Absolutely. Why would anyone believe that people that who disagree with something the game does just "doesn't get it", and needs to be indoctrinated to see the light of truth and start mindlessly droning "Everything GW2 does is awesome."
There are quite a few people that "get it" about what GW2 is doing. They get it, they just don't like it, and that's a legitimate opinion to hold.
The OP is pretty much factually correct in his statements. Opinions will vary on whether those facts about the game are a good thing, or a bad thing, according to each person's preference. Neither will be wrong, and it doesn't mean that someone with the audacity to say *GASP* something bad about GW2 "doesn't get it".
As far as I'm concerned, I was initially excited about GW2, but the more I hear, the more I believe it's an amalgamation of everything that has been going wrong with MMORPGs over the last 10 years. Creating an EZ-mode insta-max level toy PvP character for instance-based e-sport PvP would be just one such thing.
I think what has been going wrong with MMORPGs nowadays is the fact that they allow low level characters to battle against high level characters even when they won't win. Wouldn't you agree?
Not at all, if we're talking about an actual RPG, especially one that's supposedly set in a persistent world with a virtual society that matters.
In an FPS or e-sport game, everyone being equal makes sense. That's never been the main focus of an RPG, however. In fact, it runs counter to the point of an RPG.
Exactly, the structured PvP is separated from the main game for a reason. The RPG part of the game isn't set in a way that everyone is equal and this even true in World Vs World where the level 2s are set to 80 because even though they are max level they still do not have access to skills or traits that a level 80 would have, it just enables them to not be one-shotted.
Right, and that's the problem. In a properly structured RPG world, those things wouldn't be separated from the virtual world, they would be a part of it, organic to it.
The type of gameplay you describes fits with an e-sport lobby game, and in fact, there are several out there that fill that need. Again, that has been one of the main problems with MMORPGs over the last ten years - they continue to relegate the persistent world to the status of a huge lobby.
GW2 is going down that same road.
I really don't think your problem is with BGs in particular...
I think your problem is with instancing. Any time you enter an instance, it rips you out of the persistent virtual world. BGs are just the PvP implementation of instances.
Now, it's true that instances can marginalize the persistent world...and I think there is a real danger in using them excessively. But personally...I'm not totally against them. I think instanced dungeons are a lot of fun, and I like BGs as well.
I also enjoy persistent world stuff...and really, GW2 is MORE focused on the persistent world than it is on instances. Dynamic events, WvW, exploration, skill tasks...all that stuff happens in the persistent world and much of it actually encourages player interaction.
I think there definitely CAN be a game that is awesome and is entirely uninstanced, but GW2 just is not that kind of game.
Point is this IS en E-Sport and why I will have time to play it. Hopefully down the road when an in depth mmoRPG is developed I will be able to get into that. For now, I will stick with video games like GW2.
If you like esport why bother with a tab-target MMO with 2D battlefields, lame cover systems, no environment material diversity, very little map/gametype variety, no long-range tactics, and lamer graphics?
FPSers do the type of esport you like MUCH better.
Who are you to tell someone what they like and what they don't like.
Well, if somebody describes pretty accurately what they like, and it fits another genre much better than the MMO genre, then it is a valid question to ask why they would want to play a technically inferior MMO esport versus a much more technically advanced and skill-based FPS esport.
Not to mention today FPS battles tend to be far more massive lol how ironic is that?
Yeah, I started a thread a few weeks back describing how much more advanced the modern FPS has become versus the typical MMO PVP battleground. It is really astounding when you compare feature-to-feature. It becomes clear what utter garbage the MMO developers have been feeding us in terms of PVP battlegrounds. Even in terms of size of battles (as you pointed out) and RPG aspects the modern FPS has advanced while the MMO PVP battlegrounds have regressed. In terms of technical features the modern FPS is simply in a whole other realm.
MMO battleground are simply pathetic across the board.
GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind" 1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN 2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements
First GW1 isn't considered an MMORPG because it's instanced.
Then GW2 isn't either because in pvp you are max level with its perks.
Boy they do get it wrong, do they not?
Well, the three requirements for an MMORPG are:
1. Persistent world.
2. Lots of people.
3. Be an RPG.
GW1 isn't an MMORPG because it violates requirement one...no persistent world. And I don't think you can count the towns as being a "world" .
