Curse

LagunaCid · Nov 11, 2006, 12:17 AM // 00:17

Oh, oh, I want diablo 2's endgame.
Baal runs until I faint!
xD

Sir Skullcrasher · Nov 11, 2006, 12:41 AM // 00:41

Gamestop are bias half the time and they seem to care about... pretty graphics with little or no gameplay depth. Look at their reviews for Gears of War or Halo 2. They loves the games made for Xbox360 for some unknown reason. Also they use guest reviewers half the time which is only personal point of views that judge these games. So i tend to stay away from Gamestop for one thing, they don't seen to have the money or resources to hire real reviewers to do game reviews.

phoenixtech · Nov 11, 2006, 12:55 AM // 00:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by allience

well i understand the poor score.
from an objective point of view NF has some obvious faults.
-storage space hasn't been improved
-game not completed upon release (the missing elite misions from the manual)
-trading system not improved
-pve pug formation system not improved
-pvp areas became 50% Player versus Ai..
-no new options to mix appearence of our chars

from my experience with NF, i found PVE more enjoyable than factions even with all these faults. i'm happy about heores and pve but i was very disappointed with changes to heroes ascent and with the heroes being allowed into pvp. right now i'm not sure it justifies the 40$ i payed for it. it might justify it with the content anet promissed in a few months but so far, i'm not impressed.

I totally agree with this. I've played through the PVE content once and I'm starting to get bored. HA is TOTALLY trashed now, and it seems like there isn't much left to keep me entertained in this game. If ANET is going to justify making people pay FULL retail price for their expansions, they better be able to ATLEAST provide the most basic stuff like improved storage, new HA maps, trading systems, LFG systems, all of which SHOULD have been in place in factions in the FIRST place.

Don't get me wrong, I love the heros and the PVE content is decent, but I mean seriously, this is the THIRD expansion, and I've already paid full price for 2 expansions already is it too much for me to expect a bit more?

Myrkwid · Nov 11, 2006, 01:19 AM // 01:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSCavalier

PvP is Guild Wars' endgame. The game is built with that in mind and with that expectation.

The purpose of your PvE "toon" is to have an enjoyable way (quests, co-op missions, etc.) to unlock skills that you will eventually use to create PvP characters when you are "done".

When the game was first released, and part of the game's original design, there was no way to unlock skills for a PvP character. You had to unlock them in PvE. They changed it after a few months by adding faction that you could gain from playing PvP.

If "endgame" is supposed to mean "repeatable challenges for experienced players" then you've got it already in PvP. However, if you are looking for big maps to farm for phat lewt, then WoW might be the better game for you.

Guild Wars is a game that can be completed (unlike WoW). When you've played the content, you're done! You can replay the content with different character builds if you like, or you can play PvP, or you play the next chapter when it comes out.

I don't see the problem. If the game isn't long enough for you, then you have nothing to fear, another chapter will be released in 6 months.

Did you know, that the original concept of guild wars did not include PvP-only characters? In early days you were supposed to build up your character, for hunting the arenas and like that. The PvP-only characters were introduced, in my opinion, to get some more customers from the pvp-only fraction and to get more distance to other onlinerpgs like wow, etc.

Nope, PvP is not the endgame of Guild Wars anymore. It once used to be like this, but not anymore. There is no viable way to get onto the same level as a disposable-pvp-hero with a rpg-character. For example: A superior vigor can be used in one armor in rpg. You have 10 professions/characters with 15 heroes each, and, if you want at least some of the flexibility of pvpcharacters, several armorsets. And now think about other runes, mods and equipment? Even if you stick to a single character and do not care about heroes, how are you supposed to get to a level you can get by spending 6.000 balthazarfaction (equalling very few hours of RA) for unlocking superior vigor and using a pvp-character? Not to mention the utopic amounts of platinum needed to unlock the skills for your rpgcharacters. Even if you just buy all of the primary class skills and secondary skills only when needed, it would, even with farming still possible like during the early days of GW, take years. On the contrary the PvP-charactercreation has been made even easier and more powerful, not to forget faction has been doubled again.
Nope, PvP isn't the endgame of PvE and the unlocks are no reason either, as it is much faster unlocking via balthazar.
Somebody picking up Guild Wars and playing ten hours with premades in the RA, spending the faction he gets for warrior unlocks, gets a more flexible AND better equipped warrior as somebody playing 100s of hours of PvE with his warrior. So where is the point to play PvE, except for the story, when PvP, the supposed endgame, is available to you at the start?

