Originally posted by sonoggi
The people who keep rambling about the game being "overhyped" are really starting to irritate me. If you were hyped before this weekend, and are disappointed after seeing the vids, then you were seriously blind all along. In;fact, unlike TOR, GW2 is getting hyped up by the players who have actually played the game, and who can attest that ANet has actually kept every single promise.

There are different kinds of hype; WAR, AoC and TOR type hype carried out by blind fanboyism and the devs themselves. And then there is GW2 hype brought on by evident promise keeping.

Is this copied and pasted from some general source for "new" MMO propaganda?

As to GW2, it's just another evolution of the same ol' same ol'. Just like everything else.

I really cannot wait for this game. I've been waiting forever (literally like three years now) for this game to come out so this is going to be an epic year!

Originally posted by Razeekster

I really cannot wait for this game. I've been waiting forever (literally like three years now) for this game to come out so this is going to be an epic year!

Almost everything anyone can think of in an MMO has been tried in one game or another (technological requirments not withstanding), its not that GW2 is doing things that are entirely new, but rather that they are bringing them together in a never before done seamless manor.  This is even harder to do today than it was 8 years ago.   8 Years ago the MMO market was small and trying something new could reward you with lots of members.  Today you have to invest so much money in an MMO that you have to be garanteed success, Best way to do that is copy success and try and do it just different enough to be new and interesting (caugh aion caugh). 

The most revolutionary things being done in GW2 are actualy technical but since very few people appreciate them ill just shut up now.

GW2 has not 1 thing that has not been done already but thats not saying I am not sitting here f5ing  my email right now.  take a look at shadowbane we had every thing gw2 has and more out side the city mini game's.

BadSpock...I love the term

ThemeBox

The way to look at this is through the investments in the MMO industry over the last 5 years.

It was much easier to go to Executives, Business Development, and Invesment folks and say:

"Our game will be an MMO, like World of Warcraft. World of Warcraft makes $150 mln a MONTH!!" 

Investors wanted a piece of that pie badly....the problem is several games were crushed under deadlines and bad decisions. It is a miracle so many MMOs launched in that time period. For every game that launched we had several fail. Look at Stargate Worlds for goodness sake.

I think now MMOs will turn the corner from the WoW model we knew and grow in better directions. I mean look at how many console titles have learned from MMOs and are doing amazing because of it. Sadly MMOs never made the changes as well, they just kept trying to replicate that WoW model. Which was great for its time, but the one thing you can count on is change...even if it is something that reinvents the old and makes it new. That was kind of the point of this editorial, to show that the GW2 team are all old school players like us. They took the ideas of those games and implemented them in a great new system.

oh and in regards to Hype...In Guild Wars 2's case, there is definitely hype, but it is backed up by some amazing game play and experiences we have already had. Not just in the Beta, but the game was playable at PAX and at the NCSoft Party for NY Comicon last year. There were loads of fans who got to play. If you have demo-ed the game at an event speak up!

Leave the overhype for crappy superhero movies ....

Originally posted by BadSpock

Originally posted by Bigdaddyx

Originally posted by BadSpock

All systems in a MMORPG are related. You can't just pluck feature X from game Y and put it into game Z.

All systems and features must work well in concert with each other to be "designed well."

You are still being very vague and offered no real explanation. Why is bad for other themepark MMOS to be released for consoles but it is ok for GW2, why is it bad for other themepark MMOS to have loading screens but it is ok for GW2.

I personally do not care for these issues but it does makes you pause and think for a while to see such double standards.

I don't think there is anything bad with console gaming, and in truth I love the idea (far from confirmed) of a console version of GW2. I don't share that whole "elitist PC gamer" attitude.

As for loading screens, they are often a neccessary evil. Would I prefer to not have them? Of course. But I also like to have nice graphics and smooth game play.

If the engine can't give me all 3, I'll gladly sacrifice loading screens for better graphics with more players and smoother game play.

As with all things, it's a matter of degree - TOR goes too far in feeling like a very small closed off world, as GW1.

Is it possible to have smooth game play with great graphics and a lot of players and no loading screens between zones?

I don't know - supposedly Tera does pretty good at that.

Archeage looks to be looking good in that department too, but Tera looks to have basic quest-hub game play (despite action combat system) and Archeage also looks to have dated tab-target hot key combat and quest-hub level grinding - in addition to all the sandbox elements.

AA also has public quests(nothing like GW2 DEs but it's not just the old quest system)which are like RIFTS.To be honest AA has far more features than GW2 IMO and it's,ill use your term,a themebox MMO.

Bit laggy but here is a Rift type event in AA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09jT9GKeeuE, these are now being tested.

As for GW2 action combat ,i honestly think Tera is more action combat that GW2,hell,their is no tab targetting,it's all aiming and avoidance.