For GW2...they are trying to challenge requirement number 3, stating that it is not an MMORPG because it's not an RPG due to it lacking progression. But they are COMPLETELY IGNORING the PvE part of the game which makes up the MAJORITY of the game.
Well my point is, gainesvilleg, what if someone wants to play a fantasy game that is also e-sports capable. Perhaps someone doesn't want want to play in a first person perspective. There are other considerations than just being subjectively the best.
First GW1 isn't considered an MMORPG because it's instanced.
Then GW2 isn't either because in pvp you are max level with its perks.
Boy they do get it wrong, do they not?
Well, the three requirements for an MMORPG are:
1. Persistent world.
2. Lots of people.
3. Be an RPG.
GW1 isn't an MMORPG because it violates requirement one...no persistent world. And I don't think you can count the towns as being a "world" .
For GW2...they are trying to challenge requirement number 3, stating that it is not an MMORPG because it's not an RPG due to it lacking progression. But they are COMPLETELY IGNORING the PvE part of the game which makes up the MAJORITY of the game.
The official GW1 faq clearly shows that they don't claim it to be an mmoRPG. So nobody should be surprised to about GW1 not being an mmoRPG. To the point where it shouldn't even have to be brought up again.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
First GW1 isn't considered an MMORPG because it's instanced.
Then GW2 isn't either because in pvp you are max level with its perks.
Boy they do get it wrong, do they not?
Well, the three requirements for an MMORPG are:
1. Persistent world.
2. Lots of people.
3. Be an RPG.
GW1 isn't an MMORPG because it violates requirement one...no persistent world. And I don't think you can count the towns as being a "world" .
For GW2...they are trying to challenge requirement number 3, stating that it is not an MMORPG because it's not an RPG due to it lacking progression. But they are COMPLETELY IGNORING the PvE part of the game which makes up the MAJORITY of the game.
Nice definition and I agree. I know for me, RPG dies the moment I am with people who will never cross paths again. Even in WoW which has tons of pve content and in theory is an mmorpg, once I got into instanced BGs (which offends definition 1), I stopped caring about the people I grouped with and the enemies I faced. They were just red names and white names. This crosses over into Dungeon Finder which is cool when you have little time to do the mmo thing, but sucks if you want an RPG experience.
When an MMO creates a game where people no longer matter, then community no longer matters, and subsequently, it's no longer an RPG.
I don't blame the players - most are newer and younger and it comes with the territory if they don't get mmoRPG vs mmoVG (Video game or Esport). I think eventually an IP will release an mmorpg where the factions are complex, and it's persistant, and (drum role) the enemy is different than the people in your guild.
Is it too much to ask to be able to fight players that are actually different looking than my guild mates or team mates? Like different races, combat styles, spell animations, and lore? Anyway - that's another argument.
For now, GW2 will be my game, if even I have to see Norns Sylvari and Humans v Sylvari Norns and Humans lol, and because it's not NOT an RPG I won't have to dwell on those inconsistencies to RPG logic and lore.
First GW1 isn't considered an MMORPG because it's instanced.
Then GW2 isn't either because in pvp you are max level with its perks.
Boy they do get it wrong, do they not?
Well, the three requirements for an MMORPG are:
1. Persistent world.
2. Lots of people.
3. Be an RPG.
GW1 isn't an MMORPG because it violates requirement one...no persistent world. And I don't think you can count the towns as being a "world" .
For GW2...they are trying to challenge requirement number 3, stating that it is not an MMORPG because it's not an RPG due to it lacking progression. But they are COMPLETELY IGNORING the PvE part of the game which makes up the MAJORITY of the game.
The official GW1 faq clearly shows that they don't claim it to be an mmoRPG. So nobody should be surprised to about GW1 not being an mmoRPG. To the point where it shouldn't even have to be brought up again.
First GW1 isn't considered an MMORPG because it's instanced.
Then GW2 isn't either because in pvp you are max level with its perks.
Boy they do get it wrong, do they not?
Well, the three requirements for an MMORPG are:
1. Persistent world.
2. Lots of people.
3. Be an RPG.
GW1 isn't an MMORPG because it violates requirement one...no persistent world. And I don't think you can count the towns as being a "world" .
