You and I obviously have different idea about revolutionary MMO. Several minor changes do not make it revolutionary in my eyes.
I think that a truly revolutionary MMO would become superior to WoW in terms of subs. The game would also be P2P since it would have potential to get large playerbase and retain it for a long time, so that it would be more profitable to have subs instead of just box sales.
Yes, you are defining "revolutionary" as "beating WoW at the sub game and being P2P"....which is NOT what that word means.
Originally posted by Drughiis a really nice game, but not gonna revolutionize anything
So let's say the game sells 6 million copies and does well over the next several years.You think it won't dramatically change the MMO market? You think everyone will still largely be making WoW-clones?
Most gaming companies like reliable investments.Therefore they will always make WoW clones until WoW no longer exists.
Yeah, because those WoW clones have proven to be soooo reliable, right?
Oh wait, most of them crash and burn. The ones that don't just crash or burn.
GW2 could demonstrate there's more reliable ways to model your MMO using more tried and true methods -- the same methods most games use.
Fact is, there is one model that out performs financially than any other, The wow p2p model.
There's one game, you mean. That's not really much of a model if no one can replicate it, not in any useful sense. If there's another reliable way to make money with MMOs then that will likely be taken up by people who will simply be happy to have a more reliable method of making money than the huge gamble of a WoW clone (a gamble that many have tried and all have lost at).
It does not matter,WOW is still the leading model,it's as simple as that.Will BTP change that,it might but right now it hasn't.You can make all the excuses you want but the fact remains is WOW which is P2P is the leading model,you can't argue against it.
Name me one MMO that generates more cash that WOW?
I wow. You're right. GW2 won't be revolutionary because it hasn't change how other MMOs are made and sold before it's even come out. Eh...really? That's you're argument? Pretty lame.
And F2P and games moving to F2P mixed up the model a bit from WoW. So it is proof that things DO impact how companies handle such models. Indeed, some MMOs have been designed to be F2P since WoW came out. GW2 shows another way to go at things and another way to design MMOs (no trinity, no massive progression gear grinds, etc). It is sensible to conclude it would similarly have an impact on the market if it does well.
But I guess if you ignore how the market has already adjusted to non-WoW games (albeit only small changes given the differences of those games from WoW have only been in one or two areas), then yeah, nothing will change and no one will ever make a game that's not like WoW.
I guess we'll also ignore the fact that very successful games are often looked at and have elements copied in any genre. So likewise if GW2 does well, it will have people looking at it and copying it to one degree or another. Yes, also ignoring that you are completely correct.
The fact that 8 years have passed since WoW came out is only going to make investors MORE nervous about copying it given the horrific failures from all the major players for years and years and years. Investors don't like risk, and frankly, getting a successful P2P MMO is a pretty massive risk. A success of a less risky strategy will be noticed.
Again,all you have written is pointless,WOW P2P is leading the way,still today.No other MMO generates the same cash,B2P,F2P are not even close.Will that change in the future,i guess so but as of right now P2P wins.
Again,ill ask you to name me a B2P,F2P MMO that generates more cash that WOW P2P model,you can't.
Fact is, there is one model that out performs financially than any other, The wow p2p model.
The P2P model positives:
+ provides a reliable income per month. Since wages are paid monthly, this makes staffing sane.
+ provides more money per player than any F2P/B2P model is likely to.
The negatives:
- players pay a flat-rate fee for the month... whilst their support costs are based on 'time spent playing the game'. Ironically your best customers are players who don't play much... although they contribute nothing to your social 'pull'.
- players pay a flat-rate fee for the month... the most efficient playstyle is to play as many hours in that month as possible... aka 'burn through the content'. For a new MMO this is very much not what a developer wants.
- players tend to play an MMO then quit. If they feel something has changed, they may rejoin. In the case of a P2P MMO that has a monthly cost associated with it.
---
GW2 is "revolutionary" in a bunch of areas, but whether that starts any sort of revolution is impossible to say.
For example - D3 and SC2 pretty much ignored all innovation in their genres and blindly copied their predecessors, whilst being hugely successful. If we assume that WoW will be followed by WoW+1, then there's a good argument that WoW+1 will similarly ignore all MMO innovations.
As WoW+1 is likely to be successful, it may be that the MMO genre is simply incapable of a revolution.
Originally posted by aaradun how is this game revolutionary everything in it is stolen from other games, pvp from DAOC, events from rift and warhammer online.
And it improved upon them immensely. It's also not going with a Holy Trinity and gear grind setup, unlike those other games.
WoW was revolutionary and it did little more than copy from others and improve upon them. Sometimes that's all it takes. Though GW2 is more markedly different from other themepark MMOs than I think WoW was when it came out.
