91 replies to this topic

[jdavet90]

Revolution comes from evolution.

[Rukioish]

GW2 is better than the garbage most other MMO developers have pumped out in the past five years. Go find another forum board to nay say on, I will be playing GW2 for a long time, and I am no "fanboy"

[Zhahz]

Opinions are opinions.  The fact that certain people get their opinions published doesn't transform them into something other than opinions.

I find the game to be incredibly fun and a nice and significant deviation from formula MMORPG gameplay.

To me there is no hype, there is just an incredibly high quality, immersive, and extremely fun game.

If you don't like the game, why start threads to declare that?  It's not like people who do love the game are going to just up and say, oh yeah, you're right, my bad - how odd of me to think I was liking this.  To me it's just trolling.

PS - never heard of this website, it looks like garbage, and I can almost guarantee you that the more mainstream gaming sites that peole HAVE heard of will give GW2 good reviews because they've already been gushing over it for months.  Not that even those sites are all that reliable anymore, most of the biggies gave Tera 8/10 and better scores, and that, is a joke.

[Majic]

Hype Society

Sprinkles169, on 16 August 2012 - 01:06 AM, said:

Yeah, it won't live up to it's hype. Now, where do I go to see the exact level of hype were at again? Did the government of the internet escalate it from orange to orangy-red yet???

Saying "it doesn't live up to the hype" is a convenient way to appear objective without having to actually be objective. What is usually missing from such vague claims is an actual comparison between "the hype" and what supposedly doesn't live up to it.

Did ArenaNet say Guild Wars 2 would do something it doesn't do? What would that be, exactly? Just what is "the hype", anyway?

Solid answers to those questions would be a refreshing surprise, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them.




P.S. And yes, obvious tag troll is obvious -- and laughably irrelevant. Good for an indulgent chuckle, at least.

P.P.S. Anyone can post articles to Examiner.com. It's basically a blog site for people who can't be bothered to set up their own blog sites. FYI.

Edited by Majic, 16 August 2012 - 01:22 AM.

[jdavet90]

Most of the people that are true diehard Guild Wars fans are not interested in Guild Wars 2 hype. The only people that are being affected by the hype are the stereotypical mouth breathing WoW players.

[Wift]

Woutman, on 16 August 2012 - 01:10 AM, said:

Those are all evolutions of what already exist.

Nothing revolutionary about any of that.

Tell me of an MMO besides GW2, that has no sub fee's, no pay to win system, anti-grind and skill-based action-oriented game-play. No doubt, if Guild Wars 2 is successful, we'll find many other MMO's following these changes.

[Raemyi]

I'm honestly quite lost, here.  Reading the article, it *sounds* like the author is complimenting GW2.  It reads as though they're saying "no, it doesn't live up to the hype, because that's impossible.  However, take a look at these things that it still does very well at, regardless:"

Considering that hype is always blown out of proportion, that sounds to me like the quintessential "success" article for this kind of game.  A good thing.  What's the problem, again?

[jdavet90]

There has never, ever in the history of video games, been a game that has 100% lived up to the hype. And there never will be.

[rebalnz]

not revolutionary?? cool i dont give a s### all i know its fun as hell and thats all i care about in a game and cant say the same for EVERY other mmo.

[Sleepdeprivation]

Majic, on 16 August 2012 - 01:20 AM, said:

Hype Society



Saying "it doesn't live up to the hype" is a convenient way to appear objective without having to actually be objective. What is usually missing from such vague claims is an actual comparison between "the hype" and what supposedly doesn't live up to it.

Did ArenaNet say Guild Wars 2 would do something it doesn't do? What would that be, exactly? Just what is "the hype", anyway?

Solid answers to those questions would be a refreshing surprise, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them.




P.S. And yes, obvious tag troll is obvious -- and laughably irrelevant. Good for an indulgent chuckle, at least.

P.P.S. Anyone can post articles to Examiner.com. It's basically a blog site for people who can't be bothered to set up their own blog sites. FYI.

in that case anyone fancy flooding it with positive articles for a laugh?

[Jexx]

Actually, it technically is a revolution because it adds a lot of things that are seen as good in one package.

[refer]

I think GW2 is way too hyped. It's a good game but I don't find it ~mind blowing~ ~revolutionary~ ~last straw to break WoW's back~ etc. In fact, one of the only things I really dislike about GW2 is the self congratulatory, preaching to the choir-ness that seems to surround the game in interviews and articles for the uninitiated.

[TKTindelible]

Majic, on 16 August 2012 - 01:20 AM, said:

Saying "it doesn't live up to the hype" is a convenient way to appear objective without having to actually be objective. What is usually missing from such vague claims is an actual comparison between "the hype" and what supposedly doesn't live up to it.

Hype is a phenomenon that occurs when a large group of people get overly excited about a thing for a set of assumed reasons. Hype is synonymous with excitement in a lot of ways, but also adds on "with specified reasons".

The hype surrounding Guild Wars 2 comes from the fact that it is the sequel to one of the best selling and most critically acclaimed games of recent years, and because of certain claims associated with it. In this case the majority of the hype has built around the idea that Guild Wars 2 is going to redefine and revolutionise an entire genre.

You can be objective when consider whether it lives up to those claims: Does it redefine and revolutionise an entire genre? No, it doesn't.

[Zyfo]

Well if you compare it to WoW... it's revolutionary x5.

[Primal Zed]

I'm not sure why people keep saying "Yeah it does all this stuff differently, but it's not a revolution."

GW2s offers a fundamentally different approach to several things: an alternative to the quest system that WoW popularized as a means of driving players through the game world, a focus on getting players playing together rather than in competition with each other, and an attempt at making "endgame" much more closely match the leveling game compared to the widening divide present in every other MMORPG.

It's like people think it would have to change every single thing to be considered "revolutionary."  Which is odd to me, because that would suggest the creation of a new genre, not a change in an existing genre.

[KodakMoment]

Was a good article OP just opened his post poorly to incite rage. Not the best place to post the article in a fan forum also considering most people won't read the article

Edited by KodakMoment, 16 August 2012 - 01:36 AM.

[Kagron12]

Did the OP even really read the article...? It sounds like the author of that article liked the game, just didn't think it was a 10/10.  OP, there's absolutely no need to come to a GW2 forum just to bash the game. You remind me of a youtube commenter.

Anyways, I have to completely agree with the article.  When the developers said that the game would be this revolutionary thing, I took it with a grain of salt HOWEVER, I was still very excited to see the game.  I still love the game.  I will play it for a while, even if some people don't classify it as "revolutionary."  It was a damn good step in the perfect direction for the genre.

Edited by Kagron12, 16 August 2012 - 01:35 AM.

[TKTindelible]

Primal Zed, on 16 August 2012 - 01:33 AM, said:

I'm not sure why people keep saying "Yeah it does all this stuff differently, but it's not a revolution."

GW2s offers a fundamentally different approach to several things: an alternative to the quest system that WoW popularized as a means of driving players through the game world, a focus on getting players playing together rather than in competition with each other, and an attempt at making "endgame" much more closely match the leveling game compared to the widening divide present in every other MMORPG.

It's like people think it would have to change every single thing to be considered "revolutionary."  Which is odd to me, because that would suggest the creation of a new genre, not a change in an existing genre.

A revolution is defined as a sudden, complete or marked change in something.

The things that Guild Wars 2 does could not, in my opinion, be classed as a sudden, complete or marked change of the formula that has defined the genre since WoW. I'd argue that Guild Wars 2 almost entirely sticks to that formula, merely tweaking it slight here and there.

The "alternative quest system" is not that different form WoWs quest system. The difference is that instead of going to a place and then being sent off to do quests, you find the quests randomly scattered around and do them where you find them. That's not a marked difference, because the two systems are very similar. It's more a change in presentation.

Neither the "getting people to play together" or "altering end game" would be considered revolutionary. In WoW, you can do a host of things at end game INCLUDING raiding and gear farming, but you don't have to do those things. You can go off and explore random areas, farm for vanity gear, complete high level story line quest chains, etc, etc. Guild Wars 2 offers those things, but not raiding. That's not revolutionary.

I don't think it needs to be revolutionary in that sense, however. It's a damn good game. I love it endless.

[Krazzar]

This is why new members shouldn't be able to make threads. Get used it, it will only get worse.

I played an unfinished, laggy, limited version of GW2 today and legitimately had fun. It is innovative, if you actually pay attention to the definition of the word, but I don't really care if it's revolutionary. I don't care if the industry changes, although I assume it won't because the vast majority of studios can't handle it and the publishers won't allow it.  Actually, a game cannot be revolutionary because it is made by a select few people, it's not like we can rally at their gates and demand change. That and GW2 isn't really in the same genre, it's a game first and not a Massively Mundane Occupation first and game second.

The things GW2 does innovates on quite a few systems, but it doesn't redo everything, nor will the genre make large changes because of GW2. The genre doesn't have the expertise or ability to develop a game in the way GW2 has been developed.

[Pipples]

DetectiveJohnKimble, on 16 August 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

If anything is getting old, it's people listing some good qualities about GW2 (many of which are already present in other MMOs), while claiming others are merely expressing their 'opinion' and not giving facts.

'GW2 sucks and you're all fanbois' gets irritating after a while. So does tagging a thread with words like 'crap'
And while some of those things exist in some other MMOs, ALL of them exist in GW2
People are going to like it or not based on it's merits. If it's not as good as they hype, the smart people will shrug because it's expected and the people new to MMOs (or the gullible) will freak out. Either way, we don't need people coming to the forums griping without having any sort of constructive criticism to offer

[Pipples]

Woutman, on 16 August 2012 - 01:10 AM, said:

Those are all evolutions of what already exist.

Nothing revolutionary about any of that.

Revolution is, in itself, a sort of evolution
We're dealing with semantics here and that too gets old

[Primal Zed]

TKTindelible, on 16 August 2012 - 01:38 AM, said:

A revolution is defined as a sudden, complete or marked change in something.

The things that Guild Wars 2 does could not, in my opinion, be classed as a sudden, complete or marked change of the formula that has defined the genre since WoW. I'd argue that Guild Wars 2 almost entirely sticks to that formula, merely tweaking it slight here and there.

The "alternative quest system" is not that different form WoWs quest system. The difference is that instead of going to a place and then being sent off to do quests, you find the quests randomly scattered around and do them where you find them. That's not a marked difference, because the two systems are very similar. It's more a change in presentation.

Neither the "getting people to play together" or "altering end game" would be considered revolutionary. In WoW, you can do a host of things at end game INCLUDING raiding and gear farming, but you don't have to do those things. You can go off and explore random areas, farm for vanity gear, complete high level story line quest chains, etc, etc. Guild Wars 2 offers those things, but not raiding. That's not revolutionary.

I don't think it needs to be revolutionary in that sense, however. It's a damn good game. I love it endless.

I'd say that shared, public dynamic events is absolutely a significant difference from the static, by-person, pick-up-and-turn-in quests WoW popularized.  The change isn't just presentation, it's a fundamentally different approach to content in a game world.  It's things happening in the world that the players can respond to vs being told to do something that doesn't really change anything.  It's being able to play alongside other players for a shared goal without having to stop and create a formal group (with a limit to the number of players) vs having to compete against other people for your own personal checklist.

Even though you give a good definition of revolution, you seem to not apply that definition but a different one that says "a thorough, complete change of absolutely everything."

[LastDay]

The guy who made that article seems to think that Initiative is pointless, everybody should have infinite dodges and jumping puzzles suck.
So um... I'm gonna take that with a grain of salt.  

With that said there are always those who overhype a game like crazy.
I think that GW2 is gonna be the best damn MMORPG there is, but at the same time I don't think that it's 10 times better than the others like some people do.

Edited by LastDay, 16 August 2012 - 01:45 AM.

[TKTindelible]

Primal Zed, on 16 August 2012 - 01:44 AM, said:

I'd say that shared, public dynamic events is absolutely a significant difference from the static, by-person, pick-up-and-turn-in quests WoW popularized.  The change isn't just presentation, it's a fundamentally different approach to content in a game world.  It's things happening in the world that the players can respond to vs being told to do something that doesn't really change anything.  It's being able to play alongside other players for a shared goal without having to stop and create a formal group (with a limit to the number of players) vs having to compete against other people for your own personal checklist.

Even though you give a good definition of revolution, you seem to not apply that definition but a different one that says "a thorough, complete change of absolutely everything."

No it isn't. Both Rift and Warhammer has comparable content offerings that did the same thing. Guild Wars mildly progresses that.

Again, not revolutionary.

http://dictionary.re...owse/revolution

[Jexx]

Rift and Guild Wars 2 pretty much started it at the same time though..

[Majic]

Subjective Objectivity

TKTindelible, on 16 August 2012 - 01:27 AM, said:

You can be objective when consider whether it lives up to those claims: Does it redefine and revolutionise an entire genre? No, it doesn't.

That does beg the question of just what would satisfy the "objective" criteria. In other words, on what basis can we say it fails to "redefine and revolutionise an entire genre"? And what would?

Given the fact that there is no universal definition or consensus on what such criteria would actually be, claims either way are necessarily subjective.

Rebel Without A Cause

Meanwhile, for lulz, I decided to look into this "revolution" business. Just who's calling it a revolution, anyway? Googling it reveals some interesting results.

First, here's a search for "guild+wars+2"+revolution

Note the sources (and the appearance of this thread, no less) and who is using the word. Now let's look at the official Guild Wars 2 site, and search it for the same word:  site:guildwars2.com revolution

Just who is calling Guild Wars 2 a revolution? Is ArenaNet calling it that? I think maybe they've used the word in the past. God knows their videos are upbeat and hypey, but where, exactly, do they call it a "revolution"?

If someone knows, please point it out for me. Maybe I missed it, or it's in the videos and can't be googled. But I do find it interesting that for "all the hype", the word "revolution" seems to have come into the parlance more from reviewers, commentators and critics than from ArenaNet itself.

Am I wrong about this?  

[Teste]

There's an article about MMOs in Forbes describing how the monthly fee model is dying, and etc. In the last paragraph of the article, seen here, an analyst mentions what he thinks is one of the main issues with the current MMOs:

"None of these games are substantially different from one another, and I don't know if free-to-play is really going to solve that problem"

And that's true. All MMOs are basically the same thing, with a new gimmick tacked in it so the designers can pretend changing one single aspect is enough to hide how everything else is just more of the same. In Aion it was the ability to fly, in TOR it was the storyline, in Tera the changes to the combat system... But in the end, all those games have the exact same gameplay and the exact same flaws. No one has the guts to risk making something that goes even a bit beyond that model, which isn't surprising considering how expensive MMOs are. Ironically, those same games have failed exactly because they didn't risk enough.

And then we have Guild Wars 2. It's not a full revolution, true; but other MMOs are so similar to each other that something which actually does different things, even if still within the same model, feels like a massive innovation in the genre.

[Fredthelog]

It's not going to be everyone's cup of tea, but I thoroughly enjoyed playing GW2 during the three beta weekends and several stress-tests. I haven't had this much fun playing an mmorpg since I first tried out WoW several years back when it was partially fun.

[jdavet90]

Rift's dynamic events are rather pathetic when compared to the ones in Guild Wars 2. Big shiny cloud spits out monsters at random times and locations...whoopee.

[Primal Zed]

TKTindelible, on 16 August 2012 - 01:46 AM, said:

No it isn't. Both Rift and Warhammer has comparable content offerings that did the same thing. Guild Wars mildly progresses that.

Again, not revolutionary.

http://dictionary.re...owse/revolution

Rift and Warhammer attempted public events as a side thing, and neither was able to really pull it off well.  Guild Wars 2's dynamic events are better designed and more pervasive in the game.  Just because someone had a similar idea before doesn't mean a successful follow through of that idea can't be revolutionary.