GW3 happening? Job title description. Next-generation of games.

[Malediktus.9250]

> @"LucianDK.8615" said:

> Gw3 would be a sure way to kitten off a lot of customers. It will not happen.

 

Kitten off some existing customers, but potentially gain millions of people who currently don't play GW2 for whatever reason.

[zealex.9410]

Welp rip that.

[ScyeRynn.4218]

I hope they are working on a GW 3. GW 2 is so stale now. Same thing every time. Rinse and repeat. We need new writers, designers, directors, ect. with the same core philosophy and continued storyline.

[Bast.7253]

> @"ScyeRynn.4218" said:

> I hope they are working on a GW 3. GW 2 is so stale now. Same thing every time. Rinse and repeat. We need new writers, designers, directors, ect. with the same core philosophy and continued storyline.

 

Well, with the latest news I read on twitter, it sounds like they've moved a lot of guild wars 2 people off to various side projects. So, perhaps if some of them get moved back, it will feel less stale.

 

And to that note, other than creating a more optimal engine, I don't see how Guild Wars 3 would be beneficial in anyway. They've done a lot of amazing things with the engine they already have, and given the time and resources I'm interested to see how far they can keep pushing it. I think the artists especially have always been some of the best I've seen in the business, especially given how dated the game is and how with each new map it feels like the graphics have improved just from something as small as attention to detail via atmospheric ambience. I.e. - fog and snow, the way the sunlight and shadows hit in Thunderhead Peaks compared to a similar snowy zone like Snowden Drifts. Same engine, but the attention to detail and seemingly small changes here and there have transformed the same snowy premise into something that feels far less flat and stagnant. (Just my personal opinion obviously.) But I think it signifies just how much capability they have with this engine given the right minds and the right passion.

 

As far as the designers, it's a pretty broad term.

 

If we're talking about the ones that design the gameplay, I've always loved the combat in Guild Wars 2 and it's hard to play anything else now that I'm used to the rather robust physics system we have in Guild Wars 2. It's pretty impressive to me, at least. In terms of events and map design, I think they may be suffering a little due to these constant restructurings. Aside from Jahai, Istan, and somewhat Sandswept, I can't say that the other releases have really intrigued me that much or kept me coming back to them. Partially due to the quantity and quality of the events in the other maps. Then again, I tend to favor Heart of Thorns large metas because I get more fun from large-scale player events.

 

I think other areas that could see improvement from a design perspective are things like fractals being added more regularly, raids though I don't participate in them being added more regularly, dungeons potentially being modernized and implemented in a way that the shows that they've really dug deep as to why they are rarely played anymore.

 

 

The story right now is where my biggest concern comes from, and that's because it feels like with this method of content release, a story as linear as they've been doing with the impact of some of these aspects of the story have, just makes everything feel a bit more rushed than it probably should. We've gone from Joko potentially releasing a devastating plague to, well the scarabs aren't really evolved enough to do as much damage as they could and they don't care about you because you already died once.. and look here's some ghosts to give you the upper hand, to.... oh look, Kralk decided to come back and can traverse the mists.. and now we can't kill him because we'll destroy Tyria but if we don't kill him he'll just eat reality and we'll all die anyway.... to... oh look the solution to all of our problems didn't pan out the way we needed it to so I guess we're left waiting another 3 months to find out what random thing will pop up to fix this problem. It just feels disjointed to me and a bit jarring. (But who knows, maybe it won't be as jarring as it currently seems by the end.)

 

 

ANYWAY, the point is, I don't think Guild Wars 3 or changes to any of those aspects of Guild Wars 2 currently are even necessary, I think it's just a matter of restructuring, refocusing, and better planning? I think all of those people in each of those areas are probably great at what they do, but perhaps they aren't being great TOGETHER, and it's ultimately leading to content that seems stale because it isn't quite living up to its full potential? Guild Wars 2 has a lot of room to grow still, but given these recent articles and news updates, as well as a rather vague and seemingly-to-me hollow post about the future of Guild Wars 2 restating that we're just jumping into season 5 after season 4, maybe it's reached the maximum amount of growth they care to put into it?

 

 

Hopefully if they scrap the expansion model they will still add fun and exciting features to make the game feel more alive, i.e. new features like housing or another movement-oriented feature, elite-specs, some new form of fractals that encourages that sense of community it's always been known for. But only time will tell.

