It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Originally posted by coretex666 Originally posted by Drachasor Originally posted by coretex666 Originally posted by Drachasor Originally posted by coretex666 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 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!
Originally posted by Loke666 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.
Look it up.
Originally posted by svandy 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!
If WoW was released today even in its' entirety it would be f2p in 3 months.Why is it still such a big deal?
they are all just spawn of the text DIKU muds. You run around with a virtual pointy stick poking virtual critters so you can get a bigger virtual point stick to poke virtual graphical critters with more virtual hitpoints. Only differences are the art style and the fun factor. For me GW2 pushed the fun factor forward a couple of notches
Not sure i would call GW2 revolutionary To me it plays like a greatly improved verion of DAoC which was my first 3D MMO. The dynamic events are also unique as far as I know, they are a definite improvemnet over older games questing mechanics. I like the combat a lot better than the typical MMO style where viry little movement is required for PvE. My best gaming buddy hates GW2 for the same reason, of course he does not like FPS games so that is understandable.
From what I have seen in the BWE and stress tests don't think there is anyway GW2 will flop unless there are major hardware problems. If anything it will bring over a few more of the FPS game fans to the genre. 5 bucks says the game will be a major player
I miss DAoC
Originally posted by Jackdog they are all just spawn of the text DIKU muds. You run around with a virtual pointy stick poking virtual critters so you can get a bigger virtual point stick to poke virtual graphical critters with more virtual hitpoints. Only differences are the art style and the fun factor. For me GW2 pushed the fun factor forward a couple of notches Not sure i would call GW2 revolutionary To me it plays like a greatly improved verion of DAoC which was my first 3D MMO. The dynamic events are also unique as far as I know, they are a definite improvemnet over older games questing mechanics. I like the combat a lot better than the typical MMO style where viry little movement is required for PvE. My best gaming buddy hates GW2 for the same reason, of course he does not like FPS games so that is understandable
I hate FPS games. Doesn't stop me from loving GW2.
If you're going to compare the combat to another genre I'd have to say a fast paced moba over anything.
Originally posted by svandy 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.
Just to clarify when I called it evolutionary I was being cautiously optimistic. I expect every new AAA title to put something on the table that is an evolution otherwise I won't look past existing products. It wasn't until recently that they have started living up to this though. As I said I thought SWTOR and Tera had evolutions aswell but I don't play them anymore. Anyway just clarifying and your post was solid.
Originally posted by svandy 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.
o_O. I didn't think the thread was about 'how awesome GW2 is'.
The thread is about whether GW2 is (potentially) revolutionary, evolutionary or neither.
- a car that drives at speeds approaching the speed of light would be revolutionary.
- a car that is 10% more efficient than existing designs would be evolutionary.
But it doesn't take a genius to see that a car traveling up to relativistic speeds is 'revolutionary' for a reason. It would cost an astromonical amount of money, it's probably impossible and it's not a good idea even if you could do it...
Whilst 10% more efficient sounds like a sensible idea that could be a success for everyone.
GW2 is a (potentially) revolutionary design. It could succeed big, or fail in a quite spectacular manner. No end game? No real progress? Is this *really* what people want? Will they continue playing? No-one knows the answer to those - it's a huge gamble they've taken with this design, and afaik no-one has done it before... certainly not on this scale!
WoW was not a revolutionary design. In truth, the design wasn't very interesting. But it was a glorious success...
Potentially revolutionary is not the same as 'successful'.
But I would agree that 'revolutionary is best judged with hindsight'.
Originally posted by Drachasor 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.
By your logic then most themepark MMO's are revolutionary. Any that take existing ideas and change them slighly are revolutionary? Thats what your implying.
Originally posted by Drachasor Originally posted by coretex666 Originally posted by Drachasor Originally posted by coretex666 Originally posted by Drachasor Originally posted by coretex666 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.
I think that we are actually in a subjective area. What is revolutionary for you is not revolutionary for me.
I accept your opinion that it is revolutionary. For you, it obviously is and it is perfectly fine.
My subjective opinion is that it is not. As I mentioned I acknowledge that it does certain things differently.
I incline to "radically new" definition which the game simply is not, for me, but you do not have to agree.
Originally posted by Zylaxx Originally posted by fiontar Originally posted by blutigfaust uh.. I wish people would stop using the word "revolutionary" to describe MMOs before they are launched... I've yet to see one that is revolutionary after all the excuses and same o same o code comes out.....just like SWTOR ...that word was bandied around more than I can shake a stick at...but nothing about it was revolutionary. If fact....havent see much that even comes close. I get you're excited about it...but really.... Just my 2 cents Carry On!
Well, I have logged over 150 hours playtesting the game, so I actually feel comfortable saying the game is pretty revolutionary. I know that's a lot more hours than most professional reviewers will spend playing the game before offering up their opinions and 145 to 150 hours more than the majority of people who will be trashing the game after it releases.
The game isn't perfect, but it brings the MMO genre back on track, after most developers veered off into "clone the WoW now" territory, which resulted in us losing about two generations of MMO evolution! GW2 was designed to be an evolution over the expected evolution of the genre that never actually occured during the time it was in development. I think 2+ generations ahead of your contemporary competition equals revolution!
