I think GW attracted different RPG players than the MoMos do. It just comes down to what you're looking for from your gaming. I never even did the PVP part of the game! There are definitely two sides to the GW series. I think it's its own style of online RPG and there's nothing wrong with that in the slightest.

I'm not really much into the level-grind-loot phenomenon myself but I enjoyed just seeing all of the world and completing the storyline. I put probably 100 hours into it, unlocking a ton of stuff and trying a few builds. I liked to look of the game and the atmosphere too.

This comment was edited on Apr 29, 2010, 01:33.

Flatline wrote on Apr 28, 2010, 03:46:

Creston wrote on Apr 28, 2010, 00:15:

Also, I really hope they make leveling unimportant and fast

I'd have no problem with leveling being made unimportant, but the last thing they should do is the same stupid thing they did with Guild Wars, where you could max level in a day, and then had no further options to build your character anymore. AT ALL.

Except for the eleventy billion skills you had to unlock. Yeah that only took a day.

Apparently, for you, building a character involves flipping a number next to your portrait.

Gaining a new skill in Guild Wars was arguably more game-changing for me than 90% of the level ups in WoW, which were generally represented by a few more hit points, and a talent point that only became significant every 5-10 levels.

What skills did I need to unlock? The Elites? The two of them that were useful were nigh impossible to unlock, involving trying to get a monster to use a skill when it was easier to teach it how to tapdance, and all the others were slightly souped up versions of skills you already had.

So yeah, that really added tons of depth.

Creston

kxmode wrote on Apr 27, 2010, 22:33:
May 21, 2008
"Guild Wars is not a MMO. Before you flail your arms in anger let me explain why. It's a glorified match-making service for group-play and arenas. When you and your group leaves the town only you and your group exist in that environment. So while the environment is an instance the towns are "massive" in nature. Except they are not. You connect to one of many available realms/domains/zones/servers, whatever you what to call them. MMORPG.COM defines massively multiplayer as "500 or more simultaneous players in one world." (http://www.mmorpg.com/faq.cfm/showFaq/4). There's never more than handful of players in the actual environment outside the cities. And because of the various realms/zones (whatever) inside the cities there's really never more than a few dozen players."

That sounds awesome. Other players running around is the most deeply annoying part of MMOs. Not only does it bring you down to earth with a bump when you go off on a heroic mission to kill some evil whatsit, only to have to queue while others kill him first and he eventually respawns; but random players tend to be a bloody nuisance in all sorts of ways, from inane chat all the way up to suddenly having a huge group of mobs spawn right on top of you because some cock killed them three minutes before you arrived.

I really like character development and found GW lacking in this area. Their horizontal development never really motivated me to continue playing. I hope they can have more character development in this one.

I normally stay away from MMO's as if they give you leprosy, but I have to admit Guild Wars was enough of a "non-MMO" to hook me for about 100 hours. Too bad that all of the loot was the same except for aesthetics after not too long. It also hurt being a casual player because I constantly got berated for having inefficient builds regardless of which character I was playing. And people wonder why many gamers play solo, even in MMO's.

I will still take a look at GW2, considering the thing I loathe the most (aside from the perpetual grind) about MMO's, the monthly fee, is still nowhere in sight.

I don't really see how that matters. How often do you have meaningful interactions with other players (outside of friends and guildmembers) in most MMOs? Since nothing you do really has any impact on MMO worlds and most MMOs restrict your freedom in order to protect new players, MMOs might as well be completely instanced.

Age of Conan, from what I played, also isn't an MMO. It is a single player game with other people stealing your quest kills and blocking your path. There is a larger PvP side to the game that I didn't see, but didn't care to.

Creston wrote on Apr 28, 2010, 00:15:

Also, I really hope they make leveling unimportant and fast

I'd have no problem with leveling being made unimportant, but the last thing they should do is the same stupid thing they did with Guild Wars, where you could max level in a day, and then had no further options to build your character anymore. AT ALL.

Except for the eleventy billion skills you had to unlock. Yeah that only took a day.

Apparently, for you, building a character involves flipping a number next to your portrait.

Gaining a new skill in Guild Wars was arguably more game-changing for me than 90% of the level ups in WoW, which were generally represented by a few more hit points, and a talent point that only became significant every 5-10 levels.

"and of course, it doesn’t have a monthly fee."

Nice of them to stick with that approach.
Will probably give that a shot if my machine can handle it. Not even a hint of a release timeframe.

Yes, you can jump and swim underwater.

If it doesn't have instancing up the whazoo and you can actually meet other players "in the wild" (so to speak), there may be hope for GW2 after all.

But most importantly .... can you jump?

Also, I really hope they make leveling unimportant and fast

I'd have no problem with leveling being made unimportant, but the last thing they should do is the same stupid thing they did with Guild Wars, where you could max level in a day, and then had no further options to build your character anymore. AT ALL.

I realize that that was for the sake of their precious (retarded) PvP, because God forbid someone would have a more powerful character than someone else, but once a character reaches its max, and can no longer be improved or changed, AND I can't find significantly better loot for it, why should (or would) I keep playing that character?

So if they want to level cap, that's fine, but at least let me continue building my character beyond that. Be it through skills, or unique abilities, or loot, or whatever.

Once I'd taken three characters to level 20, the entire thing got boring really damn fast.

