Guild Wars 2..top 10 reasons to look forward to it.

[Dumac]

I hated the first GW, so I"ll probably skip this one....

One of the biggest wastes of money ever.

 

[HybridSquirrel]

tldr?

 

[Fenixgoon]

jeremy soule music... nuff said.

 

[Bryf50]

While some of those ideas sound really cool, I fear that they'll be really difficult to implement well.

For example, the removal of designated tanks and healers. While that sounds interesting, there's a reason why it's a staple in MMO's and RPGs. What decides who the enemy your group is fighting attacks? Is it random? Is it whoever is doing the most damage? Neither way would really work well.

Or the large-scale pvp between realms with no limit on player count. This is a lesson already learned by Blizzard in WoW. It doesn't work. One realm will become the defacto pvp realm and dominate the others. Because that realm keeps winning, the people who care about pvp will switch to that realm and the people that don't care that much will stay on theirs and no longer enter the battles. Put a cap on it, where one team can't have more players than it's opponent and suddenly the problem goes away.

 

[zinfamous]

I hated the first GW, so I"ll probably skip this one....

One of the biggest wastes of money ever.

yeah, hard to top pokemon.

 

[Dumac]

yeah, hard to top pokemon.

I suppose this is meant to be some zinging personal attack, but it doesn't really making sense. Pokemon is far from one of my favorite games.

At least pokemon has a purpose though, as a fun portable RPG for dull moments during the day.

GW to me just missed the ball completely, falling in a dark zone between MMORPG and simply RPG + mutilplayer and lacking any real unique and positive features. I bought the game at launch, and it is one of the few games that I've bought at launch and then quickly shelved and never touched again.

 

[imaheadcase]

Or the large-scale pvp between realms with no limit on player count. This is a lesson already learned by Blizzard in WoW. It doesn't work. One realm will become the defacto pvp realm and dominate the others. Because that realm keeps winning, the people who care about pvp will switch to that realm and the people that don't care that much will stay on theirs and no longer enter the battles. Put a cap on it, where one team can't have more players than it's opponent and suddenly the problem goes away.

Thats because WoW was NOT built for pvp in mind..at all.

Large battles DO work between realms, as seen in Dark age of camelot. Its simply a matter of the engine they use. WoW uses a old engine, made for pve from the start.

 

[Malak]

I still engoy GW1; they've done a very good job updating it and adding new things, particularly given there's no monthly fee.

Only ever seen one RPG with a monthly fee, so that isn't really a selling point.

 

[drebo]

Or the large-scale pvp between realms with no limit on player count. This is a lesson already learned by Blizzard in WoW. It doesn't work. One realm will become the defacto pvp realm and dominate the others. Because that realm keeps winning, the people who care about pvp will switch to that realm and the people that don't care that much will stay on theirs and no longer enter the battles. Put a cap on it, where one team can't have more players than it's opponent and suddenly the problem goes away.

It worked fine for years in Dark Age of Camelot, before they ruined that game.

That being said, as I understand it, GW2 is not realm-based combat. It's server-based combat. Those on your server battle those from another server. So, you get the same classes against the same classes.

Also, if it's done right, defending should be easier than attacking, meaning that fulfulling PvP can be done even with less numbers.

 

[Tom]

Only ever seen one RPG with a monthly fee, so that isn't really a selling point.

Guild Wars isnt just an rpg.

 

[Malak]

Guild Wars isnt just an rpg.

Well technically it is a CORPG but that is more or less like calling an FPS a COFPS just because you can kill other players. It was a failed attempt of Arena.net to distinguish a difference between their RPG and others. There are differences, but those differences are the same for most RPGs.

 

[Tom]

Well technically it is a CORPG but that is more or less like calling an FPS a COFPS just because you can kill other players. It was a failed attempt of Arena.net to distinguish a difference between their RPG and others. There are differences, but those differences are the same for most RPGs.

You dont have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Main_Page

Read that, then give me the names of these RPGs with similar ongoing support with no monthly fee.

 

[Merad]

GW2 certainly looks interesting, but I'll wait for reviews before I buy.

For example, the removal of designated tanks and healers. While that sounds interesting, there's a reason why it's a staple in MMO's and RPGs. What decides who the enemy your group is fighting attacks? Is it random? Is it whoever is doing the most damage? Neither way would really work well.

It's a staple of MMO design because it allows for lazy design and (somewhat) lazier tactics by players. Designing a more realistic combat or system is more difficult, yes, but still not exactly rocket science.

 

[coloumb]

Combat sounds a bit like an evasion rogue with healing potions vs an elite mob. All you have to do is watch when the mob is about to "cast" a high damage hit and then "jump/dodge" out of the way. If you happen to take on a lot of damage, just pop a healing potion or someone else heals you and you're good to go.

What will be interesting is how the aggro mechanics work unless it's a simple calculation as to who is doing the most damage every few seconds.

I'll give it a try as it'll probably be priced the same as other MMO's [without the annoying subscription fees].

 

[zinfamous]

GW2 certainly looks interesting, but I'll wait for reviews before I buy.



It's a staple of MMO design because it allows for lazy design and (somewhat) lazier tactics by players. Designing a more realistic combat or system is more difficult, yes, but still not exactly rocket science.

even the GW skill system allowed for rather non-traditional classes to take over these staple roles.

it is a staple, though, b/c it's a very useful strategy. someone maintains attention, someone keeps your tank alive, someone else obliterates the enemy. it's a core strategy that isn't going anywhere. It's how you do it that has the greatest potential for innovation.

yeah, there are piles and piles of very solid, overused builds that achieve this stuff in GW, but also some very innovative styles from players that really pushed the envelope--Elementalists as healers, Necromancers as tanks, Mesmer as serious spike damage dealer, ranger as jsut about anything you want them to be--tank, healer, ranged damage (of course), condition spreading damage dealer.

I assume that GW2 will allow the same type of fluidity amongst the classes. I find it hard to imagine that you won't find the aggro tank/heal/damage strategy going on. I think they are likely suggesting that as with GW1, it will appear in ways that you wouldn't normally expect it.

 

[Sureshot324]

Thats because WoW was NOT built for pvp in mind..at all.

Large battles DO work between realms, as seen in Dark age of camelot. Its simply a matter of the engine they use. WoW uses a old engine, made for pve from the start.

It worked in DAOC because they had 3 factions, and if one faction was dominating the other two tended to team up against them. I doesn't look like GW2 will have this going for it.

 

[Malak]

You dont have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Main_Page

Read that, then give me the names of these RPGs with similar ongoing support with no monthly fee.

I have played few RPGs that didn't have ongoing support, and none ever needed a monthly fee. What you consider special isn't that special. I was wearing an Arena.net shirt when the game released, I knew more about it before release than most. I don't need your wiki.

 

[zinfamous]

I have played few RPGs that didn't have ongoing support, and none ever needed a monthly fee. What you consider special isn't that special. I was wearing an Arena.net shirt when the game released, I knew more about it before release than most. I don't need your wiki.

what is it about maintaining servers and constant online support for a game like GW any different from a game like WoW, except for population?

I mean, many seem to think that subscriptions are necessary to keep everything running.

...but it obviously isn't necessary. What is it about the actual technical aspects of keeping a game that, at this level, is exactly like every other subscription-based online game, that somehow allows it to succeed without subscription?

yes, they have a different payment model, but WoW and others do this same shit, on top of subscriptions.


you're talking about RPGs. I can't think of any that are online with the level of design and content like GW that do so without a subscription.

I suspect you are comparing something like Oblivion to GW? what do you mean when you say "I have played plenty of RPG's that...."

intentionally vague, here?

 

[Zenoth]

This, Skyrim and Diablo III.

That is all.

Thanks.

 

[Obsy]

I quite liked that it was relatively easy to get "maxed out" in GW1. If you wanted to show off how much of a life you didn't have, you could've maxed out titles, collected rare skins or minis.

Then came the title-based skills and I found myself grinding titles for every character I made.

And, came back to GW after a year-long break and everyone wanted meta builds with maxed out titles or kick. Same could be said about some PvP and rank discrimination.

 

[matas]

looks so good. no monthly fees for gw2 right?

 

[Obsy]

looks so good. no monthly fees for gw2 right?

Yeah. It looks too good for something with no monthly fees. Prolly gonna be lots of micro transactions. And I ended up having to buy every campaign in GW1 to be able to have meta (up-to-date/competitive) skill sets. So, like $150 over two and a half years?

 

[Malak]

what is it about maintaining servers and constant online support for a game like GW any different from a game like WoW, except for population?

I mean, many seem to think that subscriptions are necessary to keep everything running.

...but it obviously isn't necessary. What is it about the actual technical aspects of keeping a game that, at this level, is exactly like every other subscription-based online game, that somehow allows it to succeed without subscription?

yes, they have a different payment model, but WoW and others do this same shit, on top of subscriptions.


you're talking about RPGs. I can't think of any that are online with the level of design and content like GW that do so without a subscription.

I suspect you are comparing something like Oblivion to GW? what do you mean when you say "I have played plenty of RPG's that...."

intentionally vague, here?

Comparing it to WoW is silly, two different genres and GW doesn't compete with content from any MMO in last 15 years. In fact the very reason I stopped playing GW is a complete lack of content, I get more from several RPGs I can download on my phone. Maintaining servers is standard for any multiplayer RPG too.

Next you'll say team fortress 2 is special because it doesn't have a monthly fee...

 

[videogames101]

I suppose this is meant to be some zinging personal attack, but it doesn't really making sense. Pokemon is far from one of my favorite games.

At least pokemon has a purpose though, as a fun portable RPG for dull moments during the day.

GW to me just missed the ball completely, falling in a dark zone between MMORPG and simply RPG + mutilplayer and lacking any real unique and positive features. I bought the game at launch, and it is one of the few games that I've bought at launch and then quickly shelved and never touched again.

Do you value PvP at all? GW has one of the most complex and self-evolving PvP metagames in all of gaming. IMO I didn't even see the point of all the PvE content, not that I didn't enjoy that too...


(Although to be fair of late the community in general became a whole lot worse behaved and especially less innovative in PvP. Arenanet Bring me back to the beta!)

 

[imaheadcase]

It worked in DAOC because they had 3 factions, and if one faction was dominating the other two tended to team up against them. I doesn't look like GW2 will have this going for it.

Well no game has that going for it, its the balancing that matters.

I believe Mythic has a patent on the concept so untill they decide on daoc2 (laugh) then you get what you can get.