Reader Comments (46)
Posted: Aug 11th 2010 8:15AM Jimjamyaha said
@2late2die
The lions will be pretty pleased too, scientist have proven that heads work better when attached to their designated body.
Reply
The lions will be pretty pleased too, scientist have proven that heads work better when attached to their designated body.
Posted: Aug 11th 2010 8:25AM arnavdesai said
@2late2die
Then you dont Anet. The founders were the guys behind Battle.net and WoW & then made Guild Wars which is seriously a very fun game. They are actually showing a demo on everything they promised at GamesCom so it will be easy to very if they are stating the truth. In any case I trust Anet to make an awesome game.
Reply
Then you dont Anet. The founders were the guys behind Battle.net and WoW & then made Guild Wars which is seriously a very fun game. They are actually showing a demo on everything they promised at GamesCom so it will be easy to very if they are stating the truth. In any case I trust Anet to make an awesome game.
Posted: Aug 11th 2010 10:39AM Fausk said
@2late2die
I know 100% they won't have a grind, because they didn't have a grind in the original Guild Wars. Therefore, I tend to believe them on most of the counts, but there's still a few things I'm skeptical about. We'll see, I'll be getting it either way though as Guild Wars, the original, is still one of the best game experiences I've had in a while.
Reply
I know 100% they won't have a grind, because they didn't have a grind in the original Guild Wars. Therefore, I tend to believe them on most of the counts, but there's still a few things I'm skeptical about. We'll see, I'll be getting it either way though as Guild Wars, the original, is still one of the best game experiences I've had in a while.
Posted: Aug 11th 2010 7:36PM 2late2die said
@arnavdesai @Fausk
Oh I'm totally on board with the whole "ArenaNet are good on their word" thing. I've played GW for a couple of years and I enjoyed it a lot. On the other hand, I think we've all been burned by promises and over-hyped games, so all I'm saying is that I'm going to stay cautiously optimistic and try not to let the hype go to my head as it were.
Reply
Oh I'm totally on board with the whole "ArenaNet are good on their word" thing. I've played GW for a couple of years and I enjoyed it a lot. On the other hand, I think we've all been burned by promises and over-hyped games, so all I'm saying is that I'm going to stay cautiously optimistic and try not to let the hype go to my head as it were.
Posted: Aug 11th 2010 3:17AM mkis007 said
i have been waiting for this game for a very long time now, i still play the original, and if anything every trailer and piece of art they release just makes me froth at the mouth more. Please for the love of the game anet give me a beta already!!!!!! i will buy every piece of crap u put out for the game but just give me a beta. I need to be in that world NOW!!!! I need to explore Divinities Reach NOW!!, I need to hear that sweet music NOW!!! Give it to me!!! That all being said... im guessing an April 2011 release (same as original's official launch day)
Reply
Posted: Aug 11th 2010 3:52AM Follisimo said
@husher They have books that people buy. They slowly give out patches instead of everyone downloading a patch at once and going over the limit costing a ton of money for hosting. There is an article about how they run GW and stay afloat. Remove the BS about NCsoft in there. They are nothing but failures how publish the game. ArenaNet does all the work.
Reply
Posted: Aug 11th 2010 4:03AM Snowblind said
@husher
The original GW model was to release an expansion every 6 months, which were basically full games. It worked very well until they decided to move onto GW2
They also sold some smaller things, like bonus mission packs and character slots, etc, which I imagine they'll do a little more of this time around.
All of the weapons and armour you could buy were purely cosmetic though. Nothing that will give you an advantage over other players.
Reply
The original GW model was to release an expansion every 6 months, which were basically full games. It worked very well until they decided to move onto GW2
They also sold some smaller things, like bonus mission packs and character slots, etc, which I imagine they'll do a little more of this time around.
All of the weapons and armour you could buy were purely cosmetic though. Nothing that will give you an advantage over other players.
Posted: Aug 11th 2010 4:06AM burn1n9m4n said
It seems that the core control and gameplay mechanics are still the same. Though I wonder if the number of skills in the bar has been increased to give it a more MMO/WoW type of feel. Have they said whether the Sin and Derv classes are going to make an appearance?
Reply
Posted: Aug 11th 2010 11:06AM WiNGSPANTT from TopTierTacticsco said
@burn1n9m4n I hope not. One of the things I liked best about GW was that it limited the skills you could bring, which forced diversity. Diversity = more fun with less cookie cutter BS.
Reply
Posted: Aug 11th 2010 4:19AM fauxcivility said
I desperately want GWII to live up to the hype :s
Reply
Posted: Aug 11th 2010 5:17AM (Unverified) said
@fauxcivility Considering that there's hardly any, it will live up to it. Then again, you're an idiot if you get fooled or influenced by hype.
Reply
Posted: Aug 11th 2010 5:21AM Vandell said
My issue is that the game is not going to play like that in practice. It CAN'T. I guarantee these videos are a mixture of staged + played on local, nearby servers. What seems to be lacking from this trailer is how lag will affect the game, just as it affects every other MMO.
Reply
Posted: Aug 11th 2010 6:41AM shadowhowl1900 said
at 3:55
what did that squirrel do to you?! stop hitting that squirrel
but yeah this just became "games i have interest for"
Reply
what did that squirrel do to you?! stop hitting that squirrel
but yeah this just became "games i have interest for"
Posted: Aug 11th 2010 8:06AM laytoncy said
@Huma
I completely agree. I remember watching the trailer for Warhammer and getting pretty excited only to go back to WoW after I played the beta. This game looks great and I really like what the Dev's had to say about what they're doing with the game. I've never played GW as I played WoW since release and was banging my head against the LK for weeks and have now quit for months and I'm loving it. This games looks refreshing and looks to put the player first.
Reply
I completely agree. I remember watching the trailer for Warhammer and getting pretty excited only to go back to WoW after I played the beta. This game looks great and I really like what the Dev's had to say about what they're doing with the game. I've never played GW as I played WoW since release and was banging my head against the LK for weeks and have now quit for months and I'm loving it. This games looks refreshing and looks to put the player first.
Posted: Aug 11th 2010 9:03AM Lolthien said
Look, I'm eager to play this as much as the next guy. But I'm about to say something that I'm sure will get me modded down.
You can't affect the gameworld unless other people can see what you've done. I get the distinct impression that sure, there may not be 15 other people waiting around to kill the boss you just killed, but I'll bet hundreds of other people have killed him. I get the distinct impression they are talking about instanced gameplay. I'm all for it honestly, and I think it looks great, but players won't be affecting the gameworld in a persistent way.
Take the scene above where the bridge gets electrocuted and knocked down. If that was a persistent thing, then actual players would have to find another way to get where they wanted to go because their bridge was blown up. I'm sure some of you are seeing the problem here. If you have thousands of players constantly affecting the gameworld, then chaos reigns supreme. Perhaps either a GIGANTIC gameworld, or permanent player death could alleviate some of this.
But what I'm getting from this is that this is more a massively single player game, not massively multiplayer. By that I mean each player can play through a single player 'story' and other players can jump in co-op style. Sure your actions have a persistent effect in YOUR instance of the game.. but your actions won't affect anyone else's game.
Again, not saying I'm not going to love this game when it comes out, I'm sure I will, but I'll be treating it more like a single player game than a multiplayer.
Reply
You can't affect the gameworld unless other people can see what you've done. I get the distinct impression that sure, there may not be 15 other people waiting around to kill the boss you just killed, but I'll bet hundreds of other people have killed him. I get the distinct impression they are talking about instanced gameplay. I'm all for it honestly, and I think it looks great, but players won't be affecting the gameworld in a persistent way.
Take the scene above where the bridge gets electrocuted and knocked down. If that was a persistent thing, then actual players would have to find another way to get where they wanted to go because their bridge was blown up. I'm sure some of you are seeing the problem here. If you have thousands of players constantly affecting the gameworld, then chaos reigns supreme. Perhaps either a GIGANTIC gameworld, or permanent player death could alleviate some of this.
But what I'm getting from this is that this is more a massively single player game, not massively multiplayer. By that I mean each player can play through a single player 'story' and other players can jump in co-op style. Sure your actions have a persistent effect in YOUR instance of the game.. but your actions won't affect anyone else's game.
Again, not saying I'm not going to love this game when it comes out, I'm sure I will, but I'll be treating it more like a single player game than a multiplayer.
Posted: Aug 11th 2010 9:15AM R Planteer said
@Lolthien
I dont recall them ever claiming that you would affect the world for other players. There is a major emphasis on "your story". Many of the main storyling events are going to take place in an instance, with the variables of the instance determined by whoever the leader of the party is.
GW2 is an attempted merger of the best parts of an MMO with a Bioware-esq single-player RPG.
Reply
I dont recall them ever claiming that you would affect the world for other players. There is a major emphasis on "your story". Many of the main storyling events are going to take place in an instance, with the variables of the instance determined by whoever the leader of the party is.
GW2 is an attempted merger of the best parts of an MMO with a Bioware-esq single-player RPG.
Posted: Aug 11th 2010 9:18AM garlock said
@Lolthien
Take some time to read the articles ANet has been releasing.
http://guildwars2.com/en/the-game/dynamic-events/dynamic-events-overview/
http://www.arena.net/blog/guild-wars-2-design-manifesto
http://guildwars2.com/en/the-game/personal-stories/personal-story-overview/
(as well as other articles on both of those sites)
Honestly, people still have in their heads that MMOs have to be like WoW and its clones, so they think what ArenaNet is promising is impossible. But GW2 is going to be an entirely different paradigm. The entire structure of the game is different, so it doesn't need to fit into the WoW mold.
