Guild Wars, WoW, and Guild Wars 2

It's not just WoW, you're right. Think just about every XBox game tacks on the achievement point system, and even some games on the Wii are guilty of it as well. I'd imagine the PS3 is no different in some regards. I'd wager a guess that designers got their influence from watching speed runs, or lowest score challenge videos of older games and figured if there are people out there who enjoy that sort of thing they might as well include some variation of it in their game. While it doesn't hurt a game to have those challenges it doesn't exactly add anything either. If your game is good people will play it, but don't think for a second that killing 15 turkeys in 3 minutes adds to the quality.

Basically let the players come up with the little diversions to the main objective. Like everyone does now with UWSC.

So, at what point in an mmo's production cycle do they hire all the voice actors? Because in addition to the one already mentioned who did GW2 work, there's also an interview with Gregg Berger who did voices for major GW2 characters (see link below).

It seems that hiring your voice actors is something you would do near the end of your production cycle, so that you won't need to call them back and re-do everything if you decide you want to make changes. It's not like you need the voice acting in early to be able to develop and test the game. But I don't work on games so I don't know if they are actually done that way.

http://www.seibertron.com/transforme...-berger/16029/

Have to majorly disagree with you on that one when it comes to WOW. Yeah their can be a mad rush to buy a POPULAR hyped game "SPORES" that suks and sales drop off tremendously thus it was a POPULAR title, but, turned out to be crapola and thus not the best game. But, WOW has REPEATED SALES of over 11 million subscibers EVERY MONTH so bud it is not only the MOST POPULAR, but, also the BEST OF ALL. Sorry you don't like the chew on that, but, facts are facts and WOW is the KING of ALL.

Nope, WoW is just more popular.

Like American Idol is more popular than your favorite show. That doesn't make American Idol a better show.

This is a good question. I guess everyone knows the usual answer "near the end".

But this is somehow contradicting our current knowledge about the rumored 2010/11 release date from the NCSoft report.

Maybe they hired some people before they decided to go for a more ambitious game.

Well, our current knowledge is 'more information later this year', from the interviews with Mike O'Brien and Regina.

I'm wondering if they changed their strategy of getting lots of player feedback in development. If they are still considering an end-of-year 2010/beginning-of-2011 release (hence "2010-2011" as opposed to just "2011"), they will need to start getting the first external playtesting feedback by early 2010 or so, otherwise there isn't going to be a lot of time to do much iterating over the feedback they get.

Tv shows vs mmorpgs are apples and oranges. Sorry you live in a world of delusion about WOW. As it is THE MOST POPULAR and THE BEST. Be good if you got a dictionary out and looked up the word best btw. WOW fits all best definitions by MAJORITY. WOW has BESTED GW in SALES and continued subscription sales and is the better/best man for the job. If you put up a vote for the best MMO out there WOW would win. It wins because it is popular and the best. Note see Barak Obama campaign an election, best and most popular for the job.

Quantity is not always quality

Regardless, opinion are like intestines every one has one , For example runescape has loads loads loads of players..and it is subscription based for premium content by your analogy WoW is on Par with runescape correct?

They may be apples and oranges, as you put it, but his concept in regards to comparison is sound.

I believe the phrase is 'What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right.' As such just because WoW is popular and has great monthly sales doesn't not mean it is 'the best.' What is 'the best' will vary from person to person as that judgment is a matter of opinion. Which, you're entitled to yours, but if you like WoW so much, it just begs the question....why are you here?

Yes, things win because they are popular (and well known), not necessarily because they are the best. Homecoming King and Queen win their crowns because they are popular, not necessarily because they are great students, great people, or even great friends (who knows how many people they stab in the back when they aint looking). So your argument that WoW wins because it is the best because it is popular is invalid.

