Curse

fireflyry · Aug 30, 2012, 03:22 PM // 15:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lavans

To be blunt, if a game fails to captivate my interests after 7 hours od consecutive play, and I have to TRY to find a reason to enjoy it and ultimately fail, then the game is as good as dead to me.

I respect that.

Some of us have a kneejerk reaction to such things, some don't.Personally I think it's highly unrealistic to be so black and white towards something as complex as an MMO after 7 hours but that's just me.If I had that attitude I would never have discovered how kick ass GW1 was and is.

What I find interesting is that most of the criticism towards GW2 in the threads of this nature are really nothing more than explanations of personal preference and why GW2 does'nt adhere to this.

Outside that people seem to mostly be grouphugging in their mutual justification to stick with GW1.

In saying I'm all for people staying and playing such a great game.

More power to you.

Edit:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lavans

For me, not only is it an issue of Anet completely ignoring the existence of every single mechanic of GW1 that makes me look at GW2 with disdain, its the fact they forced every mechanic and element that I personally detest in an MMO.

They stated it would be a completely different game, mechanically, pretty much from the time they announced they were working on it.

Not sure why you would be angry about that.They let everyone know.

shambolica · Aug 30, 2012, 03:27 PM // 15:27

As Eastwood said in "Heartbreak Ridge", "Improvise and overcome"

Lavans · Aug 30, 2012, 03:37 PM // 15:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by fireflyry

They stated it would be a completely different game, mechanically, pretty much from the time they announced they were working on it.

Not sure why you would be angry about that.They let everyone know.

As I said before, its the simple fact that they advertsed it as a sequel that poorly set my expectations. Regardless of how many disclaimers they put up, if they are going to label a video game as a sequel, then for all intents and purposes, they should carry over at least some game play mechanics and elements from the predecessor that was largely successful.

fireflyry · Aug 30, 2012, 03:42 PM // 15:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lavans

As I said before, its the simple fact that they advertsed it as a sequel that poorly set my expectations. Regardless of how many disclaimers they put up, if they are going to label a video game as a sequel, then for all intents and purposes, they should carry over at least some game play mechanics and elements from the predecessor which was largely successful.

No they should'nt.

They went out of their way to repeatedly state "Forget what you know about GW1".They did interview after interview directly addressing this so we would'nt be expecting exactly the same, or even similar, mechanics with flashier graphics.

Everyone knew this.I'm not saying your frustration has no merit but it's your expectations at fault, not Anets game design.

Lavans · Aug 30, 2012, 04:02 PM // 16:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by fireflyry

No they should'nt.

They went out of their way to repeatedly state "Forget what you know about GW1".They did interview after interview directly addressing this so we would'nt be expecting exactly the same, or even similar, mechanics with flashier graphics.

Everyone knew this.I'm not saying your frustration has no merit but it's your expectations at fault, not Anets game design.

The two of us are saying the same thing, just in different ways. You're absolutely right, my expectation is at fault because I expected a proper sequel from a game that is clearly labeled as one, when in practice it is an entirely different game. Regardless if Anet said it or not, in my eye, a sequel always should carry over the success of its predecessor and improve on what was bad. Call me old fashioned.

I knew there were going to be fundamental differences from the get go. I've been following GW2 ever since it was announced in 2008-ish. I gave it the benefit of the doubt, tried it, found it was not a true successor to GW1's gameplay, and put it to rest.

SerenityAlum · Aug 30, 2012, 04:13 PM // 16:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lavans

As I said before, its the simple fact that they advertsed it as a sequel that poorly set my expectations. Regardless of how many disclaimers they put up, if they are going to label a video game as a sequel, then for all intents and purposes, they should carry over at least some game play mechanics and elements from the predecessor that was largely successful.

I completely agree with your feelings - especially after playing the 3 day "head start" and post release. I personally do not ENJOY GW2 and it does not truely justify the name Guild Wars. WvWvW alone and the "home" server system has "fractured" guilds beyond repair. I am playing GW2 "solo" as many of friends cannot even get GW2 to run - issues are older PC's, dial-up, on and on - so I spend alot of PvE time in the downed state as people either do not or cannot "heal you" (the latter if there is battle occuring, esp with AOE, healing a downed player locks out the ability to keep yourself alive.) So "waypoints" must be used, gold is taken away to use them, etc, takes you out of "event" (and hence the rewards if it ends before you get back), so you can end up with ZERO gold especially at low levels. The developers have said this would be a different game and it is - I prefer Guild Wars. GW2 developers have said they wanted to go with "trend" of MMO's and unfortunately have reduced this franchise's appeal - as there is little new in GW2 that hasn't been taken from other games - interface (Diablo III), broken armor (DCUO), "dynamic environment" (DCUO and others), the list goes on and on. Also I don't any connection with my Guild Wars "personal investment" in the story - for example WOC was supposed to prepare us for GW2, but there is no tie in and I have played all the races (except char which feels un-natural since their GW2 story lines still begins with a "hatetred of ascalonians") but feel NO connection to any character as the "personal" story line is so fragmented - to get into the "instances" solo you must get to a specific level or you cannot complete it as the "healing" (with no secondary skill set) is insufficient and you will go broke using waypoints and repairing your armor; so you have to hours to days of leveling up to a point where you can get back to the "instance" of your "personal" story by which time you have the feeling of "why am I doing this again" and it doesn't feel personal. I prefer the SOLID story line of the true Guild Wars franchise and not GW2 which missed the mark by trying to cater to entire MMO market (especially the sPvP), and as a business person this is recipie for failure. Hopefully someone will step in and continue the stroyline from WOC and beyond and keep GW going.