WoW was not revolutionary either, WoW was simply the first mmorpg to go the mass marketting route, nothing in the game was new, it had all been done before.
By definition it was revolutionary, because it changed the face of the industry. If you disgree, take it up with the dictionary.
Alternative post:
You keep on using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.
The thing is people are claiming GW2 is revolutionary becuase of gameplay mechanics.
WoW was called revolutionary, partyly due to the internet becoming more mainstream, but mainly for bringing MMO to the masses. Not for its gameplay mechanics.
Will GW2 do what WoW did for the genre in that sense? I highly doubt it.
For people either not interested in the mmo scene, either waiting for each new mmo to be the second coming of Christ, then yes, there must be nothing revolutionary (enough).
***** Before hitting that reply button, please READ the WHOLE thread you're about to post in *****
Again,all you have written is pointless,WOW P2P is leading the way,still today.No other MMO generates the same cash,B2P,F2P are not even close.Will that change in the future,i guess so but as of right now P2P wins.
Again,ill ask you to name me a B2P,F2P MMO that generates more cash that WOW P2P model,you can't.
Apparently you don't read.
MMOs are released that are not P2P. Ergo, WoW's existence doesn't force everyone to copy every design element. More successful or even just more noticed games have elements copied from them, not just WoW. Such as Public Quest in Warhammer got noticed by the Rift Team. Ergo, WoW's existence doesn't force everyone to copy every design element.
But go ahead and ignore reality, and ignore the fact that if an actually successful MMO comes out it would get noticed more than the failures.
Originally posted by aaradun how is this game revolutionary everything in it is stolen from other games, pvp from DAOC, events from rift and warhammer online.
And it improved upon them immensely. It's also not going with a Holy Trinity and gear grind setup, unlike those other games.
WoW was revolutionary and it did little more than copy from others and improve upon them. Sometimes that's all it takes. Though GW2 is more markedly different from other themepark MMOs than I think WoW was when it came out.
WoW was not revolutionary either, WoW was simply the first mmorpg to go the mass marketting route, nothing in the game was new, it had all been done before.
By definition it was revolutionary, because it changed the face of the industry. If you disgree, take it up with the dictionary.
Alternative post:
You keep on using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.
The thing is people are claiming GW2 is revolutionary becuase of gameplay mechanics.
WoW was called revolutionary, partyly due to the internet becoming more mainstream, but mainly for bringing MMO to the masses. Not for its gameplay mechanics.
Will GW2 do what WoW did for the genre in that sense? I highly doubt it.
GW2 is definitely more revolutionary given its gameplay mechanics than WoW was.
GW2 kills the Holy Trinity. That's not been done in a Themepark, at least not one of any note. GW2 has an elaborate DE system with interlinking nodes. That's never been done in an MMO period. GW2 is an MMO themepark without progression-based gear grinding. AFAIK, that's never been done either. These are certainly all innovations, and it has a lot more.
How many new things does it need to be revolutionary in the sense of innovation? Like I said, it fits the defintion because all these things, especially together are quite outside the establish procedures for themepark MMOs.
Maybe I missed this but what exactly fans think is revolutionary in GW2? I mean all those things like dynamic events were already done (WAR, RIFT). Personal storylines also. The only new thing I see is combat where every classes have different abilities for each weapon. But thats not enough.
TSW has much more fresh ideas and new things to offer for MMORPG genre
You and I obviously have different idea about revolutionary MMO. Several minor changes do not make it revolutionary in my eyes.
I think that a truly revolutionary MMO would become superior to WoW in terms of subs. The game would also be P2P since it would have potential to get large playerbase and retain it for a long time, so that it would be more profitable to have subs instead of just box sales.
Yes, you are defining "revolutionary" as "beating WoW at the sub game and being P2P"....which is NOT what that word means.
I admit that this missunderstanding was probably my fault.
It is not how I define it. For me, revolutionary is about new elements in gameplay and different conception. Pretty difficult to be very specific.
What I wrote is what a revolutionary MMO would be capable of.
I'm not sure a revolutionary MMO would be capable of that. Some markets are extremely hard to penetrate, and I think the evidence supports that P2P MMOs are this kind of market. Most are completely unwilling to pay for two games per month. There's a lot of investment in one game that will not carry over if they switch. That places a great burden on anyone attempting to enter the market.
Let's compare this to bread. You make Devil's Bread and everyone loves it. It's better than the bread that came before. You end up controlling 70% of the market in a few years. I reverse-engineer your recipe. I make something just as good. I put my Dragon's Bread on the market. People will buy it. It will penetrate, even if I price it at the same price as yours -- I just have to market it as a quality product.
