I think GW could actually survive a GW3

[derd.6413]

> @"zealex.9410" said:

> > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > > @"videoboy.4162" said:

> > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > > @"videoboy.4162" said:

> > > > > I wonder if they could go a different route than expected, and make Guild Wars 3 by moving Guild Wars 2 onto a new engine. After getting that engine ready, they could have all our progress and such from Guild Wars 2, but continue the story as Guild Wars 3.

> > > > That's not a new game. That's an engine upgrade.

> > > >

> > > > If you make a new game, you will end up changing a lot more than just "upgrading" the game engine. Remember, that gw1->gw2 was supposed to be just that - an engine change to allow them to do things old engine didn't allow for. It's just that once they started tinkering, they decided that there were a lot of other things they wanted to change as well. The end result was, well, not something a lot of players wanted. I'm pretty sure that there's still a lot of veterans thinking that there were a ton of things that the previous game did better.

> > > >

> > > > And of course, once you change things too much, any idea of account continuity between games becomes problematic. It requires a lot of work, for often dubious results. As such, it's generally better to start afresh with a clean slate, with perhaps just a few perks (like HoM bonuses) given to old players.

> > > >

> > > > The problem is, of course, that most players do _not_ like ideas of player wipes and starting afresh. Not when they put a lot of time and effort to get to where they were at. As such, you can probably get away with it once. You are unlikely to be able to push it through twice.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > I know. I was just saying to update the engine and call the next expac "Guild Wars 3."

> >

> > In other words, pull a fast one on people buying what they think is a new game but it turns out to be the old game with an update?

> >

>

> Iirc ff14 also under the same treatment. Worked out pretty well for them.

 

iirc ff14 was originally panned by everybody for being a shit game and the current one was designed to adress all the issues the Original version had (which was basically everything) and has little in common with the Original game.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"derd.6413" said:

> iirc ff14 was originally panned by everybody for being a kitten game and the current one was designed to adress all the issues the Original version had (which was basically everything) and has little in common with the Original game.

Exactly. At the time there were only two choices - either completely remake the game, or shut it down (and probably go bankrupt, they were really close to that point then). If not for the fact that the second option was hardly appealing for anyone, devs and players alike, they would never try something so desperate.

 

 

[Tommo Chocolate.5870]

> @"Leablo.2651" said:

> > @"Tommo Chocolate.5870" said:

> > > @"Leablo.2651" said:

> > > > @"Tommo Chocolate.5870" said:

> > > > > @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > > > > > @"Eme.2018" said:

> > > > > > > @"Gehenna.3625" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Lord Trejgon.2809" said:

> > > > > > > > yes, for ~~most of playerbase~~ **me and some others here on the forum** optimalisation (or rather lack of thereoff) is most important factor when asking for new game engine

> > > > > > > Fixed that for you. Don't want anyone accusing you of speaking of majorities you cannot prove.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Well, either the majority of the player base is indeed having problems with the game's optimization or Gw2 has a really rich player base with godly PC's since I have an above average computer and still I struggle to get stable FPS, a sign of poor optimization.

> > > > > >

> > > > > Except in life things aren't usually either or... This binary style of thinking is part of the problem. Loads of discussions on game forums end up in two sides and there usually are more sides to it.

> > > > >

> > > > > Take your comment for example.

> > > > > You can only see the options that a majority has issues with the optimization or most people have godly PC's as you put it.

> > > > >

> > > > > But that's an over-simplification. Some people don't care about graphics that much, some people don't do PvP at all, some people don't care about fps that much. Hell some people you'll have to explain what fps actually is.

> > > > >

> > > > > Also you do not need a godly PC to run this game. You need a good PC when you have a number of requirements. Also you need to have the right combination of hardware to make it work right. I've seen so many people complain with decent computers but one element wrong that creates a bottleneck. Also your internet provided is important and you need the right screen with the right cables etc.

> > > >

> > > > Just to add to this, I'm not even convinced that the problems people have are much to do with their PCs not being good enough. I definitely don't have a godly PC: it's 7-8 years old, with some components even older, and I expect it's below average for a gaming PC (I can't remember the specs off the top of my head). However, I play the game at maximum graphics settings and have only twice had major FPS problems: once when the karka invaded Lion's Arch (which I think was notorious for that anyway), and once in the Warden Amala fight in Istan.

> > >

> > > That depends on what you consider to be a "major" FPS problem. Did you measure it? Engine optimization is not a matter of opinions.

