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

Reader Comments (97)

Posted: Apr 15th 2011 12:35PM Irem said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@rhorle
If it plays differently, it really doesn't matter what anyone chooses to call it. People can argue that the Guardian is a tank all day, but if it can't hold aggro and soak up damage while another class heals it, something has still changed. If ArenaNet is to be believed and five warriors really can run a dungeon together just fine, then you're still not stuck looking for a healer, whichever terms people want to throw around.

I think there's too much concentration on the terminology and not the implications of how this is going to play out if everything they've said about the game is true. It's not so much about getting rid of the roles as how the roles -play- in traditional MMOs. If the game comes out and there's no sign of one party member standing in the back watching bars and one in front holding the mobs off everyone else, then I'd say that ArenaNet's done something pretty new, at least for a full-on, big-name, true MMO.
Reply

Posted: Apr 15th 2011 1:51PM rhorle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Irem

How is it playing differently if you have people doing a healing role, a tanking role, and a dps role? The terminology does matter a lot when a company changes the names then claims they are doing something brand new and revolutionary.

When all they are doing is not having the role your provide tied to your class. WoW did that with druids since it first came out. A class that can fill all 3 of the trinity roles, yet they aren't the most popular. And not everyone that is a druid likes or does all the roles.

In GW2 you will still have come classes that are better suited to a certain role, because of skill, talent, and spell differences. It just will be. The only way to not make that happen is to have every available be equal in terms of effects. Sure you can take anyone you want and do fine. You can do this in WoW too.

But certain fights, certain mechanics, certain areas of the game will make people want some one over another because of the way and how they do stuff. Its the downfall of trying to create creative encounters and variations in class.

Renaming and allowing anyone to do a role doesn't change the holy trinity. It's just putting new coat of paint on it. Yes the combat will play differently from another game that does combat differently. But that isn't changing the holy trinity.

Changing the holy trinity would be not needing anything that restores or mitigates health because its not needed. Or not requiring mitigation or focusing of damage taken because its not needed.


Reply

Posted: Apr 15th 2011 2:03PM kobeathris said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@rhorle

If you changed how threat worked and allowed body blocking, you could put a pretty big dent in the trinity. That's more or less how GW1 works now, and I can see how they could evolve that into not requiring a trinity.

Take a Mesmer now, it's a support class, a good Mesmer can substantially reduce the amount of damage the party takes, but they don't heal. The effect is the same in the end, but the mechanic is entirely different then standing around watching health bars.
Reply

Posted: Apr 15th 2011 2:13PM Irem said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@rhorle
If you honestly believe that a game designed to allow class variation based on playstyle instead of role will not play much differently from a game designed to have every class fit a particular role, there's absolutely nothing I can say that will convince you otherwise.

I suppose we'll see when it comes out.
Reply

Posted: Apr 15th 2011 2:39PM nightsong89 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@rhorle

ArenaNet has stated countless times they do want to create a game where you are forced to bring a certain class. They are making it where every class can fulfill the roles of control/damage/support equally.

Also, there are no aggro generating/holding abilities or healing skills that directly target an ally. That right there throws out the entire idea of what MMO's today consider tanks and healers.

How can you have a healing class in the game if there are no heals that target an ally? You can't. Plain and simple. It doesn't exist and the combat system was designed for that.
Reply

Posted: Apr 15th 2011 9:41PM Furdinand said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@nightsong89 Those aren't really different functions from tank/healer/dps; just different mechanics.
Reply

Posted: Apr 18th 2011 5:50AM Dirame said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@rhorle
No that would be removing the trinity not changing the trinity. Changing the trinity is re-organising the base mechanics that make the trinity what it is and that is what Anet is doing.
Reply

Posted: Apr 15th 2011 10:43AM nagennif said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Rift isn't Anet. I've dealt with Anet for a long long time, and they've never once lied.

There's a ton of differences between GW 2 and other games, and playable demos back up everything they're saying anyway. Shrugs.

You can't say because Rift devs said one thing and did another, everyone will.

Posted: Apr 15th 2011 10:45AM Apakal said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I was sold as soon as I saw Guardian gameplay.

Posted: Apr 15th 2011 10:47AM j1083 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I can't wait to try the GW2, I hope it lives up to the hype.

It's always boggled my mind how MMORPGs, a gaming genre ostensibly pivoting around playing with others, has slavishly adhered to dynamics like the holy trinity that outright hobble an attempt for people to play together. "Sorry, full on rogues, just need a healer and we're G2G." LFG: Healer for hours at a time. Etc.

GW2 seems to be making a lot of positive changes geared entirely around getting people playing and getting them playing together. That's really exciting to me.

Posted: Apr 15th 2011 10:53AM Greyhame said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
While there will always be aspects of the Holy Trinity, it's nice to see someone actually move towards trying to change the dynamic enough that it works in a completely different way. I'm definitely curious to see how this plays out when they get the game released.

As for the trinity being needed, not really. Honestly at this point it seems more stifling in the MMORPG market than it does actually providing interesting gameplay.

Posted: Apr 15th 2011 11:00AM Dunraven said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's like these guys are inside my head reading my thoughts. Arenanet is the single most forward thinking innovative company out there today period.

I am going to enjoy watching this game dethrone the current King.

Posted: Apr 15th 2011 11:04AM sauceofmagic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well I hope they do it and that it works.

