---

Originally posted by The_Korrigan
"Hearts" are actually repeatable, Elifia. For the rest of your post, I agree :)

---

Originally posted by Elifia

 

---

Originally posted by The_Korrigan
"Hearts" are actually repeatable, Elifia. For the rest of your post, I agree :)

---

If you mean by creating a new character, that doesn't count, that way you could say everything in the game is repeatable. If that's not what you meant, please elaborate? Because as far as I know, hearts have a completion bar, which is completely persistent, and disappears once filled. You can keep killing enemies and doing DEs in the area, but that doesn't reset your heart.

The heart remains "done" but I think the content itself resets after a while. For instance, you can do the raven shrine heart, then come back later and do it again (if you wish to, of course).

Maybe I'm confusing two different things too, but I know I went back to a couple of heart spots and was able to do them again.

Originally posted by aesperus

Originally posted by BigAndShiny

Finally, Arenanet is OWNED by NCsoft, therefore the game is developed by NCsoft.   Just like we say Madden is developed by EA instead of EA Tiburon or Red Dead Redemption was made by Rockstar instead of Rockstar Studios San Diego, I will continue to say GW2 is made by NCsoft, because it is.  The name of a studio doesn't make a difference as to who is funding the game, paying for the studio, and directly employing the staff. 

Sorry, but that's not how it works. Anet is their own studio, but yes, a large chunk of their profit goes to NCSoft. NCSoft is the publisher. They are 2 very different things.

Developer = makes the creative decisions, physically makes the game, and to a large extent decides what goes in the game.

Publisher = makes sure the game has proper funding (gets paid), and in many cases helps market the game / destribute it to the market.

In this particular case, NCSoft has been extremely hands-off w/ GW2, which many people have even commented on. It's not common to see this happen in the gaming industry, but so far it appears to be the case. NCsoft has more or less given Anet free-reign over GW2, and doesn't seem to be putting up much if any roadblocks / strict deadlines on the game.

To compare this arrangement to anything EA does is not only misleading, but it's also fairly insulting. EA has been voted the worste company in america, and it's not just because of ME3. EA is easily the worst example of a publisher by a landslide. Comparing them in any fashion to the arrangement between Anet & NCSoft is like comparing night to day. It's like comparing how george lucas makes films to how christopher nolan does. Just stop.

You missed his point though: if the developer is owned by the publisher, we usually refer to the publisher name. Like his example with Red Dead Redemption, which was developed by "Rockstar San Diego" and published by "Rockstar Games"; see http://ps3.ign.com/articles/109/1090380p1.html.

As for how much different specific publishers affect their developers: that's hard to know and one would have to read interviews with those involved. Links to such where they discuss the matter, would be appriciated.

---

Originally posted by The_Korrigan

---

Originally posted by Elifia  

---

Originally posted by The_Korrigan "Hearts" are actually repeatable, Elifia. For the rest of your post, I agree :)

---

If you mean by creating a new character, that doesn't count, that way you could say everything in the game is repeatable. If that's not what you meant, please elaborate? Because as far as I know, hearts have a completion bar, which is completely persistent, and disappears once filled. You can keep killing enemies and doing DEs in the area, but that doesn't reset your heart.

---

The heart remains "done" but I think the content itself resets after a while. For instance, you can do the raven shrine heart, then come back later and do it again (if you wish to, of course).

Maybe I'm confusing two different things too, but I know I went back to a couple of heart spots and was able to do them again.

---

Honestly, I think you were confusing DEs with Hearts. What exactly were you doing at the Raven Shrine? Did you get an empty Heart bar that filled up by collecting eggs and killings skelks, or did you get to talk to the statues to answer riddles? Because the riddles thing was a DE.

Also note that the 'content' for a Heart cannot reset, because the 'content' of a heart is small tasks like killing the generic mobs in the area, and those mobs won't disappear once the heart is completed. You can still kill mobs, feed cows, water crops, etc, but you won't get anything from it.

