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!

Do you still think GuildWars 2 was that "Revolutionary Game That Would Change The Genre"?

12346

Comments

  • halflife25halflife25 Toronto, ONPosts: 737Member
    Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter
     

    Quate that.

    Ah you can't because I never said that.

     

    Is that why you ignoring  the open world games like Vanguard with 'not successful enough' argument? so only if game sells like fast food 'open world ' becomes more relevant? all right. Whatever you say.

  • YamotaYamota LondonPosts: 6,620Member
    Originally posted by botrytis
    Originally posted by Yamota
    Originally posted by BadSpock

     

    What we really, really need now is a true MMO sandbox that does an amazing job of removing a lot of the stupid limitations MMOs have placed on players for a long, long time. A sandbox that is actually fun, high quality, easy to access, and streamlined for the masses.

    There have been a handful of mainstream successes in the sandbox/playground style game space - now we just need a MMO that is a sandbox/playground to take off in the mainstream - and to do that it has to evolve the sub-genre instead of simply copying the UO model like all the failed sandboxes have done (like all of the "failed" themeparks have copied the EQ model instead of being original.)

    This is the million dollar answer. A triple sandbox, which has never been attempted since UO/AC... if that happens then the true revolution of the genre will occur. People say that sandbox is not for the masses but how would you know if there hasnt been a properly funded one since over 10 years?

    GW 2, when all has been said and done, "just another ThemePark" (a very good one). But tt does not revolutionize anything.

    That type of game would be too expensive to produce and too expensive for a sub and it would only cater to the most hardcore gamers.

     

    GW2 - follows and expands on GW1 - why do people think it is following WoW or EQ? GW1 came out the same time as WoW. As a matter of fact WoW and GW1 were pitched to Blizzard, WoW won and GW1 went to A.Net. After the 2nd and 3rd chapters of GW1 came out, they announce GW2 and I think they already had the basic ideas down and what worked and didn't work in GW1.

     

     

    This is what people keep saying but it is nonsense. Why? Because Asherons Call did it, UO did it, SWG did it and they were not too expensive and they had a good following. AC 1 had a sustained sub. count of over 150k for over two years, that was really good for that time and UO had similar numbers.

    So history has shown that it can be done, it wont be too expensive and you will get at least a decent following. Problem is the elephant in the room, i.e. WoW, which did not go sandbox and had more than ten time the sub. base so even now, many years after, companies are still aping WoW (meaning ThemePark). However none of the games have had near the success so far and GW 2 wont either, it sold 2 million copies and nothing shows of any significant growth and this is not even a sub. game.

    The future of the genre lies in the evolution of the sandbox genre as ThemePark has reached it end. It has shown that the revenue model is not much different from a single player game. I.e. huge initial spike (if the game is good) and then, over a year or so, an almost equal decline. GW 2 is too young to see that yet but all other ThemeParks have followed that pattern, all of them (except WoW).

  • YamotaYamota LondonPosts: 6,620Member
    Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter
    Originally posted by Rimmersman

    Says the person who actually bought the line of  "GW2 bought open MMO to the MMO world" lol, perhaps you should of left the open part out of it. Personally i think you got found out and now you are trying to bring another dimention into the debate.

    I look at games like Vanguard/DarkFall that have no instances at all and allows everyone to play together with no barriers at all.

    GW2 bought nothing new when it comes to world design their are other MMOs that do it better.

    No, I didn't say that and I challenge you to quote that sentence.

    I'm sorry you are unable to understand the sentence "GW2 brings MMO into the Open World". even after I explained.

    Vanguard and Darkfall those amazing successes - maybe they have some barriers at all...

     

    I dont understand it either. GW 2 does not have an open world, it is zoned, so how can it bring MMO into Open World? It is not instanced but that is in no way the same as an Open World which usually means it is not zoned and mostly not instanced. GW 2 is the latter but not the former.

  • TeknoBugTeknoBug Calgary, ABPosts: 2,156Member

    Considering GW1 was somewhat similar, you didn't see anyone trying to take what GW1 offered over the past 7 years. So no I don't think there'll be new MMO's trying to take what GW2 offers.


    But I DO like how the quests works, no more running back and forth to the damn quest giver. And dynamic events are pretty fun.


    As for the structure pvp comment, tournament pvp is where you do premades and there were lots of it for the first month but recently it died out because premades were stacking bunker guardians and elementalists which was a complete waste of time so even my premade stopped queueing, and the number of structure pvp servers with players on them has been shrinking by the day, who wants to face 6-8 thieves?

    image
    image

  • kaiser3282kaiser3282 Phoenix, AZPosts: 2,660Member Uncommon

    The whole "open world" debate is pretty entertaining. You guys are arguing 2 different things.

