Will we ever see a Guild Wars 3?

Illconceived Was Na.9781 · July 9, 2018

@"STIHL.2489" said:Often times any mention of a decline in the game, it's funds or population, will be met with some whiteknight kind of justification that the game is older and attrition just happens.It's a fact that all games lose players. Heck, all human social organizations lose players, unless they do something to bring in fresh blood. That's true for MMOs as well as things like political parties, book clubs, and even streaming services. It's got nothing to do with "justification" or "whiteknighting."
...then GW2 is now in downward years,Yes, exactly. Like any MMO.
which means, a GW3, is not only a possibility,That's an interesting point.
but, a necessity. if Anena Net wants to see upward growth again.Except that this doesn't necessarily follow.

ANet has seen upward growth, with each expansion. That won't be enough to completely mitigate the downward trend. Not everyone is cut out to play the same thing for more than five years. The question is: how long can ANet sustain their current business model, with the sort of expansions GW2 has had so far?

You're correct that they can't allow the game to keep losing too many players. But there are many options:

Re-orient the expansions/LS towards those sorts of players willing to overspend in the gem shop. Fewer players spending more money.
Change the nature of the expansions/LS, in a way that is more likely to bring in people besides veterans on hiatus. The inclusion of Raids and Mounts works along these lines (attracting different sorts of players). Was it insufficient because ANet doesn't advertise well enough? Or because people are still looking for more traditional expansions (new races, no matter how cheezy, more instanced content, more maps, more powerful characters,...)
Reduce the size of the company, set more modest goals.
Produce a new game in a different genre (e.g some of the founders were previously involved in franchises that extended their longevity by adding strategy games to their RPG series).
Produce a new game on a different platform, e.g. GW2 polymock for phones.
Sell the company to a bigger studio that can afford the rest of the infrastructure that ANet has always lacked (e.g. more substantive support, underlying tech that can be applied efficiently to multiple games, instead of just one, ...)
And sure, put GW2 into maintenance mode, and start GW3.

Selling the company is clearly among the more difficult because, well, ANet already has a big studio owner. But I think GW3 is just as unlikely in many ways, because it's an incredibly expensive choice to throw away the current tech and start again. Without a guarantee that the new sequel will be popular enough to make it all worthwhile. There are lots of other possible scenarios worth pursuing before they have to make that choice.

ProtoGunner.4953 · July 9, 2018

I rather see a graphical overhaul of the game instead of a 3rd. MMOs usually don't need sequels since they are evolving over the years. The only thing that may help is marketing of a new game so the franchise becomes again more popular. I had people ask me: wow GW2 still exists? Didn't know... a shame.

Raizel.8175 · July 9, 2018

A GW3 wouldn't be that bad, at least in my opinion... GW2 is still too much of a single-player-experience game-design-wise and thus has some fundamental flaws that make it unable to shine as a true MMORPG and which won't get fixed anymore (and judging ArenaNets behaviour, they don't care anyway). But it probably won't happen, so yeah...

Omega.6801 · July 9, 2018

I hope not. If I could keep my progress, I might consider moving on, if my GW2 account becomes worthless I might just as well quit.

Master Ketsu.4569 · July 9, 2018

The thing with MMOs is you can often just update the polygon count and max texture size as much as the engine allows it. And since GW runs on a in-house engine, the limits are who knows.

WoW is an obvious example of this. WoW has received so many graphical updates and hi-res upgrades that it practically could be argued that WoW-2 already exists as something that has been phased in to gradually replace the original game.

Raizel.8175 · July 9, 2018

@"Master Ketsu.4569" said:The thing with MMOs is you can often just update the game as much as the engine allows it. And since GW runs on a in-house engine, the limits are who knows.
WoW is an obvious example of this. WoW has received so many graphical updates and hi-res upgrades that it practically could be argued that WoW-2 already exists as something that has been phased in to gradually replace the original game.

Just updating graphics won't get you rid of fundamental/systematic flaws and won't enable you to implement truly new stuff though.

azizul.8469 · July 9, 2018

i sense guild wars will stop at 2....

Dawdler.8521 · July 9, 2018

@Raizel.8175 said:
@"Master Ketsu.4569" said:The thing with MMOs is you can often just update the game as much as the engine allows it. And since GW runs on a in-house engine, the limits are who knows.
WoW is an obvious example of this. WoW has received so many graphical updates and hi-res upgrades that it practically could be argued that WoW-2 already exists as something that has been phased in to gradually replace the original game.

Just updating graphics won't get you rid of fundamental/systematic flaws and won't enable you to implement truly new stuff though.

