Guild Wars 2

[rabb1t]

GameSpy article (http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/guild-wars-2/784302p1.html)

[xiudin]

They finally have a dedicated guild wars 2 website.

http://www.guildwars2.com/en/

There is a video that looks mostly to be made of concept art.

The FAQ implies that it will not be released until next summer at the earliest.

[rabb1t]

GameTrailers - Manifesto Diary (http://www.gametrailers.com/video/manifesto-diary-guild-wars-2/702658)

Wowie that looks like it will take quite the powerhouse to run at full effects levels. :D Looks really nice though. :D

Looking through the site it looks like they've got some great ideas. I'll have to keep my eyes on it. I didn't like how alone I felt in the first though, always seemed really tough to find a good group. Hopefully that won't be the case with the second, as it looks like they are adding in a few more traditional elements in 2.

Curious that only 3 'professions' are announced so far. Looks like Paladin is a sub-set of Warrior and that there is a lot of flexiblity within your profession. It will be interesting to see how this pans out as they get closer to launch.

[Fozzik]

Graphics do look great... I'm pretty sure I hate the stupid little anime races that they threw in (they look like crash bandicoot and sonic the hedgehog in a realistic gritty fantasy world), but other than that I like the painting type of style and realism.

As for the game, basically everything they said is just a complete and total regurgitation of the modern MMO conventional wisdom. They act like it's something new, but those are all the things, pretty much verbatim, that developers have been saying ever since WoW. Basically, it's the exact opposite in every way of what I think these games should be. Guild Wars wasn't really an MMORPG at all...and It's looking like GW2 isn't going to be, either.

I'm a little confused...a lot of the things they said seemed contradictory. How can you do the same things as Guild Wars, but in a persistent world? How can you have each player make permanent rippling changes in a persistent world without messing things up for other players? Is it going to be an entire game based around a system like WoW uses for some quests, where areas look different to a player depending on what quests they've completed?

If so, I wouldn't really see that as a persistent and social multi-player environment...if everyone around me is seeing a different world than I am...that's more like a single-player instanced game. Anyway... I'll likely try it just because I try everything, but I'm fairly certain I'm going to hate it.

[AsheMan]

I think it's shaping up to look pretty damn cool. I'm excited to give it a try. I wish more companies would go back to the ArenaNet business model. Release a game without a subscription price and make revenue by providing a decent product with decent expansions.

[rabb1t]

As for the game, basically everything they said is just a complete and total regurgitation of the modern MMO conventional wisdom. They act like it's something new, but those are all the things, pretty much verbatim, that developers have been saying ever since WoW.

Yes and no. Things like 'the centaurs are actually attacking' is kind of new. Yes, there are centaurs attacking in an area other MMOGs, but they aren't attacking the people, town, and NPC that's giving you the quest. Here it looks like you'll enter an instance and it's actually just happening. Stop it or don't.

I'm a little confused...a lot of the things they said seemed contradictory. How can you do the same things as Guild Wars, but in a persistent world? How can you have each player make permanent rippling changes in a persistent world without messing things up for other players?

I look at it like they are mixing the two. Towns which don't change would be in a persistent shared area. Things that are optional are probably saved to the player. So player A saves town X, where player B hasn't. If A and B are a group and they go to the same area they'd see different instances. However, if player C also saved it, then A and C would be in the same instance.

This kind of progression makes for a great story for the individual player or group they are with at the time. 'Remember that time we saved Jayne's Town? Wasn't that awesome!' This is very different from the standard MMOG which is like an amusement park where you can do the 'save the town' run over and over and over.

Is it going to be an entire game based around a system like WoW uses for some quests, where areas look different to a player depending on what quests they've completed?

That's my guess, but WoW is years behind GW in terms of this kind of instancing. WoW's "phasing" just went in with Lich, and really only the starter area is barely phased. The real implementation of phasing isn't going to be seen until Cataclysm.

If so, I wouldn't really see that as a persistent and social multi-player environment...if everyone around me is seeing a different world than I am...that's more like a single-player instanced game.

Which is why I believe the dev stated "and if you hate MMOGs you are going to love Guild Wars 2". It implies that there will still be heavy instancing for great storytelling and individual/group play, but that there will be stronger persistant/shared areas. (The first did have shared areas but they caped at a really small number of players and there wasn't a lot of interaction going on there. At least not during the times I played (which admitedly was a very short period of time.))

[AsheMan]

An hour demo of Guild Wars 2. It looks really good to me.

http://www.jeuxonline.info/video/2723/gamescom-2010-presentation-demo-guild-wars-2

[Amsra]

An hour demo of Guild Wars 2. It looks really good to me.

http://www.jeuxonline.info/video/2723/gamescom-2010-presentation-demo-guild-wars-2


It was looking nice til they said you will always be rewarded when asked about a wipe. graphics and gameplay actually look nice but it sounds like an another game with the "I win" button. Does look fun tho and i will surely try it out :)

[Glipkerio]

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/gc-10-guild-wars-2/703344

[Arctic_Slicer]

This game actually seems pretty good. Unlike it's predecessor this game is going to be an actual MMPORPG with a persistent state world. I actually bought the first game a few months after it came out, it wasn't bad but it really wasn't my kind of game.

[Fozzik]

After seeing some of the demos, I am more interested in trying the game. It falls squarely into the category of "games I might play because nobody is making the game I really WANT to play", but it's at the top of the list in that category right now. :D

The thing I can't understand is that they keep saying it's a true MMORPG, with a huge persistent world, but then they talk about heavy instancing being a big part of the game like the original. I don't know how those two things fit together.

I guess my initial impressions after watching the videos is that it looks like an awesome single-player game... I still haven't figured out how or what it will be in terms of an MMO.