For GW2...they are trying to challenge requirement number 3, stating that it is not an MMORPG because it's not an RPG due to it lacking progression. But they are COMPLETELY IGNORING the PvE part of the game which makes up the MAJORITY of the game.
The official GW1 faq clearly shows that they don't claim it to be an mmoRPG. So nobody should be surprised to about GW1 not being an mmoRPG. To the point where it shouldn't even have to be brought up again.
First GW1 isn't considered an MMORPG because it's instanced.
Then GW2 isn't either because in pvp you are max level with its perks.
Boy they do get it wrong, do they not?
Well, the three requirements for an MMORPG are:
1. Persistent world.
2. Lots of people.
3. Be an RPG.
GW1 isn't an MMORPG because it violates requirement one...no persistent world. And I don't think you can count the towns as being a "world" .
For GW2...they are trying to challenge requirement number 3, stating that it is not an MMORPG because it's not an RPG due to it lacking progression. But they are COMPLETELY IGNORING the PvE part of the game which makes up the MAJORITY of the game.
I have to agree, due to the fact they are basically watering down progression to almost being meaningless, GW2 really isn't a proper MMORPG as defined by almost every other title ever created. (GW1, Planetside being notable exceptions, and both don't really qualify because they lack it)
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Isn't it more like: other games have totally stupid and drastic progression systems, i mean when you can go afk and still kill an opponent in pvp just because you get like 10 more level, or you can't play with your friend because you have 10 more level, and can't even kill mobs with him because you'll get no xp, or because of those anti power leveling mechanism, can't even enter a zone of the game or a dungeon because of levels? I mean what are levels? a number in a character sheet. You can do nothing because of those levels? I mean if anything is too drastic it is the usual progression almost every mmo up to date had, except few good and unique ones like UO, they all share this awesome mechanism called the grind. And people are crying because this is awesome to them, and i mean why are you even doing something else? Just Wow. I mean i can understand they don't know how GW2 is set blabla, but when they tell you they know, but well they prefer the good old grind, i'm amazed. Face palm.
And honestly as we all know GW2 still have progression, it is just not the only thing existing in the game. Its funny how some people would turn you up side down in no time.
Even in WoW, in the new expansion for the Challenge Mode dungeons they are going to standardize gear/stats so that the rankings/scores are based on skill > gear.
Stat progression as the end-all of the game is a very overused mechanic in single player RPGs too.
I found it so damn funny people had such a problem with the auto-leveling in Oblivion/Skyrim.
But, then again, some people just love to play games with cheat codes too.
Some people gets a kick out of slaughtering totally defenseless players or mobs, it is just that simple.
The whole problem is that levelmechanics are not really intended to be used as they are today.
Originally you had a DM/GM who customized the challenge for you so that the game always was interesting.
Levels are made as a simple way to handle that a character should get more experienced as you played. No GM would put a lvl 20 monster against your level 1 character so it isn't really a problem in the P&P games that uses levels.
When rpgs moved to computers the theory at least was that the computers would do what the GM does and give you the right level of challenges.
The real problem started with some of the earliest MMOs like Meridian 59 and The realm, they used D&Ds mechanics since it is the most popular P&P in the US (or was until Pathfinder came along a few years back). It doesn't work well, there are other P&P mechanics that works better for a MMO like leveless systems like Runequest and Warhammer FRPG. Garriot understood this and that is why UO had no levels.
GW2 is making a fix for it but the truth of the matter is that we really need new basic character mechanics to simulate experience for the genre. Several games like that are on the way including TSW and WoDO.
I think GW2 is taking levels as good as can be done.
GW1 isn't an MMORPG because it violates requirement one...no persistent world. And I don't think you can count the towns as being a "world" .
For GW2...they are trying to challenge requirement number 3, stating that it is not an MMORPG because it's not an RPG due to it lacking progression. But they are COMPLETELY IGNORING the PvE part of the game which makes up the MAJORITY of the game.
Roleplaying is not about getting levels or gear, and it never was. If it was then Diablo would be the ultimate roleplaying game.
Roleplaying is about immerse yourself into characters and strange worlds, or as someone said "To boldly go where no man have gone before".
Right, and that's the problem. In a properly structured RPG world, those things wouldn't be separated from the virtual world, they would be a part of it, organic to it.
The type of gameplay you describes fits with an e-sport lobby game, and in fact, there are several out there that fill that need. Again, that has been one of the main problems with MMORPGs over the last ten years - they continue to relegate the persistent world to the status of a huge lobby.
GW2 is going down that same road.
Is it so difficult to accept that GW2 offers a variety of things for people?
1. MMORPG PvE in a persistent, dynamic world. Includes highly challenging dungeon content.
2. Large scale, persistent PvP (WvW) with character progression, drops, etc. in an MMORPG world separated from the PvE world. Also has dynamic events, local mobs, etc.
3. Lobby style competitive PvP where everyone is on an equal footing and personal skills make the difference.
One character, you have all of these available to you. Where's the problem?
Originally posted by Loke666 Originally posted by Creslin321 Well, the three requirements for an MMORPG are: 1. Persistent world. 2. Lots of people. 3. Be an RPG. GW1 isn't an MMORPG because it violates requirement one...no persistent world. And I don't think you can count the towns as being a "world" . For GW2...they are trying to challenge requirement number 3, stating that it is not an MMORPG because it's not an RPG due to it lacking progression. But they are COMPLETELY IGNORING the PvE part of the game which makes up the MAJORITY of the game.
Roleplaying is not about getting levels or gear, and it never was. If it was then Diablo would be the ultimate roleplaying game. Roleplaying is about immerse yourself into characters and strange worlds, or as someone said "To boldly go where no man have gone before".
Loke's got a good point.
Some guy's definition of RPG isn't fulfilled. There's no chink in his virginity armor. LoL
I used to play MMOs like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee.
Originally posted by Kyleran Originally posted by Creslin321
Originally posted by Exilor
First GW1 isn't considered an MMORPG because it's instanced. Then GW2 isn't either because in pvp you are max level with its perks. Boy they do get it wrong, do they not?
Well, the three requirements for an MMORPG are: 1. Persistent world. 2. Lots of people. 3. Be an RPG. GW1 isn't an MMORPG because it violates requirement one...no persistent world. And I don't think you can count the towns as being a "world" . For GW2...they are trying to challenge requirement number 3, stating that it is not an MMORPG because it's not an RPG due to it lacking progression. But they are COMPLETELY IGNORING the PvE part of the game which makes up the MAJORITY of the game. I have to agree, due to the fact they are basically watering down progression to almost being meaningless, GW2 really isn't a proper MMORPG as defined by almost every other title ever created. (GW1, Planetside being notable exceptions, and both don't really qualify because they lack it)
How exactly is progression meaningless? You have levels, gear that changes as you level, skills to unlock, traits to invest in to suit your playstyle and an evolving world and personal storyline. If your counting progression as an end game hamster wheel then maybe you have a point. I think these sweeping statements need to be left off until people start sending out reports from betas that don't have an NDA, all this buying advantage and lack of progression talk is meaningless, pure speculation and scare mongering, sure I'm concerned by some of it but until we get the real facts it's all inventisizing stuff to suit your agenda, fan boy or troll.
Originally posted by darkehawke Originally posted by Exilor First GW1 isn't considered an MMORPG because it's instanced. Then GW2 isn't either because in pvp you are max level with its perks. Boy they do get it wrong, do they not?
But pvp alone does not make a mmorpg
Says who? I think mmorpgs were invented on the idea that it'd be player vs player in the long scheme of things. It's quite a modern, and boring, concept that the majority of the game be scripted easy crap. PvP gameplay is infinite.
I used to play MMOs like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee.
Is it really an RPG? You essentially have throw away characters. I could make a ranger go into pvp battles and be the same as every other ranger with the exception of a cosmetic tweak. I could go into pve battles and essentially be the same as every other pve ranger with the exception of a few cosmetic tweaks. We're basically all the same.
I could then delete that ranger, make another that looks exactly like it and I would have the same exact ranger. You would never know I had made a new ranger. It would have the same skills, same stuff, same same same.
I could make 5 different necromancers that all look the same with a single letter difference in their name. That would be the only difference between them. More same same same.
