Will there be a Guild Wars 3 in the future

[HnRkLnXqZ.1870]

It does not really matter if they add new expansions or create a new game. As long as it refers to something old that existed in the past, it will always face criticism. Some people want to replay the exact same experience as they did in the past. Some people want past-mistakes to be corrected. And some people just want to play something new. All three of them will supply an infinite amount of complaints.

This is not restricted to games. Whenever there is a rework or something new replaces something old, this happens. The complaints are not a problem. They are helpful to find weak-points and contribute to improve the current product. But to make that happen, those complaints should be detailed about what should change and why. Just pointing out "it should more be like the old thing" does not really help to improve things.

Good criticism, which eventually leads to a change, actually requires work. The game can change. It did many times in the past. From my perspective, more than half of the changes and new contend we face in GW2 are inspired by player-feedback. 

[TwiceDead.1963]

On 11/6/2021 at 6:36 PM, HnRkLnXqZ.1870 said:

The game can change. It did many times in the past. From my perspective, more than half of the changes and new contend we face in GW2 are inspired by player-feedback. 

The introduction of mounts is probably one of the best examples for this game. I remember people were vehemently against it on here, saying things like "They'll kill the maps, they'll kill the exploration, there's no need because waypoints exists" etc etc etc...

Now some of the things they said may be true, but there's no denying that overall GW2 has one of the best mount systems in the industry right now.

[Linken.6345]

19 minutes ago, TwiceDead.1963 said:

The introduction of mounts is probably one of the best examples for this game. I remember people were vehemently against it on here, saying things like "They'll kill the maps, they'll kill the exploration, there's no need because waypoints exists" etc etc etc...

Now some of the things they said may be true, but there's no denying that overall GW2 has one of the best mount systems in the industry right now.

I agree and like the mounts.

But I was against mounts since they were not needed you could see that if you compare waypoint density in core/hot against pof.

The game changed to make them needed.

Edited November 7, 2021 by Linken.6345

[Astralporing.1957]

On 11/6/2021 at 6:07 PM, witcher.3197 said:

GW2 uses the GW1 engine.

Untrue. GW2 engine is based on GW1 one, but it's not the same. In fact, one of the reasons given for developing GW2 was that there were many things devs wanted to make that were just plain impossible to do using GW1 engine.

Of course, it was possible to overhaul the engine without moving to a new game, but it'd require changing so much stuff they decided they can as well make a completely different game and adjust some of other base design assumptions they were no longer comfortable with.

The same thing holds true now - the reason for GW3 will not be engine overhaul alone. It might only happen if Anet will ever want to change some core game mechanics, or some underlying assumptions a lot of stuff is based on. As such, you can be sure of one thing - if GW3 would ever happen, it would not be "GW2, but better". It would be a completely different game altogether.

[Astralporing.1957]

1 hour ago, Linken.6345 said:

I agree and like the mounts.

But I was against mounts since they were not needed you could see that if you compare waypoint density in core/hot against pof.

The game changed to make them needed.

Indeed. And while i do like how mounts were implemented, i'd rather see them gone if it would mean the waypoint density would return to the original, Core level. That specific change to map design is something i never wanted to see happening, and something i still consider to be a change for the worse.

[witcher.3197]

7 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Untrue. GW2 engine is based on GW1 one, but it's not the same. In fact, one of the reasons given for developing GW2 was that there were many things devs wanted to make that were just plain impossible to do using GW1 engine.

Of course, it was possible to overhaul the engine without moving to a new game, but it'd require changing so much stuff they decided they can as well make a completely different game and adjust some of other base design assumptions they were no longer comfortable with.

The same thing holds true now - the reason for GW3 will not be engine overhaul alone. It might only happen if Anet will ever want to change some core game mechanics, or some underlying assumptions a lot of stuff is based on. As such, you can be sure of one thing - if GW3 would ever happen, it would not be "GW2, but better". It would be a completely different game altogether.

Doesn't change the fact that GW1 didn't need to be improved or replaced. It was fine as is. Things like jumping aren't a "fix" or an "improvement". If they were, every MOBA and Diablo-like game would have added them by now but guess what, just like GW1 they are designed not to have it and it's fine.

Anet just got attracted to their shiny new ideas like they always do and discarded GW1 and the community without a second thought, because that's the kind of company they are. They were about to do the same to GW2 until NCSoft stepped in.

And the current engine/implementation of systems aren't even improvements in a lot of ways. GW2 build templates are extremely limited and a cash grab vs the unlimited free templates of GW1, we can't even swap the camera to allies when we're dead, and there's no public observer mode for PvP because it's "impossible" whereas GW1 had it for more than a decade now. Overflows are just a more inconvenient version of districts, and so on.

Edited November 8, 2021 by witcher.3197

[costepj.5120]

7 minutes ago, witcher.3197 said:

Doesn't change the fact that GW1 didn't need to be improved or replaced.