I'll check again during the next beta event - and until then I trust your word on it :)

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

Originally posted by aesperus

Originally posted by BigAndShiny

Finally, Arenanet is OWNED by NCsoft, therefore the game is developed by NCsoft.   Just like we say Madden is developed by EA instead of EA Tiburon or Red Dead Redemption was made by Rockstar instead of Rockstar Studios San Diego, I will continue to say GW2 is made by NCsoft, because it is.  The name of a studio doesn't make a difference as to who is funding the game, paying for the studio, and directly employing the staff. 

Sorry, but that's not how it works. Anet is their own studio, but yes, a large chunk of their profit goes to NCSoft. NCSoft is the publisher. They are 2 very different things.

Developer = makes the creative decisions, physically makes the game, and to a large extent decides what goes in the game.

Publisher = makes sure the game has proper funding (gets paid), and in many cases helps market the game / destribute it to the market.

In this particular case, NCSoft has been extremely hands-off w/ GW2, which many people have even commented on. It's not common to see this happen in the gaming industry, but so far it appears to be the case. NCsoft has more or less given Anet free-reign over GW2, and doesn't seem to be putting up much if any roadblocks / strict deadlines on the game.

To compare this arrangement to anything EA does is not only misleading, but it's also fairly insulting. EA has been voted the worste company in america, and it's not just because of ME3. EA is easily the worst example of a publisher by a landslide. Comparing them in any fashion to the arrangement between Anet & NCSoft is like comparing night to day. It's like comparing how george lucas makes films to how christopher nolan does. Just stop.

 

You missed his point though: if the developer is owned by the publisher, we usually refer to the publisher name. Like his example with Red Dead Redemption, which was developed by "Rockstar San Diego" and published by "Rockstar Games"; see http://ps3.ign.com/articles/109/1090380p1.html.

As for how much different specific publishers affect their developers: that's hard to know and one would have to read interviews with those involved. Links to such where they discuss the matter, would be appriciated.

It's still wrong, Rockstar San Diego still has the Rockstar Brand name and thus the overal name applies.

Anet is more like a daughter company. Those always carry its own name.

So we say Anet when talking about GW2 and not NCSoft. If the company was name NCSoft Arenanet the point would be relevant.

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

Originally posted by aesperus

Originally posted by BigAndShiny

Finally, Arenanet is OWNED by NCsoft, therefore the game is developed by NCsoft.   Just like we say Madden is developed by EA instead of EA Tiburon or Red Dead Redemption was made by Rockstar instead of Rockstar Studios San Diego, I will continue to say GW2 is made by NCsoft, because it is.  The name of a studio doesn't make a difference as to who is funding the game, paying for the studio, and directly employing the staff. 

Sorry, but that's not how it works. Anet is their own studio, but yes, a large chunk of their profit goes to NCSoft. NCSoft is the publisher. They are 2 very different things.

Developer = makes the creative decisions, physically makes the game, and to a large extent decides what goes in the game.

Publisher = makes sure the game has proper funding (gets paid), and in many cases helps market the game / destribute it to the market.

In this particular case, NCSoft has been extremely hands-off w/ GW2, which many people have even commented on. It's not common to see this happen in the gaming industry, but so far it appears to be the case. NCsoft has more or less given Anet free-reign over GW2, and doesn't seem to be putting up much if any roadblocks / strict deadlines on the game.

To compare this arrangement to anything EA does is not only misleading, but it's also fairly insulting. EA has been voted the worste company in america, and it's not just because of ME3. EA is easily the worst example of a publisher by a landslide. Comparing them in any fashion to the arrangement between Anet & NCSoft is like comparing night to day. It's like comparing how george lucas makes films to how christopher nolan does. Just stop.