If level progression is fast and flat and gear is essentially stat equivalent what diffferentiates our characters from one another? Nothing.
To me, there is almost no "rpg" in the game. It's one of the most lacking features I feel when I've played GW1 over the last 5 or 6 years (however long it's been now). That is what I love about progression mmo design. It's not about raiding. It's about building different gear and skill powers that have inherent strengths and weaknesses in my character build choices. Guild Wars has essentially zero of that "character" (a foundational tenet of RPG) in both PvP and PvE.
If you go into a pvp battle all the same, you are removing the rpg from your battles and I agree with the above posters claim that FPS games do it better. Guild Wars isn't a pvp game about skill where other rpgs aren't. It's a game where RPG doesn't count, but latency, system specs, and twitch reflexes do.
In GW1, you can't take your PvP only characters into PvE, not sure what you're getting at there.
Maybe you're talking about WoW... I saw a guy multi-boxing 5 identical shaman I think it was... had one letter difference in their names. Could take them PvP, PvE... oh wait.. maybe WoW isn't an RPG at all then. Dang, all those RP guilds are going to be shocked! Well... the Goldshire crowd won't care, they're doing their own thing anyhow.
does someone force you to skip progression and go directly to lev 80 pvp?
dont think so
so what are you whining about?
Only reason that come to my mind is OP is a nolifer who doesnt like he has to go against ppl of same strength and therefore cannt beat them purely because of the hours he is able to put into advancing his char.
Originally posted by Benedikt does somene force you to skip srogression and go directly to lev 80 pvp? dont think so so what are you whining about? Only reason that come to my mind is OP is a nolifer who doesnt like he has to go against ppl of same strength and therefore cannt beat them purely because of the hours he is able to put into advancing his char.
Someone will get to 80 before OP! omeeguhhh
I used to play MMOs like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee.
Originally posted by BadSpock Originally posted by PukeBucket
Originally posted by Loke66
Roleplaying is not about getting levels or gear, and it never was. If it was then Diablo would be the ultimate roleplaying game. Roleplaying is about immerse yourself into characters and strange worlds, or as someone said "To boldly go where no man have gone before"
Loke's got a good point. Some guy's definition of RPG isn't fulfilled. There's no chink in his virginity armor. LoL Yeah, for some reason people seem to think the D&D definition is the only accurate definition of RPG. If that were true, Ultima Online would barely have been an RPG either.
I think you just invited the top 3 anti-pvp posters to rage on this thread now.
I used to play MMOs like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee.
My progression is practicing my skills in game. Learning new combos and ways to handle situations better. To me it's no different than a fighting game. You start off a noob but after years and years of practice, you might find yourself participating in EVO.
Comments
I really don't think your problem is with BGs in particular...
I think your problem is with instancing. Any time you enter an instance, it rips you out of the persistent virtual world. BGs are just the PvP implementation of instances.
Now, it's true that instances can marginalize the persistent world...and I think there is a real danger in using them excessively. But personally...I'm not totally against them. I think instanced dungeons are a lot of fun, and I like BGs as well.
I also enjoy persistent world stuff...and really, GW2 is MORE focused on the persistent world than it is on instances. Dynamic events, WvW, exploration, skill tasks...all that stuff happens in the persistent world and much of it actually encourages player interaction.
I think there definitely CAN be a game that is awesome and is entirely uninstanced, but GW2 just is not that kind of game.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Yeah, I started a thread a few weeks back describing how much more advanced the modern FPS has become versus the typical MMO PVP battleground. It is really astounding when you compare feature-to-feature. It becomes clear what utter garbage the MMO developers have been feeding us in terms of PVP battlegrounds. Even in terms of size of battles (as you pointed out) and RPG aspects the modern FPS has advanced while the MMO PVP battlegrounds have regressed. In terms of technical features the modern FPS is simply in a whole other realm.
MMO battleground are simply pathetic across the board.
GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind"
1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN
2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements
But pvp alone does not make a mmorpg
Currently playing- SWG PreCU & GW 2
Have tried WoW, AoC, & Vanguard, SWG:NGE, GW, LOTRO & SWTOR
Best MMO: SWG
Worst MMO: SWTOR
Well, the three requirements for an MMORPG are:
1. Persistent world.
2. Lots of people.
3. Be an RPG.
GW1 isn't an MMORPG because it violates requirement one...no persistent world. And I don't think you can count the towns as being a "world"
.
