Guild Wars 2 Devs Aiming For the Top

As various MMOs have been released over the past several years, their developers have been wary about the inevitable measuring against World of Warcraft, often saying that "second-best" is more than good enough for them. Not so for ArenaNet as they work on Guild Wars 2; they're aiming right for the top. And according to a detailed preview now up at Eurogamer, their effort is paying off : "Two huge and risky decisions have been made in its design: junking the 'holy trinity' of character class roles (protective 'tank', damage-dealer and healer) and doing away with the quest-style architecture for game content. Yet, in moment-to-moment play, Guild Wars 2 looks and feels instantly and reassuringly like a fantasy MMORPG – just a noticeably fresh one. It's a question of flow. Combat is still hotkey-based, but faster and smoother and more streamlined, involving more movement and positioning. The levelling curve is now an almost flat line, replacing the epic ascent with a steady journey where content, not advancement, is king."

Comments

Damn!

[Kokuyo]

This sounds rather good. Correct me if I'm wrong, but might this be the MMO that does away with mindless grinding? At least a big chunk of it. Might this be the MMO that does away with standing right before the enemy, slashing your ten foot two-handed sword diagonally and freaking missing (I optimistically read that into the whole 'positioning is important' part)?

Time will surely tell.

Re:Damn!

[Tarkhein]

Might this be the MMO that does away with standing right before the enemy, slashing your ten foot two-handed sword diagonally and freaking missing

Guild Wars already has the auto-hit you're describing... you don't have to wait for Guild Wars 2.

Re:Damn!

[Kokuyo]

Either you have completely different ideas of what the word 'auto-hit' implies than I do, or I didn't make my point particularly clear.

Re:Damn!

[osu-neko]

Either you have completely different ideas of what the word 'auto-hit' implies than I do, or I didn't make my point particularly clear.

You said...

Might this be the MMO that does away with standing right before the enemy, slashing your ten foot two-handed sword diagonally and freaking missing.

Guild Wars does precisely that. You never miss unless your opponent uses some skill to counter your attack. Failing that, you simply cannot miss -- your hit chance is 100%.

Re:Damn!

[gl4ss]

uh no. it's going to be the nwn clone you play with friends. that's what content means in this sense, it means a tunnel cave of scripting. dunno what top they're going after though. and their business model needs there to be this "2", they can't just evolve the existing.

I'd prefer a mmorpg with a truly dynamic world, not a circus fair ride.

Re:Damn!

[osu-neko]

I'd prefer a mmorpg with a truly dynamic world, not a circus fair ride.

Me too. What's what I find lacking about WoW -- it's not a dynamic world at all. No matter what you do, the world never really changes. The same foes are still there menacing the same caravan that never seems to make it to its destination, etc. They've using phasing here and there to try to combat that, but they don't do it nearly enough. GW2 has a very interesting system to make the world truly dynamic. I can't wait to see it in action...

Re:Damn!

[Feinu]

I'd prefer a mmorpg with a truly dynamic world, not a circus fair ride.

Sounds like GW2 is exactly what you want. While I agree that the original Guild Wars series was highly linear in terms of plot, Guild Wars 2 includes lots of dynamic events which have a tangible impact on the world you experience. Have a look at this description of dynamic events for more detail.

Re:Damn!

[PhilHibbs]

That's an incredibly difficult goal for a game with tens of thousands of players on a server, all trying to change the world. Unless they stick with their "instanced world", but that isn't really an MMO, it's a single-player or small-group game with "3d avatar chat rooms" called "towns". What I like about WoW is that you can bump into people doing stuff while you are out there doing stuff. I've made friends by seeing someone having a tough time in a fight and going and helping them out. That never happens in GW. Having that flexibility and a dynamic world seems impossible to me, but I hope I'm proved wrong some day.

Re:Damn!

[Luckyo]

It's also worth noting that one of the aspects of "skill" in guild wars has been kiting projectiles. Unlike wow et al, they do not auto track, and in fact, rangers' choice of bow was always based on three things: bow's range, bow's attack speed and arc in which bow fires the arrow (the higher the arc, then longer it takes for arrow to reach the target). In many cases, picking a bow with highest arc meant that it was very easy to just sidestep the arrow completely through movement.

So yes, positioning-based hit was always in guild wars.

Re:Damn!

[Kokuyo]

Thanks for clarification, then. For me, auto-hit means you don't press the button for each attack :).

Re:Damn!

[PortaDiFerro]

Definitely seems promising, and looks great too! I guess this will be the next mmorpg I'll be looking forward to, and I already managed to stay clean of those for couple of years. Anyway, been disappointed after getting excited by great promises too many times in the past so will have to wait and see. It does bring that glimmer of hope for the next great game though!

Re:Damn!

[SharpFang]

It is doable,
epic missions - battles involving hundreds of players,
massive events (enemy assault on a town, siege progressing day by day),
timed progress of situation as players complete their tasks,
stalemate situations that need heavy power to throw them off balance
important positions relatively easy to take over but difficult to hold, so they continuously change ownership
significant guilds shaping the politics, economy, influencing the world,
VERY difficult missions which would be attempted and failed over and over until someone succeeds and the result is permanent,
construction of massive structures progressing by tiny phases, so your contribution is permanent ("I built THIS door of the castle"),
active environmental engineering (channels, lakes, dams) controlled from well defendable positions you can take over then hold or protect with traps,
portable structures that can be built anywhere by consolidated effort of a moderately sized group ("let's build a fortified checkpoint HERE.")
Instantiated personal space (a room in a hotel or a house) so that every player has a fully customizable personal area without cutting into the massive bulk,
expensive, prestigeous public locations for rent/sale and personalized use. ...want more ideas?

Re:Damn!

[Charliemopps]

No, it wont. When you have people that are willing to sink 12hrs+ a day into a game it is impossible to develop enough content to make it non-grindy unless you wanted to sink billions into development.

Re:Damn!

[Mike Mentalist]

Workable and realistic ideas, yes.

Re:Damn!

[MoeDrippins]

I've heard that called "auto attack". I remember it first in Everquest. Having come from FPS' at the time, it was very foreign to me.

Re:Damn!

[pinkushun]

"We're basically saying, listen, this as a core game mechanic [tank/healer/damage roles] is tired, we can do something better, we can do something more interesting than this..."

Finally I think I can enjoy MMORPG's! Instead of relying on other players to fill those skills your avatar lacks, players are now more well-rounded. Focus well shifted, I say.

"questing is replaced by a dynamic events system that bins all the busywork and box-ticking admin from your adventures."

Wonderful! :-)

Re:Damn!

[GospelHead821]

I can only assume that griefing has crossed their minds and they have some mechanism of coping with it. I am extremely excited about this game but when I read the bit about events scaling...
"To help ensure there is always enough for everyone to do, our events dynamically scale, so the more players who show up and participate in the event, the more enemies show up to fight them. If a bunch of players leave the event, it will dynamically scale back down so it can be completed by the people who are still there playing it." ...I grow concerned. They're talking about how they've solved the problem of kill-stealing but is PvP interaction enabled in public areas? If ten people are "participating" in an event but two or three of them are attacking the other players, that's a problem. Heck, if ten people are participating and two or three are just hanging around doing nothing to make the event scale harder for the remaining players, that's a problem. I can only hope and trust that this possibility is obvious enough that there was some consideration of it in the development of these interactions.

Re:Damn!

[WhirlwindMonk]

...want more ideas?

Since every single one of those has been suggested dozens, if not hundreds of times on the boards, and I imagine every single one of them has had a reply from a developer saying they are doing it or explaining why they aren't doing it (with good, legitimate reasons every time I've seen it), yes, you are going to have to do better. A few examples.

epic missions - battles involving hundreds of players,

They've had a 40 vs 40 battleground for half a decade. Then they introduced a pvp area that could take unlimited players. The servers strained near the point of crashing constantly and it was unplayable for anyone without a decent computer, so they had to change it. Now it maxes out at...80 vs 80, as I recall. They've said they like the idea, but until they find a way to do it without those issues, they won't try it again.

important positions relatively easy to take over but difficult to hold, so they continuously change ownership

Just implemented that in Tol Barad.

VERY difficult missions which would be attempted and failed over and over until someone succeeds and the result is permanent,

So lots of development time, play testing, and balancing for something 0.0001% of players will get to see? No thanks. I pay just as much for this game as everyone else. I should have the opportunity to see and experience all of it without having to sacrifice my job and life to make sure I'm part of the "elite" guilds that can get that first kill. And if you're talking about individuals...good luck balancing that such that it isn't more difficult for some classes than others (see the Death Knight videos of them soloing content from near the end of the last expansion, whereas some classes probably still have a hard time soloing stuff from two expansions ago).

Instantiated personal space (a room in a hotel or a house) so that every player has a fully customizable personal area without cutting into the massive bulk,

Been mentioned hundreds of times, and each time, people point out the devs would rather work on content that encourages the social aspect of this MULTIPLAYER game, rather than separating everyone into their own little worlds.

expensive, prestigeous public locations for rent/sale and personalized use.

Woohoo, more stuff that 0.0001% of the player base can use.

significant guilds shaping the politics, economy, influencing the world,

Been done in Eve Online. Some like it, some don't. Blizz also tries to avoid implementing mechanics that encourages everyone to join up in a few large guilds. Sure, large guilds do have advantages, but right now, they aren't overwhelming.

construction of massive structures progressing by tiny phases, so your contribution is permanent ("I built THIS door of the castle"),

Again, this is a MULTIPLAYER game. Blizz tries to avoid things that encourage people to say "screw everyone else" and just play on their own. That said, they have done it, to an extent. See the Opening of the Gates of Ahn'Qiraj, though, despite it being a questline that individuals follow, required multiple raids that needed large groups working together.

Re:Damn!

[Luckyo]

In guild wars, there is an auto attack if you target someone and either click attack or hit space, i.e. it's a default action for hostile targets.

Unlike wow auto-attack is interrupted when you use any skill other then "on next attack" skill. So if you're a ranger and see a hostile approach you can select + space him, shoot him a couple of times, then hit crippling shot skill, execute it, and after finishing the crippling shot your character will again default to start auto-attacking.