... Well except thats what GW2 has done. HoT and PoF maps are faaaar beyond vanilla maps in terms of detail and they added gliders and mounts... And thats just the big things. Lots of smaller features, new stuff and changes. Hell, we had to smack together weapons/armor once to reskin them, remember? Building 2 of the same legendary if you wanted to dualwield something like daggers... For each character.

Anet can implement whatever they want.

Raizel.8175 · July 9, 2018

@Dawdler.8521 said:
@Raizel.8175 said:
@"Master Ketsu.4569" said:The thing with MMOs is you can often just update the game as much as the engine allows it. And since GW runs on a in-house engine, the limits are who knows.
WoW is an obvious example of this. WoW has received so many graphical updates and hi-res upgrades that it practically could be argued that WoW-2 already exists as something that has been phased in to gradually replace the original game.

Just updating graphics won't get you rid of fundamental/systematic flaws and won't enable you to implement truly new stuff though.

... Well except thats what GW2 has done. HoT and PoF maps are faaaar beyond vanilla maps in terms of detail and they added gliders and mounts... And thats just the big things. Lots of smaller features, new stuff and changes. Hell, we had to smack together weapons/armor once to reskin them, remember? Building 2 of the same legendary if you wanted to dualwield something like daggers... For each character.

Anet can implement whatever they want.

Your examples are far too specefic. I'm talking about fundamental issues like the atrocious class-"balance" (combat system), reward-structures, socialization elements, etc.

Yannir.4132 · July 9, 2018

@Raizel.8175 said:
Just updating graphics won't get you rid of fundamental/systematic flaws and won't enable you to implement truly new stuff though.

Some people call them flaws, some other people call them features that raise this game above other MMO's. I tried going back to other MMO's but I just can't anymore. They just feel too restrictive, and some of the systems feel arbitrary. Like gear progression, and new level caps.

Dawdler.8521 · July 9, 2018

@Raizel.8175 said:
@Dawdler.8521 said:
@Raizel.8175 said:
@"Master Ketsu.4569" said:The thing with MMOs is you can often just update the game as much as the engine allows it. And since GW runs on a in-house engine, the limits are who knows.
WoW is an obvious example of this. WoW has received so many graphical updates and hi-res upgrades that it practically could be argued that WoW-2 already exists as something that has been phased in to gradually replace the original game.

Just updating graphics won't get you rid of fundamental/systematic flaws and won't enable you to implement truly new stuff though.

... Well except thats what GW2 has done. HoT and PoF maps are faaaar beyond vanilla maps in terms of detail and they added gliders and mounts... And thats just the big things. Lots of smaller features, new stuff and changes. Hell, we had to smack together weapons/armor once to reskin them, remember? Building 2 of the same legendary if you wanted to dualwield something like daggers... For each character.

Anet can implement whatever they want.

Your examples are far too specefic. I'm talking about fundamental issues like the atrocious class-"balance" (combat system), reward-structures, socialization elements, etc.

Anet has constantly been changing balance, we've gotten totally new reward structures like the reward tracks, the way guilds worked was redone so they where not so exclusive to which you repped, not to mention megaservers allowing play across servers, etc.

ReaverKane.7598 · July 9, 2018

@Raizel.8175 said:
@Dawdler.8521 said:
@Raizel.8175 said:
@"Master Ketsu.4569" said:The thing with MMOs is you can often just update the game as much as the engine allows it. And since GW runs on a in-house engine, the limits are who knows.
WoW is an obvious example of this. WoW has received so many graphical updates and hi-res upgrades that it practically could be argued that WoW-2 already exists as something that has been phased in to gradually replace the original game.

Just updating graphics won't get you rid of fundamental/systematic flaws and won't enable you to implement truly new stuff though.

... Well except thats what GW2 has done. HoT and PoF maps are faaaar beyond vanilla maps in terms of detail and they added gliders and mounts... And thats just the big things. Lots of smaller features, new stuff and changes. Hell, we had to smack together weapons/armor once to reskin them, remember? Building 2 of the same legendary if you wanted to dualwield something like daggers... For each character.

Anet can implement whatever they want.

Your examples are far too specefic. I'm talking about fundamental issues like the atrocious class-"balance" (combat system), reward-structures, socialization elements, etc.

None of those are engine-bound...Poor Balance is simply a question of "human error", for lack of a better term. It's not bound to the system, it's bound to whoever programs the effects of skills.Reward structures can, and have been, restructured easily enough. Are not remotely bound to the client.Social elements are, again not limited by the client, and can be added easily enough, if there's will for it. They have even added recently one very technical aspect of social interaction by allowing you to sit on chairs and stuff around the map. This is probably the social interaction that would be more limited by engine restrictions, and yet was surpassed as a kind of a almost easter-egg kind of thing made by the devs.