I think both Tera and GW2 have done very well where combat is concerned.I do prefer GW2 though,it's smoother and not twitchie like tera.

All in all GW2 is a great MMO and i'm an avid fan but i think if AA came out this year i would play that more than i would GW2,hell ill be able to play both.

As for that mess swtor. Well, by the end of the year it will be just another vague MMO that didn't bring anything great to the table.

One thing I've re-learned from this thread is, like politics and religion, everyone has their own definition of makes up a themepark or sandbox.

I never played DAoC so I can't comment on pre-defined 3 faction PvP.  I can say that what made Lineage PvP great for me was having a myriad of player defined factions (guilds and alliances made the factions) and competition for resources (bosses, drops, castle gated dungeons, etc).  There could also be consequences for losing pvp battles.

I've played GW1 PvP and it was fun, but it certainly wasn't anywhere near the same kind of PvP that happened in first generation games like UO and Lineage.   It's more like e-sport pvp which I think of more like pong matches, really complex pong matches, but inconsequential pizza slice activities none the less.  I'm hoping there will be more consequence and depth to GW2 pvp than we saw in GW1.

I see this game as genre evolution more than genre revolution.  I'm still going to play it, and it will be fun. I don't need a gaming revolution to have fun.

MMCRPG: Massive Multiplayer Co'op Roleplaying Game. Most post-WoW games seem to fit more into this category.

New? Sorry, its not new at all. Refined? Yes. 

Originally posted by BlahTeeb

Originally posted by AcmeGamer

 I dont really consider it a new breed of mmo-rpg. I think it is doing some things right and I think most will find it a very fun experience, including myself. I would like to see a better crafting system, I am a bit concerned about that. Also I am hoping for a good economcs system as well, who knows if that one will happen.

 

 On the comments about skill > gear.  While I agree that it is nice to see skill being more important then gear. I tend to have some issues with that, for me I think both are important. You can have all the skill in the world but if you are in a T-55 at 2k range at night and I am in a M1 Abrams and I even have the most basic of how to operate said M1 Abrams, you are indeed toast.

 

 Or to put it more into a medieval fantasy setting. If I am in fully fitted articulated Habsburg plate armor, wielding a well made heater  and master crafted broad sword with basic training in such gear. You on the other hand are wearing a bronze age cuirass and typical gear that Perseus might have used along with say his skill, you are still fighting at a serious disadvantage, no mattter how skillful you are.

 

 So while I do think skill should always play a role in the game play, how good your gear is should be a factor. Otherwise the game loses something for me. There is a balance basically, where you do go ahead and give up some of the advantages of better gear for game play, but you shouldnt discard it.

You aren't talking about gear progression, you are talking about gear types. Heavy armor is tougher than light armor in GW2. But in real life, does standard plated function better than the same plated armor from a treasure chest or from some legendary soldier? King arthurs armor is nearly identical to the ones worn by the people of that age. Hitlers tank was just as powerful as another tank of its kind.

 

I don't think Hitler was ever in a tank.. so that's just erronius.  My dad is a bit of a WW2 buff and I remember him teaching me stuff about the german tanks... something about them was special at the time.  Faster or simpler to fuel/repair... something like that.

King Arthur (if you believe he existed) did have an awesome sword... it wouldn't surprise me that the sword itself had something special in it's making.  Who knows... but all the stories about the sword probably have some kernel of truth.

Originally posted by Torvaldr

One thing I've re-learned from this thread is, like politics and religion, everyone has their own definition of makes up a themepark or sandbox.

I never played DAoC so I can't comment on pre-defined 3 faction PvP.  I can say that what made Lineage PvP great for me was having a myriad of player defined factions (guilds and alliances made the factions) and competition for resources (bosses, drops, castle gated dungeons, etc).  There could also be consequences for losing pvp battles.

I've played GW1 PvP and it was fun, but it certainly wasn't anywhere near the same kind of PvP that happened in first generation games like UO and Lineage.   It's more like e-sport pvp which I think of more like pong matches, really complex pong matches, but inconsequential pizza slice activities none the less.  I'm hoping there will be more consequence and depth to GW2 pvp than we saw in GW1.

I see this game as genre evolution more than genre revolution.  I'm still going to play it, and it will be fun. I don't need a gaming revolution to have fun.

 

3 sided PVP is good and bad.... remember how players are; they will choose the easier route.  In DAoC sometimes the weaker sides would join forces.... sometimes they'd reroll to the more populated side and make things worse... and lastly... the weaker of the two weaker sides would actually be dogpiled.

The DAoC vets don't want to admit it... but it wasn't always great with 3 sided pvp.  A lot of the time one side was the "Green Party" while the dems and reps fought it out.

 discussioin sounds vagely familar. oh yea...

