Howdy, Stranger!

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

Guild Wars 2 is a success no matter how you feel about it.

145679

Comments

  • Lord.BachusLord.Bachus Den HelderMember Posts: 9,357 Rare
    Originally posted by wsmar
    Originally posted by Lord.Bachus
    Well, i am still having fun, and they are still making money with the game, atleast more money a month then it costs to pay a full development team.   On top of that they added more free content in the first year then any subbed game ever did. Tough it was mostly seasonal based. But soon they will start with 2 weekly updates with normal regular content, and it comes totally free, no more expansion packs but a world expanding every 2 weeks.   Combat is fun and has more depth both strategically as tactically then any other true MMO (tough i still would have preferred more vissible trinnity systems), world design is awesome and more dynamic then anything else.    And there are still people everywhere around the maps to join, and still lots of new people joining. So yes, the game is a succes, but not aimed at the super duper hardcore MMO crowd mostly living on these forums.

    I think that is great. I'm thoroughly glad that you are enjoying it and that you've found a game that will hold your interest for a long time. On the flip side of that, you also have to understand that many people feel oppositely from you, and have many reasons for why that is. That shouldn't effect what you feel about the game or even keep you from playing it if someone else doesn't feel the same way as you do.

    I agree with you that there isn't a game currently out or that has ever existed that has had as many content updates in such a short amount of time as GW2. I also think that's great, and future games should strive to be more like GW2 in that aspect. The final two statements you made are completely opinionated because those could be argued endlessly, and rather successfully. Basically your argument is that since you like it, it is a success, which isn't necessarily true. I guarantee you that the retention rate for GW2 isn't that great. Although still active, I would bet a lot of money that there were a considerable more amount of people playing the game when it first came out than they are now.

    When it comes down to it, I base success on if the fulfilled they promises they made during development. They plain, and maybe hard truth for some is that they didn't. The most striking argument they made was that the questing in this game wasn't going to be "going out and killing 10 rats", yet that is the premise for almost every heart in that game. You could even go a step further and say the dynamic events the were put in the game really aren't "dynamic". They are the same events over and over, occurring at the same spots every time they start.

    Thats just plain stupid,

     

    I base success on the numbers, and pick any numbers you want, they will proof that GW2 is the most successfull MMO released since WoW.  Be it boxes sold, players still playing after a year or even reviews and rereviews.  This game is a huge success.

     

    You my friend need to accept that when you and your friends dont like a game, it does not make it a failure. So many people on these boards still call WoW a failure, while in that case the numbers proof everyone wrong.

     

    You guys are not talking about success which is measurably in numbers but about quallity and expected quallity  (Your expected quallity) which has nothing to do with success.  However the number of happy players i meet on a daily base in game, and the number of people that keep returning time after time proof the game is way better then you and most hardcore habbits on these boards give the game credit for.

    Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)

  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid GinnungagapMember Posts: 8,052 Rare
    Originally posted by Torgrim
    Originally posted by Kyleran
    Would someone really argue against this?

     

    If you have read the boards for the past 6 months then yes there are people who argue about it.

     

    you should know by now that a troll's job is to troll the forums. Of course GW2 is a success, but your OP post is just feeding the trolls. Let them starve and they will move on.

    image
  • PurutzilPurutzil Member Posts: 3,048 Uncommon

    Um... its no more a success then other games that were released before it honestly. It did NOT break any Wow mold. I can cut the hood off my car, does that suddenly make it a convertable? No, it just has no roof now, its the same exact car just with something changed to make it look a bit different while being the same otherwise. Other games have done far more to change how games play then GW2 whether you like to admit it or not. Not sure where you get the idea that it did something big. Its just another fish in the water, one that has a place though it has no dominance like many games before it, whether better or worst then it. There are games that made more of a "Dent" then GW2 and there are games that made less of a dent.

     

    In the end, its silly to try and push out a game being some 'smash hit' like I think you are proposing and accept it. Guild Wars 2 is just another MMo, not some 'stellar success' nor is it a 'failure' like others might say, which is often said about many games that still thrive and manage their way through. 

  • Lord.BachusLord.Bachus Den HelderMember Posts: 9,357 Rare

    No you are very wrong in saying that. It has nothing to do with balance between melee and ranged classes. It has everything to do with the fact that no matter what kind of class you play in GW2, when you get into WvW, the only legitimate strategy when fighting the zerg is range. Melee is just not an option because when you run up to the front lines you are immediately focused.

     

    I am sorry to dissapoint you, but in GW2 every class has ranged options, that you need to use to your advantage in WvW.  The game requires you to change tactics and strategy based on the situation...

     

    On top of that when me and my guild WvW, we cut trough any zerg with our 20 man close knit team, and get to do a lot of mellee damage while cleaving trough ennemy ranks.  But  in general Mellee is more effective in small fights and not in huge fights.  

     

    What you want is just palin stupid, you want to be able in moddern day combat to destroy a whole platoon of machineguns while running up to them with a daggers and swords in your hands.  Now that would be stupid would it?

    Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)

  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid GinnungagapMember Posts: 8,052 Rare
    Originally posted by Purutzil
    Um... its no more a success then other games that were released before it honestly. It did NOT break any Wow mold. I can cut the hood off my car, does that suddenly make it a convertable? No, it just has no roof now, its the same exact car just with something changed to make it look a bit different while being the same otherwise. Other games have done far more to change how games play then GW2 whether you like to admit it or not. Not sure where you get the idea that it did something big. Its just another fish in the water, one that has a place though it has no dominance like many games before it, whether better or worst then it. There are games that made more of a "Dent" then GW2 and there are games that made less of a dent.

    care to share some examples? so i can play those games. Ive experienced the exact opposite with every popular and not so popular mmorpg in the past few years. Which one am i missing?

    image
  • PurutzilPurutzil Member Posts: 3,048 Uncommon
    Originally posted by rojo6934
    Originally posted by Purutzil
    Um... its no more a success then other games that were released before it honestly. It did NOT break any Wow mold. I can cut the hood off my car, does that suddenly make it a convertable? No, it just has no roof now, its the same exact car just with something changed to make it look a bit different while being the same otherwise. Other games have done far more to change how games play then GW2 whether you like to admit it or not. Not sure where you get the idea that it did something big. Its just another fish in the water, one that has a place though it has no dominance like many games before it, whether better or worst then it. There are games that made more of a "Dent" then GW2 and there are games that made less of a dent.

    care to share some examples? so i can play those games. Ive experienced the exact opposite with every popular mmo in the past few years. Which one am i missing?