That wouldn't work in the MMO world. If someone LITERALLY cloned WoW and put it on the market at the same price, basically no one would switch over. They'd lose all their stuff, they'd lose their contacts, and the Perfect Clone wouldn't have anything to compensate them for those losses. This is dramatically different from a normal product or even a normal game.
In terms of game mechanics, GW2 is definitely a revolutionary themepark MMO.
It eliminates normal questing completely. No one else has done anything like this in a Themepark.
It eliminates the Holy Trinity. Pretty unheard of in a Themepark.
It eliminates the progressive grinding for high-stat gear as an end-game. Again, new.
Adds a bunch of silly mini-games. Eh, pretty sure no one has done it to this extent before in a Themepark.
The Dye system is far better than anything we've seen before in a themepark.
Etc, etc, etc.
I don't really see how we can say it isn't a revolutionary Themepark MMO. It's certainly defying a ton of established conventions while remaining a themepark.
I think it's an evolution and a good one at that. That said I thought SWTOR and Tera were an evolution too. I think there has been some very nice progress in MMOs in the last twelve months despite people claiming the genre is dead or dying. This is just my opinion so don't fly off the rails and tell me how they are all WoW clones and what not. I'm also aware that there is some truth that these games aren't succeeding like some people had hoped but from where I stand the genre is becoming more fun.
It is not that revolutionary. Like someone said, evolutionary could be a better word and to be honest it is not even that evolutionary.
No doubt, GW2 will be successful and sell many boxes, including one for me eventually, but I just do not see longevity for this game. Majoriy of people will grind throught the content in the first few months and start looking for the next big thing. The best thing that this game has going for it is the P2P. A quality MMO with B2P is a good selling point. So let's look at the list combined here:
combat ability system (done before - GW2 only has provides a twist with weapon specific skills)
discovery crafting system (done before - nothing special)
storyline that takes place across the entire characters level up experience(done before and better)
active dodging (done before - and done better)
Open world exploration (done before - sadly missing in many new games)
e-sport fair and balanced sPvP (not sure I even like e-sport in MMO, but I am sure it will find its audience)
Dungeons with DE's and multiple paths (evolutionary, but not realy revolutionary - just a twist)
flat leveling curve (remain sceptical about the longevity of a non-progression character path in a RPG)
guild system
home instance
mini games
an amazing dye system
the trading post
ability to add your own music to the ingame playlist
NO SUB FEE- the major difference, as they publish a triple-a MMO with the B2P model.
The green ones are pretty basic stuff, I do not see how any of them make the game revolutionary.
"The person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is in."
If holy trinity model becomes a model of the past I will say gw2 revolutionized the genre. The rest I have seen in other shape and form in previous games.
Maybe I missed this but what exactly fans think is revolutionary in GW2? I mean all those things like dynamic events were already done (WAR, RIFT). Personal storylines also. The only new thing I see is combat where every classes have different abilities for each weapon. But thats not enough.
TSW has much more fresh ideas and new things to offer for MMORPG genre
just love this logical fallacy. Uhm no, DE's have not been done before, public quests and rift events are not dynamic events. they are repeating the same event over and over on a timer. Dynamic events have timers yes but they are directly effected by what players do or don't do next.
For example: public quests wouldn't move beyond the tiny zone they happened in, Rift creatures wouldn't go too far either, once they took over an area they would suddenly stop, wait for a specific time and then disappear to be repeated exactly the same later.
Dynamic events in GW2 happen like this: Centaurs take over a town setup a camp and then start sending centaurs into adjacent capture points, to set up new camps, to send new parties to other adjacent capture points etc. If you liberate a town, then the centaurs would send more to try to recapture, if you keep them from capturing, then the next event would involve liberating the main town, if you manage to do that then they reset to trying to capture the main town, if you fail to kill the main centaur, then it goes back to sending parties to the smaller adjacent towns to take them over again. THAT's how it's dynamic. It changes according to what you do or don't accomplish in the game. PQ's and Rifts don't come close to that really. Not even the occasional footholds did this in Rift.
TSW offers more of the same crap apparently as any 2004 design I've seen. Content that's repetative, pvp that's gear biased, horrible random boss drop algrithm forcing players to endlessly run dungeons for gear drops. The ONLY thing that they did differently in TSW is the character design. That's the only thing that's unique however even that has been described as extremely difficult to use by new players and as a thin solution to removing the cookie cutter mmo mentality.