 

You missed his point though: if the developer is owned by the publisher, we usually refer to the publisher name. Like his example with Red Dead Redemption, which was developed by "Rockstar San Diego" and published by "Rockstar Games"; see http://ps3.ign.com/articles/109/1090380p1.html.

As for how much different specific publishers affect their developers: that's hard to know and one would have to read interviews with those involved. Links to such where they discuss the matter, would be appriciated.

Blizzard developed Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3, and people call them Blizzard games, not Activision or Activision Blizzard games.

Maybe its because I am a Game Developer myself, but I find it highly offensive when people dont give credits where credit is due.

Publisher =/= Developer, and Vice Versa.

I have to admit, I ran around Divinity's Reach for a loooong time, and I didn't once think about the lack of quest givers.  The atmosphere of the city was amazing just the way it was I thought.   One of my favorite parts of the game.

Originally posted by Connmacart

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

Originally posted by aesperus

Originally posted by BigAndShiny

Finally, Arenanet is OWNED by NCsoft, therefore the game is developed by NCsoft.   Just like we say Madden is developed by EA instead of EA Tiburon or Red Dead Redemption was made by Rockstar instead of Rockstar Studios San Diego, I will continue to say GW2 is made by NCsoft, because it is.  The name of a studio doesn't make a difference as to who is funding the game, paying for the studio, and directly employing the staff. 

Sorry, but that's not how it works. Anet is their own studio, but yes, a large chunk of their profit goes to NCSoft. NCSoft is the publisher. They are 2 very different things.

Developer = makes the creative decisions, physically makes the game, and to a large extent decides what goes in the game.

Publisher = makes sure the game has proper funding (gets paid), and in many cases helps market the game / destribute it to the market.

In this particular case, NCSoft has been extremely hands-off w/ GW2, which many people have even commented on. It's not common to see this happen in the gaming industry, but so far it appears to be the case. NCsoft has more or less given Anet free-reign over GW2, and doesn't seem to be putting up much if any roadblocks / strict deadlines on the game.

To compare this arrangement to anything EA does is not only misleading, but it's also fairly insulting. EA has been voted the worste company in america, and it's not just because of ME3. EA is easily the worst example of a publisher by a landslide. Comparing them in any fashion to the arrangement between Anet & NCSoft is like comparing night to day. It's like comparing how george lucas makes films to how christopher nolan does. Just stop.

 

You missed his point though: if the developer is owned by the publisher, we usually refer to the publisher name. Like his example with Red Dead Redemption, which was developed by "Rockstar San Diego" and published by "Rockstar Games"; see http://ps3.ign.com/articles/109/1090380p1.html.

As for how much different specific publishers affect their developers: that's hard to know and one would have to read interviews with those involved. Links to such where they discuss the matter, would be appriciated.

It's still wrong, Rockstar San Diego still has the Rockstar Brand name and thus the overal name applies.

Anet is more like a daughter company. Those always carry its own name.

So we say Anet when talking about GW2 and not NCSoft. If the company was name NCSoft Arenanet the point would be relevant.

Since you are being nitpicky about "Rockstar" being in both names, I'll give you another example "Pokemon Sapphire", which is developed by Game Freak and published by Nintendo (Game Freak is owned by Nintendo).; see http://gameboy.ign.com/articles/389/389663p1.html.  Yet we refer to Nintendo when we talk about who developed them. 

I see what the OP means about the city. Yes it is huge and it has a lot of npcs trotting about and random chatter. Which does makes the city come alive. But I think Anet needs to add more minigames to it and other interaction (couldn't find any last time) before it actually starts to have a purpose. Atm I only used it for storage, crafting and getting dye recipes. For this it doesn't have to be this large. Without more interaction I feel as if I'm an outsider.

Outside the city though, it totally trumps any MMO that I played (and I played loads) in how alive the worlds feels. Like others I really like that I can go in any direction and find action I can participate in (absolutely love the scaling down of lvl! ).

