Curse

Glider of chaos · May 19, 2008, 05:48 AM // 05:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by aapo

- I was talking about depth = quality.

Ability to stop, save, rewind, fastforward observer mode match.
Seeing what hexes, conditions, skillbar, energy levels players have on observer.
Fun minigames and other events with other people. Standing on Guild Hall all day gets boring.

That's quality!

Yeh, that's quality.
I, for one, really want an ability to record demos to analyze them later

. Events are kinda lacking as well... but as I said GW isn't perfect

Quote:

Originally Posted by aapo

- I was talking about depth = quality.

Making those NPCs acknowledge that you are/aren't the world-saving hero of people.

That's quality!

Wrong!
That's just bells and whistles. They are nice to have but there's no impact on depth

Quote:

Originally Posted by aapo

- I was talking about depth = quality.

Allowing free target by mouse cursor for that Firestorm.
Trophies that have some purpose in the game, not just collector stuff.
Experience not being meaningless after level 20.

That's quality!

Sorry, that's game design decisions that shape the rules. Rules have some impact on depth of coarse but you can't list em in quality list

Quote:

Originally Posted by aapo

- Chess and checkers are the epitomes of quality games! Show me a person who can make a game that remains popular thousands of years, can be ported to any system and played IRL. Where rules are so simple to learn and there's nothing arbitrary about them. The game offers vast tactical depth and even helps to alleviate symptoms of Alzheimer's disease. I tell you the one who discovered Chess is a fricking genius.

Exactly. And there's almost no features you spoke of in chess. The thing is that chess almost perfectly balanced tactical pvp game

Ec]-[oMaN · May 19, 2008, 05:52 AM // 05:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by aapo

- *sigh* I guess you're right after all. If you want cheap and fast car you want two cars. Quality costs money, servers cost money, support team costs money. No monthly fee means that the company doesn't have much. They're hiring newbies there and the selling argument after all is "no monthly fee". But it's a strange thing, I've never paid more than 50€ for any game I can remember and you can see how different the effort has been for some.

I've said this many times in the past, and I'll ask you the same, "Name me one pay to play game that you enjoyed and also thought the money you were paying out was justified" Sadly I can't name one. Furthermore ones justifications on what makes something of "importance or of good quality" will differ from person to person. My idea of a quality game will differ greatly from yours or the next guy.

aapo · May 19, 2008, 06:26 AM // 06:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ec]-[oMaN

I've said this many times in the past, and I'll ask you the same, "Name me one pay to play game that you enjoyed and also thought the money you were paying out was justified" Sadly I can't name one.

- I can't either. It seems that companies want to run dedicated servers for their MMORPGs and that's taking all the cash. Also the restrains of having x number of people on certain instance adds extra limits to the actual game design. Some games have so involving storyline it almost feels like you're reading a book with multiple choices.

I've tried to tell that software companies should just focus on making quality core for games. It's rather incredible that audience of millions is still treated as passive consumers in 2008! Think about the wasted potential. How many of us would not like to have custom GvG tournaments? You know, adjust skill selection, select your guildhall, input your own VoD times and archer strengths. If the game is based on instances (for the record Diablo II was), then where's the map editor? Warcraft III had campaign edition and you could do anything from layout to AI to scripted events. Some play six hours a day and love the game, only to see it go to waste by mismanagement. "If you don't like it go buy WoW". Some fat guy at ANET decides what's appropriate skillbalances and overdoes them every time. I really don't get it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ec]-[oMaN

Furthermore ones justifications on what makes something of "importance or of good quality" will differ from person to person. My idea of a quality game will differ greatly from yours or the next guy.

- That's true also. I'd like to ask what was ANET's idea of quality on Polymock and Jade Quarry? How easy the latter would be to fix. Put a little speed on the carrier, adjust proper strength, have hex reduction.

mazey vorstagg · May 19, 2008, 06:32 AM // 06:32

Have you played wow?

All the skills there are either red bar up or red bar down. In GW at least there's variation, and skills requiring thought.

Not that I don't love wow....

Avarre · May 19, 2008, 06:35 AM // 06:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malice Black

True MMO's have world PvP, which makes the game a whole lot more interesting. The AoC PvP players laugh at GW arena PvP.

World PvP is a terrible idea for GW. Guild Wars classes are built differently than other games - they are not balanced to any level on a solo basic, only full group setups are. Any form of open World PvP would just result in certain 1-class gimmicks ganking people.