Anet wants to cater to both, PvE(only) and PvP(only). In my opinion it will not work eternally. The idea of both parts being equally treated and pushed will just result in a significant part of the community not being happy as both parts are opposites and will always suffer from each other. I think they have to make the decision which part of the game is their major focus. Putting an estimated 90% of work into a PvE-part that is 50% of the game is bad. And this has to be decided before the positiv influence of the "no monthly fees" and the "very nice but not hardware hungry engine" arguements on the sales vanishes. And not to forget, two expansions a year at 45€ equal 7.5€/month too, that's waht many don't think about. And the "you don't have to buy them if you don't want" arguement isn't viable anymore, too, if you compare some of the nightfallskills with prophecies and if you want to play the PvP-part.

From my point of view (!) this is the biggest problem Guild Wars has and with the third chapter it even got worse. After playing through a pretty nice, a bit too easy but still very enjoyable campaign, I don't really feel to continue playing PvE, as, to be honest, the RPG-Part of the game is pretty shallow. PvP alone doesn't keep me playing, too. I got the most fun out of playing both with the same toons and I'm not alone. But tee problem with that ist explained above.

Kidney Licker · Nov 11, 2006, 01:49 AM // 01:49

I thought Gamespot gave a fair review and agree with the points raised in defence of it.

Chapter 4 is meant to be under way now and I wonder how many of the shortcomings will be addressed, or whether it'll be more of the same. If they haven't already decided to, it's hard to see them wanting to do it now, especially when Nightfall isn't actually finished yet. And if they have decided to fix some things I wonder if they will put themselves on the line and say, "Yes, it's definitely going to be there in the next campaign.".

Nightfall had to address concerns raised over the PvE portion of Factions and it's done well on that side, IMO. But I think that Chapter 4 or later might have to address player fatigue, especially with long outstanding issues. 4 runs of a game which is much and much the same gets pretty hard going.

amoschid · Nov 11, 2006, 03:23 AM // 03:23

i wanna see how they will review "WOW:Burning Crusades" later

since, the core of the game probably won't change that much also,
10/10 ??

sindex · Nov 11, 2006, 03:55 AM // 03:55

I am sorry for being hard on Gamespot (and going off the deep end with my ranting), but really I see some points to their negative thinking. However they have constantly let me down in the past before. I am speechless to their own undermining, since it’s not as bad like what they have done in other reviews; but holds true to the Gamespot formula in being hypocritical.

More ranting below about them being Hypocritical; again if interested read or skip it’s your choice.

They use to provide wanted information about games, when they started out; but now they have become so freak’en hypocritical. It’s all in the way they preview a game and then review it. Here let me give you an example. When they previewed Prey that FPS game many hailed it as a revolutionary game, in mechanics and gameplay. After which they smashed it into the ground stating, it’s the worst thing to hit the video game market; because it feels repetitive as the other FPS that came before. They did the same thing with Fable (Xbox), Halo 2 (Xbox), Hitman Blood Money (PC, Xbox, PS2, and Xbox 360), Neverwinter Nights 2 (PC), American McGee’s Alice (PC), and etc. Even though they did lack in some of these area’s they exploited, they go way over the top in their reviews. While it’s always reverse in their previews, that is hypocritical in it self; and that is a fact. Yes in thier previews they could highlight these so called misgivings, but they don’t instead they praise them. GW Nightfall is another victim of this problem, and other games will soon follow.

I think basically on a side note to A-Net; this is what all these people, that of course dislike the direction of GW is heading are really saying: "I want a GW game that features the best from World of Warcraft & The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion, but holds true to what Guild Wars is." Not that these things should be implemented from my own point of view, but if you’re interested in what “they” have to say. In some respects I know a game does not have to be perfect to be enjoyable.

zakaria · Nov 11, 2006, 07:02 AM // 07:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kha

Magazines are always going to be biased. Opinions are biased. People take them too seriously.

Wait until WoW:Burning crusade comes out, GS will give it 10/10

.
Most of reviews of magazines or sites comes from WoW grinding lvl 60 mentality, they compare every MMORPG being released with the features of WoW, and to be honest no one can review or measure complex game like guild wars like its fans.

knoll · Nov 11, 2006, 08:37 AM // 08:37

100% better then Factions IMO, hated it, never finsihed and porbably wont for awhile, until i want titles...

Paperfly · Nov 11, 2006, 11:06 AM // 11:06

I agree pretty much with the entirety of the Gamespot review, and I'm actually quite impressed at the author's perceptiveness.

Nightfall would be the best game in the series so far. The team's obviously gone to a lot of effort to improve the game for those who've played previous chapters, they've listened to a lot of feedback after Factions (too much, IMO - they threw out some babies with that bathwater), and if nothing else they've jammed a ferocious amount of content in there!

...But they've done everything in their power to kill the pick-up group, and that makes it the worst of the three. Worse than Prophecies, worse than Factions. Because it's become a single-player RPG, only without dialogue trees and with a messed up online-style economy!

Finishing the game with my Mesmer (I know, bad PuG karma here to start with), I played in a grand total of four single-mission PuGs. Of them, three were two-man six-hero jobs, and those three all started out the same way:

Random player: Guys, I'm starting to feel really lonely and bored here. Does anybody else miss human contact and want to do the mission with a person, and not just heroes? (<- honest to goodness actual quote! The other two said something similar, if less emo)

Me: ...Holy crap, he's perfectly right. /invite.

The fourth group was a full human PuG in one of the harder missions where everyone was stressed and insisted on "perfect" builds. Inevitably, we wiped - because the nature of the new-and-improved aggro system, where mobs chase you forever and there's lots of unpredictable patrols, meant that dynamic human play was a liability. Henchies, over whom I have surgically precise movement control, made it through with almost no difficulty.

Look, I've still enjoyed Nightfall. There's a lot of content, and a fair chunk of it's genuinely fun. The writing quality isn't quite up to the standard we convinced ourselves it would be after the PvE preview, but it's still head and shoulders above the other two. But an 8.2-scoring review? Yeah, that sounds about right.

Quote:

You'll also note that along the side it says;
"We Say: 8.2"
"You Say: 9.4"
"They Say: 8.2"

Check out the similar column for things like the latest Dragon Ball Budokai game, any Madden, and any unreleased but highly hyped game. The "You Say" rating is always ridiculously inflated and bears no relation to the game's actual quality.

Vandal2k6 · Nov 11, 2006, 11:10 AM // 11:10

Gamespot are wetting themselves over the PS3 and Wii atm so any PC game isn't going to get a look in. Quite obviously the person playing NF is a pleb. Yes, there are features missing we want but the one thing about Anet is they constantly add things as we go, so that argument is pointless.

ALL GW games beat WoW hands down (and yes, I own WoW). Yet they cream over WoW like it's the be all and end all. It's pooh.

Eilsys · Nov 11, 2006, 11:16 AM // 11:16

What a dumb review.

"Guild Wars Nightfall gives you even more to manage by introducing the concept of hero characters that join your own created character during the course of the campaign... they'll fight and follow automatically for the most part"

Ah yes, more to manage... yet there are only basic commands, and the heroes attack automatically?

"... and they have their own sets of skills, as well as their own inventories--and it's up to you to decide what to do with all that"

Um, they don't have their own skillset or inventories... and their default bar is fine until you have access to later areas.

Lawnmower · Nov 11, 2006, 12:04 PM // 12:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by LagunaCid

Oh, oh, I want diablo 2's endgame.
Baal runs until I faint!
xD

in a way that was fun. why does GW players not replay the games missions and bosses in the same fashion as the Diablo 2 community did?

Was it because that D2 just had endless and endless and endless amounts of weapons and armor that dropped?

Why does people not want to repeatedly do Shiro?

I have never heard anyone say "hey wanna do a shiro run?".

I mean...

Why is Anet not more vocal? I dont understand this? Why wont they at least talk to the community explain. what is so wrong with a few designers, sound artists, lead programmers taking 5-10 minutes each day or so, to reply to the community?

why do they leave us in the dark constantly. if they said they dont want to add a new LFG system, then why dont they just say so? I dont understand it...

I dont understand why Anet just lays itself down and take all the heat without trying to defend its choices.
It's depressing really.

why is it that feels like that WoW, continues to gain momentum and grow larger(now 7,5 MILLION SUBSCRIBERS), while GW seems to shrink and loss momentum, popularity and attention. its like no one even bothers reviewing GW anymore. whats with the late reviews? or lack of sites talking about it? its like nightfall has become this lame afterthought that no one wants to play or recommend. Thats at least how I feel, about the gaming industrys reaction to GW. Its funny how Gamespot makes an 8 hour marathon live for the wow expansion, but cant be arsed enough to even make a video review for nightfall

C2K · Nov 11, 2006, 12:06 PM // 12:06

I do think Guild Wars could use a better trade system, however, LFG system???

That never works in MMOs lol

You're better of typing "LFG'

Hyaon · Nov 11, 2006, 12:35 PM // 12:35

"new hero characters can be complicated to manage."

you are joking?!!!! This is so frickin simple! Flag them all individually or as a team. Aggressive, Defensive, Avoid Combat. Drag the skills like you would yourself. Add weapons and runes LIKE you would yourself.... you think this is complicated, you must think swg is some kind of ultra puzzle! [pre-cu]

Crotalus · Nov 11, 2006, 03:53 PM // 15:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by zakaria

Wait until WoW:Burning crusade comes out, GS will give it 10/10

.
Most of reviews of magazines or sites comes from WoW grinding lvl 60 mentality, they compare every MMORPG being released with the features of WoW, and to be honest no one can review or measure complex game like guild wars like its fans.

There has been much request for mounts, removal of instanced areas, OCD farming, and so on. The Sardelac Sanitarium used to be and probably still is filled with request that sounded more like features from WoW than Guild Wars. There has also been topics posted defending the grinding nature of Guild Wars, from skill to item acquisition. Most of these topics pointed to WoW and other mmorpg but all were accepted and agreed upon by Guild Wars players.

If Guild War's own player base can not differentiate between WoW and Guild Wars then how do you expect a reviewer, who has a limited time with a game, to do so?

Solar_Takfar · Nov 11, 2006, 04:04 PM // 16:04

mmm. Yes, the reviewers don't really know what they're talking about. The allegations that "gameplay grows stale after lv20" are ludicrous, it shows they're really reviewing GW with a traditional MMO mindset, which it is not. Just look at gamespot's review summary for NF: "a new iteration set in an egyptian-inspired continent"... did they even play the game?

However, they do have a point in criticizing the lack of improvements in trade and group formation. So what if Anet implements those by the time chapter 4 comes, what will they criticize? I'm sure they'll find something.

edit: I just read the Gamespy review (they usually seem much more appropriate than the ones in gamespot imo). It's mostly positive, the only qualms being the difficulty of controlling heroes while playing (it forgets to cite that you dont even need to control them if you dont want), and the need for veteran characters to grind sunspear points (valid point). It got a 4 star score out of 5, which is pretty good for gamespy (equivalent to "great!" according to their score, which is exactly what NWN2 got, for example)

Ninna · Nov 11, 2006, 04:15 PM // 16:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by allience

well i understand the poor score.
from an objective point of view NF has some obvious faults.
-game not completed upon release (the missing elite misions from the manual)

WoW shipped *missing* BattleGrounds (a big feature) and PVP Honor System

both features were in the manual and not patched into game until 8 months later June 2005, but Gamespot gave WoW a 9.5 anyhow

Andisa Kalorn · Nov 11, 2006, 04:22 PM // 16:22

It's sad that GW is reviewed to WoW's standards. I don't want GW to be like WoW. Yet I feel that GW has already made too many concessions to the grind style of gaming. With Factions came titles. Ok, but I can ignore them, no big deal. With Nightfall came titles that actually have meaning. Now I have to grind to gain an advantage (Lightbringer title, Wisdom title, etc.) I can't say I like where this is heading.

GW is about the casual player, and heroes and the new salvaging system are great. (Although, having to unlock skills for the heroes could be a bit of a grind for the new casual player). I think that it should continue to develop along those lines. And the reviewers need to get a clue if they think the level 20 cap is a problem.

penguo · Nov 11, 2006, 04:33 PM // 16:33

Well, every few months GW is getting closer to WoW. That's not why I think it got a lower score. I do think that it was given a lower score because of the fact it isn't the first expansion, and Factions had that advantage.