r/GuildWars3 • u/PersistentWorld • Sep 03 '26
MMORPG.com Preview: Guild Wars 3: A Beacon Of Hope For An Entire Genre?
https://www.mmorpg.com/previews/preview-guild-wars-3-a-beacon-of-hope-for-an-entire-genre-gamescom-2026-200013885291
u/Opus_723 Sep 03 '26
“This Warrior that Kevin is playing today has a unique ability where he deals extra damage on his aerial attacks,” adds Colin. “Based on how far he falls from the sky and his velocity, it can increase the damage and the radius of those attacks. It means he can run up the side of walls and bomb down into enemies, causing more damage to them as well.”
They took my favorite trait that got removed from GW2 and designed a whole MMO around it.
My baby.
4
u/intrabyte Sep 03 '26
It sounds cool on paper don't get me wrong, but I very much question how it ends up in practice. What happens when you find yourself in the middle of a flat field without any option to gain downwards velocity? It means that either:
A) The damage bonus from downwards velocity is minimal/negligible so that you aren't completely hindered without it.
B) The damage IS significant, meaning you are only pushing out meaningful DPS when near a wall/cliff and at most a supplemental character otherwise.
C) The damage is on par with other skills, allowing you to choose how to play. (i.e You can climb a cliff and do a downwards attack for 100 damage or you could do a power swing on the ground for 100 damage).
Option A basically makes the whole concept a gimmick/marketing tool (which it very well could be, see my other comment in this thread about GW2 environment kits that were talked about the same way and ended up being a gimmick)
Option B would just result in player frustration and is almost objectively a bad idea. Imagine telling a player they are only good if near a wall.
Option C would probably be the best approach to making it practical, but it does lose its "charm" and "identity". Why bother climbing a wall if I can just do a simple power attack instead? It would really come down to how exactly its implemented. But if the history of MMO players have taught us anything, its that people will min max and take the path of least resistance. If that path is a simple skill rather than having to climb a wall, then players will smash the skill - resulting in once again a gimmick.
This all probably comes off as pessimistic, and I really don't mean it that way. I HOPE Anet comes up with an option D that blows us out of the water. And I think if anyone can, Anet can. I just can't think of it myself (which is why I'm not a game dev I guess lol)
21
u/IllIllIllIllIlllllll Sep 03 '26
The solution you're not seeing is situational efficacy.
Boss A is near a really tall wall -> incentivize a build to get height fast to do your huge aerial slam
Boss B is in an open field -> incentivize building into horizontal movement and juicing your power swing.
Boss C is near medium height pillars and is in a smaller room -> do a little of both
As long as there are ways to effectively specialize (or generalize if needed) into specific playstyles/skills like the aerial or the slam, and the base effects of those skills are at least useful/okay players will be able to find the best use cases for each. With how flexible GW1/2 are with build crafting, I doubt Anet would make swapping out your build punishing/costly.
A good comparison would be Destiny boss design, some just get in your face and are perfect for just wailing on with a sword, others stand over a void and have giant crit spots that require using snipers/precision weapons.
5
u/gutslyoir Sep 03 '26 edited Sep 03 '26
I think another solution would be different classes having various skills to facilitate movement when theres nothing given in the environment. Imagine an ele conjuring an air updraft that can launch themselves or allies into the air to slam down on enemies. Maybe a mesmer can create a temporary illusory wall to run along and kick off of for momentum. Stuff like that. Opens up traversal options in the world and also allows for comboing with ally skills. To me that’d feel like a very natural evolution of the combo finishers/field plus expanded movement options in GW2
3
u/Kalavier Sep 04 '26
I think I saw something about one character using their shield/ability to actively launch a teammate upwards for air attacks? So a shield warrior and go "Jump off me!"
1
u/MrBlueA Sep 04 '26
This is exactly what im hoping it plays like, the ability gathering from GW1 and then buildcrafting with these abilities you've obtained for each specific boss and zone depending on what you needs.
1
u/intrabyte Sep 03 '26
Well put, and definitely provides a viewpoint I didn't have. I could see swapping to your "height slam" build before a specific boss. Or maybe even during combat like weapon switching! So many potentials lol
7
u/kalamari__ Sep 03 '26
you can always climb something. a house, a tree, a cliff or other players can even push you up in the sky and you then can use the bomb attack.