    Open world and Seamless. They do not mean the same thing.

    Yes GW2 is zoned off with loading screens, making it not seamless. But those zones contain all of the players in that zone playing alongside eachother, making it open world.

    An example of non-open world would be stuff like DDo and GW1. There could be a million people in the same dungeon or zone. But they are split off into their own little instances and have no idea whatsoever that anyone outside of their own party is also in the same zone / dungeon. They have no interaction with eachother.

    A game can have zones, and be open world, it just isnt seamless.

    I believe what he is getting at with the whole "it brought MMO to the open world" thing is the idea of people actually working together to achieve goals and participating in DEs together.

    Take nearly any other themepark MMO, and it consists of things like people kill stealing or rushing to tag mobs with ranged attacks (depending on game mechanics) to get their quest done faster or get the loot & xp, or people standing in line waiting for 1 guy / party to finish their quest to kill something.

    Just think about launches of some popular games youve been in and all the complaints from people like "OMG they need to increase the respawn rates. I cant get any quests done because there are too many people and they keep stealing all the mobs". Yes youre playing an MMO, but more often than not youre not really playing WITH everyone else, your just kind of there alongside them, or competing against them to get your stuff done faster.

    The idea of "bringing MMO back" is about the way content and rewards are shared between everyone. You're all helping eachother and playing WITH eachother, even if youre not in a party or had no intention of helping someone else, youre still helping and impacting eachother.

  • botrytisbotrytis In Flux, MIPosts: 2,567Member
    Originally posted by Yamota
    Originally posted by botrytis
    Originally posted by Yamota
    Originally posted by BadSpock

     

    What we really, really need now is a true MMO sandbox that does an amazing job of removing a lot of the stupid limitations MMOs have placed on players for a long, long time. A sandbox that is actually fun, high quality, easy to access, and streamlined for the masses.

    There have been a handful of mainstream successes in the sandbox/playground style game space - now we just need a MMO that is a sandbox/playground to take off in the mainstream - and to do that it has to evolve the sub-genre instead of simply copying the UO model like all the failed sandboxes have done (like all of the "failed" themeparks have copied the EQ model instead of being original.)

    This is the million dollar answer. A triple sandbox, which has never been attempted since UO/AC... if that happens then the true revolution of the genre will occur. People say that sandbox is not for the masses but how would you know if there hasnt been a properly funded one since over 10 years?

    GW 2, when all has been said and done, "just another ThemePark" (a very good one). But tt does not revolutionize anything.

    That type of game would be too expensive to produce and too expensive for a sub and it would only cater to the most hardcore gamers.

     

    GW2 - follows and expands on GW1 - why do people think it is following WoW or EQ? GW1 came out the same time as WoW. As a matter of fact WoW and GW1 were pitched to Blizzard, WoW won and GW1 went to A.Net. After the 2nd and 3rd chapters of GW1 came out, they announce GW2 and I think they already had the basic ideas down and what worked and didn't work in GW1.

     

     

    This is what people keep saying but it is nonsense. Why? Because Asherons Call did it, UO did it, SWG did it and they were not too expensive and they had a good following. AC 1 had a sustained sub. count of over 150k for over two years, that was really good for that time and UO had similar numbers.

    So history has shown that it can be done, it wont be too expensive and you will get at least a decent following. Problem is the elephant in the room, i.e. WoW, which did not go sandbox and had more than ten time the sub. base so even now, many years after, companies are still aping WoW (meaning ThemePark). However none of the games have had near the success so far and GW 2 wont either, it sold 2 million copies and nothing shows of any significant growth and this is not even a sub. game.

    The future of the genre lies in the evolution of the sandbox genre as ThemePark has reached it end. It has shown that the revenue model is not much different from a single player game. I.e. huge initial spike (if the game is good) and then, over a year or so, an almost equal decline. GW 2 is too young to see that yet but all other ThemeParks have followed that pattern, all of them (except WoW).

    It is not nonsense - what I stated was fact posted on the developers website so actually do a little research before jumping.

     

    Sandbox games are very specific and the only players who really appreciate them and want them is hardcore gamers, one that eat, sleep, and breathe that type of game. I played several and found tham boring as all get out and not very entertaining. I play games to be entertained, if it doesn't do that, I vote with my pocketbook.

     

    We don't know how GW2 is going to do. You can speculate all you want but until the actual numbers are released by NCSoft or A.Net it is all conjecture.

     

    http://www.vgchartz.com/weekly/41189/Global/  it is still ranked in the top 20 as of last week so I don't know where you get your information from. You may want to get a refund for your ouija board. Also, Christmas time is coming up and there MAY Be a spike up in sales, one never knows though.

    image

    "In 50 years, when I talk to my grandchildren about these days, I'll make sure to mention what an accomplished MMO player I was. They are going to be so proud ..."
    by Naqaj - 7/17/2013 MMORPG.com forum

  • Gaia_HunterGaia_Hunter BristolPosts: 2,828Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Rimmersman
    Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter
    Originally posted by Rimmersman

    Says the person who actually bought the line of  "GW2 bought open MMO to the MMO world" lol, perhaps you should of left the open part out of it. Personally i think you got found out and now you are trying to bring another dimention into the debate.

    I look at games like Vanguard/DarkFall that have no instances at all and allows everyone to play together with no barriers at all.

    GW2 bought nothing new when it comes to world design their are other MMOs that do it better.

    No, I didn't say that and I challenge you to quote that sentence.

    I'm sorry you are unable to understand the sentence "GW2 brings MMO into the Open World". even after I explained.

    Vanguard and Darkfall those amazing successes - maybe they have some barriers at all...

     

    Ah, but we are not talking about successes, are we? Oh, and you calling people trolls because they question you're open world claim of GW2 kills any credibility you might have had, it's a sign of defeat.

     

    I said "GW2 bring the MMO to the Open World".

    Open world is commonly used in the MMORPG communities to describe everything that isn't a private instance, again commonly used to describe raids and dungeons.

    That is why there is no confusion about the question "Does GW2 have open world PvP?".

    The answer is "GW2 doesn't have open world PvP". It isn't "GW2 doesn't have a open world, because according to the game design theory Open World is a world without movement restrictions".

    Since people can't refute the fact that what MMOPRG community generally describes as Open World is in most games desert/single player/duo zones, hardly a Massive Multiplayer Experience at all, they MODIFY WHAT I SAY and keep doing it, trying to distract away from the most revolutionary aspect of GW2 - how people play and interact with each other in what is commonly called the open world by the MMORPG community (except in GW2 forums by Gw2 haters because GW2 has to obey special standards).

    I'll say it again and I'm not alone in that - some of the links of reviews/previes posted in this thread calling Gw2 revolutionary point the same - "GW2 brings MMO to the open world".

    Currently playing: GW2
    Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders

  • DancingQueenDancingQueen LA, CAPosts: 201Member
    Originally posted by grimal

    No, absolutely not.  The game is fun in its own way, like a single player title or a DIablo clone is.  But as good as the game is in itself, the real credit needs to go to the ANET marketers.  They have somehow, again, put out the message that they were creating a genre-defining MMO.  

    The biggest irony of this is that this game isn't even an MMORPG! (not by my standards)  So, how can a game that is not even within a genre change that genre?  It can't. 

    But ANET (and its fans) made it out to be doing just that. 

    Now that all the smoke is cleared, and preconceived notions have been put aside, the game can be seen for what it is: an incredible fun online action game that has more in common with games like Diablo than any MMORPG.

    Brilliant!

    It may not be a true MMORPG but a MOCOG (multiplayer online cooperative game) and I think no less of it for being so.

  • NadiaNadia Canonsburg, PAPosts: 11,866Member Common
    Originally posted by Yamota

    The future of the genre lies in the evolution of the sandbox genre as ThemePark has reached it end. It has shown that the revenue model is not much different from a single player game. I.e. huge initial spike (if the game is good) and then, over a year or so, an almost equal decline. GW 2 is too young to see that yet but all other ThemeParks have followed that pattern, all of them (except WoW).

    i dont think anything has reached its end

     

    I used to think similar with pen and paper RPG systems

    I have never been a fan of the stict level progression in dungeons and dragons

    had hopes for RuneQuest, Champions/Fantasy HERO, GURPS, and others

     

    all had their share of popularity for the last 28 years

    but which system has held out the most ... D&D, now forthcoming with a 5th edition

     

    there never was a revolution in PnP RPG games -  I dont expect one in online games

  • XzenXzen Los Alamos, NMPosts: 2,607Member Common
    I never thought it was to start with. But that's not a choice on your poll. Still fun for a themepark all the same.
  • BadSpockBadSpock Somewhere, MIPosts: 7,974Member
    Originally posted by halflife25
    Originally posted by Yamota

    As for triple A concept, not sure what you are referring to, but that therm has existed for very long time in many different contexts and it simply means something with a high budget.

    AAA MMO mostly refer to the budgets. That is what makes them AAA. You can have milliosn sunk into a Sandbox MMO but if it fails on every other front it won't matter. You focused on  'AAA sandbox MMO never been done before'. So all i am saying that a good sandbox MMO can be amde with a very decent budget.

    When you say AAA sandbox it means way more than your average budget.

    It's not just high budget - it's high production value.

    Say what you will about TOR, it has/had a very high production value - as does GW2. TOR also had a massive budget but that didn't = success.

    Then you get a game like RIFT without the high budget, but with very high production value and (generally) a success.

    What sandbox needs is high production value, AAA production, not necessarily budget because creating content for consumption is expensive and time consuming. Creating amazing systems and features that create content through meta gaming and immergant gameplay requires high production value, but not necessarily budget.

    It just takes skill and vision and one hell of an amazing designer. Something sandbox hasn't had yet.

    Even the greatest of the sandbox is / was quite stagnant is the innovation/evolution department.

  • Gaia_HunterGaia_Hunter BristolPosts: 2,828Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by halflife25
    Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter
     

    Quate that.

    Ah you can't because I never said that.

     

    Is that why you ignoring  the open world games like Vanguard with 'not successful enough' argument? so only if game sells like fast food 'open world ' becomes more relevant? all right. Whatever you say.

    I'm ignorining Vanguard because people are trying to say I said something i didn't say?

    So you are saying in Vanguard everyone is on the same team without partying? That everyone is doing "quests" together without having to share them? That resources are shared? That there is no loot and resource competition?

    Currently playing: GW2
    Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders

  • halflife25halflife25 Toronto, ONPosts: 737Member
    Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter
    Originally posted by halflife25
    Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter
     

    Quate that.

    Ah you can't because I never said that.

     

    Is that why you ignoring  the open world games like Vanguard with 'not successful enough' argument? so only if game sells like fast food 'open world ' becomes more relevant? all right. Whatever you say.

    I'm ignorining Vanguard because people are trying to say I said something i didn't say?

    So you are saying in Vanguard everyone is on the same team without partying? That everyone is doing "quests" together without having to share them? That resources are shared? That there is no loot and resource competition?

    You did bring up 'success' or didn't you? that is why i disagree with you. Since when Anet gets to define what is MMO? i didn't know they suddenyl patent the term which excludes games like Vanguard when it comes to open world MMOs or the games that brought MMOS to open worold. Which ever way you want to put it.

  • YamotaYamota LondonPosts: 6,620Member
    Originally posted by botrytis
    Originally posted by Yamota
    Originally posted by botrytis
    Originally posted by Yamota
    Originally posted by BadSpock

     

    What we really, really need now is a true MMO sandbox that does an amazing job of removing a lot of the stupid limitations MMOs have placed on players for a long, long time. A sandbox that is actually fun, high quality, easy to access, and streamlined for the masses.

    There have been a handful of mainstream successes in the sandbox/playground style game space - now we just need a MMO that is a sandbox/playground to take off in the mainstream - and to do that it has to evolve the sub-genre instead of simply copying the UO model like all the failed sandboxes have done (like all of the "failed" themeparks have copied the EQ model instead of being original.)

    This is the million dollar answer. A triple sandbox, which has never been attempted since UO/AC... if that happens then the true revolution of the genre will occur. People say that sandbox is not for the masses but how would you know if there hasnt been a properly funded one since over 10 years?

    GW 2, when all has been said and done, "just another ThemePark" (a very good one). But tt does not revolutionize anything.

    That type of game would be too expensive to produce and too expensive for a sub and it would only cater to the most hardcore gamers.

     

    GW2 - follows and expands on GW1 - why do people think it is following WoW or EQ? GW1 came out the same time as WoW. As a matter of fact WoW and GW1 were pitched to Blizzard, WoW won and GW1 went to A.Net. After the 2nd and 3rd chapters of GW1 came out, they announce GW2 and I think they already had the basic ideas down and what worked and didn't work in GW1.

     

     

    This is what people keep saying but it is nonsense. Why? Because Asherons Call did it, UO did it, SWG did it and they were not too expensive and they had a good following. AC 1 had a sustained sub. count of over 150k for over two years, that was really good for that time and UO had similar numbers.

    So history has shown that it can be done, it wont be too expensive and you will get at least a decent following. Problem is the elephant in the room, i.e. WoW, which did not go sandbox and had more than ten time the sub. base so even now, many years after, companies are still aping WoW (meaning ThemePark). However none of the games have had near the success so far and GW 2 wont either, it sold 2 million copies and nothing shows of any significant growth and this is not even a sub. game.