> >

> > By "major" I mean it was low enough for me to notice that the movement wasn't smooth and lasted long enough for it to affect my ability to play the game. While I take your point, I don't think anyone would consider the FPS I have while playing the game to be bad enough to complain about. I'm confident that the people who post about FPS problems on the forum definitely have less stable FPS than me - otherwise they wouldn't have noticed that their FPS is dropping - but at least some, probably most, of them have better PCs than me (based on the specs people have posted and the fact that my PC is old and not that great). From that, I'm concluding that the FPS problems are not just about bad PCs versus good PCs.

>

> I am saying that without providing us context for what you consider to be good enough, it appears you are making a baseless assumption about what performance other people are getting from their PCs. That will be safest conclusion until you provide your measured FPS.

 

I'm going to have to eat my words on this one. Having measured my FPS, I'm getting 20-35, usually 25. I've looked through old forum posts by people complaining about FPS, and while some of them are much lower (single figures or low teens, which is what I was basing my assumptions on), many of them are in the 20-40 range.

 

Now I'm wondering if there's something wrong with my eyes/brain, because 25 FPS looks perfectly smooth to me...

[Lord Trejgon.2809]

> @"Tommo Chocolate.5870" said:

> I'm going to have to eat my words on this one. Having measured my FPS, I'm getting 20-35, usually 25. I've looked through old forum posts by people complaining about FPS, and while some of them are much lower (single figures or low teens, which is what I was basing my assumptions on), many of them are in the 20-40 range.

>

> Now I'm wondering if there's something wrong with my eyes/brain, because 25 FPS looks perfectly smooth to me...

 

I'd take in here risk of making assumption that you are just one of people old enought to be used to play in times when this was normal FPS to expect of a game - as in not in younger generation who got overly used to 60+ stable fps everywhere and are freaking out everytime it drops. (yes it's noticeable, yes, it's below standard nowadays, but no it doesn't have to be gamebreaking universally for everyone)

 

(now to those other people I have cut out of nested quote becaue it was getting kinda ridiculous)

yes, engine optimisation is not matter of opinions, but "major FPS issue" can vary greatly between users - I have seen some claiming "major FPS issue" when they dip 5 fps below 60, and I have seen people having no issue playing at 20, and I have seen few that would only consider it "major" issue when it drops to single digit number.

 

PS. depending on setting, place and amounts of players in proximity my fps are everywhere from betwen 13 and 45, and I rarely notice that drop myself, until I get down to 5 - it may have something to do with nature of content I'd be doing when such heavy drops occur - I may not be noticing it due to being overly focused on gameplay going on.

 

PPS. at least our characters speed/recharges etc. is not calculated in frames as it was in some other games I have played, where the only time game was working asintended for everyone is if everyone had perfect constant 60 fps all the time, with any change in any direction affecting everything either positively or negatively........ that would be messy then xD

[Tommo Chocolate.5870]

> @"Lord Trejgon.2809" said:

> > @"Tommo Chocolate.5870" said:

> > I'm going to have to eat my words on this one. Having measured my FPS, I'm getting 20-35, usually 25. I've looked through old forum posts by people complaining about FPS, and while some of them are much lower (single figures or low teens, which is what I was basing my assumptions on), many of them are in the 20-40 range.

> >

> > Now I'm wondering if there's something wrong with my eyes/brain, because 25 FPS looks perfectly smooth to me...

>

> I'd take in here risk of making assumption that you are just one of people old enought to be used to play in times when this was normal FPS to expect of a game - as in not in younger generation who got overly used to 60+ stable fps everywhere and are freaking out everytime it drops. (yes it's noticeable, yes, it's below standard nowadays, but no it doesn't have to be gamebreaking universally for everyone)

 

I think that's accurate. I started playing PC games in 1994 (and games on more primitive computers before that). 25 FPS was probably pretty good in the '90s. Meanwhile, someone has just started [a thread](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/59110/fps-in-gw2-compared-to-2019-games "a thread") complaining that they're "only" getting 63 FPS in GW2, but 200 in Unreal Tournament 4! I wonder if they can really tell the difference...

 

> (now to those other people I have cut out of nested quote becaue it was getting kinda ridiculous)

> yes, engine optimisation is not matter of opinions, but "major FPS issue" can vary greatly between users - I have seen some claiming "major FPS issue" when they dip 5 fps below 60, and I have seen people having no issue playing at 20, and I have seen few that would only consider it "major" issue when it drops to single digit number.

 

I think that was actually Leablo's point - I'm not having major FPS issues because I have comparatively low standards for what counts as a "major FPS issue".