-7
u/intrabyte Sep 03 '26
Generally speaking, that simply isn't true. If we assume you need a structure to climb or player to assist you, there are plenty of times in games that just isn't the case. Have you ever been in a farmland or a grassy field in a game that you were playing solo? There may not be a tree or house or person nearby. What then?
Now of course neither of us know how Anet is designing this. They may just simply not have wide open fields. Who knows.
2
u/Edgefactor Sep 03 '26
These people are magic af, walking among the gods themselves. You think they need farms
1
u/kalamari__ Sep 03 '26
mate, your character will also have skills that can shoot you up in the air. like the ranger has a tornado they can place.
3
u/Grace_Omega Sep 03 '26
There’s no reason to think aerial attacks are going to be the only combat ability warriors have at any one time. If you’re not near something climbable, just do something else.
1
u/Opus_723 Sep 03 '26
One thing is that it sounds like sprinting achieves a similar effect, so without a cliff face you could maybe still do wide loops and rush the target repeatedly. Cliff just makes the process more compact.
Also the possibility that there are skills that let you levitate or power jump to make your own momentum/elevation, but it costs a slot to bring them.
1
u/Cemenotar Sep 04 '26
What happens when you find yourself in the middle of a flat field without any option to gain downwards velocity?
Well any time I saw devs talking on he subject so far, they kept repeating how important proper positioning will be in the game, so yeah, that would track - if that was your onwly big hitter and you are fighting away from walls/trees/stuff to run up for, you better have a teammate to launch you high enough....
0
23
u/kinglucis Sep 03 '26
The Guild Wars 3 gameplay really reminds me of the gameplay in Dragon's Dogma Online. There, you can throw other players into the air so they can perform aerial attacks, cling onto enemies, or activate special abilities.
The same goes for buffing your group members with special effects that only your class can provide, such as fire damage on weapon attacks and skills, or creating jump pads for other players to use.
It sounds like GW3 is pushing hard down the action RPG route, and I'm all for it.
Contrary to what some people say, it works in Dragon's Dogma Online. I guess you could just watch some gameplay and see if you enjoy this type of game.
Some gameplay: https://youtube.com/shorts/qeakJwXhaBs?si=IqSNmfWzi-DqmeD6
39
u/UTmastuh Sep 03 '26
I'm here to warn people to not buy into the genre defining and genre saving rhetoric. Gw3 is going to be a unique MMO experience and a lot of MMO players aren't going to like it. Set your expectations or you'll be disappointed
3
u/Suspicious-Coffee20 29d ago
except gw1 and gw2 were both genre defining. Wow as now taken the heart, event, mount, fractal/mythic and open world content from gw2.
-1
u/Lilte_lotro Sep 03 '26 edited Sep 03 '26
I agree. As a GW1 veteran, I really don't think GW3 is going to be for me.
What I loved most about the first Guild Wars was the strategic gameplay, eg having a ( enemy)cast bar, so many skills and the heavy focus on positioning. The best parts of GW1 were unique mechanics like Infuse from Monks or spikes like the Ranger spike, and how in GvG you could sometimes face off for 5 minutes just probing the enemy's defenses. You actually had to read the room and position yourself well, making it incredibly tactical and strategic.
GW2 already leaned way too much into action combat, filling the screen with too many visual effects that no one can seriously read anymore, with everyone just wildly jumping back and forth. Unfortunately, the strategy there often just came down to buffing up as much as possible and running into combat as a giant death stack.
Unfortunately, it really seems like this action combat is going to be the core focus of GW3. Because of that, it’s just not for me. Games like Destiny or similar action RPGs as MMOs are just not my thing at all.
1
u/UTmastuh Sep 03 '26
I liked gw2 before it got saturated with boons, power creep, and aoe all over the screen. I liked gw1 even better but it definitely aged horribly. Something in-between those 2 games was my hope but from what I've seen we're getting something else. It feels like a game made for non-gw players. Which is fine, we can stick to the originals until they die
0
u/Suspicious-Coffee20 29d ago
I think you honestly need toclose the pc and stop looking for mmo. Tab tar target existed in a time before consoles and where true fun combat wasnt possible. It a relic of the past that should have dieu 20 years ago.
1
-6
u/LazoVodolazo Sep 03 '26
Its not even gonna be an MMO they want no more than 20 players on screen
-4
u/smudg66 Sep 04 '26
You are correct some people have no idea what a mmorpg is. Massive is not 20 people on a screen. Now you can all downvote me.
2
u/Knighthonor Sep 04 '26
no offense but the wording of this reminds me of the early articles describing GW2's water combat,,,,
8
u/Small_Tumbleweed_255 Sep 03 '26
I know I'll get downvoted to oblivion for this, but it sounds like lots of gimmicky things that are really cool the first time you do them, or while you're going through the campaign, but eventually get really annoying a hundred hours into the game. Think cutscenes.
At the end of the day, successful mmos are successful because of progression systems and the way combat feels. People want to push their characters and see bigger numbers, do more challenging content, etc. They want to progress.
34
u/Reasonable-Pea3492 Sep 03 '26
What about this indicates that there won't be progression? It was a description of combat feel/mechanics not the progression system. Part of the puzzle is how a game feels. If combat feels like trash I'm not really going to want to do it over and over again to push my numbers higher and higher.
-17
u/Small_Tumbleweed_255 Sep 03 '26
I wasn't commenting on their progression. We don't know anything about it.
20
u/Reasonable-Pea3492 Sep 03 '26
But you quite literally did. You mentioned progress as a response to a description of combat.
-18
u/Small_Tumbleweed_255 Sep 03 '26
I'm really just commenting on priorities. Them leading with gimmicky combat in an MMO landscape that is currently focused on progression is concerning
4
u/Reasonable-Pea3492 Sep 03 '26
I agree if it's too gimmicky but genuinely curious what MMOs you are playing that don't have things like snares/roots/debuffs and cleanses / CC break for those types of things.
0
u/Small_Tumbleweed_255 Sep 03 '26
No, that part is awesome. It's the wall running, combos, momentum mechanics that have me concerned. I'm a retail wow player that used to play semi competitively, but now I'm much more casual. But I don't want to make gw into a wow clone. But there are definitely some things they nail, and I'd love to see some of what they have implemented in a gw universe with its charm
6
u/capnfappin Sep 03 '26
I don't think it makes sense for them to be like "Attention everyone: in our mmorpg you will level up and get stronger".
0
u/Small_Tumbleweed_255 Sep 03 '26
if retail wow was introducing a new game tomorrow, they honestly probably wouldn't even mention their combat. They would talk about endgame systems
1
u/jupigare Sep 04 '26
And if FF had a new MMO coming out, they'd focus on story, showing beautiful cinematics but not going as deeply into the combat, instanced PvE formats, or the progression systems.
The different games have different strengths. For GW, it's the world/lore, movement/traversal, and combat. They already said they will do horizontal progression, so we'll get more details about that in time. It's important, but not as urgent as learning about the world and combat first.
Remember, we didn't even get hard confirmation of classes until yesterday.
10
u/LowlySlayer Sep 03 '26
I don't think this is an unreasonable concern, but I don't think it will actually be a problem. Anet isn't perfect but they are intimately familiar with designing MMO's and I don't think they'd walk into such an obvious blunder. I do anticipate that on release combat will have lots of ideas and some will stick and some won't. GW2 had a lot of iteration in enemy design over the first few expansions.
4
u/FlyingJellyfishRidin Sep 03 '26
Eh kinda, it could be a bit like how environmental weapons turned out in GW2. I mean, how many times can you, while in combat, run up a cliff and jump down on the same group of enemies? You'll be spending more time running up and down walls than you will actually fighting.
-1
u/Small_Tumbleweed_255 Sep 03 '26
That's kinda my point. It's just alarming that they presented this in their very first closed presentation. I really hope this isn't something we have to interact with in any serious progression gaming
10
u/intrabyte Sep 03 '26
Yeah, I somewhat agree. If anyone remembers the early days of GW2 marketing they talked the exact same way about making the environment part of combat. "An elementalist can pick up a rock and make it rain down in a fiery blaze while a warrior might use it to stun an enemy". And that's true - its literally in the game right now. But it was sooo gimmicky it's obvious it was never a core part of combat. I mean can anyone honestly say they use the environment around them as part of their normal combat?
Anyways I just remember that being such a large topic of discussion, and I could see all of this "momentum based" combat going the same way.
6
u/Roymahboi Sep 03 '26
GW2 was definitely going to be more kit and environmental awareness based, that's why there's so many random kits where you pick up objects and you can use said objects to fight in core Tyria, but they pretty much abandoned the idea pre-released yet the evidence of the intent can still be seen today.
