Which will dominate? Guild Wars 2 vs. World of Warcraft Cataclysm

I loved the first one, but so much has changed in a year, i got rid of all my stuff and got kicked from my guild after i came back from a very long break and lots of skills and such have been nerfed so i feel like a noob. The thing i love about guildwars is that it requires skill instead of high levels. I hope they keep the level cap at 20, and if not, 30.

Meh,I should just go back to playing runescape.. (Which is doing alright for itself, theres 134,008 people online right now.)

[QUOTE="punch56"]

So. Alot has been said about both Guild Wars 2 and World of Warcraft Cataclysm.

But- So much has been said about Guild Wars 2, and I personally feel that it is going to end the reign of World of Warcraft as the top MMO

What are your thoughts?

AzatiS

What you said is true. Is Diablo 2 dead? A lot of people are still playing and a new update has been released recently. Of course Diablo 2 is not the best MMORPG out there, but it doesn't mean that it's dead. And when I say a lot of people are still playing it, I mean "A LOT OF PEOPLE". I've logged on recently to see the update and I was quite surprised to see the active community out there... They are all waiting for Diablo 3 XD!

ArenaNet: "We humbly accept this award..."

...

..

Blizzard: "In Warcr..IN WARCRAFT! Hey get back here!!"

Can't compare. Guild Wars 2 isn't an MMO. It will be instanced just like the first one.

A better comparison would be SW:TOR versus WoW:Cataclysm.

Guild Wars 2 main competition will be The Old Republic not Cataclysm. Cataclysm will be out by November most likely whereas GW2 wont be out until the middle of next year.

The level of instancing will determine whether or not I give it a shot. Unless the vast majority of land is persistant and only dungeons/cities are instanced then I will not be playing it. Half of the MMO experience is meeting new people while questing and that is not something you can do with anything near the amount of instancing in GW.

Can't compare. Guild Wars 2 isn't an MMO. It will be instanced just like the first one.

A better comparison would be SW:TOR versus WoW:Cataclysm.

airshocker

1)Instanced doesn't mean it isn't an MMO. What instanced gaming offers is the ability for developers to tell a story that can apply better to an individual player. Instancing allows for player actions to affect the world around them (although I agree Guild Wars 1 didn't do much with that), so rather than a boss you killed coming back to life in 2 minutes for the next team to kill, that boss is dead, period. I would just like to see GW2 do MORE with instancing.

2) I wouldn't count on TOR not having instanced sections as well, it creates a far more immersive story when it is a solo player/ solo player and that players group instead of a mob of different players running around, and Bioware are the kings of RPG stories, they'll try to make it as strong as possible.

Soziele

If everything is instanced, except for the lobby, that is not an MMO. Being able to only play with a handful of people in each instance defies the definition of an MMO.

Never said TOR wouldn't have instanced sections, but it will be much more open than GW2. Bioware isn't going to defy expectations with that one.

[QUOTE="Soziele"]1)Instanced doesn't mean it isn't an MMO. What instanced gaming offers is the ability for developers to tell a story that can apply better to an individual player. Instancing allows for player actions to affect the world around them (although I agree Guild Wars 1 didn't do much with that), so rather than a boss you killed coming back to life in 2 minutes for the next team to kill, that boss is dead, period. I would just like to see GW2 do MORE with instancing.

2) I wouldn't count on TOR not having instanced sections as well, it creates a far more immersive story when it is a solo player/ solo player and that players group instead of a mob of different players running around, and Bioware are the kings of RPG stories, they'll try to make it as strong as possible.

airshocker

If everything is instanced, except for the lobby, that is not an MMO. Being able to only play with a handful of people in each instance defies the definition of an MMO.

Never said TOR wouldn't have instanced sections, but it will be much more open than GW2. Bioware isn't going to defy expectations with that one.

While I agree about the low player count for each instance, it still is an MMO, just a different kind. MMOFPS games typically don't even exist outside of the instance. If your definition of an MMO is an open world game then yes Guild Wars does not fit that perspective. However that is a narrow view of a large genre, not all MMO's work that way.Soziele

Nothing about GW2 is massive, though. There will be no instances where hundreds of players can coexist, except for a single lobby. That's not massive to me. Until that changes, it's not an MMO. Just an online game much like Diablo.

I wouldn't call it narrow, I'd call it being fair. EverQuest is an MMO. WoW is an MMO. Guild Wars? Not so much. And I liked the original. If they made the sequel pay to play and made it a true MMO, I'd play it. But I'm not going to buy something that isn't truly an MMO even though they like to call themselves one.

