Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Reasons why I find GW2 tedious
PioneerStew
Member Posts: 874
I was a huge fan of GW1, so I keep trying GW2 in the hope that it will eventually 'click'.
To me GW1 was one of the most innovative and unique games ever made. In the WOW era it was heavily instanced, story-driven, had a low level cap/ did not rely on levels as the carrot, had duel classes, had a free skill choice, had skill capping, had a vast amount of content at cap, had fantastic pvp, had aesthetic rewards. It was the anti-mmo, a truly fun, interesting and alternative experience.
Then ANet took everything I loved about GW1, removed the best parts and WOWified the rest.
GW2 just became a generic mmo , but it absurdly pointed out its superficial differences like they meant anything to a crowd tired of derivative games. 'We don't have trinity!'. 'We don't have quest hubs'. 'We have a living story'.
So we got a world without meaning, filled with trivial tasks. It feels like a playground; every corner is filled with pointless distractions. There is no sense of a world with an over-riding sense of place. There is not a compelling story. There is no sense of freedom in building your toon. All classes feel the same because they all fundamentally fulfil the same function.
As I said, it feels like a derivative mmo with a few superficial differences.
But the largest problem I have is the casual crowd they were aiming for. 'Casual' to me means that you do not have a great deal of time to play. It does not mean that you want zero attachment to the game you are playing; no reason to log back in. It certainly does not mean that you want a collection of unrelated, trivial tasks that have no meaning in the wider sense of the game. It does not mean that you do not want to be immersed for the few spare hours you have to play. And it does not mean that you want a 'living story' rather than (as per GW1) a complete and immersive expansion.
Here is my problem. It seems that some people, and particularly the gaming press, hold GW2 as an example to all other mmo's. I sometimes wonder if these people ever played GW1. If you want a truly innovative and alternative example for the mmo industry, then surely ANet's first instalment is the game you should be looking at.
Anyway, they are my thoughts on the subject, please share your own.
Comments
why I like it:
-free, no sub model
-no cashshop needed although it exists, if needed you can buy everything with ingame gold.
-no p2w
-skills+experience > gear
-pvp rocks
-very fun for a casual player
-graphics are top
-no traditional healer-tank-dps sh*t, that mode has no challenge, everything is so simple, 1 class can heal and tank themselves and have to show skill to actually be good.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
GW2 are generic and WOWified?
I'm confused
If it's not broken, you are not innovating.
I find myself agreeing with your sentiment rather thoroughly. Guild Wars 1 had already achieved virtually everything that Guild Wars 2 had set out to accomplish, and it did so much better. It WAS the play-your-way, horizontal progression, fun-from-level-1 MMO.
Guild Wars 2 did improve on some things, however.
Unmatched art style and (of course) a graphics upgrade.
Dynamic events are a ton of fun.
Open world content feels compelling and organic.
Trading and finding groups is a much more convenient experience.
It's much easier to obtain a viable version of a weapon that aesthetically appeals to you. Guild Wars 1, particularly in the Prophecies era, was really bad about randomized stats and modifiers that couldn't be improved upon. Things eased up in the factions era with salvageable weapon parts, but randomized damage numbers and equip requirements really hurt the whole process.
I guess I have to repeat myself.
GW1 was heavily instanced, story driven, low level cap, lots of story-driven end game, dual classes, skills caps, aesthetic rewards etc etc. This made it unique.
GW2 is a derivative mmo. It has none of the above but has all of WOW's features. With the exception that ! is replaced with a heart symbol and there are 'dynamic' quests (which have also existed in wow for a number of years but handled via phasing. Oh, and that the trinity has been replaced with everyone throwing their little bit of the trinity into the mix.
When you think about it, the "no-trinity" jack-of-all-trades class system of GW2 is little more than their replacement for the dual-class system of Guild Wars 1.
Both accomplish a similar purpose. And, frankly, I wouldn't miss the dual class system of the original so much if there was actually a large, well-defined pool of skills for each Guild Wars 2 class. Build-crafting defined the original game more than anything you mentioned, but Guild Wars 2 fundamentally fails at creating build variety.