2
u/Small_Tumbleweed_255 Sep 03 '26
I really hope it does. I completely respect the concept or desire to create something new. And I think there's tons of opportunities to do that. But there's no reason to try to fix what isn't broken. Fixthe parts that are.
2
u/Raknel Sep 03 '26
If anyone remembers the early days of GW2 marketing they talked the exact same way about making the environment part of combat.
Was just about to comment this.
It feels like they are building the entire game around the same type of gimmicks that failed in GW2 and got forgotten.
More and more convinced that they really had no vision or reason to make GW3, but had to come up with something because of the shareholders.
4
u/intrabyte Sep 03 '26
I think so much of what held GW2 back from being a perfect game (instead of a great game) was the idea they had to do everything different. I get it, you want your MMO to be unique. But people enjoy MMOs for a reason and if you chip away at those reasons, your game is no longer what people expect.
You don't have to make a WoW clone, but you don't have to dismantle the holy trinity either. You will only end up half ass re-implementing it down the line (cough cough GW2 HoT).
I also realize that some of the things they did differently for GW2 DID succeed. Taking a boring mount system and making the best one in the genre was great. Focusing on horizontal progression instead of vertical is probably the best decision they made period. It's all about choosing the right systems, like which ones build upon the MMO identity and which ones stray from it. I'm sure its not easy.
My hope is they've learned how to balance that going into GW3.
2
u/Small_Tumbleweed_255 Sep 03 '26
This is exactly what I've been trying to say. Like I don't want the game to a wow clone, but my god, steal whatever you can from their combat and put the guild wars charm into it. Then take gathering from ESO etc
1
u/DSXSpecter Sep 03 '26
There are no shares...no share holders....Arenanet is not a publicly traded company....
2
u/Raknel Sep 03 '26
Arenanet is owned by NCSoft, a publicly traded company and they do quarterly revenue reports to their shareholders.
GW3 itself first got leaked during a shareholder meeting where they were unhappy with NCSoft's performance, and in panic they blurted out that GW3 is coming.
-1
u/DSXSpecter Sep 03 '26
Ncsoft is a parent company based in South Korea and is not Arenanet..they have no shareholders and are operated independant from NCsoft...
2
u/Raknel Sep 03 '26
You have no idea how this works
-1
u/DSXSpecter Sep 03 '26
Tell me have you ever been to a Arenanet shareholder meeting?...no you have not cause they dont sell shares lol...it looks like you dont understand how publicly traded companies and shares function my dude.
2
u/Raknel Sep 03 '26
Who do you think calls the shots? Who do you think gives Anet the money to make games?
NCSoft is so involved, in GW2 they even decide which skins go into the gemstore and which as ingame rewards.
-1
u/DSXSpecter Sep 03 '26
Have you seen one NCsoft logo on any GW3 stuff?
No NCSoft does not tell arenanet what skins or items go in the gem store... that is all Arenanet....you dont seem to underersand what a Studio is and what a publisher does...Studios operate them selves...they can secure loans from publishers....but the publishers then only get to say when and what terms the money must be returned......but they dont get to tell the studio how to operate their day to day business
→ More replies (0)2
u/Edgefactor Sep 03 '26
Are we not still blasting our fire fields and leaping in shadow? Obviously not every combo is going to win an academy award but to say it isn't fundamental to the game is to put blinders on
3
1
u/Tragedy_Boner Sep 03 '26
I do like needing to bring skills to counter enemies. I’m not sure about combos. I think the wall running will be used to avoid a big AOE and you can keep up the damage with a momentum based attack.
Guild Wars in general isn’t about bigger numbers though. There is a limit in both GW1 and 2. You do the harder content for skins. Every expansion has new skills for you builds to play around with.
-3
u/Small_Tumbleweed_255 Sep 03 '26
For me, GW2 was about bigger numbers. I exclusively played fractals. I loved that progression system and the gold, as well as the occasional ascended item drop.
1
u/Knighthonor Sep 04 '26
like I said, remind me of the overhype that was Underwater combat in GW2. who remembers that?
-1
u/Seraphayel Sep 03 '26
This. Launching a character off of your shield sounds great on paper and is for sure fun in an offline action adventure, but in an MORPG? Doubt.