Originally posted by jayce 12/25/11 9:06:12 AM

i mean really guys, "not quite a themepark", "but not a sandbox either." lol, just call it a playground or something and be done with it.

 80 posts in last thread: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/4643632#4643632

Originally posted by Angier2758

Originally posted by Torvaldr

One thing I've re-learned from this thread is, like politics and religion, everyone has their own definition of makes up a themepark or sandbox.

I never played DAoC so I can't comment on pre-defined 3 faction PvP.  I can say that what made Lineage PvP great for me was having a myriad of player defined factions (guilds and alliances made the factions) and competition for resources (bosses, drops, castle gated dungeons, etc).  There could also be consequences for losing pvp battles.

I've played GW1 PvP and it was fun, but it certainly wasn't anywhere near the same kind of PvP that happened in first generation games like UO and Lineage.   It's more like e-sport pvp which I think of more like pong matches, really complex pong matches, but inconsequential pizza slice activities none the less.  I'm hoping there will be more consequence and depth to GW2 pvp than we saw in GW1.

I see this game as genre evolution more than genre revolution.  I'm still going to play it, and it will be fun. I don't need a gaming revolution to have fun.

 

3 sided PVP is good and bad.... remember how players are; they will choose the easier route.  In DAoC sometimes the weaker sides would join forces.... sometimes they'd reroll to the more populated side and make things worse... and lastly... the weaker of the two weaker sides would actually be dogpiled.

 

The DAoC vets don't want to admit it... but it wasn't always great with 3 sided pvp.  A lot of the time one side was the "Green Party" while the dems and reps fought it out.

That's interesting.  That happened a lot in Lineage, but since the factions were loosely based on alliances they crumbled and were reformed as power shifted.  When any one alliance got too strong it made the entire server uncomfortable and even other players within the alliance.  Control would disintigrate and the factions would split off.  The power balance was self-correcting to a large degree.

It will be interesting to watch and see how this plays out in GW2.

I really do wish there were some sort of consequences as a result of this.

Originally posted by sonoggi

The people who keep rambling about the game being "overhyped" are really starting to irritate me. If you were hyped before this weekend, and are disappointed after seeing the vids, then you were seriously blind all along. In;fact, unlike TOR, GW2 is getting hyped up by the players who have actually played the game, and who can attest that ANet has actually kept every single promise.



There are different kinds of hype; WAR, AoC and TOR type hype carried out by blind fanboyism and the devs themselves. And then there is GW2 hype brought on by evident promise keeping.

 

I want some of whatever he had this morning...

Originally posted by Torvaldr

Originally posted by Angier2758

Originally posted by Torvaldr

One thing I've re-learned from this thread is, like politics and religion, everyone has their own definition of makes up a themepark or sandbox.

I never played DAoC so I can't comment on pre-defined 3 faction PvP.  I can say that what made Lineage PvP great for me was having a myriad of player defined factions (guilds and alliances made the factions) and competition for resources (bosses, drops, castle gated dungeons, etc).  There could also be consequences for losing pvp battles.

I've played GW1 PvP and it was fun, but it certainly wasn't anywhere near the same kind of PvP that happened in first generation games like UO and Lineage.   It's more like e-sport pvp which I think of more like pong matches, really complex pong matches, but inconsequential pizza slice activities none the less.  I'm hoping there will be more consequence and depth to GW2 pvp than we saw in GW1.

I see this game as genre evolution more than genre revolution.  I'm still going to play it, and it will be fun. I don't need a gaming revolution to have fun.

 

3 sided PVP is good and bad.... remember how players are; they will choose the easier route.  In DAoC sometimes the weaker sides would join forces.... sometimes they'd reroll to the more populated side and make things worse... and lastly... the weaker of the two weaker sides would actually be dogpiled.

 

The DAoC vets don't want to admit it... but it wasn't always great with 3 sided pvp.  A lot of the time one side was the "Green Party" while the dems and reps fought it out.

That's interesting.  That happened a lot in Lineage, but since the factions were loosely based on alliances they crumbled and were reformed as power shifted.  When any one alliance got too strong it made the entire server uncomfortable and even other players within the alliance.  Control would disintigrate and the factions would split off.  The power balance was self-correcting to a large degree.

It will be interesting to watch and see how this plays out in GW2.

I really do wish there were some sort of consequences as a result of this.

 

What they should do in G2 is shift the worlds so if one is dominating you move it so its fighting 2 other dominating worlds. 

Originally posted by Angier2758 

What they should do in G2 is shift the worlds so if one is dominating you move it so its fighting 2 other dominating worlds. 

Thats what they have planned: every 2 weeks the servers are matched up again based on performance.