[QUOTE="Soziele"]While I agree about the low player count for each instance, it still is an MMO, just a different kind. MMOFPS games typically don't even exist outside of the instance. If your definition of an MMO is an open world game then yes Guild Wars does not fit that perspective. However that is a narrow view of a large genre, not all MMO's work that way.airshocker

Nothing about GW2 is massive, though. There will be no instances where hundreds of players can coexist, except for a single lobby. That's not massive to me. Until that changes, it's not an MMO. Just an online game much like Diablo.

I wouldn't call it narrow, I'd call it being fair. EverQuest is an MMO. WoW is an MMO. Guild Wars? Not so much. And I liked the original. If they made the sequel pay to play and made it a true MMO, I'd play it. But I'm not going to buy something that isn't truly an MMO even though they like to call themselves one.

Can't compare. Guild Wars 2 isn't an MMO. It will be instanced just like the first one.

A better comparison would be SW:TOR versus WoW:Cataclysm.

airshocker

[QUOTE="Soziele"]While I agree about the low player count for each instance, it still is an MMO, just a different kind. MMOFPS games typically don't even exist outside of the instance. If your definition of an MMO is an open world game then yes Guild Wars does not fit that perspective. However that is a narrow view of a large genre, not all MMO's work that way.airshocker

Nothing about GW2 is massive, though. There will be no instances where hundreds of players can coexist, except for a single lobby. That's not massive to me. Until that changes, it's not an MMO. Just an online game much like Diablo.

I wouldn't call it narrow, I'd call it being fair. EverQuest is an MMO. WoW is an MMO. Guild Wars? Not so much. And I liked the original. If they made the sequel pay to play and made it a true MMO, I'd play it. But I'm not going to buy something that isn't truly an MMO even though they like to call themselves one.

@Ragingbear505

When you act a little bit more respectfully, I'll respond to you.

Actually, it will be an MMO. The devs have stated that repeatedly, but also note that there will still be instancing, but for dungeon and storyline purposes. GW2 differs from GW1 in so many ways that the two themselves are hardly comparable, so it's not wise to judge the sequel based on its predecessor. All that being said, the game will still have no monthly fees, so it really isn't in direct competition with either Cataclysm or SWTOR anyway. WoW will still dominate, but I would expect GW2 to attract many players - both old and new to the MMO genre, and be successful. That's really all that matters.Vazsco

Just because the developers say it's an MMO doesn't make it so. Just because I say I'm a woman, my male genitalia proves otherwise.

Unless I can play in a zone with more than a handful of players, it's not an MMO. It's an instanced multiplayer game much like Diablo.

arenanet have stated that battled in the mists will contain upwards of 100 players. i can't possibly know the future so i can't state whether that will really be the case, but i think its quite likely.Kh1ndjal

That sounds like a multiplayer PvP mode. I get things like that from non-MMOs.

GW2 is not a mmo. or... If GW1/2 is a mmo then diablo 1,2, warcraft3, warcraft 2... any game with a "lobby" is a mmo.

Anyway they advertise it as "free" and "mmo" because they want more people to buy it. But it still dont make GW1 or GW2 a mmo.

-

[QUOTE="Kh1ndjal"]arenanet have stated that battled in the mists will contain upwards of 100 players. i can't possibly know the future so i can't state whether that will really be the case, but i think its quite likely.airshocker

That sounds like a multiplayer PvP mode. I get things like that from non-MMOs.

I seriously doubt it'll be more successful. It's a bit of a shame too since GW2 is a sequel and Cataclysm is an expansion. From what I've read on mmo-champion Cata might be much better than Wrath and TBC,

Guild Wars 2 will demolish WOW easily, it's the people that haven't read up about Guild Wars 2 that don't realise how amazing it's going to be, it shall revolutionize the genre.

blueflame8

GW2 is not a mmo. or... If GW1/2 is a mmo then diablo 1,2, warcraft3, warcraft 2... any game with a "lobby" is a mmo.

Anyway they advertise it as "free" and "mmo" because they want more people to buy it. But it still dont make GW1 or GW2 a mmo.

KalDurenik

[QUOTE="KalDurenik"]

GW2 is not a mmo. or... If GW1/2 is a mmo then diablo 1,2, warcraft3, warcraft 2... any game with a "lobby" is a mmo.

Anyway they advertise it as "free" and "mmo" because they want more people to buy it. But it still dont make GW1 or GW2 a mmo.

Birdy09

[QUOTE="Birdy09"][QUOTE="KalDurenik"]

GW2 is not a mmo. or... If GW1/2 is a mmo then diablo 1,2, warcraft3, warcraft 2... any game with a "lobby" is a mmo.

Anyway they advertise it as "free" and "mmo" because they want more people to buy it. But it still dont make GW1 or GW2 a mmo.

Vfanek

[QUOTE="Vfanek"][QUOTE="Birdy09"] How is it different from World of Warcraft? MMO does not = persistant world... that is logic made by elitest that want games like WoW to feel special. All people do in WoW once level capped is stand around in ogrimmar touching themselves over thier gear, other than that PvP and PVE is all instances.... just like Guild Wars, both have 3D lobbies.... one just more so than the other. Thats the nature of theme park mmos.Birdy09

to be fair, though, instanced content makes up about 5% of WoW's total content.

Guild Wars content is 95% (if not entirely)instanced; you meet in a city, form a group, and venture out into your own private part of the world.

I think that is the point of what he is trying to make.

In every MMO I've played from Everquest, Anarchy Online, Everquest 2, WoW, Fallen Earth, and City of Heroes you do the same thing in every game. You go to a population center to form a group, you leave said population center with said group to complete goals. They might as well have been instanced. Any interaction with random people in the persistant gameworld is either non-existant or so confrontational as to not be fun. Ragingbear505

Wow that's a really narrow view. I've joined several of the guilds I've been in long term because I've met peoples alts while questing in the wild and struck up a friendship, not to mention a good number of people I used to group with on a regular basis. Similarly (at least on a PvE servers) some of the most fun PvP I've had has been open-world where someone gets in a fight and then both parties call in reinforcements and it turns into a mid scale battle between 40 or so people. Granted you do get griefing and unenjoyable confrontation in some cases, but I would take that any day as long as outdoor areas are fully persistant. That is what defines MMOs in my opinion, if everything is instanced then its not a true MMO, it is on par with Diablo and I'm not paying for something like that when their are plenty of alternatives.

Guild Wars 2 will be great, I'm looking forward to it, but Cataclysm will just eat its face alive.

GW2 doesn't have a chance at taking out WoW, ToR imo will be much more successful than GW2 and not even it will kill WoW.... as previous post have said the only thing that will kill WoW is another mmo by blizzard or WoW 2

Is this topic a joke? GW2 taking on WoW? Thats like Floyd Mayweather stepping in the ring with Wladimir Klitschko. The only MMO that is even going to come close to WoW is The Old Republic.

[QUOTE="Birdy09"][QUOTE="Vfanek"]You're one to talk with your 700 hours clocked in on WoW. Bit sad you wasted so much of your life? Not to mention you don't even know what makes an MMO an MMO, is Planescape Torment a dungeon crawler as well?mrbojangles25

to be fair, though, instanced content makes up about 5% of WoW's total content.

Guild Wars content is 95% (if not entirely)instanced; you meet in a city, form a group, and venture out into your own private part of the world.

I think that is the point of what he is trying to make.

I don't really care if one or any of the MMO's out there make it.

Simply stated is this:

1. All sith and jedi mostly go away in the lore about the time of episode 4. Your character won't make a big impact.

2. I'm level 85 with maxed out gear and xxxxxxx achievement, and I still cant get into xxxxxx Instance because my Gearscore is one point below whats needed. I also cant tank it cause my defense and hit percentage is not at cap! Oh Noes! No one likes me now.

3. I am now a walking furball of death, rawr! I also can pet my allies to bring them back to life! Yay me!!

I was not trying to be a smarty pants, but you get the idea.

I only care if they make the games good, regardless you will buy them if your a fan and you have a taste for MMO's. If you don't then the GMs won't be able to sleep at night and the producers will QQ all night long.

o.o

I don't understand why people still call Guild Wars an MMO. They marketed it as an MMO before it was released, then when people actually got to play it, they knew it wasn't an MMO and the people who work for the company started calling it a CORPG or some crap.

If you call Guild Wars an MMO, you are putting it in direct competition with World of Warcraft and then you can start comparing both games and you'll see why Guild Wars would have many shortcomings as an MMO game.

I don't understand why people still call Guild Wars an MMO. They marketed it as an MMO before it was released, then when people actually got to play it, they knew it wasn't an MMO and the people who work for the company started calling it a CORPG or some crap.

If you call Guild Wars an MMO, you are putting it in direct competition with World of Warcraft and then you can start comparing both games and you'll see why Guild Wars would have many shortcomings as an MMO game.