    Alright lets do this. Games that did just more though right? So we can skip games like Rift that tried to refine the genre and add plenty of other things or SWTOR which, despite being meh, did try and push story in a much more rich fashion. 

     

    Eve Online: A game I'm not huge on but by far a very popular one at that. The gameplay as you know is a lot more sandbox with player economy and other factors. 

    Dark Fall: Original and the relaunch. Both games push drastically in a different way, shunning away from traditional MMO details that. 

    Phantasy Star Online Another oldie but I feel its good to point out old ones. Could add in Universe as well but lets focus on the original goody. Not only an MMo (although a bit limited in 'how many' could take part, PSO at least universe was much more MMO like)  it was one that tried to push it to console, followed by FF11. It changed up quests to being missions, making them more active and varied, changing how a quest works more then what GW2 does (aka combining a quest node quests into an auto claiming collection). Most of all though, it promoted a lot in terms of free form exploration, simply going down to locations and fighting and exploring. Universe expanded a lot on this though it did focus more on mission play.

    Mortal Online Much like darkfall. Really pushing in the First Person play though and promoting a bit more action in combat. Not a stellar success but definently trying to change the cards.

    The Secret World: Yes, I said it. A game that came out around the same time and did a lot MORE to change the MMo formula. The secret world made a game that took place in modern times, promoting a more flexible skill system learning the way you want. Its missions were far more story drive providing atmosphere and even investigation which other games never really pulled off before, or more so games have pulled away from giving players a "Heres the answer dumb ass" responses. It did a lot more then GW2 to establish itself being different, and funny enough its biggest flaw (IMO) is its combat much like GW2, both being very floaty and simplistic, over-all weakening the game.

    Planet Side 2: Taking Planet Side 1 and expanding on it. It takes massive scale battles for the FPS genre. Making the game heavily based on team play conquering the land, it gave a great shift in how things are handled and brought shooters far more into the MMo market.

    Defiance: A newer entry but one a feel worthy of being seen even if it needs some work. The game in ways brought a 3rd person boarderlands to PC (and console) mixing RPG and shooter, it does maintain shooter elements while mixing in random events, something that isn't new (Warhammer pretty much created those which rift capitalized on and really put into the picture). It stands a lot to bring new ideas to the table, one big one I see is the vehicals which do an amazing job on having their controls feel satisfying.

    Fallen Earth: Take an FPS and put it in a bleak futuristic setting. Mixing in those RPG elements while staying more on the shooter root, it created a more brutal feeling setting. Left to be open ending with interesting crafting, it does a lot to change the formula.

    Grando Espada: What this game? Its one of the weaker entries probably with my next one but It does I feel one of the biggest things for a game to do. It takes the traditional combat system we know, and then changes it to involve using three characters at once. This ends up brining in a lot of choice and more tactical play, managing all three members to maximize your performance. 

     

    Tera: Another game thats probably considered weaker, but in truth I feel its due to its poor execution. Tera I still say today has been the closest to get action combat right in an MMO setting. It made it not just a button spam fest like SW or GW2 feeling so floaty and disconnected. That being said, it does have a week quest system (one that can be worst then GW2 hearts at times) and its vanguard system which is quite an interesting system just doesn't feel fully implimented. Its dungens do feel much more skill based but at the same time gear does help play a part in things. It mixes the two worlds, and in ways I feel it does it right while also in others it does it wrong.

     

    There you go, a mix of older games and newer games, all which have their own stride. Not all are perfect mind you, but all have done more then GW2 in changing things up, whether for better or worst, that depends, though that can be said about GW2 as well. If you want more I can do so, and I can even pick apart GW2 and list its features and then use that to compare other games that came out and you can see that its not vastly different from other games you claim to be 'the same'.

     

     

  • SinakuSinaku Austin, TXMember Posts: 499 Uncommon

    Like 90% of posts on this forum, I feel like this was unnecessary.

    We all know it was a success $$ wise.
    I will argue that this game is not the game that everyone has been dying for and has completely changed over from what WoW is.

    Instead of changing mechanics it is just masking them.
    Mashing 1 instead of auto attack isn't revolutionary, it just makes you think you are being more active in your attacking.

    The quest system is almost the exact same but instead of ? quests it is "events"
    They are the EXACT same thing. Kill this amount of that and deliver this amount of that other thing. Oh look a "boss" everyone zerg it before the time limit runs out. Not to mention I feel like this actually defeats the purpose of partying at low levels (which no one seems to care about anymore considering the new mindset is "HAahasAHAHAh LeVEl CaP iN 2 DaYz lawl").

    I'm sorry but this isn't anything different.

    Don't get me wrong, I actually like GW2 and it is fun to play in short bursts (who can argue with a game without a sub?) but it isnt the insane kill em all that a lot of people are fanboying over.

    Successful, yes I can't argue that.
    Innovative, not so much.