Originally posted by Kreedz

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

Originally posted by aesperus

Originally posted by BigAndShiny

Finally, Arenanet is OWNED by NCsoft, therefore the game is developed by NCsoft.   Just like we say Madden is developed by EA instead of EA Tiburon or Red Dead Redemption was made by Rockstar instead of Rockstar Studios San Diego, I will continue to say GW2 is made by NCsoft, because it is.  The name of a studio doesn't make a difference as to who is funding the game, paying for the studio, and directly employing the staff. 

Sorry, but that's not how it works. Anet is their own studio, but yes, a large chunk of their profit goes to NCSoft. NCSoft is the publisher. They are 2 very different things.

Developer = makes the creative decisions, physically makes the game, and to a large extent decides what goes in the game.

Publisher = makes sure the game has proper funding (gets paid), and in many cases helps market the game / destribute it to the market.

In this particular case, NCSoft has been extremely hands-off w/ GW2, which many people have even commented on. It's not common to see this happen in the gaming industry, but so far it appears to be the case. NCsoft has more or less given Anet free-reign over GW2, and doesn't seem to be putting up much if any roadblocks / strict deadlines on the game.

To compare this arrangement to anything EA does is not only misleading, but it's also fairly insulting. EA has been voted the worste company in america, and it's not just because of ME3. EA is easily the worst example of a publisher by a landslide. Comparing them in any fashion to the arrangement between Anet & NCSoft is like comparing night to day. It's like comparing how george lucas makes films to how christopher nolan does. Just stop.

 

You missed his point though: if the developer is owned by the publisher, we usually refer to the publisher name. Like his example with Red Dead Redemption, which was developed by "Rockstar San Diego" and published by "Rockstar Games"; see http://ps3.ign.com/articles/109/1090380p1.html.

As for how much different specific publishers affect their developers: that's hard to know and one would have to read interviews with those involved. Links to such where they discuss the matter, would be appriciated.

Blizzard developed Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3, and people call them Blizzard games, not Activision or Activision Blizzard games.

Maybe its because I am a Game Developer myself, but I find it highly offensive when people dont give credits where credit is due.

Publisher =/= Developer, and Vice Versa.

For Starcraft 2, IGN names "Blizzard Entertainment" as both publisher and developer. See http://pc.ign.com/articles/110/1108642p1.html

Edit: Same for Diablo 3: see http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/05/14/diablo-iii-review-in-progress.

Furthermore, it is about naming convention. There is a distinction between developer and publisher, yes, but how do we refer to things when the publisher owns the developer? That's interesting to watch.

Originally posted by BigAndShiny

I absolutely love the way ncsoft designed the cities and towns of GW2, with all their side characters and background conversations -  it's really great.  However, an issue that I find with the game is that none of them give me quests.  maybe I could help them find their frieds, family or deal with their problems (not just hoping to stumble upon some related event in a different zone).    The best part about games like Mass Effect or Dragon Age was just stumbling upon stories and quests. 

I just find myself not wanting to explore anymore because I know I probably wont find any cool characters, stories or quests.  Much like if the game had a huge, well designed city that had no vendors, minigames, events or quests in it, there's nothing to look forward to (apart from the view itself, which while nice isn't everything in a game).

Overall I think that by excising quests completely NC may have jumped the gun and gone overboard, because while in the open world, DEs make sense, in cities, there could be so many more stories to tell.

All of the things you mentioned do take place in game, that's the entire point of their design, they're just indicated by actual in game actions (conversations, text, and most commonly visual cues & actions) rather than quest icons. I could see how you would miss it if you were trying to play it as a traditional quest hub grinder and ignored what the NPCs actually said and did.

Stop looking for quest indicators and start watching the NPCs, follow them, interact with them, watch them, listen to them - this game is absolutely packed with exactly what you mentioned, you're missing out if you glance around, fail to see quest indicators and just assume there's no content. I'm not sure how you missed. We discovered tons of little events and cool stories to take part in by exploring out of the way places.

