Howdy, Stranger!

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

Did ArenaNet make a mistake in naming this game as 'Guild Wars'2?

124»

Comments

  • ButtskiButtski Member UncommonPosts: 187

    the only fear i have is when i hear gw1/gw2  is that they did not fire those retarded dumb ****s who were responsible for the netcode.

  • mysticquemysticque Member UncommonPosts: 36

    Originally posted by Thrage

    You should doubt GW2.  Everyone should.

     

    On paper and in preview videos, GW2 is an amazing game.  However, I'm one of those that didn't like GW1, and I am not 100% confident that ArenaNet is really capable of delivering the game I want.  Every now and then in a video I'll see something that reeks suspiciously of GW1 and feel concerned. GW1 was the less-than-one-day kind of bad, for me: between click-to-move and a non-persistent world on top of needing to do a ridiculous amount of research before you even remotely know what  you're doing, GW1 was a really terrible experience.  I've played free Korean grinders that were more entertaining and held on to me for easily a hundred times longer.  It is a bad game.

     

    Given that, it is completely understandable and even expected that people will have doubts about how Guild Wars 2 will measure up.  I know I do.  I'm already sold on the game, I intend to buy two copies at launch, but I would be lying if I said I had 100% confidence that GW2 is the next big thing.  ArenaNet has never impressed me in the past, and that's important.

     

    Love 'em or hate 'em, Blizzard Entertainment is (was) a quality game developer.  I was playing Warcraft: Orcs and Humans when I was 11 years old, I moved on to Starcraft, I played Warcraft 3 for countless hours; Blizzard has a near-flawless track record of quality titles.  There are a lot of companies like this.  I don't think I've ever played a Capcom game I didn't like, for instance, and while Bethesda's titles are all very similar, I've also never played one I didn't get hopelessly addicted to for months.  Up until the merger with Enix, a Squaresoft title was a guaranteed worthwhile purchase.

     

    There are game developers, and there are great game developers.  ArenaNet is not a great game developer, based on their current portfolio, which just so happens to be only Guild Wars 1.

     

    Sure, that could all change with GW2.  I'm hoping it does; but to have no doubt at all that GW2 will be successful when GW1 was such a steaming pile of crap is just being unrealistic.  Looking back on SWTOR, I should have known the combat would be terrible, because while I like BioWare's single-player offerings, I also know that their games have extremely weak combat.  Typically in games like KOTOR, Mass Effect and Dragon Age, combat was that thing I had to deal with in between bits of story.  Either way, since combat is 90% of an MMO, SWTOR fell flat on its face for me, despite all of its other admittedly very good offerings.

     

    Here's hoping ArenaNet really has changed its tune, and that GW2 is every bit as good as we keep telling ourselves.  And yes, the name is a huge mistake.  "Tyria" would have been perfect.

    You have to understand the original guild wars is a ladder system. In gw1 you pretty much cannot progress if you're missing the key element like primary quest. So if you had only played one day then you really have nothing to say about the game since you have no idea whats in the content entails. However, for some people who have sticked longer and played it through have definitely good/bad response since they have better understanding and have different perspective of the game. GW was pretty developed not to be exactly like WoW/any mmo with open world. It has its own characteristics.. and to answer the question gw2 is pretty much an upgrade of GW as all its players can migrate their legacy to gw2, incuding names.

    [email protected]
    www.youtube.com/411mysticque

  • Creslin321Creslin321 Member Posts: 5,359
    Originally posted by Thrage

    You should doubt GW2.  Everyone should.
     
    On paper and in preview videos, GW2 is an amazing game.  However, I'm one of those that didn't like GW1, and I am not 100% confident that ArenaNet is really capable of delivering the game I want.  Every now and then in a video I'll see something that reeks suspiciously of GW1 and feel concerned. GW1 was the less-than-one-day kind of bad, for me: between click-to-move and a non-persistent world on top of needing to do a ridiculous amount of research before you even remotely know what  you're doing, GW1 was a really terrible experience.  I've played free Korean grinders that were more entertaining and held on to me for easily a hundred times longer.  It is a bad game.
     
    Given that, it is completely understandable and even expected that people will have doubts about how Guild Wars 2 will measure up.  I know I do.  I'm already sold on the game, I intend to buy two copies at launch, but I would be lying if I said I had 100% confidence that GW2 is the next big thing.  ArenaNet has never impressed me in the past, and that's important.
     
    Love 'em or hate 'em, Blizzard Entertainment is (was) a quality game developer.  I was playing Warcraft: Orcs and Humans when I was 11 years old, I moved on to Starcraft, I played Warcraft 3 for countless hours; Blizzard has a near-flawless track record of quality titles.  There are a lot of companies like this.  I don't think I've ever played a Capcom game I didn't like, for instance, and while Bethesda's titles are all very similar, I've also never played one I didn't get hopelessly addicted to for months.  Up until the merger with Enix, a Squaresoft title was a guaranteed worthwhile purchase.
     
    There are game developers, and there are great game developers.  ArenaNet is not a great game developer, based on their current portfolio, which just so happens to be only Guild Wars 1.
     
    Sure, that could all change with GW2.  I'm hoping it does; but to have no doubt at all that GW2 will be successful when GW1 was such a steaming pile of crap is just being unrealistic.  Looking back on SWTOR, I should have known the combat would be terrible, because while I like BioWare's single-player offerings, I also know that their games have extremely weak combat.  Typically in games like KOTOR, Mass Effect and Dragon Age, combat was that thing I had to deal with in between bits of story.  Either way, since combat is 90% of an MMO, SWTOR fell flat on its face for me, despite all of its other admittedly very good offerings.
     
    Here's hoping ArenaNet really has changed its tune, and that GW2 is every bit as good as we keep telling ourselves.  And yes, the name is a huge mistake.  "Tyria" would have been perfect.

     

    I would understand (disagree, but understand) if you said that you didn't like GW1, so you're worried that you wouldn't like GW2 as well. After all, GW2 is labeled as a direct sequel to GW1.



    But I think you go a bit too far in your post...you basically say that GW1 is objectively bad, and therefore ANet is a crappy developer. But really, this is just your opinion, and most of the world disagrees with you. GW1 has a 89% metascore and a 85% user score...those are pretty good numbers..



    So I don't think you should say that a game is objectively bad just because you didn't like it, it's kind of an egocentric thing to say. I, for example, hated Banjo Kazooie, yet I can recognize that peoplpe who like those sorts of games may find it really fun.



    What I'm basically saying is that you can't conclude that ANet is a crappy developer because they didn't make a game that YOU wanted to play.

    Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?

  • VarthanderVarthander Member UncommonPosts: 466

    Nah, nothing wrong with it, same world but different age, thats all they need to put the 2.

    image

  • UnshraUnshra Member UncommonPosts: 381

    I don't believe there is any kind of mistake, games improve over the years and if someone feels like judging a future game based off of the orginal title without so much as reading about what's changed then so be it. The world is full of close minded individuals and even if the title was called "This is so not Guild Wars, it's better in every way and there is no subscription fee" there would be people who still wouldn't play it because they didn't like Guild Wars. Leave them be it's not worth the energy thinking about them. ;-P

    image
    Because flying a Minmatar ship is like going down a flight of stairs on an office chair while firing an Uzi.

  • Saxx0nSaxx0n PR/Brand Manager BitBox Ltd.Member UncommonPosts: 999

    It is a devastating error that will end up in the complete failure of the game and the arenanet offices will be consumed by a giant sink hole while all the employees are at work.

  • ThrageThrage Member Posts: 200

    Originally posted by Creslin321

     

    I would understand (disagree, but understand) if you said that you didn't like GW1, so you're worried that you wouldn't like GW2 as well. After all, GW2 is labeled as a direct sequel to GW1.

     

    But I think you go a bit too far in your post...you basically say that GW1 is objectively bad, and therefore ANet is a crappy developer. But really, this is just your opinion, and most of the world disagrees with you. GW1 has a 89% metascore and a 85% user score...those are pretty good numbers..