Reply
Take some time to read the articles ANet has been releasing.
http://guildwars2.com/en/the-game/dynamic-events/dynamic-events-overview/
http://www.arena.net/blog/guild-wars-2-design-manifesto
http://guildwars2.com/en/the-game/personal-stories/personal-story-overview/
(as well as other articles on both of those sites)
Honestly, people still have in their heads that MMOs have to be like WoW and its clones, so they think what ArenaNet is promising is impossible. But GW2 is going to be an entirely different paradigm. The entire structure of the game is different, so it doesn't need to fit into the WoW mold.
Posted: Aug 11th 2010 12:36PM finnith said
@Lolthien
I believe that the dynamic events that they are introducing are somewhat similar to the "phasing" mechanic that World of Warcraft currently uses. Phasing basically means that players at different points in a quest chain will see a different version of the world, so a similar mechanic would certainly do the same job with the bridge.
Reply
I believe that the dynamic events that they are introducing are somewhat similar to the "phasing" mechanic that World of Warcraft currently uses. Phasing basically means that players at different points in a quest chain will see a different version of the world, so a similar mechanic would certainly do the same job with the bridge.
Posted: Aug 11th 2010 2:46PM arnavdesai said
@Lolthien
Actually, the world is persistent that way. If the bridge was destroyed then the player would have to find another way around. If the village was destroyed there would not be any quests to do in that area. Most area stuff exists in a cyclical nature and things will happen regardless of players helping. If players help however, things will change in the world. For example, in the above example if you stop the centaurs, then the village is safe and you move on , another player can come into the village and do some trading or take another quest or even take the fight to the centaurs and if you kill their chieftain then the village will be safer for a longer time. If you ignore it then the village will get destroyed and the next player walking through must evict (by force of course) first the centaurs then push them back even more and only then the human quests will be available to the player. So its a very neatly designed system IMO and the players actions do affect the world. The players own story is done in instances and it is necessary to give some sort of continuity in your own progression.
Reply
Actually, the world is persistent that way. If the bridge was destroyed then the player would have to find another way around. If the village was destroyed there would not be any quests to do in that area. Most area stuff exists in a cyclical nature and things will happen regardless of players helping. If players help however, things will change in the world. For example, in the above example if you stop the centaurs, then the village is safe and you move on , another player can come into the village and do some trading or take another quest or even take the fight to the centaurs and if you kill their chieftain then the village will be safer for a longer time. If you ignore it then the village will get destroyed and the next player walking through must evict (by force of course) first the centaurs then push them back even more and only then the human quests will be available to the player. So its a very neatly designed system IMO and the players actions do affect the world. The players own story is done in instances and it is necessary to give some sort of continuity in your own progression.
Posted: Aug 11th 2010 9:12AM R Planteer said
I've been playing Guild Wars since November of 2005, and still log in occasionally. When I first heard about GW2, there was such a long period of pretty much zero information ( about 2 years), that many people in the community, including myself, had begun to dismiss it as simply "WoW without a monthly fee", as the little bit of information that had been released basically consisted of a very high or no level cap, and more persistance.
I'm glad the past few months have proven me and others wrong. I am eagerly looking forward to this game now.
Reply
I'm glad the past few months have proven me and others wrong. I am eagerly looking forward to this game now.
Posted: Aug 11th 2010 11:49AM Calculon64 said
Reasons why I love Guild Wars (In no particular order)
1. Gameplay
2. Story
3. Graphics are elegant , pure eye candy (I hate WOW cartoony look)
4. No monthly charges
5. No server lag
6. Great customer service support.
7. Music and sound effects are amazing.
Reply
1. Gameplay
2. Story
3. Graphics are elegant , pure eye candy (I hate WOW cartoony look)
4. No monthly charges
5. No server lag
6. Great customer service support.
7. Music and sound effects are amazing.
Posted: Aug 11th 2010 1:13PM sirBetamax said
If they pull off even half of what they are promising for this game it'll be worth the purchase as far as I can tell. Seriously ambitious stuff here, really hope they suceed, especially as if they don't live up to these claims there will no doubt be a backlash.
Even their smaller ideas are great, like the bar brawls that can happen in any pub at any time.
Reply
Even their smaller ideas are great, like the bar brawls that can happen in any pub at any time.
Posted: Aug 11th 2010 10:24PM takahami said
i played gw from day1 more than 5 years ago (well, with preorder even a day earlier than day1) and am still playing it occasionally. i just can´t wait for gw2. can not wait! i´m pretty sure anet will keep their promises and create a great game.
i will take a look at the playable demo at gamescom. hurray. at least one good thing to be a sauerkraut. collogne here i come.
Reply
i will take a look at the playable demo at gamescom. hurray. at least one good thing to be a sauerkraut. collogne here i come.
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.
Featured Stories
The most popular posts
in the last 7 days
- Vita 'UMD Passport' won't be offered in US 220 comments
- Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning review: A tempting fate 153 comments
- David Jaffe leaves Eat Sleep Play, layoffs hit developer [Update] 108 comments
- Don't call it a remake: Final Fantasy X is a 'remaster,' to be clear 95 comments
- Battleship movie adapted into FPS by Double Helix 93 comments
