New Guild Wars 2 Interview

Thats because they sucked

surely it would succeed because of this.

please list what tactics they utilised which caused this "downward spiral".

No, Anet know what they are doing. i personally liked GW because of the Skill>time factor. I want persistant worlds. there is nothing wrong with that. I found the instanced explorable areas to be tedious. i bet we have all thought how great it would be to just go out and explore the gw world. but truth be told...it is not very fun when all you have is olias saying the same old thing about abaddon, or dunkoro making the same stupid remark about a guy having a weak opening every third strike.

i praise and welcome GW2, particularly because of its persistent world

Sounds to me a lot like DAOC all the realm talk and the world changing. I'm more interested in how the pvp portion of the open world will be. I hope we can gank newbies and noobs. GW is so dry without player ganking in the pve game. People need to be afraid, very afraid to go outside. haha

Also, I really hope Anet gets away from static zones and mobs always in the same places. I want to see "random" in at least some zones where there aren't the same mobs in the same places over an over. Bosses will be different, locations will be different and they won't always drop the "same" leet item everytime. The one way to stop or change farming is to make things not drop the same things over n over especially boss mobs. So that green staff of whatever is not on that same boss the next time you go after him/it. It might just be an ole crappy purple or nothing at all. Make people actually HUNT for items not automatically know where to go to get them.

Hmmmmmm just a response on your persistent world like both they have up and downsides.
But i became to like Instance it gives me more fun to play like most MMo with it's persistent world other people started to irritate me and annoy me.
Also one of the things that made GW1 is the Instance IMO there are many more Features that made GW1 GW1.
Course GW1 is just unique in its concept and very new also.
IMO if they chop instance from GW2 i'm not playing, but who cares anyway i'm just 1 person.

Ummm dude that's what was said about "Auto Assault" as well and NCsoft pulled the plug on that game this past August 31st. So, don't go believing everything you read/hear that a developer says. They do not have the LAST WORD on what continues and what doesn't. The truth is they will continue to support GW1 as long as NCsoft allows it. Developers don't say what is and isn't it's the publishers that do.

Oh and people that lived by playing with heroes and henchies can kiss that type of play bye bye. You're going to have to learn to play either totally by yourself or learn to group with others and get along with others and forget that you're the only person that matters within the game in GW2. Get ready to PUG boys and girls. Pug for your supper and Pug for your goodies. I figure they are doing this to reduce the botting and farming exploits that are inplay now. I look for mobs/npcs to be very hard to solo and the way to fast loot will be to PUG.

"Other 60 MMOs in the last 7 years"? Generalizations for the loss.

By that statement the game you love is a failure. Guild Wars was released 2005. Tabula Rasa was just released and is showing great success. EVE online, anyone? Lineage II, while a grindfest, still holds popularity, for some reason. Oh, and a few small games called City of Heroes/City of Villains....and that tiny failure called WORLD OF WARCRAFT, released November, 2004.

There is a difference between keeping an open mind about what works for a business, and cloning an idea. I think they are offering a game design in a way that is sustainable, yet appealing to many different types of players.

As far as "Johnny getting a free ride"....Did you pay more for the game than Johnny? no. He paid for the same right to game play you did. You are playing a game, not working for a paycheck. Moot point. You will be in the group sacking the fortress, while Johnny and his lower level buddies will be guarding a crossroads. Read the article much?

We all have an opinion. Just don't claim it as fact, especially when your "facts" go against what was published or what actually exists. 80% of GW's community sucks...the irony of that statement kills me.

There better be freaking map travel.

Persistant worlds always have this huge area where to get to one place to another your pretty much walking for 10 minutes.

Oh and if their making persistant worlds

I want a Kill stealing script, Similar to FlyFF so nobody is stealing my crap.

Wow a few interviews and people are already speculating about how GW2 will fail, just have some trust in A-net. They made GW1 just fine why would GW2 be any worse. The world wide PvP sounds amazing, and grinding titles has ALWAYS been an option in GW1. Sure there are some perks but not anything tremendous, and I'm going to say thatthey will be more or less optional in GW2. So stop speculating failure for a game that is not coming out for a year.

Interesting article, but please tell me I was not the only one that noticed the banner selling guildwars gold in the bottom right hand corner. Oh the irony.

LOL, I just noticed that as well Dimitri. Looks like a permanent one too because I haven't seen it change no matter how many times I refresh.

Semantic nitpick. Fine, the game will no longer be exclusively instanced. Most online games have some instancing for rather obvious reasons, GW2 has shifted from a system that made it different in this regard to the same mechanism everyone else uses.


And people say I'm assuming a lot. You think people that just told you that the nature of an RPG is that "your strength depends on how long you play it" are going to make levelling not matter? The general trend in GW1 has been to introduce more and more ways to increase character power past level 20 through PvE skill linked titles. You think they're going to go the other way with GW2? I have to admire your optimism.


