Originally posted by Rimmersman

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.

No, I didn't say that and I challenge you to quote that sentence.

I'm sorry you are unable to understand the sentence "GW2 brings MMO into the Open World". even after I explained.

Vanguard and Darkfall those amazing successes - maybe they have some barriers at all...

Basically it the fact the game is way too easy.  Great design choices with a few flaws which destroy the game.  WVW needs more investment for long term rewards such as darkness falls.  They also should of kept the skill system from GW1 where you need to search for skills in the world.

To be honest i do not see costs or combat as a problem,  I think both are implemented well.  Exploration is also highly reward and events are implemented extremely well.  Questing in GW2 is better than any game to date but its very short lived.  The crafting is interesting but the economy is meh.

Originally posted by halflife25

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.

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.

 

Aren't you the same guy who said GW2 brought open world into MMO world?

yeah right that is you.

Quate that.

Ah you can't because I never said that.

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

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.

Well that is true sure but my point was gaming today not 15-20 years ago when the real gaming revolution took place.

Today in 2012 we have played it all seen it all and experienced it all that was my point.

Only thing that is left to "revolution" the gaming world is true VR MMO but the core MMO mecanics will still be there.

Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter

Originally posted by Rimmersman

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.

No, I didn't say that and I challenge you to quote that sentence.

I'm sorry you are unable to understand the sentence "GW2 brings MMO into the Open World". even after I explained.

Vanguard and Darkfall those amazing successes - maybe they have some barriers at all...

 

Ah, but we are not talking about successes, are we? Oh, and you calling people trolls because they question you're open world claim of GW2 kills any credibility you might have had, it's a sign of defeat.

Yes.  It's a good game, one that has a good number of ideas that newer MMO's would be idiots not to implement.  And it has addressed nearly every problem I've ever had with MMO's.

That said, it does not ruin older games for me.  Still love LotRO, despite some systems that I can't help but snicker about in comparison; some of which they try to address in RoR.  See?  GW2 is already influencing the genre...

I love Eve.

I'll still check out WoW if they send me a free pass.

But in my book, GW2 fulfilled all its promises, and has as much content, often even more content than most sub based MMO's.  And I see myself playing it for a long time.

Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter

 

Quate that.

Ah you can't because I never said that.

 

Is that why you ignoring  the open world games like Vanguard with 'not successful enough' argument? so only if game sells like fast food 'open world ' becomes more relevant? all right. Whatever you say.

Originally posted by botrytis

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.

 

 

This is what people keep saying but it is nonsense. Why? Because Asherons Call did it, UO did it, SWG did it and they were not too expensive and they had a good following. AC 1 had a sustained sub. count of over 150k for over two years, that was really good for that time and UO had similar numbers.

So history has shown that it can be done, it wont be too expensive and you will get at least a decent following. Problem is the elephant in the room, i.e. WoW, which did not go sandbox and had more than ten time the sub. base so even now, many years after, companies are still aping WoW (meaning ThemePark). However none of the games have had near the success so far and GW 2 wont either, it sold 2 million copies and nothing shows of any significant growth and this is not even a sub. game.

The future of the genre lies in the evolution of the sandbox genre as ThemePark has reached it end. It has shown that the revenue model is not much different from a single player game. I.e. huge initial spike (if the game is good) and then, over a year or so, an almost equal decline. GW 2 is too young to see that yet but all other ThemeParks have followed that pattern, all of them (except WoW).

Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter

Originally posted by Rimmersman

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.

No, I didn't say that and I challenge you to quote that sentence.

I'm sorry you are unable to understand the sentence "GW2 brings MMO into the Open World". even after I explained.

Vanguard and Darkfall those amazing successes - maybe they have some barriers at all...

 

I dont understand it either. GW 2 does not have an open world, it is zoned, so how can it bring MMO into Open World? It is not instanced but that is in no way the same as an Open World which usually means it is not zoned and mostly not instanced. GW 2 is the latter but not the former.

Considering GW1 was somewhat similar, you didn't see anyone trying to take what GW1 offered over the past 7 years. So no I don't think there'll be new MMO's trying to take what GW2 offers.

But I DO like how the quests works, no more running back and forth to the damn quest giver. And dynamic events are pretty fun.

As for the structure pvp comment, tournament pvp is where you do premades and there were lots of it for the first month but recently it died out because premades were stacking bunker guardians and elementalists which was a complete waste of time so even my premade stopped queueing, and the number of structure pvp servers with players on them has been shrinking by the day, who wants to face 6-8 thieves?

The whole "open world" debate is pretty entertaining. You guys are arguing 2 different things.

Open world and Seamless. They do not mean the same thing.

Yes GW2 is zoned off with loading screens, making it not seamless. But those zones contain all of the players in that zone playing alongside eachother, making it open world.

An example of non-open world would be stuff like DDo and GW1. There could be a million people in the same dungeon or zone. But they are split off into their own little instances and have no idea whatsoever that anyone outside of their own party is also in the same zone / dungeon. They have no interaction with eachother.

