| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (20)

Posted: May 20th 2010 5:02PM Bhima said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The Karma system sounds similar to the badge system in WoW, but the semantics make more sense that you gain influence instead of monsters carrying around a jar full of Frost emblems. It seems like the system combines the public event system of WAR, which feels much more seemless then just warping into a dungeon and combines it with the emblem system from WoW but actually puts the reward system into the context of the game. I like it.

Posted: May 21st 2010 12:36PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Photics, you keep talking about how you don't like the lore because of the false gods. But even Lord of the Rings, a decidedly Christian work has many gods. First there is Eru Iluvatar (refered to as The One in LotR and The Silmarillion) who created Middle Earth and everything else. And then there are the Valar, which were ascended beings who acted as gods with a specific role, similar to the gods in Guild Wars 1, and one of these actually went on to become the first Dark Lord, Morgoth, who actually tricked Eru Iluvatar at one point in time, and these were definitely not angels, having once been mortal. And then there are the Maiar, which are descended spirits whose powers were tied to, and in some case rival those of the Valar, most of these are wizards, like Gandalf, others were corrupted by Morgoth into balrogs, and yet another one is the second Dark Lord Sauron.

Now, the ancient dragons in Guild Wars 2 are said to possibly even be older than the 6 gods, I would link them to the Maiar from LotR, the 6 gods I would link to the Valar, not having created Tyria but having shaped it, and there is probably another creative force somewhere that would be synonymous with God.

Really this is just LotR's lore with a lot more magic, we're even fighting a dragon (Maiar) named Zhaitan (Sauron).

And as far as the 2008 beta, if their comments are to be believed they could have released a beta in 2008 as they claim to have been playing the game themselves at that point, just by the time got around they decided that the market preferred betas to be close to release at the end of the development cycle, creating an experience more akin to the actual release.
Reply

Posted: May 21st 2010 12:39PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
um, that went in the wrong place, it should be below the whole thing.
Reply

Posted: May 21st 2010 6:37PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
♥♥♥ um, that went in
♥♥♥ the wrong place,
♥♥♥ it should be below
♥♥♥ the whole thing.

Ha ha, that's right... my posts are down the page, where I'm fighting for the light-gray team.
Reply

Posted: May 20th 2010 6:59PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This all sounds great and interesting, but how will there be a "central" storyline with this system?

Posted: May 20th 2010 9:50PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The storyline is separate from dynamic events. The events occur in the persistent shared part of the game. Your personal story happens in instanced missions (well, something like missions, they haven't really given more details).
Reply

Posted: May 20th 2010 11:20PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Instancing, like he said ^_^
Reply

Posted: May 21st 2010 7:33AM (Unverified) said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Storyline don't work in MMORPGs. Why do these silly developers keep trying? It is not in the nature of the genre, it ceases to be a MMORPG otherwise. It becomes a glorified single player experience.

Developer: Okay! This is exciting! You can do things that affect the game!
Player: Really?! So players are actually considered in a game that was made for them?! Can I really change the story?
Developer: Well... Not the story... We decide that... Because game developers are on par with novalists and film writers/directors in terms of storytelling!
Player: Really? I didn't know that... I thought games were different then set storylines from film or books... Well, at least I have real motive to stop these monsters, they could really do some damage outside of the story!
Developer: Oh no, the monsters just become a minor annoyance, they cannot get out of hand. If they do too much, they will hurt the other players and it will just become annoying!
Player: So a game cannot be created where the player can enjoy the game even though their alliance are losing in a situation... Nor can you create a system where the monster could become a major enemy and the game could change itself based on that fact?
Developer: No way! We're too busy coming up with a storyline! We might even get a motion picture deal through this! Anyway, inventing new creative mechanics is WAY WAY WAY beyond us! INCOMING, here comes our epic single player experience! Oh wait... at least in single player games you can affect the story, oh well! Our story is going to be EPIC!!!11
Reply

Posted: May 21st 2010 11:29AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Personally, I liked that GW1 had story lines. Even though you didn't have an impact on the story or its progression, it was still vastly more engaging than the walls of text attached to quests that other MMOs use to tell players about their game-worlds.
Reply

Posted: May 20th 2010 7:07PM (Unverified) said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
I'm still skeptical, as I still remember...

