Jump to content
Asura

Guild Wars 2 - RLLMUK server: "Desolation"

Recommended Posts

After a disappointing absence from E3, NCSoft have finally unveiled in-engine and concept art footage of Guild Wars 2 and I must say, I'm really excited by it. This has been floating around the online folder for a bit, but I thought I'd stick it in here so more people would see it.

http://www.guildwars2.com/en/ (Trailer, with some in-engine footage interspersed)

Eurogamer also have a preview with gameplay info:

http://www.eurogamer...ars-2-preview_4

The main hilight of the video for me was the presence of many of the locations I remember from GW1, taken up to a new standard visually. I was concerned that they'd throw a lot of that out, but whilst it does look very different, there are some locations that I instantly recognise (Ascalon, Kryta, the Great Northern Wall).

Most importantly for many who passed over GW the first time round, there is apparently going to be a shift away from instancing and a move towards the game having more of a persistent world similar to other MMOs. They also maintain, however, that there will be no sub fee - so I've no idea how they intend to do this. One example is that they're going to do some kind of open-world PvP.

There are going to be races to choose from now, appears to be the Humans, Charr, Norn, Asura and the Sylvari, who are a new race. It's also thought that the original 6 classes will return (Warrior, Ranger, Monk, Elementalist, Mesmer and Necromancer), along with subclasses similar to the first game, but the expansion classes (Assassin, Ritualist, Dervish and Paragon) won't appear until later, perhaps again in expansions.

I really can't wait for this. I was a massive fan of GW1 and from that video alone I'm already a day one purchase.

So as not to spoil the trailer, I'm going to spoiler the next bit - also, it does spoil slightly one element of the end of the Eye of the North, so if you're about to finish it, then perhaps you shouldn't read it.

The end of Eye of the North seems to be clear - the Great Destroyer has awoken, as one of the ancient dragons - presumably Drakkar and the other dragons visible in the original GW are on the move (those of you who played GW1 might remember the frozen creature beneath Drakkar Lake, as well as other fossilised dragon remains in the world - it appears they weren't actually fossils at all! Some clever visual storytelling going on there. Most importantly though, the Kingdom of Orr, which sank during the time of the Searing in the first game has risen from the bottom of the ocean - so shit's going to hit the fan in a big way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm I loved Guild wars I just feel like I have outgrown this genre a bit now, like can I really be arsed starting another RPG again from scratch. Seems to be a bit umming and arring too about there being less instancing, personally I didn't mind it in the original, altough things did get a bit lonesome at times though and most of the bots were completely useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm I loved Guild wars I just feel like I have outgrown this genre a bit now, like can I really be arsed starting another RPG again from scratch. Seems to be a bit umming and arring too about there being less instancing, personally I didn't mind it in the original, altough things did get a bit lonesome at times though and most of the bots were completely useless.

The AI of those friendly henchmen and heroes did improve as the game went on though. By the time Heroes were introduced in Nightfall you could do all but the most difficult parts of the game with them, and could certainly see through the campaigns.

Also, normally I'd totally agree. I'm actually finding it hard to get excited about The Old Republic for the same reasons - those instanced locations in TOR seem really impressive, but they might lack their lustre the 20th time you do that instance (a la WoW). One of my favourite things about Guild Wars is that you only have to do everything once.

Considering you could get to max level in Guild Wars in 2 weeks playing hardcore or a month casual, and then could get through the campaign without going on for too much longer, hopefully the sequel will stick to that ethos and won't be a timesink if you want to get anywhere (the Gametrailers article says that's one of the developers' main concerns).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't wait for this. Being able to roll a top level character without having to level it first, and the sheer amount of thought, skill and especially co-operation needed to make a good team, made the original spectacular for PvP. It was no mmo, but i really don't want one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't wait for this. Being able to roll a top level character without having to level it first, and the sheer amount of thought, skill and especially co-operation needed to make a good team, made the original spectacular for PvP. It was no mmo, but i really don't want one.

