The majority of the community sucks (or does it?)

[Coraline Jones]

Originally Posted by fireflyry

In my opinion it's the game at fault more than the player base.

Guild Wars rewards the path of least resistance more than player skill, pure and simple.

As an almost four-year veteran of GW, I can say that you hit this dead-on as far as I can tell.

In the beginning, I actually cared about the characters and the storylines as everything was kind of interesting and new. Years later, I barely even care why I'm doing quests or missions on some of my newest characters. To me, they are just obstacles in the way of me getting to another title.

I think that the big problem is that, with just a few quest exceptions, the game is identical in format for every character. For the most part, the game doesn't even care about your gender or your profession. Heck, there's hardly any "role-playing" for a so-called RPG. They hand you a quest or mission and you have to do it. When go through a chapter with four different characters and it's played out in the exact same way, you end up not caring anymore. When I get a quest, I just look at the highlighted text and say, "Oh you want me to kill a boss? Okay." Then I run out and do it and don't even read the justification as it's so meaningless anyway.

Also, the game seems to put a huge emphasis on ultra-rares... The game knows which items are sought after and then it makes them rare enough to the point where even if you did the mission 50 times, you may never get the drop you wanted. As a result, this pushes people into the direction that ANet seems to like: The ultra-farmer mentality where people demand that you bring the most twinked builds to clear the dungeon or elite mission to get to the end-reward chest as fast as possible... Because chances are, they are going to have to do the scenario all over again. If you don't have that build, then you may as well just get your own private group. Because if it takes an extra five minutes to run with your build, then that's five minutes wasted.

[snaek]

Originally Posted by burst cancel

the job of a game company isn't to develop the best game, it's to develop the most profitable one

tru...sad....but tru .___.

actually, one slight change tho
theres developers, and theres publishers
generally its the publishers that go for the $$$$
it can go both ways tho i spose

i often hear stories where devs have to change things based on wut their publishers want

but i do think that there r devs that really want to make the best game that they can

and then of course there r independent games and free games
but thats a whole other story

[Improvavel]

The problem is that the mechanics of the game aren't explicit in the game. How much energy per second does an energy pipe means, the attack speed of weapons, how armor works, how much armor do mobs get per level, and so on.

I know maths isn't fun, but cmon, do we need to find out using wild blow 5000 times?

Second, imagine you just went to your local store and bought the ultimate collection. You get dropped in prophecies, what skills do you see henchies using? Do you see healing/protection hybrid monks?

And what if you are dropped in elona? WoW heroes with half a skill bar and no runes/insignias! Would it be so hard for the designers to give the few first heroes 2/3 complete builds with a description?

People complain loads that PvE-only skills and consumables kill the skill of players, but the fact is when they get those skills they already have been tainted by crappy henchman builds.

More, the game is littered with mobs that aren't balanced either - how many frontline-midline-backline mobs are in the game?

The there is this stupid HM - people again complain about gimmicks like cryway and other tank and spank that promote no interaction, but how the hell are you supposed to interact with mobs that simply cast/recharge their skills so fast that makes disruption pointless (and interrupts almost impossible)?

Yes, loads of people are bad at this game, loads of them aren't, but this is complex game and the game tutoring is very very bad and the manual, TT, stating that elementalists are the king of damage and such...

Secondly, of course PvP players are best at PvE. GWs favor military type of teams opposed to individual fighters.

But being a soldier isn't something for everyone...

[glacialphoenix]

Originally Posted by Dreamwind

I've heard this argument before and I don't buy it for several reasons. The biggest reason is because this game has had a major power creep. Anet has essentially given us more tools to beat things effectively. By PvE skills, consumables, a series of buffs, and just flat out better skills (particularly with Nightfall), the game got plain easier. The moment Nightfall came out, Prophecies and Factions were pieces of cake for almost anybody. The moment EoTN came out, the entire Guild Wars game was easy for almost anybody.

I think the whole thing is that people did improve. Some people did. Some people didn't. Newbies can't really tell because they have no inkling of what it was like to play the game before such-and-such came out.

Those who did improve don't like playing with people who keep refusing to improve, hence disinterest in PUGs. The newbies don't get the pressure to improve that the old players did, and therefore improve at a slower speed - if they improve.