Try paying attention to what NPCs say and do, follow them, you're really missing out and shooting yourself if you assume there's no content in a game that's absolutely crammed with content and colorful NPCs that have agendas, stories and actions.

It's all there and then some, they've just changed the delivery system, don't let that throw you off  :)

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

Originally posted by Kreedz

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

 

For Starcraft 2, IGN names "Blizzard Entertainment" as both publisher and developer. See http://pc.ign.com/articles/110/1108642p1.html

 

Edit: Same for Diablo 3: see http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/05/14/diablo-iii-review-in-progress.

Furthermore, it is about naming convention. There is a distinction between developer and publisher, yes, but how do we refer to things when the publisher owns the developer? That's interesting to watch.

So the OP wrote and I quote : "I absolutely love the way ncsoft designed the cities and towns of GW2". This is factually wrong and has nothing to do with that NCSoft owns Arenanet. There are no two ways about it, in all the articles you will read they will write that Arenanet developed the game (unless misinformed of course). Even NCSoft themselves wouldn't claim that they designed the cities in GW2.

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

Originally posted by Kreedz

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

Originally posted by aesperus

Originally posted by BigAndShiny

Finally, Arenanet is OWNED by NCsoft, therefore the game is developed by NCsoft.   Just like we say Madden is developed by EA instead of EA Tiburon or Red Dead Redemption was made by Rockstar instead of Rockstar Studios San Diego, I will continue to say GW2 is made by NCsoft, because it is.  The name of a studio doesn't make a difference as to who is funding the game, paying for the studio, and directly employing the staff. 

Sorry, but that's not how it works. Anet is their own studio, but yes, a large chunk of their profit goes to NCSoft. NCSoft is the publisher. They are 2 very different things.

Developer = makes the creative decisions, physically makes the game, and to a large extent decides what goes in the game.

Publisher = makes sure the game has proper funding (gets paid), and in many cases helps market the game / destribute it to the market.

In this particular case, NCSoft has been extremely hands-off w/ GW2, which many people have even commented on. It's not common to see this happen in the gaming industry, but so far it appears to be the case. NCsoft has more or less given Anet free-reign over GW2, and doesn't seem to be putting up much if any roadblocks / strict deadlines on the game.

To compare this arrangement to anything EA does is not only misleading, but it's also fairly insulting. EA has been voted the worste company in america, and it's not just because of ME3. EA is easily the worst example of a publisher by a landslide. Comparing them in any fashion to the arrangement between Anet & NCSoft is like comparing night to day. It's like comparing how george lucas makes films to how christopher nolan does. Just stop.

 

You missed his point though: if the developer is owned by the publisher, we usually refer to the publisher name. Like his example with Red Dead Redemption, which was developed by "Rockstar San Diego" and published by "Rockstar Games"; see http://ps3.ign.com/articles/109/1090380p1.html.

As for how much different specific publishers affect their developers: that's hard to know and one would have to read interviews with those involved. Links to such where they discuss the matter, would be appriciated.

Blizzard developed Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3, and people call them Blizzard games, not Activision or Activision Blizzard games.

Maybe its because I am a Game Developer myself, but I find it highly offensive when people dont give credits where credit is due.

Publisher =/= Developer, and Vice Versa.

 

For Starcraft 2, IGN names "Blizzard Entertainment" as both publisher and developer. See http://pc.ign.com/articles/110/1108642p1.html

 

Edit: Same for Diablo 3: see http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/05/14/diablo-iii-review-in-progress.

Furthermore, it is about naming convention. There is a distinction between developer and publisher, yes, but how do we refer to things when the publisher owns the developer? That's interesting to watch.

Ppl that say that publishers are the ones that develop the games too fail too see why we make the distinction in the first place.

A publisher has a lot of development teams and some are better than others giving them pedigree to the games that specific team does.