[Arctic_Slicer]

After seeing some of the demos, I am more interested in trying the game. It falls squarely into the category of "games I might play because nobody is making the game I really WANT to play", but it's at the top of the list in that category right now. :D

The thing I can't understand is that they keep saying it's a true MMORPG, with a huge persistent world, but then they talk about heavy instancing being a big part of the game like the original. I don't know how those two things fit together.

I'm not sure but they never called Guild Wars an MMOG because it did not have a persistent state world. I played that game and I understand that it's more a Diablo clone than a MPOG. My guess is that the 2nd game will be somewhere in the middle. A largely persistent state world with instanced dungeons, kind of like many of the games out there now.

[Fozzik]

Yeah, that's my guess too.

They're also including the new fads in MMORPG design...public quests, insta-loot, and open class designs.

I really don't agree that soloing near other people counts as "social", but it will be interesting to try PQs in these various upcoming games and see what develops.

The amount of cut scenes / cinematics it appears they are using is probably going to annoy me. We'll see.

[Dragon-RD]

Startrek Online had the best "Public Quests" I have ever seen. I thought WARs were awful and Champions Online didn't have "super" ones either. I don't like PQ's they just seem a cheap way to not add quests.

[Fozzik]

After seeing more of the actual game play footage, I have to say that Guild Wars 2 looks a lot more...Something.

It's hard to describe...but watching the game play videos of Rift, it just looks exactly like MMO_0012. The animations, sound effects, and everything else just look exactly like generic MMO. The UI looks so much like WoW, even down to every element being in the same location on the screen and various elements having the same text colors and layout.

GW2 on the other hand...the animations and sound effects have WEIGHT to them. Just a regular sword swing looks pretty bad-ass, and special abilities are somewhat awe-inspiring. The art style really catches your eye in various clips, and comes through even in relatively low-res videos. Just about every aspect seems to show they are bringing something new to the table (the way they introduce quests, etc). They are obviously taking advantage of new tech in noticeable ways.

The videos that show GW2 game play outside the newb experience (once they get out into the regular map) really show how much dynamic content and public quests are going to be a part of the world (there were like three events happening within sight distance right off the bat). It could of course turn out to be really arbitrary...but right now this is the game that's showing me something impressive. Videos of Trion Devs getting people to chant for T-shirts while showing mage_003 running around killing 10 beetles just really make me want to cry.

If nothing else, the GW2 folks are doing a much better job of showing their dynamic content, and how the world is alive and action is happening everywhere (the NPCs are very animated and the voice acting appears really well done and immersive). It's possible that the invasions and Rifts in Rift will end up having more depth, but they are just doing a bad job of highlighting what sets the game apart and making it look impressive.

[Glipkerio]

Imo for $60 you can't go wrong picking it up. I plan to.

[rabb1t]

Necromancer (http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/professions/necromancer/) announced.

[rabb1t]

Guild Wars 2 is being shown at the Nvidia 3D Vision booth at Pax. Not that probably more than a few have 3D vision, but there ya go, you can has GW2 in 3D if ya do. :D

[dabble]

I am interested in this game. They have some unique concepts, the main one being that there are 80 levels but no levelling curve. I really like the sound of that.

[rabb1t]

This is different; they are releasing/planning an iPhone / droid app that will let you chat with in-game peeps.

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/pax-10-guild-wars-2/704708

[Fozzik]

Yeah, it also will likely let you do auction house things, and see where other people are adventuring on the map. Cool stuff, but not really anything I would be likely to use.

I've learned a lot more about the game, and I'm following the community semi-closely now, so if anyone wants to know anything (like especially, why would an "old school" player like me be interested in GW?!?) I'd be happy to talk. :)

[rabb1t]

(like especially, why would an "old school" player like me be interested in GW?!?)

I started with 'Blue Box' D&D back in the day and went through lots of Pen and Paper games before RPGs really started getting good on PC. I'm looking forward to GW2 for the interactive story. I'm so tired of things like 'the Foosa are attacking, save us!' chat boxes with the Foosa sending never ending waves at the baddies forever. It will be nice to see they are attacking and have an actual conclusion to that story chapter.

[Fozzik]

Yeah, that's one of several different things that give me a sense that we may actually be seeing a return, in spirit, to more of the role playing game roots that some of us have been looking for...although in very unexpected packaging.

Intriguing, to say the least. I've gone from being completely skeptical and uninterested to be highly interested and likely to buy the game.

[AsheMan]

I will buy it. I want to support a company that's delivering quality online content without milking me for subscirption fees. I bought the first one, and while I only played for a month or so, I felt it was a worthwhile purchase and I like knowing that I could install it and play anytime I want.

[Choctaw]

I will buy it. I want to support a company that's delivering quality online content without milking me for subscirption fees. I bought the first one, and while I only played for a month or so, I felt it was a worthwhile purchase and I like knowing that I could install it and play anytime I want.

I will be buying this game as well.

I always enjoyed GW1...if for no other reason than the art is amazing!

I am very much looking forward to this and I have a good chance at pulling my husband along with me. He's in a really good guild in WoW and it's going to take something spectacular to nudge him out of his comfort zone.

[mmorpeegee]

So I finally took some time to look up this game. There are lots of movies on youtube of it, actual gameplay.

It looks really good. It doesn't look very MMO'ish, the movies are all of people running around soloing. No doubt there is mmoish stuff and teamplay, and I'm keen to see that. The solo stuff all looked quite good though.

I'm so super picky about games, but this one really has peaked my interest. I think I will probably buy this whenever it's released, and give it a good shot.

[Fozzik]

So I finally took some time to look up this game. There are lots of movies on youtube of it, actual gameplay.

It looks really good. It doesn't look very MMO'ish, the movies are all of people running around soloing. No doubt there is mmoish stuff and teamplay, and I'm keen to see that. The solo stuff all looked quite good though.

I'm so super picky about games, but this one really has peaked my interest. I think I will probably buy this whenever it's released, and give it a good shot.