In my case, one of the major things wasn't rolling the max-level characters (I never did that really). It was being able to change your character's loadout, atrributes etc. without having to pay, or earn points, or anything crap like that. If I wanted to change my Ranger from an offensive character designed to interrupt enemy abilities into a defensive character with a pet wolf I could do so instantly, and change back and forth as many times as I wanted for no cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looks fab! You gonna roll an Asuran, Asura?

Nah. Never really liked them in EotN - that being said, they look different in that trailer to how they previously were.

It's all about the Norn :D

medium_435199822_b465121c10_o.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gorgeous trailer, really sweet.

Wasn't it? GW seems to use a fairly simple engine, much like WoW, but still manages to create some really gorgeous graphics. GW2 looks to be more of the same, as some of those landscapes were fantastic (particularly the snowy bit).

Really looking forward to this, assuming it's the same payment model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wasn't it? GW seems to use a fairly simple engine, much like WoW, but still manages to create some really gorgeous graphics. GW2 looks to be more of the same, as some of those landscapes were fantastic (particularly the snowy bit).

Really looking forward to this, assuming it's the same payment model.

I read an interview somewhere that they are still sticking to the buy it and play for free approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wasn't it? GW seems to use a fairly simple engine, much like WoW, but still manages to create some really gorgeous graphics. GW2 looks to be more of the same, as some of those landscapes were fantastic (particularly the snowy bit).

Really looking forward to this, assuming it's the same payment model.

I did love the mix of concept art and real-time engine footage - also I used to play the original Guild Wars when it came out. I've got a hankering for this too. No sub fee too! Weee!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wasn't it? GW seems to use a fairly simple engine, much like WoW, but still manages to create some really gorgeous graphics. GW2 looks to be more of the same, as some of those landscapes were fantastic (particularly the snowy bit).

Yeah, that's true. I think it's because Guild Wars has brilliant concept art, and a great visual style. I like WoW's stylised look, and think it works for WoW, but I much prefer Guild Wars' slightly more realistic characters and less eclectic (but no less rich) colour palette. I also think Guild Wars has brilliant concept art and tremendous direction in its art style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would removing the instancing work? I thought that was one of the best things about the pick-up-and-play nature of Guild Wars, you never had to worry that someone else had just farmed an area you were heading too, as it was all there just for your party.

Anyways, from that trailer it's looking good. I hope they expand the character creation tools more and allow for a bit more customisation of characters armour / weapons etc (just visually).

/dance

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MMOSite.com have put up a monster 7 page feature on Guild wars 2, encompassing all the information we know about the game and lore so far.

It’s nothing new, but if you haven’t been keeping up with the slew of interviews and articles this would be a great way to catch up.

Check out the feature here

Well worth a read :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New trailer up on the site, detailing the choice of "races":

http://www.guildwars2.com/en/

For those that don't know or can't be arsed to watch, they've went with a set of races this time round (GW1 only had humans) - in addition to the humans this time, there are the Charr, the Norn, the Asura and a new race to GW lore called the Sylvari.

The trailer has a lot of new footage and looks impressive. My only concern is that whilst the locations seem much grander (a difficult feat over GW1) and much larger, the characters don't seem much more detailed in some shots there and the animations for the humans, I'm pretty sure, are identical to the ones from GW1 (particularly the main character's running animation). As the game is still a long way off though, they're probably just re-using assets to allow a long buildup of PR info.

Still really looking forward to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been looking forward to this since it was announced. I saw the original trailer at GDC and thought the engine looked great. The only things that have me a bit worried are:

1) No quests, but what seem like random events as you walk along where you can choose to participate

2) From what they originally said, they were going to abolish the 20 level cap and increase it to 80 or remove it altogether. This could potentially be good if done right, but I found the original game enjoyable as while there was no challenge in getting your character up to 20, it was finding a perfect balance of skills and working together in a team. This sounds more of a "you vs the world" approach with teamplay coming second.

Still, otbher than that though I can't wait. :D Oh, and when it is released, we'll have to set up some rllmuk groups to do some quests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is an awesome trailer, shows quite a lot when you dissect it too, including lots of jumping in the town full of big-eyed midget things.

That music when they go to the Charr, it's amazing but isn't it stolen from somewhere else? LOTR maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This sounds more of a "you vs the world" approach with teamplay coming second.

If this is true I will be very sad. I absolutely adored the teamwork involved in the first. It meant I could play a class completely dedicated to pissing people off, and nothing else ever lets me do that :x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If this is true I will be very sad. I absolutely adored the teamwork involved in the first. It meant I could play a class completely dedicated to pissing people off, and nothing else ever lets me do that :x

The problem with the first game is that outside PvP, most people never even considered joining up with others...

GW was a great game which was mis-sold by it's marketting and it never really recovered from that. It's not an MMO and it's not a PvP-focussed game but it was sold as both to the detriment of it's great PvE aspects and it's almost "Baldurs Gate - Co/Op action edition" potential.

GW2 looks to be MUCH more abitious and so I guess it's walking into more complex waters (e.g. going up against WoW again) rather than just building on what it did so well before.

Still - I guess a game which has an online aspect and fails to bother using it as effectively as GW did needs to change somehow. Honestly, there are times I forget that there are other players in GW...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Interview with MMORPG.com

Some choice quotes:

The biggest differences include a fully persistent world, fully 3D engine, a less complex combat system with fewer overall skills, multiple playable races, and separate world servers. Each of these differences has an enormous impact on every decision we make from there.

One example of this was how the decision to have multiple playable races impacted the way we created armor for the game. In Guild Wars 1, every single profession had armor and animations that were specific to that profession. Multiplying the number of professions with the number of races in the game made it next to impossible for us to maintain the same armor system in Guild Wars 2. Because of this, we went to a much simpler armor system where professions use light, medium, or heavy armor.

When a player creates a character in Guild Wars 2, they will be able to answer many questions about their personal character history. These answers will help determine your personal story in the game. As many fans have theorized, one of the first things you choose is a 'subdivision' of your race, which provides a more personal feel to your character's history. For the humans, that means their ancestry--Elonan, Krytan, Ascalonian and Canthan--and also their social status as gentry or commoners of the city of Divinity's Reach. For charr, it primarily means their legion, whether Blood, Ash, or Iron. The asura choose between the three most respected colleges of learning; Synergetics, Dynamics, and Statics. The sylvari follow the path of their seasonal cycle, or the time of day in which they awakened, being Dawn, Day, Twilight or Night. The norn choose their personal totem, and may choose to walk in the path of bear, snow leopard, raven or wolf. From these and other initial determinations, a wealth of personalized storylines develop, so that each player in the game experiences a story that is individually tailored to their character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not an MMO

I still maintain that it IS an MMO. It doesn't fit within the narrow definition of an MMORPG that the ex-WoW/EverQuest/SWG crowd have, but that's its strength, not its weakness.

Basically, I tend to work on the idea that a game doesn't need to have a persistent world to be an MMO - it just needs to have persistent elements and the ability to play online with a potentially large playerbase. Conversely, if you look at something like WoW or SWG, due to their servers, if you meet someone else who plays it, you can't even guarantee that you can quest together with your characters. At least in Guild Wars everyone from any region can play with everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M'lud I will (for the last time I hope) present the case for why GW is not an MMO (and I'd like to add that I still think it's an awesome title regardless).

Massively Multiplayer, to me, indicates that a 'massive' number of players can play together, trade and form an economy and so on - usually in a world which offers some degree of persistance or at least shared experience (e.g. one world - or at least one world for all players on the same 'server').

GW does not offer this - it's world is instanced for small groups and the only areas where 'massive' number of players can gather are no more than lobbies. The world is not persistant in any way - everytime you leave an area it's reset to a random state (with a new set of monsters etc.) nor does the world offer any real form of economy (there is only limited trade of selected items and no auction house concept whatsoever).

GW is a team-based fantasy action game with lobbies which use your avatar rather than menus and lists - Diablo has never been referred to as an MMO and it's almost identical to GW in it's world/multiplayer abilities.

I rest my case - again saying that I love GW but it just isn't an MMO and selling it as one was like selling it as a PvP game - a mistake which cost them real money - especially early on...