Originally posted by Drughiis a really nice game, but not gonna revolutionize anything
So let's say the game sells 6 million copies and does well over the next several years.You think it won't dramatically change the MMO market? You think everyone will still largely be making WoW-clones?
Most gaming companies like reliable investments.Therefore they will always make WoW clones until WoW no longer exists.
Yeah, because those WoW clones have proven to be soooo reliable, right?
Oh wait, most of them crash and burn. The ones that don't just crash or burn.
GW2 could demonstrate there's more reliable ways to model your MMO using more tried and true methods -- the same methods most games use.
Fact is, there is one model that out performs financially than any other, The wow p2p model.
There's one game, you mean. That's not really much of a model if no one can replicate it, not in any useful sense. If there's another reliable way to make money with MMOs then that will likely be taken up by people who will simply be happy to have a more reliable method of making money than the huge gamble of a WoW clone (a gamble that many have tried and all have lost at).
It does not matter,WOW is still the leading model,it's as simple as that.Will BTP change that,it might but right now it hasn't.You can make all the excuses you want but the fact remains is WOW which is P2P is the leading model,you can't argue against it.
Name me one MMO that generates more cash that WOW?
I wow. You're right. GW2 won't be revolutionary because it hasn't change how other MMOs are made and sold before it's even come out. Eh...really? That's you're argument? Pretty lame.
And F2P and games moving to F2P mixed up the model a bit from WoW. So it is proof that things DO impact how companies handle such models. Indeed, some MMOs have been designed to be F2P since WoW came out. GW2 shows another way to go at things and another way to design MMOs (no trinity, no massive progression gear grinds, etc). It is sensible to conclude it would similarly have an impact on the market if it does well.
But I guess if you ignore how the market has already adjusted to non-WoW games (albeit only small changes given the differences of those games from WoW have only been in one or two areas), then yeah, nothing will change and no one will ever make a game that's not like WoW.
I guess we'll also ignore the fact that very successful games are often looked at and have elements copied in any genre. So likewise if GW2 does well, it will have people looking at it and copying it to one degree or another. Yes, also ignoring that you are completely correct.
The fact that 8 years have passed since WoW came out is only going to make investors MORE nervous about copying it given the horrific failures from all the major players for years and years and years. Investors don't like risk, and frankly, getting a successful P2P MMO is a pretty massive risk. A success of a less risky strategy will be noticed.
Again,all you have written is pointless,WOW P2P is leading the way,still today.No other MMO generates the same cash,B2P,F2P are not even close.Will that change in the future,i guess so but as of right now P2P wins.
Again,ill ask you to name me a B2P,F2P MMO that generates more cash that WOW P2P model,you can't.
Your argument is moot because your using ONE game to base your judgement on! Barring WoW (which is the only game of its kind in subscriptions, although to be fair ¾ of their base is 1c an hour Asian internet cafes) what other sub based MMO is doing amazingly well? I see sub based games go FtP almsot weekly and every single AAA (cept WoW) has gone F2P or will in the future.
Playing: GW2 Waiting on: TESO Next Flop: Planetside 2 Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
Originally posted by Sicae If holy trinity model becomes a model of the past I will say gw2 revolutionized the genre. The rest I have seen in other shape and form in previous games.
So your argument is becasue ONE game has done somethign silmilar to GW2 is not revolutionizing? I dont think you know what the term means as it pertains to game development. What MMO has done everything like GW2? Until you can answer that question your statement is false.
Playing: GW2 Waiting on: TESO Next Flop: Planetside 2 Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
Originally posted by Syno23 Think about the PvP and how revolutionary that is. Thing about the PvE which are Dynamic Events and hearts. No more having to compete for quests and areas and tokens and items. Work together. Create a world that works with more and more players. WvW included.
It is really not that revolutionary, it is a good step forward though. But heart quests are basically just a regular repetitable quest that you dont need to take. I personally think they should have skipped them, they add very little to the game.
Using DEs instead of quests on the other hand is a great idea that bring back some exploration but I still wouldnt call them revolutonary.
That so many seems to think that tells us just how static MMOs have been for a long time.
Maybe I missed this but what exactly fans think is revolutionary in GW2? I mean all those things like dynamic events were already done (WAR, RIFT). Personal storylines also. The only new thing I see is combat where every classes have different abilities for each weapon. But thats not enough.
TSW has much more fresh ideas and new things to offer for MMORPG genre
No offense, but you sound like you just didn't play gw2 (because it's all in the details)
And yes, as Loke666 mentionned, it's considered revolutionary because nothing, absolutely nothing has really changed in the MMO scene since WoW. So overall, maybe it's not that a big deal, but in the MMO microcosm, it is. It's a sad fact yes, but well.