The group content takes a couple of forms:

-public quests. All of the dynamic events are public quests in the persistent world, and they constitute the primary advancement through the game. They are focusing on players actually interacting in combat against PvE content, cooperating to create new abilities. They are also creating a system where players are happy to see more players show up...because more players mean more exciting events, more interesting mob abilities, and better rewards.

-instanced dungeons. These have not been shown yet, but there are going to be 5 man instances, and I believe they will be able to be taken on at different difficulty levels.

-personal story... other players can join you in your personal story instance in your home city, and either watch the story unfold for you, or help out. You can even choose to combine personal stories with another player if they are at the same point, and progress together.

[mmorpeegee]

Cool thanks. It sounds really nice.

I would much prefer an EQ type game, this looks pretty WoWish, but it looks like they do it well enough for it to be really fun. I will give it a go for sure. I also need to read up on that FFXIIIIII game, and Rift. I saw all three of them on IGN so I figured they are getting to a pretty ripe stage and it's worth me reading about them now.

Ignoring games until they are nearly done has served me well recently! I ignored APB until the last minute and then you guys told me it was pretty crappy. A month later it was shut down lol. Sad actually, but nothing new. Hopefully these 3 games will have a better fate.

[mmorpeegee]

I want this game!

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-04-14-guild-wars-2-how-to-make-mmos-better-interview

Like I said above, I'm not too big on button bashing action games, but this looks particularly good. I also like that they are very creative. They talk about just getting rid of the holy trinity problem by getting rid of those roles, and also getting rid of quests too. I like the idea of a fresh approach, so much that I will probably buy this when it's released, unless the early reviews say it's terrible or something.

[mmorpeegee]

Some new info:
http://www.joystiq.com/2011/08/27/guild-wars-2-preview-common-sense/


It sounds really promising, although I didn't like this preview. Some of the features he talks about have already been in games before, like the mentor thing and stuff. And a lot of the questions he asks are pretty stupid because he doesn't stop to think of the answer for himself. For example he says, "Why do other MMOs require you to stand still to use most of your character's abilities?" as though it's some kind of OH YEAH! thing, but that's not really it. Most of these conventions are there because they are just a good or the best way of doing things. I'm dying for a game to come up with a new approach, but this just isn't really what I had in mind.

To me the answer to his question, is that these good ole mmo'RPG's are based on thoughtful tactical combat that you have to think about and you are reacting to things happening around you. Cleric gets aggro so you help by rooting the mob or fearing it or whatever. It's clever combat involving a lot of thought, and their way isn't necessarily better, it's just different. Their way is to make it play like a typical action game. I've been battling people and double tapping keys to dive out the way of attacks in games like Unreal Tournament for many years. It's not as genius as he makes out, he's just talking about a determined twitchy action based MMO rather than the usual thought based ones. I want new approaches to a lot of stuff, but this just isn't one of the things I wanted to change. The same goes for a lot of what he said.

But still, I would really like to play it for myself and see how it is when I see everything as a whole. What says you?

[Fozzik]

I think there's more to the combat that just strictly a twitch action style. There will be movement, but I actually believe it's going to be more tactical and challenging than "traditional" MMORPG combat, not less.

The concepts of controlling ground, the lack of tightly-defined roles, and being able to dodge attacks are all going to provide a lot more variety. One of the things that bugs me most about combat in the traditional MMORPG is that once you figure out your skills, you basically do the exact...same...thing...every...fight. Considering a significant portion of these games revolves around fighting...it's really pretty lame to never run into new situations unless:

1) Something goes wrong

2) It's a boss fight

ArenaNet has described their driving philosophy behind the combat as one where they want the feel of ALL combat to be more similar to those "Oh, Shit!" moments in previous MMORPGs...where something goes wrong and suddenly everyone has to adapt, start breaking out some utility, working together in unconventional ways...that sort of thing.

They want players moving, reacting, changing the abilities and tactics they use not only fight to fight, but within a single fight. The concept sounds really good to me...and the idea of controlling ground and blocking space really appeals to me (my first character is almost definitely going to be a guardian). Actually blocking ranged attacks from hitting people by putting up walls or getting in the way = awesome.

Also, discovering and making use of cross-profession combos just sounds like a really good time to me. I can't wait to play with that.

[ForestWhitakerEye]

Wow Fozzik, I never knew you were such a skeptic at first. By the time I met you I think you were already looking forward to it.

For me, as soon as I saw the Manifesto trailer I was excited about it but also cautious because of other games with slick trailers. The more I read though the more they kept impressing me. I still consider myself cautiously optimistic. There aren't any red flags I can see, but until it's released (or open beta) we don't really know for sure.

[Fozzik]

I've been burned one too many times, and the genre over the last 6-7 years has turned me into a hard-line skeptic...A Don Quixote tilting at the windmills of what the genre could have been or should be. I'm as "old school" as they come.

Looking at Guild Wars 2 with fresh eyes wasn't easy for me. On the surface, it has all the accessibility, casual focus, and mass-market-appeal that I've come to expect as the primary thrust of modern MMORPGs. There's nothing wrong with accessibility in and of itself...I think it's really important... but in the modern genre those elements tend to mean the game is extremely shallow and formulaic underneath.

It took some time for me to not only learn enough about the game, and about the way ArenaNet is handling things, but also to open my mind to a radically different approach. The more I learned and saw, the more I started to develop the ideas about the game really being a spiritual successor to the early games in the genre... offering innovative new systems that solved some of the oldest problems in new ways...while bringing back some of the realy significant things that have been missing.

No matter how it sounds, I'm really pretty detached. I wouldn't be nearly as crushed if GW2 turned out badly as I was with what happened with Vanguard...I've sort of insulated myself from that kind of attachment. With that said, the game does look good, and I think it's going to finally shift the genre away from the WoW formula and in a better direction.