Movement and physics (stuff that is bound and limited by the engine) have been restructured and improved at least 3 times:first time, and the ground work for the others, was released with the Labyrinthine Cliffs and the Zephyrite Crystal's movement skills;second time, for HoT and the gliding, mushrooms, that built upon the zephyrite skillsthird time, with mounts for PoF.

Of all the aspects of a game that might require a third instalment, your list mentions none.

STIHL.2489 · July 9, 2018

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:
@"STIHL.2489" said:Often times any mention of a decline in the game, it's funds or population, will be met with some whiteknight kind of justification that the game is older and attrition just happens.It's a fact that all games lose players. Heck, all human social organizations lose players,
unless
they do something to bring in fresh blood. That's true for MMOs as well as things like political parties, book clubs, and even streaming services. It's got nothing to do with "justification" or "whiteknighting."
...then GW2 is now in downward years,Yes, exactly. Like any MMO.
which means, a GW3, is not only a possibility,That's an interesting point.
but, a necessity. if Anena Net wants to see upward growth again.Except that this doesn't necessarily follow.

ANet has seen upward growth, with each expansion. That won't be enough to completely mitigate the downward trend. Not everyone is cut out to play the same thing for more than five years. The question is: how long can ANet sustain their current business model, with the sort of expansions GW2 has had so far?

You're correct that they can't allow the game to keep losing too many players. But there are many options:

Re-orient the expansions/LS towards those sorts of players willing to overspend in the gem shop. Fewer players spending more money.
Change the nature of the expansions/LS, in a way that is more likely to bring in people besides veterans on hiatus. The inclusion of Raids and Mounts works along these lines (attracting different sorts of players). Was it insufficient because ANet doesn't advertise well enough? Or because people are still looking for more traditional expansions (new races, no matter how cheezy, more instanced content, more maps, more powerful characters,...)
Reduce the size of the company, set more modest goals.
Produce a new game in a different genre (e.g some of the founders were previously involved in franchises that extended their longevity by adding strategy games to their RPG series).
Produce a new game on a different platform, e.g. GW2 polymock for phones.
Sell the company to a bigger studio that can afford the rest of the infrastructure that ANet has always lacked (e.g. more substantive support, underlying tech that can be applied efficiently to multiple games, instead of just one, ...)
And sure, put GW2 into maintenance mode, and start GW3.

Selling the company is clearly among the more difficult because, well, ANet already has a big studio owner. But I think GW3 is just as unlikely in many ways, because it's an incredibly expensive choice to throw away the current tech and start again. Without a guarantee that the new sequel will be popular enough to make it all worthwhile. There are lots of other possible scenarios worth pursuing before they have to make that choice.

You have agreed with me that the game is in a natural downward progression, as such, it's best years are behind it, it is not a matter of if it becomes unsustainable, but when. As such, if they ever hope to boost numbers they need to put out a new game.

Ardid.7203 · July 9, 2018

Will we have weapon dyeing, then?Dye-able backpacks?What about multilayered clothing?Medium armor without trenchcoats?More visible weapons for Asura?Diferentiated armor design for race, so they aren't just human armor stretched?Faster armor production?

And this is only by the "fashion" side.

Menadena.7482 · July 9, 2018

@Dami.5046 said:I Hope not.
In a lot of ways I wish they had just progressed GW (1).

Well, at some point any code base just gets to the point where even minor changes take more development time than starting from scratch. Plus they wanted to change it to an MMO.

Dami.5046 · July 9, 2018

@Menadena.7482 said:
@Dami.5046 said:I Hope not.
In a lot of ways I wish they had just progressed GW (1).

Well, at some point any code base just gets to the point where even minor changes take more development time than starting from scratch. Plus they wanted to change it to an MMO.

Yeah I get that. Things change things get better. I get it I get it.It's good thing the memories don't change.

Raizel.8175 · July 9, 2018

@ReaverKane.7598 said:
@Raizel.8175 said:
@Dawdler.8521 said:
@Raizel.8175 said:
@"Master Ketsu.4569" said:The thing with MMOs is you can often just update the game as much as the engine allows it. And since GW runs on a in-house engine, the limits are who knows.
WoW is an obvious example of this. WoW has received so many graphical updates and hi-res upgrades that it practically could be argued that WoW-2 already exists as something that has been phased in to gradually replace the original game.

Just updating graphics won't get you rid of fundamental/systematic flaws and won't enable you to implement truly new stuff though.