     

    So I don't think you should say that a game is objectively bad just because you didn't like it, it's kind of an egocentric thing to say. I, for example, hated Banjo Kazooie, yet I can recognize that peoplpe who like those sorts of games may find it really fun.

     

    What I'm basically saying is that you can't conclude that ANet is a crappy developer because they didn't make a game that YOU wanted to play.

     

    It's all meant to be taken as subjective, sure.  If you'll notice, I say things like "I'm one of those who didn't like it," "I don't know if they can give me the game I want," and clarifications like "for me."  I'm not going to bother clarifying that repeatedly just so I don't hurt somebody's feelings.  I think GW1 was garbage, and it absolutely colors my view of GW2.  That in my opinion is fair to the developer, who I did not call "crappy," I simply said they aren't one of the greatest, which I think is fairly arguable.  There simply isn't enough evidence (I.E. released titles) to support the notion that they deserve the same recognition as some of the ones I mentioned.  GW2 is one giant question-mark.

     

    As to the other post, yes, I absolutely can judge a game with only a single day of playtime.  As a developer, it's your job to make sure your initial hook is good enough to keep me going.  If I'm not having fun within an hour, your game has failed to live up to my expectations, and I'm going to dismiss it and move on.  The hook is absolutely vital, especially for an MMORPG or whatever you want to call GW1, and especially for a Trial Version.  The end-user having fun with a video game is ultimately the responsibility of the game developer, period.  ArenaNet did not deliver.  They might with GW2.  I hope they do. Until then, I will remain about 80% excited and 20% skeptical.

  • Creslin321Creslin321 Member Posts: 5,359
    Originally posted by Thrage


    Originally posted by Creslin321
     
    I would understand (disagree, but understand) if you said that you didn't like GW1, so you're worried that you wouldn't like GW2 as well. After all, GW2 is labeled as a direct sequel to GW1.
     
    But I think you go a bit too far in your post...you basically say that GW1 is objectively bad, and therefore ANet is a crappy developer. But really, this is just your opinion, and most of the world disagrees with you. GW1 has a 89% metascore and a 85% user score...those are pretty good numbers..
     
    So I don't think you should say that a game is objectively bad just because you didn't like it, it's kind of an egocentric thing to say. I, for example, hated Banjo Kazooie, yet I can recognize that peoplpe who like those sorts of games may find it really fun.
     
    What I'm basically saying is that you can't conclude that ANet is a crappy developer because they didn't make a game that YOU wanted to play.

     

    It's all meant to be taken as subjective, sure.  If you'll notice, I say things like "I'm one of those who didn't like it," "I don't know if they can give me the game I want," and clarifications like "for me."  I'm not going to bother clarifying that repeatedly just so I don't hurt somebody's feelings.  I think GW1 was garbage, and it absolutely colors my view of GW2.  That in my opinion is fair to the developer, who I did not call "crappy," I simply said they aren't one of the greatest, which I think is fairly arguable.  There simply isn't enough evidence (I.E. released titles) to support the notion that they deserve the same recognition as some of the ones I mentioned.  GW2 is one giant question-mark.

     

    As to the other post, yes, I absolutely can judge a game with only a single day of playtime.  As a developer, it's your job to make sure your initial hook is good enough to keep me going.  If I'm not having fun within an hour, your game has failed to live up to my expectations, and I'm going to dismiss it and move on.  The hook is absolutely vital, especially for an MMORPG or whatever you want to call GW1, and especially for a Trial Version.  The end-user having fun with a video game is ultimately the responsibility of the game developer, period.  ArenaNet did not deliver.  They might with GW2.  I hope they do. Until then, I will remain about 80% excited and 20% skeptical.

     

    Ah, then it was my misunderstanding then, and I pretty much agree with you. But you have to admit, "it was a bad game" sounds like a pretty objective statement ;).

    Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?

  • dotdotdashdotdotdash Member UncommonPosts: 488

    No.

    Guild Wars is one of the best selling PC games of all time.

    Naming it anything but Guild Wars 2 or "Guild Wars: (insert tagline)" would have been a ridiculous thing to do.

Sign In or Register to comment.