Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter

Originally posted by Rimmersman

Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter

Originally posted by Rimmersman

Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter

It does change some things.

First,it actually brings the "MMO" to the open world instead of the "MMO" in an instance.

Additionally it made every player an ally in PVE, removing factions and removing competition for resources.

It also changed "questing", from the method of delivering them to the way it rewards them.

It is also possible to craft the best items in the game instead of them being hidden in some instance.

 

There are also a number of things that aren't exactly exclusive to it but that aren't (or were at GW2 release date) very common in MMORPGs, like 3-side PvP, non gear based PvP, etc.

What do you mean by the marked line?

Are you saying that GW2 is a non instanced game, i'm missing your point?

GW2 Open world isn't  instanced, is there any doubs about that?

What I mean is that you actually have masses of people playing together towards the same shared objective in the open world of GW2, something that in most other games doesn't happen except in Raids and maybe the illusion of a populated open world in new starter areas for a race until the game shifts to a lobby like playstyle.

GW2 is not an open world mmo, just because people can play together does not mean it's an open world. You actually made the claim that it brings open world to MMOs lol, that's total rubbish.

Have you actually played an open world MMO where there are no instances whatsoever because GW2 is not one of those worlds. I will give ArenaNet it's due because the world is okay and graphics are very nice indeed but saying one of the things GW2 chages is bringing open world to MMO is lauaghable to say the least.

Your reading skills are a bit off.

I said it brings MMO to the open world.

 

 

You said " GW2 Open world isn't instanced." when in fact it is. You did also say "it brings MMO to the open world" but I have no idea what you mean by that one.

Voted no.. I never thought the game would be revolutionary but i still enjoy it though. 

Never go with the hype machine. You will only get disappointed :)

Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter

Originally posted by Rimmersman

Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter

Originally posted by Rimmersman

Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter

It does change some things.

First,it actually brings the "MMO" to the open world instead of the "MMO" in an instance.

Additionally it made every player an ally in PVE, removing factions and removing competition for resources.

It also changed "questing", from the method of delivering them to the way it rewards them.

It is also possible to craft the best items in the game instead of them being hidden in some instance.

 

There are also a number of things that aren't exactly exclusive to it but that aren't (or were at GW2 release date) very common in MMORPGs, like 3-side PvP, non gear based PvP, etc.

What do you mean by the marked line?

Are you saying that GW2 is a non instanced game, i'm missing your point?

GW2 Open world isn't  instanced, is there any doubs about that?

What I mean is that you actually have masses of people playing together towards the same shared objective in the open world of GW2, something that in most other games doesn't happen except in Raids and maybe the illusion of a populated open world in new starter areas for a race until the game shifts to a lobby like playstyle.

GW2 is not an open world mmo, just because people can play together does not mean it's an open world. You actually made the claim that it brings open world to MMOs lol, that's total rubbish.

Have you actually played an open world MMO where there are no instances whatsoever because GW2 is not one of those worlds. I will give ArenaNet it's due because the world is okay and graphics are very nice indeed but saying one of the things GW2 chages is bringing open world to MMO is lauaghable to say the least.

Your reading skills are a bit off.

I said it brings MMO to the open world.

 

 

It brings MMOs to the open world, that's does not even make sense but hey, as long as you like it that's all that matters.

GW2 Open World isn't instanced in the sense  there is a single copy shared between all the players in the same server. Sure, it has loading screens between areas.

But if Open World to define the shared world between the players offend you (does calling WoW shared world Open World offends you as well since continents have loading screens?) I'll call it shared world.

MMO - Massive multiplayer online.

Which MMORPG games, especially games released in the last 3 years or so, actually put you doing events/non instanced dungeons/killing bosses with dozens of other players in the shared world between all the players?

And it isn't in a few select areas, it is EVERYWHERE in the shared world.

I would say they didn't revolutionary the genre, the name itself Revolution is a very strong word which will never ever happen in the world of gaming.

I would rather say Anet did indeed advanced the genre in a direction I find enjoyable and dare I say in the right direction, only from this point MMOs can advance futher from GW2 formula and build upon it and expand.

So no I didn't pick any of the poll choices.

While it's too early to see any impacts the game has made on the entire genre, I've always been of the firm opinion that if a public questing model was ever going to take off, Guild Wars 2's model would attribute the most to it's success. And I can't imagine future developers shrugging it off as if it's nothing significant because the technology and mechanics are genuinely great. From my (admittedly limited) experience, Rift and WAR model didn't make as big a statement because they still relied on the traditional questing model; the PQ's and Rifts weren't the actual content and suffered because of it. (As an example, while games before it had some quests, they were few and far between, seen as gimmicky, and the games still largely relied on mob grind; WoW had a ton of quests through the entire leveling experience and defined the now traditional questing model as we know it.)

While you may not agree with the quality of the actual objectives, Guild Wars 2's system undebatably provides an ungriefable play environment with flexible difficulties that can involve a small or large number of active participants. There's not many if anything traditional quests can do that public quests of this format can't, and the shortcomings of traditional quests are very evident in comparison. As MMO's, having multiplayer content with this capability isn't just an expectation at this point, it should be an obligation. 

I'm not asking for everyone to immitate the dynamic event system in Guild Wars 2, rather, they take that fundamental game design principles and mechanics and make newer, more interesting content with it. I think the potential for the system is great, and with more evolution, we can and will see much more involved, complex, and dynamic developer generated worlds and storylines. As far asPvE in themepark games are concerned, I thought and still think this will be Guild Wars 2's largest contribution to MMORPG's and enough to be called a "revolution" (though it's maybe more appropriate to label it an evolution). 

I voted "no": GW2 had the potential but NCSoft and ANet shot themselves in the feet repeatedly when they decided not to make any open beta and not to listen to constructive feedback.

That's why we have what we have - tons of bugs, kneejerk "balancing", unfinished features (LFG anyone?), zergy WvW, broken economy, lackluster and exploitable dungeons, bots everywhere, etc, etc.

Still a good game overall but... Any gaming revolution is - first and foremost - an outstanding, breathtaking gameplay experience. You can't pile broken implementations upon half-baked ideas and call it a revolution. Sorry, you just can't.

Originally posted by wowfan1996

I voted "no": GW2 had the potential but NCSoft and ANet shot themselves in the feet repeatedly when they decided not to make any open beta and not to listen to constructive feedback.

That's why we have what we have - tons of bugs, kneejerk "balancing", unfinished features (LFG anyone?), zergy WvW, broken economy, lackluster and exploitable dungeons, bots everywhere, etc, etc.

Still a good game overall but... Any gaming revolution is - first and foremost - an outstanding, breathtaking gameplay experience. You can't pile broken implementations upon half-baked ideas and call it a revolution. Sorry, you just can't.

I disagree. A lot of what you listed, including but not limited to "an outsanding, breathtaking gameplay experience" is very subjective. A ton of people disliked Halo CE and everything it stood for. I don't think that makes its bringing of FPS games to the console any less significant. I never liked WoW; I thought  it was fundamentally flawed. Still, for me to downplay it's impact on this genre is laughable. 

Unless you're arguing that dubbing something a "revolution" is an opinionated assessment, you're going to need to substantiate a lot of what you said for it to mean anything. 

Originally posted by Serelisk

Originally posted by wowfan1996

I voted "no": GW2 had the potential but NCSoft and ANet shot themselves in the feet repeatedly when they decided not to make any open beta and not to listen to constructive feedback.

That's why we have what we have - tons of bugs, kneejerk "balancing", unfinished features (LFG anyone?), zergy WvW, broken economy, lackluster and exploitable dungeons, bots everywhere, etc, etc.

Still a good game overall but... Any gaming revolution is - first and foremost - an outstanding, breathtaking gameplay experience. You can't pile broken implementations upon half-baked ideas and call it a revolution. Sorry, you just can't.

