What ZZAD is talking about that anyone who has an opinion that GW2 is'nt a RPG or is lacking as an RPG MMO is stupid. I am not even going to touch 'whether it is MMO or not part because people are free to interpret MMOS and their definitions in any manner they like.
So nope it is still an opinion an opinion he can gracefully disagree with but he chose not to instead resorted to personal attacks as usual.
That's not an opinion though.
Saying 'GW2 isn't an RPG' is just as stupid as someone saying 'CoD isn't an FPS'. GW2, whether you like it or not, IS a role playing game. It's a game, and you are playing a role in that game. By the very definition of what makes a game considered an RPG, GW2 is an RPG. Saying differently isn't an opinion, it's a blatant lie.
That's the problem when you confuse the difference between opinion and fact. These terms 'MMO' and 'RPG' have very specific definitions. 'MMO' stands for 'Massive, Multiplayer, Online. 'RPG' stands for 'Role Playing Game. Put them together, and you have 'Massively, Multiplayer, Online, Role-Playing Game.
Is GW2 Massive? Yes. It has 100s of thousands of players all playing the same game.
Is GW2 Multiplayers? Yes. You play with other people.
Is GW2 Online? Yes. You play it over the internet.
Is GW2 Role-Playing? Yes. You are assuming the identity of another character.
Is GW2 a Game? Yes. You are playing with a set of mechanics to achieve certain 'goals'.
I really shouldn't have to explain this in such detail. You do realise the difference between an opinion & a fact, yes?
Opinion: a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
Fact: a truth verifiable from experience or observation.
In order for something to be considered an opinion, it can't have an assumed certainty (as is made clear by the above definition). Saying 'GW2 is not an RPG' assumes, with certainty, that the game doesn't fit a specific definition. As such it goes counter to the very definition of what makes an opinion, an opinion.
Edit: If you can find a source, that applies to gaming, in which the terms 'MMO' or 'RPG' don't stand for 'Massive, Multiplayer, Online' or 'Role-Playing Game', then I'll concede my point. Until then, they are very clear acronyms.
Assume: take or begin to have (power or responsibility).
Think about this. Are you really assuming the identity of another character? Do you sufficient power over that character to consider so?
Assume: take or begin to have (power or responsibility).
Think about this. Are you really assuming the identity of another character? Do you sufficient power over that character to consider so?
i'd say yes you could make an argument on that in any game.. i could say i feel im assuming the identity of my character in any CoD game for example as I move from area to area completeing missions as I follow the campaign.. not sure that's really the best definition for a RPG though sort of a very blanket and very much open to the idividual playing the games perception
I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg
You can repeat it as many times as you like even though people have backed up their opinion with proper and elaborate reasoning.
On what established criteria of MMORPG ar eyou calling their opinions stupid? it is not some scientficaly proven fact which can not be refuted by merely giving an opinion.
Again, if you can show me an example (that applies to gaming) in which the acronyms 'MMO' or 'RPG' do not mean 'Massively, Multiplayer, Online' or 'Role-playing game', then I'll concede my point.
If not, then I really can't spell this out any more plainly for you. Those acronyms stand for very specific words, that have very clear definitions.
While there is some wiggle room in the definitions, there isn't enough to make what your claiming to be an opinion actually be so. The only way in which what you're stating as 'an opinion' could be an actual opinion is if none of the other MMORPGs existed.
By looking at GW2's population, there is only 1 MMORPG that has a larger one.
By looking at land mass, there is only 1 MMORPG that has a bigger 'world'.
By this, you can deduce that the only way GW2 could not be 'massive' is if WoW is the only massive game that exists.
That's your wiggle room for the terms. Every other word in those acronyms are very clearly defined. As such, they have clear definitions. It's simple logic. I've laid out the facts in plain english. You can choose to ignore them or accept them, but it doesn't make your statement any more valid.
I think most people assume now that reviewers for major sites are bribed. Either through you talk good or no early access/news to you for our other game or otherwise. You can see this a lot when you compare the treatment and scores smaller or niche games get. Compare what the reviewers say to players, half the time for a niche game for say an RPG they just assign anybody to the game and use it as fluff on their magazine/website on a slow news day.
Guild Wars 2 was overhyped and very obviously bribed sites to hype them. To the point where anything Guild Wars releated was a good source of views and thus ad money because of the hype.
I think the only true review was that it was the best MMO game of 2012, because so far there have been no better games. But really, that's like saying stale bread was the best of the bread available at this bakery this year.
World events are not groundbreaking, it's not a great example of the genre. We can even look at MMORPG's early WvW youtube review, I think it was by Mike. He gushed over the autoattack. Come on, really?
What ZZAD is talking about that anyone who has an opinion that GW2 is'nt a RPG or is lacking as an RPG MMO is stupid. I am not even going to touch 'whether it is MMO or not part because people are free to interpret MMOS and their definitions in any manner they like.
So nope it is still an opinion an opinion he can gracefully disagree with but he chose not to instead resorted to personal attacks as usual.
That's not an opinion though.
Saying 'GW2 isn't an RPG' is just as stupid as someone saying 'CoD isn't an FPS'. GW2, whether you like it or not, IS a role playing game. It's a game, and you are playing a role in that game. By the very definition of what makes a game considered an RPG, GW2 is an RPG. Saying differently isn't an opinion, it's a blatant lie.
That's the problem when you confuse the difference between opinion and fact. These terms 'MMO' and 'RPG' have very specific definitions. 'MMO' stands for 'Massive, Multiplayer, Online. 'RPG' stands for 'Role Playing Game. Put them together, and you have 'Massively, Multiplayer, Online, Role-Playing Game.
Is GW2 Massive? Yes. It has 100s of thousands of players all playing the same game.
Is GW2 Multiplayers? Yes. You play with other people.
Is GW2 Online? Yes. You play it over the internet.
Is GW2 Role-Playing? Yes. You are assuming the identity of another character.
Is GW2 a Game? Yes. You are playing with a set of mechanics to achieve certain 'goals'.
I really shouldn't have to explain this in such detail. You do realise the difference between an opinion & a fact, yes?
Opinion: a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
Fact: a truth verifiable from experience or observation.
In order for something to be considered an opinion, it can't have an assumed certainty (as is made clear by the above definition). Saying 'GW2 is not an RPG' assumes, with certainty, that the game doesn't fit a specific definition. As such it goes counter to the very definition of what makes an opinion, an opinion.
Edit: If you can find a source, that applies to gaming, in which the terms 'MMO' or 'RPG' don't stand for 'Massive, Multiplayer, Online' or 'Role-Playing Game', then I'll concede my point. Until then, they are very clear acronyms.
So under your definition, every game in which you play an avatar is an RPG. Yeah right.......
You can repeat it as many times as you like even though people have backed up their opinion with proper and elaborate reasoning.
On what established criteria of MMORPG ar eyou calling their opinions stupid? it is not some scientficaly proven fact which can not be refuted by merely giving an opinion.
Again, if you can show me an example (that applies to gaming) in which the acronyms 'MMO' or 'RPG' do not mean 'Massively, Multiplayer, Online' or 'Role-playing game', then I'll concede my point.
If not, then I really can't spell this out any more plainly for you. Those acronyms stand for very specific words, that have very clear definitions.
While there is some wiggle room in the definitions, there isn't enough to make what your claiming to be an opinion actually be so. The only way in which what you're stating as 'an opinion' could be an actual opinion is if none of the other MMORPGs existed.
By looking at GW2's population, there is only 1 MMORPG that has a larger one.
By looking at land mass, there is only 1 MMORPG that has a bigger 'world'.
By this, you can deduce that the only way GW2 could not be 'massive' is if WoW is the only massive game that exists.
That's your wiggle room for the terms. Every other word in those acronyms are very clearly defined. As such, they have clear definitions. It's simple logic. I've laid out the facts in plain english. You can choose to ignore them or accept them, but it doesn't make your statement any more valid.
and you know this how? Show me some numbers. Don't show me sales numbers but daily log in numbers....
I would have appreciated an answer in the middle somewhere. Like most broad-range topics, a yes or no represents extremes. The answer is likely to be somewhere in the middle for most.
Having played GW1, LOTOR, WoW, and L2 recently, I think GW2 is deserving of praise overall. I think its worth the $60, more so than most sub MMO's that get boring in the same (or less) amount of time. However, I wouldn't consider the game revolutionary or a vast departure from anything available today. Rather, it has some nice perks, and some not-so-nice quirks.
I would say yes it does deserve much of the positive attention it's gotten.
It's one of the better mmos that has come out in the past 5 years, sure it had some launch issues, but that's true of all games. ArenaNet delivered a game that brings a different experience than the traditional themepark game of the past decade, but it's not so different that the game isn't recognizable or easily understandable by the masses. If GW2 remains solvent, it will show that there is a market for B2P mmos with minimal intrusion from cash shops.
That's not to say the game doesn't have its flaws. There needs to be more fluff things to do, other than just killing things all of the time. There's minigames, but many are overly simplistic and boring. GW2 would do well with some sandbox elements, such as housing or guild halls which are expandable via crafting and other means. The combat does need to be expanded a bit with either the inclusion of more skills, or even potentially a dual classing system of some sort.
The bottom line is though that the groundwork is there for a game that can be built upon for years to come. As long as ANet maintains their level of quality and get creative with how they expand the game, GW2 will be a positive presence in the mmo space.
Assume: take or begin to have (power or responsibility).
Think about this. Are you really assuming the identity of another character? Do you sufficient power over that character to consider so?
i'd say yes you could make an argument on that in any game.. i could say i feel im assuming the identity of my character in any CoD game for example as I move from area to area completeing missions as I follow the campaign.. not sure that's really the best definition for a RPG though sort of a very blanket and very much open to the idividual playing the games perception
There is some grey area there, but it generally works in the opposite direction (as in, it's more plausible to argue that a non-RPG is actually an RPG, than it is to argue that an RPG actually isn't).
Any game that has playable character roles, can be considered an RPG. And GW2 has quite a bit of this. Furthermore, if you take it even further to the staples of commonly accepted RPG games, GW2 also meets those same requirements. There is a storyline that you act out, you are playing a character with his own story / background, etc.
The easiest way to think of the difference is in how you view the game. For example, in an RPG you are often viewing it via 'your character'. If you think 'i need to get X for my character' or 'my character needs X lvl' etc. you are playing an RPG. While games like CoD are becoming more like RPGs in some regards (as they attempt to have more of a story), the only reason they aren't considered them, is because that's not the focus.
That's the reason, for example, 'Uncharted' is considered an 'action-adventure game' instead of a 'shooter'.
I think most people assume now that reviewers for major sites are bribed. Either through you talk good or no early access/news to you for our other game or otherwise. You can see this a lot when you compare the treatment and scores smaller or niche games get. Compare what the reviewers say to players, half the time for a niche game for say an RPG they just assign anybody to the game and use it as fluff on their magazine/website on a slow news day.
Guild Wars 2 was overhyped and very obviously bribed sites to hype them. To the point where anything Guild Wars releated was a good source of views and thus ad money because of the hype.
I think the only true review was that it was the best MMO game of 2012, because so far there have been no better games. But really, that's like saying stale bread was the best of the bread available at this bakery this year.
World events are not groundbreaking, it's not a great example of the genre. We can even look at MMORPG's early WvW youtube review, I think it was by Mike. He gushed over the autoattack. Come on, really?
Are the metacritic, MMORPG community, and other gamer voting site also bought?
Saying GW2 is not a MMORPG...or even a RPG....is the stupiest thing ever....
Some posters here are getting a bit "out of control" bashing on GW2...
...every single day over & over.
And then..not long ago..some claimed "Diablo 3" could be consider a MMO for beeing "online" FFS....
What´s next? A post saying GW2 is not even a game?
I´m fed up with this nonsense ¬¬
The stupidest thing is people who call others opinion stupidest. Disagree all you like but there no need for passive aggressive insults.
With this attitude i doubt anyone is even going to take your posts seriously. I surely didn't.
Halflife... there's a pretty big difference between someone having an opinion, and someone pulling crap out of their arse. What Zzad is talking about isn't bashing an opinion, it's being annoyed by the amount of BS that gets posted on these forums, and I've got to agree with him.
Examples:
Opinion: 'I don't like GW2 because I felt the personal story wasn't done very well.' or 'I though GW2 wasn't a good MMO, because I think MMOs should have endgame raiding'.
BS: 'GW2 isn't an MMO' or 'GW2 is a WoW clone' or 'GW2 has no customization'
See the difference?
It's one thing to get people who don't like the game for one reason or another (which is perfectly fine). Unfortunately we've been getting mostly option #2, which is batantly stating things that have no basis in reality. What Zzad is talking about are things that have very clear definitions. GW2 IS an MMO by any industry accepted definition, and it is an RPG by an industry accepted definition. Therefor it IS an MMORPG. To say otherwise would be stupid, by any stretch of the imagination.
If I stated that 'Call of Duty is the best MMORPG ever made', I wouldn't be someone stating an opinion. I'd be a moron.
What ZZAD is talking about that anyone who has an opinion that GW2 is'nt a RPG or is lacking as an RPG MMO is stupid. I am not even going to touch 'whether it is MMO or not part because people are free to interpret MMOS and their definitions in any manner they like.
So nope it is still an opinion an opinion he can gracefully disagree with but he chose not to instead resorted to personal attacks as usual.
I dont usually EVER personally attack anyone,there you have my post history to check it out if you wish.
If you took it that way..then you are either wrong or simply didn´t understand my point.
GW2 is a MMORPG....like it or not.... but some posters here for the sake of pure bashing and misinforming are saying plain lies about the game.
Is GW2 Role-Playing? Yes. You are assuming the identity of another character.
So under your definition, every game in which you play an avatar is an RPG. Yeah right.......
It's not actually 'my' definition. It is a definition of 'Role-playing' as it pertains to video games.
But yes, theoretically you could use that definition to apply to most games with an avatar. However, as I said in a previous post, the reason why most of those games aren't considered RPGs is because the story of a character is not the focus of the game. The lines get more blurred as more games start to adopt features from other genres, but games are still generally categorized by their focus.
However, that discussion is completely off topic and could be an entirely separate thread all on its own.
For a B2P game that breaks the mold, they deserve the praise for the product they produced. Just because it doesn't currently appeal to me at endgame, that doesn't mean they don't deserve praise. What MMO was better that it went up against? Certainly not TSW or SWTOR.
So what's the point with all this, none of you listen to one another, you just write what you think is right and your opinion is more valid than the next and the next guy think excactly the same way.
Saying GW2 is not a MMORPG...or even a RPG....is the stupiest thing ever....
Some posters here are getting a bit "out of control" bashing on GW2...
...every single day over & over.
And then..not long ago..some claimed "Diablo 3" could be consider a MMO for beeing "online" FFS....
What´s next? A post saying GW2 is not even a game?
I´m fed up with this nonsense ¬¬
The stupidest thing is people who call others opinion stupidest. Disagree all you like but there no need for passive aggressive insults.
With this attitude i doubt anyone is even going to take your posts seriously. I surely didn't.
Halflife... there's a pretty big difference between someone having an opinion, and someone pulling crap out of their arse. What Zzad is talking about isn't bashing an opinion, it's being annoyed by the amount of BS that gets posted on these forums, and I've got to agree with him.
Examples:
Opinion: 'I don't like GW2 because I felt the personal story wasn't done very well.' or 'I though GW2 wasn't a good MMO, because I think MMOs should have endgame raiding'.
BS: 'GW2 isn't an MMO' or 'GW2 is a WoW clone' or 'GW2 has no customization'
See the difference?
It's one thing to get people who don't like the game for one reason or another (which is perfectly fine). Unfortunately we've been getting mostly option #2, which is batantly stating things that have no basis in reality. What Zzad is talking about are things that have very clear definitions. GW2 IS an MMO by any industry accepted definition, and it is an RPG by an industry accepted definition. Therefor it IS an MMORPG. To say otherwise would be stupid, by any stretch of the imagination.
If I stated that 'Call of Duty is the best MMORPG ever made', I wouldn't be someone stating an opinion. I'd be a moron.
What ZZAD is talking about that anyone who has an opinion that GW2 is'nt a RPG or is lacking as an RPG MMO is stupid. I am not even going to touch 'whether it is MMO or not part because people are free to interpret MMOS and their definitions in any manner they like.
So nope it is still an opinion an opinion he can gracefully disagree with but he chose not to instead resorted to personal attacks as usual.
I dont usually EVER personally attack anyone,there you have my post history to check it out if you wish.
If you took it that way..then you are either wrong or simply didn´t understand my point.
GW2 is a MMORPG....like it or not.... but some posters here for the sake of pure bashing and misinforming are saying plain lies about the game.
Are they making these statements just to bash the game? Do you know that? Maybe it is how they feel. I know a lot have people who have said it feels a lot more like a CRPG or a console coop game because of the little to no communication required to play the game and the lack of social interaction that normally occurs in other MMOs. Maybe that is what they are referring to......
Assume: take or begin to have (power or responsibility).
Think about this. Are you really assuming the identity of another character? Do you sufficient power over that character to consider so?
i'd say yes you could make an argument on that in any game.. i could say i feel im assuming the identity of my character in any CoD game for example as I move from area to area completeing missions as I follow the campaign.. not sure that's really the best definition for a RPG though sort of a very blanket and very much open to the idividual playing the games perception
There is some grey area there, but it generally works in the opposite direction (as in, it's more plausible to argue that a non-RPG is actually an RPG, than it is to argue that an RPG actually isn't).
Any game that has playable character roles, can be considered an RPG. And GW2 has quite a bit of this. Furthermore, if you take it even further to the staples of commonly accepted RPG games, GW2 also meets those same requirements. There is a storyline that you act out, you are playing a character with his own story / background, etc.
The easiest way to think of the difference is in how you view the game. For example, in an RPG you are often viewing it via 'your character'. If you think 'i need to get X for my character' or 'my character needs X lvl' etc. you are playing an RPG. While games like CoD are becoming more like RPGs in some regards (as they attempt to have more of a story), the only reason they aren't considered them, is because that's not the focus.
That's the reason, for example, 'Uncharted' is considered an 'action-adventure game' instead of a 'shooter'.
sort of but also sort of grey area.. as many FPS has multiple "roles" and not considered a RPG like TF2 and many others... think of games like system shock 2.. it was always known as a FPS/RPG hybrid.. what elements in that game were considered the RPG aspect?
I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg
Saying GW2 is not a MMORPG...or even a RPG....is the stupiest thing ever....
Some posters here are getting a bit "out of control" bashing on GW2...
...every single day over & over.
And then..not long ago..some claimed "Diablo 3" could be consider a MMO for beeing "online" FFS....
What´s next? A post saying GW2 is not even a game?
I´m fed up with this nonsense ¬¬
The stupidest thing is people who call others opinion stupidest. Disagree all you like but there no need for passive aggressive insults.
With this attitude i doubt anyone is even going to take your posts seriously. I surely didn't.
Halflife... there's a pretty big difference between someone having an opinion, and someone pulling crap out of their arse. What Zzad is talking about isn't bashing an opinion, it's being annoyed by the amount of BS that gets posted on these forums, and I've got to agree with him.
Examples:
Opinion: 'I don't like GW2 because I felt the personal story wasn't done very well.' or 'I though GW2 wasn't a good MMO, because I think MMOs should have endgame raiding'.
BS: 'GW2 isn't an MMO' or 'GW2 is a WoW clone' or 'GW2 has no customization'
See the difference?
It's one thing to get people who don't like the game for one reason or another (which is perfectly fine). Unfortunately we've been getting mostly option #2, which is batantly stating things that have no basis in reality. What Zzad is talking about are things that have very clear definitions. GW2 IS an MMO by any industry accepted definition, and it is an RPG by an industry accepted definition. Therefor it IS an MMORPG. To say otherwise would be stupid, by any stretch of the imagination.
If I stated that 'Call of Duty is the best MMORPG ever made', I wouldn't be someone stating an opinion. I'd be a moron.
What ZZAD is talking about that anyone who has an opinion that GW2 is'nt a RPG or is lacking as an RPG MMO is stupid. I am not even going to touch 'whether it is MMO or not part because people are free to interpret MMOS and their definitions in any manner they like.
So nope it is still an opinion an opinion he can gracefully disagree with but he chose not to instead resorted to personal attacks as usual.
I dont usually EVER personally attack anyone,there you have my post history to check it out if you wish.
If you took it that way..then you are either wrong or simply didn´t understand my point.
GW2 is a MMORPG....like it or not.... but some posters here for the sake of pure bashing and misinforming are saying plain lies about the game.
Are they making these statements just to bash the game? Do you know that? Maybe it is how they feel. I know a lot have people who have said it feels a lot more like a CRPG or a console coop game because of the little to no communication required to play the game and the lack of social interaction that normally occurs in other MMOs. Maybe that is what they are referring to......
I am playing the game...i socialize..i communicate,specially in dungeons...I´m in 4 guilds...you have chat channels...you have all the tools to do so.
If someone doesn´t chose to use them it doesn´t mean there are not there.
GW2 is a Massive Multiplayer Online Rol Playing Game. Not missing any of those concepts.
Though, to be fair I wasn't thinking about some of the F2P games when I posted that. If you take into account some of those, then WoW and GW2 aren't the only MMOs with over a million players.
Regardless, in the context of the point I was trying to make, it still goes to show that if you were to view GW2 as 'not massive' based on population, you would also have to reject most other MMOs in order for that to be valid.
Here is what i beleive to be the REAL truth behind Anet.
I am quite sure they COULD deliver a AAA game,i beleive they have the ability.
However i am 100% postive,their aim was to simply deliver a cost effective game that could carry the f2p payscale.
This is becuase for Anet to deliver a AAA game,they would have to charge a sub fee and therfore would be in competition with all other games,That imo would spell a bigtime fail for Anet.I believe if not for the F2p there would have never been a gw2,i played GW1 and thought it was badly subpar even for F2p
One of Anet's own bigshots said it in an interview......He said that they banked on the fact that subscriptions games would have to be a LOT better than GW2's F2p to attract players to those games.So in otherwords,reading between the lines,he was saying we are delivering a game that is of a little less qaulity but good enough becuase of it's f2p model.
This would bring up a more important question,and one that goes for ALL games.IS the game you are playing worth the cost you are paying?We already know of many GW2 players that skipped through in less than one month,so that hardly warrants an ongoing sub fee.then you would need to ask those if they felt the 2-3 weeks of play time was worth the 50- 60 bucks to buy the game?
I feel in case of Gw2 ,people are stretching it to warrant critical acclaim.It is more a case as it always was,the game was ALWAYS about the F2p model,that is it's biggest strong point.You see that has zero effect on me ,becuase i play games that give me satisfaction,the cost simply has to meet the value.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Saying GW2 is not a MMORPG...or even a RPG....is the stupiest thing ever....
Some posters here are getting a bit "out of control" bashing on GW2...
...every single day over & over.
And then..not long ago..some claimed "Diablo 3" could be consider a MMO for beeing "online" FFS....
What´s next? A post saying GW2 is not even a game?
I´m fed up with this nonsense ¬¬
The stupidest thing is people who call others opinion stupidest. Disagree all you like but there no need for passive aggressive insults.
With this attitude i doubt anyone is even going to take your posts seriously. I surely didn't.
Halflife... there's a pretty big difference between someone having an opinion, and someone pulling crap out of their arse. What Zzad is talking about isn't bashing an opinion, it's being annoyed by the amount of BS that gets posted on these forums, and I've got to agree with him.
Examples:
Opinion: 'I don't like GW2 because I felt the personal story wasn't done very well.' or 'I though GW2 wasn't a good MMO, because I think MMOs should have endgame raiding'.
BS: 'GW2 isn't an MMO' or 'GW2 is a WoW clone' or 'GW2 has no customization'
See the difference?
It's one thing to get people who don't like the game for one reason or another (which is perfectly fine). Unfortunately we've been getting mostly option #2, which is batantly stating things that have no basis in reality. What Zzad is talking about are things that have very clear definitions. GW2 IS an MMO by any industry accepted definition, and it is an RPG by an industry accepted definition. Therefor it IS an MMORPG. To say otherwise would be stupid, by any stretch of the imagination.
If I stated that 'Call of Duty is the best MMORPG ever made', I wouldn't be someone stating an opinion. I'd be a moron.
What ZZAD is talking about that anyone who has an opinion that GW2 is'nt a RPG or is lacking as an RPG MMO is stupid. I am not even going to touch 'whether it is MMO or not part because people are free to interpret MMOS and their definitions in any manner they like.
So nope it is still an opinion an opinion he can gracefully disagree with but he chose not to instead resorted to personal attacks as usual.
I dont usually EVER personally attack anyone,there you have my post history to check it out if you wish.
If you took it that way..then you are either wrong or simply didn´t understand my point.
GW2 is a MMORPG....like it or not.... but some posters here for the sake of pure bashing and misinforming are saying plain lies about the game.
Are they making these statements just to bash the game? Do you know that? Maybe it is how they feel. I know a lot have people who have said it feels a lot more like a CRPG or a console coop game because of the little to no communication required to play the game and the lack of social interaction that normally occurs in other MMOs. Maybe that is what they are referring to......
I am playing the game...i socialize..i communicate..there you have all the tools to do so.
If someone doesn´t chose to use then it doesn´t mean there are not there.
GW2 is a Massive Multiplayer Online Rol Playing Game. Not missing any of those concepts.
Really? Is your thinking that shallow or are you just trying troll? Other MMO's have challenges that require people to socialize. They require groups. They also have economies that require a lot of interaction between players. Players often are limited on professions and classes and other professions and classes are required to conquer the challenge. GW2 isn't a bad game, but it is designed for a more casual, solo, less social experience. The soft grouping and self sustainability of all classes contribute to this. To some this is a blessing and to others it is blasphemy......
There is some grey area there, but it generally works in the opposite direction (as in, it's more plausible to argue that a non-RPG is actually an RPG, than it is to argue that an RPG actually isn't).
Any game that has playable character roles, can be considered an RPG. And GW2 has quite a bit of this. Furthermore, if you take it even further to the staples of commonly accepted RPG games, GW2 also meets those same requirements. There is a storyline that you act out, you are playing a character with his own story / background, etc.
The easiest way to think of the difference is in how you view the game. For example, in an RPG you are often viewing it via 'your character'. If you think 'i need to get X for my character' or 'my character needs X lvl' etc. you are playing an RPG. While games like CoD are becoming more like RPGs in some regards (as they attempt to have more of a story), the only reason they aren't considered them, is because that's not the focus.
That's the reason, for example, 'Uncharted' is considered an 'action-adventure game' instead of a 'shooter'.
sort of but also sort of grey area.. as many FPS has multiple "roles" and not considered a RPG like TF2 and many others... think of games like system shock 2.. it was always known as a FPS/RPG hybrid.. what elements in that game were considered the RPG aspect?
Aye, as I pointed out it falls into a grey area.
Like I stated in a previous post, the lines between genres are getting more and more blurry every year. Staple FPS games are including more story elements into their games, and visa versa. Because of this you can stretch definitions to apply to multiple game types however, in general, games get categorized base on their focus. To use the example from the above quote:
Uncharted is categorized as an action-adventure, instead of a shooter, because the main focus of the game is the adventure you play out. You could also apply that to CoD to some extent, except the main focus of CoD is in shooting a bunch of crap while in 1st person view.
Unfortunately this whole discussion is started to get pretty severely off-topic. It's a good topic, but probably one for another thread. Furthermore, people don't generally deal w/ grey areas all that well, so it can be hard to explain such things that aren't absolute.
Here is what i beleive to be the REAL truth behind Anet.
I am quite sure they COULD deliver a AAA game,i beleive they have the ability.
However i am 100% postive,their aim was to simply deliver a cost effective game that could carry the f2p payscale.
This is becuase for Anet to deliver a AAA game,they would have to charge a sub fee and therfore would be in competition with all other games,That imo would spell a bigtime fail for Anet.I believe if not for the F2p there would have never been a gw2,i played GW1 and thought it was badly subpar even for F2p
One of Anet's own bigshots said it in an interview......He said that they banked on the fact that subscriptions games would have to be a LOT better than GW2's F2p to attract players to those games.So in otherwords,reading between the lines,he was saying we are delivering a game that is of a little less qaulity but good enough becuase of it's f2p model.
This would bring up a more important question,and one that goes for ALL games.IS the game you are playing worth the cost you are paying?We already know of many GW2 players that skipped through in less than one month,so that hardly warrants an ongoing sub fee.then you would need to ask those if they felt the 2-3 weeks of play time was worth the 50- 60 bucks to buy the game?
I feel in case of Gw2 ,people are stretching it to warrant critical acclaim.It is more a case as it always was,the game was ALWAYS about the F2p model,that is it's biggest strong point.You see that has zero effect on me ,becuase i play games that give me satisfaction,the cost simply has to meet the value.
in what way is GW2 not a AAA game? I have been playing these games forever and can think of only a very small select few themeparks that offered the size and scope and just sheer number of things to do as this game does at launch
I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg
Though, to be fair I wasn't thinking about some of the F2P games when I posted that. If you take into account some of those, then WoW and GW2 aren't the only MMOs with over a million players.
Regardless, in the context of the point I was trying to make, it still goes to show that if you were to view GW2 as 'not massive' based on population, you would also have to reject most other MMOs in order for that to be valid.
I wasn't debating that it is massive, but don't use sales numbers. Just because it is B2P doesn't mean that sales numbers equals number of people playing. SWTOR sold well over two million copies and its population has dropped dramatically. I don't believe that xfire and raptr numbers are actual representation of player numbers, but they do show trends within those communities and that trend is downward on the same scale that SWTOR was. There is also a lot of traffic on lots of forums where people felt that the game was too repetitive and became boring. The good part is that the game is B2P and people are much more likely to return for short bursts since there is no further investment required.
Comments
Assume: take or begin to have (power or responsibility).
Think about this. Are you really assuming the identity of another character? Do you sufficient power over that character to consider so?
i'd say yes you could make an argument on that in any game.. i could say i feel im assuming the identity of my character in any CoD game for example as I move from area to area completeing missions as I follow the campaign.. not sure that's really the best definition for a RPG though sort of a very blanket and very much open to the idividual playing the games perception
I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg
Again, if you can show me an example (that applies to gaming) in which the acronyms 'MMO' or 'RPG' do not mean 'Massively, Multiplayer, Online' or 'Role-playing game', then I'll concede my point.
If not, then I really can't spell this out any more plainly for you. Those acronyms stand for very specific words, that have very clear definitions.
While there is some wiggle room in the definitions, there isn't enough to make what your claiming to be an opinion actually be so. The only way in which what you're stating as 'an opinion' could be an actual opinion is if none of the other MMORPGs existed.
By looking at GW2's population, there is only 1 MMORPG that has a larger one.
By looking at land mass, there is only 1 MMORPG that has a bigger 'world'.
By this, you can deduce that the only way GW2 could not be 'massive' is if WoW is the only massive game that exists.
That's your wiggle room for the terms. Every other word in those acronyms are very clearly defined. As such, they have clear definitions. It's simple logic. I've laid out the facts in plain english. You can choose to ignore them or accept them, but it doesn't make your statement any more valid.
I think most people assume now that reviewers for major sites are bribed. Either through you talk good or no early access/news to you for our other game or otherwise. You can see this a lot when you compare the treatment and scores smaller or niche games get. Compare what the reviewers say to players, half the time for a niche game for say an RPG they just assign anybody to the game and use it as fluff on their magazine/website on a slow news day.
Guild Wars 2 was overhyped and very obviously bribed sites to hype them. To the point where anything Guild Wars releated was a good source of views and thus ad money because of the hype.
I think the only true review was that it was the best MMO game of 2012, because so far there have been no better games. But really, that's like saying stale bread was the best of the bread available at this bakery this year.
World events are not groundbreaking, it's not a great example of the genre. We can even look at MMORPG's early WvW youtube review, I think it was by Mike. He gushed over the autoattack. Come on, really?
So under your definition, every game in which you play an avatar is an RPG. Yeah right.......
and you know this how? Show me some numbers. Don't show me sales numbers but daily log in numbers....
I would have appreciated an answer in the middle somewhere.
Like most broad-range topics, a yes or no represents extremes. The answer is likely to be somewhere in the middle for most.
Having played GW1, LOTOR, WoW, and L2 recently, I think GW2 is deserving of praise overall. I think its worth the $60, more so than most sub MMO's that get boring in the same (or less) amount of time. However, I wouldn't consider the game revolutionary or a vast departure from anything available today. Rather, it has some nice perks, and some not-so-nice quirks.
I would say yes it does deserve much of the positive attention it's gotten.
It's one of the better mmos that has come out in the past 5 years, sure it had some launch issues, but that's true of all games. ArenaNet delivered a game that brings a different experience than the traditional themepark game of the past decade, but it's not so different that the game isn't recognizable or easily understandable by the masses. If GW2 remains solvent, it will show that there is a market for B2P mmos with minimal intrusion from cash shops.
That's not to say the game doesn't have its flaws. There needs to be more fluff things to do, other than just killing things all of the time. There's minigames, but many are overly simplistic and boring. GW2 would do well with some sandbox elements, such as housing or guild halls which are expandable via crafting and other means. The combat does need to be expanded a bit with either the inclusion of more skills, or even potentially a dual classing system of some sort.
The bottom line is though that the groundwork is there for a game that can be built upon for years to come. As long as ANet maintains their level of quality and get creative with how they expand the game, GW2 will be a positive presence in the mmo space.
There is some grey area there, but it generally works in the opposite direction (as in, it's more plausible to argue that a non-RPG is actually an RPG, than it is to argue that an RPG actually isn't).
Any game that has playable character roles, can be considered an RPG. And GW2 has quite a bit of this. Furthermore, if you take it even further to the staples of commonly accepted RPG games, GW2 also meets those same requirements. There is a storyline that you act out, you are playing a character with his own story / background, etc.
The easiest way to think of the difference is in how you view the game. For example, in an RPG you are often viewing it via 'your character'. If you think 'i need to get X for my character' or 'my character needs X lvl' etc. you are playing an RPG. While games like CoD are becoming more like RPGs in some regards (as they attempt to have more of a story), the only reason they aren't considered them, is because that's not the focus.
That's the reason, for example, 'Uncharted' is considered an 'action-adventure game' instead of a 'shooter'.
Are the metacritic, MMORPG community, and other gamer voting site also bought?
If it's not broken, you are not innovating.
I dont usually EVER personally attack anyone,there you have my post history to check it out if you wish.
If you took it that way..then you are either wrong or simply didn´t understand my point.
GW2 is a MMORPG....like it or not.... but some posters here for the sake of pure bashing and misinforming are saying plain lies about the game.
It's not actually 'my' definition. It is a definition of 'Role-playing' as it pertains to video games.
But yes, theoretically you could use that definition to apply to most games with an avatar. However, as I said in a previous post, the reason why most of those games aren't considered RPGs is because the story of a character is not the focus of the game. The lines get more blurred as more games start to adopt features from other genres, but games are still generally categorized by their focus.
However, that discussion is completely off topic and could be an entirely separate thread all on its own.
This thread can be compiled into 2 emotes.
Defenders
Haters
So what's the point with all this, none of you listen to one another, you just write what you think is right and your opinion is more valid than the next and the next guy think excactly the same way.
If it's not broken, you are not innovating.
Are they making these statements just to bash the game? Do you know that? Maybe it is how they feel. I know a lot have people who have said it feels a lot more like a CRPG or a console coop game because of the little to no communication required to play the game and the lack of social interaction that normally occurs in other MMOs. Maybe that is what they are referring to......
sort of but also sort of grey area.. as many FPS has multiple "roles" and not considered a RPG like TF2 and many others... think of games like system shock 2.. it was always known as a FPS/RPG hybrid.. what elements in that game were considered the RPG aspect?
I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg
I am playing the game...i socialize..i communicate,specially in dungeons...I´m in 4 guilds...you have chat channels...you have all the tools to do so.
If someone doesn´t chose to use them it doesn´t mean there are not there.
GW2 is a Massive Multiplayer Online Rol Playing Game. Not missing any of those concepts.
http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/09/13/guild-wars-2-breaks-the-two-million-sales-mark/
Though, to be fair I wasn't thinking about some of the F2P games when I posted that. If you take into account some of those, then WoW and GW2 aren't the only MMOs with over a million players.
Regardless, in the context of the point I was trying to make, it still goes to show that if you were to view GW2 as 'not massive' based on population, you would also have to reject most other MMOs in order for that to be valid.
Here is what i beleive to be the REAL truth behind Anet.
I am quite sure they COULD deliver a AAA game,i beleive they have the ability.
However i am 100% postive,their aim was to simply deliver a cost effective game that could carry the f2p payscale.
This is becuase for Anet to deliver a AAA game,they would have to charge a sub fee and therfore would be in competition with all other games,That imo would spell a bigtime fail for Anet.I believe if not for the F2p there would have never been a gw2,i played GW1 and thought it was badly subpar even for F2p
One of Anet's own bigshots said it in an interview......He said that they banked on the fact that subscriptions games would have to be a LOT better than GW2's F2p to attract players to those games.So in otherwords,reading between the lines,he was saying we are delivering a game that is of a little less qaulity but good enough becuase of it's f2p model.
This would bring up a more important question,and one that goes for ALL games.IS the game you are playing worth the cost you are paying?We already know of many GW2 players that skipped through in less than one month,so that hardly warrants an ongoing sub fee.then you would need to ask those if they felt the 2-3 weeks of play time was worth the 50- 60 bucks to buy the game?
I feel in case of Gw2 ,people are stretching it to warrant critical acclaim.It is more a case as it always was,the game was ALWAYS about the F2p model,that is it's biggest strong point.You see that has zero effect on me ,becuase i play games that give me satisfaction,the cost simply has to meet the value.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Really? Is your thinking that shallow or are you just trying troll? Other MMO's have challenges that require people to socialize. They require groups. They also have economies that require a lot of interaction between players. Players often are limited on professions and classes and other professions and classes are required to conquer the challenge. GW2 isn't a bad game, but it is designed for a more casual, solo, less social experience. The soft grouping and self sustainability of all classes contribute to this. To some this is a blessing and to others it is blasphemy......
But if gw2 was a sub mmo, I would rather play that than wow and its various clones.
Aye, as I pointed out it falls into a grey area.
Like I stated in a previous post, the lines between genres are getting more and more blurry every year. Staple FPS games are including more story elements into their games, and visa versa. Because of this you can stretch definitions to apply to multiple game types however, in general, games get categorized base on their focus. To use the example from the above quote:
Uncharted is categorized as an action-adventure, instead of a shooter, because the main focus of the game is the adventure you play out. You could also apply that to CoD to some extent, except the main focus of CoD is in shooting a bunch of crap while in 1st person view.
Unfortunately this whole discussion is started to get pretty severely off-topic. It's a good topic, but probably one for another thread. Furthermore, people don't generally deal w/ grey areas all that well, so it can be hard to explain such things that aren't absolute.
in what way is GW2 not a AAA game? I have been playing these games forever and can think of only a very small select few themeparks that offered the size and scope and just sheer number of things to do as this game does at launch
I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg
I wasn't debating that it is massive, but don't use sales numbers. Just because it is B2P doesn't mean that sales numbers equals number of people playing. SWTOR sold well over two million copies and its population has dropped dramatically. I don't believe that xfire and raptr numbers are actual representation of player numbers, but they do show trends within those communities and that trend is downward on the same scale that SWTOR was. There is also a lot of traffic on lots of forums where people felt that the game was too repetitive and became boring. The good part is that the game is B2P and people are much more likely to return for short bursts since there is no further investment required.
Worst "good" are ever, surpassing the previous holder that started al this console style fps shit, halo.