[kasoki.5180]

> @"Malediktus.9250" said:

> > @"LucianDK.8615" said:

> > Gw3 would be a sure way to kitten off a lot of customers. It will not happen.

>

> Kitten off some existing customers, but potentially gain millions of people who currently don't play GW2 for whatever reason.

 

This is something that a lot of people are ignoring it seems to me. Everybody is talking about what would cause them to leave the game. But no one is talking about what is good for the game to attract players and keep a healthy population for the franchise and the IP.

 

Sequel to the game that is a fresh new game is way better and easier to market. Imagine back in the days that instead of anouncing GW2 they just anounced updates to GW1. Besides already existing playerbase nobody would care and franchise would never become big as it is today.

 

New things attract new customers. Updates can at the best keep the old ones.

[Ashantara.8731]

> @"cptaylor.2670" said:

> The story right now is where my biggest concern comes from, and that's because it feels like with this method of content release, a story as linear as they've been doing with the impact of some of these aspects of the story have, just makes everything feel a bit more rushed than it probably should. We've gone from Joko potentially releasing a devastating plague to, well the scarabs aren't really evolved enough to do as much damage as they could and they don't care about you because you already died once.. and look here's some ghosts to give you the upper hand, to.... oh look, Kralk decided to come back and can traverse the mists.. and now we can't kill him because we'll destroy Tyria but if we don't kill him he'll just eat reality and we'll all die anyway.... to... oh look the solution to all of our problems didn't pan out the way we needed it to so I guess we're left waiting another 3 months to find out what random thing will pop up to fix this problem. It just feels disjointed to me and a bit jarring.

 

:+1: That pretty much sums up my impressions of the story. I was on a hype for a while during this season, but the latest episode brought me back to reality.

 

> ANYWAY, the point is, I don't think Guild Wars 3 or changes to any of those aspects of Guild Wars 2 currently are even necessary, I think it's just a matter of **restructuring, refocusing, and better planning**? I think all of those people in each of those areas are probably great at what they do, but perhaps they aren't being great TOGETHER, and it's ultimately leading to **content that seems stale because it isn't quite living up to its full potential**?

 

Right, and right. I think you've nailed it there.

 

> Guild Wars 2 has a lot of room to grow still, but given these recent articles and news updates, as well as a rather vague and seemingly-to-me hollow post about the future of Guild Wars 2 restating that we're just jumping into season 5 after season 4, maybe it's reached the maximum amount of growth they care to put into it?

 

Let's hope not. It would make me think twice before ever investing as much time and money into another MMO again. It would be one of the biggest disappointments of my gaming life if I looked back some day and thought, "What a waste of my time and money this actually was."

[ParaNoidAndroid.1406]

I sure hope not. I wanna beat all the Dragons before GW3. Unless there is a seventh one lying somewhere beneath Divinity's Reach.

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"kasoki.5180" said:

> > @"Malediktus.9250" said:

> > > @"LucianDK.8615" said:

> > > Gw3 would be a sure way to kitten off a lot of customers. It will not happen.

> >

> > Kitten off some existing customers, but potentially gain millions of people who currently don't play GW2 for whatever reason.

>

> This is something that a lot of people are ignoring it seems to me. Everybody is talking about what would cause them to leave the game. But no one is talking about what is good for the game to attract players and keep a healthy population for the franchise and the IP.

>

> Sequel to the game that is a fresh new game is way better and easier to market. Imagine back in the days that instead of anouncing GW2 they just anounced updates to GW1. Besides already existing playerbase nobody would care and franchise would never become big as it is today.

 

Says who? You?

 

Successfully launching a new MMO is difficult and risky. That's a fact. GW1 was not a MMO. You are literally comparing two different game genres. Sure they could have been working on a new GW3, if it wasn't a MMO (unlikely given the latest news).

 

> @"kasoki.5180" said:

> New things attract new customers. Updates can at the best keep the old ones.

 

No, new things attract attention. Customers might follow or not. Especially customer retention is very difficult for MMOs.

 

Updates you are only half correct. They will generate a lot less buzzthan a new game or even DLC or exmapsion. There has been quite a few games successfully reinventing or updating themselves back from the abyss (Division, Destiny 1 to name two examples). Definately a lot less risky than throwing the dice on launching a totally new game.

[ScottBroChill.3254]

In the fantasy that this happens, I hope they remove guilds in GW3 to make the name even more ironic. Maybe even make it a farming simulator mixed with a little bit of tap titans. Right now its a spam 111111 fest, so they're getting pretty close already, but if they could remove the rest of the skill bar I think the game would be that much more satisfying. Less UI bloating my screen.

 

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"ScottBroChill.3254" said:

> In the fantasy that this happens, I hope they remove guilds in GW3 to make the name even more ironic. Maybe even make it a farming simulator mixed with a little bit of tap titans. Right now its a spam 111111 fest, so they're getting pretty close already, but if they could remove the rest of the skill bar I think the game would be that much more satisfying. Less UI bloating my screen.

>

 

The irony being that Guild Wars as a franchise name is rooted in the lore and has literally nothing to do with guilds....

 

I'm sure you knew that though right?

[ScottBroChill.3254]

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > @"ScottBroChill.3254" said:

> > In the fantasy that this happens, I hope they remove guilds in GW3 to make the name even more ironic. Maybe even make it a farming simulator mixed with a little bit of tap titans. Right now its a spam 111111 fest, so they're getting pretty close already, but if they could remove the rest of the skill bar I think the game would be that much more satisfying. Less UI bloating my screen.

> >

>

> The irony being that Guild Wars as a franchise name is rooted in the lore and has literally nothing to do with guilds....

>

> I'm sure you knew that though right?

 

Oh yeah, played a heck ton of GW1. Just wanted to make a light hearted jokey poo and just meant that in the first game at least we had GvG, but now we don't even have that lol

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"ScottBroChill.3254" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > > @"ScottBroChill.3254" said:

> > > In the fantasy that this happens, I hope they remove guilds in GW3 to make the name even more ironic. Maybe even make it a farming simulator mixed with a little bit of tap titans. Right now its a spam 111111 fest, so they're getting pretty close already, but if they could remove the rest of the skill bar I think the game would be that much more satisfying. Less UI bloating my screen.

> > >

> >

> > The irony being that Guild Wars as a franchise name is rooted in the lore and has literally nothing to do with guilds....

> >

> > I'm sure you knew that though right?

>

> Oh yeah, played a heck ton of GW1. Just wanted to make a light hearted jokey poo and just meant that in the first game at least we had GvG, but now we don't even have that lol

 

Okay, yeah I do miss GvG in GW2. Here is hoping it comes back in some form or another down the road.

[DeceiverX.8361]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Metasynaptic.1093" said:

> > > @"finkle.9513" said:

> > > whats stopping Anet updating GW2 core platform?

> >

> > Labour force, if you read the latest news...

>

> Actually no, they haven't wanted to update the core platform when staffing wasn't the issue. (Low reward per effort, is the simplistic translation of what they have said.)

 

That and the last time they tried (to my knowledge, before the game launched) was when they were experimenting with more modern technologies, like DX10/11 for rendering, and their developers were not super-proficient with the technology as they were their existing stack (DX9) such that the effort ended up being wasted; they were so good at optimizing DX9 they ended up with the same performance for launch, and could get more players by having lower system requirements/support for Windows XP rather than being dependent on Vista/7/8. And subsequently GW2 had tremendous launch success and felt smooth compared to most of what else was out at the time.

 

 

A lot of people are ignoring the development timeline here. GW2 supposedly took five years to make, which basically resulted in them beginning development pretty much right after the launch of GW1. They still kept a dev team on GW1 for its expansions and so on, but they put the majority of their workforce on investing in the future of the company, and I know based on old development content that they contracted a ton of other workers to help with the creation of the core game, which was as contracting work goes, too many people to hire full-time once the contract ended. Giving this game another 5 years while maintaining profits as a mainstream title to staff a substantial number of developers is only a realistic estimate, if not a little generous given that it'd make the game over a decade old, which is ancient as far as games - especially MMOs - are concerned. EoL is inevitable for GW2 as is all products in technology, and the company needs products to sell to make money so the devs can do things like afford food and retire. If they started development now, it *maybe* releases in time when GW2 hits the point where it becomes unprofitable. Stuff like making a whole new game engine - something they didn't do the first time in those five years spent on GW2 - is a massive undertaking that will take literally years to complete, too.

ANet can't start a half-decade-long development cycle after their company stops being profitable. That's just not how businesses work.