In many regards it was kind of like having a fast firing low damage weapon with powerful secondary that requires you to stop primary fire while secondary executes.

Re:Damn!

[mwvdlee]

But it IS possible to create something non-grindy for people who can play 1-2 hours a day at most.
Make levelling atleast partially dependant on real time and those who want to play 12+ can grind, those who don't get new content.
Perhaps a 1-2 hour player gets to see 50% of all content once and a 12+ hour player repeats 100% of the content six times.
Most MMO's I've tried had me grinding within the first half hour. Hence I don't play any MMO. Perhaps GW2 might be different.

Re:Damn!

[Solandri]

No, it wont. When you have people that are willing to sink 12hrs+ a day into a game it is impossible to develop enough content to make it non-grindy unless you wanted to sink billions into development.

GW and GW2 are not very level-dependent, and use a skill system where you don't have access to all your skills. You have to pick and choose which skills you have available to you at any given time. That and the interactions between skills creates a complexity and depth of play which provides plenty of replay value for the same scenarios. In other MMORPGs, each class uses pretty much use the same 3-5 skill combos for everything because they're the best. In GW, there are literally millions of different combinations of skills to explore, with dozens and sometimes hundreds of effective combos. The "best" combo will vary almost with every fight. So no, they don't have to sink billions into development to give you something new to try. When the player gains new skills or they add new skills, suddenly the old content becomes new content. It has a very high degree of replayability.

Most MMOs turn into grindfests because that's the best way for the company running them to maximize revenue. People are paying $15/mo to level, so its in the company's best interest to slow down your leveling as much as they can. That way you stick around playing longer, which means they collect more months of fees from you. Sinking 12+ hours a day into the game is also a consequence of that. You want to level faster, but the game deliberately slows down your leveling, so you spend more time playing it every day.

GW and GW2 don't have a monthly fee. You pay for the game, you pay for expansions, and you pay for certain upgrades. That's it. So they have no incentive to make the game a grindfest. In fact the opposite is true - they want to do everything they can to get you through the content quickly so you'll buy the next expansion, but they also want to make every minute you play as fun as possible so you'll feel it's worth spending the money on the next expansion.

Couple this with levels not being very important, and there's no incentive to play 12+ hours a day (unless you find it fun enough to play 12+ hours a day). You just play for as long as you're having fun. I've played GW 12 hours a day, I've played it 1 hour a day, and I've stopped playing it for months at a time. It's very friendly to casual gamers, and the amount of fun per hour is much higher. IMHO it's a much better model than the level/grind fest that other MMOs have become.

Re:Damn!

[Arjes]

Might this be the MMO that does away with standing right before the enemy, slashing your ten foot two-handed sword diagonally and freaking missing

I agree it has always annoyed me as well. But since most of these games are one way or the other based on the game play style of D&D (and its very predecessors) I feel like I should point out that a miss in D&D isn't a swing and a hit to the floor. It could be a parry, or just a glancing shot that didn't do significant damage (armor deflection). It will be a nice day when our games display all of that easily, but then we will complain about the slight distance between the weapons.

Re:Damn!

[FrootLoops]

Your post reminds me of a game a friend of mine and I "designed" (at least in our heads) a few years back. Its main ideas were
(1) players can change the world permanently
(2) the world progresses with player-made technological innovation
(3) the player factions' purpose is to organize technical progress and labor for a common purpose

You could dig a hole and it would stay there, or make a plateau for defense, or burn down a forest, or plant one, or set up mining operations. The natural world would basically be developer-made (probably largely auto-generated). From there, you could build a wheel, then a cart, then a computer, then a computer game, etc, and distribute your designs. Player-made technical innovation produces mounds of content and an economy, adding tons of gameplay that developers alone could never hope to create due to its sheer volume. Technical advances of course would tend to change the world--a warmongering faction with an air force might cause another faction to go underground, creating massive earth moving operations. (3) hopefully prevents chaos and adds overarching goals to create structure. Factions can also "pool" labor to create large projects like building city gates or casting a gigantic levitation spell to create a mobile city. There would of course be a magic creation system comparable to the technical creation system.

I suppose the main idea was to simulate the interesting large-scale parts of human interactions, making them easier and more fun, and adding in standard fantasy elements. Developer work would be in creating systems of content creation and enabling basic player actions from which more could be built, instead of creating static content that's obsolete in a few months. Of course, such a game won't technically be possible for a long time. Even then, creating a good "technology creation" system would be very difficult, as would managing the amount players can change the world. Relying on player content is risky, but look at MineCraft--some people really enjoy building things, even if there's little reward.

Re:Damn!

[avg_joe_01]

I pay just as much for this game as everyone else. I should have the opportunity to see and experience all of it without having to sacrifice my job and life to make sure I'm part of the "elite" guilds that can get that first kill.

Is this really what we think? It doesn't really make sense to me if that's true. As an avid, but non-elite, gamer I can feel the sentiment, but I can't say I believe in it. Surely there is a justified difference in reward for people who pay the same as you AND sacrifice their job and life. Our current entitlement demands are pretty high, I think. I just don't see how anything is going to change for the better as long as we are expecting the hardcore gamer and the casual gamer to receive the same benefits for different levels of input.

Re:Damn!

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, they're building a diablo clone.

Re:Damn!

[Rayonic]

This sounds rather good. Correct me if I'm wrong, but might this be the MMO that does away with mindless grinding?

No chance. People will always complain about grinding. If there's a leveling system, they'll say they have to "grind" to the level cap. If there's better equipment then they'll "grind" for that. This isn't the days of Everquest when grinding meant killing the same enemies over and over, or other simple and repetitive tasks.

Anything in between now and "endgame" (however it's defined) has been classified as grind by modern MMO players. Doesn't matter if you have fun and fast-paced combat, awesome quests, or a tightly integrated story where it feels like you made a difference. Some people will make an obstacle out of anything.

Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to grind through some coffee.

Re:Damn!

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch the gameplay trailers. 2 words. Player Housing.

Re:Damn!

[Anonymous Coward]

GW1 was their Diablo clone. This is their bigger, fancier Diablo clone.

Re:Damn!

[VickiM]

It's nice to help people and all, but it can also be a bit annoying. One of the last times I was playing (years ago), I was in that Sleepy Hallow themed human town and was just proclaimed the savior of the land. That was nice and all, but just at that moment someone had failed to kill Stitches along the road and he was wreaking havoc just a few yards away. I didn't feel like much of a savior. And I know that if I logged in today, all the problems I "solved" will still be unsolved. I might try Guild Wars 2 if they don't want a monthly fee. Then I won't feel bad to drop it when it gets stale, having invested only $60ish in the game instead of the $450ish I paid for about two years of WoW.

Re:Damn!

[SirMasterboy]

Guild Wars 2 does not have auto attack like Guild Wars 1. You have to attack each time you want to swing.

I've already played some of the beta and this is how it was, and it had an incredible feel.

Re:Damn!

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, an awfull lot of that can be applied to an already existing mmo: eve online.

Re:Damn!

[elrous0]

The same foes are still there menacing the same caravan that never seems to make it to its destination

What do you propose as an alternative? Because, without respawning of bad guys/quests, every new player would enter a pretty much empty world.

Re:Damn!

[Anonymous Coward]

Been mentioned hundreds of times, and each time, people point out the devs would rather work on content that encourages the social aspect of this MULTIPLAYER game, rather than separating everyone into their own little worlds.

Star Wars Galaxies had this and was about the most social MMO ever created, with the exception of MMOs that are solely social (Habbo Hotel and the like). In fact Star Wars Galaxies had dozens of groundbreaking features. It was only missing competent developers (buggiest game I've ever played, and it got worse over time instead of better), and content, which actually barely even mattered since there was so much to do and it was so damn fun and social.

I would kill for a Star Wars Galaxies clone that was done right. Anyone who was there in the beginning (before combat upgrade) probably knows exactly what I'm talking about.

I've played WoW for the past 3 years, and I'm pretty much through with it. Every patch it gets easier, less social, and more monotonous and grindy. In another year, I don't think it will be much more of a "game" than Farmville is.

Re:Damn!

[SharpFang]

Since every single one of those has been suggested dozens,

Keyword Single.
Nobody gathered a bunch of them and combined them all in one game.
There are one-off implementations of some. Half-assed and under-used.

Nope. What made original Duke Nukem a great game remembered until today? Pipe bombs? Jetpack? Freeze gun? Shrink gun? Fabulous lines? Interactive environments? Not one single of these things but all of them combined. So all your "this, implemented here" is pointless.

Now it maxes out at...80 vs 80, as I recall.

So split it into many smaller areas, where smaller battles of 20 vs 20 can take place, but make the whole zone a war zone. Or make an engine that allows transitions between such areas seamlessly. And not just a duel arena, but a war ground between major factions. Still, sounds primarily like shoddy programming.

VERY difficult missions which would be attempted and failed over and over until someone succeeds and the result is permanent,

So lots of development time, play testing, and balancing for something 0.0001% of players will get to see?

Absolutely not. Do NOT balance it. Make it as over-the-top as the ancient guardian in Everquest, the unkillable one, which took some 60 people about 8 hours to kill.
Don't even make it extra-unique. If making a location takes extreme effort, your development process is broken. Sure balancing it may take time, but you don't need to balance this one. And no, you, mr. paying customer, will be hearing epic stories of heroes who did this. And if you want it again, better start getting better for a follow-up at a different location.

expensive, prestigeous public locations for rent/sale and personalized use.

Woohoo, more stuff that 0.0001% of the player base can use.

Once again, if development of another location takes too much time, your development process is broken. Besides, many of these will be public areas: shops, workshops, guildhouses. Many of them can be "canned rooms".
I suggest playing a bit with TES Construction Set, for Oblivion or Morrowind, and see how easy and fast, and streamlined the process of creating locations can be.

The very essence of a "live world" MMORPG is a platform that easily, seamlessly and dynamically accepts edits and new content from developers (and I don't mean "update on startup", I mean you can sit back and watch a house being built). The process of development of the game should be as streamlined as, say, using GMod to build objects in Source engine, or building things in Minecraft. A sandbox for developers to try stuff, then the developer's avatar enters the world, and does the same thing, live, as players watch, starting creation of a new bridge, or a new wall.

construction of massive structures progressing by tiny phases, so your contribution is permanent ("I built THIS door of the castle"),

Again, this is a MULTIPLAYER game. Blizz tries to avoid things that encourage people to say "screw everyone else" and just play on their own.

