wars' growth more closely resembles something like tabletop RPGs or trading card games, and may ultimately evolve in similar ways too. Who knows. It really is in a category by itself.

If anything, the best justification for a sequel is just having a clean start. Some things which seemed good at their inception may seem limiting a few years later, skill updates to adjust that will inevitably lead to things falling by the wayside, and the sheer volume of skills will make things difficult to balance.

xxSilhouette · Nov 15, 2006, 05:11 AM // 05:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Vito Corleone

if this happened, that means all my current characters will not work in the new

guild wars2 with new engine means totally new game and all characters need to rebuild again

not good at all

Same thing i am thinking. I don't really care if its a whole new game - But i would prefer it if I was able to take my current characters into it, beacuse I have done so much with some of them - and a new game comes out that I can't have them in, well I would be angry.

Rhedd · Nov 15, 2006, 05:24 AM // 05:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by BahamutKaiser

Recognizing the Z axis is no revelation, that is so petty it should be humiliating to bring up your so called game developement abilities to back a elementary geometric construct.

You know, I was going to respond by pointing out that the obvious confusion on this thread clearly showed that the Z vs Y axis question did, indeed, need clarification.

I might've given a lighthearted demonstration on the meaning of smileys, including Japanese-style ones (^_^), and how they usually denote good humor, or a tongue-in-cheek attitude.

I was also prepared to apologize if I came off as arrogant, and explain that it's seldom useful to state an opinion on the internet without also stating why you might actually know what you're talking about.

However, before writing this reply, I read the rest of your charming and mature posts. Since the rest of the contributors to this thread seem to hold you in the same high esteem that I do, I think I'll just use my "so called game development abilities" to concoct a much simpler response...

GreatLich · Nov 15, 2006, 05:31 AM // 05:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Titan Chrae

I'd like to see future development in GW with the same portablility that has always been there. I'm perfectly happy with GW the way it is.

Personally I'd like to see a free, online, CORPG sci-fi game based on the same concept as GW. Instead of different classes we could have different races from different planets and PvP could be space combat or something new and fresh. (Imagine something like X-wing Vs Tie Fighter with a skill bar for each ship)

Of course that WOULD require a 3-axis game engine but, ... if x-wing could do it in the early 90's...

I don't know how many of the above criteria this will meet: Tabula Rasa
but when i saw early screenshot i've coulda sworn it's "GW with lasers"