 

Based on that alone, the project that wasn't scrapped given the recent news is probably what the future holds for when GW2 reaches its estimated EoL. Sounds to me like nothing changed for releases for GW2, but one of two other projects was scrapped. My guess is the layoffs were based on either a related tangential product like a Guild Wars mobile or companion game, or was an attempt at a second franchise totally different from what their main marketable product will be when GW2 hits EoL - say, a sci-fi RPG/FPS hybrid with spaceship combat akin to Star Wars Battlefront with elements of Eve. A bit higher-risk since it's new territory, but fundamentally not going to affect their core business plan/profitability of future products.

[kasoki.5180]

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> Says who? You?

>

I'm gonna go on a whim and say that for established franchises sequels generate attention and interest from existing playerbase, journalists, critics and potential new players. I don't have statistics on this but it seems very obvious simply from living in present day and age and consuming present day popular culture. I could be wrong though to be fair

 

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

 

> Successfully launching a new MMO is difficult and risky. That's a fact. GW1 was not a MMO. You are literally comparing two different game genres. Sure they could have been working on a new GW3, if it wasn't a MMO (unlikely given the latest news).

>

 

I'm not sure how does game genre factor into anything. You just picked one thing at random to say how people are comparing wrong things. Genre of the game has no relevance to my statement. Not to mention how I have never even mentioned publishing of GW1. I was comparing attention new games generate and ability to attract new players. Genre of the game has little to do with this especially since no one originally knew how different GW2 was going to be to GW1 when it was announced. Its very easy to say how GW1 and GW2 are completely different genre now in 2019.

Also, example of GW1 and GW2 is kinda odd since itself it shows that hypothetical GW3 doesn't need to be the exactly the same game as GW2 and still it can be great and successful. Which is exactly the argument supporters of GW3 are trying to make. I don't think anyone is saying "hey, make the exact same thing but with better graphics". I could be wrong, but I was under impression supporters of GW3 are actually asking for a new game with new mechanics and new gameplay.

 

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> No, new things attract attention. Customers might follow or not. Especially customer retention is very difficult for MMOs.

>

Event though I will agree that there is no guarantee that it would become the next greatest hit, I think that for an established franchise it would lead to people trying it out. And again transition from GW1 to GW2 and popularity of the same kind of shows it.

 

> @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> Updates you are only half correct. They will generate a lot less buzzthan a new game or even DLC or exmapsion. There has been quite a few games successfully reinventing or updating themselves back from the abyss (Division, Destiny 1 to name two examples). Definately a lot less risky than throwing the dice on launching a totally new game.

>

I might agree with you on this one. You are right, there are some games that were saved by drastic updates. If I'm not mistaken ESO and Final Fantasy mmo could also fall into this category.

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"kasoki.5180" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > Says who? You?

> >

> I'm gonna go on a whim and say that for established franchises sequels generate attention and interest from existing playerbase, journalists, critics and potential new players. I don't have statistics on this but it seems very obvious simply from living in present day and age and consuming present day popular culture. I could be wrong though to be fair

>

 

Given how few MMOs produce sequels and how few of those sequels actually are successful. Your assumption, while not flawed, is omitting a ton of variables which are known to customers.

 

> @"kasoki.5180" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

>

> > Successfully launching a new MMO is difficult and risky. That's a fact. GW1 was not a MMO. You are literally comparing two different game genres. Sure they could have been working on a new GW3, if it wasn't a MMO (unlikely given the latest news).

> >

>

> I'm not sure how does game genre factor into anything. You just picked one thing at random to say how people are comparing wrong things. Genre of the game has no relevance to my statement. Not to mention how I have never even mentioned publishing of GW1. I was comparing attention new games generate and ability to attract new players. Genre of the game has little to do with this especially since no one originally knew how different GW2 was going to be to GW1 when it was announced. Its very easy to say how GW1 and GW2 are completely different genre now in 2019.

 

You directly related GW1 and GW2 by asking how things would have been if Arenanet had kept working on GW1. I pointed out that the move from GW1 to GW2 was way different than moving from GW2 (an MMO) to GW3 (which people assume should or would be an MMO). I then corrected the assumption that: if GW3 was not an MMO, it would be a lot more likely to see release.

 

If you can't see the unique challenges present in MMOs, long time player retention, constant content development, initial break through into the market, etc., then I'm not sure how qualified your opinion is. Releaseing a MMO is vastly different than any other type of game. This is obviously true for each game type, but hurdles on MMOs are especially high due to some of the unique qualifiers I mentioned.