... Well except thats what GW2 has done. HoT and PoF maps are faaaar beyond vanilla maps in terms of detail and they added gliders and mounts... And thats just the big things. Lots of smaller features, new stuff and changes. Hell, we had to smack together weapons/armor once to reskin them, remember? Building 2 of the same legendary if you wanted to dualwield something like daggers... For each character.

Anet can implement whatever they want.

Your examples are far too specefic. I'm talking about fundamental issues like the atrocious class-"balance" (combat system), reward-structures, socialization elements, etc.

None of those are engine-bound...Poor Balance is simply a question of "human error", for lack of a better term. It's not bound to the system, it's bound to whoever programs the effects of skills.Reward structures can, and have been, restructured easily enough. Are not remotely bound to the client.Social elements are, again not limited by the client, and can be added easily enough, if there's will for it. They have even added recently one very technical aspect of social interaction by allowing you to sit on chairs and stuff around the map. This is probably the social interaction that would be more limited by engine restrictions, and yet was surpassed as a kind of a almost easter-egg kind of thing made by the devs.

Movement and physics (stuff that is bound and limited by the engine) have been restructured and improved at least 3 times:first time, and the ground work for the others, was released with the Labyrinthine Cliffs and the Zephyrite Crystal's movement skills;second time, for HoT and the gliding, mushrooms, that built upon the zephyrite skillsthird time, with mounts for PoF.

Of all the aspects of a game that might require a third instalment, your list mentions none.

It's true that none of them may be bound to the engine itself. Some of these elements - especially combat and class-balance - are so fundamental though that you can't really change them. I hope we can agree that this game knows no class-balance. If you really want to balance this, you'd have to overhaul the class-system and the gameplay itself, since balance is very much dependent on the specific encounter and you can't just take numbers into account, but also several buffs, utilities, etc. The game lacks coherence and you feel that not just in PvE, but also a lot in PvP and WvW.

...and that's just one problem. You don't know if small changes will break other stuff. Apparently, GW2 has some very weird spaghetti-coding, else stuff like Xera wouldn't be totally broke though the implementation of content that should be totally independent from that specific raid-encounter. I could go on, but I hope I've made my point of view clear.

ReaverKane.7598 · July 9, 2018

@Raizel.8175 said:
@ReaverKane.7598 said:
@Raizel.8175 said:
@Dawdler.8521 said:
@Raizel.8175 said:
@"Master Ketsu.4569" said:The thing with MMOs is you can often just update the game as much as the engine allows it. And since GW runs on a in-house engine, the limits are who knows.
WoW is an obvious example of this. WoW has received so many graphical updates and hi-res upgrades that it practically could be argued that WoW-2 already exists as something that has been phased in to gradually replace the original game.

Just updating graphics won't get you rid of fundamental/systematic flaws and won't enable you to implement truly new stuff though.

... Well except thats what GW2 has done. HoT and PoF maps are faaaar beyond vanilla maps in terms of detail and they added gliders and mounts... And thats just the big things. Lots of smaller features, new stuff and changes. Hell, we had to smack together weapons/armor once to reskin them, remember? Building 2 of the same legendary if you wanted to dualwield something like daggers... For each character.

Anet can implement whatever they want.

Your examples are far too specefic. I'm talking about fundamental issues like the atrocious class-"balance" (combat system), reward-structures, socialization elements, etc.

None of those are engine-bound...Poor Balance is simply a question of "human error", for lack of a better term. It's not bound to the system, it's bound to whoever programs the effects of skills.Reward structures can, and have been, restructured easily enough. Are not remotely bound to the client.Social elements are, again not limited by the client, and can be added easily enough, if there's will for it. They have even added recently one very technical aspect of social interaction by allowing you to sit on chairs and stuff around the map. This is probably the social interaction that would be more limited by engine restrictions, and yet was surpassed as a kind of a almost easter-egg kind of thing made by the devs.

Movement and physics (stuff that is bound and limited by the engine) have been restructured and improved at least 3 times:first time, and the ground work for the others, was released with the Labyrinthine Cliffs and the Zephyrite Crystal's movement skills;second time, for HoT and the gliding, mushrooms, that built upon the zephyrite skillsthird time, with mounts for PoF.

Of all the aspects of a game that might require a third instalment, your list mentions none.

It's true that none of them may be bound to the engine itself. Some of these elements - especially combat and class-balance - are so fundamental though that you can't really change them. I hope we can agree that this game knows no class-balance. If you really want to balance this, you'd have to overhaul the class-system and the gameplay itself, since balance is very much dependent on the specific encounter and you can't just take numbers into account, but also several buffs, utilities, etc. The game lacks coherence and you feel that not just in PvE, but also a lot in PvP and WvW.

...and that's just one problem. You don't know if small changes will break other stuff. Apparently, GW2 has some very weird spaghetti-coding, else stuff like Xera wouldn't be totally broke though the implementation of content that should be totally independent from that specific raid-encounter. I could go on, but I hope I've made my point of view clear.

You clearly don't understand what we're speaking of, and confusing bad implementation of things with the impossibility of them being implemented.Also, it's a fact of building upon old code, eventually you'll get weird "spaghetti code" interactions. Also you don't know if it was unrelated.

Raizel.8175 · July 9, 2018

@ReaverKane.7598 said:
@Raizel.8175 said:
@ReaverKane.7598 said:
@Raizel.8175 said:
@Dawdler.8521 said:
@Raizel.8175 said:
@"Master Ketsu.4569" said:The thing with MMOs is you can often just update the game as much as the engine allows it. And since GW runs on a in-house engine, the limits are who knows.
WoW is an obvious example of this. WoW has received so many graphical updates and hi-res upgrades that it practically could be argued that WoW-2 already exists as something that has been phased in to gradually replace the original game.

Just updating graphics won't get you rid of fundamental/systematic flaws and won't enable you to implement truly new stuff though.

... Well except thats what GW2 has done. HoT and PoF maps are faaaar beyond vanilla maps in terms of detail and they added gliders and mounts... And thats just the big things. Lots of smaller features, new stuff and changes. Hell, we had to smack together weapons/armor once to reskin them, remember? Building 2 of the same legendary if you wanted to dualwield something like daggers... For each character.

Anet can implement whatever they want.

Your examples are far too specefic. I'm talking about fundamental issues like the atrocious class-"balance" (combat system), reward-structures, socialization elements, etc.

None of those are engine-bound...Poor Balance is simply a question of "human error", for lack of a better term. It's not bound to the system, it's bound to whoever programs the effects of skills.Reward structures can, and have been, restructured easily enough. Are not remotely bound to the client.Social elements are, again not limited by the client, and can be added easily enough, if there's will for it. They have even added recently one very technical aspect of social interaction by allowing you to sit on chairs and stuff around the map. This is probably the social interaction that would be more limited by engine restrictions, and yet was surpassed as a kind of a almost easter-egg kind of thing made by the devs.

Movement and physics (stuff that is bound and limited by the engine) have been restructured and improved at least 3 times:first time, and the ground work for the others, was released with the Labyrinthine Cliffs and the Zephyrite Crystal's movement skills;second time, for HoT and the gliding, mushrooms, that built upon the zephyrite skillsthird time, with mounts for PoF.

Of all the aspects of a game that might require a third instalment, your list mentions none.

It's true that none of them may be bound to the engine itself. Some of these elements - especially combat and class-balance - are so fundamental though that you can't really change them. I hope we can agree that this game knows no class-balance. If you really want to balance this, you'd have to overhaul the class-system and the gameplay itself, since balance is very much dependent on the specific encounter and you can't just take numbers into account, but also several buffs, utilities, etc. The game lacks coherence and you feel that not just in PvE, but also a lot in PvP and WvW.

...and that's just one problem. You don't know if small changes will break other stuff. Apparently, GW2 has some very weird spaghetti-coding, else stuff like Xera wouldn't be totally broke though the implementation of content that should be totally independent from that specific raid-encounter. I could go on, but I hope I've made my point of view clear.

You clearly don't understand what we're speaking of, and confusing bad implementation of things with the impossibility of them being implemented.Also, it's a fact of building upon old code, eventually you'll get weird "spaghetti code" interactions. Also you don't know if it was unrelated.

I do think that I know what you're talking about, but I also think that just taking the engine into consideration isn't sufficient. I'm talking about some fundamental design-decisions which certainly won't be changed, even though they ultimately turned into flaws which won't get fixed due to the effort that the fixing would take. Else, please explain.

ReaverKane.7598 · July 9, 2018

@Raizel.8175 said:
@ReaverKane.7598 said:
@Raizel.8175 said:
@ReaverKane.7598 said:
@Raizel.8175 said:
@Dawdler.8521 said:
@Raizel.8175 said:
@"Master Ketsu.4569" said:The thing with MMOs is you can often just update the game as much as the engine allows it. And since GW runs on a in-house engine, the limits are who knows.
WoW is an obvious example of this. WoW has received so many graphical updates and hi-res upgrades that it practically could be argued that WoW-2 already exists as something that has been phased in to gradually replace the original game.