I just hope future games will pick up the torch and run with it, rather than trying to just clone GW2. Not only does cloning equal stagnation, but if no one managed to come close to successfully cloning WoW, there is no way anyone is going to successfully clone GW2.
Exactly. Back in the day prior to WoW, MMO's were about innovation and having different play designs and elements counting the big 3 (UO, EQ and AC) none of those 3 were remotely similar then comes DAoC and CoH and again more evolution and innovation. Then comes WoW (it too revolutionized and innovated) and it garners massive subs and all of a sudden its like MMO developers go freaking nuts and start proclaiming innovation and evolution has reached its pinnacle, thereafter every game was basically a reskinned WoW. Now after 6 long years a company decides to go back to the roots of what made MMO's so special in the first place. Not surprising this same company is releasing possibly the most well deserved and hyped MMO since WoW. Hopefully.........and its a big hopefully Studios and MMO execs see that truue innoavtion and evolution is the driving force behind successful games, but knowing our luck we will get 6+ years of GW2 clones lol.
And sadly if GW2 is a run away success, I fear this is exactly what will happen.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
Originally posted by Drachasor Originally posted by Tibernicus Originally posted by tabindex Wow revolutionized the genre too, by making RPGs popular with people other than nerds. Now GW2 is revolutionizing it for ultra casual play. These aren't steps forward.
Except WoW did nothing new. The only thing that set WoW apart was its marketing budget and its brand name recognition.
It tremendously decreased the grind, tedium of questing, and general time wasters compared to other MMOs on the market when it came out. That was quite revolutionary.
It actually increased the amount of grind through their "lucky rolls" when it came to items so people had to literaly run the same stuff 24/7 and up to 700 hours to even get a set together or at a later point a rare mount.
The tedium of questing was horrid aswell. Guild Wars and other games at least gave you your own instance so nobody can take your mobs/bosses and flagged all the items that dropped for you so nobody else can pick them.
A trend that others followed partially with the time.
So I must agree that it did nothing revolutionary in that sense except of what Tibernicus already mentioned.
Originally posted by Jagarid I think you are confusing "revolutionary" with "evolutionary". It is a common mistake. GW2 is a blast and does a ton of things "better" imo, but all of the changes are just improvement on prior approaches. That is evolution.
/agree Not sure if the OP is trolling. A thread title like this is bound to get into a flame war. Normally I would put in my 2 cents but I am getting tired of repeating myself for the 100th time. The game is three days away (for me). I am just going to hold out until then (at least I am going to try!)
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.
Sorry to break it to you buddy , but I've been playing MMO's since 94 and have seen pretty much everything there is. Saying GW2 will be revolutionary is selfish , it will be better then GW1 , but from where I stand , I don't see much. Besides GW1 fanatics that will jump into GW2 , not alot more will be interested in it.
So yeah , have fun with GW2 , I'll be waitting on Archeage and in the mean time I'll be enjoying Torchlight 2 and End of Nations.
Originally posted by SuprGamerX 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.
Actually GW1 "fanatics" won't even touch GW2 because the two games are completely different, apart from the lore. Nice try though
Block the trolls, don't answer them, so we can remove the garbage from these forums
I think the game is great and i can't wait for the release. But i really don't see it as revolutionary at all. There are some new elements but alot of it has been seen before. The PvE is seen in several mmo's, Gw2 is just taking it to another lvl (which is great), but it doesn't make it revolutionary.
Gw2 is great and def one of best mmo's releasing in near future, but don't overhype the game as ppl really do on this forum. The hypemachine is never good for either the game or community.
Originally posted by Sylvarii Originally posted by Drachasor I think GW2 is going to do really well. This seems quite likely to me anyhow. I hope the net result is not just people mimicking GW2, but a realization that you don't have to strictly adhere to the WoW model to make an MMO. And hopefully more movement towards a simple B2P model like most other games which is a healthier incentive for generating good gameplay.
GW2 is not the first to not adhere to the WOW model.B2P is a wake up call to other devs teams who charge a flat monthly rate and it's also a wake up call to the F2P model that has a cash shop and in game restrictions.
It will be a "wake-up call" just like GW1 was, using the same revenue model.
Except that GW1's revenue model wasn't a wake-up call at all.
What I'm seeing here is the same exact pre-launch hype you see with almost every new major MMO to launch. Within a few months of launch, it all dies down and people get all hyped for the next MMO that will "revolutionize MMO gaming".... and then doesn't.
Prior to launch people were declaring that - whether it succeeded or failed - SWTOR would change MMO gaming forever in a significant way. It didn't. Not by a long-shot.
And yes, yes, yes... I know. "GW2 is different!!! It will change the way people play MMOs forevaaaaaa!!!".
People said that about TOR, as well. It didn't happen there, either.
And it's not going to be a "wake up call" for other devs using the Subscription model, any more than any other MMO to go F2P or Hybrid has before.
Subscriptions are still a viable model and B2P would not work for every developer, with every MMO. People have been predicting the end of subscriptions - to one degree or another, in one way or another - for the past three years at least. They're still here. MMOs have launched with Subscriptions even while people are making these claims, and are still doing just fine with no change to F2P in sight.
