Originally posted by coretex666

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.

From how i read it GW2 would be genre changer if MMOS in future start implementing GW2 features or start using B2P model as a new standard. WOW was a genre changer which is not an opinion but a fact.

That is why i said it is not just merely about opinions but how GW2 can influence future MMO design.

I think GW2 is exactly what I've said it is for a while now -

It's a great game that is the vanguard, the first of the "new" generation of MMORPG's that not only turn away from but adamantly oppose the EQ/WoW model.

Other games are going to learn a lot from GW2 and take their ideas and expand on them and make them better.

It's still a great game that I plan on playing for years, especially with holiday content and other such events, but I also know my days of "one game to rule them all" are over.

So much good gaming to be done on both PC and console, playing any single game (MMORPG or otherwise) 20+ hours a week for me is just unrealistic these days.

It's the best MMO to be released since 2004, hands down, but the genre still has a ways to go to really capture that ideal.

GW2 does an amazing job of removing a lot of the stupid limitations MMOs have placed on players for a long, long time. But at its core, GW2 is still "just" a theme park with a focus on content consumption.

What we really, really need now is a true MMO sandbox that does an amazing job of removing a lot of the stupid limitations MMOs have placed on players for a long, long time. A sandbox that is actually fun, high quality, easy to access, and streamlined for the masses.

There have been a handful of mainstream successes in the sandbox/playground style game space - now we just need a MMO that is a sandbox/playground to take off in the mainstream - and to do that it has to evolve the sub-genre instead of simply copying the UO model like all the failed sandboxes have done (like all of the "failed" themeparks have copied the EQ model instead of being original.)

Originally posted by BadSpock

 

What we really, really need now is a true MMO sandbox that does an amazing job of removing a lot of the stupid limitations MMOs have placed on players for a long, long time. A sandbox that is actually fun, high quality, easy to access, and streamlined for the masses.

There have been a handful of mainstream successes in the sandbox/playground style game space - now we just need a MMO that is a sandbox/playground to take off in the mainstream - and to do that it has to evolve the sub-genre instead of simply copying the UO model like all the failed sandboxes have done (like all of the "failed" themeparks have copied the EQ model instead of being original.)

This is the million dollar answer. A triple sandbox, which has never been attempted since UO/AC... if that happens then the true revolution of the genre will occur. People say that sandbox is not for the masses but how would you know if there hasnt been a properly funded one since over 10 years?

GW 2, when all has been said and done, "just another ThemePark" (a very good one). But tt does not revolutionize anything.

Originally posted by Yamota

Originally posted by BadSpock

 

What we really, really need now is a true MMO sandbox that does an amazing job of removing a lot of the stupid limitations MMOs have placed on players for a long, long time. A sandbox that is actually fun, high quality, easy to access, and streamlined for the masses.

There have been a handful of mainstream successes in the sandbox/playground style game space - now we just need a MMO that is a sandbox/playground to take off in the mainstream - and to do that it has to evolve the sub-genre instead of simply copying the UO model like all the failed sandboxes have done (like all of the "failed" themeparks have copied the EQ model instead of being original.)

This is the million dollar answer. A triple sandbox, which has never been attempted since UO/AC... if that happens then the true revolution of the genre will occur. People say that sandbox is not for the masses but how would you know if there hasnt been a properly funded one since over 10 years?

GW 2, when all has been said and done, "just another ThemePark" (a very good one). But tt does not revolutionize anything.

Because you need balls to sink millions into a AAA Sandbox  MMO. WOW which a genre changer for themepark MMOS had a very decent budget. The term AAA wasn't even coined back then. However it becaame a AAA MMO over the years.

You don't need a AAA sandbox MMO to guarantee its success. Budget is not the problem here.

I was skeptical of GW2 prior to launch but after playing it, I find that I have a very difficult time enjoying linear questing systems found in games like WoW.

The freedom that GW2 offers in terms of PvE level progression might not be revolutionary but it has certainly changed the way I look at questing in MMO's and I honestly don't think I'll be able to go back to the old ways.

The game itself definitely has some shortcomings but I'm sure most will be resolved over time. 

Originally posted by Yamota

Originally posted by BadSpock

 

What we really, really need now is a true MMO sandbox that does an amazing job of removing a lot of the stupid limitations MMOs have placed on players for a long, long time. A sandbox that is actually fun, high quality, easy to access, and streamlined for the masses.

There have been a handful of mainstream successes in the sandbox/playground style game space - now we just need a MMO that is a sandbox/playground to take off in the mainstream - and to do that it has to evolve the sub-genre instead of simply copying the UO model like all the failed sandboxes have done (like all of the "failed" themeparks have copied the EQ model instead of being original.)

GW 2, when all has been said and done, "just another ThemePark" (an okay one). But tt does not revolutionize anything.

