Other so-called real ''MMORPG'' could learn a thing or 2 from GW?
2 pages • Page 2
Maybe the next NCsoft game is the one you are looking for: Dungeon Runners. A MMORPG, free to download, no monthly fee, but if you want more than the basic content you need to buy expansion sets. Here are some links:
http://www.dungeonrunners.com/
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/dunge...&mode=previews
http://www.dungeonrunners.com/
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/dunge...&mode=previews
C
M
Making these broad comparisons with no real knowledge of the differences between these games, their technology and their hardware infrastructure just makes you look ignorant.
To answer your point though, there's probably not a single game in existance that couldn't 'learn something' from other games, but GW's wildly different business plan and no monthly fee is only made possible by cutting corners in terms of what a 'real' MMO delivers. Trying to get the best of both worlds just isn't possible. You don't want a monthly fee? Ok, sacrifice a persistant world and replace with instanced areas, cut down on the amount of data saved per instance (to reduce overhead on the servers) and remove the ability to reconnect. Hell, let's not have a Z-axis. Now you have Guild Wars. If you took a 'real' MMO, applies these principals then marketed the game, you'd essentially have a second version of guild wars and be back at square one, with people comparing it to 'real' MMOs.
You see, the difference between GW and typical MMO games is almost beyond comparison, at any other level than an 'online game' (where you could include anything from Poker to Counterstrike). They're very different games, in terms of the game itself and the business plan encapsulating it. Trying to make something that works for one would be folly in another's case.
I'm noticing a lot of these threads being made, but honestly, it rarely seems the intent is to provoke discussion, rather for the author to pat themselves on the back for playing a 'better game' and hopefully feel satisfied because a page full of people say the same thing.
If you love GW, then fine, I support you in that and I'm sure everyone else does. But enough with these 'other MMORPGs suck GW is way better' threads, please.
To answer your point though, there's probably not a single game in existance that couldn't 'learn something' from other games, but GW's wildly different business plan and no monthly fee is only made possible by cutting corners in terms of what a 'real' MMO delivers. Trying to get the best of both worlds just isn't possible. You don't want a monthly fee? Ok, sacrifice a persistant world and replace with instanced areas, cut down on the amount of data saved per instance (to reduce overhead on the servers) and remove the ability to reconnect. Hell, let's not have a Z-axis. Now you have Guild Wars. If you took a 'real' MMO, applies these principals then marketed the game, you'd essentially have a second version of guild wars and be back at square one, with people comparing it to 'real' MMOs.
You see, the difference between GW and typical MMO games is almost beyond comparison, at any other level than an 'online game' (where you could include anything from Poker to Counterstrike). They're very different games, in terms of the game itself and the business plan encapsulating it. Trying to make something that works for one would be folly in another's case.
I'm noticing a lot of these threads being made, but honestly, it rarely seems the intent is to provoke discussion, rather for the author to pat themselves on the back for playing a 'better game' and hopefully feel satisfied because a page full of people say the same thing.
If you love GW, then fine, I support you in that and I'm sure everyone else does. But enough with these 'other MMORPGs suck GW is way better' threads, please.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Admins Bane
Politics belong to the real world..lets leave them there.
|
It's off topic to explain why, but it's not really had to imagine.
Guild Wars ground philosofi says, that time spent should not be a judging factor.
Given that time equals money.
We get to the point where money shouldn't be a judging factor. Which it is, IRL.
N
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Agyar
Making these broad comparisons with no real knowledge of the differences between these games, their technology and their hardware infrastructure just makes you look ignorant.
To answer your point though, there's probably not a single game in existance that couldn't 'learn something' from other games, but GW's wildly different business plan and no monthly fee is only made possible by cutting corners in terms of what a 'real' MMO delivers. Trying to get the best of both worlds just isn't possible. You don't want a monthly fee? Ok, sacrifice a persistant world and replace with instanced areas, cut down on the amount of data saved per instance (to reduce overhead on the servers) and remove the ability to reconnect. Hell, let's not have a Z-axis. Now you have Guild Wars. If you took a 'real' MMO, applies these principals then marketed the game, you'd essentially have a second version of guild wars and be back at square one, with people comparing it to 'real' MMOs. You see, the difference between GW and typical MMO games is almost beyond comparison, at any other level than an 'online game' (where you could include anything from Poker to Counterstrike). They're very different games, in terms of the game itself and the business plan encapsulating it. Trying to make something that works for one would be folly in another's case. I'm noticing a lot of these threads being made, but honestly, it rarely seems the intent is to provoke discussion, rather for the author to pat themselves on the back for playing a 'better game' and hopefully feel satisfied because a page full of people say the same thing. If you love GW, then fine, I support you in that and I'm sure everyone else does. But enough with these 'other MMORPGs suck GW is way better' threads, please. |
oh yes Why i said azz in stead of of Ass is cause hmm some moderators are so picky here so i didnt want to get a warning for foul languag maybe it isnt but hey dont feal like taking a chance :P
hm gotta say that that game Dungeon runner do look a bit like WoW not saying thats a bad thing just thta the graphics arent as bad as i thought they whould be for a free game although this is just beta? as far as i know..
