Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Do you still think GuildWars 2 was that "Revolutionary Game That Would Change The Genre"?

12357

Comments

  • xposeidonxposeidon Member Posts: 384
    The OP has so many random lols it feels like it was written by a 15 year old that likes swag... lol?

    Remember... all I'm offering is the truth. Nothing more.

  • halflife25halflife25 Member Posts: 737
    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.

  • fat_taddlerfat_taddler Member Posts: 286

    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. 

  • RimmersmanRimmersman Member Posts: 885
    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.

    image
  • Gaia_HunterGaia_Hunter Member UncommonPosts: 3,066
    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.

     

    Currently playing: GW2
    Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders

  • YamotaYamota Member UncommonPosts: 6,593
    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.

  • timeraidertimeraider Member UncommonPosts: 865
    Never thought it would be the Messiah, nonetheless i really enjoy the game so..who cares :P
    Ashes of Creation Referral link - Help me to help you!
    https://ashesofcreation.com/r/Y4U3PQCASUPJ5SED
  • RimmersmanRimmersman Member Posts: 885
    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.

    image
  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 11,838
    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. 

    "We see fundamentals and we ape in"
  • halflife25halflife25 Member Posts: 737
    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.

  • botrytisbotrytis Member RarePosts: 3,363
    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.

     

     


  • JackFrostyJackFrosty Member Posts: 103
    Definately not. I don't even know anyone even playing it anymore. They've all gone back to other mmo's.

    When I wake up, the real nightmare begins

  • TwoThreeFourTwoThreeFour Member UncommonPosts: 2,155
    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.

  • grimalgrimal Member UncommonPosts: 2,935
    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.

  • BadaboomBadaboom Member UncommonPosts: 2,380

    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.

  • Johnie-MarzJohnie-Marz Member UncommonPosts: 865

    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.

  • Gaia_HunterGaia_Hunter Member UncommonPosts: 3,066
    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...

     

    Currently playing: GW2
    Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders

  • gothagotha Member UncommonPosts: 1,074

    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.

  • Gaia_HunterGaia_Hunter Member UncommonPosts: 3,066
    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.

     

    Currently playing: GW2
    Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders

  • TorgrimTorgrim Member CommonPosts: 2,088
    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.

    If it's not broken, you are not innovating.

  • RimmersmanRimmersman Member Posts: 885
    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.

     

    image
  • RobsolfRobsolf Member RarePosts: 4,607

    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.

  • halflife25halflife25 Member Posts: 737
    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.

  • YamotaYamota Member UncommonPosts: 6,593
    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).

  • YamotaYamota Member UncommonPosts: 6,593
    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.

Sign In or Register to comment.