I disagree. A lot of what you listed, including but not limited to "an outsanding, breathtaking gameplay experience" is very subjective. A ton of people disliked Halo CE and everything it stood for. I don't think that makes its bringing of FPS games to the console any less significant. I never liked WoW; I thought  it was fundamentally flawed. Still, for me to downplay it's impact on this genre is laughable. 

Unless you're arguing that dubbing something a "revolution" is an opinionated assessment, you're going to need to substantiate a lot of what you said for it to mean anything. 

Unfinished features and bugs aren't an opinion. And hole-riddled gameplay can be neither outstanding nor breathtaking. Therefore GW2 is not a revolution. Case closed.

And this isn't only about MMO. We won't have any revolution in any genre until game developers re-invent the lost art of making quality games.

Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter

GW2 Open World isn't instanced in the sense  there is a single copy shared between all the players in the same server. Sure, it has loading screens between areas.

But if Open World to define the shared world between the players offend you (does calling WoW shared world Open World offends you as well since continents have loading screens?) I'll call it shared world.

MMO - Massive multiplayer online.

Which MMORPG games, especially games released in the last 3 years or so, actually put you doing events/non instanced dungeons/killing bosses with dozens of other players in the shared world between all the players?

And it isn't in a few select areas, it is EVERYWHERE in the shared world.

GW 2 is zoned, meaning you have the world divided into zones, each with a loading time to enter them.

GW2 is partly instanced (meaning identical copies of the same zone) as most of the world zones are not instanced (I dont think) but dungeons and sPvP is.

I dont know about last three years but other games which had the same amount of instancing as GW 2 would be WAR, its world (including PvP lakes) were not instanced but the PvP instances were.

Eve on the other hand is completely non instanced, so wasn't AC 1, EQ 1 and other "old" MMOs. So if it can be done in much older games I dont see why it cannot be done for the modern one. Simple answer is that it can be done but it is far cheaper to create identical copies of the same zone rather than a big world, designed to keep the population spread out rather than concentrated in relatively small zones.

I think it depends on personal standards of individuals.

I voted "no" and I find it quite interesting that almost 50% of the voters selected "yes".

Originally posted by coretex666

I think it depends on personal standards of individuals.

I voted "no" and I find it quite interesting that almost 50% of the voters selected "yes".

This is not about personal opinion but an actualy visible change on future MMOS and  entire genre.

Originally posted by crosslee

rant rant flame flame

in short: yes.

You pay $15/month+$60 for each expansion.....I buy the game once and am done.

win win win win.

No, absolutely not.  The game is fun in its own way, like a single player title or a DIablo clone is.  But as good as the game is in itself, the real credit needs to go to the ANET marketers.  They have somehow, again, put out the message that they were creating a genre-defining MMO.  

The biggest irony of this is that this game isn't even an MMORPG! (not by my standards)  So, how can a game that is not even within a genre change that genre?  It can't. 

But ANET (and its fans) made it out to be doing just that. 

Now that all the smoke is cleared, and preconceived notions have been put aside, the game can be seen for what it is: an incredible fun online action game that has more in common with games like Diablo than any MMORPG.

Brilliant!

Originally posted by halflife25

Originally posted by coretex666

I think it depends on personal standards of individuals.

I voted "no" and I find it quite interesting that almost 50% of the voters selected "yes".

This is not about personal opinion but an actualy visible change on future MMOS and  entire genre.

 What is revolutionary for one may not be revolutionary for others as the result of the poll indicates.

"Change the genre" is also an expression which is quite vague, broad and hard to measure or allocate to particular units/games.

Originally posted by grimal

No, absolutely not.  The game is fun in its own way, like a single player title or a DIablo clone is.  But as good as the game is in itself, the real credit needs to go to the ANET marketers.  They have somehow, again, put out the message that they were creating a genre-defining MMO.  

The biggest irony of this is that this game isn't even an MMO! (not by my standards)  So, how can a game that is not even within a genre change that genre?  It can't. 

But ANET (and its fans) made it out to be doing just that. 

Now that all the smoke is cleared, and preconceived notions have been put aside, the game can be seen for what it is: an incredible fun online action game that has more in common with games like Diablo than any MMORPG.

Brilliant!

QFT