I came to a bit of a revelation (at least personally) the other day when I was having a conversation over on the MMORPG forums... someone brought up the fact that they didn't think of GW2 as a spiritual successor to EQ, but instead as a spiritual successor to Asheron's Call. This got me to thinking... I look at GW2 through the eyes of a long-time EQ player. I'm someone who saw the really fundamentally good things about the original vision for EQ... without ignoring the bad parts and mistakes that were made in EQ's design.

But what I realized is that EQ wasn't unique in those early days of the genre...there were other games that included many of the same fundamentals and despite being designed very differently, all sort of sprang from the same long heritage of tabletop RPGs and MUDs.

Someone else who played a different game in the pre-WoW genre could see those same, vital elements in their game...the ones that have been missing for so long. And that's when I realized the fundamental mistake that a lot of developers have been making (IMHO) in the years since WoW became a massive success.

The problem is that they are trying to duplicate WoW's success by LOOKING AT WOW. This is exactly why none of them succeed...they are attempting to copy WoW's systems directly into their game piecemeal...trying to follow some formula tightly defined by conventional wisdom - but it's conventional wisdom that all developed in the post-WoW era.

The reason why that doesn't work is simple. When Blizzard designed their massively successful game, they did it in the pre-WoW genre. They weren't looking at WoW...they were looking at EQ, and UO, and AC, and DAOC...and any number of other games which early on contained those vital fundamentals that make these games great.

In at least some sense, this is why I think GW2 has a chance at being the first truly great MMORPG in a LONG time. It's clear from their design and their philosophy that they get it...they've realized that in order to make a new and truly better MMORPG, they've got to go back to the beginning. They've got to see past the massive mental block called WoW which has had its boot on the genre's neck for years. ArenaNet is looking at ALL of those early games...really taking the time to understand what makes them tick, and why players had such meaningful, memorable experiences.

So, sorry for the novel... but my point is that I turned around on GW2 because even though on the surface it it looks like it might be yet another example of the failed conventional wisdom post-WoW, it is definitely NOT that when you look below the surface.

[mmorpeegee]

Same, I was burned bad by EQ2 because I (naive in my young years) expected it to be a fantastic sequel to the original. I pretty much hated what they delivered. And then there have been others like Shadowbane and games that didn't even make it to release like Dark & Light and Horizons and stuff. And of course the big one... Vanguard :cry:

So yeah I can't get too excited about a new MMO now. But I do really want to try it for myself so I know whether they pulled it off or not. The changes to the genre are what excites me the most. It could go either way though because I hated the hack n slashy nature of AoC so I just hope it doesn't play like that, but if it's good and exciting and manages to stay deep too, then it could be just what my doctor ordered. For now, this game excites me more than any other on the horizon, including ArcheAge.

[mmorpeegee]

http://www.pcgamer.com/previews/guild-wars-2-preview-4/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkErycB4Ahg

[Loampounder]

Rather than rule breaking, if you put on your PR glasses, that narration sounds a lot like Rifts, especially:

You’ll realise that the objectives popping up in the top-right of the screen aren’t quests you’ve accepted but dynamic events occurring in the world around you. Then you’ll realise that the marker above an NPC isn’t an indicator that he’s got a shopping list, but a simple way of drawing attention towards a particular place where something cool is going to happen.

Maybe I am just jaded on pre-release hype.

[AsheMan]

Maybe I am just jaded on pre-release hype.I know I am! And yes, it sounds like Rifts/Public Quests.

[Fozzik]

Rather than rule breaking, if you put on your PR glasses, that narration sounds a lot like Rifts, especially:



Maybe I am just jaded on pre-release hype.

The quote is actually somewhat misleading...the idea they are trying to convey is a bit too complex for a single sentence. If you aren't interested in delving into the gory details, you'll just have to take my word for the fact that Dynamic events in GW2 are VERY different from public quests in Rift or WAR. At the most basic level, it's important to note that GW2 doesn't just add dynamic events tacked on to the side of the same old task grind...the dynamic events actually completely replace quests as the open world content in the game.

As far as I know, the NPCs with symbols over their heads are -

Merchants
NPCs that are part of your personal story
Scouts - which were put in place to help people who are used to more directed play...they provide you with points of interest in the local area where action might be taking place.


For all the open world content, you don't have to accept a quest, or turn in a quest, period. Events just happen on their own...and just by entering the area the objectives will be added to your tracker and you can start taking part (regardless of how far along the event has progressed). The events will scale as more players show up, so that the level of challenge is maintained, and will likewise scale down if someone wanders off or logs out. Instead of reading a story in quest text and killing some rats that respawn right afterwards, the story will be playing out in front of you, and your actions (or inaction) will have a persistent and noticeable effect on the world.

At least in the case of GW2, I was quite shocked to find that much of what they are / have been saying does not appear to just be PR hype.

[Loampounder]

... you'll just have to take my word for the fact that Dynamic events in GW2 are VERY different from public quests in Rift or WAR.
...

For all the open world content, you don't have to accept a quest, or turn in a quest, period. Events just happen on their own...and just by entering the area the objectives will be added to your tracker and you can start taking part (regardless of how far along the event has progressed). ... Instead of reading a story in quest text and killing some rats that respawn right afterwards, the story will be playing out in front of you, and your actions (or inaction) will have a persistent and noticeable effect on the world.


But the second part of the quote describes Rifts dynamic events pretty well.

Mainly, I am not saying that the GW2 dynamic contents are just like Rift's dynamic content, only that the hype of being "different" and "dynamic" sound the same. The Rifts dynamic content idea was (and I think still is) great but is not the game changer it was portrayed to be. It was interesting but was not the cement to hold players to the game. Is GW2's material just interesting or will it change how we play online games and keep players interested for more than a month or two?