I agree, it's not the vanguard of anything and still follows the WOW model, i won't say EQ because EQ was not your typical themepark MMO,it was skilled based as well. It had no quest markers and hardly any quests, it was far from what we call themeparks today.

Originally posted by Yamota

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 wasn' t talking about GW2 instancing, I was talking about the multiplayer aspect of it in the Shared World.

Funny how people keep skipping that part and want to focus on the "Open World" or "Instancing"  semantics.

Not only is cheaper to create it is also easier to update, it is easier to mantain AI, it is easier to have scripted events, it is easier to allow players to keep playing instead of going into a queue.

You talk about "oh it is cheaper that is why they do it,lazy cheap f2p dudes". 

And you think having a physics engine like GW2 is the same as having one as WoW or Everquest?

Have you notice how FPS maps are generally 16 players, maybe 32 andrarely bigger than that?

Do you think having to track bullets/projectiles in an entire world is the same as having a combat system completely based on "tabbing the target"?

Anet even dropped the full collision they had in GW1 to help with rubber banding.

I would love to see those giant AC1 and EQ1 Worlds allowing the players to cast skills without targets, with projectiles that can be dodges or strafed and hit whatever crosses its path instead of hte target even if the target is behind others.

"Size" isn't everything.

Originally posted by halflife25

Originally posted by Yamota

Originally posted by BadSpock

 

What we really, really need now is a true MMO sandbox that does an amazing job of removing a lot of the stupid limitations MMOs have placed on players for a long, long time. A sandbox that is actually fun, high quality, easy to access, and streamlined for the masses.

There have been a handful of mainstream successes in the sandbox/playground style game space - now we just need a MMO that is a sandbox/playground to take off in the mainstream - and to do that it has to evolve the sub-genre instead of simply copying the UO model like all the failed sandboxes have done (like all of the "failed" themeparks have copied the EQ model instead of being original.)

This is the million dollar answer. A triple sandbox, which has never been attempted since UO/AC... if that happens then the true revolution of the genre will occur. People say that sandbox is not for the masses but how would you know if there hasnt been a properly funded one since over 10 years?

GW 2, when all has been said and done, "just another ThemePark" (a very good one). But tt does not revolutionize anything.

Because you need balls to sink millions into a AAA Sandbox  MMO. WOW which a genre changer for themepark MMOS had a very decent budget. The term AAA wasn't even coined back then. However it becaame a AAA MMO over the years.

You don't need a AAA sandbox MMO to guarantee its success. Budget is not the problem here.

What, dont understand what you are saying? Any commercial computer game need a good budget, any decent game developer will tell you that. It is not a guarantee for success, ofcurse, but it is a very important one. And since it has not been done in over a decade, no one can say that it cannot be done.

As for triple A concept, not sure what you are referring to, but that therm has existed for very long time in many different contexts and it simply means something with a high budget.

Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter

Originally posted by Yamota

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.

Funny how people keep skipping that part and want to focus on the "Open World" or "Instancing"  semantics.

 

 

Says the person who actually bought the line of  "GW2 bought open MMO to the MMO world" lol, perhaps you should of left the open part out of it. Personally i think you got found out and now you are trying to bring another dimention into the debate.

I look at games like Vanguard/DarkFall that have no instances at all and allows everyone to play together with no barriers at all.

GW2 bought nothing new when it comes to world design their are other MMOs that do it better.

Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter

I wasn' t talking about GW2 instancing, I was talking about the multiplayer aspect of it in the Shared World.

Funny how people keep skipping that part and want to focus on the "Open World" or "Instancing"  semantics.

Not only is cheaper to create it is also easier to update, it is easier to mantain AI, it is easier to have scripted events, it is easier to allow players to keep playing instead of going into a queue.

You talk about "oh it is cheaper that is why they do it,lazy cheap f2p dudes". 

And you think having a physics engine like GW2 is the same as having one as WoW or Everquest?

Have you notice how FPS maps are generally 16 players, maybe 32 andrarely bigger than that?

Do you think having to track bullets/projectiles in an entire world is the same as having a combat system completely based on "tabbing the target"?

Anet even dropped the full collision they had in GW1 to help with rubber banding.

I would love to see those giant AC1 and EQ1 Worlds allowing the players to cast skills without targets, with projectiles that can be dodges or strafed and hit whatever crosses its path instead of hte target even if the target is behind others.

"Size" isn't everything.

 

I remember people saying about GW2 that if you shoot an arrow and someone steps infront of your target, you will hit the person who stepped in front. 

Originally posted by Yamota

Originally posted by halflife25

Originally posted by Yamota

Originally posted by BadSpock

 

What we really, really need now is a true MMO sandbox that does an amazing job of removing a lot of the stupid limitations MMOs have placed on players for a long, long time. A sandbox that is actually fun, high quality, easy to access, and streamlined for the masses.

