Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Gamebreaker TV about GW2: brawn vs brains

124»

Comments

  • stevebmbsqdstevebmbsqd Orlando, FLPosts: 448Member
    Originally posted by p_c_sousa
    Originally posted by evolver1972
    Originally posted by Mephster
    Originally posted by colddog04
    Originally posted by Mephster

    GW2 has only 5 weapon skills per bar, how skillful can one be with so little skills available to them. I'm sorry but the learning curve for this game is very low. If you can't figure out how to use those skills limited skills to the best of your ability then I can't see how skill will determine how well you do. It isn't difficult to figure it out.

    There is ~15 to 20 skills that you can actively use on 7/8 classes. The engineer can use up to ~40-45.

     

    For instance, An Elemetalist equips a weapon and has access to 20 weapon skills as well as a heal skill, 3 utility skills and an elite skill. For them it is 25 unique active skills through the use of 1 weapon, all of which can be switched out for 30+ different unique active skills.

     

    For another instance, a Mesmer can use two weapon sets that gives them access to 10 skills. They also also have 1 heal, 3 utility and 1 elite. On top of that, they have 4 class skills. That is 19 unique active skills, 15 of which can be switched out for over 30 different skills.

     

    So no, there are not on'y 5 weapon skills per bar. Hopefully this helps you.

    Swapping weapons but still at any time in the game you only get to use 5 weapon skills at a time. It isn't difficult! Yeah tons of skill right there.

    Right, so, how about you and I meet up in PvP.  I'll bring my two weapon sets and you can focus on your "only 5 weapon skills at a time".  Won't you be surprised when I attack you from afar, then when you get close enough to me (assuming you remember to dodge - hey another skill! - and I don't kill you first with my 5 lame ranged skills), I'll swap my weapons real quick and nail you with some good melee, then dodge heal dodge, open up with my ranged again and finish you off will some good melee again.  All with "only 5 weapon skills at a time".

     

    And that's just one way to do it.

    lol. just block that guy. just dont answer him. is obvious from is post history he is just a troll, is uncredible how a guy can post so much false information and not get banned. seriously, every post i saw from this guy was just crap, he dont know anything about game, go check is post history and you will smile...A LOT, than block him as i did. 

     

    btw, i want to see a guy not swap weapon or atunements on sPvP, must be a great player indeed. you cant see mesphster because is clear never play the game, or he play the game and just want give false information. 

    the best part is in mesphster opinion:

    GW2 = only 5 skills on bar  game suck, dont have much tactic

    skyrim = best game ever, yap, because that game have lot of skills on bar.... LOOOOOOL

    That is a pretty poor example to use. Almost every review hits Skyrim on its combat. It is probably the weakest overall part of the game. Skyrim is great for it's sandbox gameplay and the ability to explore and do what you want with little to no direction.

  • RCP_utRCP_ut ...Posts: 263Member
    Originally posted by Mephster

    GW2 has only 5 weapon skills per bar, how skillful can one be with so little skills available to them. I'm sorry but the learning curve for this game is very low. If you can't figure out how to use those skills limited skills to the best of your ability then I can't see how skill will determine how well you do. It isn't difficult to figure it out.

    Im sorry, but you dont seen to know much about GW2 . I give you an example, as an elementalist, you have the 5 weapon skills for fire, water, earth and air. Right there you have 20 skills plus the other 5 skills (that also can make all the diference when you choose them right), so 25 skills. You can change elements when you want and it also will give you boosts when you change. Beside that if you change weapons you will have another new 5 skills for each element. So just using 2 sets of weapons you would be able to use 45 skills.

    Beside skills you have traits, where you also gotta be good at it to improve your character skills and it takes knowledge to do so.

    For last you also have to be good with movements, dodging to stay alive while you do skills, change elements, since some have more attack power and others give you more defense, speed, etc. Dont forget that you can do all this while moving, not just sit there and do skills like most of games. For example if you always use fire, the damage is good but you die very very fast.

    If you think that you dont have to be skilled to be good and you just need to spam the 1st 5 fire skills you see, you are completely wrong.

    Long time i didnt play an mmo that challenged me like GW2 did last BWEs while playing an elementalist at structured PvP.

    Ofc everyone can play the game without mastering all that and probably still have fun. But for the players that like pvp and want to be good at it, it takes a lot of skill and it is a very good challenge.

    I saw some of your previous posts and maybe there is no point on telling you this, but well i tryed :)

  • IrusIrus Wichita, KSPosts: 774Member

    It's funny how people think a game can't be challenging without a 100 buttons. Some FPS feature 2 weapons. 2. Tell me FPS do not require skill.

    Originally posted by stevebmbsqd

    Skyrim is great for it's sandbox gameplay and the ability to explore and do what you want with little to no direction.

    I always wonder why people say this considering Skyrim is a themepark...

  • BereKinBereKin SplitPosts: 287Member
    Originally posted by The_Korrigan

     http://www.gamebreaker.tv/mmorpg/brawn-vs-brains/

    Very good article.

    "Your progression is dictated by your personal improvement, not by obtaining a new helmet that grants you +30 to Pwnage."

    The author also talks about why some less skilled gamers may not like the skill based approach of GW2, where you can't compensate your bad gameplay with more powerful gear.

    Another good quote: "Instead of needing to farm gear in order to the play the game, Guild Wars 2 allows you to simply play the game."

    Very good article. Thats the reason I played GW1 and will continue with GW2.

  • stevebmbsqdstevebmbsqd Orlando, FLPosts: 448Member
    Originally posted by Irus

    It's funny how people think a game can't be challenging without a 100 buttons. Some FPS feature 2 weapons. 2. Tell me FPS do not require skill.

    Originally posted by stevebmbsqd

    Skyrim is great for it's sandbox gameplay and the ability to explore and do what you want with little to no direction.

    I always wonder why people say this considering Skyrim is a themepark...

    Are we going to go through this again? Seriously? Google sandbox and see how many times the TES games and GTA are displayed. You are free to have your "own" definition, but there is already an accepted definition in place. If you want to communicate with the world, it is probably best that you use "accepted" representations of what you are trying to communicate. I could use the word dog to represent a cat...... but nobody is going to understand me. Now if you and your friends want to speak and code, feel free to do so. Just don't expect the rest of us to understand you.

  • IrusIrus Wichita, KSPosts: 774Member
    Originally posted by stevebmbsqd

    Are we going to go through this again? Seriously? Google sandbox and see how many times the TES games and GTA are displayed.

    Definitions are not defined by Google, especially those that are not yet in a dictionary. Google also thinks Minecraft is a sandbox, and I agree.

    Furthermore, we're discussing Skyrim. We're not discussing other TES games, and we're not discussing GTA.

    You are free to have your "own" definition, but there is already an accepted definition in place.

    Yes, and the accepted definition is that sandboxes are games that provide players with the material to create their own emergent gameplay. That is the only definition that makes sense. The only part of Skyrim that offers that is player housing.

    If you wanted to say "non-linear gameplay" (or open world), the term "non-linear gameplay" already exists, it's right there. But there's nothing emergent about Skyrim. Skyrim is a themepark. The only reasn you refuse to accept that is because you hate themeparks for the sake of hating them and don't want to admit that most games you love are themeparks.

    "All games that are dumb and on rails which are for stupid people who want hand-holding are themeparks" is not a definition.

    If you want to communicate with the world, it is probably best that you use "accepted" representations of what you are trying to communicate.

    Is that why half of MMORPG.com agrees with my definition?

    If you didn't want to get into this argument you shouldn't have used a term that has no proper definition. Don't try to pretend to be a smartass using a word that isn't actually strictly defined and varies from community to community.

     

  • stevebmbsqdstevebmbsqd Orlando, FLPosts: 448Member
    Originally posted by Irus
    Originally posted by stevebmbsqd

    Are we going to go through this again? Seriously? Google sandbox and see how many times the TES games and GTA are displayed.

    Definitions are not defined by Google, especially those that are not yet in a dictionary. Google also thinks Minecraft is a sandbox, and I agree.

    The definition is defined by the society that speaks that language and what they accept the definition to be. A word is symbolic verbal / written representation of something. Google didn't define what a "sandbox" game is, it just shows a reference for what the general population believes it to be.  

    Furthermore, we're discussing Skyrim. We're not discussing other TES games, and we're not discussing GTA.

    You are free to have your "own" definition, but there is already an accepted definition in place.

    Yes, and the accepted definition is that sandboxes are games that provide players with the material to create their own emergent gameplay. That is the only definition that makes sense. The only part of Skyrim that offers that is player housing.

    It does. It gives you a world to explore. You can tailor the gameplay to however you want. You don't have to do any of the quests. You can become a thief and steal things from houses, a mass murderer and kill entire towns and then change into a necromancer and rez them. I can explore as many dungeons as I want or do whatever I want. The world itself is the sand for me to play the way I want to play. Sure there are stories to play, but you never have to play them. You could say it is a sandbox with some themepark elements, but it is definitely a sandbox.

    If you wanted to say "non-linear gameplay" (or open world), the term "non-linear gameplay" already exists, it's right there. But there's nothing emergent about Skyrim. Skyrim is a themepark. The only reasn you refuse to accept that is because you hate themeparks for the sake of hating them and don't want to admit that most games you love are themeparks.

    You have no idea who I am or what my tastes are. Don't even try to pretend that you know. I like all sorts of games. I love good stories. I have no problem with games that are on rails. I just like well made games.

    "All games that are dumb and on rails which are for stupid people who want hand-holding are themeparks" is not a definition.

     

    If you want to communicate with the world, it is probably best that you use "accepted" representations of what you are trying to communicate.

    Is that why half of MMORPG.com agrees with my definition?

    They don't.

    If you didn't want to get into this argument you shouldn't have used a term that has no proper definition. Don't try to pretend to be a smartass using a word that isn't actually strictly defined and varies from community to community.

    I used the word in an acceptable manner. I promise you that everyone that read what I said understood the point I was trying to get across.

     We have had this discussion numerous times. Half of MMORPG.com doesn't agree with you. In fact you are in the minority. It does have an "accepted definition". Pretty much every review and every thing you will read on the web states that it is a sandbox. You have a very limited and narrow view of what you think the sand is. I assure you when I said sandbox gameplay, everyone understood what I was saying. I am pretty sure when you said it is a themepark, that majority of the world was like "WTF!".  You know when I was ten years old, my friends and I made up our own language and tried talking to each other too. It was fun. Feel free to keep it up. ;)

     

  • IrusIrus Wichita, KSPosts: 774Member

    Ah, yes. Because the thread in the Pub titled "What is a Sandbox" had everyone unanimously agreeing in it. It certainly wasn't full of bickering and back and forth arguments about whether FFA PvP, housing, and crafting was necessary, and there weren't definitely quite a few people who said Skyrim wasn't a sandbox and most agreed with them.

    The "world" as you like to say it, doesn't actually use these terms much. They have very little footing outside of MMORPG's since nobody in their right mind would divide things like that. If you can find me some discussions about whether or not DooM or Baldur's Gate were sandbox or themepark I'd be really surprised.

    But, hey, keep up your patronizing attitude. That's all you seem capable of.

  • Rollcage8Rollcage8 SydneyPosts: 63Member

    Skyrim is a themepark.

    In regards to the article, My play time actually in Guild wars 2 basically threw the covers off alot of this marketing hype going around. 

    There's 80 levels, This was supposedly "meaningless' YEAH RIGHT. What you can't unlock all your spells yet because not high enough level? Levels totally meaningless. 

    Downscaling is fun. Fun can be arbitrary but I actually hated an equal fight with the start zone centaurs because I'd already killed them before the other day, doesn't matter though, if you don't pay attention no amount of time playing will allow you to kill anything in the game easily. Sometimes it's fun to feel powerful you know...

    I sure see heaps of ppl going back at level 80 and having epic battles with level 6 centaurs. 

    Item shop only sells cosmetics etc.. Except for the + experience potions to combat that non existent grind to level 80 that rewards better access to more powerful spells and abilities... lol.

    Sure skill can be an important aspect of a game, but guild wars 2 definately has some wierd "FUN" design choices that make me scratch my head going "is this fun, or just making it *skilled* for the sake of it". I don't care if the centaurs at the start take a few hits to die, but when its a challenging fight for the rest of the game, I tend to find that makes the whole combat system tedious. 

     

  • Skyy_HighSkyy_High Ithaca, NYPosts: 138Member
    Originally posted by Mephster

    GW2 has only 5 weapon skills per bar, how skillful can one be with so little skills available to them. I'm sorry but the learning curve for this game is very low. If you can't figure out how to use those skills limited skills to the best of your ability then I can't see how skill will determine how well you do. It isn't difficult to figure it out.

    ...really? We're doing this? 

    I can't tell, is this guy serious or am I being trolled?

    *sigh*

    Assuming you're serious...

    1) GW1 had 8 skills on your bar, period, all the time, no exceptions. It was all about picking the right skills for the job and assembling a team build that got you through the content (remember, "soloing" meant "playing with 7 AI henchmen" for most of the game). You do not need 40-odd skills in order for a game to be 'skillful', clever wordplay aside. 

    2) Even if you wanted to push the above point, you're so very, very wrong. Excluding the two classes that don't have a weapon swap, you have 10 weapon skills available to you at all times (because your secondary weapon isn't just there for show, it's supposed to be used, that's why your swap is on a short cooldown). Plus a heal. Plus 3 utilities. Plus an elite. Plus at least one (and up to 4) skills for a profession mechanic. Plus all the extra skillbars that the various form and conjures can grant you. At absolute minimum, you should have around 16 skills available to you at all times, and some classes are going to have well over 30 depending on their build. 

  • itgrowlsitgrowls newport news, VAPosts: 2,951Member
    Originally posted by Uproar
    Originally posted by thexrated
    Sorry, but improving your character has always been a major feature in RPGs. If you want to compete in PvP, like in WoW, you will have the best class, the best build and the best gear to do it. In other words, it requires effort.

    All the above in mind, the PvE game of GW2 is probably not going to have much longevity for some players. I probably play a character through it once and do some of the harder stuff, but I am not interested in cosmetic improvements. I like to optimize my character for  various tasks and I get bored rather quick, if there is no way to accomplish it.

     Careful.  Your post risks erecting the Monolith before which the Apes may begin to reason.

    Sounds to me like you're one of the minority of players today, the ones who are holding onto the older 2004 ways of playing. Raids/Dungeons/PVP/The Endless Gear Treadmill aren't the only ways of playing a game and having fun at it. It's now that gaming companies are finally listening to the majority of players that those who are holding onto the past are complaining the loudest, it's like anything a group of people who used to be the majority but because of the times have become the minority do. Beat their drums and scream in protest with pitchforks and torches all the way to the courthouse, but it does no good especially in arenas like this since eventually you become drowned out by the majority and as your kind have told the rest of us for a very long time, majority rules.

    Oh and btw saying we should remain in the older ways of gaming because it's more fun for the few is not only not smart it's also not sustainable in a market like this. 

  • AriannaeAriannae Hiding somewhere in the mountains, AKPosts: 40Member

    @ People stating that GW2 won't have any form of longevity;

    You are absolutely, one hundred percent correct. If you burn through the dungeons and do a bit of Structured PvP and World vs. World, you're done. You're right.

    Luckily, GW2 doesn't require a subscription fee; What Guild Wars 2 requires is the box price alone. You're better off comparing the game to another single player RPG; The 'multiplayer' aspect, dynamic events, changing WvW candidates and structured PvP are all bonuses. That is what promotes the longevity. However, if that is not fitting to your playstyle, then the entire game, from level 1 to level 80, as well as the imminent defeat of the Elder Dragon, is the game that you paid that $60 for.

    Whether you choose to stay in WvW, Structured PvP, or just hang out with your Clan and help out lowbies is entirely up to you after finishing the storyline. However, you are very much given the options to do so. If, for whatever reason, it is more desirable to simply not continue to do objectives at level 80, then you don't. You put the game down if you're bored of it. That's all there is to it. But the game is still there for you to come back to in the case that you would like to pick up where you left off, no sub fee required. You lose absolutely nothing.

    I could, very easily, make the argument that World of Warcraft has absolutely no longevity after completing the Raids that are currently released, whether or not I obtain the gear that I required to become best in slot. But I won't, because the end-game is repeatable. Guild Wars 2 does things in a less forcing manner; The repeatable content is still there, but you have the -option- of running it, because it is -not- necessary to obtain that last piece of gear that will put your class above the rest.

     

    In advance, to those of you that may say 'But that isn't worth my $60!'. Skyrim offers essentially exactly what Guild Wars 2 offers, without the additional benefit of ever-changing events and PvP. Was that worth your $60?

  • AodhanAodhan bundabergPosts: 47Member Common
    Originally posted by The_Korrigan

     http://www.gamebreaker.tv/mmorpg/brawn-vs-brains/

     

    Haha I don't no about you but most of the smart ppl i no dont spend 10 hours plus a week playing computer games :).

  • The_KorriganThe_Korrigan EastPosts: 2,630Member
    Originally posted by heartless

    I have to be honest, as much as I am a fan of GW2, I think that this elitist attitude and epeen stroking has to end. The game is not going to scare away less skilled players. ArenaNet is not that dumb.

    The game has many ways of enjoying it at different skill levels. You have your dynamic events PvE, which anyone can enjoy, regardless of ability. There is also WvW, which can be enjoyed at any skill level, especially if you move with a large zerg. You also have crafting, exploring, puzzle solving and jump puzzles, all of which can be enjoyed by anyone with minimal twitch skills and MMO experience.

    Then you have the stuff that is geared towards the more skilled players: explorer mode dungeons and structured PvP, predominantly, but also smaller groups in WvW and to a lesser extent story mode dungeons.

    I agree with most of what you said - but the fact that you can not use gear to compensate bad playing remains - and some people will not like that. Hell, see how people complained when Blizzard upped the difficulty of dungeons/heroics (5 man, not even raids) in Cataclysm? When people see they can't tackle explorer mode dungeons, they will complain too, even more since here they don't have the option to farm uber gear and then faceroll the place.

    It's not elitist to say that the player's skill will be emphasized in GW2. There will be no gear excuse. That's a simple fact.

    If you wonder why I don't answer your posts, it's most likely because you are on my block list - so don't waste your time.

    image

  • terrantterrant Virginia Beach, VAPosts: 1,683Member
    Originally posted by Rollcage8

    Skyrim is a themepark.

    In regards to the article, My play time actually in Guild wars 2 basically threw the covers off alot of this marketing hype going around. 

    There's 80 levels, This was supposedly "meaningless' YEAH RIGHT. What you can't unlock all your spells yet because not high enough level? Levels totally meaningless. 

    Downscaling is fun. Fun can be arbitrary but I actually hated an equal fight with the start zone centaurs because I'd already killed them before the other day, doesn't matter though, if you don't pay attention no amount of time playing will allow you to kill anything in the game easily. Sometimes it's fun to feel powerful you know...

    I sure see heaps of ppl going back at level 80 and having epic battles with level 6 centaurs. 

    Item shop only sells cosmetics etc.. Except for the + experience potions to combat that non existent grind to level 80 that rewards better access to more powerful spells and abilities... lol.

    Sure skill can be an important aspect of a game, but guild wars 2 definately has some wierd "FUN" design choices that make me scratch my head going "is this fun, or just making it *skilled* for the sake of it". I don't care if the centaurs at the start take a few hits to die, but when its a challenging fight for the rest of the game, I tend to find that makes the whole combat system tedious. 

     

    Sigh...points taken in order as best I can...

     

    • Not sure what you mean by levels being meaningless. I've never heard any of Anet's marketing say that. What I HAVE heard say, and is utterly true, is that you don't outlevel content, so you can get something meaningful from any content you face.
    • I take it you want an experience where you can just go back and 1-shot everything without it being able to hit you? carrying teams of noobs through dungeons because you're so much higher level? I can't understand the hate for downscale otherwise. To me it's a lot more realistic. If I beat up some punk in a close call, knock down drag out fight today, chances are I'm not gonna just 1-hit KO him tomorrow. My newfound experience might make the fight a little easier (and this happens in GW since you'll have more skills and traits working for you when you return to an older area) but you won't simply dominate it.
    • You find a challenging game more tedious than one where you just run around stomping everything without any risk? Weird...
  • sonoggisonoggi tdot, ONPosts: 1,119Member

    i disagree with people who see this as elitism. it's really silly actually. many are just excited that there is a AAA alternative coming out. the funny thing is, i always thought raiders were a very elitist bunch, which is why i did not participate in WoW's endgame. mostly because almost nobody would let me! now that's elitist.

124»
Sign In or Register to comment.