There are plenty of current and upcoming games you can play if you’re happy with the prevailing model for MMOs. For everyone else, there’s Guild Wars 2.
And this is why I think SWTOR should just give up already.
Or there is plenty room for both . Especially when there arent that many good sci fi mmos
I'm not sure why you would say that unless it's just a troll comment. First off, SWTOR is more likely to be a success than GW2. You can deny this, but even if you think for certain GW2 will be a better game, SWTOR has a lot more going for it that will allow it to garner more followers, at least initially (ie., It's a Bioware game which is much more commercial than ArenaNet. It's an MMO based off of Star Wars. Being a sci-fi, rather than fantasy MMO, it has less direct competition.) Second thing, dealing with this article and your response, there is nothing listed here that hasn't been done before to an extent. No, no game has done all these things, but there are plenty of things other games do that GW2 won't allow. I know GW2 is gonna be bigger than the base of GW1 was, but that's not saying a lot considering how little content the original GW started off with. We will have to see what level of content is available from the get go and how it compares to the pay-to-play SWTOR, which I would guess will be bigger and have much bigger regular updates. People can bash WoW all they want, but one thing it does do is provide massive updates in between expansions, which wouldn't happen if it were free to play. It will be interesting to compare the updates provided by GW2 and by SWTOR. I should mention I'm just playing a devil's advocate here, as I am VERY excited about the game. However, I get tired of hearing people whine about SWTOR whenever a GW2 article is brought up (or SWTOR article and people bring up GW2). There is plenty of room for both games to exist and both games will be released far enough apart to allow the chance to try both games. So, unless the main reason GW2 is your choice is because you are cheap as hell and can't afford the monthly payment, there is no reason to dismiss one game over the other. I know I plan on giving a good chance to both games.
More followers yes, but that doesn't make it a quality game. It's the same turn based crap that MMO's have been doing forever, and you still have to pay monthly for it. All I'm saying is why buy a game, pay monthly for it, when it's not innovative and it's nothing new. Heck, I seriously believe the original Guild Wars would be funner to play than SWTOR, it looks better than it anyways.
Fair enough, it's your opinion and while I think you are harsh, I can't knock someone's opinion. However, it seems at least a little evident that you haven't looked into SWTOR very much. It's not turn-based, which I think is a phrase/style you are misusing, since turn based would imply that you use a skill, then the enemy uses a skill, then you use a skill. I don't think I've ever played a turn-based MMO, honestly. Unless GW2 is wildly different than the first one, the playstyle is not majorly different than, say, WoW, except you must choose what skills you will "equip." Both games, and SWTOR, are semi-action RPGs with cooldowns. The one thing that SWTOR is doing, that no other game has ever come close to doing on the same scale, is interweaving a massive story and dialogue system into the gameplay. Considering it's Bioware and Star Wars franchise together, I don't doubt the story will be good. A really good storyline that's actually embedded into the game is something I have never seen an MMO successfully do. Many MMOs, SWG, LotRO, WoW, etc. have great back stories and storylines to work with, but were never a big part of the game. The stories would usually involve little more than written text explaining the mission and some storyline missions here and there. SWTOR is expounding on this to a massive degree and I am anxious to see where Bioware goes with it. As for gameplay, SWTOR will not be a major departure from, say, WoW and Rift, but it has plenty of unique aspects (ie., space combat, sci-fi world (guns), instances that involve large outdoor areas and not just buildings/castles/caves/etc., etc.). A game does not need to be an adventure in innovation to the fullest to be entertaining, but only use past innovations in a way that remains enjoyable and fresh. Your last comment is I'm guessing hyperbole, but if you did play the original GW, before any expansions (not doubting you did), you would know pretty much the entire game for a class could be completed in about 15 hours or so, not counting the varying experiences you would get out of the guild pvp, of course. I had fun the first time through, but the non-pvp part became stale far quicker than most MMOs I'm used to (due to the cramped size of the game).
you wrote a good piece but I don't think SWTOR is gonna be good or successful. turn based combat is getting very OLD and anyone who likes the Star Wars universe wants real time combat. I see Guild Wars 2 dominating SWTOR. it's combat has just the right mix to keep action junkies and those not used to twitch gaming happy. Either way i'll be playing TERA as it has even better real-time combat than GW2 and it's actually more of an MMO than GW2 which is a action rpg.