A game can have zones, and be open world, it just isnt seamless.

I believe what he is getting at with the whole "it brought MMO to the open world" thing is the idea of people actually working together to achieve goals and participating in DEs together.

Take nearly any other themepark MMO, and it consists of things like people kill stealing or rushing to tag mobs with ranged attacks (depending on game mechanics) to get their quest done faster or get the loot & xp, or people standing in line waiting for 1 guy / party to finish their quest to kill something.

Just think about launches of some popular games youve been in and all the complaints from people like "OMG they need to increase the respawn rates. I cant get any quests done because there are too many people and they keep stealing all the mobs". Yes youre playing an MMO, but more often than not youre not really playing WITH everyone else, your just kind of there alongside them, or competing against them to get your stuff done faster.

The idea of "bringing MMO back" is about the way content and rewards are shared between everyone. You're all helping eachother and playing WITH eachother, even if youre not in a party or had no intention of helping someone else, youre still helping and impacting eachother.

Originally posted by Yamota

Originally posted by botrytis

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.

 

 

This is what people keep saying but it is nonsense. Why? Because Asherons Call did it, UO did it, SWG did it and they were not too expensive and they had a good following. AC 1 had a sustained sub. count of over 150k for over two years, that was really good for that time and UO had similar numbers.

So history has shown that it can be done, it wont be too expensive and you will get at least a decent following. Problem is the elephant in the room, i.e. WoW, which did not go sandbox and had more than ten time the sub. base so even now, many years after, companies are still aping WoW (meaning ThemePark). However none of the games have had near the success so far and GW 2 wont either, it sold 2 million copies and nothing shows of any significant growth and this is not even a sub. game.

The future of the genre lies in the evolution of the sandbox genre as ThemePark has reached it end. It has shown that the revenue model is not much different from a single player game. I.e. huge initial spike (if the game is good) and then, over a year or so, an almost equal decline. GW 2 is too young to see that yet but all other ThemeParks have followed that pattern, all of them (except WoW).

It is not nonsense - what I stated was fact posted on the developers website so actually do a little research before jumping.

Sandbox games are very specific and the only players who really appreciate them and want them is hardcore gamers, one that eat, sleep, and breathe that type of game. I played several and found tham boring as all get out and not very entertaining. I play games to be entertained, if it doesn't do that, I vote with my pocketbook.

We don't know how GW2 is going to do. You can speculate all you want but until the actual numbers are released by NCSoft or A.Net it is all conjecture.

http://www.vgchartz.com/weekly/41189/Global/  it is still ranked in the top 20 as of last week so I don't know where you get your information from. You may want to get a refund for your ouija board. Also, Christmas time is coming up and there MAY Be a spike up in sales, one never knows though.

Originally posted by Rimmersman

Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter

Originally posted by Rimmersman

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.

No, I didn't say that and I challenge you to quote that sentence.

I'm sorry you are unable to understand the sentence "GW2 brings MMO into the Open World". even after I explained.

Vanguard and Darkfall those amazing successes - maybe they have some barriers at all...

 

Ah, but we are not talking about successes, are we? Oh, and you calling people trolls because they question you're open world claim of GW2 kills any credibility you might have had, it's a sign of defeat.

 

I said "GW2 bring the MMO to the Open World".

Open world is commonly used in the MMORPG communities to describe everything that isn't a private instance, again commonly used to describe raids and dungeons.

That is why there is no confusion about the question "Does GW2 have open world PvP?".

The answer is "GW2 doesn't have open world PvP". It isn't "GW2 doesn't have a open world, because according to the game design theory Open World is a world without movement restrictions".

Since people can't refute the fact that what MMOPRG community generally describes as Open World is in most games desert/single player/duo zones, hardly a Massive Multiplayer Experience at all, they MODIFY WHAT I SAY and keep doing it, trying to distract away from the most revolutionary aspect of GW2 - how people play and interact with each other in what is commonly called the open world by the MMORPG community (except in GW2 forums by Gw2 haters because GW2 has to obey special standards).

I'll say it again and I'm not alone in that - some of the links of reviews/previes posted in this thread calling Gw2 revolutionary point the same - "GW2 brings MMO to the open world".

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 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!

It may not be a true MMORPG but a MOCOG (multiplayer online cooperative game) and I think no less of it for being so.

Originally posted by Yamota

The future of the genre lies in the evolution of the sandbox genre as ThemePark has reached it end. It has shown that the revenue model is not much different from a single player game. I.e. huge initial spike (if the game is good) and then, over a year or so, an almost equal decline. GW 2 is too young to see that yet but all other ThemeParks have followed that pattern, all of them (except WoW).

i dont think anything has reached its end

I used to think similar with pen and paper RPG systems

I have never been a fan of the stict level progression in dungeons and dragons

had hopes for RuneQuest, Champions/Fantasy HERO, GURPS, and others

all had their share of popularity for the last 28 years

but which system has held out the most ... D&D, now forthcoming with a 5th edition

there never was a revolution in PnP RPG games -  I dont expect one in online games

Originally posted by halflife25

Originally posted by Yamota

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.

