Players. GW. And WoW...

Ok, i dont get why people say "Dont do that, thats like making another WoW!"
"Lets add an auction house" "*** No thats like WoW...." I don't get it. People seem to forget the main feature that makes Guild Wars, Guild Wars... Guild Wars is unique no matter what we add. Guild Wars is I think. the only successful MMORPG that has NO subscription fees, at all....

Long story short. I get tired of people saying we are making another WoW.... Personally, if i could play a higher tech, free version of WoW, i would love that. No other game has as many advanced network features that GW has....like the patching.... Patches only like 1mb at the most....come on!

Does anyone agree with me?

mentioning wow here = insta flame war

At the base, all RPGs are pretty much the same.

But in terms of gameplay wise, GW and WoW are drastically different. Also, a lot of the things that are supposedly making "GW INTA WOW" aren't WoW exclusive: Races aren't new, neither is a Z-Axis, nor persistancy.

Those kind of comments just come from poor people who cant afford to pay for WoW so they flame over it. :P

Adding an auction house to GW does not make it more like Wow...

It's a nearly necessary feature in an online RPG these days

I whole heartedly agree.

I think the goal of Arenanet is to give Guild Wars 2 content that players enjoy, not only from guild wars, but from others to create, forgive the term, "The Perfect Game", while still maintaining the Guild Wars Edge. World of Warcraft has aspects that players like, as do all games. I have no problem with combining elements of all games to bring togther playstyles that everyone likes. World of Warcraft and Guild Wars are not the first to use these, and won't be the last. I wish people would realize this when they say that that idea is stolen from another game. That game stole it from another game, and the chain continues.

In fact, I'd be very angry if Guild Wars 2 was a clone of Guild Wars 1. If you want to play Guild wars 1, then play Guild Wars 1. Guild Wars 2 seeks to improve, and if you're against improvement, then you stand in the way.

Six Words: You get what you pay for.

I don't think anyone is asinine enough to argue that GW has more content than WoW.

Well I don't know about you, but I'll take Quality over Quantity any day. I'd rather eat a good apple than a hundred rotten ones.

It's not that the apples are rotten, it's that they're oranges.

No one ever said that in this thread.

The OP just mentioned that people should get over the idea that if WoW, or any other game has it, it's rubbish and the all general idea that GW should not implement game structures that have ever used before. I agree with that point.

The bit I do not agree with is:

I don't see why people refer to WoW as a staple that is the focus of being mimicked, nearly everything i saw in that game i have already seen scattered amongst several other games, they just managed to pile them all together at once.

Well I won't argue there, but it's just that I like Apples more than Oranges =P

But again, there are people that like both, and I admit, when put together in a bowl, they're alright. I don't understand why people are so against this concept.

Ain't nothing wrong with that. I do have a problem, however, when people complain about an apple being a bad orange.

I'm still amazed a game with so amazingly shitty graphics (even considering it's a four year old game) as WoW could hit it big.

Then again, so did SIMS.

Yeah, I am too.

It's less that you've posted a bad screenshot and more that you've found one of the most godawful UI set ups I've ever seen. That's entirely user-made crappiness. He's having fun, though, so I guess you can't mess with that.

Here's my favorite pic from the Black Temple I took a few nights ago:

Whoops, okay here's the right one:

Because good graphic doesn't always equal good gameplay?

GW players, of all people, should know that.

Yeah. Warcraft III worked great with the cartoony style, being low poly and a top-down view RTS. In an MMORPG, graphics like that are just SCARY. Everybody's armor looks like plastic too, and the trees look like caramel.

Now admittedly, there are SOME aspects of WoW lots of people would like to see, and they wish GW would get them so it would be closer to what kind of game they would want to play. I am sure there is SOME aspect of WoW everyone wants in GW. The question still remains if ANet can pull them off and remain original, though.

Anyway, one thing that made GW such a big hit is that it was unique from other MMORPGs. Many suggestions to GW are not just for WoW, it's in plenty of MMORPGs already. Many people stereotype the MMORPG standard as WoW. Just because GW doesn't have something does NOT mean it's WoW!

Is it possible that - gasp - graphics don't matter?

High-fidelity graphics present a barrier to entry. Those who think that GW has high quality graphics, take a look at, say... Bioshock or COD4 or one of these latest greatest titles. BTW, can you play them? At 50 FPS?

Content suitability for target market determines the success of a given title, and the success of that title is limited by the same market's size. Thanks to WoW, we now know that EQ-esque market is worth 1 billion a year. Virtual worlds market (SecondLife, There, Entropia) is worth 100k subscribers per month. WW2 turn-based strategy has some 100k customers world-wide.

Online Guitar Hero game however has playerbase of 500,000 concurrent and between 50 and 120 million subscribers in China alone.

Then why eat oranges?

On topic of GW: If GW2 is WoW clone, it doesn't get a second look from me. WoW isn't a bad game, it's huge with everything for everyone. Unfortunately, the only thing it has for me is boredom. To tears.