I agree, they basically fulfil the same function, only that freedom is missing from GW2.
Still alittle confused, you comparing a singleplayer/coop game with a MMO.
You say Gw2 has all the feature WoW has, odd, when I play GW2 it dosent feel, behave or look like WoW in any form.
If it's not broken, you are not innovating.
Almost every mmo on the market could be described as a singleplayer/ coop game.
It is far closer to WOW than GW1.
I do see Anet moving the game in the GW1 direction where possible - traits (WIP) and in particular season 2 (starting to feel like missions IMO)
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Hello there.
My ign is Vorch De Asph. I'm a 50/50 HoM GWAMM from GW1. Played since Factions and loved every moment. However, take what I say with a grain of salt or ignore it; whatever you prefer.
From 2007, we knew GW2 was not going instanced...we knew it was going to be a persistent MMO.
GW2's story is a mixed-bag...some good parts, some bad, some people like it, some people don't. I understand.
If you REALLY want to power level, you can get to the level cap on your first character in 18 hours. Yes, it's been done. In fact, it was done during the first day of headstart. It can be done with or without help, with or without gold, and with or without crafting. No, it's not fast as Kilroy Stonekin's punchout challenge (released with EotN, btw), but it's still pretty damn quick. In addition, you can PvP at 80 automatically just like in GW1. You are also scaled to 80 in WvW.
Story driven end-game...you mean like DoA, UW, and FoW? Please, do tell me the story behind each of those quests? As I recall, the end game consisted of a Shadowform tank with Panic mesmers and spending 30 mins lf a UA/HB monk. Or are you saying that the fractals of the mist instances have no lore in them? Are you suggesting that story mode and explorable mode dungeon do not touch on lore?
And that brings me to the next point...dual classes. In GW2, I commonly hear about the vast skill array available to classes in GW1 and I always cringe. We had 1300+ skills...less than 300 were ever used in the meta game or in PvP. Many of those skills were duplicates (yes, EXACT duplicates with a different name). And in the end, the game was balanced around LESS than 50 skills. I.e. You would never see a monk use orison of healing and you could destroy the entire monk class by removing 5 skills (prot spirit, UA, HB, LoD, Aegis). GW2 would not benefit from dual classing...
Oh, but we did have skill capturing in GW1. We now have trait capturing in GW2. And the same issue exists in both games: some skills/traits are RIDICULOUSLY hard to capture. I remember...I captured them all before tomes were introduced. I remember going through snake dance, just hoping that a single boss would spawn. In GW1, it took 5 years iirc to introduce skill tomes; they added gold + skill point acquisition in GW2 right off the bat to avoid that problem.
Oh, and GW2 doesn't have aesthetic rewards...OK
There are many criticisms levied against GW2, but VERY few people actually compare it to WoW. It shows a lack of understanding of WoW or a lack of understanding of GW2.
I enjoyed my time in GW1, much if it spent afk in 9 rings, spending hours in spamadan to get a single item, using a dye system that to this day makes me cringe...but through all that I LOVED GW1. And the best part is that it is STILL there. And there is room in the world for both GW1 and GW2.
/rant
"As you read these words, a release is seven days or less away or has just happened within the last seven days those are now the only two states youll find the world of Tyria."...Guild Wars 2
Hello there.
My ign is Vorch De Asph. I'm a 50/50 HoM GWAMM from GW1. Played since Factions and loved every moment. However, take what I say with a grain of salt or ignore it; whatever you prefer.
From 2007, we knew GW2 was not going instanced...we knew it was going to be a persistent MMO.
GW2's story is a mixed-bag...some good parts, some bad, some people like it, some people don't. I understand.
If you REALLY want to power level, you can get to the level cap on your first character in 18 hours. Yes, it's been done. In fact, it was done during the first day of headstart. It can be done with or without help, with or without gold, and with or without crafting. No, it's not fast as Kilroy Stonekin's punchout challenge (released with EotN, btw), but it's still pretty damn quick. In addition, you can PvP at 80 automatically just like in GW1. You are also scaled to 80 in WvW.
Story driven end-game...you mean like DoA, UW, and FoW? Please, do tell me the story behind each of those quests? As I recall, the end game consisted of a Shadowform tank with Panic mesmers and spending 30 mins lf a UA/HB monk. Or are you saying that the fractals of the mist instances have no lore in them? Are you suggesting that story mode and explorable mode dungeon do not touch on lore?
And that brings me to the next point...dual classes. In GW2, I commonly hear about the vast skill array available to classes in GW1 and I always cringe. We had 1300+ skills...less than 300 were ever used in the meta game or in PvP. Many of those skills were duplicates (yes, EXACT duplicates with a different name). And in the end, the game was balanced around LESS than 50 skills. I.e. You would never see a monk use orison of healing and you could destroy the entire monk class by removing 5 skills (prot spirit, UA, HB, LoD, Aegis). GW2 would not benefit from dual classing...
Oh, but we did have skill capturing in GW1. We now have trait capturing in GW2. And the same issue exists in both games: some skills/traits are RIDICULOUSLY hard to capture. I remember...I captured them all before tomes were introduced. I remember going through snake dance, just hoping that a single boss would spawn. In GW1, it took 5 years iirc to introduce skill tomes; they added gold + skill point acquisition in GW2 right off the bat to avoid that problem.
Oh, and GW2 doesn't have aesthetic rewards...OK
There are many criticisms levied against GW2, but VERY few people actually compare it to WoW. It shows a lack of understanding of WoW or a lack of understanding of GW2.
I enjoyed my time in GW1, much if it spent afk in 9 rings, spending hours in spamadan to get a single item, using a dye system that to this day makes me cringe...but through all that I LOVED GW1. And the best part is that it is STILL there. And there is room in the world for both GW1 and GW2.
/rant
This...
No. You could try reading the OP for the context.
Only problem is you dont list similarities to wow there bud just ranting that its a generic mmo and not to your liking
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Oh look it's another: I hate GW2 for not being GW1 thread.
I will only comment on 2 things cause the rest is a baseless rant borderlining on trolling anyway.
1. The quote above - you technically admit that there is something to discover around every corner and you list that as a negative feature.
2. You talk about instances as if they are a big innovation. You are probably the only one on this forum who wants more instances in their game.
In all fairness, the value of instances is something that is tragically underappreciated in these forums. Sure, they tend to take the first M out of MMORPG, but it's not much of a loss. The best MMO content tends to be small-group content in the first place.
The main issue at work here is immersion. All too often, I hear that instances break immersion, but that's simply not the case. They immerse players in a different way than open-content does. With traditional open content, the situation tends to be one of a solo player or people they stumble across taking on random tasks. When done well, the experience can be nothing short of fantastic, and I firmly believe that Guild Wars 2 hit this right on the mark. I adore its open world content as it captures that social spontaneity frequently and conveniently. Instances bring a different form of value here, as there is a stronger group connection. As one's group members are their only support in an instance, the feeling becomes one of "you and your friends against the world." In other words, instances take small-group interactions and they magnify them several fold.
Furthermore, instances allow for a greater degree of content randomization. This is less of an issue in a game like Guild Wars 2, where the open world content is dynamic enough and compelling enough to warrant multiple playthroughs, but its a strong argument for a standard MMO. Each instance is a random assortment of enemies. Guild Wars 1 certainly didn't take advantage of that fact as much as they could have, but it did increase the replayability of its content nonetheless.
Instances also allow for a greater degree of content customization. Between Guild Wars 1 and Guild Wars 2, we see this in the existence of Hard Mode in the first title. Hard Mode gave players a customized experience while, like downscaling, making all content relevant. Unlike downscaling, Hard Mode made the content a serious challenge and made rewards from virtually all content viable. Hell, in my GW1 career, I made all the gold I needed for prestige stuff without stepping into DoA or the UW, rarely stepping into FoW, and rarely ever farming. If a player wants to turn a good profit in GW2 by playing nothing but the game's fantastic open world content, they'd be sorely disappointed.
Unfortunately, Hard Mode would be rather explicitly limited to dungeons in GW2, meaning its wide range of quality open world events can only really be experienced as they are. At best, players might gain a switch to further nerf their own power for an artificial "hard mode," but this increase in difficulty is easily bypassed by bringing another person along.
That isn't to say that I'm begging for less open world content and more instances in Guild Wars 2. IMO, Guild Wars 2 does open world better than any MMO in the past. I would actually ask for the opposite, as Guild Wars 2's dungeons tend to be poor by any standard - whether one were to compare them to GW1 or to a standard MMO.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
It could be possible thanks to overflows, but then you run into another problem entirely. And, unfortunately, it's an insurmountable problem that would exacerbate one of the weaknesses that Guild Wars 2 already has.
By this, I mean that Guild Wars 2 already suffers from the same problem as Planetside 2. It has too much content and not enough community to populate it. The result is an open world community that is spread hilariously thin. Adding in Hard Mode overflows would only split the community further.
The move would have to be accompanied by server mergers to even work, and I shudder at the thought of all of the doom and gloom "Guild Wars 2 is dying" posts that would accompany that.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Lost me when you stated all classes feel the same.
Thieves play nothing like an elementalist. A D/D elementalist plays nothing like a Staff elementalist.
GW1 was an amazing game but I saw it more as a hub game with a big online community but the ability to play with a massive amount of people was not there.
To be honest, classes do tend to feel highly similar. It is not to the degree he stated that "all classes feel the same," but the game is full of unfortunate similarities. He made a hyperbolic statement and you responded by saying "this potato isn't similar to that banana at all." A real comparison would have been "this baked potato has nothing in common with that baked potato filled with butter and sour cream." It should be obvious enough that such a statement wouldn't hold up.
Additionally, you are misplacing it. It is irrelevant that classes do or don't play similarly. It is relevant that they contribute similar things.
Guardians and Elementalists, for example, are pretty similar in their offerings. Both are boon-factories that heal via dodge rolling and offer great AoE support - and of nearly identical forms. Both offer AoE projectile reflection or neutralization. Both offer superb AoE healing. Both offer great AoE might stacking. Both keep up a lot of regen and protection. Both even offer "you shall not pass" walls. Sure, the Elementalist is a more active, mobile profession whereas the Guardian is more stationary and tends to have longer durations in its AoE support skills, but their team contributions are stupidly similar. Hell, you can probably add Ranger to that grouping to get a real feeling for how hard it's AoE boons and support skills, outside of healing, fail in comparison to other classes.
Longbow Rangers and Greatsword Mesmers are stupidly similar in both their offerings and their playstyle. Both excel at long-range confrontations and deal more damage from max range. Both pack knockbacks. Both pack AoE cripples and limited, but situationally powerful AoE damage. Both stack vulnerability. Both rely on AI companions for a large chunk of their damage. Their only real variation comes in from their Utility skills.
You do know you can fulfill more 'roles' then the typical "eles provide aeo, LB rangers and GS mesmers are kinda the same" playstyles?
Try different weapon setups and stats on the gear, should open up a new world in GW2.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
You do realize that you are telling one of the biggest Guild Wars 2 fanatics on the forums that he doesn't understand his game well enough?
No, Eles do not provide more "roles" than AoE. 90% of their skill offerings are AoE focused. Every single weapon in their arsenal is primarily AoE. Sure, the Scepter offers less than their other weapons and is more oriented around burst, but even it packs massive AoE through a solid portion of its skills.
I can move away from a Cantrip Elementalist. I could choose to not pack a Conjure that is good for the content in question. But I would be intentionally gimping myself and my team by not playing an effective role. I could take a full signet build, a full glyph build, or a full conjure build, but that doesn't make these things at all effective and it doesn't mean that I've expanded my offerings to the group.
Yes, I can play something other than a LB Ranger or a GS Mesmer and be effective. In fact, the best Rangers are melee rangers. Does that change the fact that LB Rangers and GS Mesmers are similar in style and role? Absolutely not.
Fact remains that Guild Wars 2 is full of similar and even redundant skill and class designs. That stems from the dumbing down of the enchantments and debuffs from the first game into a very limited selection of boons and conditions. There is only so much they can do skill-wise with these intentional limitations, and the result is redundancy.