[Fozzik]

Like I said... unless you really want to learn the differences, just take my word for it, or I guess if you don't trust me, just wait and see. ;)

It's night and day between Rift and GW2. I understand that on the surface, what the two companies are SAYING sounds very similar. The difference is in the games themselves, and how they compare to the PR.

One game is the absolute epitome of the WoW-formula, as small and shallow and retreaded as can be, and was hyped to high heaven with the most exaggerated and cleverly worded PR.

The other game is going to be very close to everything they say it's going to be. Crazy to think about, I know...it's even crazier for someone as jaded and old-school as me to be saying it...but I'm not just guessing here. I've seen the light, so to speak.

If reading this thread tells you nothing else, you should be able to clearly see that I was truly a skeptic and have been turned around 180 degrees. I've been blown off my feet multiple times as I delved more deeply into what they are doing with this game, and as I began to understand the ramifications.

When they "hype" GW2...the systems, mechanics, art, tech, and everything else actually back up what they say, and they haven't been shy about being very specific and providing examples - letting players actually play the things they talk about. This game is the real deal. If all my experience in this genre and my gut haven't failed me, it's going to be big.

[mmorpeegee]

I quite enjoyed Rift, but really the rifts was just a little gimmick. At first they seemed like a nice bit of variety to break up the quest grind, but ultimately you realise that they are nothing more than little loot piñatas that pop out the ground occasionally. I would have much preferred to just have a bunch of extra dungeons instead.

But the technical aspect of it was really impressive. Can you remember way back in Vanguard beta when they talked about their Advanced Encounter System? To me, Rift was Vanguard 2.0 in almost every respect, the combat felt almost identical and worked in almost the exact same way, building up combo points instead of phenomena / jin points or whatever, and the rifts was just them taking the "AAS" idea and running with it a bit and making it more of an integral part of the game, rather than something that occasionally happens in a dungeon. But really it wasn't taken very far. It's cool that you can have what is basically as mini instance that appears out of the ground and you can step in to it, and it's all totally seamless. Technically impressive, but it was just a shame that what actually appears in that mini instance was just a bunch of duh mobs that wait to get picked off one by one.

But still, it was better than nothing right? And with GW2 I am guessing they take that technology to the next level and have all kinds of events happening in the world and scripted encounters. I don't know all the details on GW2, I just know that every time I have read about this game, I am struck by just how pro this team sounds. I am totally jaded too, but every MMO you read of is the exact same thing, even SWTOR, you go to a quest hub and fill up your journal, you go grind through them and then click LFG for the group quests, and then it's on to the next quest hub etc.. I am so freakin bored of the same routine. But with GW2 they are at least trying to change everything. They have questioned literally everything and come up with new approaches to everything and I gotta get excited about that. Like when I start reading and they talk about getting rid of the holy trinity, and I'm thinking yeah right.... suuuure you are, like that hasn't been attempted 50 times before. But then they say that they are doing it by having no healers and no dps and no tanks, you all just do everything yourselves, so everyone has to be active and it doesn't all fall on one person to heal etc. Maybe that will end up being boring, or maybe it will just be really noobified and having no tank/heal/dps/cc dynamic just means everyone stands around spamming their skillz and holding their thing. But maybe it will be good! And then I read about the grouping thing, how you can just solo anything you want and if someone wants to join you, they can. There is no XP penalty, and you don't need to lock or unlock the encounters etc, it just lets you both fight together and then you get increased rewards, and more people can join. Unlike Rift, they aren't just trying to provide WoW (or Vanguard) all over again but with more polish and a few twists, they are instead changing even basics like grouping and archetypes etc.

It might come back to bite me, but I just get the impression that the team is really talented. I never wanted to like the game because GW1 looked crap to me, but I can't help but be impressed. They seem smart and they are trying all kinds of new ideas. Maybe some stuff will be gimmicky, some stuff will be only a slight improvement on what went before, but I really want to see! And with a bit of luck we will finally get a game that hit the ball out the park. After all these failures and lame sorta-successes, there has to eventually be a game to really nail it right? It's statistics! Even if only 1% of MMORPG's is really good, we must be near 100 MMORPG's by now? Lol.

[Fozzik]

I'm still debating whether I want to create a huge wall of text to try and describe everything I've learned and seen about dynamic events in GW2 that makes me feel they are different.

In the meantime, someone else did an awesome job of laying down some of the high level design philosophy changes that GW2 is setting out to offer...

Definitely worth the read for anyone who feels the game sounds like Rift -
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/336987/The-Tao-of-Arenanet.html

[mmorpeegee]

Sounds amazing. It sounds to me like they are trying to make a proper online gaming experience. The instant travel and PVP lobby and stuff, sounds like it might not be the kind of game that appeals to someone who 'only' wants that immersive virtual world experience. But unlike all the other modern MMO's which are kind of half games half virtual worlds, this one is going full steam ahead as a pure game, and therefore (hopefully) going to hook us with pure quality gameplay.

I imagine doing a bit of questing and running around with my buddies, and then breaking it up by doing some PVP action which feels almost like joining an FPS server, only it's all part of the same game.

That is one thing that bugged me in WoW, is that I didn't really enjoy the PVE very much, and the PVP seemed very promising with those huge battlegrounds and arena matches and stuff. But it was so poorly balanced because it was trying to throw PVE balanced classes in to a PVP game and hope for the best and it didn't really work very well (from my perspective at least). But this game is built from the ground up with all this in mind. PVP fights are going to be more evenly matched and it's more about your skill than anything else.

It's a proper... game. Like the good ole days :P Only with massive scope because it's a proper PVP game mixed with a proper PVE experience, and hopefully both parts done well.