But GW1 wasn't improved or replaced; it is still there. If it's your perfect game, then good news, you can still play it.

GW2 was a new game in 2012 and many folks chose to play it instead of GW1; their choice. I personally didn't switch until 2013, because I'd moved to GW1 from WOW relatively late and there were still things I wanted to finish on there.

But once I started playing GW2, I never went back. In my opinion at least, GW2 is far superior in terms of gameplay.

[witcher.3197]

8 minutes ago, costepj.5120 said:

But GW1 wasn't improved or replaced; it is still there. If it's your perfect game, then good news, you can still play it.

GW2 was a new game in 2012 and many folks chose to play it instead of GW1; their choice. I personally didn't switch until 2013, because I'd moved to GW1 from WOW relatively late and there were still things I wanted to finish on there.

But once I started playing GW2, I never went back. In my opinion at least, GW2 is far superior in terms of gameplay.

There was never a real choice, what are you talking about? GW2 is actively developed with hundreds of people working on it. GW1 was abandoned and left to die. Go figure. Most GW1 players simply left the franchise to play other games because GW2 isn't a real sequel and Anet killed GW1 to make GW2.

Anet took every resource they had from GW1 and moved it into GW2, calling it a "sequel" with the promise of "they are going to take everything we loved from GW1 and implement it into the new game" (a lie of course). If that is not the definition of being replaced, I don't know what is.

Edited November 8, 2021 by witcher.3197

[costepj.5120]

Why would GW1 need 100s of developers working on it if it was so perfect that it didn't need any improvement?

And can you share your stats on the games that GW1 players moved to? That might indicate where the real weaknesses of GW1 lay.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

No improvements?  Hmm...the Dye system comes to mind. The Wardrobe system, the persistent maps, the Dynamic Events, Material Storage, Mounts, Vistas, Autoloot, Gold-to-Gems, and a hundred other little (or big) things we now take for granted. 

[Gehenna.3625]

2 hours ago, Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:

No improvements?  Hmm...the Dye system comes to mind. The Wardrobe system, the persistent maps, the Dynamic Events, Material Storage, Mounts, Vistas, Autoloot, Gold-to-Gems, and a hundred other little (or big) things we now take for granted. 

Material Storage does exist in GW1. GW2 has a much bigger cash shop so gold-to-gems is not an improvement over GW1 because it wasn't needed there. The dye system is more extensive but it also has its issues like the textures showing colours differently and never looking quite the same because of it taking lighting into consideration. I mean what's the point of choosing a colour and not looking like it in most areas? So in that sense I prefer the dye system of GW1. It's actually a lot better than people think because you can mix up to 4 dyes to create your own colours as well.

Now there are improvements over GW1, of course there are but there are also downsides compared to GW1 and that's odd. Particularly I hate how the character models are done in GW2. Skirts/dresses are all sitting around the character as if they're wearing an invisible crinoline (hoop skirt), which makes the characters look bigger than they are and is really odd when they are more revealing. They show the women's underwear when you shouldn't be able to see them. My wife calls em peek-a-boo panties because of that.

So yeah I like stuff like mounts and being able to climb/jump over or on top of things and crafting but there are really things in GW2 that GW1 did better, so not everything got improved in GW2, in fact some things are worse than in GW1. But to say that nothing got improved is of course a gross misrepresentation of the truth.

[Cyninja.2954]

6 hours ago, witcher.3197 said:

There was never a real choice, what are you talking about? GW2 is actively developed with hundreds of people working on it. GW1 was abandoned and left to die. Go figure. Most GW1 players simply left the franchise to play other games because GW2 isn't a real sequel and Anet killed GW1 to make GW2.

Anet took every resource they had from GW1 and moved it into GW2, calling it a "sequel" with the promise of "they are going to take everything we loved from GW1 and implement it into the new game" (a lie of course). If that is not the definition of being replaced, I don't know what is.

 

The goal was to create a MMORPG and attract and maintain a higher player base than GW1 allowed. In that GW2 was successful and has been since day 1.

 

We don't know where and how GW1 would be doing today if the studio had stuck with it. What we do know is: it had huge limitations which were so big that a sequel was rather made than change/rework those limitations. That in its self says a lot.

 

As stated by @Astralporing.1957, IF there ever was or is a GW3, it would very likely be just as much a shift from GW2 as GW2 was from GW1. So anyone on the bandwagon or fairy train that a GW3 would be an "upgraded GW2", dream on. That is even less likely to happen than a GW3 to begin with.

 

To anyone reading this in late 2021: this thread is heavily necroed and originated even before the announcement for EoD was made (work on EoD was announced in March of 2020, this thread was created in January of that year). It has been necroed multiple times over the past almost 2 years, in some cases with assumptions which were disproved/contradicted officially shortly after. As such it can be confusing in nature, pay attention to the gaps in-between necros, and honestly ideally just forgotten/ignored.

Edited November 8, 2021 by Cyninja.2954

[Gibson.4036]

I very much appreciate the open world of GW2 over the lobby-based, instanced world of GW1.