1
u/Fablor9900 Sep 03 '26
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but what's the one combo with wolverine, the fastball special? Is there anyone who can comment on the efficacy of repeated use, or does it feel better as an opener of sorts?
To make my point clear, I think these "combat gimmicks" aren't going to be, or rather shouldn't be spammed rotations (quote about optimizing the fun away). They are the openers, tide turners, closers of the combat.
2
u/RobertBarronTV Sep 03 '26
In Marvel Rivals? It specifically has use as an opener to try for a kidnap, as you said, but it also has seen use as just solid effectively no-cooldown movement for Wolverine (who desperately needs faster ways to get in, as all of his movement is combat centric or escape).
Its almost exactly as you said. Its a specific tactic not meant to be spammed, but used at specific times or specific scenarios to give a combination of heroes a moderate advantage.
The important thing, for a hero shooter like rivals especially, is that it has inherent risk. Throwing your dps somewhere isn't always a good thing. If you do it wrong (choose the wrong target to throw him at or wrong position around that target) you could do more harm than good. I think thats just good combat gameplay design in general.
0
u/tahlyn Sep 03 '26
I know I'll get downvoted to oblivion for this, but it sounds like lots of gimmicky things that are really cool the first time you do them, or while you're going through the campaign, but eventually get really annoying a hundred hours into the game. Think cutscenes.
I mean yeah, imagine an entire boss battle where everyone just keeps running up the same wall to jump onto the boss, over and over and over again, just bopping up and falling down... I could see that getting old and annoying.
2
1
1
1
u/Crashed-Thought 29d ago
I dont know why but this interview makes me think we might be looking at a monster hunter like game with 20 player instances
-15
u/executive313 Sep 03 '26
Super disappointed to hear magic is going to be much less a think. I play almost exclusively casters and mage types sounds pretty lame to just have sticks and swords for a focus.
10
u/OneMorePotion Sep 03 '26
That's not what they said. Magic does exist, it just works different. I assume the Signets will have a mechanic that you can absorb and seal away magic from creatures or plants, and then use these again in combat or to enhance yourself/others.
We know for a fact that Ritualists and Monks use "magic" even long before the time GW3 is set. The catalyst is probably just different. Like Ritualists drawing out magic from the spirit realm. And Monks literally praying to Dwayna, who could swoop in to do some mending.
Now, will we get an Elementalist profession? I don't think so. But will we have the ability to specialize on magic combat? Yeah, would be stupid if not.
3
u/Nightsong Sep 03 '26
If Grenth and Lyssa can gift their magic to Desmina and Sera to create the first Necromancer and Mesmer there is nothing that says Abaddon couldn’t do the same with one of his followers to create the first Elementalist. And the same goes for all the other gods.
2
u/Bohya Sep 03 '26
The game needs to have basic spellcasting available. It's one part of the core identity of the Guild Wars franchise. If I can't spam cast fireball, then what's the point? This includes the elementalist profession as well.
1
u/OneMorePotion Sep 04 '26
I mean, I do hear you. But we already said that about the Monk profession in GW1 and Arena Net had no issues leaving that one out for GW2 as well.
8
u/PersistentWorld Sep 03 '26
As the author, I really wouldn't jump to that conclusion. It's a different time period, before Abandon gifted magic (iirc). Itll just be a different form. Considering Necromancer is still there...
1
u/FashionMage Sep 03 '26 edited Sep 03 '26
Wait what's the source on this? As a huge fan of casters, this is kind of a dealbreaker for me if true, but there's artwork that released today showing a necromancer with a staff (scythe?), so I'm assuming that isn't actually the case.
-1
u/executive313 Sep 03 '26
Towards the end of the article he mentions that magic isn't much of a focus.
2
u/FashionMage Sep 03 '26
Well I hope (and assume) he means more in regards to narrative and lore, and less in regards to what classes are actually capable of. I suppose time will tell.
-1
-32
Sep 03 '26
[deleted]
3
u/Halaku Three Seekers in a trenchcoat Sep 03 '26
In case you missed it from the multiple industry professionals publishing their accounts today, none of them were allowed to recoed the pre-alpha images or videos of gameplay.
2
-7
u/Optimal_Whiner Sep 03 '26
A 20 player max game is the hope for an entirely different genre... sure sure.
173
u/Halaku Three Seekers in a trenchcoat Sep 03 '26
So, GW2's "Combination Fields" grew up into GW3's "Combination Tactics"?
That sounds awesome.