 

> @"kasoki.5180" said:

> Also, example of GW1 and GW2 is kinda odd since itself it shows that hypothetical GW3 doesn't need to be the exactly the same game as GW2 and still it can be great and successful. Which is exactly the argument supporters of GW3 are trying to make. I don't think anyone is saying "hey, make the exact same thing but with better graphics". I could be wrong, but I was under impression supporters of GW3 are actually asking for a new game with new mechanics and new gameplay.

>

 

That's what I said. Given how most GW3 "supporters" assume it's going to be a better MMO than GW2 (or more to their liking), I'm just giving some perspective how unlikely it is that GW3 would be a MMO to begin with.

 

> @"kasoki.5180" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > No, new things attract attention. Customers might follow or not. Especially customer retention is very difficult for MMOs.

> >

> Event though I will agree that there is no guarantee that it would become the next greatest hit, I think that for an established franchise it would lead to people trying it out. And again transition from GW1 to GW2 and popularity of the same kind of shows it.

>

 

and here you are again bringing up GW1, which was NOT an MMO. Yes, people would try it out, I'm sure of it. That's only half the equation though. People tried out a ton of MMOs over the past few years, few stayed with those MMOs. Even within your scope of comparison of GW1 to GW2, you are ignoring the players who strictly remained with GW1 even to this day.

[MoriMoriMori.5349]

> GW3 happening?

 

At that point in time some crappy mobile game is much more likely.

[MoriMoriMori.5349]

> @"Malediktus.9250" said:

> Kitten off some existing customers, but potentially gain millions of people who currently don't play GW2 for whatever reason.

Then why those people suddenly will start to play GW3? Why can't they still not play it, "for whatever reasons"?

[Bast.7253]

Another thing about this Guild Wars 3 business...

 

Look at WoW. They've been going for years on their stale outdated engine and have released countless expansions and remained titans in the industry. I think the biggest downfall for them has been their upper management, but once you have a loyal fanbase as long as you don't self-sabotage I think you're going to have a much longer lifespan than what Guild Wars 2 has had currently. And in my opinion the people at Arenanet (game engine advantages and graphics aside) are far more talented than what I witnessed in WoW. Guild Wars 2 has had quite a turn around in management in the past few years as well it seems, and given all this latest info I can't help but wonder if that's part of the issue of the discontent some of the playerbase has had and the some of the hiccups we've had this season alone.

 

But that being said, Guild Wars 2 has a lot of life left in it still and I really don't see how churning out a Guild Wars 3 is going to make any bigger difference than +1. Investing all of that time and money into something that only gives you the advantage of having a potentially more optimal engine seems like a waste when they've already done some pretty amazing things with what they already have and are constantly finding new ways to push those boundaries.

 

And THAT being said, I think is another thing to look back on. The many ways they've found to push those boundaries that perhaps haven't been reused or have had all of that time and investment but don't seem to get reused later. Sun's Refuge being a one off for example. Though, Sun's Refuge seems kind of like a combination of multiple pre-existing tech like Home Instance/Guild Halls/Aurene's egg chambger all added into one parent feature. The turrets in Kourna. The stealth mission in Kourna. The gravity tech in Sandswept has certainly seen some variation of reuse. Slippery slope has seen and will probably continue to see continuation, potentially via some elite spec skill ability if they still plan on doing elite specs in the future which is anyone's guess at this point. I feel like there are a lot of random tech advancements made here and there by some obviously skilled programmers, but they sometimes fade into the background. (A big offender of this is the Guild Hall system, which in some form or another has had its phasing tech introduced later on i.e. Sun's Refuge or even something as simple as the vine wall in Kourna that Canach plants...). It kind of concerned me at one point when I remembered reading that there was something in Super Adventure Box maybe?... that they couldn't create another world because they didn't even have access to the original code or something? I don't know, it was along the lines of implying that they don't keep a solid record of some of these systems they implement all the time, also making me think that some of these tech advancements could eventually fall into a void at some point and if not expanded upon or reused may wind up being some potentially hefty resource investments with ultimately little payoff.

 

That rant aside, they have plenty of room to keep transforming what they already have, and they clearly have the creativity and developers to do so, it's just a matter at this point of where exactly the game is going at this point and how some of these aspects have been directed or will continue to be directed. It feels like there's an imbalance somewhere currently in terms of certain people being more passionate about what they release than others. I get the impression that , as with most companies, perhaps the ones in charge aren't quite as passionate about what's released as the ones creating it and the result is an overloaded operation that's only goal is meeting the bottom line. But that interpretation could also be due to this speculative comment about resources being cut and funneled into other projects. (Which, source aside, does tend to line up pretty well with my experiences and interpretations as a consumer who happens to be probably a little too passionate about the game, and probably more openly opinionated than I should be at times.)