  • cronius77cronius77 Fairfax, VAMember Posts: 1,611 Uncommon

    you fans of this game really rationalize everything out there with weird logic seriously. By you guys statements since we are using box sales alone to decide if a game is a success or not , then warhammer online was a huge success as well as age of conan and look at both of those dead games. Unless they release active server numbers playing each quarter or monthly pick your poison you will never be able to measure any success. Sure they made money off boxes but that doesnt mean they hit their target numbers to pay for the game being made and to keep a huge staff on.  You can assume they are doing okay right now by making the teams larger with the new patches every two weeks but how do we know for sure those teams were not just shifted around when other parts of the game was finished and released?

    I own guild wars 2 like the rest of you guys and play it , but people in here like lord bachus and boytiris are seriously huge fans and cannot see any flaws with this game at all and argue with ANYONE who dont agree with them. You two REALLY need to stop trolling every GW2 thread and respect others opinions here because calling peoples points stupid because you dont agree with them is rude and just disrespectful. I come from DAOC and WAR also and can agree with the other posters point of view on the game because I do not look at it with rose tinted goggles. You guys seriously have zero proof this game is a success or a failure because you do not know any facts directly from Anet or NCsoft so give the arguing a rest and chill out. 3 million box sales isnt even minecraft or skyrim numbers and isnt all that impressive hell SWTOR sold that and look at that trainwreck now?

  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid GinnungagapMember Posts: 8,052 Rare
    Originally posted by Purutzil
    Originally posted by rojo6934
    Originally posted by Purutzil
    Um... its no more a success then other games that were released before it honestly. It did NOT break any Wow mold. I can cut the hood off my car, does that suddenly make it a convertable? No, it just has no roof now, its the same exact car just with something changed to make it look a bit different while being the same otherwise. Other games have done far more to change how games play then GW2 whether you like to admit it or not. Not sure where you get the idea that it did something big. Its just another fish in the water, one that has a place though it has no dominance like many games before it, whether better or worst then it. There are games that made more of a "Dent" then GW2 and there are games that made less of a dent.

    care to share some examples? so i can play those games. Ive experienced the exact opposite with every popular mmo in the past few years. Which one am i missing?

    Alright lets do this. Games that did just more though right? So we can skip games like Rift that tried to refine the genre and add plenty of other things or SWTOR which, despite being meh, did try and push story in a much more rich fashion. 

     

    Eve Online: A game I'm not huge on but by far a very popular one at that. The gameplay as you know is a lot more sandbox with player economy and other factors. this is a space only mmo, i wouldnt compare it to a traditional mmorpg

    Dark Fall: Original and the relaunch. Both games push drastically in a different way, shunning away from traditional MMO details that. the things this game does different are not so good IMO. Heavy PvP focused mmo? tahts good for a minority only whether it innovates or not. WHich it didnt.

    Phantasy Star Online Another oldie but I feel its good to point out old ones. Could add in Universe as well but lets focus on the original goody. Not only an MMo (although a bit limited in 'how many' could take part, PSO at least universe was much more MMO like)  it was one that tried to push it to console, followed by FF11. It changed up quests to being missions, making them more active and varied, changing how a quest works more then what GW2 does (aka combining a quest node quests into an auto claiming collection). Most of all though, it promoted a lot in terms of free form exploration, simply going down to locations and fighting and exploring. Universe expanded a lot on this though it did focus more on mission play. This one i thought wasnt in US? i might check this one since PS is a great franchise, but gameplay on PSO1 seems very generic, not sure tho, gotta try it.

    Mortal Online Much like darkfall. Really pushing in the First Person play though and promoting a bit more action in combat. Not a stellar success but definently trying to change the cards.  This game i would say the same as DF, I think TESO would do a much better job at trying to imitate an Elder SCroll game.

    The Secret World: Yes, I said it. A game that came out around the same time and did a lot MORE to change the MMo formula. The secret world made a game that took place in modern times, promoting a more flexible skill system learning the way you want. Its missions were far more story drive providing atmosphere and even investigation which other games never really pulled off before, or more so games have pulled away from giving players a "Heres the answer dumb ass" responses. It did a lot more then GW2 to establish itself being different, and funny enough its biggest flaw (IMO) is its combat much like GW2, both being very floaty and simplistic, over-all weakening the game. The story here is amazing but its like you said, a modern day thing, totally different form the fantasy theme. Each can be equally as good on their own setting. The skill system is not as flexible because you have to unlock it in a very linear way, no second option unless you change weapon. And even then again a linear chain of unlocks with every weapon. There are a truckload of skills which is awesome but you dont have the choice to say i want to unlock this instead. In GW2 there are less skills, a lot less, but i have options and less cookie cutter builds. The combat is an inferior version of what GW2 did. DOnt get me wrong i enjoy TSW but the linear skill system and the combat is enough for me to take very long breaks without missing the game.

    Planet Side 2: Taking Planet Side 1 and expanding on it. It takes massive scale battles for the FPS genre. Making the game heavily based on team play conquering the land, it gave a great shift in how things are handled and brought shooters far more into the MMo market. This is an mmo shooter, it doesnt compare with an mmorpg. Too different genres, the only thing i see in PS2 as game changer is the ability to fly huge aircrafts with friends and shoot form them. You cant even destroy buildings like battlefield.

    Defiance: A newer entry but one a feel worthy of being seen even if it needs some work. The game in ways brought a 3rd person boarderlands to PC (and console) mixing RPG and shooter, it does maintain shooter elements while mixing in random events, something that isn't new (Warhammer pretty much created those which rift capitalized on and really put into the picture). It stands a lot to bring new ideas to the table, one big one I see is the vehicals which do an amazing job on having their controls feel satisfying. Another shooter, this one has some more rpg elements and i really like it but the things that are missing in the game are too important to just ignore them so its still behind.

    Fallen Earth: Take an FPS and put it in a bleak futuristic setting. Mixing in those RPG elements while staying more on the shooter root, it created a more brutal feeling setting. Left to be open ending with interesting crafting, it does a lot to change the formula. This game had a lot of potential but it went down the drain. Horrible combat, clunky mechanics. If a company with more resources and funds take that game and fix everything that is wrong with it i would say thats one hell of a game. Until then, not worth it.

    Grando Espada: What this game? Its one of the weaker entries probably with my next one but It does I feel one of the biggest things for a game to do. It takes the traditional combat system we know, and then changes it to involve using three characters at once. This ends up brining in a lot of choice and more tactical play, managing all three members to maximize your performance. This one is a nice looking game but where they tried to innovate the most was really bad excecuted. The three player control. A really nice 3D game turned horrible point and click bot fest. Good ideas badly excecuted.

     

    Tera: Another game thats probably considered weaker, but in truth I feel its due to its poor execution. Tera I still say today has been the closest to get action combat right in an MMO setting. It made it not just a button spam fest like SW or GW2 feeling so floaty and disconnected. That being said, it does have a week quest system (one that can be worst then GW2 hearts at times) and its vanguard system which is quite an interesting system just doesn't feel fully implimented. Its dungens do feel much more skill based but at the same time gear does help play a part in things. It mixes the two worlds, and in ways I feel it does it right while also in others it does it wrong.

    Good old Tera. I think the combat in Tera is all about preference, theres no good or bad here. I prefer GW2 combat over Teras any day, only because Tera tried to be a true action combat and delivered a weak, slow, animation lock heavy combat that does not need any player skill at all. In my opinion. Someone told me in another post that a true action combat mechanic (bayonetta, god of war, devil may cry, etc) would be too much to handle in an mmo with many people on screen since its too fast. Other than that, the gorgeous graphics and the political system, Tera is as generic as every other asian grinder.

     

    There you go, a mix of older games and newer games, all which have their own stride. Not all are perfect mind you, but all have done more then GW2 in changing things up, whether for better or worst, that depends, though that can be said about GW2 as well. If you want more I can do so, and I can even pick apart GW2 and list its features and then use that to compare other games that came out and you can see that its not vastly different from other games you claim to be 'the same'.

    GW2 is (along with WoW) right now my two favorite mmorpgs, but i am not blind to say it is a perfect game. It has a lot of room for improvements and new ideas, but its definitelly fresher than most traditional mmorpgs out there. Not mentioning the few ones i discarded from your post because are different genres. EDIT: edited this last paragraph to specify mmorpgs, not mmos in general.

     

     

     

    image
  • Loke666Loke666 MalmöMember Posts: 19,287 Rare
    Originally posted by wsmar No you are very wrong in saying that. It has nothing to do with balance between melee and ranged classes. It has everything to do with the fact that no matter what kind of class you play in GW2, when you get into WvW, the only legitimate strategy when fighting the zerg is range. Melee is just not an option because when you run up to the front lines you are immediately focused.  .... (read the post, to long to quote)

    Really? My thief use stealth and dual daggers instead, works excellent and people are still crying for nerfs about it. In fact I enjoy to sneak in alone behind enemy lines and take down unwitting victims.

    The zerg is indeed a problem in GW2 so I just avoid them, but still if you play right melee works fine. GW2s WvWvW do need more stuff to prevent large zergs, but it have the basics right so fixing it up is far from impossible.

    As for ranged combat being the only way, my thief usually gets killed by 2 classes, mesmers who hex me and warriors with 2 handed swords.

    MMOs do need to do something against zergs in general to promote tactics and WAR have always sounded more fun in theory but in reality I just have way more fun in GW2. You also have to count in that GW2 just been out a year while WAR have been out for 5, GW2 should improve with time.

  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid GinnungagapMember Posts: 8,052 Rare
    Originally posted by Loke666
    Originally posted by wsmar

    Really? My thief use stealth and dual daggers instead, works excellent and people are still crying for nerfs about it. In fact I enjoy to sneak in alone behind enemy lines and take down unwitting victims.

    if only the stealth skill was sustained until canceled i would dedicate more time to my thief, but i can see how a sustained stealth would be exploited in WvWvW so the limited stealth makes more sense... too bad for me

    image
  • wsmarwsmar Nashville, TNMember Posts: 122
    Originally posted by Loke666
    Originally posted by wsmar No you are very wrong in saying that. It has nothing to do with balance between melee and ranged classes. It has everything to do with the fact that no matter what kind of class you play in GW2, when you get into WvW, the only legitimate strategy when fighting the zerg is range. Melee is just not an option because when you run up to the front lines you are immediately focused.  .... (read the post, to long to quote)

    Really? My thief use stealth and dual daggers instead, works excellent and people are still crying for nerfs about it. In fact I enjoy to sneak in alone behind enemy lines and take down unwitting victims.

    The zerg is indeed a problem in GW2 so I just avoid them, but still if you play right melee works fine. GW2s WvWvW do need more stuff to prevent large zergs, but it have the basics right so fixing it up is far from impossible.

    As for ranged combat being the only way, my thief usually gets killed by 2 classes, mesmers who hex me and warriors with 2 handed swords.

    MMOs do need to do something against zergs in general to promote tactics and WAR have always sounded more fun in theory but in reality I just have way more fun in GW2. You also have to count in that GW2 just been out a year while WAR have been out for 5, GW2 should improve with time.

    You completely either didn't understand anything I said or you are intentionally bypassing the topic of my post. Let me rephrase this for you again. Against the ZERG, there is only ONE legitimate combat option, it is RANGED. In other games like Aion, DaOC, and WAR that is not the case because melee classes actually have more survivability than ranged classes and there is a dedicated healer class. GW2 is neither of these. I never said people don't melee in WvW, and I also said there are times when melee does work, but to say that it has any kind of efficiency at all against the zerg is completely FALSE. Regardless of whether you are sneaking behind the back lines and ninja'ing a few people, you use the only class with stealth and the only class that is capable of doing that. Any other class would get immediately focused, and I imagine when you pop out of stealth you eventually do too, whether you get away or not. Like I said earlier, the efficiency is just not there. Look this is how GW2 zerg vs zerg pvp is, all you do is range. That's not the case is WAR or Aion or DaOC. That is why so many people think poorly of WvW because it doesn't have the variety or strategy or immersive experience that those games do.

     

    Originally posted by Lord.Bachus
    Originally posted by wsmar
    Originally posted by Lord.Bachus
    Well, i am still having fun, and they are still making money with the game, atleast more money a month then it costs to pay a full development team.   On top of that they added more free content in the first year then any subbed game ever did. Tough it was mostly seasonal based. But soon they will start with 2 weekly updates with normal regular content, and it comes totally free, no more expansion packs but a world expanding every 2 weeks.   Combat is fun and has more depth both strategically as tactically then any other true MMO (tough i still would have preferred more vissible trinnity systems), world design is awesome and more dynamic then anything else.    And there are still people everywhere around the maps to join, and still lots of new people joining. So yes, the game is a succes, but not aimed at the super duper hardcore MMO crowd mostly living on these forums.

    I think that is great. I'm thoroughly glad that you are enjoying it and that you've found a game that will hold your interest for a long time. On the flip side of that, you also have to understand that many people feel oppositely from you, and have many reasons for why that is. That shouldn't effect what you feel about the game or even keep you from playing it if someone else doesn't feel the same way as you do.

    I agree with you that there isn't a game currently out or that has ever existed that has had as many content updates in such a short amount of time as GW2. I also think that's great, and future games should strive to be more like GW2 in that aspect. The final two statements you made are completely opinionated because those could be argued endlessly, and rather successfully. Basically your argument is that since you like it, it is a success, which isn't necessarily true. I guarantee you that the retention rate for GW2 isn't that great. Although still active, I would bet a lot of money that there were a considerable more amount of people playing the game when it first came out than they are now.

    When it comes down to it, I base success on if the fulfilled they promises they made during development. They plain, and maybe hard truth for some is that they didn't. The most striking argument they made was that the questing in this game wasn't going to be "going out and killing 10 rats", yet that is the premise for almost every heart in that game. You could even go a step further and say the dynamic events the were put in the game really aren't "dynamic". They are the same events over and over, occurring at the same spots every time they start.

    Thats just plain stupid,

     

    I base success on the numbers, and pick any numbers you want, they will proof that GW2 is the most successfull MMO released since WoW.  Be it boxes sold, players still playing after a year or even reviews and rereviews.  This game is a huge success.

     

    You my friend need to accept that when you and your friends dont like a game, it does not make it a failure. So many people on these boards still call WoW a failure, while in that case the numbers proof everyone wrong.

     

    You guys are not talking about success which is measurably in numbers but about quallity and expected quallity  (Your expected quallity) which has nothing to do with success.  However the number of happy players i meet on a daily base in game, and the number of people that keep returning time after time proof the game is way better then you and most hardcore habbits on these boards give the game credit for.

    Okay so let's say you didn't like GW2, and let's say that it sold more copies than it did currently and was more active than it is now. If you didn't like it, would you consider it a success? From a business standpoint, you are right, it was a success, but does the success of the business and the player really matter? Personally I could careless how many copies they sold or how many people are playing. I didn't make that money, why should that matter to me and why should that matter to you? What it comes down to is whether you like it or not, am I correct in saying this? I don't like the game, along with many other people, so it is not a success to me. To base a games success on how many copies they sold is completely retarded. SWTOR sold a load of copies and still has a very active community, yet I doubt you'd be saying that TOR is a success, and I definitely wouldn't either because the game is just outright boring.

     

    There are a considerable less amount of people that play this game now than when it first launched. It's a fact that you cannot deny anymore.

     

    How does quality of the game not have anything to do with success??? Why did SWTOR sell so many boxes and then many people left? Because the quality of the game was not there. The success of the game is based on quality, how many boxes the game sold doesn't tell you if the game is good or not, what it says is the game had a lot of hype. You cannot prove to me that people are returning to GW2, but I can prove to you that way more people played the game at launch than they do now just by looking at the server populations.

     

    To say that quality does not have a factor at all in the success of a game is absolutely stupid.

  • TorgrimTorgrim GothenburgMember Posts: 2,088
    Originally posted by Purutzil
    Um... its no more a success then other games that were released before it honestly. It did NOT break any Wow mold. I can cut the hood off my car, does that suddenly make it a convertable? No, it just has no roof now, its the same exact car just with something changed to make it look a bit different while being the same otherwise. Other games have done far more to change how games play then GW2 whether you like to admit it or not. Not sure where you get the idea that it did something big. Its just another fish in the water, one that has a place though it has no dominance like many games before it, whether better or worst then it. There are games that made more of a "Dent" then GW2 and there are games that made less of a dent.   In the end, its silly to try and push out a game being some 'smash hit' like I think you are proposing and accept it. Guild Wars 2 is just another MMo, not some 'stellar success' nor is it a 'failure' like others might say, which is often said about many games that still thrive and manage their way through. 

     

    If it didnt break the WOW mold and as you put it another fish in the water, can you please name some other MMOs that are like GW2?, I would really want to try them out and see if they are better  then GW2.

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

  • wsmarwsmar Nashville, TNMember Posts: 122
    Originally posted by Torgrim
    Originally posted by Purutzil
    Um... its no more a success then other games that were released before it honestly. It did NOT break any Wow mold. I can cut the hood off my car, does that suddenly make it a convertable? No, it just has no roof now, its the same exact car just with something changed to make it look a bit different while being the same otherwise. Other games have done far more to change how games play then GW2 whether you like to admit it or not. Not sure where you get the idea that it did something big. Its just another fish in the water, one that has a place though it has no dominance like many games before it, whether better or worst then it. There are games that made more of a "Dent" then GW2 and there are games that made less of a dent.   In the end, its silly to try and push out a game being some 'smash hit' like I think you are proposing and accept it. Guild Wars 2 is just another MMo, not some 'stellar success' nor is it a 'failure' like others might say, which is often said about many games that still thrive and manage their way through. 

     

    If it didnt break the WOW mold and as you put it another fish in the water, can you please name some other MMOs that are like GW2?, I would really want to try them out and see if they are better  then GW2.

    Why does a game have to "break" the WoW mold to be successful? Here's the problem, you are making GW2 out to be a success because it did some different things from WoW. SWTOR was very similar to WoW, but I didn't take issue with the fact that it was similar. I have so many reasons for why I don't like the game. When I play a game, I take it for its face value, I don't compare it to games that have come before it, unless those games that have come before it, did things better than it is doing in the present.

    Being unique doesn't equate to success. Shadowbane is a perfect example of that in many people's eyes. It was the most unique game of its time, and still hasn't been tried again. It has many interesting and new ideas, and took a much bigger risk than GW2 ever did, but that didn't make it a success. It was a game with so much potential, but the quality was just not there.

    I've recently been playing FFXIV and I have really enjoyed it, yet it has a ton of similarities to WoW. I don't see any issues with that if it is a fun game, because after all that is what gamers are looking for. They don't care how many boxes were sold or how much money the company made, they just want a fun game. You are exactly the same way. You play GW2 because it's fun, not because it sold a lot of copies. Am I right?

    What GW2 is trying to do is win you over. If you didn't like the game, they would have failed at winning you over.

  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard La BarreMember Posts: 5,744 Epic
    Originally posted by Purutzil
      Eve Online

    Space game, and sandbox - nothing to do with GW2.

    Dark Fall

    You got to be kidding me, right? Or did you mean "Dark Fail"? Not to mention it's also a pseudo-sandbox - more like a PvP gank fest actually - so not the same league than GW2 either.

    Phantasy Star Online

    That's more a Diablo clone (hack and slash online RPG game with offline mode) than a real MMORPG.

    Mortal Online

    See Darkfall above - same crap.

    The Secret World

    Worst combat I've seen in a MMO in a long time, doesn't feel like a world but rather like a patchwork of totally unrelated areas. Too bad, the base idea was good. And definitely not innovative, just one more dungeon/raid grind. WoW clone in Call of Cthulhu setting is still WoW clone.

    Planet Side 2

    MMOFPS - nothing to do with GW2.

    Defiance

    Same than PS2.

    Fallen Earth

    Another niche pseudo-sandbox game.

    Grando Espada

    There, you must be kidding... tedious Asian grinder with bad quests. The only original thing in that game is the setting.

    Tera

    That's the closest match indeed... bad action based combat that roots you in place, nasty Asian-style grind, and - that's personal taste here - ugly Asian styled graphics too. And it's just another dungeon/raid grind game anyway, another WoW clone.

    Conclusion: Everything is either a totally different genre (sandbox, FPS) or a more or less subtly disguised WoW clone. None of those broke any theme park mold like GW2 did.

    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn in Star Wars. After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that nor does the ability to write.


    CPU: Core I7 6700k (4.4ghz) - GPU: ASUS R9 290x-DC2 OC 4Gb DDR5 (1150 mhz core) - RAM: 16GB Kingston HyperX Savage DDR4 3000 - Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-Z170X-UD3 - PSU: Antec TruePower New 750W - Storage: Kingston SV300 480gb SSD and 2x1TB WD Velociraptor HDDs (Raid 0) - Main display: Philips 40PUK6809 4K 3D TV - Second display: Philips 273v 27" gaming monitor - Soundcard: Pioneer VSX-322 AV Receiver HDMI linked with the GPU and the TV, with Jamo S 426 HS 3 5.0 speakers and Pioneer S-21W subwoofer - OS: Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bits.

  • dontadowdontadow Detroit, MIMember Posts: 994 Uncommon
    Originally posted by wsmar
    Originally posted by Loke666
    Originally posted by wsmar No you are very wrong in saying that. It has nothing to do with balance between melee and ranged classes. It has everything to do with the fact that no matter what kind of class you play in GW2, when you get into WvW, the only legitimate strategy when fighting the zerg is range. Melee is just not an option because when you run up to the front lines you are immediately focused.  .... (read the post, to long to quote)

    Really? My thief use stealth and dual daggers instead, works excellent and people are still crying for nerfs about it. In fact I enjoy to sneak in alone behind enemy lines and take down unwitting victims.

    The zerg is indeed a problem in GW2 so I just avoid them, but still if you play right melee works fine. GW2s WvWvW do need more stuff to prevent large zergs, but it have the basics right so fixing it up is far from impossible.

    As for ranged combat being the only way, my thief usually gets killed by 2 classes, mesmers who hex me and warriors with 2 handed swords.

    MMOs do need to do something against zergs in general to promote tactics and WAR have always sounded more fun in theory but in reality I just have way more fun in GW2. You also have to count in that GW2 just been out a year while WAR have been out for 5, GW2 should improve with time.

    You completely either didn't understand anything I said or you are intentionally bypassing the topic of my post. Let me rephrase this for you again. Against the ZERG, there is only ONE legitimate combat option, it is RANGED. In other games like Aion, DaOC, and WAR that is not the case because melee classes actually have more survivability than ranged classes and there is a dedicated healer class. GW2 is neither of these. I never said people don't melee in WvW, and I also said there are times when melee does work, but to say that it has any kind of efficiency at all against the zerg is completely FALSE. Regardless of whether you are sneaking behind the back lines and ninja'ing a few people, you use the only class with stealth and the only class that is capable of doing that. Any other class would get immediately focused, and I imagine when you pop out of stealth you eventually do too, whether you get away or not. Like I said earlier, the efficiency is just not there. Look this is how GW2 zerg vs zerg pvp is, all you do is range. That's not the case is WAR or Aion or DaOC. That is why so many people think poorly of WvW because it doesn't have the variety or strategy or immersive experience that those games do.