It still should be a game where the players can work as a team, but not necessarily as a group. Split responsibilities, scatter the group, one goes to gather stone, another masons it into blocks, yet another chopping wood, and another doing business about tools... they all build a fortress for the group, but at the moment every one of them is solo'ing their own separate part of pursuit for the common goal.

Re:Damn!

[badboy_tw2002]

Assasins Creed or many other games do this well, and have for a long time. MMOs for some reason still think they can get away with it.

Re:Damn!

[tsm_sf]

Here you go.

Re:Damn!

[Anonymous Coward]

this has been addressed recently.

1: PVP exists separately from PVE, they do not overlap in the main world.

2: if someone is not actively contributing to the event then they won't be counted as a participant...the event will scale down and they won't get any rewards.

Re:Damn!

[BlackSnake112]

Well according to: http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_2 there is no monthly fee with guild wars 2. There isn't a monthly fee with the first one either.

Re:Damn!

[GooberToo]

What do you propose as an alternative?

They could dynamically move (or at least have times where they were there and not) rather than statically persist. It would actually make the game more enjoyable by giving a sense of a real world with real people rather than a static, inflexible, unchanging, unyielding world.

Re:Damn!

[GooberToo]

Wish I had mod points. Very informative.

Re:Damn!

[tycoex]

GW2 does not yet have a beta. Or maybe you were referring to one of the demos they had at PAX or GamesCon?

Re:Damn!

[SirMasterboy]

Yes, the demo kiosks. They are running a "beta" build so I call it a beta.

Re:Damn!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not necessarily. Star Trek Online is releasing what they call the "Foundry" which will allow players to author content. I'm incredibly excited about that since it's something the game REALLY needs, and allowing players to create ratable content allows for new content to be created free by the players then allows the rest of the players deem it worthy or not. This solves the problem of needing to sink billions into development to add content. I can't wait to create my own missions.

So, if GW2 decided later on to implement something similar, should they need to, then the sky could be the limit. All depends on how it's done.

Re:Damn!

[cforciea]

IIRC Guild Wars 2 only has auto attack in the sense that you can set one of your weapon skills to automatically activate on recharge. All attacks come from your skill bar, so there is not auto attack in the strictest sense.

Re:Damn!

[Quirkz]

I think you may have just sold me on trying this game. I've stayed away from many other MMOs because real-world time is a huge barrier for me (and also because I can't stomach monthly fees, though part of that comes back to feeling like I need to play to get my money's worth). But this sounds like something I can enjoy casually, or in depth, as time is available and the mood strikes.

Re:Damn!

[morari]

For me, that's always been the BIG failure of MMOs. The combat is boring. It's practically turn-based in all but a few games. The handful of titles that do try to implement a real-time, skill-based system fail miserably. Assuming one game got that right, it just might be enough to make up for redundant quests and pointless grinding... it still wouldn't be enough to mitigate the monthly fees though (at least Guild Wars gets that one right).

Re:Damn!

[thesandtiger]

It's quite doable. Take a lesson from the real world, where we have billions of people all trying to change the world (to some extent).

Star Wars: Galaxies has a really flexible (albeit buggy as hell) system of professions and virtually no content at all back when it launched. So, it was a sandbox, basically.

Yet you had players having a massive impact on their servers - crafters would set up business empires employing dozens (or, in some cases, hundreds and maybe up to a thousand) people, politician classes would build and manage player run cities. ALL of the content in the game, except for really crappy theme parks (Work for Jabba the Hutt, win a fishing pole! For use on the desert planet Tatooine!) was player generated basically.

There was an incredible economy going on - it was subject to hyperinflation because there were no money sinks and limitless money generating missions - but it was still pretty amazing.

Scale that concept up - put some actual development talent into it instead of the "minds" behind SOE and you can have an amazing game where players can change the world in meaningful ways.

Re:Damn!

[PhilHibbs]

Blizz also tries to avoid implementing mechanics that encourages everyone to join up in a few large guilds. Sure, large guilds do have advantages, but right now, they aren't overwhelming.

That's actually the biggest problem I have with the latest expansion - it has practically destroyed small guilds. All the active players are consolidating into the big guilds with all the perks. And those that aren't consolidating are finding it hard to get raid places, as you need 75% of the raid to be guild members in order to get guild credit for raid kills.

Re:Damn!

[RobDude]

The only level of input that matters is $$$.

And casual gamers are more cost effective than hardcore gamers. Spendings 20 hours a day on the server and paying $15 per month isn't as beneficial to the game company as someone who plays 5 hours a week and pays $15 per month.

Re:Damn!

[PhilHibbs]

Now it maxes out at...80 vs 80, as I recall.

So split it into many smaller areas, where smaller battles of 20 vs 20 can take place, but make the whole zone a war zone. Or make an engine that allows transitions between such areas seamlessly. And not just a duel arena, but a war ground between major factions. Still, sounds primarily like shoddy programming.

No, sounds like an inevitable consequence of an MMO. That first M? That stands for "Massive". Not "Up to 20". As soon as you put in changeable worlds, a bunch of trolls will flock to a single point and make a fort the shape of a penis.

Re:Damn!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's an incredibly difficult goal for a game with tens of thousands of players on a server, all trying to change the world. Unless they stick with their "instanced world", but that isn't really an MMO, it's a single-player or small-group game with "3d avatar chat rooms" called "towns". What I like about WoW is that you can bump into people doing stuff while you are out there doing stuff. I've made friends by seeing someone having a tough time in a fight and going and helping them out. That never happens in GW. Having that flexibility and a dynamic world seems impossible to me, but I hope I'm proved wrong some day.

Then you'll be happy to learn thats probably the biggest change in GW2 over the first one. It's not going to be instanced like the first one and random encounters are going to be he norm like they are in WOW and others.

Re:Damn!

[DarkJC]

I thought this was supposed to be a tech site? How does a bullet point wishlist of features with absolutely no regard to the difficulty of implementation on the technical side or pitfalls on the game implementation side get modded to +5 insightful?

Re:Damn!

[praxis]

In my dream MMO (such a game already exists in a different setting) if the community didn't agree with that penis, they'd get together a posse and destroy it and kill the guy who made it.

Re:Damn!

[bckrispi]

Phasing was used piecemeal in Wrath of the Lich King. Zones like Icecrown and Storm Peaks used it pretty extensively. With Cataclysm, every new zone makes heavy use of phasing. Their design goal was to make it feel like as you quested, you were actually making a difference in the world around you. However, this came with an unforeseen drawback. I can level numerous characters from 1-80, and have a different experience every time. There are enough disconnected quest hubs in each zone where I can pick and choose which towns I quest through, and which pieces of the story I encounter. With the Cataclysm 80-85 leveling, I will see the same storyline and the same quests for every character I level. The tradeoff with having heavily phased/story driven quests is that questing has become almost unbearably linear.

Re:Damn!

[tycoex]

It's true that stupid people will sadly act as you described.

However, one of the goals Anet has for GW2 is to eliminate the concept of the "endgame." Typically in mmos you simply grind until you are max level so you can get to the "fun stuff." Anet thinks that a game that makes you wait for the "fun part" isn't a very good game. They are trying to design a game where the entire thing is fun, and people don't feel the need to reach max level quickly in order to have fun.

They are also implementing a side-kicking system so high level players can play with their lower level friends without roflstomping everything, and vice-versa. This should eliminate some of the need for people to reach max level to play with their friends.

Re:Damn!

[bckrispi]

That's actually the biggest problem I have with the latest expansion - it has practically destroyed small guilds. All the active players are consolidating into the big guilds with all the perks. And those that aren't consolidating are finding it hard to get raid places, as you need 75% of the raid to be guild members in order to get guild credit for raid kills.

Oh, bollocks! My guild is the epitome of a "small, casual" guild. We have a core of less than 20 "dedicated" players. Our Cataclysm raid progression is currently a whopping 1/12. And still our Guild is already level 18, which provides some pretty sweet perks, as it is.

Re:Damn!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I'll back up his statement 100% I've played GW off and on for awhile. (currently OFF due to getting married), but I've enjoyed jumping back in front time to time for a few hours. That's not something I can do with most MMOs, mainly because of the monthly fee (reactivation, and DEactivation is a pain, and I'm not paying for months I didn't play)

I've gone from a hardcore MMO player (old school DAoC), to a casual gamer, and GW has been most appealing

Re:Damn!

[Onuma]

SWG was an amazingly social game in its early form. One of the best parts of the game was joining up with 19 random players (iirc 20 was the max group size) and ravaging the interplanetary countrysides to be [temporarily] free of Banthaas, Rancors, and a slew of other critters and enemies. You didn't have guaranteed archetypes, as all skills could be learned by all characters -- so many players chose to have some healing abilities combined with ranged and melee damage potential, perhaps even a couple of pets (old school CH ftw!).

You also had an immense amount of people RPing on the same servers where others were raiding and PVPing. You had town politics, owned property, instanced and non-instanced zones, a player-driven economy, and lots more.

Before the "combat revamp", the game was uniquely fun. Once they broke it down into X-number unique classes with zero cross-train ability, it just was not as enjoyable of a game.

When I was at PAX East, I didn't even bother checking out GW2. The lines were not that long numerically, but each person got about an hour of gameplay to themselves! I'm not waiting in line for 2 hours just to try a beta version of a game that seems too-familiar to so many others at first glance.

Re:Damn!

[TheStatsMan]

I've found that with each further patch in WoW, there were fewer and fewer people out "doing stuff." In fact, WoW is pretty much a glorified chat room for the queuing system at this point. You never have to leave Ogrimmar and you can essentially 'win.'

Re:Damn!

[Kaz Riprock]

I can only assume that griefing has crossed their minds and they have some mechanism of coping with it. I am extremely excited about this game but when I read the bit about events scaling...They're talking about how they've solved the problem of kill-stealing but is PvP interaction enabled in public areas? If ten people are "participating" in an event but two or three of them are attacking the other players, that's a problem. Heck, if ten people are participating and two or three are just hanging around doing nothing to make the event scale harder for the remaining players, that's a problem. I can only hope and trust that this possibility is obvious enough that there was some consideration of it in the development of these interactions.