[Fozzik]

Sounds amazing. It sounds to me like they are trying to make a proper online gaming experience. The instant travel and PVP lobby and stuff, sounds like it might not be the kind of game that appeals to someone who 'only' wants that immersive virtual world experience. But unlike all the other modern MMO's which are kind of half games half virtual worlds, this one is going full steam ahead as a pure game, and therefore (hopefully) going to hook us with pure quality gameplay.


I definitely agree that they are focusing on making the game play fun and interesting on a fundamental level, and making it really social rather than just parallel solo play. But at the same time, I do feel they are also building a pretty immersive world that will support suspension of disbelief and roleplay in ways that we don't see often in this genre. Sure, there's fast travel...but you don't HAVE to use it...it's just there for when you want to get to your friends quick or sell at the end of the night without the 10 minute hike.

They also offer a huge array of town clothes (with their own pane in the character window so you can switch outfits with a single button), a massive amount of armor dyes and ways to customize your look, they have mini-games and tons of voice acting and life in the cities. They provide the personal story that starts in character creation and provides permanent evidence of your choices / achievements in your personal area and journal. There are languages to learn, and your choices in conversations will change your character's personality...and change the way NPCs react to you (always answer in gruff ways, you become a tough guy and kids run away from you in towns).

Anyway...I think the game's going to be the total package. Not only providing some substantial differences from previous MMORPGs, but also providing some serious new meat in long-neglected aspects of the genre.

[mmorpeegee]

Wow didn't realise all that.

[ForestWhitakerEye]

I'm still debating whether I want to create a huge wall of text to try and describe everything I've learned and seen about dynamic events in GW2 that makes me feel they are different.

Don't worry Fozzik, I got this.

What makes Dynamic Events different can really be summed up in one word, "Cooperative." I bet you thought I was going to say "Dynamic", but to me, that's one of their less compelling features.

To me, Rift has a bunch of problems, such as lack of variety of rifts or that you're still competing with other players for contribution. To me, the biggest problem with rifts is that the focus is wrong. It's set up like you're "saving the world" from these rifts and invasions but you can't. You can't win. Save a town, it'll be taken over again 10 minutes later. It's a terrible reason to want to do something in the open world, and for that reason it gets boring quickly.

I don't think the problem with MMO questing is that it's not dynamic. For instance, if you go to the corner of the map and kill the harpies, smash their eggs, and rescue the prisoner, it really doesn't matter if it resets 5 minutes later as long as you're gone and don't come back. In your mind, at least to some degree of suspension of disbelief, you saved the day.

The real problem with quests is that they're isolating. You have to be on the same stage as someone else in order to do them. You compete with people you're not grouped with for spawns and ground items. If you do group up, it trivializes it because it doesn't scale.

The way to think about GW2's dynamic events is that it's like a whole world of truly cooperative quests. You go to an area and something is happening that everybody can take part in. You don't have to group, there's no xp halving or mob tagging. It scales up in difficulty with more people so it's always challenging. They chain together on success or failure, and yes that's dynamic and immersive, but to me the more important part of it is that it keeps people working together longer so they're more likely to start talking. Traditional quests or dungeons, you group up for as long as you need and then immediately leave. With GW2, because everyone gets full XP and loot for killing mobs, there's an incentive to stay with people because you're killing faster.

That's really what GW2 is about and why it's different. They want you to WANT to see other people in the open world. There's things like cross profession combos and anybody rezzing anybody which also supports this philosophy. There aren't any factions dividing the playerbase. The game automentors people down when doing lower level content so you can always play with friends regardless of level. DEs are actually designed to be as griefless as possible. Even things like gathering nodes let everyone get a hit on them. There's really no competition anywhere in the PVE world. They want you to play WITH people, not just NEAR them.

Forget dynamism, it's a great bonus which helps immersion and replayability, but it's just that, a bonus. Trying to make a fully cooperative, social, griefless PVE world is why people should be excited about GW2's dynamic events.

[mmorpeegee]

It all sounds awesome, although there are some obvious questions raised by their solutions too. I reckon overall it will be for the best though, but the obvious questions that come to mind are:

If everything scales up and down, will it harm your sense of advancement in the world? Just like how everyone got annoyed at Oblivion because you end up level 90 and some random passing wolf would kick your ass because it is now level 90 too. In GW2 I imagine you could be high level and really powerful but you go to help a low level friend kill some bats and now you are gimped down to the level of the bats, etc.

As for the everyone gets loot thing, the obvious concern with that is that the world is going to be inundated with cheap loot, like WoW and Vanguard etc. There wont be much (or any?) rare and special items, because even the biggest baddest boss mobs, you kill it with a group and everyone in the group gets the item. The whole thing in Everquest about "rare" loots and rare drops and annoying placeholders etc.. although it was annoying and time consuming, it meant getting an item like a FBSS was a huge deal. It made peoples day! But loot in modern mmo's is so common and regular, it becomes almost pointless. The reason we all remember the Short Sword of the Ykesha, is because it only dropped about once a day, so it was special. People would say, Hey did you hear?! Tommy got a yak today!! But if every group going through there who killed the mob, 6 yaks dropped, it ceases to be interesting.

Then you have got the anti-archetype system. Without the whole thing of people having roles to play, it makes me wonder if it's going to be dumbed down and too easy to actually play. The old way had its issues too, but at least in the tougher games like early EQ, tanks were on the edge of their seats trying to aggro all the mobs in sight so nobody got killed, healers were on the edge of their seat watching the health bars, and dps were frantically trying to smack down creatures before the group ran out of steam - and they were trying to do that without causing too much aggro and blowing all their mana too. But in GW2 if everyone can do everything and nobody has to save each other or perform any specific roles, then it makes me wonder if most fights are just going to be nothing more than spamming your best "win each fight" routine while holding your thing.