Edit : That manifesto sounds awesome, but I'm a bit worried that it sounds TOO awesome. I'd LOVE to play a game like the guy is describing, but I dunno, I worry that they're biting off far more than they can chew...

Creston

It is comparable to MMORPGs, but I don't think A.net ever said it is one. They even say in the article that it is a CORPG, and I remember hearing stuff like that from them many, many years ago when GW was new.

I'm a huge fan of GW but honestly have not been keeping up with GW2 news (little as there is). I read this blog and wow, it sounds really great! I'm interested more in the story/decisions/consequences aspect of things, since that is what made GW so much more unique than MMORPGs (since all MMORPGs have 0 story).

Those 'world events' sounds like a great idea, too. Something happens and players go investigate, resulting in sort of ad-hoc groups. That's a great idea since questing alone is incredibly boring. I just wonder if that means you have to wander around, doing boring things, waiting for something interesting... or if it will have 'schedules' or triggers (eg. do a quest line and something big happens).

Also, I really hope they make leveling unimportant and fast. The worst thing in games like WoW were taking months to level so you can actually *begin* to start playing. Then you realize there's nothing at level 80 aside from re-doing everything on "heroic". lol.

Jerykk wrote on Apr 27, 2010, 23:23:
I don't really see how that matters. How often do you have meaningful interactions with other players (outside of friends and guildmembers) in most MMOs? Since nothing you do really has any impact on MMO worlds and most MMOs restrict your freedom in order to protect new players, MMOs might as well be completely instanced.

That's fine. I'm saying companies shouldn't deceive customers into thinking their product is something its not. If it is not an MMORPG then they shouldn't use jargon like "no monthly fees" or "massive online world". ArenaNet did that because they were trying to bask in success of WOW and other popular MMORPGs, hoping that a few would trickle to their product, when they knew it wasn't an MMORPG.

"Guild Wars is not a MMO. Before you flail your arms in anger let me explain why. It's a glorified match-making service for group-play and arenas. When you and your group leaves the town only you and your group exist in that environment. So while the environment is an instance the towns are "massive" in nature. Except they are not. You connect to one of many available realms/domains/zones/servers, whatever you what to call them. MMORPG.COM defines massively multiplayer as "500 or more simultaneous players in one world." (http://www.mmorpg.com/faq.cfm/showFaq/4). There's never more than handful of players in the actual environment outside the cities. And because of the various realms/zones (whatever) inside the cities there's really never more than a few dozen players."

I don't really see how that matters. How often do you have meaningful interactions with other players (outside of friends and guildmembers) in most MMOs? Since nothing you do really has any impact on MMO worlds and most MMOs restrict your freedom in order to protect new players, MMOs might as well be completely instanced.

ArenaNet sold Guild Wars under the idea that it was a free MMORPG where you buy the software and pay no monthly fees. Everyone thought GWs was a MMORPG. For the past three years I've kept saying that it was never a MMORPG to begin with because of the way the technology was developed.

May 21, 2008
"Guild Wars is not a MMO. Before you flail your arms in anger let me explain why. It's a glorified match-making service for group-play and arenas. When you and your group leaves the town only you and your group exist in that environment. So while the environment is an instance the towns are "massive" in nature. Except they are not. You connect to one of many available realms/domains/zones/servers, whatever you what to call them. MMORPG.COM defines massively multiplayer as "500 or more simultaneous players in one world." (http://www.mmorpg.com/faq.cfm/showFaq/4). There's never more than handful of players in the actual environment outside the cities. And because of the various realms/zones (whatever) inside the cities there's really never more than a few dozen players."

May 22, 2008
PHJF writes, "Then by definition as more and more mmo's gravitate toward "instances" as major aspects of themselves, they are no longer MMO's? LOTRO and Tabula Rasa have TONS of instances. All instancing does is remove fucking retarded quest/mob camping, kill thieving, and 90% of the "problems" I think MMO's have. Give me more Guild Wars."

My reply, "Yes but LOTRO and TR's instances is used for dungeons not the entire environment. LOTRO, Tabula Rasa, WOW, and AOC all have massively multiplayer environments. GW does not. Technically GW cannot be classified as a MMORPG."

Nov 23, 2009
"You left WOW, and Blizzard, to form Arena.net to create a new pseudo-MMO called Guild Wars."

So ArenaNet is now finally admitting that GW was never a MMORPG?

This comment was edited on Apr 27, 2010, 22:41.

This manifesto sounds fantastic and it seems like they're designing out all the complaints I had with GW1 and with MMOs in general. A lot of the stuff the manifesto talks about is full of the kind of commonsense that seems lacking in most MMOs out now.

Hopefully ArenaNet can deliver.

Guild Wars sucked large portions of my life away.

I can't wait for GW2.

Edit: Read the link. I'm not gonna be able to handle the wait.

This comment was edited on Apr 27, 2010, 20:33.

The combat description sounds wildly ambitious.

It sure is taking a while to get this game out.

Endo wrote on Apr 27, 2010, 19:20:
Yes, which we've known for quite some time. Ever since the first article about GW2 came out in PC Gamer, about 3 years ago now I believe.

I must have missed that article . So now I'm wondering how they will manage to keep persistent world up without charging a monthly subscription. Microtransactions? Or was that explained in that article too?