Yes, Barrack Obama won because he was by far, the popular candidate, but as to whether or not he is 'the best' for the job has yet to be seen. He has done OK thus far, but there is still a lot of time left in his term. He could still easily end up flat on his face. In the beginning, people thought W. was great too, and look how he turned out! So again, probably not the best example to use.

best: better than anybody or anything else; the highest quality standard that something is capable of; used as an enthusiastic endorsement of something.

The problem is, "best" is subjective. I may think that Guild Wars is the best MMORPG ever, that's my opinion, and nobody will be able to change that.

"Most popular" is objective. We look at copies sold, number of current players, and conclude that WoW is the most popular MMORPG on the planet.


But the "most popular" PC game of all time is....

The Sims. So, by your logic, does that make The Sims better than WoW?

I think WoW is OK, but even WoW is better than the Sims.

(Also note "The Sims 2: Pets" Expansion beating out Witch King)

I should also note this is only PC games. The most popular unbundled video game appears to be.... Wii Play! (which is really a controller bundled with a game). Followed by... Nintendogs?!?

Do you think Nintendogs is better than WoW?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...llers_by_genre

And finally, if you still insist that "most popular" = "best"; then it will be a hard day for you when eventually another MMORPG sells more copies than WoW.

That's why I don't use "copies sold" as an indicator of whether a game is good or not. I just play the game I love and not worry about the popularity contests.

I think the problem is that people are defining "good" as some sort of abstract artistic merit, and the problem with this is that then nothing can ever be said to be better than anything else, which makes this sense of "good" a pretty meaningless concept. Is a French dinner at a fancy restaurant better than eating feces? Well, maybe not, because Veronica Moser doesn't agree.

If you instead look at utility (enjoyment), where people vote with their free time and money where they want to spend it, and you assume that any one person doesn't count more than anyone else's (i.e. you are not a superior human with refined tastes because you consider Age of Conan to be a "fine wine" and WoW to be McDonalds -- as their devs claimed), then you can look at what provides the most utility to the most people.

People will always have a prefered method of game-play. Also, WoW has much more advertising.

I'm pretty sure eating any real food is preferable than eating feces. From a health standpoint, if not from any other, at the very least.

But in any case, your argument is flawed, because more people eat at McDonald's, ergo, McDonald's is the best restaurant?

I'm pretty depressed by this logic for two reasons.

1) What are the schools teaching these days that produces such horrible logic?

2) People really have no taste, and will just do whatever everyone else is doing, because it must be good?

Mass brainwashing if you ask me.
Look at Rap right now...personaly i dont find it skillfull at all but id be outnumbered in this thought..especialy Brooklyn -_-

In any case WoW=/=McDonalds McDonalds is cheaper =)

But you can Compare McDonalds and a 99 cents store.

While McDonalds provides food for 6 bucks per meal, you can get much more food for the same price in 99 cents store of equal or slightly less quality that will last longer.

So WoW=McDonalds
GW=99 cents store 0_0

Hope you get the comparison i find myself going to 99 cents store more often then in McDonalds .. not reffering to the analogy here

The reason you are confused is that you have failed to understand the argument entirely and have just restated everything that has already been said before. You have neglected to define "best", and seem to have made the assumption that best=food quality in this case.

Did you ever wonder why people eat at McDonalds? Do you honestly think the people that eat there believe it is the best food in the world? It seems that you do, which is frankly an absurd assumption to make. People eat there because it is cheap and convenient, and those things have value (utility) to people.

And what is all that condescending nonsense about schooling? What, do you think you are smarter or better educated than me? I think when push comes to shove you will find you are way out of your league on that one. Don't be an ass.

You were doing so well, too.

The (male) ego is a puppetmaster with a very black sense of humor.

OK then, prove it.

I defined the word "best" already, but I will help you out and define it again:

I also stated it's a subjective word.

Now, I do admit you did not use the word "best", you used the word "utility (enjoyment)". In other words, I read your use of "utility" as just as subjective as the word "best."

I noticed you now use utility to mean value.

If that's the case, maybe you can explain how WoW offers more "utility" than Guild Wars?

Let me answer for him with a typical "WoW is better then GW statement that all WoWers use..

WoW provides more enviroment to travel in as well as a free roam world unlike Guild Wars. Has an Auction House and a way to get moeny easier as well as /Sarcasm: Good and balanced PvP for all: End sarcasm/

+ More grind in WoW then in GW no matter how you slice it.. =)

No need to post now

The grind in WoW is infinitely better though. GW grind consists of doing the one or two farm runs you do over and over, the one or two faction farms over and over, HAing with the same shitter build over and over, ect. Grinding gear in WoW consist of doing raids and instances at progressively harder levels, making money by doing your 5 or so dailies, and Rep is unnoticeably leveled along side gear as you do instances. By the time a set of instances gets boring in WoW, you're almost always ready to move on to the next set, or to start doing more challenging versions (25-man, hardmodes). Dailies take like an hour max to give you enough money for repairs, item enchants, and to be saved for extras like epic mounts. You only really have to go out of the way to farm something if you want one of the super rare items, none of which are necessary for progression.

Well, more grind = more value!

But I really did not mean to get into a WoW vs GW argument. I was only taking issue with people saying WoW is "better" because more people play it.

Nor can anyone say WoW provides more "utility" than GW, unless we are defining "utility" as "popular", in which case I already acknowledge WoW is more popular.

Utility - something that is useful. The amount of satisfaction or pleasure someone gains from a product.

Again, that's all subjective.

It's not required in Guild Wars, either. I think you could also make the case that Guild Wars requires less time investment than WoW.

All I can say is I got bored around level 25 in WoW. I still play GW. And no, I cannot explain the difference. I know they are essentially the same games: click on monster, click on skills, click on drops. Why is one more fun than the other?

Oh no no you got me wrong.. I completely agree with you

I just wanted to show typical WoW-fanboi response to the "utility" question you have asked the other posed just to ease some tention that "he" has aquired throughout the post..

But yeah well said and i a completely agree.....

Grind is fine as long as you dont notice it.. but when you have to grind materials to maek somehtign for hours..now thasty grind =)

Well its kinda supposed to, there's just nothing to do in Guild Wars once you've done everything, so you farm. :\ WoW gets content updates every now and then, so the average player has a steady stream of new things to do.

Well, that's kind of like getting to level 20 in Guild Wars, saying you've seen the whole game, and then quitting. Vanilla WoW can definitely get pretty boring, especially if it's your first time and you only play solo and don't do instances, so I hope you wont consider your limited experience with WoW an excuse to say you've played the whole game.

Hey thanks for the support! Seriously, though, you are right, I should have just pointed out the paragraph was stupid and left it at that. Now onto address the points:

First of all, don't respond for me, your arguments are absolutely terrible.

Second, I think it is absolutely hilarious to be called a "WoWer" and "WoW-fanboi" by some random on this forum, considering that a) I don't play it, and b) I am among the more pro- GW/ANet people here. The difference? I'm not rabidly anti-WoW, unlike you. You see, if someone prefers to play a different MMO, it doesn't ruin my day, and does not affect me in any way. MMOs aren't sports teams, so snap out of it and stop treating them like one. Also, stop brown nosing Mordakai.

I think we're going to end up talking in circles about the meaning of best, but since you're going along with utility, enjoyment, or value, by all means, I'll list a few ways in which many people I know are getting something out of WoW that they cannot out of GW, even though they are both games about whacking mobs/people.

I have some first hand examples, because I have tried repeatedly over the years to convince many people to play Guild Wars with reasoning including "It's the best PvP MMO ever created, there's no grind to get started, and you say you like PvP, but you aren't playing it. Why not? Come on, we'll help you get started!"

Most of them like the server community (social) aspect that is a sort of backdrop to everything that happens in the game. Who left which guild, who cleared what, who got what uber piece of loot, in-jokes in the community. Socially, they are extremely different games. WoW communities are server-based and smaller, where in Guild Wars it feels like you don't see the same person twice.

In WoW, people have personal reputations that they generally care about, and are actually a fair bit more polite in PUGs than they are in GW PUGs (where people are prone to ragequit or more quickly insult others), because getting a bad reputation might actually have consequences. All things being equal people will behave the same in different games, but they aren't equal; in GW there is less of a disincentive to be a jerk, because it is more anonymous and people don't need each other, since pretty much everything in the game can be H/H'd. Heroes are also a very anti-community-building feature, but it's by no means the only problem. GW2 is moving to a multi-worlds based approach, and reducing heroes to max 1 (as far as we know), to promote the social and community factor.

Character advancement. People like developing their character after reaching max level. They like loot. GW doesn't have interesting loot or character advancement options. GW2 will.

PvE, or other stuff to do when not doing the competitive PvP. Even PvPers don't PvP 100% of the time, and in fact most people I know do some mix of PvP and PvE in whatever game they are playing. However, GW's PvE could not keep them interested. In fact, their experience in it from the start (early Prophecies) was that it was pretty terrible, and they did not want to come back. I think this was partly due to the community aspect, partly due to boring loot, and partly due to not really liking the style of movement of GW. Also, when we didn't have 8 people on for our GvGs, they felt like there was nothing they wanted to do, and they didn't want to be the target of abusive people in RA. By comparison, they don't have a problem solo-queueing or dual queueing with a buddy, for a WoW BG.

GW's PvP learning curve is too difficult for newcomers to the game. Some of the people didn't actually come out and say this directly (others did), because it feels like a personal failing and people don't like to admit these things. But it's true. The people I know that tried out Guild Wars starting in team arena or even ABs, especially after Factions or Nightfall, did not know everything the classes can do or what all the skill icons are, got discouraged (and there's always the verbal abuse), and didn't want to come back. It is good for GW to have a high skillcap and be a complex game, but the steep learning curve discourages people. A known problem that is being fixed for GW2.

So while in the end, both games are about killing mobs and people, these are some of the experiences that GW1 did not provide, that WoW does/did, and that is why they went back to WoW after playing GW. Actually many them aren't playing WoW either any more, but they aren't paying GW either.

Only if you're a silly person. What you should be doing once you've done everything (which, to me, is getting one of each profession through to the end of all 4 stories - by which point, of course, they'll have max weapons and nice armor just through normal play) is move on to other games or activities - especially since, unlike WoW, there's a definite end when it comes to the storyline and improving your characters. Sticking around only to farm (and then, as so many seem to do, complain about the grind) just makes no sense.

Not that I care so much, but please explain how can the sale figure of "The Burning Crusade" be LESS than "Wrath of the Lich King" when you CAN'T HAVE Wrath without having The Burning Crusade first (no, you just can't. The Burning Crusade is a mandatory upgrade if you want to install Wrath)?

Either the number is borked, or someone modified it to be borked. Don't use wikipedia for such information please.

And God forbids you stop grinding in WoW or other non-GW games since,... when?

Theoretically you are right. But from my own experiences I beg to differ. From level 1-80 players do not need other players that much. All can be done solo. Except instances. But even then many players do not care about reputation. Only difference is when it comes to raiding. But even then most players only care about reputation within their guild since their guild is required for raiding in order to get those shiny purples.
No, sorry, there is really not that much difference after all. If you really want to find a nice community you might want to try LotRO. Even EvE Online has a much more mature community.

Character advancement, ok. But only by getting better and better gear? That's hardly character advancement imho. You may love to collect gear. Others do not. For me, gear is just a tool to get the job done. I hate to farm gear for the sake of farming. Therefore I like EvE's approach much better. This game really allows character development. The way or method may be questionable. But at least it offers some sort of development. Not just pure gear grind.

You can speak for yourself, ok. But please stop making generalisations.
We've got it. You love to collect loot. Guess, GW is just the wrong game for you, then.

Agreed, GW is not easy. But is this a bad thing? Take WoW in contrast. What a dumbed down game it has become. Ever been to an instance since the release of WotLK? When was the last time you've seen proper CC in an instance? Interrupts? Kiting? It's just boming group after group. Heroic mode or not. I've seen every instance in WotLK, including Naxx 10 and 25. And it was boring as hell. If it wasn't for my friends I would have quit earlier. It's cool if you only care about getting that phat loot. But if you want a bit of challenge WoW is really not the right game anymore.

Finally something I can agree with (though I play GW from time to time for some hours. WoW's monthly fee doesn't allow this).

WoW:
Your skilltree is fixed, you have to win the game by managing the numbers you pour into it ONCE. Getting stronger means getting a "better number" either on your level or your loot. Playing is mostly active, getting better (higher numbers!) is a passive reward for playing. You can run around alone and do so very often.

GW:
Most your numbers are fixed, you cannot get better numbers beyond an very early stage in the game. You have to win the game by recombining your build (compare: skilltree) over and over and over. Playing can be degenerated into utter passiveness (Sabway+2Monks+2 Rangers), getting better requires you to actively tweak and not just rely that you are now strong enough to win by default. You need at least computer controlled players to achieve anything beyond mindless farm-grinding.


I don't see how these two games are really the same, they are two different experiences. Don't be blindsided by the fantasy tapestry pulled over both of them. Don't try to tell me they are equal because some number tweaking on your character is considered RPG these days. There is a reason WoW sold 12 and GW 6 million times and it is not the fact that they are very similar. Ask all the other "MMORPGs" out there how they did copying those WoW experiences in an unrefined way but with better graphics.

I think the main difference is that WoW follows the eternal progression scheme to the extreme.

GW does not. And there is nothing wrong about it. But somehow they are going to change this, and then GW will compete with other games who follow this formula. And I would no longer play it, as I believe this to be GW's outstanding quality.

I got bored of item and level hunt after the x-th derivation of this formula. But GW, the game who was supposed to be grind free, suddenly introduced optional stuff that is nothing but pure repetitive grind to the extreme. Yeah.

BTW, regarding sales numbers.
WoW has some 11.5 million active subscriptions. The subscriber number is defined as "active", paid accounts, and it is not equal to sold units, which must be higher. GW on the other hand counts the unit numbers sold, as it is hard to give numbers about player activity. ANet still has logs to check how many people log in per day, but they prefer to release only the awesome sales numbers rather than telling people more meaningful numbers.

Yes, it is, at least as far as computer RPGs go, though to count they really need an actual storyline to take you from beginning to end (which GW has in each of its 3 games, but which WoW only has in WotLK; can't run WotLK, so I'm only going by hearsay on that )

Of course not. The reason WoW's sold more is for one reason: Advertising.

The game is still grind free, unless you don't bother taking the shrine bounties while you quest in Factions (for the mandatory 10k on one side) and on Istan in Nightfall and refuse to do anything other than primary quests and missions, in order to complete the game. What grind exists was only added because people from other MMOs just couldn't seem to understand that once you finish the 4 storylines (perhaps with multiple characters), you were meant to be PvPing or to move on.

regarding sales numbers and active players:
i am not that interested in how many units are sold or how many players are playing the game overall. i'd like to see a small dialog window on login, which states the actual player count on all servers (like in eve online).

That;s a good point. I suspect (although can't prove) some of those WoW sales are actually WoW/Burning Crusade Bundle sales. But yeah, I probably shouldn't have used wikipedia as a source.

But Wikipedia is not the only source to claim that The Sims is the best selling video game of all time. My point was only that if we're using popularity as a game-ranking tool, than the The Sims is the best computer game of all time... and Nintendogs is the best video game.

That right there should kill the "popularity = best" argument.

There are plenty of reasons to argue that WoW is a great game, that it's a best-selling game is not one of them.

I am just excited to see what happens in GW2. With all these dragons awaking and continents flooding, breaking off; this is sure to be one heck of an experience! Not to mention the immersion I will feel because of Ogden's "speach" at the end of EotN.

Well, its not like some diceroll gods in the sky randomly assign games set amounts of advertising, Blizzard chose to advertise WoW a lot, and Anet/ NCSoft chose to advertise Guild Wars hardly at all.

It's more than advertising, of course.

If Blizzard made Guild Wars, it would sell a bazillion copies, too. Blizzard's name has a strong following, from WarCraft, to StarCraft, to Diablo.

I always thought it was funny that some Blizzard lovers bash Guild Wars, even though it was designed by the very people who designed the best Blizzard games!

And, conversely, I wonder why some Guild Wars fans bash Blizzard.

I often wonder what an alternate world would be like if Jeff Strain, Mike O'Brien, and Patrick Wyatt had stayed with Blizzard, and made WoW like Guild Wars.

That's essentially just boosting your stats, something GW does with PvE skills and their corresponding titles.

And I gotta agree, it doesn't last. The only thing it allows me to do is progress through the raids. Years ago a happy WoWing Bryant would disagree with you, but WoW hasn't really been offering me much different these days.

I remember during BC, and how much of a pain in the ass setting up CC targets and killing order was.

Then Wrath came along and I honestly missed that! Now it's just "aoe aoe, don't care about threat because all tanks deal shittons, aoe aoe AOEAOEAOEAEO whoa win game?"

The only thing even remotely challenging these days is the boss dances...but even then...

Most of WoW raiding can be summed up as "Don't stand in the fire" (where fire can be taken to include black or green stuff on the ground).

It's interesting what happened this time around. The 70-80 leveling experience was superb, but after doing most heroics and a couple of casual raids, and seeing PvP more screwed up than it had ever been before (no, really, it was absolutely unplayable), I had no motivation to play any more, so I canceled after a month of playing. No regrets, I had fun for the month or so that I played, but it wasn't compelling enough for me to stick around.

What was more interesting to me is that some friends who were long time WoW raiders, have quit, which is definitely a departure from the norm. I noticed that Warcraftrealms which tracks player activity, showed a massive recent drop in activity, which makes me wonder if they have really gone too far. They seem to have moved to a model where anyone can easily get anything with minimal effort, with anything supposed to be challenging constrained to just titles now.

Not to sound snide, but that sort of reminds me of Guild Wars direction as well...

Not that getting most GW Titles is "challenging", per se, just very, very time consuming.

I wanted to apologize to you for over-reacting to your earlier statement. I think we really agree deep down that popularity /= good.

I know I gave up on WoW rather soon, and I really wanted to get to the later content. But the thought of "grinding" (and that's how it felt to me!) to get to level 60, then 70, then 80 was more than I could handle. Especially for $15 a month.

In the end, I think this is what will force WoW to reboot. As the level caps get higher and higher, the barrier to entry is higher as well. How can WoW continue to attract new players when players have to get to level 70 before enjoying the newest expansion?

You're telling me people bought Blizzard's games based on its reputation only?

Really?

I doubt it. People may have bought WoW out of loyalty. But I highly doubt they would've stayed with the game if the game isn't any good. WoW may not be the best out there. But it has what it takes to keep people playing, and can attract more and more people. That's all that matters in gaming business, don't you think?

Arenanet's cofounders came from Blizzard. This statement fooled me back in the day. Looking at the game now, does it really mean ANYTHING? There's no polishness in GW whatsoever. I don't see any of the Blizzard's games' good qualities in GW (bad qualities on the other hand...). If it were developed by Blizzard it wouldn't have gone this bad. The game at its current state won't sell for **** even with Blizzard or Bioware or Valve or whatever name on it.