For GW2...they are trying to challenge requirement number 3, stating that it is not an MMORPG because it's not an RPG due to it lacking progression. But they are COMPLETELY IGNORING the PvE part of the game which makes up the MAJORITY of the game.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Well my point is, gainesvilleg, what if someone wants to play a fantasy game that is also e-sports capable. Perhaps someone doesn't want want to play in a first person perspective. There are other considerations than just being subjectively the best.
The official GW1 faq clearly shows that they don't claim it to be an mmoRPG. So nobody should be surprised to about GW1 not being an mmoRPG. To the point where it shouldn't even have to be brought up again.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Nice definition and I agree. I know for me, RPG dies the moment I am with people who will never cross paths again. Even in WoW which has tons of pve content and in theory is an mmorpg, once I got into instanced BGs (which offends definition 1), I stopped caring about the people I grouped with and the enemies I faced. They were just red names and white names. This crosses over into Dungeon Finder which is cool when you have little time to do the mmo thing, but sucks if you want an RPG experience.
When an MMO creates a game where people no longer matter, then community no longer matters, and subsequently, it's no longer an RPG.
I don't blame the players - most are newer and younger and it comes with the territory if they don't get mmoRPG vs mmoVG (Video game or Esport). I think eventually an IP will release an mmorpg where the factions are complex, and it's persistant, and (drum role) the enemy is different than the people in your guild.
Is it too much to ask to be able to fight players that are actually different looking than my guild mates or team mates? Like different races, combat styles, spell animations, and lore? Anyway - that's another argument.
For now, GW2 will be my game, if even I have to see Norns Sylvari and Humans v Sylvari Norns and Humans lol, and because it's not NOT an RPG I won't have to dwell on those inconsistencies to RPG logic and lore.
Agreed
.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Excellent point!
I have to agree, due to the fact they are basically watering down progression to almost being meaningless, GW2 really isn't a proper MMORPG as defined by almost every other title ever created. (GW1, Planetside being notable exceptions, and both don't really qualify because they lack it)
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Isn't it more like: other games have totally stupid and drastic progression systems, i mean when you can go afk and still kill an opponent in pvp just because you get like 10 more level, or you can't play with your friend because you have 10 more level, and can't even kill mobs with him because you'll get no xp, or because of those anti power leveling mechanism, can't even enter a zone of the game or a dungeon because of levels? I mean what are levels? a number in a character sheet. You can do nothing because of those levels? I mean if anything is too drastic it is the usual progression almost every mmo up to date had, except few good and unique ones like UO, they all share this awesome mechanism called the grind. And people are crying because this is awesome to them, and i mean why are you even doing something else? Just Wow. I mean i can understand they don't know how GW2 is set blabla, but when they tell you they know, but well they prefer the good old grind, i'm amazed. Face palm.
And honestly as we all know GW2 still have progression, it is just not the only thing existing in the game. Its funny how some people would turn you up side down in no time.
Some people gets a kick out of slaughtering totally defenseless players or mobs, it is just that simple.
The whole problem is that levelmechanics are not really intended to be used as they are today.
Originally you had a DM/GM who customized the challenge for you so that the game always was interesting.
Levels are made as a simple way to handle that a character should get more experienced as you played. No GM would put a lvl 20 monster against your level 1 character so it isn't really a problem in the P&P games that uses levels.
When rpgs moved to computers the theory at least was that the computers would do what the GM does and give you the right level of challenges.
The real problem started with some of the earliest MMOs like Meridian 59 and The realm, they used D&Ds mechanics since it is the most popular P&P in the US (or was until Pathfinder came along a few years back). It doesn't work well, there are other P&P mechanics that works better for a MMO like leveless systems like Runequest and Warhammer FRPG. Garriot understood this and that is why UO had no levels.
GW2 is making a fix for it but the truth of the matter is that we really need new basic character mechanics to simulate experience for the genre. Several games like that are on the way including TSW and WoDO.
I think GW2 is taking levels as good as can be done.
Good lord, now people are saying GW2 isn't an mmorpg?
Roleplaying is not about getting levels or gear, and it never was. If it was then Diablo would be the ultimate roleplaying game.
Roleplaying is about immerse yourself into characters and strange worlds, or as someone said "To boldly go where no man have gone before".
Is it so difficult to accept that GW2 offers a variety of things for people?
1. MMORPG PvE in a persistent, dynamic world. Includes highly challenging dungeon content.
2. Large scale, persistent PvP (WvW) with character progression, drops, etc. in an MMORPG world separated from the PvE world. Also has dynamic events, local mobs, etc.
3. Lobby style competitive PvP where everyone is on an equal footing and personal skills make the difference.
One character, you have all of these available to you. Where's the problem?
Oderint, dum metuant.
Roleplaying is about immerse yourself into characters and strange worlds, or as someone said "To boldly go where no man have gone before".
Loke's got a good point.
Some guy's definition of RPG isn't fulfilled. There's no chink in his virginity armor. LoL
I used to play MMOs like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee.
1. Persistent world.
2. Lots of people.
3. Be an RPG.
GW1 isn't an MMORPG because it violates requirement one...no persistent world. And I don't think you can count the towns as being a "world"
For GW2...they are trying to challenge requirement number 3, stating that it is not an MMORPG because it's not an RPG due to it lacking progression. But they are COMPLETELY IGNORING the PvE part of the game which makes up the MAJORITY of the game.
I have to agree, due to the fact they are basically watering down progression to almost being meaningless, GW2 really isn't a proper MMORPG as defined by almost every other title ever created. (GW1, Planetside being notable exceptions, and both don't really qualify because they lack it)
How exactly is progression meaningless? You have levels, gear that changes as you level, skills to unlock, traits to invest in to suit your playstyle and an evolving world and personal storyline. If your counting progression as an end game hamster wheel then maybe you have a point. I think these sweeping statements need to be left off until people start sending out reports from betas that don't have an NDA, all this buying advantage and lack of progression talk is meaningless, pure speculation and scare mongering, sure I'm concerned by some of it but until we get the real facts it's all inventisizing stuff to suit your agenda, fan boy or troll.
Says who?
I think mmorpgs were invented on the idea that it'd be player vs player in the long scheme of things.
It's quite a modern, and boring, concept that the majority of the game be scripted easy crap.
PvP gameplay is infinite.
I used to play MMOs like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee.
In GW1, you can't take your PvP only characters into PvE, not sure what you're getting at there.
Maybe you're talking about WoW... I saw a guy multi-boxing 5 identical shaman I think it was... had one letter difference in their names. Could take them PvP, PvE... oh wait.. maybe WoW isn't an RPG at all then. Dang, all those RP guilds are going to be shocked! Well... the Goldshire crowd won't care, they're doing their own thing anyhow.
Oderint, dum metuant.
does someone force you to skip progression and go directly to lev 80 pvp?
dont think so
so what are you whining about?
Only reason that come to my mind is OP is a nolifer who doesnt like he has to go against ppl of same strength and therefore cannt beat them purely because of the hours he is able to put into advancing his char.
Anet did not consider gw1 an mmorpg.
Yeah, for some reason people seem to think the D&D definition is the only accurate definition of RPG.
If that were true, Ultima Online would barely have been an RPG either.
Someone will get to 80 before OP! omeeguhhh
I used to play MMOs like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee.
Roleplaying is not about getting levels or gear, and it never was. If it was then Diablo would be the ultimate roleplaying game.
Roleplaying is about immerse yourself into characters and strange worlds, or as someone said "To boldly go where no man have gone before"
Loke's got a good point.
Some guy's definition of RPG isn't fulfilled. There's no chink in his virginity armor. LoL
Yeah, for some reason people seem to think the D&D definition is the only accurate definition of RPG.
If that were true, Ultima Online would barely have been an RPG either.
I think you just invited the top 3 anti-pvp posters to rage on this thread now.
I used to play MMOs like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee.
My progression is practicing my skills in game. Learning new combos and ways to handle situations better. To me it's no different than a fighting game. You start off a noob but after years and years of practice, you might find yourself participating in EVO.