50 vs 50 battles for the original...
Beta second half of 2008...
...and "Coming in 2004" at the end of the E3 2003 promotional video.

(Since I was actually playing Guild Wars in 2004, I don't know if that last one should count. HA!)

Anyway, this reminds me of Dark Age of Camelot. I remember fighting with a large group of people. I think it was before they changed the way EXP worked. It was a lot of fun... for everyone except me. See, I was the high level Paladin in the group. I was working hard while everyone else in the group was coasting. I was getting lousy exp while other people were flying up in levels. Relic battles also worked in a similar way. Someone usually ended up doing more of the work, like spending gold on siege weapons and organizing the raids. Even if you did nothing, you would get the same realm bonus.

That's what I see here.

Here's another story... in Brooklyn, we used to play the latest video games at our local deli. I wandered in to see one of my friends playing a new game. He spent a lot of money to get to the end, but then he ran out of quarters just at the last boss. I pop in, spent a few quarters and beat the game. He was quite annoyed with me. (I think the game was King of Monsters, but it was so long ago that I don't remember exactly.)

The point is that socialism doesn't work. If players feel like their hard work means nothing, then the rewards mean nothing. If players feel that the rewards mean nothing, then the skinner box... wasting your time not doing something more productive... business model doesn't work. This may work for Guild Wars 2, as it doesn't have a monthly fee. Yet, I have trouble believing that this is something that will build a lasting community.

I think that players should have the opportunity to just pop in. I like that idea, as players are not of equal skill level. Some have time constraints, others are just not good at video games. A system like this seems like it would make the game more fun overall, but this puts a lot of pressure on the community leaders to keep things going...

...unless these events are so easy that they're not really that challenging.

I'm thinking that player burnout is an issue here, as where's the reason to be a leader when you can coast off other people's hard work? And that reminds me of bots? If they can get gold for this, couldn't they just run scripts to be in the right place at the right time?

Is it just wisdom of crowds? How will people decide when to do these quests? If there is no decision, then what is the real value in these quests. It's just mob mentality... like digg.com... sure it's fun to read the comments there, but it's usually too one sided for me. Is that what Guild Wars 2 gameplay going to be like... just a mob of angry gamers... pressing buttons in a completely disorganized fashion?

Is the individual just as important as a whole guild of people? If I play solo, do I get the same rewards just because I happened to be in the area? If so, then what's the value of Guild Wars? THE NAME OF THE GAME... how do guilds factor into this chaos? If being in a guild has no real value, then why go to the trouble of organizing it? That's the situation the game is in now... there's no real value for Guilds in PvE... and little reason to group... so Guild Wars becomes a solo game that's played online.

What's Guild Wars 2 going to be... a mob of people running around, not forming true friendships? Where's the lasting value in this choice of game design? What's going to make Tyria a world that people are going to want to visit again and again?

Basically, I'm skeptical. There's some missing information, so perhaps ArenaNet has already thought of and resolved these issue. Yet, basic economics seems to be in play. If hard work is not properly rewarded, won't the system break down?

Posted: May 20th 2010 9:04PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
It sounds like you're assuming that every feature in this game will be very poorly implemented. Based on the amount of testing and thought that seems to be going into the design of these events, I highly doubt that players will be able to, say, wait in a village that a dragon frequently attacks, attack the dragon once, kite it until other players finish it off, and then get full or even partial rewards. And regarding the skill and commitment required by these events, Arenanet has already insinuated that these would be short (~15 minutes) and only moderately difficult. And while at the game's launch, the early events may be saturated with players, and things may feel like a zerg-fest, I think that later on events will be sparse enough that players don't just feel like they're part of a faceless mob. Regarding Guilds in PvE, I imagine that they'll be important for the instanced dungeons that were mentioned, but since no word has been said about them yet, and its still a while before the game comes out, I wouldn't start worrying that they wont be important.