mm.. anarchy online had a nice way to get around this... the game is still free but the addons cost a monthly fee... tho ive played it "thu" without addons... one of the best games ive played
last year the game was funded with advertising, its placed in the future an the cities have huge bulletin boards which had real ads in them... coke for example... a nice way to do this since it actually gave the cities kindof realistic touch... i played it a month ago i think and it didnt have the real ads anymore, jst some ingame fictional ones... sad really
last year the game was funded with advertising, its placed in the future an the cities have huge bulletin boards which had real ads in them... coke for example... a nice way to do this since it actually gave the cities kindof realistic touch... i played it a month ago i think and it didnt have the real ads anymore, jst some ingame fictional ones... sad really
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Agyar
Making these broad comparisons with no real knowledge of the differences between these games, their technology and their hardware infrastructure just makes you look ignorant.
To answer your point though, there's probably not a single game in existance that couldn't 'learn something' from other games, but GW's wildly different business plan and no monthly fee is only made possible by cutting corners in terms of what a 'real' MMO delivers. Trying to get the best of both worlds just isn't possible. You don't want a monthly fee? Ok, sacrifice a persistant world and replace with instanced areas, cut down on the amount of data saved per instance (to reduce overhead on the servers) and remove the ability to reconnect. Hell, let's not have a Z-axis. Now you have Guild Wars. If you took a 'real' MMO, applies these principals then marketed the game, you'd essentially have a second version of guild wars and be back at square one, with people comparing it to 'real' MMOs. You see, the difference between GW and typical MMO games is almost beyond comparison, at any other level than an 'online game' (where you could include anything from Poker to Counterstrike). They're very different games, in terms of the game itself and the business plan encapsulating it. Trying to make something that works for one would be folly in another's case. I'm noticing a lot of these threads being made, but honestly, it rarely seems the intent is to provoke discussion, rather for the author to pat themselves on the back for playing a 'better game' and hopefully feel satisfied because a page full of people say the same thing. If you love GW, then fine, I support you in that and I'm sure everyone else does. But enough with these 'other MMORPGs suck GW is way better' threads, please. |
There are things GW could learn from other games as well.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Thallandor
QFT
There are things GW could learn from other games as well. |
I call for a lock on this thread. This thread topic is arrogant and ignorant.
K
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Admins Bane
A small technicality that cause so much argument..it's an online game therefore it fits it that category. Whether you stick it in a sub-category is up to you.
GW is the future of such games, I'm still waiting for the big boys to jump on the bandwagon. |
I wouldn't be surprised if the online gaming industry moved away from games like EQ and WoW, though.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kali Magdalene
As much as I like WoW, I, for one, welcome our new Guild Wars Overlords.
I wouldn't be surprised if the online gaming industry moved away from games like EQ and WoW, though. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nexium
So you mean Anet/Ncsoft Arent Makeing Money from GW?
from what i can se Anet/NCsoft are makeing quite a profit from GW why else whould there be 2 almost 3 GW games out... so why is it so hard for other developers to do the same thing... but put an Real MMO Twist on the game.. |
Just a little cause and consecuence (spelling?) mixup
g
Not a single upcoming MMOG, not even NCSoft's own Aion, is going to adopt GW's pricing structure. Pay to play is still the MMOG metagame.
My prediction is that GW will be the sole MMOG without monthly fees unless NCSoft's financial and legal troubles cause them to tank and sell Anet to another company such as EA or Sony. *shudder*
My prediction is that GW will be the sole MMOG without monthly fees unless NCSoft's financial and legal troubles cause them to tank and sell Anet to another company such as EA or Sony. *shudder*
D
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gr3g
Not a single upcoming MMOG, not even NCSoft's own Aion, is going to adopt GW's pricing structure. Pay to play is still the MMOG metagame.
My prediction is that GW will be the sole MMOG without monthly fees unless NCSoft's financial and legal troubles cause them to tank and sell Anet to another company such as EA or Sony. *shudder* |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Minus Sign
Guild Wars lacks one primary element other MMOs have:
100% map exploration. If you can see it, you can get there. From swimming, jumping, crawing through caves, climbing laddars to--in some ways--flying; most MMOs have a far more advanced engine than GWs chessboard style 2-D movement. This freedom of movement comes at a cost, however. Greater requirments on one server all the time from all players. |
Guild Wars has too many invisible walls....
And that... is for teh lose...