-Unreal-

[QUOTE="-Unreal-"] Massivly Multiplayer Online RPG ... the only difference is the missions/worlds are put into instances...Birdy09

Then it's not massive. Massive implies 100s of people occupying the same area, not every group of 5 occupying a different instance. The cities are nothing more than lobies for a coop RPG, not any different than Hellgate London.

http://www.gametrailers.com/game/guild-wars-2/11916

Games Con footage, shows that gameplay is much more action oriented. You cast spells while moving, can dodge attacks by rolling, and it would seem that the game features some background character creation features like social status that play into the story arc. Voice acting is pretty awful though.

Edit: Watch Part 4...is that...is that a persistent world? Oh **** I see a large area with quest givers, monster encounters, and other players running around.

[QUOTE="Birdy09"][QUOTE="-Unreal-"] Massivly Multiplayer Online RPG ... the only difference is the missions/worlds are put into instances...SerOlmy

Then it's not massive. Massive implies 100s of people occupying the same area, not every group of 5 occupying a different instance. The cities are nothing more than lobies for a coop RPG, not any different than Hellgate London.

My idea of massively multiplayer goes a bit like this:

On high pop servers I would say most of the high level IC zone at peak times would push 100 and when Cataclysm rolls around you can bet most of the low level zones will too, WG as you already stated as well, and Dalaran will have at least 100-200 in the evening, probably more if WG is about to start. You could also see in upwards of 100 in the same area on WHO during big PvP events before it started to decline.

The point though is that in true MMOs the zones can hold that many whereas games like GW you have no option other than 5 people in a team per zone. Which makes it ridiculous to call it an MMO.

EDIT: I completely agree with -Unreal-

On high pop servers I would say most of the high level IC zone at peak times would push 100 and when Cataclysm rolls around you can bet most of the low level zones will too, WG as you already stated as well, and Dalaran will have at least 100-200 in the evening, probably more if WG is about to start. You could also see in upwards of 100 in the same area on WHO during big PvP events before it started to decline.

The point though is that in true MMOs the zones can hold that many whereas games like GW you have no option other than 5 people in a team per zone. Which makes it ridiculous to call it an MMO.

EDIT: I completely agree with -Unreal-

SerOlmy

Guild Wars 2 has persistent areas as well. Watch these videos and determine if the game is really as awful as everyone seems to think.

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=27424947&page=0

Personally I think the combat and events alone make it better than most of the crap out there now.

Ragingbear505

I don't think GW was terrible, I played it for a few months, I just don't consider it a true MMO and I went back to WoW for the reasons indicated above. If the sequel is going to be mostly persistant (again my definition of MOSTLY is only the cities, dungeons, and battlegrounds have multiple instances) then I will definitely give it a shot. But if that is not the case then I'm not interested.

No MMO will ever dethrone WOW and here is why

- Many people are already invested in their characters

- People have friends and guilds in WOW and the idea of leaving them for another game possibly all on your own is disheartning

- WOW has had over 5 years to fix its bugs, polish the game and add new quests and things to do

Notice how I didnt say because WOW is a superior game than all other MMOs and this is because its truly not. Alot of these MMOs add fresh and new ideas that WOW hasn't thought of, but people always stick with WOW because they spent years playing the game and are good at it and all their friends are playing it. Then 6 months later when these games die due to lack of subs and support; WOW takes their ideas and assimilates it into itself. Its almost remarkable but sad because by the end of the day everyone will still be playing WOW.

Also with news that Guild Wars 2 is being developed for consoles as well, I expect it to fail even harder.

No MMO will ever dethrone WOW and here is why

- Many people are already invested in their characters

- People have friends and guilds in WOW and the idea of leaving them for another game possibly all on your own is disheartning

- WOW has had over 5 years to fix its bugs, polish the game and add new quests and things to do

Notice how I didnt say because WOW is a superior game than all other MMOs and this is because its truly not. Alot of these MMOs add fresh and new ideas that WOW hasn't thought of, but people always stick with WOW because they spent years playing the game and are good at it and all their friends are playing it. Then 6 months later when these games die due to lack of subs and support; WOW takes their ideas and assimilates it into itself. Its almost remarkable but sad because by the end of the day everyone will still be playing WOW.

Also with news that Guild Wars 2 is being developed for consoles as well, I expect it to fail even harder.

NanoMan88

Wow after watching the combat video it sure as hell looks like a lot more fun to play a caster than WoW. Combat in general looks a lot more fun, really at this point the only thing tempering my interest is how much instancing there will be. Looks liek the cities for sure are, but I'm cautiously optimistic that the out door areas will be fully persistent. The visuals looks pretty spectacular form what I'm seeing... at least for an MMO that is.SerOlmy

[QUOTE="NanoMan88"]

No MMO will ever dethrone WOW and here is why

- Many people are already invested in their characters

- People have friends and guilds in WOW and the idea of leaving them for another game possibly all on your own is disheartning

- WOW has had over 5 years to fix its bugs, polish the game and add new quests and things to do

Notice how I didnt say because WOW is a superior game than all other MMOs and this is because its truly not. Alot of these MMOs add fresh and new ideas that WOW hasn't thought of, but people always stick with WOW because they spent years playing the game and are good at it and all their friends are playing it. Then 6 months later when these games die due to lack of subs and support; WOW takes their ideas and assimilates it into itself. Its almost remarkable but sad because by the end of the day everyone will still be playing WOW.

Also with news that Guild Wars 2 is being developed for consoles as well, I expect it to fail even harder.

-Unreal-

LOL may I know what MMOs were there at the time WOW came out? Then MMOs were played by a few people and played very differently from WOW. WOW wasnt sucessful immediatly might I add; it used to be a very hardcore game. Then they made it so accesible than everyone and their grandmother could play it. Which they do.

Ultima, EQ, and Anarchy Online were all fairly popular (not by WoW's standard) but their main problem was that they were far more hardcore than WoW was even in its heyday. I played Anarchy Online for 2 years, taking 4-5 months to get a character to the maximum level with XP penalties upon death and no resurrection spells was extremely frustrating. EQ and UO were even worse from what I have heard. SerOlmy

[QUOTE="-Unreal-"][QUOTE="NanoMan88"]

No MMO will ever dethrone WOW and here is why

- Many people are already invested in their characters

- People have friends and guilds in WOW and the idea of leaving them for another game possibly all on your own is disheartning

- WOW has had over 5 years to fix its bugs, polish the game and add new quests and things to do

Notice how I didnt say because WOW is a superior game than all other MMOs and this is because its truly not. Alot of these MMOs add fresh and new ideas that WOW hasn't thought of, but people always stick with WOW because they spent years playing the game and are good at it and all their friends are playing it. Then 6 months later when these games die due to lack of subs and support; WOW takes their ideas and assimilates it into itself. Its almost remarkable but sad because by the end of the day everyone will still be playing WOW.

Also with news that Guild Wars 2 is being developed for consoles as well, I expect it to fail even harder.

NanoMan88

LOL may I know what MMOs were there at the time WOW came out? Then MMOs were played by a few people and played very differently from WOW. WOW wasnt sucessful immediatly might I add; it used to be a very hardcore game. Then they made it so accesible than everyone and their grandmother could play it. Which they do.

Here's a quote I found on the web:

"World of Warcraft has sold-through an estimated 280,000* copies at retail on day-one, selling more units in one day than what was previously thought to be the overall cumulative size of the European MMORPG market. "

If you consider WoW's initial sales as bad, that only enforces the view that people saw how good the game was through reviews, media and word of mouth and decided to try it themselves. I don't even think there was a trial when it came out, yet it still rose in sales rapidly. WoW was never made less hardcore (if you're talking about PvE raiding) until probably the reduction of raid sizes, which wasn't for a good long time.

The Burning Crusade expansion broke PC game sales records for most copies sold in a 24 hour period. (this was before it was even out in China)

[QUOTE="NanoMan88"]

[QUOTE="-Unreal-"] Why did so many people come from other MMOs they had invested time into to go to WoW then? If a better game comes, people will play it. Saying they won't is an excuse to try and backup your point that WoW isn't superior to other games of the same genre without giving reasons.-Unreal-

LOL may I know what MMOs were there at the time WOW came out? Then MMOs were played by a few people and played very differently from WOW. WOW wasnt sucessful immediatly might I add; it used to be a very hardcore game. Then they made it so accesible than everyone and their grandmother could play it. Which they do.

Here's a quote I found on the web:

"World of Warcraft has sold-through an estimated 280,000* copies at retail on day-one, selling more units in one day than what was previously thought to be the overall cumulative size of the European MMORPG market. "

If you consider WoW's initial sales as bad, that only enforces the view that people saw how good the game was through reviews, media and word of mouth and decided to try it themselves. I don't even think there was a trial when it came out, yet it still rose in sales rapidly. WoW was never made less hardcore (if you're talking about PvE raiding) until probably the reduction of raid sizes, which wasn't for a good long time.

The Burning Crusade expansion broke PC game sales records for most copies sold in a 24 hour period. (this was before it was even out in China)

I said it already, WOW was more sucessful because the previous MMOs that were out very hardcore; as another user said; harsh penalties for dying, soloing attempted suicide etc. WOW made things more accesible; does this make it a better game? no. Also the sales dont really mean anything, Warhammer online had 750K preorders and look how that game turned out :D