I don't care about PvP, period. Sorry, it's not something I find entertaining. I enjoyed the structure of GW PvE with the low level cap, lack of consumables, lack of PvE skills. It was remarkably tactical, you have these tools to use, solve this problem. It was completely unlike any RPG I'd ever previously played. With the inclusion of heroes it became even better, because the adjustable parameters of the problem became greater. Losing that style of game play, and it's vividly clear that we are, basically means losing what made GW unique in my opinion.

Ah, you're one of those people. Let's piss on single player/small group gamers, what rights do they have to be here anyway? Yeah, I really want to play a game where I'm forced to group with people who think their fun is more important than mine.

I want GW2 to retain those elements that made GW1 distinct from other online RPG's. It's clear that, instead of that, Anet has decided to fold to the "we want an MMORPG that's like all the other MMO's but without a fee" crowd and abandon those of us that enjoy GW for what it is, not what it costs. I'm sure they'll have great financial success with that model, to be honest, but it's a damn shame for those of us that came to this game because we couldn't stand the gameplay in other online RPG's, rather than the fees.

They've already said there will be no H/H in GW2 (just a single optional AI companion). Several other statements in your post are also directly contravened both by this interview and others that have been given.

[QUOTE]here is another quote from earlier as i have not read this one yet.

YOU MISSED THIS

it is optional totally

pvp does not come to you in the persistant world you go out of your world deliberately looking for pvp

note can not must as you have to enter the mists deliberately to pvp

[QUOTE=Loviatar]It is optional, I didn't claim it wasn't, but it's also quite clear that it's going to impact PvE ala Factions:

"Competing for resources that can benefit our world" sounds like PvP play is going to have an impact on the PvE game to me. They've been moving away from that (because it was an interesting, but flawed, idea to begin with) but it seems they're going to try it again. It's a minor gripe compared to the other stuff, but I still think it's a bad idea.

Exact reference please? I never read that.

Oh and please don't say that "I'm forced to group with people who think their fun is more important than mine" when you, from your own words, only express your selfish will that GW2 fits exactly your needs. I am a PvE-rs at heart but do not understand GW in any other way that both PvE and PvP.

Just to rectify this: it's not optional but it has only a very limited influence, e.g., when trying the "Befrieding the Kurzicks/Luxons" and trying to use the services of one faction when you don't have enough of that faction points. It's a very minor annoyance and any person taking that as more than that is distorting the reality of GW, it's almost PvE-ism as people speak liberally of extrem-ism or terror-ism

Do you realise that you're trying to make GW your exclusive little world? It's amazing that you don't see that Anet has a much larger audience than people like you and me (I rarely PvP) and that they are still keeping true to their original vision despite (I image) huge pressure to open up a bit more.

You are entitled to your opinion on GW2 that does not exist at the moment, you can speculate and express your fears, some that may turn out to be totally true. But that does not make your vision a very wise one, as I believe GW2 will probably not look anything like what you say (or most GWGers say either).

if you are so into having heroes to run your game for you, it might as well just be a game you play on a LAN. For running with friends and AI is basically a single player RPG. You might as well just take out the online factor, that is what i am hearing.

alls I know is this article did not shed any new light on what GW2 will be like....so any assumptions at to what it will be or have as content is exactly that and assumption, and we all know what happens when we assume.

So I'm gonna go with the same answer I've posted in every single thread about GW2. Stop jumping to conclusions based on how little is actually known and wait for the game to at least start testing before discussing what they did or didn't do with the game.

I'm expressing concern that GW2 will not be a game that I'm interested in playing. You can interpret that as you like, I suppose. I think one of the great things about GW1 is that it works very well for a variety of gamers. Group players have that option, single players have that option, casual players have good access to parts of the game but there are components to keep the hardcore fans happy. PvPers and PvEers are, by and large, able to coexist peacefully as well. I don't think that trying to ensure that players like myself are not excluded from GW2 is at all the same thing as trying to make the game exclusive to gamers like myself. It would sell quite poorly if it were, I'm sure.

I hope you're right, but it's fairly clear you haven't read the bulk of available information on GW2 at this point. The real hope is that, as the design phase continues, some of these underlying elements will be changed. I don't hold out much hope of that, though, for the precise reason that it is reasonable to compromise those components of the original game design that made the game more unique in the name of making the game more "accessible" to the mainsteam MMO gamer. I think Anet's come to the conclusion that they don't need gamers like me, and from a financial standpoint they're probably right.

*hides cookies*

Probably not, but I read no piece of information so big as "there won't probably be H/H in GW2". Do you remember where you read that?

I think you're completely misreading into Anet's statement, but you're probably right that GW is not a good game for people who hate change. Honestly, there's been no such thing as "PvP intrusion into PvE", it's an over-statement, it's like saying that because people are standing in front of your house they're "intruding".

(I had comments on the rest of your post but I will not state them so that the thread can come back on its feet)

Seems like lots to look forward to. Though I'm not at all excited about "High" and "Low" levels in Mists PvP. You'd think they'd learned something over the past few years.

