[MUD-Dev] Guild Wars ?

[Max Battcher]

Colin Fuller wrote:

> I keep seeing people speak of the lack of fee as one of the
> selling points of this game. I think that ArenaNet/NCSoft has done
> a good job marketing on this one. The game will have a periodic
> fee, it will just be in the form of expansions. In order to
> compete in the PvP, it will be necessary to keep up with the
> Joneses and get the new higher level cap/items/spells/etc. The
> overall cost may be less than a "regular" MMOG, but 1) the
> gameplay will be less "massive" and 2) I still see the cost as
> being substantial.

I think it boils down to much more control of the oppurtunity cost.
I personally am not a huge fan of PvP or Fantasy roleplaying.  I
will play such things from time to time, but not if I have to pay a
monthly fee.

The task for ArenaNet will be in convincing me that I want the
expansion packs.  If they don't offer the substantial content that
intriques me, then I won't buy them.  If they don't offer anything
new or of interesting difference from what I'll soon get bored of,
then I won't buy them.

A monthly cost doesn't even give me that decision.

> I also tire of people labeling this game as an MMOG. I see very
> little difference between Diablo II and Guild Wars. Both had an
> online lobby where players meet (Battle.Net and ArenaNet's hosted
> portion of the game, respectively). The only difference is in the
> interface (chat rooms vs avatar-based). Was Diablo II labeled as
> an MMOG? No. Should it have been? I don't think so. Same thing for
> Guild Wars.

I think that the line is getting blurrier (or has always been
blurry, but largely ignored).  As someone else mentioned, City of
Heroes uses a large number of instanced areas (all of the major
missions), and it is becoming a normal phenomena in MMOGs to
instance missions and major storylines to keep people from
interfering with each other.  The only recent MMOG I've seen that
has moved against the trend is Matrix Online, which just has a ton
of "virtual space" instead.

I think that what really needs to be reevaluated is what "massively
multiplayer" means.  Is it really possible to do "massively
multiplayer" quests, missions, or hunts?  I haven't seen such a
thing.  The massive multiplayer has always meant more an extent to
which you can find a potential group of partners and you trade goods
and such with.  By that definition does Diablo II + Battle.Net
count?  Maybe.  Is that really a problem?  How does conflating such
games into the label "MMOG" hurt?  As far as I can tell, it merely
adds a few more games that people liked as further examples of what
the genre can be.  I have friends that still play Diablo II, for
instance.

--
--Max Battcher--
http://www.worldmaker.net/
The WorldMaker.Network: Now more Caffeinated!
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev