majiger, on 26 February 2013 - 09:12 PM, said:
The problem with that argument there is that Final Fantasy, Elder Scrolls and CoD games are not sequals to each other.
Final Fantasy has a differing mythos depending on the game. A couple connect but only with hints and references and if anythingthat is just for the fan base.
Elder Scrolls has one giant lore book and Bethesda just pulls whatever race they want to focus on out of this book and makes the game. It all does connect if you read the books in the game or listen to certain NPC interactions.
CoD is CoD. Same shooter with a different name. No one expects any differerent.
However, when MMOs release a new game under the name of *Old Game* 2 people exect something more than taking the lore and throwing away everything else learned in that game.
Everquest 2, Lineage 2, Ragnarok Online 2, Vindictus (Aka Mabinogi 2); are all sequals to mmo titles that were big, depending on region.
Did any of them just scrap everything that fans enjoyed about the game and decided to make the sequal into something that you'd hardly recognize as a predecessor? No.
Aside from Vindictus taking the action route and RO2 getting a 3D art style instead of sprites, the ground work was used from the previous game.
So to say that ANet had no obligation to make GW1 fans happy first and foremost when making a sequal for a game they played for 6+ years is quite wrong.
No one asked for a rehash but a better GW1. Who didn't like have a large amount of skills to choose from? Why did 1000+ skills get replaced by "450 skills: over 250 from weapon choices, 35 from healing, 200 utility, 8 racial, and 60 elites."
Divide that among 7 Proffessions, then factor in only specific weapons are used, then factor in the fact that elites are not even elite status to what we'd expect and you realise that 450 skill pool is maybe about 300 at most.
Not to mention being able to dual class, what was wrong with that? As far as I knew everyone that playe GW1 enjoyed that because no other game would let you do that. I ran a Warrior/Ranger with a Bow + Pet until the end of Prophecies and that was great.
I'm not even going to bother listing off every thing that they could have take from GW1 but customization was one of its big things. I don't see it anymore.
I see what you're saying, but you're still missing the point: I was referring to gameplay, not mythos. They don't always go hand in hand.
If they did, then the Elder Scrolls would all be exactly alike (the core is similar, but overall they are not exactly alike... not even close)
Same with Certain FF games: Just because Final Fantasy XII, FF12: Revenant Wings, Final Fantasy Tactics A2, Final Fantasy Tactics and Vagrant Story are all set in the same world with the same lore (Ivalice) - they are all very, very different games.
No company has an obligation only to their older fans - if companies did that, they'd all go under for not finding ways to bring in new customers... that's business. (And Arena Net is a business first and foremost).
As for your other comments:
1. 1000+ skills to choose from - dude I'm a Sys Admin/Dev - I wouldn't want to spend everyday rebalancing that many skills, especially when only 25% are used at any given time. - this is probably a way of cutting labor costs and focus dev teams on more future projects and content than balancing skills. Developers are expensive (avg yearly income in the US is 100K+ per Dev)
2. Dual Profs - with the design of GW2 (one of the few designs that didn't change) skill system - dual profs would be nigh impossible to balance considering all the combinations - again labor costs being cut and workflow streamlined.
3. GW1 was fun, but it was obviously a very dated model. I'm all for the way it was made, but I stand by GW2 is not GW1 and that is one of the most shallow arguments I've ever heard "I want it more like this game over here!". It also gives the impression that you feel entitled to the decision making process just because you bought this other product of theirs. Doesn't work that way, especially when part of the goal is to bring in new customers that either didn't try or didn't want the previous product.
4. Finally - there has to be a balance between customization and... well... balance. Too much customization and that leads to a rebalancing nightmare, too much "balancing" and it can lead to no customization. It's much like how Computer Security (or Security in general) you have to balance between keeping something safe and keeping it appealing/open. The more open it is, the easier it can be taken advantage of to hurt others. The more secure it is, the less freedom you have. You can't go one way or another otherwise it becomes impossible - balance is key. There is still a lot of customization.
One last thing - Lore =/= gameplay. Isn't that one of the big things that GW fans were crying out with when explaining how a sylvari could be a necromancer? Why is it now being used in the opposite way?
You have a right to your opinion and I have mine. But clamouring about how a game isn't nearly an exact copy of the last game is childish. Two different products with two different target audiences that overlap slightly. Start looking at what you buy from the business perspective and you might start to understand the reasons some companies do things. A company's #1 purpose is to make money so that they can pay bills, pay staff, and create new products to make more money. Next comes how they are going to expand their market. Last - look at keeping old customers. Once you are a customer, you only matter if the amount of old customers leaving outwieghs the new ones coming in.
Edited by EagleDelta1, 26 February 2013 - 11:10 PM.