The reason we say Arenanet is the developer is to separate GW2  from the other games ncsoft publishes since the other teams that ncsoft owns have no relation or influence in the development of GW2

Originally posted by Kreedz

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

You missed his point though: if the developer is owned by the publisher, we usually refer to the publisher name. Like his example with Red Dead Redemption, which was developed by "Rockstar San Diego" and published by "Rockstar Games"; see http://ps3.ign.com/articles/109/1090380p1.html.

As for how much different specific publishers affect their developers: that's hard to know and one would have to read interviews with those involved. Links to such where they discuss the matter, would be appriciated.

Blizzard developed Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3, and people call them Blizzard games, not Activision or Activision Blizzard games.

Maybe its because I am a Game Developer myself, but I find it highly offensive when people dont give credits where credit is due.

Publisher =/= Developer, and Vice Versa.

This ^

I also get annoyed when people start fudging w/ industry standards and passing them off as 'facts', especially when it takes credit away from the people who deserve it. As if the artists didn't have enough crap to deal w/ already.

I found the lack of a /general channel or at least a regional chat channel made the game feel very quiet and rather dull.  Chatter is a huge part of an MMOs appeal to me and with it missing, it makes the game feel dead.

Originally posted by someforumguy

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

Originally posted by Kreedz

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

 

For Starcraft 2, IGN names "Blizzard Entertainment" as both publisher and developer. See http://pc.ign.com/articles/110/1108642p1.html

 

Edit: Same for Diablo 3: see http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/05/14/diablo-iii-review-in-progress.

Furthermore, it is about naming convention. There is a distinction between developer and publisher, yes, but how do we refer to things when the publisher owns the developer? That's interesting to watch.

So the OP wrote and I quote : "I absolutely love the way ncsoft designed the cities and towns of GW2". This is factually wrong and has nothing to do with that NCSoft owns Arenanet. There are no two ways about it, in all the articles you will read they will write that Arenanet developed the game (unless misinformed of course). Even NCSoft themselves wouldn't claim that they designed the cities in GW2.

You're absolutely correct someforumguy. He's just trying to use semantics to rationalize how NCSoft is the developer for this game. Which absolutely isn't true.

Originally posted by BigAndShiny

I absolutely love the wayArenanet designed the cities and towns of GW2, with all their side characters and background conversations -  it's really great.  However, an issue that I find with the game is that none of them give me quests.  maybe I could help them find their frieds, family or deal with their problems (not just hoping to stumble upon some related event in a different zone).    The best part about games like Mass Effect or Dragon Age was just stumbling upon stories and quests. 

I just find myself not wanting to explore anymore because I know I probably wont find any cool characters, stories or quests.  Much like if the game had a huge, well designed city that had no vendors, minigames, events or quests in it, there's nothing to look forward to (apart from the view itself, which while nice isn't everything in a game).

Overall I think that by excising quests completely NC may have jumped the gun and gone overboard, because while in the open world, DEs make sense, in cities, there could be so many more stories to tell.

Ok, let's get back on track, lets discuss the OP's topic :p I think he makes a fair point, because while the city is huge and feeling alive due to many npcs wandering about and chat, it also makes me feel like an outsider. Because as far as I could tell, it lacks interaction beyond the standard services (craft, merchant and storage). I couldn't find any of the minigames yet that Arenanet talks about.

Originally posted by Vorthanion

I found the lack of a /general channel or at least a regional chat channel made the game feel very quiet and rather dull.  Chatter is a huge part of an MMOs appeal to me and with it missing, it makes the game feel dead.

Uhm... did u not see the /local chat, or /team chat? Cause the channels were constantly being flooded all weekend.

Ok, so the publisher of a video game is not the same than the developer of the same video game, just like the publisher of a book is obviously not the author of the book. I think everybody with a little bit common sense can only agree.

But does no quests mean less atmosphere? ;-)