Also, regarding the "beta in 2008" thing that you always seem to mention; stop complaining about it. It didn't happen, nobody realistically expected it to happen, please get over it.
Reply

Posted: May 20th 2010 9:44PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
> It sounds like you're assuming that every
> feature in this game will be very poorly
> implemented.

No, healing seems interesting to me. If they tone down healing, a warrior class might actually be fun to play in the sequel. I didn't like how Healing Hands worked in the original. It seemed odd to me that being hit by a giant sword would heal you.

"Thanks TANK, that broadsword across my face was quite refreshing!"

I also like the new profession system. It seems that it would make it easier for ArenaNet to balance professions, as flavor-of-the-month builds won't be so upsetting. It seems like the honed in on what they want each profession to do... so maybe we won't have 55-Monks clearing out entire dungeons. Some people might consider this a loss, but I think a profession should have a specific role and that all professions should be similar in power... with only subtle differences.

I like the health care plan for Guild Wars. Healing for everyone!


_______________________________________

>> I wouldn't start worrying
>> that they wont be important.

Guilds are the whole game. Otherwise, I might as well play single-player RPGs. I like these games because they're social. I like feeling like a hero. I like hanging around beginner zones and helping out new players. I like forming giant teams and completing epic challenges. What good is a 15 minute diversion? Is that going to have lasting entertainment value?

"Oh look... the town is under attack again... oh well... let someone else fix it. I have better things to do."

No, guilds make the game. I think it's what keeps players playing longer. Maybe ArenaNet will impress me. But unfortunately, I'm not enthusiastic about Guild Wars 2. I used to be.

_______________________________________

>> Also, regarding the "beta in 2008"
>> thing that you always seem to
>> mention; stop complaining about it.
>> It didn't happen, nobody realistically
>> expected it to happen, please get
>> over it.

I didn't expect it to happen. That's why my Plush Gwen contest has an expiration date. It was supposed to be until Guild Wars 2 launched, but I realized that it could take much longer for ArenaNet to finish their game.

http://guildwars.us/plush-gwen-contest-relaunch/

It says December 21, 2010... and here's what's funny... I thought that was a significant over-estimate. As shown here...

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4283050&postcount=3

I was trying to do something fun for the Guild Wars community... try to keep things interesting while we waited. Yet, the responses on that forum was a harsh reality... the Guild Wars community is not really that nice. I boot a guild out of my alliance for having racist players and people get mad at me.

So, I look at this news from ArenaNet. It's more talk with some videos/screenshots. I haven't gotten past the "beta in 2008" thing... simply because ArenaNet hasn't given me a good reason to.

Gaile... MIA
Patrick... gone
Jeff... gone
Friends in game... gone (replaced with computer controlled allies)
Beta... unknown

"Here come the flames" aren't inspiring words. I've seen Guild Wars promotional videos before. They're usually very good. But unfortunately, this project is getting close to Duke Nukem similarities.

I remember reading a joke once in an old video game magazine. It was something like... "What if Street Fighter 3 came out and no one cared?" ...and that's pretty much what happened. Years later, the game wasn't as good as the one before it.

And old video game stories aside... it's a question of simple economics. If you had millions of potential customers, why would you make them wait so long for new content? I don't have an answer for that... except maybe the pursuit of quality. Is ArenaNet creating something of high quality? When you look at the other games mentioned on this website, I'm not so sure that the game really stands out. People here seem to love it. That's great! Awesome! Unfortunately for me, high expectations have not been met.

Maybe months of cynicism will balance things out. HA HA!
Reply

Posted: May 21st 2010 9:39AM Ocho said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't think you should play this, then. If you go into it expecting crap, then all you're going to see is crap and you will complain and ruin it for the rest of the players.