It's not just high budget - it's high production value.

Say what you will about TOR, it has/had a very high production value - as does GW2. TOR also had a massive budget but that didn't = success.

Then you get a game like RIFT without the high budget, but with very high production value and (generally) a success.

What sandbox needs is high production value, AAA production, not necessarily budget because creating content for consumption is expensive and time consuming. Creating amazing systems and features that create content through meta gaming and immergant gameplay requires high production value, but not necessarily budget.

It just takes skill and vision and one hell of an amazing designer. Something sandbox hasn't had yet.

Even the greatest of the sandbox is / was quite stagnant is the innovation/evolution department.

Originally posted by halflife25

Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter

 

Quate that.

Ah you can't because I never said that.

 

Is that why you ignoring  the open world games like Vanguard with 'not successful enough' argument? so only if game sells like fast food 'open world ' becomes more relevant? all right. Whatever you say.

I'm ignorining Vanguard because people are trying to say I said something i didn't say?

So you are saying in Vanguard everyone is on the same team without partying? That everyone is doing "quests" together without having to share them? That resources are shared? That there is no loot and resource competition?

Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter

Originally posted by halflife25

Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter

 

Quate that.

Ah you can't because I never said that.

 

Is that why you ignoring  the open world games like Vanguard with 'not successful enough' argument? so only if game sells like fast food 'open world ' becomes more relevant? all right. Whatever you say.

I'm ignorining Vanguard because people are trying to say I said something i didn't say?

So you are saying in Vanguard everyone is on the same team without partying? That everyone is doing "quests" together without having to share them? That resources are shared? That there is no loot and resource competition?

You did bring up 'success' or didn't you? that is why i disagree with you. Since when Anet gets to define what is MMO? i didn't know they suddenyl patent the term which excludes games like Vanguard when it comes to open world MMOs or the games that brought MMOS to open worold. Which ever way you want to put it.

Originally posted by botrytis

Originally posted by Yamota

Originally posted by botrytis

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.

 

 

This is what people keep saying but it is nonsense. Why? Because Asherons Call did it, UO did it, SWG did it and they were not too expensive and they had a good following. AC 1 had a sustained sub. count of over 150k for over two years, that was really good for that time and UO had similar numbers.

So history has shown that it can be done, it wont be too expensive and you will get at least a decent following. Problem is the elephant in the room, i.e. WoW, which did not go sandbox and had more than ten time the sub. base so even now, many years after, companies are still aping WoW (meaning ThemePark). However none of the games have had near the success so far and GW 2 wont either, it sold 2 million copies and nothing shows of any significant growth and this is not even a sub. game.

The future of the genre lies in the evolution of the sandbox genre as ThemePark has reached it end. It has shown that the revenue model is not much different from a single player game. I.e. huge initial spike (if the game is good) and then, over a year or so, an almost equal decline. GW 2 is too young to see that yet but all other ThemeParks have followed that pattern, all of them (except WoW).

It is not nonsense - what I stated was fact posted on the developers website so actually do a little research before jumping.

 

Sandbox games are very specific and the only players who really appreciate them and want them is hardcore gamers, one that eat, sleep, and breathe that type of game. I played several and found tham boring as all get out and not very entertaining. I play games to be entertained, if it doesn't do that, I vote with my pocketbook.

 

We don't know how GW2 is going to do. You can speculate all you want but until the actual numbers are released by NCSoft or A.Net it is all conjecture.

 

http://www.vgchartz.com/weekly/41189/Global/  it is still ranked in the top 20 as of last week so I don't know where you get your information from. You may want to get a refund for your ouija board. Also, Christmas time is coming up and there MAY Be a spike up in sales, one never knows though.

What is a fact? That big budget is not important when creating an MMO? Please link me the resource to the dev site which is saying that.

That sandbox only caters to hardcore? Again, where do you get this fact. Just because a (ThemePark) dev may have said so does not make it a fact.

And I said it is too early to say that GW 2 will follow suit of other ThemeParks but the fact that it is 20th and only sold 30k the last week shows that the sales are slowing down alot (it sold almost 1 million the first week). Also, what that list does not tell you is how many people, of who bought it, are not playing it and that is a big unknown and you can only get hints of that by looking at charts like XFire to see the trends (which is downwards more than SW:TOR was the first two months).

Also a way to predict the future is to look at the past and the fact is that every single ThemePark, since WoW, has plummeted within the first year. AoC 1.5 million to 200k, WAR, 1.3 million to 200k, SW:TOR 2 million to < 400k in less than a year, TERA, SecretWorld, Rift have also big downward trends. So seeing as all of those were ThemePark and GW 2 is a ThemePark, it is safe to assume that GW 2 will follow suit. And the reason is simple, dev. created content cannot keep up with how fast players chew through the content and the only exception to that is WoW, which is a big exception and got the giant Blizzard supporting it with the huge income they get from the millions of subs.