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!

Reasons why I find GW2 tedious

2

Comments

  • AeanderAeander Walker, LAPosts: 522Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Muke

    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.

     

    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.

  • NightfyreNightfyre Pandora, OHPosts: 173Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Aeander
    Originally posted by Muke

    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.

     

    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.

    Yeah when I played and did an instant, I always had in the back of my mind.. i hope this elementalist, engineer or guardian isn't playing a similar build style to mine.  Some you feel can work together in some ways, but buffs/debuffs don't overlap i do believe.. if i remember right.. yeah I can't say I ever remember double regens.

  • NevulusNevulus Miami Beach, FLPosts: 1,288Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by PioneerStew

    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....

    Cool story bro.

    GW1 was not an MMO.

  • AeanderAeander Walker, LAPosts: 522Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Nevulus
    Originally posted by PioneerStew

    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....

    Cool story bro.

    GW1 was not an MMO.

     

    Technically, it wasn't. In reality, that's a meaningless distinction. It's still an online multiplayer cooperative title that had a large community and offered world-wide mass-player socialization (guilds and town hubs).

     

    And, most importantly, it competed in the MMO sphere of the gaming market. It may cluck like a chicken, but it was adopted by a family of ducks.

  • thinktank001thinktank001 oasisPosts: 2,027Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Aeander

    Technically, it wasn't. In reality, that's a meaningless distinction. It's still an online multiplayer cooperative title that had a large community and offered world-wide mass-player socialization (guilds and town hubs).

     

     

    You can generalize all you want, but that still doesn't make GW1 and MMORPG. 
  • AeanderAeander Walker, LAPosts: 522Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by thinktank001
    Originally posted by Aeander

    Technically, it wasn't. In reality, that's a meaningless distinction. It's still an online multiplayer cooperative title that had a large community and offered world-wide mass-player socialization (guilds and town hubs).

     

     

    You can generalize all you want, but that still doesn't make GW1 and MMORPG. 

     

    Like I said. It wasn't, nor am I establishing it as one. And you, good sir, can argue semantics all you like. The fact remains that Guild Wars 1, especially at the time of its creation, was, for all intents and purposes, commercially an MMO. Does that make it an MMO? No, but it is important in considering which games it competed with, which games it pulled players from, which games pulled players from it, and the type of players who played (and possibly still play) the game. Semantics are unimportant compared to commercial practicality. 

     

    The bottom line is this question: what kind of game would someone be looking for if they found Guild Wars 1, Dragon Nest, Destiny, or any other heavily-instanced "pseudo-MMO." They aren't going to be looking for a console RPG. They aren't going to be looking for an RTS. They aren't going to be looking for an FPS, save in Destiny's case. They're going to be looking for a MMO. 

     

     

  • Lord.BachusLord.Bachus Den HelderPosts: 9,064Member Uncommon

    So basically because the OP is missing Horizontal character progression at max level and the semi trinnity of Gw1 he calls the game tedious...

     

    i agree with him, these two features are missing but the game is far from tedious...

     

    - solo PvE is awesome, because the world feels more alive then any other MMO, there are things happening everywhere around you...

    - combat is deep and engaging, fast paced and rewarding for people with skills

    - sPvP is the best and most fun  instanced PvP  setting of any MMO, this is the hardcore part of the game.

    - the world is just plain beatifull and challenges people  to explore

    - the game is fun for casuall play

    - personal story is good,... Tough the game needs much more of these story based quests to keep people emgaged in them, as said its a casualls game and most casualls love story and soloing these quests

    etc etc etc...  There is so much more goodness, but some people are so much connected to what they love about their favourite game, that they feel to see how other games are different but still entertaining.

    Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)

  • cerulean2012cerulean2012 Colorado Springs, COPosts: 367Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by PioneerStew

    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.   

    I agree with you on a lot of your points.  Dynamic events where done by Rift before and other games had similar things.  Heart quests, so instead of 3 or 4 quest hubs in a zone you now have 8+.  Granted they give you 1 basic quest that might have a few different options to completion but they still are a quest hub. Plus there are other examples of how GW2 was not as innovative as they claim to be.

    Unfortunately there still is enough of a playerbase to that game that if Anet ever makes another sequel it will most likely be fashioned more like GW2 then GW1

  • AeanderAeander Walker, LAPosts: 522Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by cerulean2012

    I agree with you on a lot of your points.  Dynamic events where done by Rift before and other games had similar things.  Heart quests, so instead of 3 or 4 quest hubs in a zone you now have 8+.  Granted they give you 1 basic quest that might have a few different options to completion but they still are a quest hub. Plus there are other examples of how GW2 was not as innovative as they claim to be.

    Unfortunately there still is enough of a playerbase to that game that if Anet ever makes another sequel it will most likely be fashioned more like GW2 then GW1

     

    A note on dynamic events:

     

    Rift was published after Guild Wars 2 was announced and after dynamic events became a planned feature of Guild Wars 2's content. It is entirely reasonable to come to the conclusion that Arenanet had dynamic events drawn out at around the same time, if not earlier, than Trion did, particularly when you compare the scale of the two games against one another. Guild Wars 2 is clearly a bigger project with a longer developmental requirement. It is very telling that Trion retroactively changed the terminology for their Rifts to "dynamic content" in order to capitalize on the Guild Wars 2 hype movement of that time period.

     

    And it's pretty clear that Guild Wars 2's dynamic events are the best in the genre. They have no competition. Rift's ... well, Rifts are limited and one-dimensional. Defiance was the same story, but even worse.. Firefall lacks variety and impact. Destiny hasn't shown enough of them as of this moment (its beta) to draw any conclusion. 

  • Lord.BachusLord.Bachus Den HelderPosts: 9,064Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by cerulean2012
    Originally posted by PioneerStew

    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.   

    I agree with you on a lot of your points.  Dynamic events where done by Rift before and other games had similar things.  Heart quests, so instead of 3 or 4 quest hubs in a zone you now have 8+.  Granted they give you 1 basic quest that might have a few different options to completion but they still are a quest hub. Plus there are other examples of how GW2 was not as innovative as they claim to be.

    Unfortunately there still is enough of a playerbase to that game that if Anet ever makes another sequel it will most likely be fashioned more like GW2 then GW1

    You cant compare rift dynamic  events with GW2, in rift they are a mechanic ( tough i love the invasion parts) but in GW2 they are used to tell the stories of an area, and they are very very good at that...   

     

     

    Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)

  • StarS0ftStarS0ft BerlinPosts: 91Member
     

    GW2 is very good game but definitely has flaws.

    And these flaws can be easily improved. I am curious why Aned did no do it?

    1. progresion. is must be. otherwise the game is pointless. you will finish all content and quit the game forever. In GW1 you have thousands skills and improvments to unlock, to use it in PvP. You can unlock via PvE, you can unlock via PvP. You can spend 4 years to unlock all. It's a reason to play.

    If Anet removed skill progression and did not add gear progression, they must fill this hole. 

    They made WWW-skill prtogress in WWW-very good imho, everybody like that their char become stronger iver against guards or has new skills on sieges.

    They have to do same for PvE.

    For sPvP not enough progression too. Must be revards for ranks otherwise ranks pointless.

    2. Absolutely Not enough guild content. In GW1 99% of time we did PvP: GvG or HoH. If was a reason to play with a guild for years.

    It must be guild vs guild competition. Imiss for GvG!

    Guild missions are fun - but first time only. but boring on second.

    btw, most WOW content based on PvE guild competion in raids. No competitions = wow dead.

    3. World bosses. Tequatl and Worms are good challenge for the big guild. BUT. we do not do it because...no point. rewards are not enough vs effort.  Rewards is nothing is GW2 because no progresson, look p1

    4. Hardcore content, if hardcore achievment will provide at least:

    - title

    - unique skin

    - will be pinged to guild chat automatically 

    it will be already a reason to do it.

    5. sPvP flaws for me and it very easy to fix:

    - on solo arena TOO long to wait for next matchup, around 2-3 minutes, must be not more than 20s as it was in GW1, otherwise no immersion

    - on soloarena we have disbanded team everytime after every battle, its very bad. in gw1 you had progresson chain, you had 1 glad point for 10 wins in a ROW! it was best feature of gw1 random arena. Afte few wins in a row you become to feel your random people as a team.

    - title on arena in gw1 was very hard and as resut - meaningful.

    - i hate maps with points capture...viva to deathmatch!

    - combo field still feels as random. it must be priority for your field.

     

     

     

  • PiscorePiscore Las PalmasPosts: 144Member Uncommon

    WoW and WoW-Clones = Xbox One and PS4

    Guild Wars 2 = Wii

     

    or

     

    Trinity game's = Xbox One and PS4

    Gw2 with not trinity = Wii

     

    if you know what i mean

    l2p

  • cerulean2012cerulean2012 Colorado Springs, COPosts: 367Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Lord.Bachus

    You cant compare rift dynamic  events with GW2, in rift they are a mechanic ( tough i love the invasion parts) but in GW2 they are used to tell the stories of an area, and they are very very good at that...   

    I am sorry but you can compare them, the base mechanic is the same.  Yes some GW2 events do tell a story but some are mindless that have little to relate to the areas they are in.

    Also from a poster a few above saying that Rift was announced after GW2, yes it was but since GW2 was announced not to long after the release of Nightfall (sometime after year 3) then you can say about anything that was announced after that took from GW2.  Since we don't know when GW2 started work in the events it is possible that Rift did do them first, regardless Rift came out first thus had them first.  Same as when people say WoW did things first when in realty mmos before WoW had done them.  Whoever comes out first with something gets credit, GW2 just expanded some on the events mainly in story which is strange since the games story is week compared to GW1 (but this is not a GW1 did it better post).

    Anyway I also find GW2 tedious, if others like the game that is fine as they are free to like what they want like I am free to think the game is tedious.

  • PepeqPepeq Poway, CAPosts: 1,486Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by PioneerStew
    Originally posted by Torgrim

    GW2 are generic and WOWified?

    I'm confusedimage

    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.  

     

    Start off by erasing GW1 from your head.  It's not GW1 and more than MoP is classic vanilla.  The more you try to make it GW1, the more you will fail.

     

    GW1 is still there.  You can still play it.  Just don't expect GW2 to be GW1, it's not, they never said it was going to be.

  • HarikenHariken Brighton, MAPosts: 980Member Uncommon
    Any mmo that brings console game feature's to them is bad to me. GW2 has alot of them in it. So it doesn't feel like a real mmo to me. This is just my take on it.  A lot of the newer mmo's seem to be going down this path so i stick to older mmo's. 
  • BladestromBladestrom edinburghPosts: 4,941Member Uncommon
    What does console game feature mean?

    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

  • ennymithennymith Goodwell, CTPosts: 119Member

    I quit GW2 when it the follow the crowd game design took over and jumping puzzles became a major portion of new content.

    I started from Beta, but after 2 years it evolved into your typical elite endgamers one shotting everyone else so common in many of today's asian style MMO's.

    The world events became such a joke, join a mob of faceless other players and beat in boring monsters on a timetable. Or roll a de-rigor class to farm xyz instance.  If you don't have a state of the art computer, the large scale pvp became a lagfest.

    Don't worry, the door won't come close to my behind.

  • MalevilMalevil BratislavaPosts: 468Member
    Originally posted by ennymith

     

    I started from Beta, but after 2 years it evolved into your typical elite endgamers one shotting everyone else so common in many of today's asian style MMO's.

    How can you expect someone taking your post seriously when you are pulling nonsense out of your ass ...

  • grimalgrimal Stamford, CTPosts: 2,873Member Uncommon

    Is this compare GW1 to GW2 thread?  Or is this "why do I not agree with the widely accepted opinion?"

    Personally, I never got the craze for GW2 either.  GW1 was super fun for the first 2 weeks then it fell off for me.  I've gone back and played it again and realized the hype of that game killed it for me.  I remember the ad page in several magazines..something that really sounded like it was going to be along the lines of everquest but without a sub.  Mind you, I wasn't reading this forum back then much.  And "online game" was more synonymous with mmo back then.  

    Anyways, the game never felt very deep outside of the builds at first.  Wasn't until later that I saw the complexity of that but I guess I'm not that type of gamer that can play a game with a such low leveling cap for long.  It wasn't really the online experience I thought it would be and although I now believe it had some great qualities (B2P, online, fantasy setting, beautiful graphics, music, etc), it just didn't capture me.

    When I first heard they were going to make a sequel and were going to make a true MMO, I thought "hot damn...B2P....awesome graphics....real MMO..when does this come out?"

    I didn't follow any of the development process or blogs or news about the game.  Yet, when the game became close to launching, these forums were exploding with stuff.  People were belting out songs about it.  I felt like I was in a fucking Disney musical.  And I don't like fucking musicals.  Anyways, eve of launch this forum went nuts.  People were getting banned, enemies were being made, stuff was out of control.  It was like the fucking riots or something.

    I fought the hype tooth and nail the whole time.  I kept my expectations in check because these games never turn out the way we want them to and if anything as Phantom Menace so glaringly showed us, there's a line that you can cross...that line's called reality.  Once you put anything on a pedestal you are going to be sorely disappointed, my friend.

    Anyways, back to the subject at hand....Guild Wars 2 never felt tedious to me.  It was just not as good as I wished it was.  It was fun for a couple of months but thats about it for me.  Was definitely worth the price though.  I played it longer than any other single player game and it cost the same price.  When I stopped having fun, I took a break, gave it another shot and then shelved it.  Who knows, maybe I'll go back later if a friend picks it up.

    But I know what you mean about the praise.  It's just something I don't agree with. Heck, popular opinion is that Avatar was a great film.  I hated almost everything about it and think James Cameron has taken a wrong turn...fuck, the same guy that made Aliens and Terminator 2 made this blue thundercats movie?  I, like many, loved UO.  I also like SWTOR a lot (which a lot of people hate).  It's just different tastes in the end.

    Really, when you think about it, most games are pretty much the same but in a slightly different flavor.  "Sir, would you like the MMO with the warcraft syrup, the star wars syrup, the dungeons and dragons syrup (it's low fat), the guild wars milk (it's also reduced fat)?"

  • BladestromBladestrom edinburghPosts: 4,941Member Uncommon
    Really when you think about it, who the hell needs to post in a games forum 2 years after a game release why you dont like said game. It's pretty weird Isnt it.

    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

  • grimalgrimal Stamford, CTPosts: 2,873Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Bladestrom
    Really when you think about it, who the hell needs to post in a games forum 2 years after a game release why you dont like said game. It's pretty weird Isnt it.
     

    I guess.  But people are still posting about SWG and that game closed down like 3 years ago.

  • grimalgrimal Stamford, CTPosts: 2,873Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by ennymith

    I quit GW2 when it the follow the crowd game design took over and jumping puzzles became a major portion of new content.

    I started from Beta, but after 2 years it evolved into your typical elite endgamers one shotting everyone else so common in many of today's asian style MMO's.

    The world events became such a joke, join a mob of faceless other players and beat in boring monsters on a timetable. Or roll a de-rigor class to farm xyz instance.  If you don't have a state of the art computer, the large scale pvp became a lagfest.

    Don't worry, the door won't come close to my behind.

    Way way off-topic, but every time I see your picture I think you're Tardcore (another user who used to post here a lot with a similar avatar).  And I'm a big Eddie Izzard fan.

  • PioneerStewPioneerStew londonPosts: 874Member
    Originally posted by Bladestrom
    Really when you think about it, who the hell needs to post in a games forum 2 years after a game release why you dont like said game. It's pretty weird Isnt it.
     

    To provoke a bit of a debate.  We need something to chat about on these forums.  

  • Pratt2112Pratt2112 Mt marion, NYPosts: 1,535Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Muke

    why I like it:

    -Buy To Play, 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.

     

     

     

    Made one adjustment there. GW2 is not 'free'. It has no sub, but you still have to buy it. Calling it free implies you can download and play it with no cost at all.

  • aesperusaesperus Hamshire, NVPosts: 5,128Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by grimal
    **snip**

    But I know what you mean about the praise.  It's just something I don't agree with. Heck, popular opinion is that Avatar was a great film.  I hated almost everything about it and think James Cameron has taken a wrong turn...fuck, the same guy that made Aliens and Terminator 2 made this blue thundercats movie?  I, like many, loved UO.  I also like SWTOR a lot (which a lot of people hate).  It's just different tastes in the end.

    Really, when you think about it, most games are pretty much the same but in a slightly different flavor.  "Sir, would you like the MMO with the warcraft syrup, the star wars syrup, the dungeons and dragons syrup (it's low fat), the guild wars milk (it's also reduced fat)?"

    Ironically, though, Avatar is not critically acclaimed as a good film. The fans love it, other industry professionals not so much (aside from the visual fx). GW2, on the other hand, is recognized by other devs as an impressive game. However, most gamers continually say that it's crap.

    Thing is, the game is very polarizing, and has been from day 1 of release. Some people 'get it' and enjoy it, others don't or it's just simply not the game for them. However, this always seems to quickly devolve into a pissing contest, of who is more riteous, which is absolutely ridiculous.

    GW2 is not a perfect game, it has a lot of flaws, however it succeeded in doing the bulk of what it set out to do. But for whatever reason a lot of people seem incapable of accepting this. A game can be imperfect and still be successful. Just because you don't like a game, doesn't mean it's bad.

    - The funny thing about people believing that all MMOs are the same, is that when you actually stop and take an objective look at ALL mmos, there is actually a lot of differences. We've just conditioned ourselves to think that they don't matter. It's kinda like saying all rock music is the same, or all cars are the same. When you think about things in general enough terms, everything seems the same. It's the details, design, & execution that make them different. All cars may have 4 wheels and an engine, but I don't think anyone would believe that a porsche is no different from a ford truck. Just as all FPS games have a retical and you shooting things, but I don't think anyone would argue that halflife is the same as Call of Duty, with a different paint job.

2
Sign In or Register to comment.