Posted: Apr 15th 2011 11:07AM nagennif said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
In Guild Wars 2, not only is there not a dedicated healing class there's not even a skill that allows you to target an allie. There's no taunt mechanic, so technically there's no tanking. It's a whole new ball game.

Mind you in Guild Wars, the original one, they didn't really have true tanks either. You could tank in a few limited circumstances but it wasn't really a system supported mechanism.

Posted: Apr 15th 2011 11:09AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Just canceled Rift subscription. Gonna play stuffs that's been gathering dust in my Steam Account while I wait for GW2.

Posted: Apr 15th 2011 4:14PM Utakata said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)

Or you could of kept your RIFT subscription while waiting to see if GW2 is any good. Just saying.
Reply

Posted: Apr 15th 2011 11:17AM CitizenH said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The trinity is artificial and contrived. Look at combat in any other medium, genre or even real life. Fighting just doesn't work like that.

Have you ever seen a bar room brawl where one guy holds everyone's attention while his buddies throw rocks and band-aids from the corners of the room?

Combat, AI and classes shouldn't be built around that model. It's silly and lacks verisimilitude.

That's not to say roles/classes should not exist, buy they need to be more nuanced and capable of standing on their own. It's fine line making classes that mesh with each other without needing each other out of necessity. I've always thought the trinity draws the divisions too sharply.

In City of Heroes, for example, given the choice people will gravitate towards classes that are more hybrid. Since the introduction of faction switching, Brutes and Corruptors who can DPS/tank and DPS/buff-heal have eclipsed their more trinity-centric counterparts Tankers and Defenders who have the *same abilities*, but are in proportions that make them weaker on their own solo (even if they can contribute slightly more to a team effort).

Posted: Apr 15th 2011 11:42AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I am excited about GW2 because in all other games (99%) there is healer, tank and dps and 90% of people wants to be dps. At the end of the day you can't be what you realy want to be. In GW2 they broke that holy trinity and enabled us to play what we realy want to play. ( at least that is their promise). If I want to play guardian with 2h sword I can do that and I am not limited by thinking about, oh, damn we don't have a tank (this nightmare from WoW still haunts me)
Well, I just hope they manage to bring that in reality.

Posted: Apr 15th 2011 12:19PM Space Cobra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You know, reading responses and all, I can't help but to be cautious.

I respect Anet, but I have heard the spin before and how fans/readers sorta put words/images in their own minds and promote that toward others while the reality of gameplay is something else.

I look forward to seeing how different this is from not only GW1, but other current MMOs, but I have to wonder. No question marks over people's heads? Well, that may be "more natural" and "real" but I remember playing games that didn't have them and getting frustrated. No quests? But then he talks about making your own story.

There are some good things said, but many things I would like more detailed descriptions over (or a chance to play). It could all be "spin", even if well-intentioned.

Not sure if they truly got rid of the "trinity" or just renamed them. It seems much the same approach that SW:ToR is taking with their advanced classes and healing, or at least, the same direction. I think an MMO is needed to experiment in such things and this may be it. It may work or it may just be a "single player game online", much to the chagrin of those who point out "MMO" means "Massively Multi-Player Online" and extol the virtues of working in teams.

The open-world PvP has me concerned. I'd like to know more details about it, because I've seen it bite players in the ass (via griefers) more often than not. Again, maybe they are taking a different approach to it? Or maybe not, which would be sad. Not enough info to figure out which is which yet.

Posted: Apr 15th 2011 1:30PM Irem said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Space Cobra
"I look forward to seeing how different this is from not only GW1, but other current MMOs, but I have to wonder. No question marks over people's heads? Well, that may be "more natural" and "real" but I remember playing games that didn't have them and getting frustrated. No quests? But then he talks about making your own story."

I can help clarify a little. You may have heard that dynamic events replace standard quests, and the goal is to get people to simply play out in the world and have them encounter those events as they happen (i.e., you see smoke in the distance and go to investigate, and it turns out to be a house on fire that you can help save, or centaurs razing a village, or hyleks performing some weird ritual, ect.). They said, though, that some of their in-house testers would totally ignore dynamic events that they saw happening, because they didn't feel like they had the game's permission to participate. They hadn't gotten a quest or anything, after all. So they implemented scouts that will direct people who want to know where to go for guaranteed action to dynamic event hotspots. It's not like FFXI, where they vaguely tell you to go do something and you need to talk to every NPC in the game to figure out where to go next.

There -are- quests related to your personal story. They're not removing quests simply for the sake of removing them; their reason for replacing them with dynamic events was that they wanted to make the world feel more alive, instead of like a series of quest hubs. The personal story is meant to kind of guide you through the world so that you have an overarching goal and aren't just running around aimless.

There is no open-world PvP in the way I gather you mean it. PvP and PvE are separate.

There are good reasons behind the stuff they've done and it's not just them saying "Look how different we are!" What they've tried to do is change the stuff that everyone says are necessary evils of MMOs--the stuff that isn't fun but that most devs try to work around or tweak instead of changing altogether. And they've been very good about demonstrating what they promise, for the most part. Personally, I think the game will be good, but I don't know if it will be popular. As much as people complain about how formulaic most MMOs are, the games that follow that formula also tend to be the most popular.
Reply

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW