Should there be a GW 3? - [Merged] - Page 8 — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home Guild Wars 2 Discussion

Should there be a GW 3? - [Merged]



  • subversiontwo.7501subversiontwo.7501 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 19, 2020

    @Taril.8619 said:

    @uberkingkong.8041 said:
    Most of this stuff is all stuff WoW does, the little things. The big thing is
    Alliance vs Horde
    How's that done you ask?
    Open World PvP

    WoW hasn't done "Alliance vs Horde" in literal years.

    Even it's lore has gotten kind of wishy-washy in regards to the actual war between the 2 factions. With Taurens, Trolls and Blood Elves being "Horde" mostly for convenience, while the Forsaken are off doing their own thing and are barely even part of the Horde (With actions that make the Warchief(s) question them)

    Meanwhile, there's been a lot of introduced neutral groups that feature races from both factions and are dealt with by both factions. Even Thrall, the ex-Warchief became like BFF's with Varian Wrynn (The King of Stormwind, whom is himself, friend of Orcs what with being Lo'Gosh and fighting for his freedom in the gladiator battles in Dire Maul alongside Broll Bearmantle a Night Elf Druid and Valeera Sanguinar a Blood Elf Rogue)

    They've tried to emphasise "Alliance vs Horde" in a few expansions, but it often falls short because of how their story takes precedent (Such as how in TBC it was Alliance + Horde vs Demons, WotLK it was Alliance + Horde vs Lich King, Catacylsm it was Alliance + Horde vs Deathwing, Pandaria it ended up being Alliance + Horde vs Garrosh, WoD it was Alliance + Horde vs alternate universe Horde, in Legion it was Alliance + Horde vs Demons and BFA it has been Alliance + Horde vs Elder God)

    @uberkingkong.8041 said:
    If they do make GW3, this should be the main reason why. Open World PvP

    FPS games, what game is making big $$$?
    Oh its an open world FPS, 100 players in it?
    Ok ok ok

    Current fads are whatever is most streamable.

    Right now, it's Battle Royales. Before that it was MOBA's (5v5 matches on a specific map)

    Though Counter Strike has always been highly popular (Another 5v5 game on small maps)

    Also, Among Us has started picking up in popularity which is a 4-10 player "TTT" style game that pits randomly selected "Imposters" vs innocents.

    Thus, it won't be long until Battle Royales also fall out of popularity like MOBA's did and a new genre becomes the new fad (Meanwhile, CS:GO will continue to be one of the most profitable games due to the consistent tournaments it holds and thus streaming coverage)

    @subversiontwo.7501 said:
    That can be summed up in the overarching discussion of this thread: Whether there will be a GW3 can be seen in two ways - a continued game or a continued name. I'm pretty sure that ArenaNet has tried and will keep trying to make a GW3 in name. I do not think that ArenaNet are looking to make a GW3 that is a next-generation GW2 (the way GW2 at least could be argued relates to GW1). Even in the very broad strokes of how you could define MMO drawn out in this thread - I don't think they are looking to make more MMO. Not just because of how MMO's do not need to be rebranded as new games aside from sales hype but mostly because the company is not interested and built to do it anymore, in general. The IP is the only value that the studio has to the publisher by now, I'm sure. Whether that is a good thing or them repeating mistakes again is another question.

    From a business standpoint, a GW3 would be beneficial to ANet. As it would allow for an additional revenue source, as opposed to relying entirely on GW2 as their sole income (With maybe a few GW1 sales here and there as people go back to play them)

    GW3 however, shouldn't be an MMO. Such a thing is simply too costly to produce and would then start to compete with GW2 directly (As few people would actively play both MMO's and fewer still would actively spend money on both)

    GW3 being a single player RPG (Maybe with some multiplayer functionality) would put it in a place where it doesn't compete with GW2 and would be a way to generate some additional profit and potentially highlight GW2's existence (So people from outside of GW franchise can play it, have fun and then look to spend more time in the GW universe with GW2)

    After that, they can decide on if they want to make a new MMO (Be it GW4 or a new IP) or continue with GW2 and addtional non-MMO titles.

    Though, as I mentioned earlier in this thread (Before it got merged), I don't know if they have the resources to be able to hire a second team to work on an additional title. Be it an MMO or not.

    I've been away over the weekend so this reply may come a bit late. Yes, in an ideal situation or even in a typical successful situation that would make sense. The long-running successful MMO's and the studios behind them have always handled their stuff like that. Keeping an MMO flagship and branching out into less ambitious side projects.

    The issue with that for GW2 is that GW2 essentially already is the GW3 you describe. Those other companies have branched out from a position of strength in their flagships and have been able to do those things without cheapening or sinking their flagships. That also means that, while always damaging, they have afforded to experiment with those side projects and cut their losses without taking dents on the flagship.

    That is not the case for GW2 where Anet have seemingly abandoned 3/4 typical MMO modes (instanced and open PvE and PvP) and pushed down many of the specific features that that make an MMO an MMO or makes GW2, GW2 (though in Anets defense some of the latest few maps have returned to a better balance of dynamic events, world bosses and strikes in a combination that makes for good MMO and core GW2 design). The development going into GW2 is mostly that of a single player RPG and then making a standalone single player RPG is more questionable if we are to assume non-competition and potential loss of players and income. It is clearly not as sound a business practise then.

    I also think that is what most players remark upon. I don't think anyone here would criticize a branching out into a GW1-esque or even more single-player, story-driven RPG or adventure game if it came from a position of strength and health in GW2. If GW2 was kept a flagship that could fuel other projects and still get its due attention. Where 75% of the game wasn't constantly left behind or 100% of the game was left behind at times.

    If Anet wants to climb back to a position of where they can have those business practises of the likes or WoW, WoT and EVE for example, they would first need to give proper representation to all their modes again and from there also look into how they can modernize their MMO (as those other games have) and also branch out into other games. They are quite far away from that now and instead of such practises I am pretty certain that we are looking more at Anet being more of a single-player adventure studio these days and that a GW3 single player adventure RPG will be replacing GW2, possibly going back to an RPG with some MMO elements of GW1. However, those elements may be even more restricted than they were in GW1 because of the people involved with the titles. That would sum up this thread because I believe alot of players of GW2 or general MMO would like to see such a direction where GW2 is given due attention and delivery until MMO development and branching is possible again. Some players from GW1 who have remained purists may argue for a return to that. What we have today and may see replacing a GW2 is possibly even less than that because the overall attention both PvP modes get in GW2 is less than that of what PvP seemed to get in GW1.

  • Altion.9576Altion.9576 Member ✭✭✭

    Only if I can Import my characters to that game.

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    Games have sequels - thats how developer studios work.

    The situation for single player games and MMORPGs is not the same. It is normal for a popular single player game to have a sequel, because the sequel will be "riding" the wave of initial game's popularity, and at the same time it will not be a competition to the previous title. If anything, it will enhance it and can extend its longevity. In case of MMORPGs it's exactly the opposite. In this cause the next title would directly compete with the previous one, and, instead of enhancing it, would kill it even faster.
    Additionally, income in single player games model comes from box sales, not from continuous long play, so encouraging players to move from title to title as often as possible is a good move. In MMOs however each such switch runs the risk of losing some players you've already had, so it's generally used only when you have no other choice.

    The whole point of a social game is to play with the people you want to play with, not be forced to play with the people you don't.

  • There is so much more they need to do, need to fix, even starting development on a new game with their cut down team isn't a good idea. If they fixed and improved a lot of stuff the population would rise again. With it coming to Steam it'll most definetly increase from that. The only thing I worry about is, there really isn't a tutorial.

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Kossage.9072 said:
    At least Queen Jennah is decidedly Krytan in ethnicity as we can see in her skin color. :)

    Which is interesting, seeing as she is of Doric's line, which is Orrian in origin.

    @Kichwas.7152 said:
    If roughly a thousand brits showed up in Egypt around the year 1300, it wouldn't matter how 'pushy' they were. In 250 years they simply couldn't breed fast enough to replace the entire Egyptian population. Even if they did it today, it still wouldn't happn.

    If however there were a bit more than just thousand brits, Egyptian population was already divided into two ethnic groups (in Kryta's case: of Orrian and Elonian ethnicity), and a current environmental disaster sunk large part of Egypt, alongside a majority of its population (like the Zhaitan-caused tidal wave did to Kryta), this might be a bit more believable. Especially if the disaster did not hurt those ethnic groups equally (due to them being concentrated around different regions).

    The Ascalonian refugees were a smaller group by a vast margin because so few made it over and their kingdom was not large to begin with.

    We don't know how big Ascalon was, but it probably wasn't much smaller than Kryta originally (it seems that during the conflict between those two kingdoms, Ascalon had the upper hand). And while the initial wave of refugees that left with Rurick probably wasn't all that big, it doesn't mean there weren't any other groups later on.

    The whole point of a social game is to play with the people you want to play with, not be forced to play with the people you don't.

  • Pockethole.5031Pockethole.5031 Member ✭✭✭
    edited October 21, 2020

    I would rather GW2 would be updated to DX12 (by anet). There is no need for GW3 in the next 10 years at least.