Subscriptions aren't going anywhere. There is no "wake up call" to be heard. It's a matter of choosing the revenue model that makes most sense to a given developr, for a given title. In some cases Subs are best. In some cases full-on F2P/Cash shop is best. In some cases F2P/P2P hybrid is best. In some cases B2P will be the best model. Horses for courses.
People have to get over this concept of "I like B2P the best, therefor it's automatically the best and will change the way MMOs make money". It didn't happen with F2P. It won't happen with B2P.
Three years from now, we'll still be having this same conversation.. about how subs are "outdated" and how B2P, F2P or some new, still unknown revenue model will be "a wake up call" for sub-based MMO devs... And sub-based MMOs will still be around, and they'll still be making money.
A big part of the problem is people are blaming the subscription model for what actually boils down to the game simply not being very good to enough people to sustain it. Before F2P/Cash Shops and all that became "the big new thing", sub-based MMOs went offline, too. Except in those cases, the reasons people gave had to do with the game itself. Only since F2P and now B2P became all the rage have people suddenly decided that a sub-based MMO fails because of it revenue model. The game could be a buggy, glitchy mess that crashes every five minutes and never gets fixed. When it goes offline, you'll see people on the forums saying "Uh huh... yup... See? Subscription model doesn't work anymore".
F2P didn't replace Subs, nor will it. B2P didn't replace subs, nor will it. Just like Subscriptions.. they are options.
In a way I hope it does revolutionise the genre, but not the way most people think. I hope it encourages Developers to see that they can bring out a game that's not a duplicate of WoW and yet have success.
I don't want to see the next 5 years of MMO development leading to games that all feature DE's, the same combat model, W v W v W, sPvP etc. We already have GW2, we don't need another one exactly the same just with a different name. We've seen that happen already. WoW's huge success led devs to copy it and we got the same game being churned out for the next 8 years but with a different name and none of them were big hits really.
I want to see something new. Not another WoW clone or a GW2 clone. That's the revolution I want to see.
Originally posted by Syno23
Um...revolutionize is one of those "hype" words.
Just deliver a good game, Anet.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Things that are revolutionary in my opinion:
1) automatically sharing a heart quest or dynamic/meta event without the need to talk to a npc first
2) getting your share of rewards in your mail after you participated in a heart quest or dynamic/meta event according to your own performance/participation without the need to go back and talk to a npc
3) events chaining into a other event with the event being based on if the previous event was a "win" or a "fail" with the npcs aknowledging your actions, changing their own actions based on the "trust" they have in you or not.
Example number 1: you help a kid, the kid thanks you, leaves and goes to it's village. After it arrived, it speaks to several npcs telling the story on how you helped it which leads to the other npcs aknowledging your actions aswell.
Example number 2: a npc asks you to kill a big boar he isn't able to. After you kill it and you get his "thanks" and reward, he cuts the head, puts it over his shoulder and leaves.
If you happen to go to the town he leaves, sooner or later you will see him coming into town with the head of the boar still over his shoulder, going to his home and then placing it as a trophy over his fireplace.
Result: A "real living world that changes depending on the players actions instead of a all static world that doesn't "care" of what you did or didn't.
4) Crafting speed increasing to save you time and free you from watching the same animation your character does for like 10 to 30 minutes or even several days.
5) Transmutation possibilities
6) Real underwater battles which involve skill unlocking by usage of the corresponding weapons among other possibilities
Things that are evolutionary which are systems that existed in other games and got polished or upgraded, bringing them into a new level.
1) WvsWvsW is a better polished version of the Heroes Ascent in Guild Wars one, mixed with elements from DaoC, Lineage 2 and other games, that also provides PvE elements and rewards (Vistas, exploration, supply gathering and points, npcs that can be recruited to attack the enemy server and so on...).
2) Gear Progression, same as in Guild Wars 1 but partially more polished system that involves personal crafting
3) Scaling system the way it is in City of Heroes/Villains since 2004 with the difference that it happens automaticaly without the need to involve an additional person of a higher/lower level.
4) Dungeons that can be done in 4 different ways depending on the players decision and if it's story related or not.
5) Unique and different Battle System with a newer organization of the tons of skills Guild Wars 1 has
6) A great Pet System for the ranger class that gives one the possibility to switch companions on the fly
7) Weapon system that lets you mix it up with a selection of various weapons for each profession
8) Great Profession and Skill system that is letting all professions hold their own instead of making them entirely dependant on each other because of the holy trinity we had in almost all mmos the whole time.
9) Great crafting system that doesn't let you "forget" everything you learned when you change a life skill but rather keeps everything in "your memory" so you can go back at any time without the need to restart allover again.
I'm sure there is even more but I will leave it to that for now. ^_^
Originally posted by kDeviL
Never pl;ayed a MOBA myself so I have no clue as to that. I am just glad it is not a stand there and hit keys combat. I was pretty burned out on MMO's in general and TSW and this game were my last shots at the genre. Did not care for TSW's combat so you might say GW2 was my last hope. From what I have seen during 1 BWE and the stress tests I like it.