Not to repeat myself but :
Originally posted by k-damage For people either not interested in the mmo scene, either waiting for each new mmo to be the second coming of Christ, then yes, there must be nothing revolutionary (enough).
And anyway, nothing will be "revolutionary" in videogames anymore now, unless a new breed of human interface technology kicks in. So let's put the word "revolutionary" into its proper context.
***** Before hitting that reply button, please READ the WHOLE thread you're about to post in *****
You and I obviously have different idea about revolutionary MMO. Several minor changes do not make it revolutionary in my eyes.
I think that a truly revolutionary MMO would become superior to WoW in terms of subs. The game would also be P2P since it would have potential to get large playerbase and retain it for a long time, so that it would be more profitable to have subs instead of just box sales.
Yes, you are defining "revolutionary" as "beating WoW at the sub game and being P2P"....which is NOT what that word means.
I admit that this missunderstanding was probably my fault.
It is not how I define it. For me, revolutionary is about new elements in gameplay and different conception. Pretty difficult to be very specific.
What I wrote is what a revolutionary MMO would be capable of.
I'm not sure a revolutionary MMO would be capable of that. Some markets are extremely hard to penetrate, and I think the evidence supports that P2P MMOs are this kind of market. Most are completely unwilling to pay for two games per month. There's a lot of investment in one game that will not carry over if they switch. That places a great burden on anyone attempting to enter the market.
Let's compare this to bread. You make Devil's Bread and everyone loves it. It's better than the bread that came before. You end up controlling 70% of the market in a few years. I reverse-engineer your recipe. I make something just as good. I put my Dragon's Bread on the market. People will buy it. It will penetrate, even if I price it at the same price as yours -- I just have to market it as a quality product.
That wouldn't work in the MMO world. If someone LITERALLY cloned WoW and put it on the market at the same price, basically no one would switch over. They'd lose all their stuff, they'd lose their contacts, and the Perfect Clone wouldn't have anything to compensate them for those losses. This is dramatically different from a normal product or even a normal game.
In terms of game mechanics, GW2 is definitely a revolutionary themepark MMO.
It eliminates normal questing completely. No one else has done anything like this in a Themepark.
It eliminates the Holy Trinity. Pretty unheard of in a Themepark.
It eliminates the progressive grinding for high-stat gear as an end-game. Again, new.
Adds a bunch of silly mini-games. Eh, pretty sure no one has done it to this extent before in a Themepark.
The Dye system is far better than anything we've seen before in a themepark.
Etc, etc, etc.
I don't really see how we can say it isn't a revolutionary Themepark MMO. It's certainly defying a ton of established conventions while remaining a themepark.
I know about the new mechanics that are implemented in the game. I just do not consider them to be enough to call it a revolutionary themepark MMO.
When I log in, I will not feel like I am in a different game.
I start at low level in a newbie area. I know the themepark formula, so that I know that I should go get some experience in order to progress levelwise. There are new ways how to get experience. I was used to completing quests or doing PvP to get them. Ok so here I am in the world, what will I do...hmmm there are no traditional quests, but there is something similar called dynamic events. I like the idea, it does not feel so stationary and linear, but it is basically a tool to get experience. It is a different take on quests. Ok I will do them. Is it different? Yes. Is it revolutionary?hmm, not sure really.
In the end, I am stuck with instanced PvP, OW bosses, dungeons, some crafting, etc. I agree that the game does certain things differently, but for me, it is not enough to call it revolutionary. I cannot tell you what the revolutionary aspects of the themepark MMO are. If I could, I would be a game developer, not an auditor.
I will use a weak and not very applicable analogy which I am capable to think of at the moment at work.
At the moment, people use regular LCD screens which are like WoW :oP. What GW 2 for me is an LCD screen with some shiny new features...I dont really have time or imagination to name anything specific. Revolutionary product for me would be e.g. a screen that is as thick as a paper, does not need any cable to connect it to the PC, it is bendable, something I can carry with me, I can stick it anywhere and it will automatically connect to a nearby computer, and then when I leave, I just bend it and put it in my pocket. I know that it would be more about technology and that it is different type of product, etc. I am just trying to express what "revolutionary" means for me. A significant change basically.
I'm saying it's a revolutionary THEMEPARK MMORPG.
Your counter is that it is still a themepark MMORPG, but no one is claiming it isn't. However, it is quite revolutionary within the genre. It IS a significant change from how Themepark MMOs are done. It does a lot of stuff differently, a lot of the base mechanics of how the game works are different. That's what matters when we're talking about revolution within a genre.
To use your analogy. If I had an LCD that used a tenth the power of traditional LCD screens and had better contrast, then that would be a revolutionary LCD screen (and would have significant implications on how and where LCD screens could be used. It would still be an LCD screen, of course.
You're demanding an extreme that the term "revolutionary" does not require.
"radically new or innovative; outside or beyond established procedure, principles, etc.: a revolutionary discovery."
In this case, GW2 is outside the established procedurefor THEMEPARK MMOs. To say it is not revolutionary is to say that you cannot have anything revolutionary within a genre, which is ridiculous.
I would say unabashed praise like in this thread is what turns me off to this game, and it probably does for many others as well. I understand my 60 bucks won't make or break it, but I don't get why the fanbase insists on being so aggressive about how awesome their game is.
I would propose that instead of trying to give the game a label like revolutionary or evolutionary, you just remain cautiously optimistic, play it for 2 months, and then come back and claim revolution if you still feel that way. We've all been down this road a thousand and one times and I don't understand why people still fall into this trap. I remember during the WAR beta everyone thought the game was going to be the second coming of christ (myself included) and that worked out real well. Not even a month in and people were jumping ship.
I hope GW2 works out for all of the fans, but I just can't in any way see it living up to the hype its getting. But if people are sitll raving like this 1 or even 2 months after launch, I might have to try it.
Please visit my youtube channel for some H1Z1/DayZ casual roleplay videos!
Originally posted by Syno23 Think about the PvP and how revolutionary that is. Thing about the PvE which are Dynamic Events and hearts. No more having to compete for quests and areas and tokens and items. Work together. Create a world that works with more and more players. WvW included.
It is really not that revolutionary, it is a good step forward though. But heart quests are basically just a regular repetitable quest that you dont need to take. I personally think they should have skipped them, they add very little to the game.
Using DEs instead of quests on the other hand is a great idea that bring back some exploration but I still wouldnt call them revolutonary.
That so many seems to think that tells us just how static MMOs have been for a long time.
Well, you can call them whatever you want, but they are revolutionary for Themepark MMOs, easily.
I would say unabashed praise like in this thread is what turns me off to this game, and it probably does for many others as well. I understand my 60 bucks won't make or break it, but I don't get why the fanbase insists on being so aggressive about how awesome their game is.
I would propose that instead of trying to give the game a label like revolutionary or evolutionary, you just remain cautiously optimistic, play it for 2 months, and then come back and claim revolution if you still feel that way. We've all been down this road a thousand and one times and I don't understand why people still fall into this trap. I remember during the WAR beta everyone thought the game was going to be the second coming of christ (myself included) and that worked out real well. Not even a month in and people were jumping ship.
I hope GW2 works out for all of the fans, but I just can't in any way see it living up to the hype its getting. But if people are sitll raving like this 1 or even 2 months after launch, I might have to try it.
As captain of the USS Hype, I welcome you aboard. Next stop ... INFINITY!
Comments
Yes, you are defining "revolutionary" as "beating WoW at the sub game and being P2P"....which is NOT what that word means.
Again,all you have written is pointless,WOW P2P is leading the way,still today.No other MMO generates the same cash,B2P,F2P are not even close.Will that change in the future,i guess so but as of right now P2P wins.
Again,ill ask you to name me a B2P,F2P MMO that generates more cash that WOW P2P model,you can't.
The P2P model positives:
+ provides a reliable income per month. Since wages are paid monthly, this makes staffing sane.
+ provides more money per player than any F2P/B2P model is likely to.
The negatives:
- players pay a flat-rate fee for the month... whilst their support costs are based on 'time spent playing the game'. Ironically your best customers are players who don't play much... although they contribute nothing to your social 'pull'.
- players pay a flat-rate fee for the month... the most efficient playstyle is to play as many hours in that month as possible... aka 'burn through the content'. For a new MMO this is very much not what a developer wants.
- players tend to play an MMO then quit. If they feel something has changed, they may rejoin. In the case of a P2P MMO that has a monthly cost associated with it.
---
GW2 is "revolutionary" in a bunch of areas, but whether that starts any sort of revolution is impossible to say.
For example - D3 and SC2 pretty much ignored all innovation in their genres and blindly copied their predecessors, whilst being hugely successful. If we assume that WoW will be followed by WoW+1, then there's a good argument that WoW+1 will similarly ignore all MMO innovations.
As WoW+1 is likely to be successful, it may be that the MMO genre is simply incapable of a revolution.
The thing is people are claiming GW2 is revolutionary becuase of gameplay mechanics.
WoW was called revolutionary, partyly due to the internet becoming more mainstream, but mainly for bringing MMO to the masses. Not for its gameplay mechanics.