There have been a handful of mainstream successes in the sandbox/playground style game space - now we just need a MMO that is a sandbox/playground to take off in the mainstream - and to do that it has to evolve the sub-genre instead of simply copying the UO model like all the failed sandboxes have done (like all of the "failed" themeparks have copied the EQ model instead of being original.)

This is the million dollar answer. A triple sandbox, which has never been attempted since UO/AC... if that happens then the true revolution of the genre will occur. People say that sandbox is not for the masses but how would you know if there hasnt been a properly funded one since over 10 years?

GW 2, when all has been said and done, "just another ThemePark" (a very good one). But tt does not revolutionize anything.

Because you need balls to sink millions into a AAA Sandbox  MMO. WOW which a genre changer for themepark MMOS had a very decent budget. The term AAA wasn't even coined back then. However it becaame a AAA MMO over the years.

You don't need a AAA sandbox MMO to guarantee its success. Budget is not the problem here.

What, dont understand what you are saying? Any commercial computer game need a good budget, any decent game developer will tell you that. It is not a guarantee for success, ofcurse, but it is a very important one. And since it has not been done in over a decade, no one can say that it cannot be done.

As for triple A concept, not sure what you are referring to, but that therm has existed for very long time in many different contexts and it simply means something with a high budget.

AAA MMO mostly refer to the budgets. That is what makes them AAA. You can have milliosn sunk into a Sandbox MMO but if it fails on every other front it won't matter. You focused on  'AAA sandbox MMO never been done before'. So all i am saying that a good sandbox MMO can be amde with a very decent budget.

When you say AAA sandbox it means way more than your average budget.

Originally posted by Yamota

Originally posted by BadSpock

 

What we really, really need now is a true MMO sandbox that does an amazing job of removing a lot of the stupid limitations MMOs have placed on players for a long, long time. A sandbox that is actually fun, high quality, easy to access, and streamlined for the masses.

There have been a handful of mainstream successes in the sandbox/playground style game space - now we just need a MMO that is a sandbox/playground to take off in the mainstream - and to do that it has to evolve the sub-genre instead of simply copying the UO model like all the failed sandboxes have done (like all of the "failed" themeparks have copied the EQ model instead of being original.)

This is the million dollar answer. A triple sandbox, which has never been attempted since UO/AC... if that happens then the true revolution of the genre will occur. People say that sandbox is not for the masses but how would you know if there hasnt been a properly funded one since over 10 years?

GW 2, when all has been said and done, "just another ThemePark" (a very good one). But tt does not revolutionize anything.

That type of game would be too expensive to produce and too expensive for a sub and it would only cater to the most hardcore gamers.

GW2 - follows and expands on GW1 - why do people think it is following WoW or EQ? GW1 came out the same time as WoW. As a matter of fact WoW and GW1 were pitched to Blizzard, WoW won and GW1 went to A.Net. After the 2nd and 3rd chapters of GW1 came out, they announce GW2 and I think they already had the basic ideas down and what worked and didn't work in GW1.

Originally posted by Torgrim

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.

(...)

Since you are under the impression that a revolution has never happened in the world of gaming: read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Mario_64, because that game was indeed considered to be a revolution by a lot of people.

Originally posted by botrytis

GW2 - follows and expands on GW1 - why do people think it is following WoW or EQ? GW1 came out the same time as WoW. As a matter of fact WoW and GW1 were pitched to Blizzard, WoW won and GW1 went to A.Net. After the 2nd and 3rd chapters of GW1 came out, they announce GW2 and I think they already had the basic ideas down and what worked and didn't work in GW1.

 

Exactly.  GW1 was a coop online action game.  GW2 expands upon that.  It really even shouldn't be considered the same genre as WoW/EQ.

GW2 has changed the way I will play future MMO's.  Other games that I will play in the future must have dynamic events.  I will not play another MMO with quest hubs....ever.  Combat must be fast paced, casting on the fly.  I will not play any more stick and move combat systems.  I want all content in my future MMO to be relevant, regardless of level.

Those are the main things that changed for me.

I did not think GW2 was going to be revolutionary, however I now think it will change the gaming world. Because of it's success other games are going to go Buy to Play. We live in a copy cat world, and if one game is successful others follow.

But what gaming companies don't realize, if you have a well made game based on a previous game, movie or book, you will probably be successful no matter what business model you have.

ST:TOR sold a lot of copies, it was retaining them that was the problem. If it had been a game, more gamers enjoyed in the long run, it would be successful even with a subscription.

In other words, gaming companies are going to get the wrong lession, they are going to think the subscription model is the key to GW2's success, when it's success is more about making a game based on a previous IP, that gamers connected with.