At Pax East, they commented further on this. Kill-stealing is solved because everyone who participates gets full credit and full reward for doing so. They also said that if 10 people are fighting and 2-3 are standing there, the AI is smart enough not to count them in its scaling calculations (they can even plink the enemy a bit to "act" interested...but still not count because they aren't meeting the level necessary to be considered "active" participants). From what they said at the convention panel, it does truly appear like all of these things have been taken into consideration.

Re:Damn!

[HermMunster]

The holy trinity comes from EQ and it comprised of the Tank, Healer, and Slower. DPS concept didn't play into that and was an afterthought.

Re:Damn!

[Skywolfblue]

That can be problematic. A person wants to do Quest X, but due to work schedules cant log in at night, and Quest X is only offered at night. Or the quest is never there when they go to look for it. Causal gamers don't want to wander up and down a road *hoping* for a quest to spawn, they just want to show up, click the quest and instantly get into action. I'm hoping GW2 can make Dynamic interesting, but there is a lot to be said about the advantages of static questing.

Re:Damn!

[Skywolfblue]

There's a very big reason for that. MMOs are a more social game. People play to chat with the fellas, kick back have some beers and enjoy, rather then focus on individual performance. This is why Facebook and WoW have dominated the market.

Re:Damn!

[SharpFang]

You don't talk with everyone at once. You don't see everyone at once. Even on goddamned IRC there are channels.
A split into smaller manageable sections is perfectly viable as long as transition is nearly seamless.

Are the GTA games a set of smallish town pieces? Technically they were, but since transition was seamless, from the player's standpoint it's one large piece of land.

Is the game's requirement to run on a single server to be a MMO? Or can it be distributed over a cloud, where each server manages a small piece of land, but transitions between them are seamless from the player's viewpoint?

Re:Damn!

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no PvP in public. Just in certain designated areas.

Feeling bad for them.

[rasmusneckelmann]

There's just no way any MMO is going to "beat" World of Warcraft, except maybe Blizzard's next one. Maybe Guild Wars 2 is going to be a better game in every way possible, it's not going to matter anything... It's like if I sat down and made a "social network" site that was better in every way than facebook, and then expected that everyone would stop using facebook and use my service instead. It's just not going to happen, the momentum is too big.

Trying to market a large fantasy-themed MMORPG at the moment is naive at best.

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[Anonymous Coward]

ICQ's momentum?

Myspace's?

Halo? TV? CDs? VCRs?

What about every single fashion and fad in the history of mankind?

When the momentum is "too big", time and time again it has proven to be "too big".

Tell your theory to the next guy you see cancelling his facebook account.

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[lennier1]

... It's like if I sat down and made a "social network" site that was better in every way than facebook ...

"Betamax vs. VHS" comments in 3,2,1, ...

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[mikael_j]

ICQ's momentum?

Was beaten my MS bundling MSN/MSN Live/Whatever they call it these days Messenger with Windows.

Myspace's?

Was not the first nor did it have nearly the dominance some people who were themselves myspace users thought it had. Most people I know, who are now Facebook users, hated Myspace and did not have Myspace accounts.

Halo? TV? CDs? VCRs?

CDs and VCRs have basically been replaced by new technology supported by those who previously supported these formats.

What about every single fashion and fad in the history of mankind?

No one is saying WoW will live on forever, only that it's not realistic to assume that every new MMO that comes out is the next "WoW killer" (just like not every new smartphone is an "iPhone killer").

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[Nocturnal Deviant]

WoW is going seriously downhill, the developers are making horrible decisions, I cancelled my account and havent gone anywhere near looking back. to be honest when guild wars 2 comes out I along with many others, specifically PvPers will be moving to it.

A lot of people have lost faith in blizzards ability to balance recently, sorry to say but soon there will be a new MMO king, and I do not think it will be made by Blizzard.

This of course does not count Blizzard's new MMO that is coming out, That might have a chance to topple the replacement for WoW. Of course any replacement probably will be short lived or niche being that blizzard has the marketing capability to move people to it's next big MMO, however after watching how they have squandered away WoW I personally will probably not be moving to it.

Blizzards main strength are its casual players who play because friends do. at this point however people still look up to the Elitist people, most of which 2400+ arena players or progressive PvE guilds, all of which are really searching for something new, myself included.

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[loufoque]

There's just no way any MMO is going to "beat" World of Warcraft

As far as I'm concerned, any MMO is better than WoW. I never got why people liked it so much. It's the most terrible one I've ever played.
It's pure grinding, has little to no character customization, uninteresting classes that are all the same, very poor graphics...
It's like an old school MMORPG but without the roleplaying nor the old-school feel.

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[malkavian]

You don't have to assume that everything will be a WoW killer. Just that one completely different model (free to play, unsubscribed, content rich game without grind) has a chance.
Sooner or later, WoW will topple. It's not if, it's definitely when. The question that needs to be asked is what it takes to topple it. That's what the game devs are theorising about; it just takes one of them to get it right.

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[Sky Cry]

Skype has beaten ICQ for me, because Skype does so much more: voice, video, etc. Facebook has beaten LiveJournal for me, because Facebook does so much more: faster/easier sharing of interesting links, photos, organizing events, etc. The same for CDs, VCRs, etc. And the same applies to Guild Wars 2 - it can beat World of Warcraft, if it manages to offer more.

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[rasmusneckelmann]

I've played WoW since release and I share your view that the game is going downhill (since end of TBC). The reward/effort ratio is simply too high for the average old-school MMORPG player. But we need to realize that we're a tiny minority, nobody cares if we stop playing. We can go play Rift or Guild Wars 2 or whatever, Blizzard isn't going to notice it.

WoW caters to a huge spectrum of player types. The cartoonish style of the game appeals to casual players ranging from young kids to housewives. Just looking at the screenshots of Guild Wars 2 I can tell you that it's not going to have the same impact. Realistic looking hot chicks? I don't think the average casual housewife is going to enjoy that the same way as nerds like us.

Sure, if you read the MMO-champion forums you'll easily get the idea that all WoW-players hate WoW and want to quit... But it's just a (very) loud minority. WoW isn't going anywhere in the near future.

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[CarbonShell]

I think what caught most players in the WoW trap was that they did not want their investments to be for nothing.
Think about it, they spent a lot of time any money on virtually nothing and if they quit, they will lose it.
The hype lured them in, by the time they had noticed it was 'rinse&repeat' gameplay, they had already invested so much time and money.
Then they went for the raids, hoping it will bring back the enthusiasm, but that wears off quickly and their last resorts are trying to get the super-duper-epic-drops.

I really loved GW1 and it was a great game and I will definitely stay true.
Not only the game itself really was fun and always a challenge, but the love for detail and the creativity really won my heart.
After lvl 20, it no longer became a question of grinding and what armor you had, it became about your skill with your specialized char and your team play.
The class, skill and specializations were phenomenal. You not only had to create a character, you had to 'learn' the character style, as each had their own flow.
And just when you think you had mastered them, you get whipped in the arena by a better team.
Plus the fact that you only had to buy the game and NO monthly subscription crap really helped it also.

From what I hear GW2 will also have no subscriptions.

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[rasmusneckelmann]

More than 10 million people are playing World of Warcraft, all with social connections within the game.

Sure, maybe in a few years only 5 million people will be playing, but it will probably still be the biggest MMORPG out there.

Of course the game isn't going to live forever, but the idea of Guild Wars 2 "beating" WoW is just absurd.

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[Nocturnal Deviant]

well to give you some ideas 3 couples i know are quitting, my wife is quitting, 15 fellow gladiators(along with a host of their followers)...

its more along the lines of they are losing more than are coming in. so slowly but surely they will start to notice the impact.

most players start playing because of other friends that play that started because other friends got them in. the same order works in reverse. when all of your friends are quitting you slowly lose interest in the game, being that it relies on social interaction.

i am a release player myself, know we are the relative minority.however as they say shit rolls downhill. and people that have been around the longest know the most people.

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[realityimpaired]

You know, people said that about EverQuest, when WoW came out. That the idea of WoW beating EQ was simply absurd because there were so many people playing EQ who wouldn't want to simply switch.

Of course, GuildWars doesn't have to sink WoW to win. It just has to have a large enough player base to succeed financially. And that's going to depend on the quality of the content and gameplay. And if it's good enough, then it will slowly win out over WoW... those social connections that you mention? They're WoW's achilles heel as well. Lots of people cancel their WoW account because the game's not fun any more, but stay in touch with their WoW friends through social media. I cancelled my account a while ago, but I still have friends I met through WoW on various friends lists... I was talking to three of them within the last 24 hours on MSN, even. Word of mouth will spread, and as more people get frustrated with WoW, more people will try it out, and some of those people will cancel their WoW account and sign up to play GuildWars. 7 degrees, and all. :)

It's a ripple effect. No game is going to kill WoW overnight. But sooner or later, a game will come along that brings WoW down. Not with a bang, but with a whimper.

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[91degrees]

It simply needs to reach a certain critical mass. Once there are enough players (I have no idea how many "enough" is), then it's going to look like an equally attractive proposition. If other aspects of the game are more compelling then the larger player base is less important.

Exactly how they get to critical mass, I have no idea.

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[Bengie]

That's assuming they charge the same amount. If they have different subscription plans, like $5/month or free again, then they may not have to directly complete with WoW. All they have to do is offer an comparable experience and capture the audience that couldn't afford or didn't want to pay WoW's $15/month+transfer-costs.

Once your base gets big enough, friend referrals and good gaming will capture many many more players.

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[rasmusneckelmann]

As you say, people usually quit in groups because nobody wants to play anymore if all their friends have stopped.

Basically my entire guild quit the game shortly after WOTLK was released, but for every people who stops playing, either a new casual player wants to try the game or an old WoW veteran is drawn back by nostalgia. If you check out the WoW subscription numbers, they've been remarkably stable since WOTLK.

Another thing we shouldn't forget is how much we've changed ourselves. Personally I like to complain about how WoW isn't like in the "good old days", but thinking about it, it's probably mainly because I'm out-MMORPG'd. When I finally cancel my WoW account (probably soon since I'm not really playing the game anymore), I don't think I'll go on to another MMORPG, and I believe a lot of other players feel the same way.