Will GW2 do what WoW did for the genre in that sense? I highly doubt it.
***** Before hitting that reply button, please READ the WHOLE thread you're about to post in *****
Apparently you don't read.
MMOs are released that are not P2P. Ergo, WoW's existence doesn't force everyone to copy every design element. More successful or even just more noticed games have elements copied from them, not just WoW. Such as Public Quest in Warhammer got noticed by the Rift Team. Ergo, WoW's existence doesn't force everyone to copy every design element.
But go ahead and ignore reality, and ignore the fact that if an actually successful MMO comes out it would get noticed more than the failures.
GW2 is definitely more revolutionary given its gameplay mechanics than WoW was.
GW2 kills the Holy Trinity. That's not been done in a Themepark, at least not one of any note. GW2 has an elaborate DE system with interlinking nodes. That's never been done in an MMO period. GW2 is an MMO themepark without progression-based gear grinding. AFAIK, that's never been done either. These are certainly all innovations, and it has a lot more.
How many new things does it need to be revolutionary in the sense of innovation? Like I said, it fits the defintion because all these things, especially together are quite outside the establish procedures for themepark MMOs.
I played so many MMO and they all felt the same a wannabe WOW.
For once in my MMO experience, I don't have to do all the shitty MMO thing that have been going on for the past 10 years.
eg, Raids, kill steal, ganking, dailies and etc.
Anet take everything good that is not WOW and make it work.
It felt so refreshing when I played GW2 just like the first time I played on an MMO.
I played like 5 - 6 times at the human starter and I have not felt bored yet.
I think that is revolutionary.
Pardon my English as it is not my 1st language
Maybe I missed this but what exactly fans think is revolutionary in GW2? I mean all those things like dynamic events were already done (WAR, RIFT). Personal storylines also. The only new thing I see is combat where every classes have different abilities for each weapon. But thats not enough.
TSW has much more fresh ideas and new things to offer for MMORPG genre
I'm not sure a revolutionary MMO would be capable of that. Some markets are extremely hard to penetrate, and I think the evidence supports that P2P MMOs are this kind of market. Most are completely unwilling to pay for two games per month. There's a lot of investment in one game that will not carry over if they switch. That places a great burden on anyone attempting to enter the market.
Let's compare this to bread. You make Devil's Bread and everyone loves it. It's better than the bread that came before. You end up controlling 70% of the market in a few years. I reverse-engineer your recipe. I make something just as good. I put my Dragon's Bread on the market. People will buy it. It will penetrate, even if I price it at the same price as yours -- I just have to market it as a quality product.
That wouldn't work in the MMO world. If someone LITERALLY cloned WoW and put it on the market at the same price, basically no one would switch over. They'd lose all their stuff, they'd lose their contacts, and the Perfect Clone wouldn't have anything to compensate them for those losses. This is dramatically different from a normal product or even a normal game.
In terms of game mechanics, GW2 is definitely a revolutionary themepark MMO.
It eliminates normal questing completely. No one else has done anything like this in a Themepark.
It eliminates the Holy Trinity. Pretty unheard of in a Themepark.
It eliminates the progressive grinding for high-stat gear as an end-game. Again, new.
Adds a bunch of silly mini-games. Eh, pretty sure no one has done it to this extent before in a Themepark.
The Dye system is far better than anything we've seen before in a themepark.
Etc, etc, etc.
I don't really see how we can say it isn't a revolutionary Themepark MMO. It's certainly defying a ton of established conventions while remaining a themepark.
It is not that revolutionary. Like someone said, evolutionary could be a better word and to be honest it is not even that evolutionary.
No doubt, GW2 will be successful and sell many boxes, including one for me eventually, but I just do not see longevity for this game. Majoriy of people will grind throught the content in the first few months and start looking for the next big thing. The best thing that this game has going for it is the P2P. A quality MMO with B2P is a good selling point. So let's look at the list combined here:
"The person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is in."
just love this logical fallacy. Uhm no, DE's have not been done before, public quests and rift events are not dynamic events. they are repeating the same event over and over on a timer. Dynamic events have timers yes but they are directly effected by what players do or don't do next.
For example: public quests wouldn't move beyond the tiny zone they happened in, Rift creatures wouldn't go too far either, once they took over an area they would suddenly stop, wait for a specific time and then disappear to be repeated exactly the same later.