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Tommo Chocolate.5870" said:

> I'm going to have to eat my words on this one. Having measured my FPS, I'm getting 20-35, usually 25. I've looked through old forum posts by people complaining about FPS, and while some of them are much lower (single figures or low teens, which is what I was basing my assumptions on), many of them are in the 20-40 range.

>

> Now I'm wondering if there's something wrong with my eyes/brain, because 25 FPS looks perfectly smooth to me...

From my experience real problems don't start until FPS drops below 10. Only once it gets into single digits that you start seeing slowdowns, freezes or slideshows. All the other problems are generally caused not by low FPS, but by high ping.

 

 

[videoboy.4162]

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > @"videoboy.4162" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > @"videoboy.4162" said:

> > > > I wonder if they could go a different route than expected, and make Guild Wars 3 by moving Guild Wars 2 onto a new engine. After getting that engine ready, they could have all our progress and such from Guild Wars 2, but continue the story as Guild Wars 3.

> > > That's not a new game. That's an engine upgrade.

> > >

> > > If you make a new game, you will end up changing a lot more than just "upgrading" the game engine. Remember, that gw1->gw2 was supposed to be just that - an engine change to allow them to do things old engine didn't allow for. It's just that once they started tinkering, they decided that there were a lot of other things they wanted to change as well. The end result was, well, not something a lot of players wanted. I'm pretty sure that there's still a lot of veterans thinking that there were a ton of things that the previous game did better.

> > >

> > > And of course, once you change things too much, any idea of account continuity between games becomes problematic. It requires a lot of work, for often dubious results. As such, it's generally better to start afresh with a clean slate, with perhaps just a few perks (like HoM bonuses) given to old players.

> > >

> > > The problem is, of course, that most players do _not_ like ideas of player wipes and starting afresh. Not when they put a lot of time and effort to get to where they were at. As such, you can probably get away with it once. You are unlikely to be able to push it through twice.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > I know. I was just saying to update the engine and call the next expac "Guild Wars 3."

>

> In other words, pull a fast one on people buying what they think is a new game but it turns out to be the old game with an update?

>

 

Yes and no. It would be more along the lines of how they sell the current expansions, but include the base game free. The GW3 "expansion" would include GW2 on their upgraded engine, so people didn't lose all their stuff. Then the main part would be Guild Wars 3, with the story moving forward in some big way. I guess it'd be more like GW2.5. lol

 

It just seems like they could do a lot more with a better engine (armors, classes, new races, etc.) I'm not saying I have the best solution, I was just trying to think of something that would be a compromise between keeping the old game and starting a brand new one from scratch.

[Blue.1207]

The reported sole reason that GW1 was abandoned in regards to development was that there were simply too many factors to balance by the games end. The developers felt that they could no longer add content/skills to the game and keep balancing it as such. This is why they scrapped Utopia, and moved dev assets to EotN, while simultaneously working on GW2.

 

Guild Wars 2, depending on how elite specs are handled with expansions in the future, may very well approach this balance point. I don't think however, that it will trigger the spark that is needed to start creating Guild Wars 3, but rather, a soft cap for content, with few events being supported once current/future LS issues tie up. We're beyond the era of MMORPGS. What we have now, with how ultra casual the average gamer is, will probably be the last great MMO wave in regards to gaming. Watch what will happen with WoW classic, despite it's grandiose stature, it will do well, but still fall within a niche of players who hanker for a simpler, yet more in-depth form of gaming, while simultaneously playing other games on the side. In fact, I know many people who are eagerly awaiting the next great RvR game, just so they can finally jump ship and cut the cord with GW2.

 

Just be thankful you were here to experience it.

[Aridon.8362]

To give you a perspective, we can only currently see only a quarter of the map of Tyria. We're still missing Cantha which is Asia land past the icy northern hemisphere and what lies east of the blazeridge mountains. Mike O Brian explicitly stated as well that Gw2 will be the last guild wars game.

[zealex.9410]

> @"Aridon.8362" said:

> To give you a perspective, we can only currently see only a quarter of the map of Tyria. We're still missing Cantha which is Asia land past the icy northern hemisphere and what lies east of the blazeridge mountains. Mike O Brian explicitly stated as well that Gw2 will be the last guild wars game.

 

Where did he state that?

[Dami.5046]

Guildwars has always been about grind to a greater or lesser degree, so why do people think a GW3 if it happened wouldn't be the same? Getting a couple 100 gold for me here is nothing for the 10m faction I had to 'grind' out for that kurzick title in GW1. Purely an example, but there's no hope if people already think GW2 is a grind fest.