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[LordNacho]

There's just no way any MMO is going to "beat" World of Warcraft

As far as I'm concerned, any MMO is better than WoW. I never got why people liked it so much. It's the most terrible one I've ever played.
It's pure grinding, has little to no character customization, uninteresting classes that are all the same, very poor graphics...
It's like an old school MMORPG but without the roleplaying nor the old-school feel.

I played WoW for quite a while, and I can understand some of what you say. To begin with, I was between jobs, with a lot of time to kill. I thought I'd play WoW to see some interesting landscapes, which of course meant you had to level. It was a bit of a grind, but at least it changed somewhat every couple of levels, and there were new abilities, new instances, etc. I could play the game as I wanted, in my own time, without relying on other players, while still playing it as a multiplayer game.

But when I got to the max level, all that changed! When you're raiding, the game plays you! You have schedules, people are expecting you to have done your homework (hotkeys, spec, reading about encounters). On top of that, it's quite frustrating to wait for the recruitment of replacements, as people inevitable will decide not to turn up. And also, rerunning a boss encounter over and over is tiring.

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[rasmusneckelmann]

You know, people said that about EverQuest, when WoW came out. That the idea of WoW beating EQ was simply absurd because there were so many people playing EQ who wouldn't want to simply switch.

I'm pretty sure that it was a different kind of people who played EverQuest. The appeal of WoW is just so much broader. I'd say the current WoW has more in common with FarmVille than Everquest :P.

Of course, GuildWars doesn't have to sink WoW to win. It just has to have a large enough player base to succeed financially. And that's going to depend on the quality of the content and gameplay. And if it's good enough, then it will slowly win out over WoW...

You're right, as far as I know, none of these "failed" WoW-killers actually turned out as big financial losses. They usually start out with a huge amount of preorders and a couple of months of insane growth, mostly from WoW-players who are tired of the game and want to try something new. But after a few months these people often realize how good WoW actually is and go back to play that again (or quit MMORPGs completely). I've seen it so many times.

I'm not sure what it is going to take to keep these players hooked more than a few months, but sure, if some company figures it out then they might win over Blizzard in the long (very long) run.

It's a ripple effect. No game is going to kill WoW overnight. But sooner or later, a game will come along that brings WoW down. Not with a bang, but with a whimper.

Indeed.

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[NoSleepDemon]

This happened to my guild as well; most of us were IRL friends and got tired of Blizzard's single minded attempts to kill world PvP. It's as if after the debacle that was Halaa they just stopped trying. Cities are now all but impossible to attack with anything less than a full on raid, and when that happens... Well we all know how well the WoW engine deals with large numbers of players in one area. Even with Wintergrasp you now have to queue to enter the battle. There are so many ways they could improve world encounters with the opposing faction but they simply don't. Case in point - anyone on a flying mount is basically un-killable.

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[Talon88]

I don't know how many MMOs you've played, but I'd like to address some of these points.

'Pure grinding' - you can level up through pvp, questing, or dungeons, and currently can get a 35% increase in experience gained, meaning that you can fly through 'old content.

'No character customization' - Well, yeah, aside from facial expressions, skin color, and a haircut, you're right, they're just cookie-cutter clones.

'Uninteresting classes that are all the same' - Here, I have to wonder what your actual experience is, and how long you played. The classes may be the same at 10, but certainly aren't once you get into levelling, or run dungeons, and especially not when you're raiding. Playing a tank is obvious a gigantic difference from playing a healer - but even within classes themselves, there's a huge difference in playstyle between a mage and a warlock, or a rogue and a ret (DPS) paladin.

If nothing else, the fact that all of the classes in WoW have different trees, different abilities, and should be played (optimally) in different ways is something that's worthy of a lot of respect, in my opinion. Granted, if you only care about pressing one or two buttons, they probably don't feel different. But if for anyone that played the game and experienced some of the end-game content, I think it's a pretty laughable statement on face.

'Poor graphics' - I think there's a very deliberate art style expressed here, one that's cartoony but not overly so. But if it's not your cup of tea, sure, I suppose that could be considered poor.

I'm not quite sure what an 'old-school' feel is, and I don't deny that there isn't that much RPing going on in servers, though it can still be found (and on the forums too!).

-

Fundamentally, I think Blizzard did to MMOs the same thing they did with RTSs with Starcraft and hack-and-slash RPGs with Diablo - they took a system, and polished it until it was the best offering on the market. Is it perfect? No. But within the confines of this system, they have always walked the fine line between atrophy through lack of change and driving your players away through too much (SW:G, anyone?). And they're still polishing it, still iterating and getting feedback on class distinctions and balance and ways to make challenges both accessible and, well, challenging.

Granted, people should always be looking beyond the system, and games like EVE Online and Guild Wars are fascinating and contribute to the future of the industry. But that doesn't make what WoW did any less great.

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of the games that have tried to take over from WoW have done so with gimmicky mechanics. Warhammer Online is an excellent example. When the low level player base began to dry up just a couple of weeks into the game it became obvious that the game absolutely sucks without large numbers of players in all the zones. World of Warcraft is difficult to follow mostly because it's what, 6 years old with constant updating during that time. Its really difficult to have a game at launch that can match what 6 years of tweaking gets you. You just have to cross your fingers and pray that what the developers believe should be the next big innovation actually IS.

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[Anonymous Coward]

I say this as well, but what it boils down to, I won't go on to another MMORPG that I have to pay for. Two accounts for my wife and myself is $30 a month I'd really like to have back.

Guild Wars is appealing because they're pushing on the no monthly subscription. I don't need to feel as guilty if I stop playing for a month. Right now, I log in once a week to raid and my wife just plays auction hall games. Neither of us wants to full quit, but that money per month is starting to look rather wasteful.

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[Shillo]

Anet guys specifically say that their goal is to build the highest quality game ever, not the best selling game ever. They also never mention WoW.

WoW comparisons in the article are all Eurogamer editorializing, not Anet statements.

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[archen]

I played WoW since the middle of BC. I've seen a decent amount of the join / quit cycle, and it's very different this time. The "community" has become excessively caustic over the course of Wrath. People talk about running groups out of guild like it's torture. Most people who have an aptitude to play WoW, have played it - the only people coming in are probably kids who are just starting to get into gaming. I'm supposing it's not coincidental how that's affected the maturity level of the average player. I mention all this because it was getting pretty tough to put up with in Wrath when every boss was a loot pinata. Now that things got tough it's not worth it to many people. Out of about 40 people in my guild who were regular players (one even being acquainted with the game since the Alpha), it's withered to about 5 who might keep playing.

WoW has run out of ideas, and run out of decent people to replenish its ranks. I'm not sure I'd say it's "doomed", but it's on a hell of a decline. My subscription runs out in 2 months, and I think I'm done with MMOs as well.

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[ildon]

Also, in the context of social networking companies and game companies, imagine Facebook was owned by Google. Even if small pockets of people have started to dislike Blizzard for various reasons, they're still a giant in the industry as far as releasing hugely successful blockbuster titles, even ignoring WoW completely. You could put the Blizzard logo on a completely random game and sell 2 million copies due to brand recognition/trust, even if it turned out to be crappy.

To beat WoW, you're not just beating WoW, you're beating WoW and Blizzard. Not an easy feat.

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[SirMasterboy]

GW2 is not going to have a subscription fee. This has been officially said over a year ago by the developers countless times.

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[SirMasterboy]

I've played both GW1 and WoW and as far as my experience and fun went, GW was already a better game.

I'm still playing GW1 after more than 5 years. I stopped playing WoW long ago.

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[ildon]

The biggest problem is that most developers don't have the financial resources and backing to release their game when it's actually done, nor do they have the discipline to actually have a realistic target for what "done" means. With WoW you had a company that was an expert at releasing single player games when they were "done", and knew where and when to cut to make that happen. They already had release date discipline, even though their previous success had put them in a position where they didn't actually need release date discipline.

Almost every other company in the industry that's been making MMO's for the past 10 years other than Blizzard (and maybe other than SquareEnix, but they make enough other mistakes with their MMOs that it doesn't matter) has had this antagonistic relationship with their publisher where they are letting feature creep push their release date into infinity and the publisher is trying to reign that in. Instead of working together they're working against each other, and what you end up with is Warhammer Online and Age of Conan where they're about half done with the content and then have to rush to polish what they have and push it out the door early and hope to patch in the rest of it at some indeterminate point in the future, but only if they have enough initial sales to justify it.

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[ildon]

15 fellow gladiators

You missed his point completely. The fact that you're friends with 15 gladiator players shows that you are a hardcore player and hang out with hardcore players. But hardcore players aren't what makes Blizzard the big bucks. And just because you're married (or "a couple" or whatever) doesn't necessarily make you a casual player.

Every person I know could quit WoW right now and Blizzard would not notice. It'd be invisible behind their regular churn. It might cause a ruckus on my server but 2 months later even they would pretty much forget.

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[ildon]

When people talk about "beating" WoW they're talking in terms of subscriber numbers. What you personally like or don't like isn't really relevant. I don't really like Call of Duty but that doesn't stop it from being the most popular, fastest selling FPS game around.

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[feidaykin]

funny, my opinion is that wow is in the best state it has ever been in. granted, with a game as old as wow, it is hard to recapture that shiny newness that a fresh mmo has. but wows endgame has never been better. now 10man raids are on equal footing with 25 mans since the loot is identical. this means players no longer feel forced to run both 10 and 25 mans to advance. this gives smaller guilds a huge advantage, making wows endgame more accessable than it has ever been. at the same time, the game is far from dumbed down - the heroic 5 mans are quite challenging (at least for pugs) and the raids have a mix of easy, somewhat hard, and crazy insane bosses. there is literally something for everyone now. anyway, if any slashdotters read this, i play as raymer on whisperwind alliance and will gladly help run you through some quests or dungeons and whatnot.

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly what a vocal minority don't want. Accessibility is considered a bad thing. Someone who only plays 30 hours a week should never be able to get the same gear as a "real" player. They like the old EQ days where a guild could lock everyone else out of content by being on-call to drop bosses as soon as they spawned, even if they didn't need the gear. Having mechanisms that allow casual players to reach the same epeen level even if more slowly is considered wrong by these people, and they hate WoW with every breath they take.

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[elrous0]

Everything has gone downhill since I was young.

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Trying to market a large fantasy-themed MMORPG at the moment is naive at best.

Its a good thing Google didn't believe this...

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[Mike Mentalist]

Pretty much. Prior to the release of Cata there was a lot of noise made by the old crowd who said that the heroic dungeons should be hard and challenging and that crowd-control should be made compulsory again. Blizzard listened, obeyed and did just that... until the numbers rolled in and it turned out that catering to the whims of such a small, vocal crowd wasn't such a good idea after all.

It turned out that players simply stopped doing the dungeons when they realised how tricky and time-consuming they were in a PUG.

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[Yamata no Orochi]

You know, people said that about EverQuest, when WoW came out. That the idea of WoW beating EQ was simply absurd because there were so many people playing EQ who wouldn't want to simply switch.

I'm pretty sure that it was a different kind of people who played EverQuest. The appeal of WoW is just so much broader. I'd say the current WoW has more in common with FarmVille than Everquest :P.

Oh my god, this is the best line I've ever heard. I'm going to troll the shit out of the WoW-players with this.

Thank you, so much.

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, people said that about EverQuest, when WoW came out. That the idea of WoW beating EQ was simply absurd because there were so many people playing EQ who wouldn't want to simply switch.

Of course, GuildWars doesn't have to sink WoW to win. It just has to have a large enough player base to succeed financially. And that's going to depend on the quality of the content and gameplay. And if it's good enough, then it will slowly win out over WoW... those social connections that you mention? They're WoW's achilles heel as well. Lots of people cancel their WoW account because the game's not fun any more, but stay in touch with their WoW friends through social media. I cancelled my account a while ago, but I still have friends I met through WoW on various friends lists... I was talking to three of them within the last 24 hours on MSN, even. Word of mouth will spread, and as more people get frustrated with WoW, more people will try it out, and some of those people will cancel their WoW account and sign up to play GuildWars. 7 degrees, and all. :)

It's a ripple effect. No game is going to kill WoW overnight. But sooner or later, a game will come along that brings WoW down. Not with a bang, but with a whimper.

You've got some good ideas here..I think what killed EQ. (remember when it was called evercrack) was EQ2. The community split hard. Some liked the new game, some hated it. Some were happy to start fresh and some couldn't let go. This is what's going to happen to WOW. Sooner or later they will need to do a major overhaul and will need a WOW2.. and it won't survive the change.

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[bckrispi]

I'm pretty sure that it was a different kind of people who played EverQuest. The appeal of WoW is just so much broader.

Six years ago, WoW started out more like "Casual" EverQuest. Keep in mind that "Casual" here meant you needed to coordinate a group of 40 players who could dedicate a four hour stretch to raiding if you wanted to see 80% of the end-game content. Burning Crusade replaced the 40 man raids with 25 main raiding. Wrath allowed the flexibility of each raid supporting either 25 or 10 man teams. Cataclysm stuck with this model, but instead of 25 man raids dropping better loot than their 10 man counterparts, they simply drop more loot. The increase in appeal to a broad audience and casual players and guilds wasn't designed into classic WoW, but evolved over the past six years.

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[bckrispi]

The "hard" heroics are a good thing! In Wrath, you could faceroll through most heroics the day after you hit 80. Cata heroics are actually challenging now! I love the fact that my Warlock actually has to keep an eye on his own health and occasionally Death Coil or Drain Life rather than just waiting for a couple ticks of the Druid's Rejuvenation to top my health off. Of course, these challenges can become damned unbearable when dealing with PUGs. Several times I'd put in 90 minutes on a dungeon only to get vote-kicked right before the last boss pull so three guys in the same guild could bring in a pal who needed the drop. Yes, it sucked - badly. But Blizzard has put some steps in place to mitigate bad behavior like this.

Re:Feeling bad for them.

[TheLink]

It's not just that.

When Warhammer released they had features that WoW didn't. But it didn't take long before WoW had many similar features too (and without as much crashing ;) ). Warhammer soon became an inferior WoW.

The WoW developers know some code-fu ;).

Uh oh, "Streamlined".

[Anonymous Coward]

That word "streamlined" scares me, it's like a four letter word to my ears. The track record that goes along with it recently isn't good: Dragon Age 2 gets "streamlined" and winds up being a step back compared to the original. Crysis 2 gets "streamlined" and winds up being a step back compared to the original. Mass Effect 2 is an exception since it got "streamlined" and wound up being better than the first. However it was not because of the "streamlining", but in spite of it. The "streamlined" skill system was a step back from the original but the much improved shooter mechanics and great cast of characters more than made up for it. For the love of god stop "streamlining" games.

Advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

Another wasted /. put towards advertising.

A game coming out, with no real information and touting greatness.

Even drunk I can say... why is this here?

Re:Advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

You should have tersed that up a little
Then it would have made a nice haiku
Those bloody poems that doesn't rhyme

Re:Advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

Go back to your football and beer, freak.

ArenaNet: 'Valve' of the MMO sphere?

[IAmAI]

I'm so waiting for an MMO game that doesn't feel like WOW disguised with prettier graphics and different models. I hoped Champions Online, in a completely separate setting, would feel more refreshing to play, but ultimately did not. The original Guild Wars was fantastic, and I'm yet to play an RPG game that felt anywhere near as compelling to play as Guild Wars. I'm expecting ArenaNet to deliver something that will be as much a joy to play as Guild Wars, perhaps even better. I think ArenaNet may well be the 'Valve' of the MMO sphere. I'm hoping they're going to introduce some much needed innovation to what's become somewhat stagnant MMO industry. I'm glad ArenaNet have been prepared to take some risks as I think it will take guts to innovate past Blizzard's behemoth.

Reach for the stars

[wye43]

After 6 years of watching new "WoW killers" pathetic little MMOs come and go, i'm not bitting anymore.

Nobody ever says that they aim to be "second-best". Even if they realistically expect to be 6th or7th, Sales & Marketing will boast that their lame product is the best ever, the new king of the market-share.

Steaming pile of bullshit. If WoW will ever be overthrown, it won't happen over night. It will be a very long and slow process, requiring tons of work and patience from the competitor. My bet is still on Blizzard. Titan will pwn.

Re:Reach for the stars

[osu-neko]

...it won't happen over night. It will be a very long and slow process, requiring tons of work and patience from the competitor.

Indeed. There's a reason why there's a "2" at the end of "Guild Wars 2". ArenaNet didn't spring up overnight. They delivered a product that was superior to WoW in just about every conceivable way back 2005, but with one significant issue: it wasn't really an MMORPG. WoW had just launched months before, BTW, so they weren't looking at making a WoW killer -- there was nothing to be slain, they were just trying to make a great game, and they succeeded. Ultimately, though, it was no more an MMORPG than Diablo II Battlenet realms were an MMORPG -- sure you could chat with a lot of people, but all the actual gameplay happened in 8 person instances. Better interface, better graphics, better gameplay, better questing, more interesting and fun combat, HUGELY better PvP, but, at the end of the day, not really even competition for WoW since it wasn't really an MMORPG, lacking a persistent world.

Guild Wars 2 is ArenaNet's first real attempt to go after the MMORPG market, but it's been a very long and slow process to be sure, many years of thought and development into bringing everything that makes Guild Wars a great game into a real MMORPG without losing what made Guild Wars so much better.

Played Both Since Release

[oakwine]

WoW since two weeks after it went live, GW since the day Prophecies went live. Love both games! GW 2 is going to be a very big game with player base potentially as large as WoW. However that potential will mostly be realized without drawing players away from WoW. GW 2 players will like the RPG element of the personal story line, enjoy the excitement of the ferocious fps style game play, and the many other innovative features of GW 2. Not to mention having no monthly fee! I will be getting the super deluxe edition. However WoW does have the momentum and it has defined its own genre of which it is the only truly viable member! GW 2 is poised to do the same thing. But I doubt there be heavy overlap between player populations of the two.

starving/dying peoples treated to night club acts

[Anonymous Coward]

sports trivia. evasion. rhetoric. more deception. give us yet another doublegood (spying/dying) routine. ha ha ha

The WoW killer...

[Anonymous Coward]

...in other words, it's going to be the mound of shit high enough to grab at your boot as you walk down the gaming discussion path day after day.

wasn't that invasion, like the aliens do?

[Anonymous Coward]

whatever, so long as it keeps their mood/vital signs down below homicidal, it's done. the time for the next smelly deal, is now. ah ha ha ha

Everyone stands on somoene's shoulder.

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone acts as if WoW as created out of thin air, but instead it's foundations were set by a multitude of other games of it's ilk. In fact, we can trace it's linage back to some pretty primitive games. In fact I can remember someone else doing a top down game before Blizzard came out with Diablo, it was called Syndicate and was put out by Bullfrog. If you want to be techical, you could trace a game of moving around in a 3D environment with other people all the way back to Doom. But you don't hear people describing current games like:" ..it's like DOOM man, but with really, really, really, really good graphics, and STUFF you can find that amazing, in fact it's like mixing Doom with Ultima Online, yeah!"

You probably don't have the older gamer's perspective of seeing every video game since Pong. Most of these 3D games I personally feel owe tribute to Battlezone; an old arcade game that was wire frame 3D. It was bleeding edge in it's day and I shoveled a bucket of quarters into it at least. My point being, that one shouldn't fall into a trap of only seeing things from the current perspective of what is being currently handed to you by the status qua elite. In short, don't be the geek at home still playing Pong when there is an Asteroids game down at the 7-11.

  I have watched numerous "500lb Gorilla" MMO companies rise and fall. They had their moments in the sun and reigned supreme, but alas something else came along that knocked them off their lofty throne. WoW is one big fat monkey, and it's end will be dramatic. The good news is, there will always be something awesome coming out. Just ask Pong.

PvP centric systems don't frighten Blizzard

[Shivetya]

Only Blizzard will kill World of Warcraft; some will say the latest expansion was a major attempt at doing that; and while GW2 looks very nice it still is a PvP centric MMO which don't do well in America. Blizzard succeeded wildly with both the Burning Crusade and Wrath of the Lich King expansions because they made content accessible to the majority of players. The game became very friendly towards even those who did not make it a second job. This put them so far over the top I really doubt Guild Wars 2 will do much more gather up all the WOW haters for a few months. See, WOW's other area of success is the end game raids.

So what if GW2 has supposedly done away with the old quest system, if there isn't something to do once you have level capped other than PvP it won't hold a majorities interest. Pretty games sell boxes but they don't hold people. After watching the demo movie I have one immediate comment, goodness I hope not everyone LOOKS like Legolas, the second being, whatever. Didn't really show me much. As for all types having the ability to self heal, unfortunately WOW has slipped that in to a degree recently and RIFT seems to do it as well.

So most likely it will come down to RIFT versus GW for the same people, but I do not see any PvP focused MMO dominating WOW anytime soon; yeah I know about the Korean ones but they aren't in the same market

Re:PvP centric systems don't frighten Blizzard

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it's fair to say right now that GW2 is a PvP centric MMO. Of all the news we have heard so far, we have gotten fairly little about PvP, the majority of content we have heard about is about PvE, which I suppose can say that GW2, will have a more even focus on PvE and PvP.

Re:PvP centric systems don't frighten Blizzard

[Anonymous Coward]

Get from under your WoW rock. :P GW2 isn't PvP centric at all. Getting the level cap doesn't mean anything, (you even get scaled down if you do lower level stuff, and you can get scaled up if you simply want to play with friends). Replay value of your personal storyline is alot bigger, plus you can keep doing the dynamic events simply because this time you haven't seen this big monster come up at the end or you simply want to help out other people.

WoW only delivers half stolen concepts from other games, it will never be able to provide full support for all types of gameplay. Simply because it's not made like that. To me WoW is the Tower of Pisa of MMO's. A world of wonders all build on the wrong base. It can put counterweights ropes and all kinds of constructs to supposedly make it a better game, but it's still looking stupid. Sure you can come back to WoW because they added new measures to keep up with current developments. Plus WoW raids are like holding out a piece of candy you will rarely get simply because WoW needs something to keep you busy. Surely it only succeeds in keeping stupid people busy rather than being an actual good game. Yes WoW has alot of good stuff, but Raids isn't one of them. At least not for try number 101.

But too be honest, the only comment you are making is based on one premade character presumably looking like Legolas. If that's all you have to say about it, you just proved it's a good game after all.

Re:PvP centric systems don't frighten Blizzard

[ildon]

Without a subscription model, it's actually in ArenaNet's interest for people to hit level cap and quit playing until the next expansion, then quit playing again when they complete that expansion's content.

Re:PvP centric systems don't frighten Blizzard

[Anonymous Coward]

Only Blizzard will kill World of Warcraft; some will say the latest expansion was a major attempt at doing that; and while GW2 looks very nice it still is a PvP centric MMO which don't do well in America. Blizzard succeeded wildly with both the Burning Crusade and Wrath of the Lich King expansions because they made content accessible to the majority of players. The game became very friendly towards even those who did not make it a second job. This put them so far over the top I really doubt Guild Wars 2 will do much more gather up all the WOW haters for a few months. See, WOW's other area of success is the end game raids.

So what if GW2 has supposedly done away with the old quest system, if there isn't something to do once you have level capped other than PvP it won't hold a majorities interest. Pretty games sell boxes but they don't hold people. After watching the demo movie I have one immediate comment, goodness I hope not everyone LOOKS like Legolas, the second being, whatever. Didn't really show me much. As for all types having the ability to self heal, unfortunately WOW has slipped that in to a degree recently and RIFT seems to do it as well.

So most likely it will come down to RIFT versus GW for the same people, but I do not see any PvP focused MMO dominating WOW anytime soon; yeah I know about the Korean ones but they aren't in the same market

As someone who played the alpha world preview, beta tested and player for the last what 6 years now. I have never played PVP in guild wars...

Guild Wars is not PVP focused at all. There is a very definite split from the PVP and the PVE. PVP in guild wars is done in arena like areas completely separated from the rest of the game. Other than acknowledging that the PVP arenas would be in GW2 nothing else they have release have mentioned or highlighted PVP aspects. Everything they have released has showed dynamic and different PVE game play. I mean it's frigging cool to see a fire ele cast up a wall of fire and have a ranger shoot arrows through it and have the arrows light on fire to deal fire dmg. No one is doing anything that cool.

Like i said, my gf, 6 of my friends and I have been playing GW since before launch and not one of us has ever gotten into the PVP part. So ya no idea where or how you come up with the idea that GW is PVP centric. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

Re:PvP centric systems don't frighten Blizzard

[bckrispi]

Only Blizzard will kill World of Warcraft; some will say the latest expansion was a major attempt at doing that;

To be fair, some said the same thing after Wrath came out... and after Burning Crusade was released...

Re:PvP centric systems don't frighten Blizzard

[bckrispi]

Yes WoW has alot of good stuff, but Raids isn't one of them. At least not for try number 101.

Oh, quit whining and learn-to-play.

Re:PvP centric systems don't frighten Blizzard

[Anonymous Coward]

Only Blizzard will kill World of Warcraft; some will say the latest expansion was a major attempt at doing that; and while GW2 looks very nice it still is a PvP centric MMO which don't do well in America. Blizzard succeeded wildly with both the Burning Crusade and Wrath of the Lich King expansions because they made content accessible to the majority of players. The game became very friendly towards even those who did not make it a second job. This put them so far over the top I really doubt Guild Wars 2 will do much more gather up all the WOW haters for a few months. See, WOW's other area of success is the end game raids.

So what if GW2 has supposedly done away with the old quest system, if there isn't something to do once you have level capped other than PvP it won't hold a majorities interest. Pretty games sell boxes but they don't hold people. After watching the demo movie I have one immediate comment, goodness I hope not everyone LOOKS like Legolas, the second being, whatever. Didn't really show me much. As for all types having the ability to self heal, unfortunately WOW has slipped that in to a degree recently and RIFT seems to do it as well.

So most likely it will come down to RIFT versus GW for the same people, but I do not see any PvP focused MMO dominating WOW anytime soon; yeah I know about the Korean ones but they aren't in the same market

Actually, GW is not PvP centric. I've been playing for almost 5 years, and have done "PvP' only once or twice to try it. I like Guild Wars over other MMOs because I am not forced into PvP. I can do 100% PvE if that is my desire, with no worries whatsoever that some player-killer will ambush me. PvP and PvE are entirely separated in location.

lol

[Charliemopps]

They've been "wary" about measuring against wow? I don't know where they're getting their information but there's been a steady stream of Games over the past few years that have claimed they were the wow killer and have failed miserably. If I remember correctly even Guildwars1 claimed they may take down wow... about 10min into the game and realizing it was all instancing, I knew better.

Re:lol

[ph0rk]

You are confusing what the game developers and marketers have said with what the community has said.

The only time I have ever heard the term "wow-killer" or anything like it was from a gamer that was consumed with the fervor of a new game - zeal of the converted.

What I -have- seen is developers/marketing pointing out one or two specific facets of WoW that their game does better or differently. Not the same thing.

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't remember correctly. Arena.net was started with some guys who worked at Diablo-era Blizzard on battle.net. GW was always ARPG and instanced. Even before it was announced it was known to be something in the Diablo vein.

So stop reading hype and idiot reviews then go back to playing Wo\v and you'll be OK.

Re:lol

[bckrispi]

Hmm. Last time I checked, the official marketing slogan (both online and on TV) for Rift's release was "You're not on Azeroth anymore!"

Re:lol

[Cowmonaut]

And Rift is not GW... and that's marketing not game developers... and that's not even that big of an attack on WoW so much as them saying its a different game...

Your point... where is it?

It will be at the top

[McTickles]

If it runs natively on Linux.

Otherwise, i might consider it if it runs flawless in Wine.

If it doesn't forget it have better things to do in life than tweak Wine to play games. and better things to do too than to install Windows.

Re:It will be at the top

[Anonymous Coward]

The first Guild Wars runs perfectly well under Wine, but I don't see that making major inroads.

No random PvP

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no PvP in the "main" (PvE) game world.

There are two kinds of PvP:
Structured PvP where teams battle each other for glory in special arenas.
Unstructured World vs World vs World PvP where you battle players from two other servers for control of a common area.

Structured PvP is the only way you can kill someone from your own server.

ArenaNet has gone to great length to prevent other players from your server to be seen as enemies. Two other examples: Multiple players can mine the same ore simultaneously. If two players both damage the same monster, both player will be able to loot it (and not from a common pool, both players will have individual loot assigned to them).

End of the grind

[vawwyakr]

That would be great. That is the worst invention of all rpgs...the higher the level you get the longer it takes to get to the next reward. Why do game developers think adding boredom to the game somehow makes it better? I hope they make a great game and topple that regime.

Re:Damn! - Eve?

[Danish_guy]

It's been a while(read: years) since I've played EVE, but it strikes me that a lot of the things you mention is already incorporated in that game.(BTW I'm not an EVE fanatic, I actually found it somewhat boring, despite a quite compelling world)

"epic missions - battles involving hundreds of players"

- Well, there's plenty of that, just check http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2LHvByxM70 for some huge battles

"massive events (enemy assault on a town, siege progressing day by day)"

- Not too sure about this, but should think was covered by the expansion that allowed planetary conquest?(yes/no?) if not then when trying to take an enemy one/base.

"timed progress of situation as players complete their tasks"

- I've no idea about this one, but being a single server game surely some "endgame" quests are one-offs?

"stalemate situations that need heavy power to throw them off balance"

- Not sure if there are any game created situations like this, but I've been in more than a few corporation based stalemates.

"important positions relatively easy to take over but difficult to hold, so they continuously change ownership"

- Ok, can't find a single example of this.( haven't looked very thoroughly though)

"significant guilds shaping the politics, economy, influencing the world,"

- This one is absolutely unavoidable in the game, completely player based economy and political landscapes. Granted, with root in some of the lore when it comes to politics.

"VERY difficult missions which would be attempted and failed over and over until someone succeeds and the result is permanent"

Again I take the position of one server = one-off quests.(again no idea if this is the case or not)

"construction of massive structures progressing by tiny phases, so your contribution is permanent ("I built THIS door of the castle")"

-Space stations, Strategic cruisers. 'Nuff said, well almost. Though massive structures taking ages to build, I suppose it's not really a "tiny phase" process.

"active environmental engineering (channels, lakes, dams) controlled from well defendable positions you can take over then hold or protect with traps"

- Argh space, no environment, got me on this one.

"portable structures that can be built anywhere by consolidated effort of a moderately sized group ("let's build a fortified checkpoint HERE.")"

- Corporations owning jumpgate sector by heavily fortifying them, Spacestations Strategic cruisers.

"Instantiated personal space (a room in a hotel or a house) so that every player has a fully customizable personal area without cutting into the massive bulk"

- As far as I know this is not yet the case. but weren't they going to implement this? a room in your ship you could enter in a first person view.

"expensive, prestigeous public locations for rent/sale and personalized use."

- Ok, got me again.

Anyhow now that I'm done rambling, I completely agree with you. I would love to see more of these features incorporated into more MMO games:)

It's called effort and reward

[Zingledot]

Look at ANY game. Look at LIFE.

If something is easy to get, everyone will get it. And once they get it, they toss it aside easily.

I got Ashkandi after months and months of raiding; it was a symbol of achievement in both patience and ability. Still keep it in my bags at level 85. All that badge gear? Destroyed.

The actual leveling part of WoW is not very grindy, and the gearing part has gotten MUCH less so but you still need SOME because it teaches you how to play your character and work through your strengths/weaknesses. What if everyone had a max level max geared character of ever class? How boring would that be....

Everyone wants to get to max level in a week and gear up in just as much time, without realizing that is infinitely more boring in the long run.

Problem is, how do you make it 'difficult' without being 'grindy' outside of PvP, and still making it attainable for everyone with the dedication.

Re:It's called effort and reward

[TheStatsMan]

Problem is, how do you make it 'difficult' without being 'grindy' outside of PvP, and still making it attainable for everyone with the dedication.

The WoW game at it's heart is simply too easy. It's intentionally set up so that clever tactics can't be used (simple physics, fake terrain, non-existent line of sight rules, etc.) and the longer it lives the more it just becomes about cycling through hotkeys.

Refreshing

[HikingStick]

I've been playing GuildWars for years--not quite since it was first released, but soon thereafter. When I first heard about GW2, I was really excited. However, as the years have moved on and the release has been pushed further and further back, I lost my enthusiasm and recently got to the point where I was thinking of skipping it once it was released.

The article changed all that for me.

If they pull off what was described, I'll gladly fade into a trance-like state and play for hours and hours and hours. The way it was described really did stir something in me--what they described is how I've always wanted software RPGs to be (whether MMO or not). Four of my sons and I have been playing GW for some time now, and while they've kept playing over the past year, I've logged only a few hours of time. I'm now looking forward to getting my copy, and spending some time with them in GW2.

Re:Refreshing

[MoriaOrc]

I've played Guild Wars on-and-off since launch day. I can understand where the impression that it has been "pushed back" came from, but I don't think its 100% fair. ArenaNet had a problem after the launch of Nightfall (the third campaign): they wanted to do some things that weren't possible in the current engine like persistent zones, but they had kind-of promised new campaigns to the fans. So they decided to stop making new campaigns for GW1 and released the last major new content with Eye of the North (smaller 4th campaign/expansion) back in 2007. At the same time, they announced GW2 at least partially so that fans would know why there wasn't anything new coming (there were also some tie-ins with EotN).

The problem they have now is that it's been four years since the announcement of GW2. The announcement happened very early on in the design stages, so they didn't have very much to show for it besides a title and some vague concepts. They've had to spend the last several years building their new game, and it feels like they've been going very slow or pushing it back because of how long it's been since the announcement. For most games of this size, the announcement would have happened probably mid last year, which is when they did finally start putting up a lot of content about GW2 and their design goals on their site.

The Eurogamer article does a pretty good job hitting the high-points of most of it, but the articles they've posted on their site go into a lot more detail, and are a pretty interesting read (link). I hope they manage to pull off most of the stuff they're talking about, because it sounds like an amazing game.

Re:Damn! - Eve?

[19thNervousBreakdown]

You answered these pretty well, but here's a few you missed:

"timed progress of situation as players complete their tasks"

- I've no idea about this one, but being a single server game surely some "endgame" quests are one-offs?

Incursions, they came with the last expansion. If you don't kill them fast enough, they come back.

"important positions relatively easy to take over but difficult to hold, so they continuously change ownership"

- Ok, can't find a single example of this.( haven't looked very thoroughly though)

Syndicate. Curse. Pure Blind. Pretty much, name any NPC 0.0.

"VERY difficult missions which would be attempted and failed over and over until someone succeeds and the result is permanent"

Again I take the position of one server = one-off quests.(again no idea if this is the case or not)

EVE really isn't about PvE content, it's all PvP. But no, there are no one-off quests--not that you'll miss them. There are some very difficult missions, where if you're a solo player it will take you a year or more to build up the skills to be able to do them, but the only thing that's permanent about them is that you permanently have a ton of money (until someone blows up your shiny new ship and takes all your stuff).

"construction of massive structures progressing by tiny phases, so your contribution is permanent ("I built THIS door of the castle")"

-Space stations, Strategic cruisers. 'Nuff said, well almost. Though massive structures taking ages to build, I suppose it's not really a "tiny phase" process.

Join a corp, get into their logistics organization. You might need to change a jump bridge link, or anchor a couple extra modules, etc. Or you might need to sit for 8 hours and set up a dickstar (a space station with minimal/no guns, but a ridiculous amount of ECM or shield hardening, so it takes forever to kill) for a CSAA (Capital Ship Assembly Array).

"Instantiated personal space (a room in a hotel or a house) so that every player has a fully customizable personal area without cutting into the massive bulk"

- As far as I know this is not yet the case. but weren't they going to implement this? a room in your ship you could enter in a first person view.

Yeah, next expansion should be the start of it.

"expensive, prestigeous public locations for rent/sale and personalized use."

- Ok, got me again.

Delve.

Aiming for the top?

[LoudNoiseElitist]

Why do these other developers keep thinking they can dethrone WoW? Protip: WoW isn't going anywhere until it wants to. Sure, they game you make may be better. It may be funner to play. It may have better graphics. It may have more content. It doesn't matter. People have already invested a lot of time into WoW, and aren't willing to give it up.

Re:Aiming for the top?

[tycoex]

I agree with this. I've already played several mmo's (some of them free even!) that are better than WoW.

It will take a lot more than a game being better than WoW in order to pass it.

Misconceptions

[Kirin Fenrir]

Guild wars 2 is NOT a PVP-based MMO. The majority of the content is PvE. There is no ganking or open-world PvP, all PvP is in seperate PVP-only areas.

Guilds Wars 2 is a western MMO from a WESTERN developer. I'm not sure why everyone thinks it's an asian MMO. GW1 was most popular in Europe and the US.

Re:Misconceptions

[tycoex]

People are dumb and don't understand the difference between a publisher and a Developer. NC-Soft is Anet's publisher, and they mainly publish Korean games (Aion), which is why the uninformed assume GW is an Asian MMO.

Re:Damn! - Eve?

[JDAustin]

"expensive, prestigeous public locations for rent/sale and personalized use."

- Ok, got me again.

Delve.

Watching PL keep people from taking Delve while they themselves don't bother conquering it has given me a laugh.

WoW Burnout

[Bensam123]

For those of you that have been noticing trends in WoW for instance (I play for more then just the game), there is a large amount of players that are simply tired of the 'epic grind' and Blizzards lack of love for the game overall. Blizzard is seemingly trying to remedy it by abandoning the game and working on Titan, leaving behind a crappy development team that seems to be half assing everything. There is a power struggle between people who just want to have fun and people who want to always and forever remain above other people in a certain way, shape, or form and believe it is their god given right to maintain that (almost like the aristocrats). The whole thing needs to be flushed and a lot of players jumped ship for Rift, which is very refreshing.

Rift, while very different and has quite a few of traits GW2 has, is just WoW 2.0. It's basically WoW if it was made six years later. They have bits and pieces from every game, but they did nothing exceptionally well. Even the soul combinations, which is the most attractive part of the game, just appears to be a knock off of GW2.

I honestly and whole heartedly look forward to GW2. Rift was interesting and I'm sure OR will be decent as well, but I've only seen a lot of hype from OR and not a lot of content and delivery on that hype. GW2 from the looks of the videos and the general feel from the development team is going to be something truly epic. I can only imagine that GW was the half-life of their overall goal they were aiming for. A lot of times in game development they don't have the time or the finances to achieve what they want to, so they have to take baby steps... that appears to be one of them.

GW2, DNF, and Firefall are what I'm looking forward to. Blizzard has fallen and the industry has stagnated for far too long.

this is *THE* MMO to watch out for

[Tom]

Every other "WoW killer" is more or less trying to beat WoW at its own game. Thinking you'll be better than something because you have the better skills package, the better graphics, the more interesting franchise or whatever is missing the big picture.

GW2 is one of the few game changers out there. It's not trying to copy WoW and improve it here and there, it's trying to re-invent the MMORPG genre. The only other example I know that was brave enough to question pretty much everything and do it differently was Mortal Online, and that unfortunately turned out to be a massive fail due to developer incompetence (technical - the last beta RC was so dramatically unplayably buggy, I didn't bother buying the release version - but also design-wise - listening to the hardcore forum-whores instead of imagining what kind of people you want to capture to create a solid player-base).

I'm really looking forward to GW2, since GW1 is still one of my favourites.

Awesome, but can they pull it off?

[jevring]

This sounds exactly like what I want. The question, though, is "can they pull it off?". Will people like it so much that they forgo the classic design of MMORPGs (read flock away from wow), or will they just be a footnote in history. I, for one, will at least have a try. Unless diablo 3 or torchlight mmo comes out first. Then all bets are off...

Re:Damn! - Eve?

[Anonymous Coward]

Happy to keep you entertainined on Delve Mk 8 or whatever the hell we're up to by now.

But can you jump?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you jump in GW2? Anyone know? That seriously peeved me about the first game.