Power creep? Yes. But also because people do improve, and nobody likes being bogged down. Hence, quite possibly, the lack of a desire to "teach", because the rift between good and bad players became increasingly wider, particularly after the addition of PvE skills.

[Skyy High]

The problem is that the mechanics of the game aren't explicit in the game. How much energy per second does an energy pipe means, the attack speed of weapons, how armor works, how much armor do mobs get per level, and so on.

The /help and /wiki commands need to be highlighted, underlined, and in glowing neon lights for any new player until he turns off tooltips.

Does WoW explain all of the "under the hood" mechanics? I'm specifically thinking of threat, which iirc players use an add-on to monitor, is that ever explained in the tutorial areas?

[Dr.Jones]

if people were good at this game aoe spiteful spirit and other such meanics wouldn't work. i see it all the time in ab fire eles with no snare who bring Meteor Shower like do they really think i am going to just sit there in ms?

[DreamWind]

Originally Posted by Bug John

What's inside a game doesn't make the community good or bad, the community makes itself good or bad.

I think this guy put it best:

Originally Posted by Fireflyry

In my opinion it's the game at fault more than the player base.

Guild Wars rewards the path of least resistance more than player skill, pure and simple.

You win the prize sir.

Originally Posted by Bug John

Sure we're all playing Risk, but we're not sitting at the same table. Of course you can look what others are doing a few tables away, but does it matter, as long as all the people you are playing with agree with your rules ?

The problem is the game rules change for everybody if enough people are playing Risk the wrong way. If I want to play Risk as it was meant to be played, but the people around me are playing the game wrong, the entire game rules change so the wrong rules are the new right rules. This is the problem a lot of oldbies have with the game today.

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

From a company's perspective, the only thing that matters (and the only thing that should matter, if they're rational and competent) is improving the bottom line. If making the game easier results in higher profit, you make the game easier, period.

That is true, but notice how many of the best selling games of all time are also the most challenging games of all time...

[Bryant Again]

The best games don't appeal to one crowd. They appeal to as many as possible.

It's an easy given that most players are casual and don't really get the hang of games too well. But if you cater *solely* to them you'll still lose.

Catering to the casuals and also those who are experienced is where you'll strike the gold.

[Burst Cancel]

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

The best games don't appeal to one crowd. They appeal to as many as possible.

It's an easy given that most players are casual and don't really get the hang of games too well. But if you cater *solely* to them you'll still lose.

Catering to the casuals and also those who are experienced is where you'll strike the gold.

Wait, wait. You mean, if I cater to everyone at the same time I'll make the most money? Wow, I wish I'd thought of that. I'll bet every other game developer on the face of the planet also wish they'd thought of that. Actually, maybe they did - but realized that it's a lot easier to just wave your hands and wish your game catered to everyone, rather than actually sitting down and figuring out how to do it.

GW actually caters to more people than you're giving Anet credit for; most casual PvE players won't be found in HA or GvG, and the "hardcore PvEers" are just deluding themselves if they've never stepped foot in serious PvP. Everyone knows that PvP is the real GW endgame, which is why PvE has been thrown to the wolves.

Consider Starcraft - was the single player campaign difficult at all? Is most of the competition on B.net any good? Would you say that Starcraft caters to "everyone"? How about Diablo?

Originally Posted by DreamWind

That is true, but notice how many of the best selling games of all time are also the most challenging games of all time...

Really? The best selling PC game franchise of all time is The Sims, and by a wide margin (6 million more than #2, WoW). The best selling console games are dominated by Wii titles, Pokemon, Nintendogs, Mario, and GTA.

See:
http://vgchartz.com/worldtotals.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ng_video_games
http://www.gunslot.com/blog/top-twen...games-all-time

I'm sorry, but when Wii Sports is selling 40+ million units and games like Street Fighter and Starcraft can't even break 10 million, the game isn't the problem - it's the players.

[Master Fuhon]

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

There are a number of reasons why teachers don't get to retain/fail people (say, the law), but the basic idea is that education matters; kicking kids out of school has very real consequences. In contrast, GW doesn't matter - at all. Nobody cares how many people can't complete the game without consumables. Having GWAMM doesn't make you a better person. Add to this the fact that Anet can wish everyone's problems away by making the game easier at any time, and there's really no point to the whole teaching exercise.

My original analogy was based on the concept of people learning about something without awareness that it matters. Whether the clichéd statement of 'education matters' is true or not in real life does nothing to the structure of the argument. More importantly, you appear to be changing the definition of words every time you continue the argument (retain/fail is not kicking out). I don't know who or what you are arguing with at this point...

Off the top of my head, what matters is: survival, relationships (with self and others), application of knowledge, and commitment to learning. I see educated people who don’t have priorities straight all the time; in those cases education didn’t matter. ‘Education matters’ comes from the perspective where a person does not have greater priorities. Relative opinions like these have the same weight as other relative opinions; but they have a lower value than an objective one. 'Education matters' is your opinion, one based on your own priority system; you probably need to flex your degree to get what you need. I listed four things that matter more than education.

I have to completely disagree with you that GW doesn’t matter at all. It matters because any interaction is a learning experience in itself. People learn things from environments or other people. There is no fully shared view of what matters; everyone forms their own relative view. The titles and loot might matter to someone (sounds like they really matter to the person who needs the overpowered stuff), but even if they shouldn’t, how people interact certainly does. A game can involve relationships, application of knowledge, and commitment to learning. Blanket statements about how a game doesn’t matter to you don’t apply. What you do is as much a reflection of who you are as it is a determinant of who you will be. What that means is that if you are a bad player who never improves, you will carry your ethic and your behavior further into a life of failure.

Also, interaction can play a profound role in how you relate with others. After a terrible game experience, maybe you stereotype people for it. A positive game experience you can build upon when developing relationships in real life (people have in game friendships), or you might learn a good way to cope with a stressful situation. Not all lessons learned in the game will apply to specific game scenarios, but will likely relate to real life scenarios because there are real people involved. Problems with bad players are also problems with people. Solutions to those types of problems matter. That was the whole point of my analogy, but you haven't been able to make that connection to how I was referencing real life teaching and in-game teaching.

The commitment made to learning a game matters, because it is also a commitment you make to bettering yourself, which happens to also better the world around you. A person self-improves with every tiny little fact they learn. I've gained at least a few strategic insights from the game in places where I was challenged to learn. Although I have to admit, most things came from players, so I want smart players who play the same game as me. Those that give up on getting better by learning (and you can learn from anything), are outdated and they hold everyone else back because of it. You learn more valuable information playing a team game, even about yourself; than you learn watching people play pretend on TV or doing other forms of recreation.

It’s ironic that your reference to education encompasses a bigger picture, yet your view of the game doesn’t. I haven’t seen evidence to support someone giving up on making the playing experience of both yourself and the people around you better. Work for the betterment of players all you want, but don’t exhaust anyone doing it.

[Burst Cancel]

Originally Posted by Master Fuhon

snip

The only bulletproof item on your list of things that matter is the first one. The rest of it gets rolled into "quality of life", which means something different to everyone. Some people don't give a damn about relationships. Other people don't care about learning or application of knowledge as long as they can pay their bills and take a vacation once in a while. On the other hand, many people got to where they were because of their eduction - specifically, a piece of paper describing their credentials. When we're talking about things that really matter, I tend to stick to things that directly affect your ability to live - money, for instance.

You spend a lot of time and space arguing essentially that GW matters because it's a form of self-improvement. Unfortunately, most people don't see it that way; instead, GW to them is just a diversion to piss away a few hours before getting on with real life. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. For the record, I've always been in the self-improvement camp myself - but I'm able to recognize that most people don't happen to share my viewpoint. And I'm further able to recognize that the market responds to how things are - not how they should be. If we were all into games as self-improvement, casual gaming wouldn't even exist.

It should be immediately obvious that people pick and choose what they want to be good at; you could easily say that any activity you do matters simply because it is a potential learning experience, but this is shockingly ignorant of reality. People don't give a shit about GW because being good at GW has relatively little real-world benefit compared to, say, being good at your job. One gets you some insight into game mechanics and some nebulous possibility of becoming a better person; the other results in job security, pay raises, career advancement, etc.

Frankly, I don't see that we're going to get anywhere in this discussion if we disagree on something as fundamental as whether GW actually matters.

[snaek]

Originally Posted by burst cancel

I'm sorry, but when Wii Sports is selling 40+ million units and games like Street Fighter and Starcraft can't even break 10 million, the game isn't the problem - it's the players.

wii sports cheats because it gets sold wit the actual system -___-'
then again, the previous record holder, super mario bros, also came wit the system

and street fighter is an arcade game really...
how can u measure the sales of an arcade game?
not to mention it has many "revisions" and "ports" under different systems which get counted separately
sims and its 20+ expansion packs....gw and its 3+1 games/expansion...starcraft and its expansions...etc, all get counted together

starcraft sales r pretty dam decent if u aks me
tho i think a lot may have to do wit the international tournament scene and net-cafe scene

counter-strike sales r pretty ridiculous considering a good chunk of cs players have the "free mod" version or have the "steam" version (which if im reading correctly, didnt get accounted for in that wiki)

[DreamWind]

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

Really? The best selling PC game franchise of all time is The Sims, and by a wide margin (6 million more than #2, WoW). The best selling console games are dominated by Wii titles, Pokemon, Nintendogs, Mario, and GTA.

I'm sorry, but when Wii Sports is selling 40+ million units and games like Street Fighter and Starcraft can't even break 10 million, the game isn't the problem - it's the players.

Meh...the Wii Sports number isn't accurate because it is a bundled game. You are also largely underestimating 10 million...thats a HUGE number by most standards. Also Street Fighter sold way more than 10 million that considering each console it was released on as well as the stupid amounts it made from arcade sales and various ports. There are plenty of other competitive games throughout the list (Halo, CS, Madden, DoA, GT, SC, SF2, MK, SSB, 007 etc etc).

I think Bryant Again put it best though...the best games fit both crowds. I do think that competitive games MUST fit both crowds to survive though while casual games do not. The rise of the Wii as cash cow "casual" system is somewhat proof of that. On the other hand, competitive games must be pick up and play for the casual gamer.

[Coverticus]

It does stem down to the fact of what originally was placed before us compared to what is available now.

When we (the people who started from the beginning of Guild Wars) stepped into the game, we were presented with, arguably, a well balanced and structured approach to starting out in the game. Quests were designed to be simple and get you involved in the game (but not push you away from it). As you slowly progressed through the game, the quest and foe level adjusted accordingly. Because you were faced with a minimal amount of skills as you progressed, no such things as tomes, heroes, skill templates and bonus items existed so you had to play the game in the way that the designers originally intended.

Granted you could still be run for max armour as soon as you were out of pre-searing but when it cost in the region of 10-15k to get to Droknar's, it was a decision a player made very carefully. And also could bring an amount of pride that they were able to afford the run.

Completing the game with henchmen was a challenge - if anyone remember's what it was like to attempt Thunderhead Keep with these limited skills and AI, then you know what I mean. Completing the game gave you a distinct feeling of satisfaction. But it had taught you enough of the basics to be able to hold yourself in PvE. Even still, walking into FoW with an Elementalist and "Flare" was frowned upon - quotes of "noob" were invariably thrown into chat. But at least you could say you understood the game based upon the learning curve you had undertaken through Prophecies.

Then we were given Factions. And imo, this is when the wheels started to come off in GW. Gone was the learning curve - levelling could be done in a matter of hours. 2-3k experience per quest was, and is, a joke. To be level 20 coming off the island if the Prophecies levelling mentality was used, is a joke. Plus once off the island, the foe levels took a sharp increase that the new player was not ready for in all honesty. The amount of whining from peeps in Vizunah Square early on as it was "too hard" was silly. They then strolled into The Deep and Urgoz and, well, QQ'd.

Then we had Nightfall and the beginning of the end in terms of playability to get the new player properly geared throygh the game. Plus bonus pack (weps, allies etc), tomes (elite tomes are good yes but man, so lazy).

But the killer for me was heroes. Now yes, we all love em (though the AI wants me to throw the PC out of the window at times) but it meant, with a small amount of work, a new player could breeze through the game really without trying. The learning curve being non-existant too once a player took his invicible wammo in DoA and got creamed.... plus, titles killed it too - people (inc. myself) became too focussed on these (little else to keep intested I suppose) and this focus invariably limited the amount of knowledge being passed down from seasoned Guildwarian to the Padawan learner.

As it's been said many times in this thread - the game is no longer what it was orginally designed to be. For those coming in late, laziness will always win. When Prophecies came out, if you wanted to get through the game, you couldn't really be lazy at all.

Just my thoughts...

[DreamWind]

You know I just have to post again to raise a very valid thought. I noticed that almost everybody in this thread who admits that they are title hunters also notes that titles were probably bad for the game in terms of direction and player skill. Just a thought.

[Bryant Again]

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

Wait, wait. You mean, if I cater to everyone at the same time I'll make the most money? Wow, I wish I'd thought of that. I'll bet every other game developer on the face of the planet also wish they'd thought of that. Actually, maybe they did - but realized that it's a lot easier to just wave your hands and wish your game catered to everyone, rather than actually sitting down and figuring out how to do it.

Allow me to respecify: It's very difficult to make a game that caters to multiple interests, but you can make a game that is able to cater to multiple ranges of player skill. In this case, wouldn't that mean it's a problem of game if developer's aren't able to cater to different difficulty groups?

I notice you keep going back to Homeworld 2. Was there any way to change the settings, or was it stuck at that difficulty?

And where do you get me not giving ANet much credit, or was that more broad of a statement? I've only been a bit ticked about GW for lowering the skill threshold in PvE, but it's still one of the best games I've ever laid my hands on.

@Above: I've only hunted enough titles to get to KoaBD. Now I just go armor huntin', the thing I've done since Proph.

[Hailey Anne]

1. Yes alot of GW players are that bad.
2. The only decent resource would be wiki (not PvX) only because it gives you info about the game the foes the basics. Guru is not a good resource(bunch of assholes here.) PvX wont help because they will just slap on the build and never really try and understand what the skills can truly do.
3. Depends on the "good player" there are some that are great teachers but then there are others who may be good at the game(atleast think they are) but suck at teaching because if the person doesnt play exactly how they do then they suck.

Summary. Most players in GW are bad.
-New players, well theyre new.
-Ok players, not as bad as new but still not that good.
-good players, some are ok some just think they are good.
-great players, may play well but most of the time are elitist pricks(can name a few from here that fit that catagory but wont.) so are still bad.

The only ones that arent bad players are ones that know what they are doing and can be patient wit new players and truly help them out.

[Burst Cancel]

Originally Posted by Gun Pierson

You're comparing today's game market with one from 10-15 years ago. Watch Starcraft2 hit big sale numbers in the future.

Wii sports are a mix of mostly 'family' games versus one PC rts game like stracraft.

What is the point of your discours? Could be me but I don't see the link or the message.

The last time I checked, Starcraft was still on sale. The fact that Starcraft has been on the market for so many years should be an advantage, frankly - that is, if people actually bought games based on skill, balance, and challenge.

The point of my "discours" (whatever the hell that means) is that the market isn't drawn to challenging games. There are people in this thread who continue to assert that lack of challenge is the developer's fault, and that "plenty" of the most financially successful games are also the most challenging. Both assertions are completely without merit (well, unless you think that Wii Sports, The Sims, and Nintendogs are really hard games).

And while I'd love to give you more opportunities to stroke yourself for being able to name famous players from the WCGs, your allegations about how much more skill is involved in tournament-level RTS is irrelevant. If anything, it helps my point because despite the level of skill involved, Starcraft still can't hold a candle to the best-selling games of all time, and it still doesn't engage nearly the number of players that casual games do.

[Bryant Again]

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

The point of my "discours" (whatever the hell that means) is that the market isn't drawn to challenging games. There are people in this thread who continue to assert that lack of challenge is the developer's fault, and that "plenty" of the most financially successful games are also the most challenging. Both assertions are completely without merit (well, unless you think that Wii Sports, The Sims, and Nintendogs are really hard games).

What do you lose when you also, in addition to catering to the casuals, cater to those who like a challenging game?

Lose resources that could've been used further to please those who can't tell a good game from a bad? Wow, god forbid.

[Fril Estelin]

Originally Posted by Gun Pierson

'discours' is a French word sorry and I'm not even French wtf, it means something like 'your reasoning'.

The equivalent here is "discourse", which is quite rarely used. Or also: "speech", "talk", and more simply "long-ish post".

(woaw, this thread has gone very off-topic )