I enjoyed playing through GW1, but primarily as a precursor as I waited for GW2 to be released.

Cue elite sneering by GW1 veterans.

At this time, I don't know what the point of a GW3 would be. It seems to me that anyone asking for it should lay out what specific differences would make it worth starting from scratch, otherwise GW3 is just an amorphous placeholder too intangible to really form a conversation.

[mythical.6315]

Exactly what would people be looking for with GW3? Just a modernized clone of GW2?

Would it be the same target audience for the player base?  

[aspirine.6852]

1 hour ago, mythical.6315 said:

Exactly what would people be looking for with GW3? Just a modernized clone of GW2?

Would it be the same target audience for the player base?  

For me I would rather see them go back to the roots of the game and make it more like GW1.  I feel there are not enough games like that(if all) around these days. And perhaps that is because people dont want to, but also because it is hard to make. 

[Gibson.4036]

3 hours ago, aspirine.6852 said:

For me I would rather see them go back to the roots of the game and make it more like GW1.  I feel there are not enough games like that(if all) around these days. And perhaps that is because people dont want to, but also because it is hard to make. 

Can you elaborate? What about GW1 would you like to see?

[Dawdler.8521]

11 hours ago, mythical.6315 said:

Exactly what would people be looking for with GW3? Just a modernized clone of GW2?

Would it be the same target audience for the player base?  

Well... what is the issue with that?

Its really quite simple and I still cant understand people dont grasp this concept: Look at GW2 art ingame, some of the loading screens.

Thats what Anet couldnt create some 16 years ago when GW2 started development because well... it wasnt really possible. Artistically and visually it looks good and has held up well thats not the problem, but its clearly not their vision of what GW2 could have been. And its never going to be with this engine. The scale is just impossible with the way its built.

Can you imagine if GW2 looked like its own art? Imagine if WvW looked like THIS?

I dont know if we'll ever see this but but the negativity surrounding it remains sad. Looking forward to seeing this post in 2 years with confused emotes so one can continue imagining the future.

Edited November 9, 2021 by Dawdler.8521

[The Greyhawk.9107]

For me it comes down to this: GW2 won't last forever and very few of it's design philosophies are shared by most MMOs, if any at all.  When GW2 does finally kick the bucket and it doesn't have a successor I probable won't have a game in this genre that I'll play.  So while I agree it's still too premature to seriously discuss a sequel I do still want that to be an option.

[mercury ranique.2170]

"progress for the sake of progress should be discouraged."

I know who said this, but it is true. You should not desire progress when there is no need to have such progress. There can be a ton of opinions why you think arenanet could do better, but they are irrellevant if the other stakeholders are happy.
There are as usual three stakeholders involved.
1: the owners/investors. They want to make enough profit>
2: the customers. They want to play a fun game
3: the employees. They want to have a job that gives sattisfaction

Each of us has small part in being a single customer (among many). As long as sales are good, profits are good en employees are happy, it is unlikely they will chance course towards a new game.
 

[TwinFrozr.6214]

Saw the topic today on some other site; hope for my life it won't. 15000 hours down the drain = definitely the end of GW for me.

 

If GW3 = GW2, with lossless accounts in a new/polished engine, or whatever GW3 people ask for, then fine. But I guess that's what we're getting with expansions and DX12?

[Gibson.4036]

Nevermind, I misread.

 

Edited November 9, 2021 by Gibson.4036

[LucianDK.8615]

I think people dreaming about GW3 thinks it will 'fix' all issues and grievances with the current game.

[SAMITAS.7304]

Ncsoft does have the name guildwars3 reserved as a site so it is possible. I would dare say its imperative they go gw3 because the game engine currently used has aged. A guild wars 3 in unreal 4 is a must if they want to stay relevant. If they manage to make a gw3 while at the same time fix the current problems they will succeed.

 

 

 

[Gibson.4036]

34 minutes ago, SAMITAS.7304 said:

Ncsoft does have the name guildwars3 reserved as a site so it is possible. I would dare say its imperative they go gw3 because the game engine currently used has aged. A guild wars 3 in unreal 4 is a must if they want to stay relevant. If they manage to make a gw3 while at the same time fix the current problems they will succeed.

Now for the trick, identifying what the "current problems" are that need fixing.

Every thread on this forum identifying a "current problem" has advocates declaring it not to be a problem but a feature. Hey, even the vast majority of the "thank you for this feature" threads have critics declaring them to be problems.

Let's see, can we make a list of things the entire player base will agree on?

1. Don't create content like LW1 that disappears forever.

2. Give players more control over what kind of effects they see (auras, skill effects, etc).

3.....

Yeah,  I'm out of things I can think of to add to that list, and I half expect some contrarian to reply to this with a disagreement over either of the ones I did come up with.

[costepj.5120]

If you give people what they ask for then they have nothing to complain about. And people are only happy when they have something to complain about.