     

    Originally posted by Lord.Bachus
    Originally posted by wsmar
    Originally posted by Lord.Bachus
    Well, i am still having fun, and they are still making money with the game, atleast more money a month then it costs to pay a full development team.   On top of that they added more free content in the first year then any subbed game ever did. Tough it was mostly seasonal based. But soon they will start with 2 weekly updates with normal regular content, and it comes totally free, no more expansion packs but a world expanding every 2 weeks.   Combat is fun and has more depth both strategically as tactically then any other true MMO (tough i still would have preferred more vissible trinnity systems), world design is awesome and more dynamic then anything else.    And there are still people everywhere around the maps to join, and still lots of new people joining. So yes, the game is a succes, but not aimed at the super duper hardcore MMO crowd mostly living on these forums.

    I think that is great. I'm thoroughly glad that you are enjoying it and that you've found a game that will hold your interest for a long time. On the flip side of that, you also have to understand that many people feel oppositely from you, and have many reasons for why that is. That shouldn't effect what you feel about the game or even keep you from playing it if someone else doesn't feel the same way as you do.

    I agree with you that there isn't a game currently out or that has ever existed that has had as many content updates in such a short amount of time as GW2. I also think that's great, and future games should strive to be more like GW2 in that aspect. The final two statements you made are completely opinionated because those could be argued endlessly, and rather successfully. Basically your argument is that since you like it, it is a success, which isn't necessarily true. I guarantee you that the retention rate for GW2 isn't that great. Although still active, I would bet a lot of money that there were a considerable more amount of people playing the game when it first came out than they are now.

    When it comes down to it, I base success on if the fulfilled they promises they made during development. They plain, and maybe hard truth for some is that they didn't. The most striking argument they made was that the questing in this game wasn't going to be "going out and killing 10 rats", yet that is the premise for almost every heart in that game. You could even go a step further and say the dynamic events the were put in the game really aren't "dynamic". They are the same events over and over, occurring at the same spots every time they start.

    Thats just plain stupid,

     

    I base success on the numbers, and pick any numbers you want, they will proof that GW2 is the most successfull MMO released since WoW.  Be it boxes sold, players still playing after a year or even reviews and rereviews.  This game is a huge success.

     

    You my friend need to accept that when you and your friends dont like a game, it does not make it a failure. So many people on these boards still call WoW a failure, while in that case the numbers proof everyone wrong.

     

    You guys are not talking about success which is measurably in numbers but about quallity and expected quallity  (Your expected quallity) which has nothing to do with success.  However the number of happy players i meet on a daily base in game, and the number of people that keep returning time after time proof the game is way better then you and most hardcore habbits on these boards give the game credit for.

    Okay so let's say you didn't like GW2, and let's say that it sold more copies than it did currently and was more active than it is now. If you didn't like it, would you consider it a success? From a business standpoint, you are right, it was a success, but does the success of the business and the player really matter? Personally I could careless how many copies they sold or how many people are playing. I didn't make that money, why should that matter to me and why should that matter to you? What it comes down to is whether you like it or not, am I correct in saying this? I don't like the game, along with many other people, so it is not a success to me. To base a games success on how many copies they sold is completely retarded. SWTOR sold a load of copies and still has a very active community, yet I doubt you'd be saying that TOR is a success, and I definitely wouldn't either because the game is just outright boring.

     

    There are a considerable less amount of people that play this game now than when it first launched. It's a fact that you cannot deny anymore.

     

    How does quality of the game not have anything to do with success??? Why did SWTOR sell so many boxes and then many people left? Because the quality of the game was not there. The success of the game is based on quality, how many boxes the game sold doesn't tell you if the game is good or not, what it says is the game had a lot of hype. You cannot prove to me that people are returning to GW2, but I can prove to you that way more people played the game at launch than they do now just by looking at the server populations.

     

    To say that quality does not have a factor at all in the success of a game is absolutely stupid.

    To me that's just realistic combat, in the strategy games i play, i'd rather have ranged cannons and guns before i send in my militia and calvery. 

  • Bad.dogBad.dog Belleville, ONMember Posts: 1,127 Uncommon
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
     

    Tera

    That's the closest match indeed... bad action based combat that roots you in place, nasty Asian-style grind, and - that's personal taste here - ugly Asian styled graphics too. And it's just another dungeon/raid grind game anyway, another WoW clone.

    Conclusion: Everything is either a totally different genre (sandbox, FPS) or a more or less subtly disguised WoW clone. None of those broke any theme park mold like GW2 did.

    You are being too kind or perhaps long winded ...the first and foremost description of Tera is the word childish which covers the  bad combat , vulgar chat  and Asian style grind and graphics

  • TorgrimTorgrim GothenburgMember Posts: 2,088

    Why I made this thread is that I've read several post during the months from people who are looking for a new game or just babbling about......something....

    What they all wrote is that GW2 is fail.

    Sure it was a fail in their opinion, nothing else, they felt the game was a true failure and the rest  of us who really likes it are fanboys and dont know what a good game really is.

    The point with this thread is simple, the game is not a fail but it might be a fail in your book your personal book and that is not important for the rest of us who enjoys it.

     

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

  • caetftlcaetftl Los Angeles, CAMember Posts: 358
    Originally posted by Torgrim
    Why I made this thread is that I've read several post during the months from people who are looking for a new game or just babbling about......something.... What they all wrote is that GW2 is fail. Sure it was a fail in their opinion, nothing else, they felt the game was a true failure and the rest  of us who really likes it are fanboys and dont know what a good game really is. The point with this thread is simple, the game is not a fail but it might be a fail in your book your personal book and that is not important for the rest of us who enjoys it.  

    The game can be considered a fail, but it might be a success in your personal book, but that is not important to the majority of players who bought the game, who no longer play. 

  • Bad.dogBad.dog Belleville, ONMember Posts: 1,127 Uncommon
    Originally posted by caetftl
    Originally posted by Torgrim
    Why I made this thread is that I've read several post during the months from people who are looking for a new game or just babbling about......something.... What they all wrote is that GW2 is fail. Sure it was a fail in their opinion, nothing else, they felt the game was a true failure and the rest  of us who really likes it are fanboys and dont know what a good game really is. The point with this thread is simple, the game is not a fail but it might be a fail in your book your personal book and that is not important for the rest of us who enjoys it.  

    The game can be considered a fail, but it might be a success in your personal book, but that is not important to the majority of players who bought the game, who no longer play. 

    It's a little sad those that bought the game and no longer play can't find anything better to do then cry on the forums .... but the fact remains success or fail the vocal minority will share their opinions

  • caremuchlesscaremuchless Crestline, CAMember Posts: 603
    Originally posted by Doogiehowser
    Originally posted by General-Zod
    Originally posted by Kleptobrainiac
    GW2 is to MMO's as Lady Gaga is to Music.   /fart

    image

     

    ... I dont understand the purpose of this thread, the same could be said about WoW.

    Yeah we get it...anything that is successful and makes money is just bad / shallow  and anything that dies off and is loved by few people you can barely count on one hand is amazing and deep. image

     

    ^Yep, you get it. You just won mmorpg.com forums :)

     

    Everyone likes to talk a good game about how Said game will fail horribly, but when it doesn't, where are they at? They disappear like cowards and if you do find one, or many like you did in this thread, they don't want to talk about it.  

     

    Who was it in this thread that claimed the GW2 didn't succeed fiscally? 

    image

  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer ChairMember Posts: 7,662 Epic
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
    Originally posted by Randayn
    I have to disagree.  I believe its a monumental failure for the MMORPG enthusiast.   It sets a tone that will eventually be the death of the real MMORPG.

    Everyone has his own definition of "real MMORPG".

    To me, GW2 is closer to the original pioneers not based on EQ cloning (UO and AC1) than any other game released since November 2, 1999.

    A true mmo >> RP << g is not about repeating dungeons to farm gear. It's about a living changing world, exploration, adventure. Are we players, or are we hamsters on a wheel?

    SWG finds your lack of mention disturbing,  that's not a midget on your back or a turtleneck, it's a force choke.

    If only SWG could be classified as a success story.

     

    @OP

    Your post is entirely subjective. Without a set of standards to gauge against, there is no way this in anything more than your opinion.

    Did ANET succeed in delivering a decent game that is fun and is considered a value for it's cost? Sure, I'll say they did.

    Did ANET accomplish what they set out to achieve according to their manifesto?  No, they did not.

     

  • TorgrimTorgrim GothenburgMember Posts: 2,088
    Originally posted by GeezerGamer
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
    Originally posted by Randayn
    I have to disagree.  I believe its a monumental failure for the MMORPG enthusiast.   It sets a tone that will eventually be the death of the real MMORPG.

    Everyone has his own definition of "real MMORPG".

    To me, GW2 is closer to the original pioneers not based on EQ cloning (UO and AC1) than any other game released since November 2, 1999.

    A true mmo >> RP << g is not about repeating dungeons to farm gear. It's about a living changing world, exploration, adventure. Are we players, or are we hamsters on a wheel?

    SWG finds your lack of mention disturbing,  that's not a midget on your back or a turtleneck, it's a force choke.

    If only SWG could be classified as a success story.

     

    @OP

    Your post is entirely subjective. Without a set of standards to gauge against, there is no way this in anything more than your opinion.

    Did ANET succeed in delivering a decent game that is fun and is considered a value for it's cost? Sure, I'll say they did.

    Did ANET accomplish what they set out to achieve according to their manifesto?  No, they did not.

     

     

    Well I'ts not my personal opinion It's a fact that Anet is hireing more people when other MMOs lay of people after 6 months, no server merges, now they are planning on release content patches 2 times a month and plenty of people ingame and Anet is closing in on It's first year, if that isnt spellt success then I don't know what is

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

  • vveaver_onlinevveaver_online stockholmMember Posts: 408 Uncommon

    It might be a commercial hit but I would rather play Dragon Prophet than GW2.

     

    GW2 is a shallow game detached from any connection to the game world.

  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard La BarreMember Posts: 5,744 Epic
    Originally posted by fardreamer
    It might be a commercial hit but I would rather play Dragon Prophet than GW2.   GW2 is a shallow game detached from any connection to the game world.

    Because other theme parks based on sitting in a town waiting for a queue to farm the same dungeon/raid are connected to the game world.

    Did you even play GW2? It's one of the rare games where players are kept in the world even after they reach max level. Your second sentence doesn't even make any sense, actually.

    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn in Star Wars. After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that nor does the ability to write.


    CPU: Core I7 6700k (4.4ghz) - GPU: ASUS R9 290x-DC2 OC 4Gb DDR5 (1150 mhz core) - RAM: 16GB Kingston HyperX Savage DDR4 3000 - Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-Z170X-UD3 - PSU: Antec TruePower New 750W - Storage: Kingston SV300 480gb SSD and 2x1TB WD Velociraptor HDDs (Raid 0) - Main display: Philips 40PUK6809 4K 3D TV - Second display: Philips 273v 27" gaming monitor - Soundcard: Pioneer VSX-322 AV Receiver HDMI linked with the GPU and the TV, with Jamo S 426 HS 3 5.0 speakers and Pioneer S-21W subwoofer - OS: Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bits.

Sign In or Register to comment.