[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]

Originally Posted by Fozzik

(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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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/20...tter-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/gu...-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

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]

Originally Posted by Loampounder

Maybe I am just jaded on pre-release hype.

I know I am! And yes, it sounds like Rifts/Public Quests.

[Fozzik]

Originally Posted by Loampounder

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]

Originally Posted by Fozzik

... 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.