Dynamic events in GW2 happen like this: Centaurs take over a town setup a camp and then start sending centaurs into adjacent capture points, to set up new camps, to send new parties to other adjacent capture points etc. If you liberate a town, then the centaurs would send more to try to recapture, if you keep them from capturing, then the next event would involve liberating the main town, if you manage to do that then they reset to trying to capture the main town, if you fail to kill the main centaur, then it goes back to sending parties to the smaller adjacent towns to take them over again. THAT's how it's dynamic. It changes according to what you do or don't accomplish in the game. PQ's and Rifts don't come close to that really. Not even the occasional footholds did this in Rift.
TSW offers more of the same crap apparently as any 2004 design I've seen. Content that's repetative, pvp that's gear biased, horrible random boss drop algrithm forcing players to endlessly run dungeons for gear drops. The ONLY thing that they did differently in TSW is the character design. That's the only thing that's unique however even that has been described as extremely difficult to use by new players and as a thin solution to removing the cookie cutter mmo mentality.
Your argument is moot because your using ONE game to base your judgement on! Barring WoW (which is the only game of its kind in subscriptions, although to be fair ¾ of their base is 1c an hour Asian internet cafes) what other sub based MMO is doing amazingly well? I see sub based games go FtP almsot weekly and every single AAA (cept WoW) has gone F2P or will in the future.
Everything you need to know about Elder Scrolls Online
Playing: GW2
Waiting on: TESO
Next Flop: Planetside 2
Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
So your argument is becasue ONE game has done somethign silmilar to GW2 is not revolutionizing? I dont think you know what the term means as it pertains to game development. What MMO has done everything like GW2? Until you can answer that question your statement is false.
Everything you need to know about Elder Scrolls Online
Playing: GW2
Waiting on: TESO
Next Flop: Planetside 2
Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
It is really not that revolutionary, it is a good step forward though. But heart quests are basically just a regular repetitable quest that you dont need to take. I personally think they should have skipped them, they add very little to the game.
Using DEs instead of quests on the other hand is a great idea that bring back some exploration but I still wouldnt call them revolutonary.
That so many seems to think that tells us just how static MMOs have been for a long time.
No offense, but you sound like you just didn't play gw2
(because it's all in the details)
And yes, as Loke666 mentionned, it's considered revolutionary because nothing, absolutely nothing has really changed in the MMO scene since WoW. So overall, maybe it's not that a big deal, but in the MMO microcosm, it is. It's a sad fact yes, but well.
Not to repeat myself but :
And anyway, nothing will be "revolutionary" in videogames anymore now, unless a new breed of human interface technology kicks in. So let's put the word "revolutionary" into its proper context.
***** Before hitting that reply button, please READ the WHOLE thread you're about to post in *****
Let's play Fallen Earth (blind, 300 episodes)
Let's play Guild Wars 2 (blind, 45 episodes)
I'm saying it's a revolutionary THEMEPARK MMORPG.
Your counter is that it is still a themepark MMORPG, but no one is claiming it isn't. However, it is quite revolutionary within the genre. It IS a significant change from how Themepark MMOs are done. It does a lot of stuff differently, a lot of the base mechanics of how the game works are different. That's what matters when we're talking about revolution within a genre.
To use your analogy. If I had an LCD that used a tenth the power of traditional LCD screens and had better contrast, then that would be a revolutionary LCD screen (and would have significant implications on how and where LCD screens could be used. It would still be an LCD screen, of course.
You're demanding an extreme that the term "revolutionary" does not require.
"radically new or innovative; outside or beyond established procedure, principles, etc.: a revolutionary discovery."
In this case, GW2 is outside the established procedure for THEMEPARK MMOs. To say it is not revolutionary is to say that you cannot have anything revolutionary within a genre, which is ridiculous.
I would say unabashed praise like in this thread is what turns me off to this game, and it probably does for many others as well. I understand my 60 bucks won't make or break it, but I don't get why the fanbase insists on being so aggressive about how awesome their game is.
I would propose that instead of trying to give the game a label like revolutionary or evolutionary, you just remain cautiously optimistic, play it for 2 months, and then come back and claim revolution if you still feel that way. We've all been down this road a thousand and one times and I don't understand why people still fall into this trap. I remember during the WAR beta everyone thought the game was going to be the second coming of christ (myself included) and that worked out real well. Not even a month in and people were jumping ship.
I hope GW2 works out for all of the fans, but I just can't in any way see it living up to the hype its getting. But if people are sitll raving like this 1 or even 2 months after launch, I might have to try it.
Please visit my youtube channel for some H1Z1/DayZ casual roleplay videos!
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrQoK5VZlwBBzpsksmXtjMQ
Well, you can call them whatever you want, but they are revolutionary for Themepark MMOs, easily.
Look it up.
As captain of the USS Hype, I welcome you aboard. Next stop ... INFINITY!