DiogoSilva · Aug 30, 2012, 05:16 PM // 17:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hanok Odbrook

However, while I think the Trinity is less necessary in GW2 overall, they certainly did not eliminate the need for the Trinity. I think, as time goes on, you will still need to see the Trinity in order to be the most effective in areas of the game. Sure you might be taking 5 Warriors into a dungeon, which would be nigh impossible in GW1, but within that group will you most certainly see the need for the Tank-DPS-Support/Heal to effectively complete the dungeon.

So it's those little things that helped to turn me off to the game. Anet spouting high ideals such as destroying the Trinity, having a better server backbone, or removing the traditional quest/grouping system, when in all reality all they did was modify the looks of each. In some aspects, it is an improvement, but in others it is not.

Actually, Anet never said they would remove trinity roles from the game. They said they would remove the traditional trinity roles, dps/ heal/ tank, and substitute them for more ambiguous roles, damage/ support/ control. And that's exactly what happens. They have also said that it would be impossible to dedicate abuild 100% to a specific role, and that even a support-focused build will have to deal damage and control a bit, or even a damage-focused build will have to control and support. This, again, is exactly what has been happening.

Even in videos and the like, the devs have openly mentioned how they have played with "support water ele" or "support rez thief" builds in their internal testing. But a support/ healing water ele will still need to deal damage and control opponents, and a support thief will still need to deal damage and control the enemy.

It's impossible to be a dedicated healer, a dedicated tank or a dedicated dps by design. There's no aggro system for a tank to exist, there's no ally-targetting for a dedicated healer to exist, and there's no over-reliance on healers and tanks for a pure DPSer to exist.

Everything that is happening in GW2 is exactly how Anet as described it: a new, more diversified role trinity, and no builds 100% focused on a single role of that trinity.

Quote:

Anet had a tremendous opportunity to capitalize on the success of the design and mechanics of GW1 and really take the genre into a new direction. They chose however, (in essence) to take the Civilization series and make an FPS with Civ VI as the title.

Quote:

For me, not only is it an issue of Anet completely ignoring the existence of every single mechanic of GW1 that makes me look at GW2 with disdain, its the fact they forced nearly every mechanic and element that I personally detest in a mmo/rpg.

I really question the bolded parts. The phylosophy of GW2 's mechanics is an evolution of GW1's, only the implementation is different. What has GW2 completely disregarded from GW1? Hero/ henchmen parties? What more?

Here's a few examples of how GW2 improved upon the original game:
1. Instances. They were a double-edged blade for GW1. They improved story-telling, world-building and organized parties, but took away from the social factor and a lively online world. GW2 improves upon them by still using instances for story-telling and organized dungeons, but normal maps are now lively with players, and changes to the world are now expressed through dynamic events. This should make GW2 instantly more popular than GW1 except for a minority.
2. Cooperative PvE. No loot stealing is still in, ability to rezz other players anytime you want and achievements for doing so, events that gather players together, skill points that gather players together, etc. I don't recally anything that makes GW1 better than GW2 here.
3. Map traveling. Teleport anywhere to any time, and now there's a lot more places to teleport to. Yes, there's a cost now for economy's sake, but let's forget GW1's economy sucked.
4. Cash shops and grinding are for cosmetic items or rpestige only. Nothing to say here, same philosophy, same implementation.
5. Skillful play over grinding. GW1 did this with a low level cap of 20, easy access to max armor, and a big focus on build creation. One of the problems is that many players didn't like the lack of progression with leveling. GW2 allows progression to a high cap now, but levels you down when overleved, which in practice achieves the same thing as GW1's low level cap, but without creating a negative feeling of lack-of-progression. Functional gear is still easily obtainable. And the focus of skillful play was shifted from being almost completely dependent on your pre-battle building, to a healthier balance between pre-battle building, and knowing to your your skills midbattle. Of course, I'm talking about early GW1 's PvE, because nowadays the game's PvE plays itself while you're eating your sandwish, and all you need to do is to move with yuor character around. For PvP, this issue was also improved upon, as you won't have to grind for balthazar points anymore to unlock the skills and runes you need.
6. Etc.

And here's a few examples of things GW2 is excellent at, while the original GW1 was nothing special:
1. Quests. Is there anything to say here? When it comes to dynamic events, we can't compare which one is better at, because one of them does not have it at all, which makes the other clearly superior in this aspect. When it comes to traditional quests, GW2's hearts are basically GW1's quests in style and flavor, but without the tedious of having to cross half the map to get back to your NPC, with more diverse means to complete the quest, with more diverse and meaningful prizes, and an interesting synergy with events. GW1's quests had the problem that most of their reward was experience, and skill points were very easy to get by. GW2's hearts experience is more relevant, and they unlock unique shops with lots of things to buy. We get a direct, massive improvement with the sequel here.
2. Titles/ Achievements. Now all achievements are account-bound for GW2, and there's even daily and monthy achievements to keep people busy. A direct improvement.
3. Exploration. With hidden locations, underwater scenarios, jumping puzzles, rewards for exploration, dynamic events, crafting materials to collect, and the possibility to complete the map anytime you want, without the need to come back and repeat everything (vanquishes) nor the need do it all at once (again, vanquishes), and once again GW2 offers a direct, clear improvement over the original. In fact, I'd say GW2's world is one of the most worthy to explore, even when taking into account excellent offline RPGs.
4. Again: etc.

Whatever we are left with, like the skill building, the combat, the moment, the controls, is where GW2 goes into a completely different route, and comparing both is not very fair.

Regardless, I can't see how GW2 will last any less or sell any less than GW1. Part of the sequel might be too different, and that's why some big GW1 fans won't enjoy it as much. But the other part of it is a very clear improvement, so much that I wouldn't surprised, had GW1 gotten any more expansions/ campaigns, if it inherited countless details present in GW2.

Hanok Odbrook · Aug 30, 2012, 05:41 PM // 17:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by fireflyry

Some of us have a kneejerk reaction to such things, some don't.Personally I think it's highly unrealistic to be so black and white towards something as complex as an MMO after 7 hours but that's just me.If I had that attitude I would never have discovered how kick ass GW1 was and is.

What I find interesting is that most of the criticism towards GW2 in the threads of this nature are really nothing more than explanations of personal preference and why GW2 does'nt adhere to this.

I don't think it's quite kneejerk as that. Even in an MMO, some things can be black and white. You either like something or you don't. If you don't like something you can either tolerate it or not use it. Taking each of those things and putting them together will net you a game you either want to play (the positives/likes outweigh the negatives/dislikes/tolerates) or one that you don't (vice versa). Part of the decision to play or not to play a game comes from educating oneself on what the game is and the mechanics within the design of the game. If one has played enough games in their past, they can make a fairly educated estimation on whether a new game is one that they will like or not like based on what I just mentioned. The final decision is one that can come from experiencing the game.

There are certain things that can be changed throughout the course of a game's life, but the core mechanics cannot. That was the one drawback to to added end game/elite type content to GW1. The core design and mechanics were never created to support a long-term engaging and viable PvE end game. As such, most of what we end up with is a point/counterpoint gimmicky type of game play. In order for it to be truly challenging and engaging for the majority of players, the core mechanics would have to be re-designed. GW2 is the same way - there are a core set of mechanics that have been designed in specific way, and if a player does not like how those mechanics operate, no amount of in game play time, nor future updates will be able to change that without fundamentally changing the game itself.

I hate spinach. Can't eat it and I even gag at just the smell. I love chocolate milkshakes - I would drink one with each meal every day if I could. What Anet did for me was take the chocolate milkshake (GW1) and mixed in a core helping of spinach to make something new (GW2). They said they were going to do this almost from the time GW2 was announced, so yes, we were well informed beforehand, and I for one remained cautiously optimistic that they might be able to pull the concoction off. I followed the development with keen interest and kept an open mind, even after announcement after announcement added a new ingredient to the mix that I didn't like and/or took an ingredient away that I did like. In the end, after the Beta and Stress tests, and trying as hard as I might to be convinced that the new "shake" would be something I could learn to enjoy, it turns out that it's still just a "shake" with a spinach base, not much sugar or chocolate left, and only a smattering of milk. No matter how many times I drink it, it will still make me throw up at the end. Now, for some people, they love spinach and that's great for them - Anet came up with a great recipe that will certainly sustain them for years to come.

However, I have no need to continue to try it out to see if the taste gets any better. They cannot change the recipe at this stage of the game, nor would I want them too. I'm not going to be one of those players who comes into a game expecting one thing then demanding (and whining till I'm blue in the face) that it be changed to suit my needs. I will simply move on and continue to consume the games that I love best.

Hanok

Lavans · Aug 30, 2012, 06:24 PM // 18:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by DiogoSilva

Here's a few examples of how GW2 improved upon the original game:
1. Instances. They were a double-edged blade for GW1. They improved story-telling, world-building and organized parties, but took away from the social factor and a lively online world. GW2 improves upon them by still using instances for story-telling and organized dungeons, but normal maps are now lively with players, and changes to the world are now expressed through dynamic events. This should make GW2 instantly more popular than GW1 except for a minority.
2. Cooperative PvE. No loot stealing is still in, ability to rezz other players anytime you want and achievements for doing so, events that gather players together, skill points that gather players together, etc. I don't recally anything that makes GW1 better than GW2 here.
3. Map traveling. Teleport anywhere to any time, and now there's a lot more places to teleport to. Yes, there's a cost now for economy's sake, but let's forget GW1's economy sucked.
4. Cash shops and grinding are for cosmetic items or rpestige only. Nothing to say here, same philosophy, same implementation.
5. Skillful play over grinding. GW1 did this with a low level cap of 20, easy access to max armor, and a big focus on build creation. One of the problems is that many players didn't like the lack of progression with leveling. GW2 allows progression to a high cap now, but levels you down when overleved, which in practice achieves the same thing as GW1's low level cap, but without creating a negative feeling of lack-of-progression. Functional gear is still easily obtainable. And the focus of skillful play was shifted from being almost completely dependent on your pre-battle building, to a healthier balance between pre-battle building, and knowing to your your skills midbattle. Of course, I'm talking about early GW1 's PvE, because nowadays the game's PvE plays itself while you're eating your sandwish, and all you need to do is to move with yuor character around. For PvP, this issue was also improved upon, as you won't have to grind for balthazar points anymore to unlock the skills and runes you need.
6. Etc.

1) GW1 does not have an open persistent world, but GW2 does. IMHO, the instances in GW2 are short and uninspiring.
2) In a game that has no such thing as a healer, I can see the validity of being able to revive teammates without restriction. However, I look at that in the same manner as regenerating health vs health packs in first person shooters - an unnecessary alternative to dumb the game down.
3) Adding more waypoints =/= improving
4) GW1 had a vanity cash shop and gave players the option to grind for vanity items as well.
5) Progress in GW1 was measured far differently than just by levels. When more levels are added, there will naturally be more grind, and not everyone likes the idea of grinding. Also, there was plenty of skillful play required in GW1. GW2 just adds the placebo of "greater" skillful play by flashier attacks/animations and the option to tumble.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DiogoSilva

And here's a few examples of things GW2 is excellent at, while the original GW1 was nothing special:
1. Quests. Is there anything to say here? When it comes to dynamic events, we can't compare which one is better at, because one of them does not have it at all, which makes the other clearly superior in this aspect. When it comes to traditional quests, GW2's hearts are basically GW1's quests in style and flavor, but without the tedious of having to cross half the map to get back to your NPC, with more diverse means to complete the quest, with more diverse and meaningful prizes, and an interesting synergy with events. GW1's quests had the problem that most of their reward was experience, and skill points were very easy to get by. GW2's hearts experience is more relevant, and they unlock unique shops with lots of things to buy. We get a direct, massive improvement with the sequel here.
2. Titles/ Achievements. Now all achievements are account-bound for GW2, and there's even daily and monthy achievements to keep people busy. A direct improvement.
3. Exploration. With hidden locations, underwater scenarios, jumping puzzles, rewards for exploration, dynamic events, crafting materials to collect, and the possibility to complete the map anytime you want, without the need to come back and repeat everything (vanquishes) nor the need do it all at once (again, vanquishes), and once again GW2 offers a direct, clear improvement over the original. In fact, I'd say GW2's world is one of the most worthy to explore, even when taking into account excellent offline RPGs.
4. Again: etc.

1) I didn't like events in Warhammer, I didn't like events in Champions Online, and I don't like events in Guild Wars 2. Acknowledging that the primary source of EXP grinding in a PVE environment comes from dynamic events, I must ask, why would I consider this a superior mechanic over questing?
2) I hold the belief that achievements and titles should be character specific, especially in a MMO, period. This is not a single player game that you purchase through steam.
3) They added more exploration, yes, but that's not necessarily a good thing. In a lot of the circumstances revolving around that, it involves the player constantly running back and forth just to get something done. Some see that as monotonous, thus I cannot say it's an "improvement".

This is all from my opinion of course, and I don't expect you to agree with it. I'm just laying my cards down so I can say without question that I've said what's on my mind and why I consider GW2 inferior.

Hanok Odbrook · Aug 30, 2012, 06:54 PM // 18:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by DiogoSilva

Actually, Anet never said they would remove trinity roles from the game.
<Snip>.

You’re right, I misspoke on that account. It was more of the media hypsters that slanted the view that way. My point was that even though you cannot dedicate a build strictly to one of the paradigms, in order to be successful, organized groups will have to make use of the modified Trinity to have success and efficiency in the long term. So, in the end, someone will have to primarily play the “tank” role, someone the “DPS” role, and someone the “Support” role, even if it means changing on the fly, which iirc you can do in GW2. For organized groups, that doesn’t matter and will operate the same way as the traditional Trinity with players filling those roles based on their preferred style of gameplay. However, in an unorganized group setting, I don’t think that it will operate as cleanly and successfully.

Again, I think this is an improvement over the original, but I do feel the loss for players like Lavans. There is nothing wrong with liking and wanting to play a pure healer class in a game. Unfortunately, GW2 is not that game, and my point of contention is that the system here is inherently better than the "traditional" model, when in truth it is just a matter of playstyle preference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DiogoSilva

1. Instances. They were a double-edged blade for GW1. They improved story-telling, world-building and organized parties, but took away from the social factor and a lively online world. GW2 improves upon them by still using instances for story-telling and organized dungeons, but normal maps are now lively with players, and changes to the world are now expressed through dynamic events. This should make GW2 instantly more popular than GW1 except for a minority.

Much like SWTOR does, which I enjoy very much. Something like this can come down to personal preference. The heavy instancing in GW1 was a perfect introduction for someone who has never played an MMO before, and it certainly helped me get deeper into the genre. But I still prefer this over the “typical” open world stuff because it allows me to be as social as I want to be on any given day. The zones in GW1 give me the ability to play and explore on my own terms, without interference from others when I don’t want it. I certainly have enjoyed the mechanics and flavor of traditional MMOs, but given the choice between the two, GW1 has the edge. Needless to say, the “hubs” in GW1 have always given me that social feeling that the zones lacked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DiogoSilva

2. Cooperative PvE. No loot stealing is still in, ability to rezz other players anytime you want and achievements for doing so, events that gather players together, skill points that gather players together, etc. I don't recall anything that makes GW1 better than GW2 here .

You can find cooperation in any MMO to some level. I don’t think either game is any better on this front, except (again) for the fact I mentioned above in that GW1 allowed the player more control over the amount of Co-op and interaction one had.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DiogoSilva

3. Map traveling. Teleport anywhere to any time, and now there's a lot more places to teleport to. Yes, there's a cost now for economy's sake, but let's forget GW1's economy sucked.

Well, we could probably argue the validity of economies in a virtual world until the cows come home, but again.... One of the things that made GW1 great, was ported over, and made just a little less great because of the cost. For all its shortcomings, even SWTOR gives the players the option between free and paid Map travel options, albeit with a cool down on the free, but certainly workable if planned correctly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DiogoSilva

4. Cash shops and grinding are for cosmetic items or rpestige only.
5. Skillful play over grinding.

Yeah,not much to add or comment on that. That’s been a core philosophy of Anet. However, I have always found the Anetism of “skill over time” to be a bit of any oxymoron. While they have built their games to allow skillful play to trump sheer number of hours to play, one cannot truly be skillful without putting in enough time to learn to play at a high level. And that their games "have no grind", except of course for the "voluntary" grind when you want something special. Almost just like the grind in any other game you do because...you want something in that game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DiogoSilva

And here's a few examples of things GW2 is excellent at, while the original GW1 was nothing special:
1. Quests. Is there anything to say here? When it comes to dynamic events, we can't compare which one is better at, because one of them does not have it at all, which makes the other clearly superior in this aspect. When it comes to traditional quests, GW2's hearts are basically GW1's quests in style and flavor, but without the tedious of having to cross half the map to get back to your NPC, with more diverse means to complete the quest, with more diverse and meaningful prizes, and an interesting synergy with events. GW1's quests had the problem that most of their reward was experience, and skill points were very easy to get by. GW2's hearts experience is more relevant, and they unlock unique shops with lots of things to buy. We get a direct, massive improvement with the sequel here.

Clearly superior only if you like that kind of quest system. I may be in a minority, but I much prefer a system that allows me to play, progress, and mark achievements based on my own schedule and time to play, and not the developer’s schedule. I am a completionist, but unfortunately can only play in limited quantities of time, therefore want to make the time I do have to spend count. Dynamic content by its very nature is not conducive to that combination, therefore is a negative in my book, and why I much prefer the GW1 way of doing things. From a rewards standpoint, I do like shineys, but the end reward is not my motivating factor – I continually run through the Sorrow’s Furnance quests even though XP is the only reward. I continually run through the repeatable quests and flashpoints in SWTOR, despite the fact I get little in return during or at the end that I do not already have or can use. I do so because I enjoy the experience those quests have to offer, the fact that GW2’s reward system is better isn’t a compelling factor to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DiogoSilva

2. Titles/ Achievements. Now all achievements are account-bound for GW2, and there's even daily and monthy achievements to keep people busy. A direct improvement.

Yes, agreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DiogoSilva

3. Exploration. With hidden locations, underwater scenarios, jumping puzzles, rewards for exploration, dynamic events, crafting materials to collect, and the possibility to complete the map anytime you want, without the need to come back and repeat everything (vanquishes) nor the need do it all at once (again, vanquishes), and once again GW2 offers a direct, clear improvement over the original. In fact, I'd say GW2's world is one of the most worthy to explore, even when taking into account excellent offline RPGs.

True in the direct comparison, GW2 is larger and prettier than GW1 (remember though, I don’t base favorites on technical advances or limitations), but again, nothing different from what is in a myriad of other games, so there’s nothing to really set it apart from any other except personal preference. And to be honest, I still get wowed with Vanguard's graphics (especially with each new upgrade I do to my PC so I can run it at higher settings), than any other game thus far, except for one spot on Taris in SWTOR where I swear BW took a picture of a part of my parent's backyard and put it in the game. Oh, and I hate jumping puzzles. I hate them for the datacrons that require them in SWTOR and hate them in any game other than when I play a Mario game on my SNES, which I haven't done in 15 years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DiogoSilva

Whatever we are left with, like the skill building, the combat, the moment, the controls, is where GW2 goes into a completely different route, and comparing both is not very fair.

But it is when you are talking about a sequel, no matter how different and whether those choices are ones that a gamer enjoys based on their playstyle and preferences or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DiogoSilva

Regardless, I can't see how GW2 will last any less or sell any less than GW1. Part of the sequel might be too different, and that's why some big GW1 fans won't enjoy it as much. But the other part of it is a very clear improvement, so much that I wouldn't surprised, had GW1 gotten any more expansions/ campaigns, if it inherited countless details present in GW2.

Simply because the times are different. The industry has changed a lot since 2005, and I think GW came in as just the right time with the right philosophy and design. I don’t recall the last sales figures announced for GW1, but it was something like 5 or 6 million, correct? Certainly not all those sales translate into current or active players, but when you account for all the hype and information about GW2 over the last 5 years, I would think that more than 25% of those players would have given GW2 a shot. Let’s also not discount all the new players that GW2 has brought in, some of those surely will want to give the original a try at some point, further bumping up GW1’s numbers.

In the end, I think GW2 will end up with more active players than GW1 because it is the newer game, but with all things considered, I think GW1 will come away with the greater amount of total sales and total number of players within its lifetime compared to a similar length of time with GW2.

You have made some excellent points, but again, much of this boils down to personal preferences. And based on personal preferences, one person might find one game to be a hidden treasure while another thinks it’s pure garbage. Based on my personal preferences, GW1 is a better game than GW2 despite all the good things that are in GW2 and the technical advancements. There are too many things that don’t agree with my preferences in GW2 to put it on a level above the original, regardless of how old it is. I like the original Wizardry game – green-lined mazes and text-based combat and all. I also like Baldur’s Gate and Dragon Age: Origins. Which is the better game? Going from a technical and story based comparison, DAO should be the clear winner. However, give me a choice to play one of those three at any given time, and I will almost surely end up playing Wizardry.

Hanok

Rhododendron · Aug 30, 2012, 07:50 PM // 19:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franco Power

I see, thank you for answering. I guess the only question remains, if not Guild Wars 2, what else is there out there? Secret World, Mists of Pandaria, Tera maybe?

I found Rift to be fantastic - at least for someone who LOVES to explore every mountain top and go off the map in the craziest places.

ectogasm · Aug 30, 2012, 08:05 PM // 20:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hanok Odbrook

You’re right, I misspoke on that account. It was more of the media hypsters that slanted the view that way. My point was that even though you cannot dedicate a build strictly to one of the paradigms, in order to be successful, organized groups will have to make use of the modified Trinity to have success and efficiency in the long term. So, in the end, someone will have to primarily play the “tank” role, someone the “DPS” role, and someone the “Support” role, even if it means changing on the fly, which iirc you can do in GW2. For organized groups, that doesn’t matter and will operate the same way as the traditional Trinity with players filling those roles based on their preferred style of gameplay. However, in an unorganized group setting, I don’t think that it will operate as cleanly and successfully.

Let's clear up the terminology: trinity is not the same as group balance. Trinity forces a situation where 3 out of 5 potential groups are not viable simply because of class distribution. The "extra" players are stuck in town LFG waiting to get into a viable group. Group balance is a different matter; just because you don't require a Monk doesn't mean you want 8/8 Warriors. Play style is also a secondary issue; your preferred play style doesn't matter at all if your class is flat out incapable of providing the one that is needed. The trinity is a brick wall, the other issues can be negotiated. I'm sure that there will be some "perfect" group preference that is slightly better than others, but as long as other groupings remain competitive, that is not nearly as much of an issue as the one that trinity creates.

Quote:

Simply because the times are different. The industry has changed a lot since 2005, and I think GW came in as just the right time with the right philosophy and design. I don’t recall the last sales figures announced for GW1, but it was something like 5 or 6 million, correct? Certainly not all those sales translate into current or active players, but when you account for all the hype and information about GW2 over the last 5 years, I would think that more than 25% of those players would have given GW2 a shot. Let’s also not discount all the new players that GW2 has brought in, some of those surely will want to give the original a try at some point, further bumping up GW1’s numbers.

In the end, I think GW2 will end up with more active players than GW1 because it is the newer game, but with all things considered, I think GW1 will come away with the greater amount of total sales and total number of players within its lifetime compared to a similar length of time with GW2.

I believe GW's sales figures are across all releases. So right off the bat, you need to divide by 4 because it's mostly the same people buying them. It's also obvious enough on the servers that the GW community is not very large, and at this stage is very tiny. The things that made GW different are also what made it a niche product, i.e. its emphasis on skillful play in a genre dominated by casual players grinding for loot-peens. Much of the reason that GW2 adopted more traditional MMO elements is precisely because they needed to appeal to the casual audience to shore up the numbers. But even so, the game will be "too hard" for a lot of these people and they're going to give it up pretty soon. In total, however, I think GW2 will have a larger player base and, depending on how they monetize additional content, is likely to see greater sales volume and revenue overall.

The vast differences between the two games could be a net positive when you consider that this is really the only thing keeping GW1 alive. If GW2 had been a fully spiritual sequel to GW1, then GW1 would well and truly be dead. As it is, I expect a lot of the veteran players to have their fun with GW2 for a few weeks and then eventually return to GW1, because GW2 is no replacement.

SerenityAlum · Aug 30, 2012, 10:11 PM // 22:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by ectogasm

The vast differences between the two games could be a net positive when you consider that this is really the only thing keeping GW1 alive. If GW2 had been a fully spiritual sequel to GW1, then GW1 would well and truly be dead. As it is, I expect a lot of the veteran players to have their fun with GW2 for a few weeks and then eventually return to GW1, because GW2 is no replacement.

As a veteran Guild Wars player, I guess I am one of those that will be returning to the original beacause there is too much grinding in "persistent instances" in GW2 to level up so that you can do your "personal story." As an example I am at Lv16 and my next segement of the personal story recommends lv18 (I have found doing "personal instances" solo that you need to be at least 2 levels higher than what is recommended as you lose your armor and life points after repeated deaths), so I grind away in one "persistent instances" where centaures keep respawning (and they keep respawning because it is a "persistent world") and will be there till level 20 as you also need alot of gold to buy the "training book" and deaths = armor repair + waypoint mapping = less gold. Its is "grinding" in its true sense - rinse and repeat same instance every 5 minutes. By the time I get to that level I won't even care or remember the point of the story line.

Hanok Odbrook · Aug 31, 2012, 12:25 AM // 00:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by ectogasm

Let's clear up the terminology: trinity is not the same as group balance. Trinity forces a situation where 3 out of 5 potential groups are not viable simply because of class distribution. The "extra" players are stuck in town LFG waiting to get into a viable group. Group balance is a different matter; just because you don't require a Monk doesn't mean you want 8/8 Warriors. Play style is also a secondary issue; your preferred play style doesn't matter at all if your class is flat out incapable of providing the one that is needed. The trinity is a brick wall, the other issues can be negotiated. I'm sure that there will be some "perfect" group preference that is slightly better than others, but as long as other groupings remain competitive, that is not nearly as much of an issue as the one that trinity creates.

Which is why I think it's an improvement in the game. However, it comes down to a subjective thing - many people like the Trinity and the gameplay style it offers, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's a tried and true formula that can be fun to play, especially in an organized group.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ectogasm

I believe GW's sales figures are across all releases. So right off the bat, you need to divide by 4 because it's mostly the same people buying them. It's also obvious enough on the servers that the GW community is not very large, and at this stage is very tiny. The things that made GW different are also what made it a niche product, i.e. its emphasis on skillful play in a genre dominated by casual players grinding for loot-peens. Much of the reason that GW2 adopted more traditional MMO elements is precisely because they needed to appeal to the casual audience to shore up the numbers. But even so, the game will be "too hard" for a lot of these people and they're going to give it up pretty soon. In total, however, I think GW2 will have a larger player base and, depending on how they monetize additional content, is likely to see greater sales volume and revenue overall.

The vast differences between the two games could be a net positive when you consider that this is really the only thing keeping GW1 alive. If GW2 had been a fully spiritual sequel to GW1, then GW1 would well and truly be dead. As it is, I expect a lot of the veteran players to have their fun with GW2 for a few weeks and then eventually return to GW1, because GW2 is no replacement.

Yeah, I didn't think about the other campaigns being counted in that, so nevermind for the most part. As I said, I do agree that GW2 will have the largest playerbase, but considering we may never know how much Anet pulls in from the store (and don't really know how much GW1 pulls in from its store), I still think GW1 will have the edge in total sales after GW2 hits its 7th birthday.

I'm not certain that if GW2 had been more of a sequel to GW1 that it would have killed GW1. I would hope that Anet would have built in ways to keep the old campaigns fresh to keep people coming back to them - sort of like the WiK and WoC content did. It's unfortunate that the WoC, and the Nightfall content non-existent seemed to suffer from lack of dev time a resources since GW2 was kicked into high gear at that time. Again, if GW2 was more of a direct expansionist sequel, instead of an "entirely different game" I think we would have seen it continued and improved and quite possibly buck the current trend of MMOs and have a steadily increasing playerbase to truly rival that of WoW.

Hanok

DiogoSilva · Aug 31, 2012, 11:44 AM // 11:44

GW1 sales were about 6.5/ 7 millions, taking into account all campaigns/ expansions. That makes it about 1.50/ 1.75 sales per product. In comparison, GW2 has sold 1 million from pre-purchases alone, without taking into account pre-orders or normal physical sales. I could easily estimate some 2-3 millions minimum before expansions. I don't think GW2 even needs to be a better product to achieve that. It has more mainstream appeal than the original.

About GW2's storyline progression, I agree it requires you to "stop and level up" too much. However, if that's a grind or not depends on the point of view. If you're playing purely for the storyline, I understand it would feel like a grind, unfortunately. But otherwise, you can easily reach the required level by just playing normally, aka, exploring, questing, crafting... You don't need to farm the same monster for hours and hours to get there, which is the true definition of "grind". GW2 is less of a mission-based game like GW1, and more like an exploration-driven game. Storyline progression is less fluid, unfortunately, but map completion is a richer, more diverse experience. That certainly won't appeal to everyone, but for a MMO, the exploration has the charm of some of the best single-player RPGs IMO. As someone who likes to explore RPG worlds, I never found GW1 to be anything special outside of the views (vanquishes were repetitive, map exploration required you to glue yourself to walls, quests did not count for achievements, nothing else to do other than killing monsters, etc).

When it comes to not having enough time to wait for dynamic events, I agree, but I'd say events are more of a bonus to enhance the experience than something crucial. Hearts are basically streamlined traditional quests, and those depend solely on you, and not on the community.

About instances and player disruption, I'd say that GW2 does a pretty good job at making you feel that more players in the map are an extra that can be ignored, and not something that disrupts your experience. In normal MMOs, players can steal kills from you, among many other things, that would make one beg for GW1's instancing, but GW2 does not have this problem. Players come and go, and you simply keep playing without caring about them if you want.

fireflyry · Aug 31, 2012, 11:47 AM // 11:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lavans

The two of us are saying the same thing, just in different ways.

Agreed.

Maybe you'll give it another chance in a few months as I'm sure many of the issues you have could come to be changed or altered.

Either way good luck to you in GW1 and maybe I'll see you in GW2 at a later date.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hanok Odbrook

Part of the decision to play or not to play a game comes from educating oneself on what the game is and the mechanics within the design of the game.

That's the thing though.

Personally I can't comprehend how one can come to such a decision in a few hours or even days of play in a MMO that is'nt even a week old yet.Regardless of your points on mechanics being set in stone to me people are'nt even allowing themselves enough time to adjust or accept it as a challenge to overcome.

It's just "nope....don't like it...end of.."

I find that attitude very close-minded considering we are talking games.I could'nt count the amount of times I hated certain games and mechanics at first only to come to love them after persevering and adjusting.

Don't get me wrong, if people are saying stuff like this in a month I'd completely grasp where they are coming from.As it stands I can't escape the feeling that no matter what Anet released many of the same people would still be complaining because it's not a GW1 clone.

*Darcy* · Aug 31, 2012, 01:05 PM // 13:05

I'm enjoying GW2. That doesn't mean that I won't be playing GW1 anymore. Once my first character has completed the game, I expect I'll be back splitting my time up.

I also play Rift and, believe me, GW2 is nothing like it. If a typical, raiding mmo is your like, then GW2 will not fulfill your desires.

Guild Wars is a standout game that continues to please me. The main complaint from the past is that it was too instanced. I miss that in other games.

Hanok Odbrook · Aug 31, 2012, 03:02 PM // 15:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by DiogoSilva

When it comes to not having enough time to wait for dynamic events, I agree, but I'd say events are more of a bonus to enhance the experience than something crucial. Hearts are basically streamlined traditional quests, and those depend solely on you, and not on the community.

Except that, as I understand it from Anet, the DE's are the primary content and not just bonus fluff. It is actually the Hearts quests that are the filler, and that's why there are a bunch of people complaining about the leveling curve. They are simply doing the Hearts quests when you can't really play the game that way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DiogoSilva

About instances and player disruption, I'd say that GW2 does a pretty good job at making you feel that more players in the map are an extra that can be ignored, and not something that disrupts your experience. In normal MMOs, players can steal kills from you, among many other things, that would make one beg for GW1's instancing, but GW2 does not have this problem. Players come and go, and you simply keep playing without caring about them if you want.

Which is all well and good, but the problem in GW2 is that other players cannot be ignored, and in fact can have a direct affect on your immediate gameplay. The game is designed to scale the events based on the number of participants, so while someone running past you while you are killing a group of centaurs may not adversely affect the experience for you, there is no way to prevent them from joining you and changing the experience, even when you do not want to "group" at that particular time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fireflyry

That's the thing though.

Personally I can't comprehend how one can come to such a decision in a few hours or even days of play in a MMO that is'nt even a week old yet.Regardless of your points on mechanics being set in stone to me people are'nt even allowing themselves enough time to adjust or accept it as a challenge to overcome.

It's just "nope....don't like it...end of.."

I find that attitude very close-minded considering we are talking games.I could'nt count the amount of times I hated certain games and mechanics at first only to come to love them after persevering and adjusting.

Don't get me wrong, if people are saying stuff like this in a month I'd completely grasp where they are coming from.As it stands I can't escape the feeling that no matter what Anet released many of the same people would still be complaining because it's not a GW1 clone.

Because part of that is not just trying it out, but researching what is going into it and accounting for all your past experiences with other similar products. Go back to my Spinach example a few posts ago. How do I know I don't like Spinach? Because once, a long time ago, I tried it and the results were not pleasant. So now, if someone tells me they are adding Spinach to a recipe, it doesn't matter how good any of the other ingredients might be - I know I am not going to like the end result. I don't need to try it to find out something I already determined in the past. But even if I wanted to try it, it would obviously take only the first bite or two to realize I still can't eat it. The game BioShock has been held as one of the pinnacles of the FPS genre. I never played it, nor do I want to. I played the original Doom, and found that FPSes just aren't as enjoyable to me as other genres. Am I robbing myself of a good experience? Probably, but because of my personal preference in games, it doesn't matter how well BioShock is made, the game will not be as enjoyable for me as someone who loves the FPS genre, so why waste time with a game that I ultimately won't enjoy the way I should when there are other games I will enjoy an infinite amount more?

Regardless, as I have said, I tried to keep an open mind with GW2, and I did participate in all but the last Beta, so have many hours under my belt with the game. It still didn't change the fact that there was too much Spinach in the game for me to be able to ever like it unless that Spinach was removed. Unfortunately, doing that would make it a completely different game and adversely affect many, many other player's enjoyment of it. To me, it's not a challenge to overcome, but a playstyle that has matured over the test of time that, as a result, is the one that offers the most amount of enjoyment possible. To me, it makes no sense to make an attempt at changing something when the past has proven doing so is not going to work in the end.

I wanted to like it and enjoy it and have spent many an hour wrestling with myself on a decision to buy it or not to buy it. Ultimately, it came down to one final fact - I asked myself what would be the number one reason I would buy the game? The answer was that I didn't want to miss any of the Festival events and lose out on a chance to get a unique item at the finale. The decision then was easy.

Hanok

projectmercy · Aug 31, 2012, 03:51 PM // 15:51

Bit of a segway, but I've been reading this thread (and the other two) since inception.

Irrelevant of whether GW2 is a good game or not, if the long-time players of GW1 want it to last very long, they're going to need to put in that extra effort to actually be social and nice to new players. While I get a lot of help on these forums, in game most of the people I run into are ____ (insert profanity), especially in PvP.

I don't mean jumping off the deep end and dragging new people on missions or anything, but at least asking questions, even if that's the hourly "How do I get out of Embark Beach?" question.

Despite some people's arguments to it, this game is not intuitive in a lot of places. The WIKI really is the part that makes the game make sense. Many people don't even know about it.

I probably answer 5-10 questions a day, and I don't really idle around town. I've had people tell me they asked that question for hours (though I'm sure they exaggerated some) and nobody answered it. While yes, most are about HoM, and yes they probably could have figured it out if they'd just played the game, at least this way they have positive views of the playerbase.

I don't mean this as an indictment, and telling it to these forums (where people are already pretty friendly) probably isn't that helpful, but I do feel the way to deal with the losses to GW2 is to make GW1 appealing to those who can't or don't want to play other options. This also includes being open to changes in the game to make being a newcomer not as painful as it historically has been.

Linksys · Aug 31, 2012, 11:38 PM // 23:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by projectmercy

Bit of a segway, but I've been reading this thread (and the other two) since inception.

Irrelevant of whether GW2 is a good game or not, if the long-time players of GW1 want it to last very long, they're going to need to put in that extra effort to actually be social and nice to new players. While I get a lot of help on these forums, in game most of the people I run into are ____ (insert profanity), especially in PvP.

I don't mean jumping off the deep end and dragging new people on missions or anything, but at least asking questions, even if that's the hourly "How do I get out of Embark Beach?" question.

Despite some people's arguments to it, this game is not intuitive in a lot of places. The WIKI really is the part that makes the game make sense. Many people don't even know about it.

I probably answer 5-10 questions a day, and I don't really idle around town. I've had people tell me they asked that question for hours (though I'm sure they exaggerated some) and nobody answered it. While yes, most are about HoM, and yes they probably could have figured it out if they'd just played the game, at least this way they have positive views of the playerbase.

I don't mean this as an indictment, and telling it to these forums (where people are already pretty friendly) probably isn't that helpful, but I do feel the way to deal with the losses to GW2 is to make GW1 appealing to those who can't or don't want to play other options. This also includes being open to changes in the game to make being a newcomer not as painful as it historically has been.

I totally agree with that. Hero's Ascent has always been like a surfing hot spot until it became largely inactive. Like a beach that is open to the public, open to everyone in the country, open to tourists from other countries, and maintained by the city. But a core group of elitist surfers want to keep it to themselves and make it a 'secret spot' or whatever and intimidate others to drive them away. Or, like in HA, just blow them off like they're not even there and cut them off when catching waves.

I've often seen HA as the main part of GW1 because the game itself announces winners in the chat box for everyone logged in to see. I wish I could turn that off. I don't care about what the elitists are up to.

As for GW 2, I haven't tried it. Read a lot of feedback on it. Seen some youtube videos. Honestly I've put more time into GW1 than I reasonably should have and as a result have become more minimalist in how much time I spend on the computer. How much I played GW1 is all my choice. I don't blame the game or whatever. But it happened and I've come across many others in the game who don't want to play GW2 for the same reason. Maybe GW2 will find many first time gamers who don't feel burned out.

I sometimes wonder, if I put all the time into something else instead of GW1, what would have happened? Maybe I could have gotten a college degree. Not just an AA degree like I have. But a masters degree from a university. But then again, I would be in massive debt that I may not get out of for 20 or more years. So I'm actually glad I didn't do that! Besides, I'm a bit of a slacker by choice as an attitude towards the rat race and Guild Wars is one of the things I did as a slacker.