    The future of the genre lies in the evolution of the sandbox genre as ThemePark has reached it end. It has shown that the revenue model is not much different from a single player game. I.e. huge initial spike (if the game is good) and then, over a year or so, an almost equal decline. GW 2 is too young to see that yet but all other ThemeParks have followed that pattern, all of them (except WoW).

    It is not nonsense - what I stated was fact posted on the developers website so actually do a little research before jumping.

     

    Sandbox games are very specific and the only players who really appreciate them and want them is hardcore gamers, one that eat, sleep, and breathe that type of game. I played several and found tham boring as all get out and not very entertaining. I play games to be entertained, if it doesn't do that, I vote with my pocketbook.

     

    We don't know how GW2 is going to do. You can speculate all you want but until the actual numbers are released by NCSoft or A.Net it is all conjecture.

     

    http://www.vgchartz.com/weekly/41189/Global/  it is still ranked in the top 20 as of last week so I don't know where you get your information from. You may want to get a refund for your ouija board. Also, Christmas time is coming up and there MAY Be a spike up in sales, one never knows though.

    What is a fact? That big budget is not important when creating an MMO? Please link me the resource to the dev site which is saying that.

    That sandbox only caters to hardcore? Again, where do you get this fact. Just because a (ThemePark) dev may have said so does not make it a fact.

    And I said it is too early to say that GW 2 will follow suit of other ThemeParks but the fact that it is 20th and only sold 30k the last week shows that the sales are slowing down alot (it sold almost 1 million the first week). Also, what that list does not tell you is how many people, of who bought it, are not playing it and that is a big unknown and you can only get hints of that by looking at charts like XFire to see the trends (which is downwards more than SW:TOR was the first two months).

    Also a way to predict the future is to look at the past and the fact is that every single ThemePark, since WoW, has plummeted within the first year. AoC 1.5 million to 200k, WAR, 1.3 million to 200k, SW:TOR 2 million to < 400k in less than a year, TERA, SecretWorld, Rift have also big downward trends. So seeing as all of those were ThemePark and GW 2 is a ThemePark, it is safe to assume that GW 2 will follow suit. And the reason is simple, dev. created content cannot keep up with how fast players chew through the content and the only exception to that is WoW, which is a big exception and got the giant Blizzard supporting it with the huge income they get from the millions of subs.

  • RimmersmanRimmersman MonacoPosts: 885Member
    Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter
    Originally posted by halflife25
    Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter
     

    Quate that.

    Ah you can't because I never said that.

     

    Is that why you ignoring  the open world games like Vanguard with 'not successful enough' argument? so only if game sells like fast food 'open world ' becomes more relevant? all right. Whatever you say.

    I'm ignorining Vanguard because people are trying to say I said something i didn't say?

    So you are saying in Vanguard everyone is on the same team without partying? That everyone is doing "quests" together without having to share them? That resources are shared? That there is no loot and resource competition?

    And what has that got to do with open world, that's just mass grouping without having to invite.You are going away from what you actually said to try and press the "i win" button but you lost pages ago with that silliy claim of yours.

    image
  • PyukPyuk Eugene, ORPosts: 691Member Uncommon

    I actually never drank the cool-aid that GW2 was going to be the MMORPG savior, but I also was at least excited to play it. I voted no in this poll. The game is incredibly repetitive, and ANet has managed to make exploration dull (imo), quite a feat, actually. GW2 is definitly a fun short-burst type of game, but it sure isn't a long haul, in-depth game where there is a lot of variety of things to do. Not much variety in character development; not much variety in open world adventuring (can't say questing - go to one heart area, beat on things, beat on wave event in said heart area, ding in heart area, move onto next heart area); No user created content like housing, shops, player towns, bounties, etc. Crafting is the same gather and paste-together boredom that's in every MMO, so nothing new there. And don't get me started on the personal stories - huge uhg!

    Overall, it seems that ANet spent more time regurgitating old MMO staples and taping shiny gift wrapping onto it, then patting each other on the backs for saving the MMORPG genre, than actually coming up with (or improving upon) MMORPG game play.  I would have been inpressed if they incorporated actual action-combat like Tera or DCUO. That big open world they're so proud of would have been more impressive if they incorporated open world housing (SWG and UO have it, there's really no excuse for any modern MMO to not have it). Player towns would have opened up a whole new emurgent game play field, especially for a game that touts it's PvP. 

    Meh, that's enough ranting. I've come to the conclusion that no developer will ever revolutionize the MMO genre anymore. Those that claim they will are just drinking their own cool-aid. 

    I make spreadsheets at work - I don't want to make them for the games I play.

  • YamotaYamota LondonPosts: 6,620Member
    Originally posted by BadSpock
    Originally posted by halflife25
    Originally posted by Yamota

    As for triple A concept, not sure what you are referring to, but that therm has existed for very long time in many different contexts and it simply means something with a high budget.

    AAA MMO mostly refer to the budgets. That is what makes them AAA. You can have milliosn sunk into a Sandbox MMO but if it fails on every other front it won't matter. You focused on  'AAA sandbox MMO never been done before'. So all i am saying that a good sandbox MMO can be amde with a very decent budget.

    When you say AAA sandbox it means way more than your average budget.

    It's not just high budget - it's high production value.

    Say what you will about TOR, it has/had a very high production value - as does GW2. TOR also had a massive budget but that didn't = success.

    Then you get a game like RIFT without the high budget, but with very high production value and (generally) a success.

    What sandbox needs is high production value, AAA production, not necessarily budget because creating content for consumption is expensive and time consuming. Creating amazing systems and features that create content through meta gaming and immergant gameplay requires high production value, but not necessarily budget.

    It just takes skill and vision and one hell of an amazing designer. Something sandbox hasn't had yet.

    Even the greatest of the sandbox is / was quite stagnant is the innovation/evolution department.

    Are you in the SW development industry? Because I am and I can guarantee you that developing SW costs money and developing such a complex software as a commercial MMO takes ALOT of money. Now that does not mean it is not possible to create a good game without a big budget, like it is possible to create a good movie without a big budget, but it helps ALOT.

    As for triple A, you may have your definition from somewhere else but here it is quite clear that it directly relates to budget: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_A#Games

  • RimmersmanRimmersman MonacoPosts: 885Member
    Ill say the cities in GW2 are some of the best i've come across, actually i would say DR is the best in any MMO to date.

    image
  • MisterZebubMisterZebub FremantlePosts: 493Member Uncommon

    Never thought the game would be a genre changer. I did expect to like it far more than I did though. While pretty to look at the game just felt a bit bland and pointless for me.

    I will say that there is one aspect of Guild Wars 2 that is revolutionary, its the only MMO where the company gave me my money back no questions asked. And I have to say I'm rather impressed that they did so after I'd been playing a month.

    image

    "Life's a game where they're bound to beat you
    and time's a trick they can turn to cheat you
    And we only waste it anyway and that's the hell of it"




  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer ChairPosts: 5,590Member Uncommon

    GW2 did not revolutionize anything. It brings a lot of new concepts and mechanics to the table. But in order to do that, many things were cut out to make it happen. In order to get what GW2 offers, something just as big was lost. And for many, the trade is welcome, for many others, the loss was either an even trade which doesn't really move the game forward, or what was lost was too much. GW2 is more of a fork in a different direction than a step forward from where the genre was before GW2. 

    But even for what GW2 offers to be incorporated into new games, much work stil needs to be done so other things aren't lost or that these new mechanics can be made to work without introducing entirely new sets of problems.

  • Mors-SubitaMors-Subita montreal, QCPosts: 500Member
    Originally posted by crosslee

    Long time reader on this website, but a starter poster ;) To me many of Guildwars 2 "Revolutionary Gameplay" ideas are kinda sad and nothing new... just reused old ideas under a new shiny name.

    Is it worth the 60$ simple answer for me yes because i do enjoy it as a quick pick up n play kinda game and it will always be there years later unless they pull the plug on servers of course lol. If it had a subscription attached to it, i Wouldn't even bother with it tbh. It's good for casual players to come on and get something done for an hour or two almost like a WoW Jr in that aspect.  

    Exploration is kinda dull and un-rewarding half the time, minus the beautiful views of course and random 1 or 2 chests you find along the way. All the waypoints, hearts, points of interest all marked on your map ruins it. Plus some areas you stumble into while exploring might require a party to kill monster/monsters which is annoying if your solo or no one is around to help.

    Yes, they do spoon feed you some stuff(like you said, hearts, waypoints, etc). Those things are only about half of the things to discover on each map, based on my experience. There are a ton of things, including "mini" dungeons that can only be accessed through world events, lots and lots of chests, jumping puzzles other than the ones that are listed in your achievements page, events that don't spawn DE events or notifications on the map(good example is the dolyak spirit in hirathi highlands that leads to the spawning of "slick" ricki. Total shout-out to Slick Rick).

    Verdict: True but misleading

    Structured PvP is nice for an hour or two but then it gets boring. Can't make premade groups which is odd but understandable i guess. Again the accesiblilty is there for casuals to jump in and start playing but thats about it. I don't get an addiction for it like other mmo's PvP systems. *since i waited over an hour to eventually give up waiting for 9 more teams of five to join for it to start i forgot about tournaments being a vaible premade method for sPvP. If u can wait for others to play with you....that is. Maybe my server is dead idk.

    You cannot make pre-made groups for hot-join/quick-join games, but you CAN make pre-made groups for casual tournaments(3 round, single elim) which pop as soon as they have enough groups. You can also make premades for official tournaments. I've never had trouble getting a sPvP tournament going. Possibly it is the time of day or your server.

    Verdict: Some true, Some false.. Maybe just presented badly and not clarified.

    WvW is zerg here zerg there everywhere a zerg, plus what server has the most people online at the time you decide to go in. Trying to get in solo or with friends is a test of patience and time with the fact that you can't join que as a group so each person gets there own que timer to get in. There is no Estimated Time to show how long till your eligible to zone in.

    True, a lot of people run in the zerg... and that is the same in any game which has open world pvp. I saw the same in DAOC, I saw it in shadowbane, etc. What is telling is when a group of 5, or even 2 groups of 5 take out a zerg of 30+... Seen it, been part of it. Also, there is a lot more to it than that.... for example, trebs have a 15000 range on them, or something ridiculous like that. You can actually have a treb outside of loading distance lobbing at them(we wound up having to have someone kamikaze in and die to act as a spotter and help us adjust our aim). Properly applied siege is a complete game-changer. Player skill and having a good coordinated group matters a lot. If you are solo, don't have anyone to play with, don't belong to a guild, etc. then yes, you are pretty much stuck running with the zerg in WvW, or else you are picking off stragglers and running away a lot.

    Verdict: True, but misleading.


    Rewards. Area rewards are horribly stupid, waste all that time trying to complete an area for mediocre items makes it pointless imo. Dungeons drops are nice in the sense no one ever fights about drops, it's all randomly distributed behind the curtains which is very nice. Probably the best part about the game is the distribution of loot. lol

    I assume by area rewards you mean completion rewards. Completion rewards are designed to be done at the level of that area and are appropriate. Once I got to the 60-80 zones, I really appreciated the orange and yellow rewards and the significant silver. Even if I didn't want the items, they all sold, which tells me that SOMEONE wanted them... Which means that they were all usable. YMMV.

    Verdict: False

    Loot distribution and dungeon tokens are awesome.

    Verdict: True

    Crafting is nice but lots of stupid clutter to make it look like a vast crafting system but in turn just makes it annoying half the time. Want to craft a pair of boots, wait u 1.need to smelt your copper 2. get some cloth (of course our virtual boots need to be comfy for our long travels, espicially with walking soo slowly everywhere lol) 3. make three parts : sole, padding, exterior of your boots 3. add insignia's for extra stats then viola your 1 pair of boots is finished..... again more stupidity then an actual complex crafting system.

    Please describe this theoretical complex crafting system, and how you would make a pair of boots under it.

    Then go and actually try and make a pair of boots, and guess what? You will be making uppers, soles, lining, and then putting it together. That is just how it works. Are they taking the realism too far? Maybe, that is just a matter of opinion. 

    Verdict: True information, false conclusion.

    Dungeons feel unorganized and messy, i hate them with a passion. Tera, Secret World, WoW dungeons feel nice and layed out perfectly from start to finish. [mod edit]
    Again loot is beautifully handled, most of the time completly useless aswell but thats another story lol.

    Ah, you want a linear dungeon with fixed roles(tank, healer, dps, etc). The dungeons in this game are large, offer multiple paths, and even within a single path there are many ways to progress, as well as bonus events and items that can be triggered all over the place, secrets you can find, etc. You are 100% correct, however. They are unorganized and messy. The proviso is that this is only the case if you are PUGGING it with BAD players. I will give you a perfect example. Doing path 3 in AC, I PUGGED it 3 times. once we couldn't keep up with taking down the nests in the lovers room. Once we were able to keep up easily, and once we fell behind, wiped, and had to start over and did it the second time. Contrast that to going in with a group that I know is good... We were doing fine, one of our party had to go afk for an emergency and we fell behind. He came back and we split up and CAUGHT BACK UP taking down the entire swarm and all the nests... I can say 100% that that would not have been possible with any of the PUGs that I ran it with. How many of these groups you ran with were all on vent? How many of them were first time through runs? How many were you trying to do speed runs and weren't taking the time to analyze the content properly?

    Verdict: misleading, at best.

    Story is interesting but the cutscenes ruin it. Boring cutscenes with wallpaper backgrounds ruins the immersion they try so hard to instill within the game. Maybe it's from seeing The Secret World and Swtor cutscenes but is it soo much to ask to see the actual in-game background instead of wallpaper????

    This is a hold-over from GW1. Some cut-scenes to show actual background when it is a scripted event or they are showing you something... But for conversations it is always taken this way. It is a stylistic thing and personally I don't have a problem with it.

    Verdict: Opinion, no judgment.

    Combat is sad aswell, nice and simplistic yes. Auto attack and cooldowns is all its about, with the new innovation of moving around!!?!?! to avoid AOE and attacks..... don't think i need to say more lol

    Having to move around, position yourself properly, make best use of your skills, know what to use when... VS other games where you stand there and sit toe to toe with the monster (or in rare classes kite) and use skills as they come off cooldown, as long as you have the mana/energy for it? Maybe this is the reason why you have problems with dungeons and WvW... Doesn't sound like you actually understand the combat in the game.

    Verdict: False and misleading

    Money Costs are again a major downfall. Traveling, Repairing, Gathering Tools, Salvage kits. Money sink i understand but in a game where the trading post nets you 1 copper profit for the majority of items is ridiculous and selling to merchants is better then selling on trading post =/ maybe i fail at GW2 economy lessons. Every coin i make is precious for saving up for armor, *cough cough cultural armor and other items i may need only to spend a nice chunk teleporting everywhere. Traveling to meet friends is gonna cost you, even to help someone out in your guild. To check an area with a dungeon to see if anyone is forming pickup groups. Coins Coins and more Coins gone, reminds of Aion and the rezzing fee to get your exp back. Want to cut back on costs don't worry you can spend a nice chunk of time running to said location aka walking.... unless you have a speed boost skill.. then you get actual running lol. Or for those that have a nice chunk of real life money why not spend it on gems to convert into in-game gold!!! All your money issues in-game gone with actual spending of your hard earned cash.  [mod edit]

    When I hit 80 I had about 2 gold. Since I've been at 80, I've gone up to about 30g (20 in the bank, and the rest I split up to my alts to make sure I can buy books, etc, on time). You do realise that completion(which you complained about above) gives you a nice chunk of change(in lvl 70-80 zones, I got 60s from the completion, and 30-50s from each of the items I got that I sold... almost 1.5g from each zone I completed). Even before that, Net gold was always positive, even when I include the costs of buying gear, buying all my books, buying siege materials, etc. Even without using the TP, there shouldn't be any kind of cash problem so it isn't that you fail at GW2 economy... Sorry man, but this is all on you.

    Verdict: Some true, Some false, all misleading.



    Long story short. (lol if you watch South Park) I have been playing since beta and there was something in the back of my head bothering me about this game. I just can't get into it like other mmo's, there is no addiction for me wanting to log in on a daily basis. Revolutionary game?? not by a loong shot just another niche game for those WoW stragglers looking for something new or those  [mod edit]

    Verdict: I think this is a clear case of a CTK error... The problem is definitely between the Chair and the Keyboard, imo.

     

    image

  • just1opinionjust1opinion Kansas City, MOPosts: 4,844Member
    Originally posted by Icewhite

    "Revolutionary Game That Would Change The Genre"

    Cite this quotation please.

    Googling turns up an interesting lack of results.  What's funny is that all known instances of this phrase, or close variants, spawed here, in this thread. 

    If you're questioning who's 'guilty of generating the hype'?  It's the OP.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

    Classic, easy political trick.

     

     

    As I suspected.

    President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club

  • PsyMike3dPsyMike3d AthensPosts: 388Member Uncommon

    GW2 only, helped me to totally understand how bad  Hype is!

    never again

  • Pumuckl71Pumuckl71 istanbulPosts: 121Member

    you now this thread smells and reads like  like the  one that has the  "Do you fell GW2 deserves............"  header .

     

  • YamotaYamota LondonPosts: 6,620Member
    Originally posted by just1opinion
    Originally posted by Icewhite

    "Revolutionary Game That Would Change The Genre"

    Cite this quotation please.

    Googling turns up an interesting lack of results.  What's funny is that all known instances of this phrase, or close variants, spawed here, in this thread. 

    If you're questioning who's 'guilty of generating the hype'?  It's the OP.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

    Classic, easy political trick.

     

     

    As I suspected.

    Suspected what? Do a search for 'Guild Wars 2' and 'revolutionary' and you will get tons of results. This guy is just using a misleading argument to say that this post is the only one which said GW 2 is revolutionary. It is not.

Sign In or Register to comment.