Arena combat fits Guild Wars much better as it allows balance for group setups, and hence competitive play. World PvP almost always is not a fair setup for competition. Other MMO players can laugh at it all they like, but the fact remains arena play is going to be more skillful at the upper tier.

Overall, I'd say the PvE quality is quite low - it's pretty, but has little depth. That's not necessarily a bad thing if you take the assumption Guild Wars wasn't meant to be a full PvE game. The PvP stood out as extremely high quality at first, this has declined somewhat. Now PvE is the focus, but the quality of it remains poor.

Longasc · May 19, 2008, 06:42 AM // 06:42

A very interesting read (@OP).

I think you are right, we could use some more quality. Skills competing with each other so much with only 8 slots available has become more and more an issue with every new expansion. The "good 9th skill" has become common, a good skill, but there are 8 better ones for the build.

In general, we have skills that are used very often, and hundreds of skills that are rarely used at all. I think we could really do with less, but more diverse and interesting skills.

But many other games are exactly like that, too - they are not that diverse.
Take EQ, EQ2, Lineage and WoW - they are combat oriented games, following the level-up philosophy started by EQ.

I think the stone-old Ultima Online was the first true MMO ever, and was much advanced than many modern day MMOs and MMO-like games. I still see Guild Wars more as a spiced up Diablo than a fully fledged MMO, btw.

Ultima Online offered and still offers crafting, housing, and role-playing to an extent that has no parallel in the more straight forward quest driven combat oriented xp grinders. (The game client has been overhauled twice or thrice already, but its still old fashioned nowadays)

Still, these the more simple mmos are the standard nowadays.

Do not expect too much from GW and similar games, mazey put it bluntly, compared to the other games out there GW is not that bad.

PvE in GW is quite simple and could really use some love. The focus has shifted more towards PvE, but it has not been reflected in general pve design as much as people would like it. Ursan Blessing and making the game ever easier does not work given the nature of making builds and decisions in GW. I hope they make PvE a bit more challenging and offer more options than the mostly mindless grind titles they added.

tmakinen · May 19, 2008, 06:49 AM // 06:49

My issue with the OP is that s/he tries to prove that a washing machine can't be considered a quality oven. While certainly true, it is also absurdly misguided. I could make a similar list showing that GW is not a quality FPS game, or a quality puzzle game, or a quality Tetris clone. Sheesh, can't ANet devs do anything right? You wouldn't think that one can fail at something as simple as Tetris but regardless of how much I play GW I can't find the first falling block. Clearly, this game is lacking depth!

arcanemacabre · May 19, 2008, 06:54 AM // 06:54

It's not that I don't agree with you, aapo, because I do to an extent, I just don't see any point in this thread. You've summed up all of Sardelac (well, select ideas - some of the better ones, maybe some not as good for GW), but it accomplishes nothing that Sardelac itself already does, which is not much at all. If anything, Anet agrees with you, which is why they are scrapping GW in favor of a total revamp of a sequel. Time will tell just how much they will fix with GW2, but until then, you can't expect them to go all out and fix a bunch of stuff in their current product.

As far as getting what you pay for - I disagree. I have personally gotten way more than I paid for, in my opinion. No game is perfect, but what I paid for GW (all chapters/expansions, secondary acct, etc.), it was close enough, and I have nothing to complain about there. Anet went above and beyond for the pricetag, and continue to do so with [relatively] regular free updates.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aapo

"If you don't like it go buy WoW"

That's just a terrible, terrible suggestion. If you don't like it, go buy AoC.

dunky_g · May 19, 2008, 09:26 AM // 09:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevin

Ignore that guy's post, he has trouble reading anything longer then a sentence.

I for one agree with your post, lets just hope Anet adds the extra few man hours to make GW2 a truly unique experience.

No.

I just doubt the things the OP is saying wont be implied because there too different to how GW is now, and I doubt that Anet will deviate from the origional game play that dramaticaly, considering its how they have managed to shift 6million+ copies of the 1st game.

Phoenix Tears · May 19, 2008, 01:48 PM // 13:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinraith

GW's an action RPG, and in that it succeeds marvelously. If you want an MMO, go play one. Some of us are very happy that this isn't one.

which pills have you eaten to see in GW an action RPG ? lol Want some too and maybe also the pink red miracle glasses on top of your nose that lets you see things, how they are not in reality

Would Guild Wars be a Action RPG, then its gameplay would be alot more like console games ala Devil May Cry, Chaos Legion, FF7 Dirge of Cerberus, Gothic 1-3, Drakan 1&2, Parasite Eve 1-2, Kingdom Hearts 1-2, The Elder Scrolls Oblivion, Drakengard 1-2 ...

or like upcoming MMO's a la Evan online
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjeFznDIXnY

thats a real Online action RPG !! and I hope really, that the battle system of GW2 will become alot more like that of this game, because such gameplay makes alot more fun and is alot more entertaining, than the crap boring battle system that GW1 has, which looks like as if children play with toy soldiers - so borign that you could fall asleep instantly, when looking at it too long, because Guild Wars's gameplay as ZERO Action Elements

JR · May 19, 2008, 02:18 PM // 14:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malice Black

The AoC PvP players laugh at GW arena PvP.

They don't understand or appreciate balanced arena PvP, or competitive games. They just want to run around with the buds and gank people. It's a different kind of game, and you can't really compare the two.

Honestly Malice your trolling and shameless promotion of AoC is just getting tiresome. Yes it's probably going to be a decent game, but there's really no need to mention it in virtually every post you make.

Kakumei · May 19, 2008, 02:29 PM // 14:29

I'm not going to read the thread, there's no point, your OP is awful enough that I'm just going to address it and not any replies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aapo

Let's just start by defining what 'quality' means here. I think the the word "effort" makes a pretty good mental image of what it means to make a quality work. You see it on small things. So small it almost feels subconscious. Color codes in item names, different modifications in items, different ways to get a task done. When you're holding a big hammer it "feels" like you're holding a big hammer.

Quality != details. Additional small details can occasionally be an indicator of quality, but the two are definitely not the same.

Quote:

Poor quality FPS makes no distinction of hit location.

Uh, no? An unrealistic FPS makes no distinction of hit location. That's completely unrelated to quality.

Would you call Doom "lacking in quality"? A large amount of gamers would consider Doom one of the best FPS games in history--myself among them--and there was definitely no distinction of hit location in Doom.

Quote:

Some developers may think that bothering with small things - adding couple of extra animations and variations is inconsequential, but it has huge subconscious effect on players' minds.

This is pretty accurate, but doesn't really have anything to do with quality.

Quote:

Staying on the FPS example, good quality game takes care of the small things. There is distinction in hit location and the game code also places semantic importance of certain locations on body. For example getting hit on leg might reduce movement speed and result in tilt on camera balance, whereas getting hit on hand might result to unability to use weapon for a short moment. First part of making quality is thus making distinction.

NO NO NO NO NO NO

I hate people who push this kind of thing in games. I'm not saying having it is a sign of poor quality, but nor is it a sign of good quality. I, personally, cannot stand the more "realistic" FPS games. Realism isn't quality isn't fun.

Quote:

There's myriad of other examples of poor quality:
- Characters move at same speed, have same dialogue and other modifiers

Having all characters move at the same speed makes balance easier. Differing speeds for different classes might add an additional layer of depth, but I don't know if that layer would be a fun one, or balanced well at all.

Quote:

- Many areas of the game have monsters with same 3d-model.

No argument here. :\ Same problem with the newer armor sets--you guys make beautiful armor art, Anet, just quit reusing the old meshes.

Quote:

- Quest structure is "go there, get/kill this, come back" always.

This is a problem with RPGs in general, not just Guild Wars. It's not at all an easy problem to fix, either.

Quote:

- There is little interraction with other players, emotes should be more usable.

Because having people come over and /kneel in front of me and say "lol suking ur cok" isn't annoying enough already.

Very little of your post has anything to do with quality--it reads far more like every other laundry list of "why can't GW be more like other MMOs??????"

Nightmares Hammer · May 19, 2008, 02:39 PM // 14:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

Honestly Malice your trolling and shameless promotion of AoC is just getting tiresome. Yes it's probably going to be a decent game, but there's really no need to mention it in virtually every post you make.

Finally, someone gets it...

As for the OP: shouldn't this be closed? All he's doing is trolling GW.

Targren · May 19, 2008, 02:51 PM // 14:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esan

Also, GW1 has been end-of-lifed for over a year. If you still want to complain about it, feel free, but no one really cares, least of all Anet.

I do not think that means what you think it means.

EoTN was released in August of last year.
Latest update released was last week.

Killed u man · May 19, 2008, 02:56 PM // 14:56

Can we just close the thread with a big fat note stating: "You get what you pay for"

For the GW-fanboys (I don't mean well reasoned people, I mean retards who will still suck Anet's ... even if they made Ursan do triple amounts of damage):
GW isn't as godly as you praise it to be, there is WAY better PvP games out there. Heck, I myself concider GW one of the "worst" PvP games when it comes down to skill (Ever since NF, it's 95% skill bar, and 5% skill)

For the GW-haters:
You guys are still here, arn't you? You're still playing the game, arn't you? Anet DID do an amazing job creating this game. Don't compare it to pay MMo's, because that's simply unfair towards GW. GW is a good game (that did in fact deteriorate when more compaigns were added ) that gives U MORE than what U pay for.

Bryant Again · May 19, 2008, 03:30 PM // 15:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

They don't understand or appreciate balanced arena PvP, or competitive games. They just want to run around with the buds and gank people. It's a different kind of game, and you can't really compare the two.

Honestly Malice your trolling and shameless promotion of AoC is just getting tiresome. Yes it's probably going to be a decent game, but there's really no need to mention it in virtually every post you make.

I like to quote the truth.

I will say I liked the mention of having too many skills in Aapo's op. While it's good to have a large assessment of skills, it's hard to attain a focus of variety. While Guild Wars is still pretty solid in terms of PvP, I felt that there were additions to the game that made balance and other aspects of it a bit negative...I guess, for me, it's hard to explain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kakumei

Uh, no? An unrealistic FPS makes no distinction of hit location. That's completely unrelated to quality.

Would you call Doom "lacking in quality"? A large amount of gamers would consider Doom one of the best FPS games in history--myself among them--and there was definitely no distinction of hit location in Doom.

Example: TF2. Most fun I've had with an FPS since I was introduced to the Doom series (nothing beats Doom 2), and unrealistic as hell.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kakumei

This is a problem with RPGs in general, not just Guild Wars. It's not at all an easy problem to fix, either.

Ever notice how most quests in Oblivion are "go here, do this", yet I haven't heard a single complaint about them? I guess it depends on how "interesting" they make the quests, with Oblivion's way of making them "interesting" is having every conversation is voice acted.

moriz · May 19, 2008, 03:38 PM // 15:38

why GW is a high quality game:

A: looks very good
B: runs on everything

that there shows real programming skill. for instance, GW is newer than L2, yet have lower system requirements, and runs a lot smoother. it also runs smoother than WoW and looks better at the same time.

until AoC can run on my aging P4 with fx5500 PCI, it is NOT a higher quality game.

Ctb · May 19, 2008, 04:32 PM // 16:32

Quote:

True MMO's have world PvP, which makes the game a whole lot more interesting.

The no true Scotsmen argument, eh? How many people do you think are going to fall for such a weak refutation?

Quote:

The AoC PvP players laugh at GW arena PvP.

All six of them?

Seriously, enough. Your constant trolling for AoC is so irritating I have a bad opinion of the game already, and I don't think I've ever even seen a preview for it.

DarkNecrid · May 19, 2008, 04:52 PM // 16:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by moriz

why GW is a high quality game:

A: looks very good
B: runs on everything

that there shows real programming skill. for instance, GW is newer than L2, yet have lower system requirements, and runs a lot smoother. it also runs smoother than WoW and looks better at the same time.

until AoC can run on my aging P4 with fx5500 PCI, it is NOT a higher quality game.

QFT!

Hell, I play it at 20-40fps on an SiS Mirage2 and 512MB of RAM so...

Iuris · May 19, 2008, 04:55 PM // 16:55

I disagree with the OP's core definition of quality.

Quality of a game is not the accuracy of the game's simulation, nor is it the presence/absence of any specific feature. One may have a quality game that does not simulate specific hit location and does not simulate fishing - it's how well the fishing part of a game is implemented that determines quality.

GW intentionally did not implement item creation in the way other games did. Whis is a design decision - GW is not supposed to be about mining or fishing. It's also not about being able to hit an opponent's eye.

What GW is about is really... GW. What it set out to do, it has done very well, with great success.