From what it looks like, you're basing the entire game system on games that are out now. Well, if you want the same games that are out now, then go play them! Every article I've read about GW2, they're re-inventing the wheel into a new form of MMO experience. UO did this when it first came out, and one could argue that WoW did it to (EQ did, really...). Was WoW perfect when it first came out? Nope. Did people enjoy and play it anyway? Yup. And Blizz has refined it over time into the science of MMO community.

Have they said there won't be epic large group challenges? No. In fact, they said that all the regular challenges will scale to the group size. Bring 20 people, it becomes epic. Does that mean there won't be? Its called Guild Wars. Guild. The guild aspect will still be pretty fundamental.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm excited as hell to see this game come to market. But knowing ArenaNet, they won't rush it... they will take their time until it shines with polish. Thats why I'm excited. Its going to be something new, fresh, and different. If you go in expecting the same game, you won't enjoy it. Questions on whether the community will be as strong and whether they'll up the challenge and have epic challenges... well, we'll see. Who knows, maybe its system will make WoW look like a pre-school. I wouldn't be surprised if WoW came out with "dynamic" zones based on this premise. They do like stealing ideas...
Reply

Posted: May 21st 2010 10:40AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
>> I don't think you should play this,
>> then. If you go into it expecting
>> crap, then all you're going to
>> see is crap

I don't think that's accurate. I thought that the Matrix... the movie, not the games... was going to be lame. I was quite surprised. Even though I was in a bad mood and had incredibly low expectations, I walked out of the theater amazed. It was a wonderful experience.

I had high expectations for ArenaNet, but perhaps they were too high.

...and I think Sibe stated something interesting. " Storyline[s] don't work in MMORPGs."

That's my main problem with Guild Wars. I don't like the lore and it's pretty hard to avoid it. If Guild Wars 2 forces their religion and their uneasy alliances on me... why should I play? MMORPGs are appealing because I get to be a hero in a fantasy game. That's fun for me, as I don't have super powers in real life... or do I?

A lot people play these games for the escapism. I don't really need that. I enjoy real life and technology is making life better and better. Yeah... maybe I should skip the game and not ruin it for others. Yet, I still like to relax. It would be cool to have the MMORPG equivalent to "Cheers" ...a place where everyone knows your screenname. I would like to get together with my friends, fight a dragon, collect some loot, chat, explore and have fun.

With the lore... with the delays... how is that possible?

So, are we supposed to be drones, all bright and cheery, just because ArenaNet released some screenshots? There are lots of game developers out their that are trying to build better games... myself included! Why does ArenaNet get a pass? Is it because of no monthly fees? World of Warcraft has proven that players are willing to pay $15 a month, plus the cost of the game, plus the cost of upgrades, if the game is good.

________________________

>> I wouldn't be surprised if WoW
>> came out with "dynamic" zones
>> based on this premise. They do
>> like stealing ideas...

That's the way the game industry works. So, the only way to succeed is to be fast. If ArenaNet had launched Guild Wars in 2004... like originally posted... would World of Warcraft had been as successful?

...and more development time doesn't necessarily make the game better. Look at the interface. I liked the interface from the beta days rather than the one ArenaNet went with for release. At what point are they simply redoing work over and over again? Why was it necessary to abandon the original? If the game engine is so crippled, then why not just relaunch the original with a new game engine and then make expansions from there.

I think it would be fun to go back to pre-searing and go swimming.

So, while ArenaNet is releasing promotional material, their competitors are learning. I don't post this because I want to see ArenaNet fail. Yet, their actions just don't make sense to me. I just don't see how millions of dollars and a talented team of 100+ people can't do better than this. This is basic stuff. They don't have to reinvent the wheel. They just have to do a better job than the other guys.

I liked EverQuest. I left for simple reasons... the graphics weren't so great and death penalties were awful. That's when I switched to Dark Age of Camelot. (I liked the lore in that game a lot better too. When they started messing with that is when I left.) So, is ArenaNet building a traditional MMORPG or are they not? Sure, dynamic events sound cool, but "BETA" sounds better... doesn't it?

Three years of hype is enough already. Either ArenaNet should show us what they got - WITH A BETA and Pre-Orders - or they should shut up. They're giving their competitors too many ideas. Feedback from the community is important, but I'm not sure if ArenaNet is listening anymore. From reading the lore and seeing a Human / Charr alliance, it seems like they're doing what they want to do. From those who know MMORPG history, is that a good thing to do?
Reply

Posted: May 21st 2010 11:29AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
>pretending this is 4chan

Sorry, but that really gets on my nerves, we have quotation marks on our keyboards for a reason.

I still do not see why you have such a huge problem with the Charr and Humans working together. Yes, the Charr invaded Ascalon and still occupy it, but that was 250 years in the past. Yes, the Charr and Humans have very different religious beliefs, but that's no reason for them to be intolerant of each other. If you've ever played WoW long enough to know what the player factions think of their faction leaders, you'd know that players do not want to be associated with a bigoted leader. Many Alliance players aren't too fond of King Varian Wrynn because of his intolerance of the Orcs and the Horde, despite their attempts to reform. And almost every Horde player that I know is not looking forward to Garrosh Hellscream becoming the Horde faction leader because of his bullheadedness and unwillingness to even work with members of his own faction, much less the Alliance. Despite the fact that you think that the Charr-Human alliance might offend someone's religious beliefs, I think Charr-Human intolerance would make more players less proud to be part of their factions.

"If ArenaNet had launched Guild Wars in 2004... like originally posted... would World of Warcraft had been as successful?"
Yes, it would. Guild Wars was not set up to support prolonged PvE play as evidenced by its total lack of PvE end game, and game mechanics refined for PvP play. It wasn't even supposed to be a direct competitor to WoW.

"If the game engine is so crippled, then why not just relaunch the original with a new game engine and then make expansions from there. "
So you would rather Arenanet just relaunch GW with prettier graphics and more PvE focus rather than attempt to make huge innovations in the MMO genre? I just find that baffling.
Reply

Posted: May 21st 2010 11:52AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
♥♥♥ So you would rather Arenanet
♥♥♥ just relaunch GW with prettier
♥♥♥ graphics and more PvE focus
♥♥♥ rather than attempt to make
♥♥♥ huge innovations in the MMO
♥♥♥ genre?

I don't see the huge improvement here. To me, a huge improvement would be twitch-based gaming in MMORPGs. Also, "What's your story" could also be a huge improvement. It's a Role-Playing Game... being able to define your own role, if you have the desire to do so, could give players a greater attachment to their character. It's the difference between buying a car and building a car. You might like your car, but you'd probably like it more if you made it yourself.

Customization is important in video games. So OK, you don't have a problem with the Charr. To me, that's cool. Yet, for players that don't feel that way, why should they have to group with them? Where's the choice? Where's the sandbox?

Also, I'm not against grouping with the Charr for religious reasons. It's consistency in the lore. Why build up a character for players to hate, only to make them friends? Would Transformers still be Transformers if the Decepticons and the Autobots teamed up? In World of Warcraft, there's a definitive line... Alliance and Horde. It's a very simple concept and I think it works well.

The religious issue that I have with the game is the inclusion of the Guild Wars gods. I think it's a bit creepy to have players kneel at status for bonuses. If players don't mind... hey, made in America - we have freedom of religion here. Yet, for players that do have religious objections to this, why force players to follow that path? It only leads to lost customers.

Ever been to Costco? It's amazing... lots of great stuff there... tasty food in bulk! Although, some of the food there is not for me. I'm not Jewish, so the Kosher section really isn't that important to me. Yet, I'm cool with it being there. I think, "Hey, cool! They can be happy too!"

I don't feel Guild Wars works this way. Just look at their response to crafting. It was something like, "Blah blah blah... we think the design should be this way... blah blah blah."

ArenaNet is building a community. Is it going to be for a minority of gamers or will it be more inviting? I'm thinking they're going for the minority and that's why I find these articles frustrating.
Reply

Posted: May 21st 2010 12:54PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"To me, a huge improvement would be twitch-based gaming in MMORPGs." I think that's more a matter of personal taste; twitched-based gameplay might give it a wider appeal, but it wouldn't necessarily make it better. To me, that's like saying Baldur's Gate would be a better game if the warrior-classes played like an action game, the rogue-classes played like Metal Gear, and the mage-classes played like an FPS; while it might give the game a wider appeal, it wouldn't make the game any better.