I trust that they've either rectified this 'instance' concept (unlikely as they're aiming to make another subs-free game here) or they'll sell it more appropriately this time (e.g. keep it FAR away from any comparison to WoW, basically).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still maintain that it IS an MMO. It doesn't fit within the narrow definition of an MMORPG that the ex-WoW/EverQuest/SWG crowd have, but that's its strength, not its weakness.

Basically, I tend to work on the idea that a game doesn't need to have a persistent world to be an MMO - it just needs to have persistent elements and the ability to play online with a potentially large playerbase.

I think that makes CoD an MMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... selling it as a PvP game - a mistake which cost them real money - especially early on...

I don't know what it 'cost' them. But I know that I only ever played 4v4 and GvG (two of the main pvp types) in Guild Wars and none of the story, and I loved every minute of it. It was the best PvP I've ever been involved in. Actually I probably didn't enjoy the first 2 weeks or so because it had a learning curve like a brick wall, but once you clambered over it it was fantastic.

I also know people who've pretty much played it like a single player rpg and loved every one of their minutes too. And people who did something inbetween. I liked that you could play it how you want, and get what you want out of it, without being tied to one playstyle. By which I mean I hate levelling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that makes CoD an MMO.

It has MMO elements, yes. I have no issue with thinking of games like Chrome Hounds and Tom Clancy's EndWar as MMO games too.

Again, "persistent world" does not equal MMO, even though admittedly it's a common feature in most MMO games.

M'lud I will (for the last time I hope) present the case for why GW is not an MMO (and I'd like to add that I still think it's an awesome title regardless).

Massively Multiplayer, to me, indicates that a 'massive' number of players can play together, trade and form an economy and so on - usually in a world which offers some degree of persistance or at least shared experience (e.g. one world - or at least one world for all players on the same 'server').

GW does not offer this - it's world is instanced for small groups and the only areas where 'massive' number of players can gather are no more than lobbies. The world is not persistant in any way - everytime you leave an area it's reset to a random state (with a new set of monsters etc.) nor does the world offer any real form of economy (there is only limited trade of selected items and no auction house concept whatsoever).

GW is a team-based fantasy action game with lobbies which use your avatar rather than menus and lists - Diablo has never been referred to as an MMO and it's almost identical to GW in it's world/multiplayer abilities.

I rest my case - again saying that I love GW but it just isn't an MMO and selling it as one was like selling it as a PvP game - a mistake which cost them real money - especially early on...

I trust that they've either rectified this 'instance' concept (unlikely as they're aiming to make another subs-free game here) or they'll sell it more appropriately this time (e.g. keep it FAR away from any comparison to WoW, basically).

I don't want to derail the thread with this debate, as it's an old and over-discussed one - but I still do think of it as an MMORPG. Guild Wars does have a persistent economy (the vendors prices fluctuate - it's streamlined but it is dynamic). Also there were other persistent elements such as the "favour of the gods" concept, or the "dominant faction" mechanic in Factions.

Given, it's hardly enough to pretend there is a great deal of persistence - but even in something like WoW, players have very little ability to change and affect the world in which they live. Players can't build cities etc.

I can see why some people don't think of it as an MMO, but as it allows players to easily party with thousands of others from all over the globe, that's enough for me.

Still, we digress... I'm interested to see how they're going to handle that GW2 is to have "less instancing". I don't see how it's possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've completed two of the three campaigns in Guild Wars and have done approximately five minutes in PvP. I have been in some guilds but probably only done about 5% of my questing with guild members because people weren't on at the right times for me. I did about 50% of my quests with Pick Up Groups, and the rest with computer henchmen.

PUGs in Guild Wars are a very mixed affair, just as in other MMOs, but more often than not I'd get a good group and have had some excellent random experiences. The biggest hurdle for PUGs was, and is, finding groups in the first place. They did put in a mechanism to make yourself publically available for a group etc. but the most effective way is still to spam the local talk channel with Looking For Group messages. It's a shame really.

The campaigns were superb, especially the first one which included pre-Searing Ascalon. For the time, it was graphically beautiful and very rich in terms of characters and story. There are still people who just play the pre-Searing quests over and over.

I think one of the main reasons I like Guild Wars so much is that there is no monthly subscription, so you never feel guilty about not playing it (like you can do with WoW). However, a side effect of this is that the Guild structure is a bit flimsy, with people coming and going from the game much more quickly than they do with WoW or another subscription-based MMO. I'll be interested to see what the approach is for Guild Wars 2.

Guild Wars does make a great "single-player MMO", which is a bizarre term in itself, but it is possible to do large chunks of the game with computer-controlled henchmen, just using the chat channels and trading/quest hubs as a bolt-on social network.

Really looking forward to Guild Wars 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything Tyagi said - it really is a lovely game, I love the customisation and adaptation of your character, I love that the game offers henchmen to permit larger and more complex battles but it's lack of basic things like an auction house, a LFG system etc. means you often do forget other people even play it.

Other complaints are limited to the 'corridor' maps (which are less obvious in the expansions) and the lack of gear (I did 14 of my 20 levels with the same kit!!) but they are just signs of being 'different' rather than downsides as such.

The lack of subs means you do dip in and out - I made one char when I got it, lost interest before even passing the Searing and left the game for eons. I checked her earlier this week and she has 4 birthday gifts in her bags!!

The developers admitted - not that long after launch - that they made a mistake playing-up the PvP so much, to the extent a lot of people didn't even realise it had a PvE element (and there's a LOT of it!!) OK - it does taper into a silly level of grind (which the expansions diminish again) but you can't say there isn't plenty to do...

It's not an MMO tho - nor is COD etc. - it's just a really good multiplayer action RPG with PvP bits and it's no less enjoyable for it.

Hell - the MMO really just means 'WoW' nowadays anyway - everything else is sliding into the ditch so it's not a tag you'd seek and they'll be crazy to even court it for GW2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Other complaints are limited to the 'corridor' maps (which are less obvious in the expansions) and the lack of gear (I did 14 of my 20 levels with the same kit!!) but they are just signs of being 'different' rather than downsides as such.

The lack of subs means you do dip in and out - I made one char when I got it, lost interest before even passing the Searing and left the game for eons. I checked her earlier this week and she has 4 birthday gifts in her bags!!

The developers admitted - not that long after launch - that they made a mistake playing-up the PvP so much, to the extent a lot of people didn't even realise it had a PvE element (and there's a LOT of it!!) OK - it does taper into a silly level of grind (which the expansions diminish again) but you can't say there isn't plenty to do...

Certainly the corridoor maps did start to disappear as time went on. They're always present (some areas in Eye of the North are like this) but there are one or two areas in Ascalon in the original game that did take the piss, with pathways that almost crossed, only to make you go round another half-mile because your character couldn't climb down a rocky slope. GW2 though is going to have 3D platformer elements; characters are going to be able to jump, vault and swim (the swimming being the important one here, apparently there are going to be undersea cities etc).

As for the dip-in, dip-out thing, I think many on the forum have the impression I play Guild Wars a lot - not so. I've always had it installed ever since launch, but I've only finished the first game, and am mid-way through Factions and Nightfall, and near the end of EotN. I only have 2 max-level characters, and only one of those has the skills and kit that he really needs for both good PvE and PvP, and even that character would still need a lot of work to be truly competitive.

I like it primarily BECAUSE I can dip in and dip out. I tend to play in bursts, a few days here, an hour there, a quick alliance battle one afternoon then not re-visit it for a month... It's great having that kind of freedom with an MMO, and not worrying about either letting down your guild because you're going to a party in real life and can't be online for a raid, or that you're paying a sub and have hardly played the game this month.

You're right about the PvE/PvP thing though to an extent. Recently they've divided up many skills into two categories, so now you have Weapon of Warding and Weapon of Warding (PvP), for example - and they have different durations and slightly different abilities; there are also some skills that can only be used in PvE. This is because they eventually found it impossible to balance all the skills in the game for both PvE and PvP.

In many respects, GW2 having slightly less skills is actually going to be an improvement. There were many skills in GW1 that were practically useless, or so similar to another skill to be of little use. Given, every skill could be used well by some kind of clever build, but having fewer, slightly more flexible skills will probably overall make things better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.