 

It's sad to think back about when I was starry-eyed and going to school for my lowly game-design associates in hopes of one day ascending to be good enough to eventually work for my dream company, only to realize that that dream company is just as run down by the same problems as every other despite how passionate you are about your work. There's always some statistic as a carrot on a measuring stick that determines your worth. I guess the key is to be passionate about becoming the one doing the measuring and not the one chasing the carrot. Money always wins in the end.

 

Hoping for an exciting patch next Tuesday though. All of this chaos amidst the steady silence only to be met with rather generic pseudo-affirmation P.R. response simply restating their current content trajectory and addressing what they "plan" to keep doing doesn't exactly scream transparency, or at least the transparency I think some people are hoping for right now. Though, if this came as a surprise as much to them as it did some of us in the playerbase I can imagine it's probably even more chaotic there than it has been for awhile over in ole' Bellevue.

 

[XenoSpyro.1780]

> @"Hannelore.8153" said:

> They might replace GW2's engine with a new one

 

That's what I'd rather have happen. A full engine port. What the playerbase needs but doesn't deserve.

[MoriMoriMori.5349]

> @"XenoSpyro.1780" said:

> > @"Hannelore.8153" said:

> > They might replace GW2's engine with a new one

>

> That's what I'd rather have happen. A full engine port. What the playerbase needs but doesn't deserve.

 

Engine seems okeish to me. I would prefer them just reworking all maps, adding way, way more details. More grass, more bushes, smoother models for boulders and mobs, better textures for everything, better character editor with much more options etc. And do some optimization to. With this done, they can live another 10 years, assuming they will provide enough actual content (HoT and PoF are just wonderful, I'm having a blast with them right now, they need more DLCs like those). After all, it's all about the game.

[XenoSpyro.1780]

> @"MoriMoriMori.5349" said:

> Engine seems okeish to me.

Go run around Verdant Brink or Deldrimor Peaks for a bit.

 

> @"MoriMoriMori.5349" said:

> adding way, way more details. More grass, more bushes, smoother models for boulders and mobs, better textures for everything etc

Do you want 15 FPS? This is how you get 15 FPS.

 

[MoriMoriMori.5349]

> @"XenoSpyro.1780" said:

> > @"MoriMoriMori.5349" said:

> > Engine seems okeish to me.

> Go run around Verdant Brink or Deldrimor Peaks for a bit.

 

I run around many other different places, and can't really remember I encountered too much issues I could contribute to engine's faults. If it's just about few maps, then it's more likely they are badly done, and need to be reworked as well.

 

> @"XenoSpyro.1780" said:

> > @"MoriMoriMori.5349" said:

> > adding way, way more details. More grass, more bushes, smoother models for boulders and mobs, better textures for everything etc

> Do you want 15 FPS? This is how you get 15 FPS.

 

BDO features stunning visuals and isn't running at 15 fps, assuming you got the right gear. Arma3 features enormous maps with complex simulations going on on them, and dozens of people participating - still can run smoothly on modern gear.

 

 

[titje.2745]

i don’t want to play all over again. only chance i go play gw3 is if i can get the legendary skins from guildwars 2 to guildwars 3. it’s hard working if you didn’t get rich in beginning of guildwars 2.

 

and only reason for guildwars 3 is the engine. for better direct x version. (correct me if i am wrong ) further graphics are good enough. render sample to super sample. and everything maxed makes it a beautiful game.

 

 

 

[Tiviana.2650]

> @"finkle.9513" said:

> whats stopping Anet updating GW2 core platform?

 

Thats what im saying an overhaul and update would make the game smooth like butter. I mean why dont they update the engine, is it they dont think its worth the investment? I mean if the players have invested a lot of money into it, then its worth the upgrade. And on that note the reason i think most players wouldn't want gw3 is because of the money and time they sunk into gw2. And thats understandable i felt the same way about a game i played over a decade. I doubt they will make GW3 it would be a bad move that causes bad publicity. But i think they could overhaul GW2 and bring it into the year 2019. Its showing its age, and an update would keep it fresh.

[Sirius.4510]

The reason why they don't overhaul the engine would be because doing so in a way that would make a meaningful difference would be obscenely expensive - not dissimilar from developing a new game. At least you have the content all in place, but it'd still take forever.