As for the thing about 'everyone who contributes to the fight gets something', is that based on damage dealt or what? If not then whats to stop people slacking off and doing 1% damage to a mob and getting the same loot as the guy who has been fighting away from start to finish? And if it is based on damage, then will that not take in to account someone who might be doing all kinds of crowd control type stuff, distracting mobs etc.. will they get less reward than the guy who just stood toe to toe doing the dps? And again, can you even do crowd control type stuff? Or is there no need for anything like that, and instead everyone just stands toe to toe and taps out their kill routine.


All just thoughts anyway. But like I tried to say above, I have doubts but I can easily give them the benefit of the doubt on this one. Unlike most other MMO's, this just looks like an A+ Team of people who really know their stuff. Hope they don't make me eat my words, but I'm pretty confident based on what I've read. Some of the stuff mentioned in these articles I've seen before and I know it works well. The "horizontal advancement" thing for example, that is pretty much how Shards of Dalaya works, and that to date is probably my favourite MMO. Anyone can make max level in about a month, but I played it around 3 or 4 years, because max level is kind of where the game starts. Same goes for the whole e-sports thing. Before MMORPG's even existed as they do today, I used to play Quake online on my 33.6 modem, and it was amazing, and that was pretty much played like an e-sport. It was all about the leaderboards, but it was so fun to play, it didn't matter whether you won or lost anyway. I ALMOST got the same feel from WoW's battlegrounds, but I felt like it *just* fell short, because there were not enough of them when I played (there was about 5 I think), and because they often weren't really fun enough. For example often I would just be stood around for 20 minutes defending a flag or whatever, and there wasn't much action - unlike my old Quake games which were constant mayhem. I think with GW2 they might actually nail the PVP and make it fun like an FPS without being too serious and hopefully not too grindy.

[Fozzik]

Those are all very valid concerns, and I share them to some extent.

It's certainly not going to be the perfect game by any stretch. What really fires me up is finally seeing a design philosophy closer to what I enjoy...and a team that appear to have the chops to really implement a solid and innovative game on top of their philosophy. It will definitely have it's issues and areas that could be improved, and it will also have things that I just don't prefer or enjoy. We all have to recognize that unless we want to make a game ourselves, we're never going to get exactly what we want. :D

In terms of the "contribution" thing...it is based on some minimum threshold of damage or healing or whatever. ArenaNet has said they are still working on what that minimum threshold should be, as part of the overall game balance. I'm guessing they will set the contribution bar high enough so that people won't be able to tag a bunch of mobs and then just slack off.

Great way to look at things, Forest. After trying to duo in SW:TOR with my wife...and our long-time solo adventures in WoW...I can definitely say I see the real benefits of what GW2 is doing. I'm going to REALLY enjoy being able to play with my friends any time I want with little or no overhead, and without worrying about outleveling them, or playing the wrong class or race, or wandering to far afield when exploring.

[ForestWhitakerEye]

It all sounds awesome, although there are some obvious questions raised by their solutions too. I reckon overall it will be for the best though, but the obvious questions that come to mind are:

If everything scales up and down, will it harm your sense of advancement in the world? Just like how everyone got annoyed at Oblivion because you end up level 90 and some random passing wolf would kick your ass because it is now level 90 too. In GW2 I imagine you could be high level and really powerful but you go to help a low level friend kill some bats and now you are gimped down to the level of the bats, etc.

As for the everyone gets loot thing, the obvious concern with that is that the world is going to be inundated with cheap loot, like WoW and Vanguard etc. There wont be much (or any?) rare and special items, because even the biggest baddest boss mobs, you kill it with a group and everyone in the group gets the item. The whole thing in Everquest about "rare" loots and rare drops and annoying placeholders etc.. although it was annoying and time consuming, it meant getting an item like a FBSS was a huge deal. It made peoples day! But loot in modern mmo's is so common and regular, it becomes almost pointless. The reason we all remember the Short Sword of the Ykesha, is because it only dropped about once a day, so it was special. People would say, Hey did you hear?! Tommy got a yak today!! But if every group going through there who killed the mob, 6 yaks dropped, it ceases to be interesting.

Then you have got the anti-archetype system. Without the whole thing of people having roles to play, it makes me wonder if it's going to be dumbed down and too easy to actually play. The old way had its issues too, but at least in the tougher games like early EQ, tanks were on the edge of their seats trying to aggro all the mobs in sight so nobody got killed, healers were on the edge of their seat watching the health bars, and dps were frantically trying to smack down creatures before the group ran out of steam - and they were trying to do that without causing too much aggro and blowing all their mana too. But in GW2 if everyone can do everything and nobody has to save each other or perform any specific roles, then it makes me wonder if most fights are just going to be nothing more than spamming your best "win each fight" routine while holding your thing.

As for the thing about 'everyone who contributes to the fight gets something', is that based on damage dealt or what? If not then whats to stop people slacking off and doing 1% damage to a mob and getting the same loot as the guy who has been fighting away from start to finish? And if it is based on damage, then will that not take in to account someone who might be doing all kinds of crowd control type stuff, distracting mobs etc.. will they get less reward than the guy who just stood toe to toe doing the dps? And again, can you even do crowd control type stuff? Or is there no need for anything like that, and instead everyone just stands toe to toe and taps out their kill routine.


All just thoughts anyway. But like I tried to say above, I have doubts but I can easily give them the benefit of the doubt on this one. Unlike most other MMO's, this just looks like an A+ Team of people who really know their stuff. Hope they don't make me eat my words, but I'm pretty confident based on what I've read. Some of the stuff mentioned in these articles I've seen before and I know it works well. The "horizontal advancement" thing for example, that is pretty much how Shards of Dalaya works, and that to date is probably my favourite MMO. Anyone can make max level in about a month, but I played it around 3 or 4 years, because max level is kind of where the game starts. Same goes for the whole e-sports thing. Before MMORPG's even existed as they do today, I used to play Quake online on my 33.6 modem, and it was amazing, and that was pretty much played like an e-sport. It was all about the leaderboards, but it was so fun to play, it didn't matter whether you won or lost anyway. I ALMOST got the same feel from WoW's battlegrounds, but I felt like it *just* fell short, because there were not enough of them when I played (there was about 5 I think), and because they often weren't really fun enough. For example often I would just be stood around for 20 minutes defending a flag or whatever, and there wasn't much action - unlike my old Quake games which were constant mayhem. I think with GW2 they might actually nail the PVP and make it fun like an FPS without being too serious and hopefully not too grindy.