GW2 is gonna be awesome and probably the best of the MMO's coming. But no reason not to have SWTOR too. Especially when GW2 is free to play. I see no reason not to get both. Tho I predict GW2 will grab me long term.
GW2 can't even be considered an MMO. Is more like an action rpg with online
that's a silly claims mmo shouldnt always be equal to clunky almost turn based bore fest . DCUO and city of heroes are full on action games , yet far more accomplished mmos than a boatload of wow wannabes .
There is nothing "massive" about Guild Wars, so it doesn't deserve to be called MMO. Just my thought :P I'm not saying it is better or worse to be what GW is, i'm just saying what GW is not IMO I'll enjoy GW2 as well once it gets released :)
@Balflear87 "There is nothing "massive" about Guild Wars, so it doesn't deserve to be called MMO." Care to elaborate? It looks pretty "massive" to me.
"There is nothing "massive" about Guild Wars" Except there is about GW2 , you're a few years late .
Which is better IMO. It's about time an MMO actually tried to be different.
Regardless, Guild Wars 2 is still an MMO. And I can't wait to play something new and fresh.
Looks like someone forgot the definition of MMO.
Word. I'm glad they're tweaking some of these things. You can tell they've put a lot of thought into what makes a more direct fun streamlined experience. I never played the first one, but this one looks damn fun.
May 2007 Issue #161 of PC Gamer - The world is introduced to a Guild Wars 2 preview. It's been four years, and I still have that magazine in pristine condition. ArenaNet is taking their time with this one, and I know it will be worth the 4+ year wait when it finally releases.
I love their "it's done when it's done" attitude about it. Again, unlike Bioware rushing the hell out of SWTOR, it's not like the market for a sci-fi MMO is going anywhere -.-. My point is, why make something at all when you know it's not your best? Plus I like how Arena Net has done so much and become so different with their new game, even without the fuel of monthly subscriptions. Unlike GW2, SWTOR looks like crap, yet they've spent soooo much money on it and are hoping to regenerate it with subscriptions.
i dont even get your vendetta against swtor so far . GW2 doesnt need to be lumped with swtor trash talking to shine on its own . SWTOR got its own twist that no one required you to like , mind you . It pushes further the story and quest system from the likes of wow , add further cinematic flair ... precisely at the request , so far , of a public expecting and wishing for that . It's not as if a swarm of title is even trying to do the same . While GW2 goes its promising way , and doesnt even look that comparable to swtor . It feels the same to me as if you were trying to compare bioshock and battlefield
It looks all well and good on paper, but in practice is where the true test lies. ... but I know it's going to be awesome, I think they've made a point to differentiate themselves, and they'll put out a quality game.
Pretty sure TOR will have conversation options...I'd hardly say it's something you wont see in other MMOs. Also, why is everyone always against healing? I like healing :(
when it comes to balances healers are often the most major pain . Especially considering that some healers always whine and stomp their foot so they could do more than *gasp* healing . Some games bend to their way , and decide to give them damage and such ... wich are almost never well balanced . It's often either too powerful , given the huge boons healing and protection already are .... or too weak making them a liability inside a group , when they refuse to just stick to healing and buffs . Even guild wars at first was plagued with issues largely because of class balances and tiptoeeing around the gamebreaking advantages of monks or ritualists . Monk balances were often at the root of a few enchanter builds being almost one shooting other classes , or rangers abusing traps or interrupts . Personally i can see why Arena net got enough , and decided that there are very few reasons to not simply have most classes with a few healing properties . Instead of just sticking to what's the tradition , just because "if it aint broke dont fix it" , however brittle it feels .
I'm not saying it isn't an interesting concept, I'm just saying not all healers whine about not doing damage. Lots of people like being healers, myself included, and will miss this role in Guild Wars 2. I'm a little worried that without defined roles, the game is just going to be one big disorganized epeen zerg fest over who can outdamage whom. On paper it may seem like a good idea, but let's see how smoothly everything goes once the game is full of 12 year olds.
I think Guild Wars was the only MMO game that gave WoW a run for it's money. I mean look at all the supposed "WoW" killers that have come and gone. Age of Conan-fail, Warhammer-fail, Lord of The Rings-fail, Aion-fail. I'm equally excited about GW2 and reforming my guild there with old and new people. As far as SWTOR being rushed, I heard rumblings about the game back in 2006. Bioware has put a lot of time and effort into SWTOR, so I doubt they will rush the game to market. They've had ample time to sit back and watch those others games get rushed to market. I doubt some of you were there at Age of Conan's launch to bear witness to that clusterfuck. Both games nonetheless will be successful, and I loved both KOTOR games, I played the shit out of both of them on the Xbox and PC with different mods. And I love all Star Wars stuff circa 1000 years before the movies, sorry George, I don't like Ewoks and Gungans, only bad ass Sith Lords and Jedi Knights of The Old Republic era. I played Guild Wars about a week after launch and played till mid 2008. But to be honest, I think Guild Wars will be more successful in the long run with it's free to play plan. And I hope GW2 is very successful and other companies see that and change this pay to play crap. I will be buying both games, so I don't give a damn anyways.
While they didn't approach WoW numbers, LotRO and Aion are far from "fails." They are both still going strong (Aion much more so in Korea than US). Also, Guild Wars was successful, but was nowhere close to WoW in it's entire run. I don't know if numbers were ever given after (doubt they would be a lot higher), but in 2009, ArenaNet said they had sold 6 million games in the Guild Wars series, which includes expansions. WoW has about 11-12 million subscriptions as of now, which I would say puts the total games, including expansions, sold at at the bare minimum of 44 million (I'm sure it's much higher, since there are probably tons of people, like me, who have bought the game and all expansions, but no longer subscribe). Anyway, it's not important for any game to beat WoW to be considered a success. That's like saying any game that doesn't match/approach/beat Call of Duty in sales is a failure.
still instead of being "polite" let's be honest ... saying those games havent failed , is like claiming the latest Medal of Honor is ok with its number when the clear goal was to overpower or at least match COD . Most of those mentioned mmos' goal was to get a much more substantial share of the pie , wich they failed at . At best some of those had a strong start , then bored their audience (often borrowed from tired wow players ) being more of the same "wow experience" , then dwindled back to much more stabilised and inferior numbers . Plenty like LoTR didnt go f2p for no reason , and are more profitable now as f2p for many reasons . They often share the same flawed concept anyway : to replace wow by being a complete or partial clone of it with at best a gimmick twist . A pattern we now seen fail as much with fps and cod . Only a few tried something truly different , and of them , GW1 stands as the only one second to Wow in sales and popularity . It's mostly unimportant i concur , for us ... as we hardly see more than 300 players at once in a mmo session , but still for the sake of argument ... PS :Wow doesnt stand at over 40 millions like you said . It had 12 millions for the original , then around 8 for the first expansion , then 7 then 6 , then around 4 .... those are expansion , not new games anyway , making it at best constantly 12 million players or less . The original guild wars sold 6.5 millions , and it's extensions obviously less but still very well , basically half of WoW's average user base .
All these arguements lol. Guild wars 2 looks great an gameplay wise looks better than swtor an any other mmo comin. But I still plan to buy swtor so I will have both anyway with gw2 being f2p means its no extra expenditure.
imo star wars mmo looks bad really bad i wouldn't want to play it we just need the stinking release date for this game
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.