Oh this will be good, if it doesn't go the way the avid fans want their will be hell to pay lol.
And to answer the OP, no i don't think Guild Bores 2 deserves the acclaim, the novelty soon wears off and you are left feeling, what is the point.
It has a few good things going for it but it's not the second coming like some over the top fans think.
Of course this is just my take on it but i found it boring as hell, hence the name Guild Bores 2.
I have to agree, i still play GW2...but it feels more like a single player MMO with a multiplayer mode, i really dont feel the MMO aspects of this game at all, i pretty much play solo aside from events 90% of the time i spend in game, at level 50 i find the game very repetitive and boring, i still log in but the only thing i can say I honestly enjoy about this game is the exploration and world, they did a very good job on the world.
But aside from that the combat, story, MMO aspects of GW2 is as you said boring.
See? This is a proper opinion. "I don't feel the mmo aspects of this game at all." That's all proper and valid and you can even elaborate on why this might be so.
Can you folks see how this differs from the statement "This is obviously not a mmo because it does not feel that way to me."
A proper opinion? that doesn't even make sense. what's a proper opinion?
An opinion which does not masquerade itself as an objective fact, obviously, duh.
but aren't you saying gw2 is not an mmo as if it's a fact?
You obviously missed the previous argument where a poster stated that "GW2 is not a mmorpg because it "lacks focus" and "lacks character development." I'm not arguing whether that person has the right to hold the opinion that it "lacks focus" or "character development" (tho i'd argue with those opinions myself), but with the way subjective opinion is projected into something which is very clear and exact, and that is that GW2 belongs to mmorpg genre.
As people mentioned above, just because you find a particular comedy not funny it doesn't mean it's not a comedy. Genre definitions are usually pretty exact, tho the particular instances of such genres may be fuzzy... In the case of GW2, it is very obviously a fully-featured mmorpg, whether it "feels" that way to someone is a completely different thing.
Does "Massively" refer to the concurrent population playing within visible range, same server or same game? Perhaps it refers to the accounts created or the game copies bought? How is massively defined and what is the least amount required for it stay "massively"? Is it perhaps tied to the design and max capacity? If a game has almost no population at one point but lots during previous years, is it still "massively" at the end?
What are the necessary requirements to be considered a "Role-Playing Game"?
you cannot just pick one word out of the acronym and question its definition, it's massively multiplayer online role playing game. Massively on it's own has no real meaning unless it's describing something. I'm pretty sure it was originally massive not massively.
What kind of definition is it then? Because it neither sems to be a intensional definition (as in specifying the necessary and sufficient conditions for being a member of a specific set) or exensional definition (as in a list naming every object that is a member of the set).
I know what definition means einstein, but you cannot define mmorpg by just defining one of the M's..quit while you're ahead.
I agree with that you can't define MMORPG by just defining one of the M's, but I am objecting against the idea of defining "MMORPG" by just stating that it is defined through " MMORPGS are "Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games.", which is what the poster Pilnkplonk suggested previously. He also stated "I don't know how much more of a definition you need.". I am trying to show why I don't think his suggestion is enough and that there needs to be more specifics.
One way to define "MMORPG" would be by requiring that it fulfills each of the conditions required to be a part of the sets "Massive Game", "Multiplayer Game", "Online Game", "Role-Playing Game" or perhaps just "Massive Multiplayer Game", "Online Game" and "Role-Playing Game". Those conditions would need to be stated as well though, which is the step I believe Pilnkplonk missed.
Of course they are. MMORPGS are "Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games." I don't know how much more of a definition you need. You might throw in "persistent world" into the definition, like most do, and still GW2 squarely meets all the criteria. Whether a game is a "mmorpg" or not is still 100% fact-based thing. The only moment subjective feeling can come into play is with games which are somehow borderline vis-a-vis the definition which is contained in the acronym, (such as GW1, for example, or even D3) GW2 so perfectly meets all the classical criteria that it is perfectly natural that any "opinion" that GW2 is not in fact a mmo is met with derison.
Again Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. How much more of a definition do you need?
Does "Massively" refer to the concurrent population playing within visible range, same server or same game? Perhaps it refers to the accounts created or the game copies bought? How is massively defined and what is the least amount required for it stay "massively"? Is it perhaps tied to the design and max capacity? If a game has almost no population at one point but lots during previous years, is it still "massively" at the end?
What are the necessary requirements to be considered a "Role-Playing Game"?
you cannot just pick one word out of the acronym and question its definition, it's massively multiplayer online role playing game. Massively on it's own has no real meaning unless it's describing something. I'm pretty sure it was originally massive not massively.
Actually it was massively, not massive. Unlike some people like to believe, MMO has no bearing on the size of the world or anything along those lines. It can be a tiny little world, but if it is massively multiplayer, it could still be called an MMO.
MMORPG was a term first used by Richard Garriot to describe Ultima Online. It wasnt the size of the world, or seamless vs zoned, or any such nonsense that brought about the term MMORPG. It was simply the fact that large numbers of players could interact with eachother in the same world.
That is ALL an MMO is. A world in which large amounts of players can interact with eachother online. The rest of it, such as RPG, FPS, etc is of course subject to the specifics of that genre and what features the game has. That part could be more debatable as to what those specifics are, but MMO is not debatable, regardless of how much people enjoy thinking it is. IT wasnt some trendy term that people just randomly started using for the hell of it and nobody knows what it really means. It has a clear meaning & application which it was used for by the person who coined the term, Richard Garriott.
Thanks for that information. Do you know if there was any condition of how that interaction must look like or how often it happens? Because if there isn't a such condition, then any game that uses an online auction would be considered a MMO because potentially a large amount of people would interact with each other online.
Originally posted by TwoThreeFour Thanks for that information. Do you know if there was any condition of how that interaction must look like or how often it happens? Because if there isn't a such condition, then any game that uses an online auction would be considered a MMO because potentially a large amount of people would interact with each other online.
With UO, there was no auction house, so those types of interactions did not exist. Well, there was an auction house, but it was a player run auction house that was literally a house where people brought things and they were sold to the public by other people.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
For me, it's the best game I've ever played. So, yes, I think it deserves the acclaim it's getting.
As to the argument about whether it's an MMORPG or not, how ridiculous. It meets pretty much any objective criteria to be considered a MMORPG. If it isn't an MMORPG, then neither is EQ, WOW, LotRO, TSW, Tera, or most of the games listed on this site. Stop being silly.
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
GW2 has been out long enough for the fans to form a solid opinion on the game. How do you feel about the critcal aclaim that the game has gotten from many reviews & game sites? Were they right on the money, or hyped up dramatically? Few examples below, but the list goes on.
G4 - Best MMO Game of 2012
JeuxVideo - Guild Wars 2 isn't a simple sequel, this MMO is a revolution!
PC Gamer #207 - groundbreaking world events and mind-blowing class design
VG247 UK - Ridiculous attention to details... shockingly good
Quarter to Three - This isn't just a great example of the genre and arguably the Second Coming of MMOs.
Gamer.nl - After years of EverQuest clones the genre finally makes a great leap forward.
You know, that's actually a tough question.
I don't think the game is Awesome but from what I've played of it I can buy that these people and others think that it's what they feel it is.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I think most here saying its not really an mmorpg is people whom relate mmo's to being progression through gear and linear zones honestly. I played Dark age of camelot for many years and it was considered the grandaddy of the pvp mmorpg and still to this day is revered on this website and others. Guild wars 2 shares a lot in common with DAOC IMO with weapon skill sets instead of just class skills like wow , and more open world exploration from large zones long term pvp commitments for persistant battlegrounds etc.
Now does GW2 have enough meat to it currently imo no way , the World vs World sucks compared to DAOC and the SPVP is a joke but there is high hopes it will all evolve. This doesnt mean its not an mmorpg because i personally dont like the pvp here. But then again Rift is an mmorpg WOW AION WAR EQ EQ1 DCUO etc I can keep on going so im not even sure why people are even arguing that GW2 is not an mmorpg. Maybe because the first one was just a co-op?
I personally do not like the game anymore but I think it was still pretty innovative and creative in a lot of new ways that just make gaming easier and more fun. Just if the pvp is bad in games I leave pretty fast.
Originally posted by Zorgo So just don't be surprised if some of us ol' timers say things like, 'GW2 isn't an mmorpg' - we aren't 'wrong', we aren't just being 'difficult', we are simply alluding to the fact that at one time, the concept of an 'mmorpg' had a completely and utterly different connotation then what it does today.
Just for information - I'm older than you, and been playing RPGs (pen and paper first) for 30+ years too ;-)
Only difference between us is that I don't wear rose colored nostalgia glasses ;-)
Stop pidgeon holing me! I'm not the stereotype you are looking for!
I had plenty of issues with the old games. Huge issues. Issues that made me stop playing EQ and I will never go back. I believe the industry has made enormous leaps in innovation in the games. I could blog for years about the issues I saw with EQ. And here's one for you - I couldn't stand SWG. Ever. I feel like EVE is about as exciting as organizing spread sheets. This is certainly not me with rose colored glasses or sandbox vs. themepark.
I'm an old pnp guy too. And what drew me initially to this genre was the idea of DnD-styled role playing online. As the industry changed over the years, one of the things that had always remained a constant to me was the feeling of creative control over my role/character.
This is something I feel GW2 and SWToR took away from me - it took away something very important to me in my 'conception' of what makes an mmorpg an mmorpg. Even though the actual definition may not include my conceptions, it is those conceptions which inform my opinions.
As I said earlier,
this isn't an argument over the definition of mmorpg. It is an argument about how different players conceptualize what an 'mmorpg' should be.
I'm happy about a lot of the changes that have happened in the industry. I think the games today are better in many ways than they used to be.
I'll just ask this, do you feel you have more creative control over the development of your characters persona in GW2 then in past games? Does your toon say what you would have the character say in the cut scene?
The cutscenes and 'personal' stories in GW2 and SWToR for me are gamebreakers. I was open minded on both. Maybe they will be awesome stories. They weren't. Maybe they'll have dialogue indicative of what I think a warrior should sound like. They didn't. Maybe the voice over work will be well done. It wasn't.
It's like I wanted to create Han Solo, but they gave me Jar Jar Binks.
So is it a role playing game? Yeah, I spose so. I just hate the roles - and I hate that I have no way of defining that role myself past the character select screen.
The old games had lots of problems. I would have never determined that one of the problems was 'too much creative control on the part of the user'. I would have never made the determination; "Hey you know what would make GW2 Great? Let's pre-write the characters"
Players having more control of their toons persona was not one of the 'problems' with past games that needed fixing.
Absolutely they do, great game so far and the future plans sound great as well. The fact that they added 2 new servers a couple of days ago is a pretty good sign too.
It hasn't quite outdone my EQ & DAoC experiences yet, but landing in my top 3 is something (a bit harsh as GW2 is an all around better game than either of those technically, but the social climate in pre-WoW days was a nicer, nerdier place that made for some fantastic experiences).
At the very least, they get my respect for being the first major MMO since WoW that set out to make something other than yet another repainted WoW.
It was well past time.
They did a great job and it's nice to see that being recognised in the press.
Now we just need *more* devs to truly step away from the WoW model and the MMO space could become even more exciting.
This thread has gone way off topic. But just to clarify, I did not in any way try to put my opinions as facts. If you felt I did, I apologize but that was not my intention.
My opinion is that GW2 does not meet the criteria to be considered an MMORPG.
My opinion is that GW2 is a great game.
Since I don't consider GW2 to be an MMORPG, it cannot be a great MMORPG. Hence, my reason for saying "no" to the initial poll because most of the acclaim it has gotten is for it being an MMORPG.
And since everyone else has been throwing around their credentials, I will to. I have been roleplaying for about 34 years. The CRPG genre has moved significantly from its pen n paper roots. I accept that. However, GW2 has moved just enough to be too far for me to consider it an RPG any more. It is more like an MMO-Action game (e.g. Diablo3 or a muttiplayer Dungeon Seige). Again, this is my opinion.
And really? What's the big deal? I've already said I think the game is great. If I don't consider it to be a true MMORPG, how does that really affect anyone else in any way? It doesn't.
Playing: GW2 Waiting on: TESO Next Flop: Planetside 2 Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
Actually I agree any thread made for the purpose of only bashing a game should be closed, but nothing wrong with laughing at old statements made by companies that probably played the game for 5 hours
This thread has gone way off topic. But just to clarify, I did not in any way try to put my opinions as facts. If you felt I did, I apologize but that was not my intention.
My opinion is that GW2 does not meet the criteria to be considered an MMORPG.
My opinion is that GW2 is a great game.
Since I don't consider GW2 to be an MMORPG, it cannot be a great MMORPG. Hence, my reason for saying "no" to the initial poll because most of the acclaim it has gotten is for it being an MMORPG.
And since everyone else has been throwing around their credentials, I will to. I have been roleplaying for about 34 years. The CRPG genre has moved significantly from its pen n paper roots. I accept that. However, GW2 has moved just enough to be too far for me to consider it an RPG any more. It is more like an MMO-Action game (e.g. Diablo3 or a muttiplayer Dungeon Seige). Again, this is my opinion.
And really? What's the big deal? I've already said I think the game is great. If I don't consider it to be a true MMORPG, how does that really affect anyone else in any way? It doesn't.
It is an MMOPRG - period. It has instanced dungeon (WoW, Rift, etc have them). There are huge areas to play with others (same as WoW, Rift, etc). When you travel you see loading screens (WoW has flying - but same thing, Rift has them albeit shorter in durations).
I have been roleplaying for the same amount of time - so what? THe point is, IN YOUR OPINION it is not an MMOPRG. To game reviewers, many other players and even to A.Net is an MMOPRG. Not saying you are wrong, you are certainly entitled to yoour opinion BUT but MANY definitions it is an MMORPG - just not yours.
GW2 IS NOT DIablo3 - a glorified dungeon crawl. It is not like Dungeon Siege either - you could tell the dice roles in combat in DS. Again this is opinion.
By all objective points, GW2 is an MMOPRG. GW1 was not.
She's a 2 weeker, after that it starts to go downhill - that was my feeling anyhow. TBH, I actually got a lot more out of TSW, but really they all feel very much the same and GW2 just doesn't bring much to the table over and above any other mmorpg i've played in the last couple years.
Why? Is it only okay to post positive information? This is a discussion forum. I prefer that both sides are discussed.
i agree completely with this here . Seriously just because you do not like when people are posting negatives about a game doesnt give you the right to shut down the conversation. That shows a REAL sign of immaturity and intolerence. NOT everyone agrees that guild wars 2 is that great and a decent human beings will respect their opinions and move on just like most of us who do not like the game respect that you love it.
You know you could always stop participating in and bumping negative threads. You're apart of the problem.
On topic: I think a lot of the reviews were overblown, but I think that about all game reviews now. Not, in my opinion, the revolution people were/are saying it is, though.
Count up the positive threads on WAR. Now count up the anti threads on WAR. Now count the positive threads on GW2. Now count the negative.
Do you really think that GW2 is being unfairly maligned?
For whatever reason I read your comment in the old spice guy commercial's voice.
What people need to realize is, having more popularity also means having more eyes scrutinizing. With millions of people playing GW2, you are definitely going to have differences of opinion.
SWTOR isn't even in the running, TERA and TSW failed to grab me enough in beta to give them a chance.
I've been disappointed with a lot of MMO's for many years, RIFT being an exception.
Lately I've been wanting something different, something I can pick up and put down when it suits me.
GW2 fits that bill.
It's not without it's downfalls. There are obvious design flaws with WvWvW that need urgent attention, but overall I'm still enjoying the game and playing most nights for several hours.
Comments
You obviously missed the previous argument where a poster stated that "GW2 is not a mmorpg because it "lacks focus" and "lacks character development." I'm not arguing whether that person has the right to hold the opinion that it "lacks focus" or "character development" (tho i'd argue with those opinions myself), but with the way subjective opinion is projected into something which is very clear and exact, and that is that GW2 belongs to mmorpg genre.
As people mentioned above, just because you find a particular comedy not funny it doesn't mean it's not a comedy. Genre definitions are usually pretty exact, tho the particular instances of such genres may be fuzzy... In the case of GW2, it is very obviously a fully-featured mmorpg, whether it "feels" that way to someone is a completely different thing.
I agree with that you can't define MMORPG by just defining one of the M's, but I am objecting against the idea of defining "MMORPG" by just stating that it is defined through " MMORPGS are "Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games.", which is what the poster Pilnkplonk suggested previously. He also stated "I don't know how much more of a definition you need.". I am trying to show why I don't think his suggestion is enough and that there needs to be more specifics.
One way to define "MMORPG" would be by requiring that it fulfills each of the conditions required to be a part of the sets "Massive Game", "Multiplayer Game", "Online Game", "Role-Playing Game" or perhaps just "Massive Multiplayer Game", "Online Game" and "Role-Playing Game". Those conditions would need to be stated as well though, which is the step I believe Pilnkplonk missed.
Thanks for that information. Do you know if there was any condition of how that interaction must look like or how often it happens? Because if there isn't a such condition, then any game that uses an online auction would be considered a MMO because potentially a large amount of people would interact with each other online.
With UO, there was no auction house, so those types of interactions did not exist. Well, there was an auction house, but it was a player run auction house that was literally a house where people brought things and they were sold to the public by other people.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
This entire thread is an argument between the literal definition of mmorpg and people's conception of what an 'mmorpg' should be.
GW2 is massively multiplayer
GW2 is online...
GW2 is an rpg.....
But those things are separate from what an 'mmorpg' means to us. For some, as long as it is massively multiplayer, onlin and a rpg we are fine.
For others, mmorpg has connotations for so much more. And this is where many people feel that GW2 fell short.
We need to stop splitting hairs and getting bogged down by semantics.
Think of it like this:
What is the definition of mmorpg?
What does mmorpg mean to you?
Many are arguing over the first question while being answered by someone referring to the second question.
Start thinking outside the box instead of arguing for agruments sake.
www.daneslaw.com
@GamerKurisu
Awaiting Darkfall Unholy Wars
For me, it's the best game I've ever played. So, yes, I think it deserves the acclaim it's getting.
As to the argument about whether it's an MMORPG or not, how ridiculous. It meets pretty much any objective criteria to be considered a MMORPG. If it isn't an MMORPG, then neither is EQ, WOW, LotRO, TSW, Tera, or most of the games listed on this site. Stop being silly.
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
Be afraid.....The dragons are HERE!
You know, that's actually a tough question.
I don't think the game is Awesome but from what I've played of it I can buy that these people and others think that it's what they feel it is.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I think most here saying its not really an mmorpg is people whom relate mmo's to being progression through gear and linear zones honestly. I played Dark age of camelot for many years and it was considered the grandaddy of the pvp mmorpg and still to this day is revered on this website and others. Guild wars 2 shares a lot in common with DAOC IMO with weapon skill sets instead of just class skills like wow , and more open world exploration from large zones long term pvp commitments for persistant battlegrounds etc.
Now does GW2 have enough meat to it currently imo no way , the World vs World sucks compared to DAOC and the SPVP is a joke but there is high hopes it will all evolve. This doesnt mean its not an mmorpg because i personally dont like the pvp here. But then again Rift is an mmorpg WOW AION WAR EQ EQ1 DCUO etc I can keep on going so im not even sure why people are even arguing that GW2 is not an mmorpg. Maybe because the first one was just a co-op?
I personally do not like the game anymore but I think it was still pretty innovative and creative in a lot of new ways that just make gaming easier and more fun. Just if the pvp is bad in games I leave pretty fast.
Stop pidgeon holing me! I'm not the stereotype you are looking for!
I had plenty of issues with the old games. Huge issues. Issues that made me stop playing EQ and I will never go back. I believe the industry has made enormous leaps in innovation in the games. I could blog for years about the issues I saw with EQ. And here's one for you - I couldn't stand SWG. Ever. I feel like EVE is about as exciting as organizing spread sheets. This is certainly not me with rose colored glasses or sandbox vs. themepark.
I'm an old pnp guy too. And what drew me initially to this genre was the idea of DnD-styled role playing online. As the industry changed over the years, one of the things that had always remained a constant to me was the feeling of creative control over my role/character.
This is something I feel GW2 and SWToR took away from me - it took away something very important to me in my 'conception' of what makes an mmorpg an mmorpg. Even though the actual definition may not include my conceptions, it is those conceptions which inform my opinions.
As I said earlier,
this isn't an argument over the definition of mmorpg. It is an argument about how different players conceptualize what an 'mmorpg' should be.
I'm happy about a lot of the changes that have happened in the industry. I think the games today are better in many ways than they used to be.
I'll just ask this, do you feel you have more creative control over the development of your characters persona in GW2 then in past games? Does your toon say what you would have the character say in the cut scene?
The cutscenes and 'personal' stories in GW2 and SWToR for me are gamebreakers. I was open minded on both. Maybe they will be awesome stories. They weren't. Maybe they'll have dialogue indicative of what I think a warrior should sound like. They didn't. Maybe the voice over work will be well done. It wasn't.
It's like I wanted to create Han Solo, but they gave me Jar Jar Binks.
So is it a role playing game? Yeah, I spose so. I just hate the roles - and I hate that I have no way of defining that role myself past the character select screen.
The old games had lots of problems. I would have never determined that one of the problems was 'too much creative control on the part of the user'. I would have never made the determination; "Hey you know what would make GW2 Great? Let's pre-write the characters"
Players having more control of their toons persona was not one of the 'problems' with past games that needed fixing.
Absolutely they do, great game so far and the future plans sound great as well. The fact that they added 2 new servers a couple of days ago is a pretty good sign too.
It hasn't quite outdone my EQ & DAoC experiences yet, but landing in my top 3 is something (a bit harsh as GW2 is an all around better game than either of those technically, but the social climate in pre-WoW days was a nicer, nerdier place that made for some fantastic experiences).
At the very least, they get my respect for being the first major MMO since WoW that set out to make something other than yet another repainted WoW.
It was well past time.
They did a great job and it's nice to see that being recognised in the press.
Now we just need *more* devs to truly step away from the WoW model and the MMO space could become even more exciting.
This thread has gone way off topic. But just to clarify, I did not in any way try to put my opinions as facts. If you felt I did, I apologize but that was not my intention.
My opinion is that GW2 does not meet the criteria to be considered an MMORPG.
My opinion is that GW2 is a great game.
Since I don't consider GW2 to be an MMORPG, it cannot be a great MMORPG. Hence, my reason for saying "no" to the initial poll because most of the acclaim it has gotten is for it being an MMORPG.
And since everyone else has been throwing around their credentials, I will to. I have been roleplaying for about 34 years. The CRPG genre has moved significantly from its pen n paper roots. I accept that. However, GW2 has moved just enough to be too far for me to consider it an RPG any more. It is more like an MMO-Action game (e.g. Diablo3 or a muttiplayer Dungeon Seige). Again, this is my opinion.
And really? What's the big deal? I've already said I think the game is great. If I don't consider it to be a true MMORPG, how does that really affect anyone else in any way? It doesn't.
Every single day, anti GW2 threads.
MMORPG.COM THIS SHIT NEEDS TO STOP.
Everything you need to know about Elder Scrolls Online
Playing: GW2
Waiting on: TESO
Next Flop: Planetside 2
Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
Actually I agree any thread made for the purpose of only bashing a game should be closed, but nothing wrong with laughing at old statements made by companies that probably played the game for 5 hours
www.daneslaw.com
@GamerKurisu
Awaiting Darkfall Unholy Wars
Why? Is it only okay to post positive information? This is a discussion forum. I prefer that both sides are discussed.
It is an MMOPRG - period. It has instanced dungeon (WoW, Rift, etc have them). There are huge areas to play with others (same as WoW, Rift, etc). When you travel you see loading screens (WoW has flying - but same thing, Rift has them albeit shorter in durations).
I have been roleplaying for the same amount of time - so what? THe point is, IN YOUR OPINION it is not an MMOPRG. To game reviewers, many other players and even to A.Net is an MMOPRG. Not saying you are wrong, you are certainly entitled to yoour opinion BUT but MANY definitions it is an MMORPG - just not yours.
GW2 IS NOT DIablo3 - a glorified dungeon crawl. It is not like Dungeon Siege either - you could tell the dice roles in combat in DS. Again this is opinion.
By all objective points, GW2 is an MMOPRG. GW1 was not.
i agree completely with this here . Seriously just because you do not like when people are posting negatives about a game doesnt give you the right to shut down the conversation. That shows a REAL sign of immaturity and intolerence. NOT everyone agrees that guild wars 2 is that great and a decent human beings will respect their opinions and move on just like most of us who do not like the game respect that you love it.
Did they stop it with Vanguard?
Did they stop it with SWToR?
Did they stop it with Darkfall?
Do they stop it in the WoW forums?
Did they stop it on WAR?
AOC?
Why would they stop it from GW2?
Oh, because this is a game you like.
Count up the positive threads on WAR. Now count up the anti threads on WAR. Now count the positive threads on GW2. Now count the negative.
Do you really think that GW2 is being unfairly maligned?
There are more positive threads about GW2 than any game since WoW's release.
Why does the victor keep acting like the victim?
It's not going to stop until they get a new mmorpg to hate. Don't let it get under your skin.
My theme song.
There are more positive threads about GW2 than any game since the release of WoW.
Why does the victor keep acting like the victim?
You know you could always stop participating in and bumping negative threads. You're apart of the problem.
On topic: I think a lot of the reviews were overblown, but I think that about all game reviews now. Not, in my opinion, the revolution people were/are saying it is, though.
For whatever reason I read your comment in the old spice guy commercial's voice.
What people need to realize is, having more popularity also means having more eyes scrutinizing. With millions of people playing GW2, you are definitely going to have differences of opinion.
I'm just telling him to let it roll of his back. The same thing happens with every mmorpg that gets released.
My theme song.
It's certainly the best MMO of 2012 for me.
SWTOR isn't even in the running, TERA and TSW failed to grab me enough in beta to give them a chance.
I've been disappointed with a lot of MMO's for many years, RIFT being an exception.
Lately I've been wanting something different, something I can pick up and put down when it suits me.
GW2 fits that bill.
It's not without it's downfalls. There are obvious design flaws with WvWvW that need urgent attention, but overall I'm still enjoying the game and playing most nights for several hours.