The difference between GW2 and Oblivion is that you don't automatically scale up. There's still progression in the world as you go from someone who hasn't really even ever left the city before to someone who is going to help take down elder dragons. Zones are nonlinear in that you can do DEs in whatever order you come across them, but zones have a level range and even DEs themselves have a level associated with them. If you want a challenge, you can always try to do ones that are slightly higher level.

The game doesn't automatically scale you up, but you can manually sidekick to another player if you want to do higher level content with them.

The game does automentor you down but you'll still be strong for the content. The example they give is if you do a level 5 DE, you'll be the equivalent of a level 8. Still strong, but they had to eliminate players' ability to 1-shot everything in order to make the environment griefless.


As far as loot goes, everyone gets full looting rights, but the loot isn't the same. As far as I know, you don't even see what other people got. DEs don't give specific rewards because they don't want people to feel they need to do particular ones, but enemies themselves might drop rare loot.


With archetypes, it's not that there won't still be roles. Each player only has a limited skillbar. If you take a weapon or utility skill which focuses on one element, like control, then that means you're not taking a damaging or supporting weapon or skill.

The way I try to look at it, especially with dungeons, is that you can bring any 5 classes to the dungeon, but it will be up to the players to combine their collection of skills in some way which will allow them to beat an encounter.

Instead of healing, the game focuses more on proactive defense, such as barriers or knockdowns in order to prevent the damage from taking place.

Aggro is handled differently than a traditional game as well. It might be based on several factors, but one of the chief ones is proximity. The mob is inclined toward attacking the closest person to it. This allows people to use their control skills, dodge, and self heal, but they can't do it all because of cooldowns. They might need to back out for a bit and let someone else take over. It's more fluid, and it doesn't mean people have to specialize. A tactic might involve seeing that your primary controller is in trouble, and then using that utility skill to immobilize the mob, or swapping to a warhorn to give the party swiftness so someone can kite for a bit. One guy who has done the very hard (3 hour wipefest) explorable mode dungeon with a balanced group said he was sure that they could have done it with 5 thieves, it just would have taken totally different strategies.


With the threshold, as far as we know it's 5% to get credit for helping to kill a mob, subject to change. One thing to consider though is that there's a participation reward for how much you contributed to the DE. So if you slack and just try to get credit for each mob and that's it, you might get less of an overall reward. It also seems like people would be better off focus firing mobs, killing them more quickly and respawning more mobs. Or better still, to get a group of 10 people setting up AOE kills. Seems like what starts off as mooching might easily become good teamwork, lol. Though keep in mind that even though someone mooching off you doesn't hurt you (you get your own xp), there is also instant teleportation, automentoring and nonlinearity. If you don't like the way someone else is playing, you can leave and find a lot of other hunting grounds.

[AsheMan]

Instead of healing, the game focuses more on proactive defense, such as barriers or knockdowns in order to prevent the damage from taking place.

I really like the sound of that. I played a Shaman in Everquest, and his greatest mechanic was simply slowing the enemy so they did far less damage! I can't believe mechanics like "slow" were abandoned with the modern MMOs.

[perfect]

...someone brought up the fact that they didn't think of GW2 as a spiritual successor to EQ, but instead as a spiritual successor to Asheron's Call....

And I'm looking at it as a spiritual successor to DAoC because I'm focused on the PvP (WvWvW) aspect of GW2.

Three realms. Both DAoC and GW2.

Siege equipment. Both DAoC and GW2.

Resource captures. DAoC had towers that reduced the effectiveness of the keeps, GW2 has points (lumber mills, etc) that can be used for and against your enemy.

Ability for large zergs and small elite groups to be productive in PvP. Zergs to meet enemy zerg or take large objectives, groups to harass supply lines and hinder reinforcements of the large objectives in both DAoC and GW2.

Story above rewards for quests. No one in DAoC did quests for loot. If they did them at all, it was for story.

I'm really looking forward to the WvWvW side of GW2. I played EQ for many years and can not see how GW2 is the spiritual successor to EQ. I see it for DAoC.

...games that didn't even make it to release like Dark & Light....

<narrows eyes>

I was one of the suckers who bought Dark and Light when it released. It was out for right around two years of live play.

Unless it was a dream. Tell me it was a nightmare and that I didn't play it. Also, tell me that I didn't spend a LOT of time with Auto Assault and Matrix Online. Thanks.

[mmorpeegee]

Hey thanks for all the info Forest. Sounds good. It's getting harder to stay cool about this game, I'm desperately trying to repress my inner child who keeps shouting zomg let me play it noooowowowowow!!!

<narrows eyes>

I was one of the suckers who bought Dark and Light when it released. It was out for right around two years of live play.

Unless it was a dream. Tell me it was a nightmare and that I didn't play it. Also, tell me that I didn't spend a LOT of time with Auto Assault and Matrix Online. Thanks.
Wow I never realised that game released! I can't actually remember much about it, I just remember waaaaay back, I saw a movie of a character who sat on his shield and slid down a hill on it! Mind was totally blown. But then later on I heard that the game was going to release with lots of features missing, so most likely it did release but I just said, "No shield slidey fun = you are dead to me!" I am forgiving like that.

Matrix, kinda the same story. There has been a lot of these kinds of games when I think back. Amazing how many have flopped, soooo many millions down the pipes :/