You won't be forced to group with people. You won't be forced to group at all. You can 1-man persistant areas and missions. That's why this point-

-is moot.

In other words, think Hellgate:London. That sounds like how GW2 will be in terms of parties.

I'm aware of that, but it's clear enough that Symeon thinks I *should* be forced to group, hence my response.

And "no party management" is not moot, not at all. Playing a single character in a world scaled for a single character is considerably less interesting than playing a party through an area scaled for a party. The level of skill interaction and interplay, the tactical possibilities, everything is markedly better in the latter set up. One of the things that made GW interesting was that SP and small group (2 or 3 real people) players didn't lose out on the more interesting combat dynamics created by an 8 player party.

It's from one of the earliest interviews, but it's restated on the official wiki here:

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_2

Scroll down to "companions."

I just posted in the other thread, as well, to let you know that this is not new information. The interview was given at the same time all the other interviews were given about Guild Wars 2, GW:EN, etc. I don't have a date for the time it took place, but I date it as Spring or Summer of this year. If you go back and read the others, and particularly if you read the PC Gamer announcement of GW2, you'll see that it's the same timeframe. I think -- I need to ask -- that some of what has been mentioned has changed already.

That's interesting, thanks Gaile. So some of what I'm taking as confirmation of design direction isn't, since it's just what was being said back in spring/summer.

That puts us back to "major game design elements may change without notice," which is honestly a better place to be IMO. *crosses fingers*

Ahhh i knew thats where I read it

Dear Gaile,

Could you confirm that the caption of the first picture of the article (talking about GW2 being released earlier than we may think) does not change the other announcements regarding GW2 timelime (i.e., 2008 for beta, 2009/2010 for game)? I'm also intrigued by this "some campaigns which were in the works for Guild Wars 1" which may be a reference to the BMP ... or not ... ?

Many thanks!

Now that you know the timeframe for the interview, it may jog your memory about the PC Gamer announcement, which had the splashy "Guild Wars Expansion Cancelled!" headline. Of course, that was pretty over the top, because what the articles were really saying was, "Instead of producing a new campaign, the GW team is making their first expansion pack -- Guild Wars: Eye of the North -- after which they will continue to support Guild Wars while working on the development of Guild Wars 2."

We did not have multiple campaigns under develoment. We moved from a campaign to an expansion pack for a variety of reasons -- some development, some business -- and we're now working hard on GW2. (The Bonus Mission Pack was not part of the campaign project, either.) As for timeframes, I'm sorry, but I cannot give you any beyond this: There will be a Guild Wars 2 Beta in 2008. (I honestly don't know what form it will take at this point, from beta test with signups to beta event -- that remains to be decided.) We have never said a day, date, month, or year for the release of Guild Wars 2. Many article writers have assumed a day/month/year, but that is not something we have ever stated, nor will we be able to provide that information for some time to come.

That's interesting they waited so long to release the interview.

Thanks a lot for the reply!

I preferred to use the term "timeline" rather than to start discussing months/days/hours which difficult for any significant SW project. If it were only me, I'd preferred to wait even a few months if they're necessary for the project to be ready. But I can understand the problem since some people are so eagerly anticipating GW2!

Overall, this puts the article in perspective: far, far away in terms of uptodate-ness

Interesting to read.

I only hope by this they mean; as well as competitive organized PvP, you have open PvP and that areas are not instanced. Always loved that style

The party system is GW1 is pretty cool, I won't deny. It had a lot of problems, though. If you're an inexperienced player, you're gonna have a harder time getting a group. You can't take heroes because you really need to know your shit (and unlock a series of skills) for them to be successful. Henchmen have been known to be less than reliable.

It's actually making things a helluva lot more easier on the casual player. While it was fun configuring a party to go out and kickass (much like Baldur's Gate, god bless it!) I'd much rather they make things more accessible for everyone.

In GW2, it'll be "hey anyone wanna do this mission? No? Okay np, I can just go by myself." In GW1, "hey anyone wanna do this mission? No? Okay um, I'll wait a bit longer, I guess," or "hey, anyone wanna- oh, there's no one here..."

Wonderign why ... end of year and weeked before xmass is not cucubmer season for gaming mags.

It's definitely more friendly to the casual player, it's just a hell of a lot less interesting IMO. In the end it's not so much that I think GW2 will be a terrible game, it's that everything we seem to be hearing strikes me as being a downgrade from the equivalent in the first game. From my perspective, they're simply going the wrong way.

Am I the only one who finds those faces and eyes on top of the article a bit disturbing?

yup,and these smiles...
I wont be sleeping tonight
sucks that the article was old though,wonder when they will finaly release some GwII info.

That's it, right there. I agree completely. This article was OK but revealed little to nothing about what GW2 is actually going to be like in specific terms. I really don't give a flying rip about the PvP improvements and options. So, a big yawn to all of that.

Maybe, the next interview will have something for the PvE players out there, preferably the casual/solo ones.