"It's a Role-Playing Game... being able to define your own role, if you have the desire to do so, could give players a greater attachment to their character."
I think that's the goal of the personal storylines.

"Also, I'm not against grouping with the Charr for religious reasons. It's consistency in the lore. Why build up a character for players to hate, only to make them friends? "
I think that Charr where only in GW1 as a story hook because their connection with the Mursaat. By making you dislike the Charr at the beginning of the game, they were in turn making you dislike their leaders, the Mursaat, who play a larger role in the overall story of Prophecies. I think the goal of the Charr storyline in EotN was to show you that the Charr now renounce the Mursaat and those who follow them, but because of their racial pride, will not apologize for what they did and expect humans to just get over it. The same sort of thing could be said for the Orcs in Warcraft; they gained infamy under the direction of a true evil, but despite their severing of ties with that group, they are too proud a race to directly apologize to those they've offended in the past. Obviously there are some faults with this method of trying to redeem what was an enemy race for the sake of a making them an ally in a new game, but despite your claims that players resent the Charr, my experience with the GW community tells me that they are excited to play them.

"Is it going to be for a minority of gamers or will it be more inviting? I'm thinking they're going for the minority and that's why I find these articles frustrating."
Arenanet is trying to build the appeal of this game to people outside the GW community and the MMO community, I wouldn't call that "going for the minority."
Reply

Posted: May 20th 2010 9:40PM MewmewGrrl said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The first Guild Wars left this permanent impression on me that few games have since. Sure it wasn't a persistent world MMO where everybody is running around in the same areas, it was more like a Diablo type system where you'd be in town with others, but the game was so amazing. The storyline was great, the game relied heavily on story rather than grinding up levels. Even once you hit the max level, you were really just beginning and have tons more story to do - especially in all the expansions that came later. They put story in games the way few people do these days. Not even to mention that you didn't have to pay to play it after you bought the game. I still have memories of a lot of things with that game that stuck with me, being so cool and neat to me, and experiencing them for the first time. If they put the same deep story telling and quests into GW 2, I'm going to be in heaven!

Posted: May 21st 2010 2:29PM alycat said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I doubt competitors are going to haul off and create a GW2 clone within the next year. Not only is that not even remotely realistic, but 1) competitors do not have the same philosophy, and 2) they aren't likely to change it until they see GW2 succeed.

And who doesn't hype a game before its release? The only difference us Anet is upholding their commitment to unveiling a polished game instead of rushing it and failing to live up to the hype, which is where others have failed. AoC and WH weren't exactly a mystery prior to release.

The only thing I'm frustrated with is the fact that they are dragging out the profession announcements. Building anticipation is one thing but 1 class a month? (if that) That's just tedious and annoying.

Posted: Jun 28th 2010 12:20AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report

Well, well lol don't we always want our gifts before christmas? And for the gw2 bashers.. really how do we know you're not just a spoiler from the blizzard camp? I would be at least watchful if my competition was about to possibly kick my #$$. but if you're not a WoW fan on the rampage.. all you're ranting is based on you're negative attitude.. seriously I have mental clients that are not as basically down about themselves as you are. One thing i've learned about promoting products is you can't let you're personal emotional state determine how you perform. And if you want the real skinny on anything that applies to new things you are about to try!
So stop blabbing about events and actions that haven't happened yet.. and quite frankly you have no idea about.... especially since Anet has to play test their ideas before we see or hear about them.. and actual players will also playtest as well before it come to market. So as a whole... Shut Your Freakin Hole!!!

Featured Stories

MMO Week in Review: It is your Destiny

Posted on Jul 27th 2014 6:00PM

One Shots: The green marble

Posted on Jul 27th 2014 10:00AM

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW