Positive threads.....is it possible?

[Red Sonya]

I made a Positive Thread also, thanking A-Net for the recent "changes" (nerf) and then it got swamped by the igmo's who are against the changes (nerf). It appears when one is happy about changes (nerf) they become a nana nana boo boo/rub it in their face type of poster; as the moderator implied (sorta biased I'd think) in the near closing of the thread, then eventually closed it anyway. I don't understand why I can't be just as excited about change (nerf) as I would a maxed out weapon with the perfect stats and rush to a forum to tell about it and thank A-Net for it?

[PieXags]

Well as "positive" as your thread may have been your post did make the whole thing seem like the sort of "in your face, haha we win" sort of thing. And you should've known that as well, seeing as you labeled yourself a "vocal minority" in the first post, you clearly knew that you would then be pissing off the "majority" of those other members. Besides, the thread drowned itself in the same old argument bullshit that's seen in 1,000 other threads over the exact same thing so it seemed reasonable to close it in my eyes.

This is a positive thread though, that I'm happy about. Then again, I'm always happy. So I guess I'm more-so happy than usual.

[Numa Pompilius]

The big problem is that kiddies think it's cool to be negative.

I mean, just look at the idiotic replies the OP's get in this thread from morons like caz67. Their favorite exploit gets nerfed, and then the game is TEH SUX!!!!11!!one

Yeah, the game is worthless now that one can't use the cookie-cutter 55/105 build. After all, the only fun to be had in guildwars was Farming With Protective Bond, wasn't it. Morons.

The game is RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOing great.

The simple fact of the matter is that it's the best mmorpg (and it is one) on the market. It's got the best graphics of any present computer game. It's got the best PvP of any present rpg, it's got a big-ass world which takes several hundred hours to explore, and, get this...

it's also the CHEAPEST of all present mmorpgs.

Although that last point is perhaps not so good. Because that's also a big reason why there's so many morons here.

Basically, to people like caz67 I can only say one thing: RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO off. Go buy WoW. You wont be missed, and you'll learn the real meaning of 'nerf' and 'grind'.

Sorry for ranting, but the stupidity of some people just gets to me.

[Sanji]

MMORPGs are defined by their persistant worlds, Guild Wars is nothing but instances and chat room hubs with an interactive graphical interface cleverly connected together. It is as much as an MMORPG as Dungeon Siege or Diablo. The only difference is that instead of creating games like in Diablo, users form a party to create their own exclusive instance or are thrown in a gladiator style Arena Death match were they are random (Or in GvG, specifically) thrown against an opposing team.

Anet took pains to establish that Guild Wars wasn't an MMORPG for reason, if you want to split hairs, fine, but that doesn't make Guild Wars a genre that it isn't. Guild Wars is truly not a free MMORPG and it shouldn't be purchased or played as such. Though I don't think ArenaNet is trying too hard to discourage FPS players seeking a pick up and play Deathmatch fest or MMORPG players looking for a month-fee free World of Warcraft from buying a game that is unsuitable for their desires.

[Numa Pompilius]

Originally Posted by Sanji

MMORPGs are defined by their persistant worlds,

So say people who want to be able to differentiate between GW and The Rest, yeah. However, to me a game that's a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game is a MMORPG.

Besides, GW does have a persistent world (the towns) just like e.g. WoW has instances.
Actually even the persistent parts of WoW are regions loaded on demand - you're not actually in the same world as ALL other players, only the same as the ones in the same region on the same server.

So it's just a question of relative balance, a quantitative not a qualitative difference.

Guild Wars is nothing but instances and chat room hubs with an interactive graphical interface cleverly connected together.

So if there was combat in the cities of GW it'd be a MMORPG, but as there isn't, it isn't. Meaning that you're not defining MMORPG by whether the world is persistent, but by the combat.

Anet took pains to establish that Guild Wars wasn't an MMORPG for reason, if you want to split hairs, fine, but that doesn't make Guild Wars a genre that it isn't.

Again, splitting hairs is exactly what you're doing: you're saying GW isn't a MMORPG because of quantitative difference on a sliding scale. That's as hair-splitting and subjective as it gets.

seeking a pick up and play Deathmatch fest or MMORPG players looking for a month-fee free World of Warcraft from buying a game that is unsuitable for their desires.

FPS players don't really have much reason to get GW, there is nothing deathmatchey about it, but any PvE MMORPG player will feel right at home in GW. Well, except that they wont have to wait in line to kill the Evil Foozle.

[Sagius Truthbarron]

I hardly ever see positive threads in the main forum area. Most of them are in the sub forums.

Do people want to be happy or positive or upbuilding? Just watch the news. Do they tell you about the new school that got built down the street? No. They want to go on and on, long sob stories about how 6 people died in a bus crash, one man drowned, pychopath on the loose, demolitions, house burned down, policemen killed, woman hit by car, lions, tigers, bears!! OH MY!

[Red Sonya]

You know it might just BE the MEDIA's fault many of us are like we are. It's true how much GOOD news is ever reported, all we ever see is the bad, the ugly, but hardly ever the good. So maybe by being brainwashed by what we've grown to know as a way of life, negative is what gets "attention" the most. It's pretty obvious just reading some of the threads. Many would make some grand politicians, many have the mudslinging down pat.

I'm sort of an eye for an eye type though, if you talk to me in a normal tone that's what you'll get back, if you call me names or flame me, that's what you'll get back as well. Of course the moderators will take care of both/all of us when it comes to that, but, it comes to that pretty often here when someone disagrees with someone elses wants or opinions. Online perception of true meaning is a large problem in a lot of conflicts, you can't "tone" your text like you can in person and many things are misunderstoond and then lead to more misunderstandings or flame wars.

Hey that's an idea for a new mmorpg FLAME WARS! To get experience you must flame as many people as you can. hehe I can hear it now, NERF people who can type faster than I can. haha

[Aniewiel]

Originally Posted by Red Sonya

You know it might just BE the MEDIA's fault many of us are like we are. It's true how much GOOD news is ever reported, all we ever see is the bad, the ugly, but hardly ever the good. So maybe by being brainwashed by what we've grown to know as a way of life, negative is what gets "attention" the most.

I agree. I am a 2nd grade teacher in a very poor inner city school. I can't tell you the countless acts of kindness that go on in that school on a minute to minute basis. You hear about the good and right things that go on in schools or in communities but only on the back page of the sports section of the paper or in that last 30 seconds of a news report.

I'm sort of an eye for an eye type though, if you talk to me in a normal tone that's what you'll get back, if you call me names or flame me, that's what you'll get back as well.

People have lost the fine art of debate. Most disagreements turn into temper tantrums because people are so used to having their own way and are so sure that their way is the ONLY way. Our politicians are "wonderful" role models of this type of "debate". The world society, by and large, just throws itself on the ground, kicks and screams and calls others vile names if their opinion is challenged. It's too bad that forums like this can't be tools for debate rather than havens for flaming.

[Sanji]

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

So say people who want to be able to differentiate between GW and The Rest, yeah. However, to me a game that's a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game is a MMORPG.

A lot of people play Diablo 2 and inhabit it's chat rooms screaming about how they want to trade their Godly gear or make a game to do such and such, but that doesn't mean it's an MMORPG.

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

Besides, GW does have a persistent world (the towns) just like e.g. WoW has instances.

Actually even the persistent parts of WoW are regions loaded on demand - you're not actually in the same world as ALL other players, only the same as the ones in the same region on the same server.

So it's just a question of relative balance, a quantitative not a qualitative difference.
So if there was combat in the cities of GW it'd be a MMORPG, but as there isn't, it isn't. Meaning that you're not defining MMORPG by whether the world is persistent, but by the combat.

Well, first off, (EDIT: I initially misread you talking about how people are on different servers, but I really don't want to fix this paragraph up :B) I don't even think it's possible for an MMORPG these days to take place on a mega-server where everyone is on the same one. Guild Wars took very specific pains to make everyone be on their same regional server, but that involved doing certain things different. That is, slicing up the world into tiny bits. That doesn't make for an MMORPG since (in my opinion anyways) the key factor in an MMORPG is a persistent world. Guild Wars does not have one and thus ends up feeling more like a co-op RPG.

Anyhow, zones and instances are drastically different. You have the capacity to travel to the same zone as someone and join them to do whatever midway through. You will never be in the same instance as someone unless you start it with them. Obviously that stops exploiting Missions, but that still presents a problem.

A persistent world is interconnected and involves you with everyone on your server. When you leave a town in Guild Wars, you leave the world. The towns and the outside world are not persistent but fragmented.

Guild Wars technically has four different servers. USA, Korea, Europe and the International that allows people from different servers to play together. That's an awesome addition, but again it still presents the fragmented world syndrome.

To be honest, I really like how they did towns and town districts, it just doesn't make for a persistant world. While I agree that it's better than running/riding/flying around the world can be a hassle, it's part of the experience. Sure, respawning quest monsters may hurt immersion, but so does the etch a sketch (IE: shake it and start all over) feeling of Guild Wars' instances.

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

Again, splitting hairs is exactly what you're doing: you're saying GW isn't a MMORPG because of quantitative difference on a sliding scale. That's as hair-splitting and subjective as it gets.

Actually, I think it's worthy enough that Guild Wars is doing things different and warrants whatever genre Anet wants to give it. I said you were splitting hairs because I don't think the fact that a lot of people play Guild Wars or that there is a throng of people in glorified chat hubs means it's an MMORPG. This only became an issue when you assertively stated that it was one.

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

PvE MMORPG player will feel right at home in GW. Well, except that they wont have to wait in line to kill the Evil Foozle.

I don't agree. People who play MMORPGs want typically a more expansive character development through a higher level and gear ceiling. Guild Wars honestly runs out of steam if that's what you want from it. In that aspect, even Diablo 2 is probably better at satiating the common desires of someone who is looking for an MMORPG than Guild Wars.

Anyhow, I'm just about fresh out of stamina for blow by blow posts. Destroy my arguments however you care to or agree to them, I make no promises that I'll response.

[Divinitys Creature]

Originally Posted by Dax

Mornin!
I just noticed that in the last couple of days there hasn't been a positive Guild Wars thread on page one, except for the stickies. If I was a thinkin of buyin Guild Wars for the first time, I might be a bit (to put it lightly) put off by all these threads.

.....just a thought

We are not ArenNet's or NCSOFT's marketing department. I know there plenty of silly threads around but there are also some very serious complaints threads they are not negative. Classifying things into negative and positive IMO smells like emotional rather than objective thinking. Comlaints feel negative. But it's complaints about no PvP unlocking that brought around the actually positive change of faction, and it it complaints about the poor reward rate that caused this weekend to happen.

[Red Sonya]

Yeah Diablo 2 gives sooooo much more loot and different types. I played Diablo 2 for 100's upon 100's of hours just to see what that next yellow drop was going to be. But, because you can unlock just about everything with faction points now, it rather dulls the pve game after seeing the few items that are actually available for upgrades. They are pretty pitiful actually compared to the 1000's upon 1000's of different types and styles of weapons and gear in Diablo 2.

And I know this isn't Diablo 2, I'm just comparing what one game has over another in the "content" department. Diablo 2 also had drops in a fair manner. If I went out into an area I was sure to find almost a full inventory of quality items while I left junk on the floor, but, GW's is like just the opposite, it's mostly all I ever see, junk, a few purple and the occassional gold drop and I do mean rare occassional gold drop.

GW's needs a LOT more equipment content, to the point of even dropping armor. Since they don't care about farming or twinking, adding more loot content would be the route to go. There's really nothing in the Pve game to keep the grind about it, really not even the botters, in fact it would seem if you uped the drop rate for everyone, what advantage would the botters have? The casual joe would find just as much quality stuff as the botters are selling on ebay and gold would become rather worthless if 15k armor became a rare drop instead of having to be purchased.

Twere it me I would just throw tons of stuff out there for the players to find. 1000's of items, not just the same thing with a handful of upgrades. More easter eggs and less "well there's another hour of farming and all I got was this paultry worthless rune armor drop".

Heh, create some sort of Horadric cube item for us to mission for and then let us figure out what to put into it in combinations of 3 to get something else neat out of it. I spent countless hours playing with the Horadric cube in Diablo 2 also.

A money sync would be like the gambler npc in Diablo 2, you put so much coin into an item you liked or at least the looks and type and once in a blue moon you got a qulaity item out of it.

And females, we need more female type mobs to kill. Scantily clad females at that like Raven in Diablo 2 or ANDARIAL the end boss of Diablo 2 Act I woohoo she was hot, lol I died the first few times taking her own from "staring" at her extremities too much.

Also I would add ring slots to the characters so we can find some of those "Rings of Jordans". And a neck slot for necklaces of energy or health or both.or pluses to attributes.

Heh, yeah I know sounds like I want a Diablo 2 mmo other than the one that is available now and in a way I do, I like the 3D world of GW's, but, I like the content of Dialbo 2 better than what GW's offers. THe loot is just pitifully boring.

[Tuna]

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

The simple fact of the matter is that it's the best mmorpg (and it is one) on the market. It's got the best graphics of any present computer game. It's got the best PvP of any present rpg, it's got a big-ass world which takes several hundred hours to explore, and, get this...

it's also the CHEAPEST of all present mmorpgs.

Wrong on all accounts.

Except maybe best PvP of any present RPG.

To OP: wether or not the posts are positive, they give a good indication of many of the issues in GW. The amount of negative posts is simply an indication that there is a lot of things wrong. However, if you read them you'll notice that a lot of people believe if a few simple were changed GW would be quite a great game. Its important to analyze whats being said and why its being said.

[Red Sonya]

Yes, but, the problem is instead of analyzing what's been said many analize instead.

[Aniewiel]

Originally Posted by Red Sonya

And females, we need more female type mobs to kill. Scantily clad females at that like Raven in Diablo 2 or ANDARIAL the end boss of Diablo 2 Act I woohoo she was hot, lol I died the first few times taking her own from "staring" at her extremities too much.

That's just sick and wrong...polygons and pixels on a screen and she's got all sorts of other appendages clinging to her back, bad hair and noxious breath. You're scary.

[Numa Pompilius]

Originally Posted by Tuna

Wrong on all accounts.

Well, if you say so that must be so.

Right?

Well, maybe not, since you say incredibly stupid things like:

The amount of negative posts is simply an indication that there is a lot of things wrong.

[Weezer_Blue]

Well you should be put off. People don't make negative threads just cause they like to bitch. These negative threads are a result of horrible decisions on behalf of the developers.

[Tuna]

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

Well, if you say so that must be so.
---
The simple fact of the matter is that it's the best mmorpg (and it is one) on the market. It's got the best graphics of any present computer game. It's got the best PvP of any present rpg, it's got a big-ass world which takes several hundred hours to explore, and, get this...

it's also the CHEAPEST of all present mmorpgs.

1. GW is a MMORPG

I'm not going to find it for you but GW is officially a 'CORPG' or something. Past that it gets a little grey. I would say GW is really a PvP game with some inane PvE section but I'm not going to argue that with you. However you can argue that GW is not a corpg if you want.

2. Best Graphics

Uh... what was this 'HL2' game?

3. Best PvP in an RPG

You're probably right. However, I don't really agree that GW is centered around the RPG element.

4. several hundred hours to explore the world

I could probably start a new character w/o twinks or rushes and kill every monster in <150 hours. Less than 100 if I hit level 20 and then went back to do it.

5. Cheapest MMO

There are free ones. Crappy free ones, but still free ones.

[Dac Vin]

Originally Posted by Tuna

5. Cheapest MMO

There are free ones. Crappy free ones, but still free ones.

So damn true. I wandered around those free MMORPG before, and all I can say is: If the game itself wasn't crappy, it was either a) very poorly balanced and it would never be fixed (PvP), of b) very poorly administrated (and in some cases, the GMs were corrupted by cheating/botting/hacking assfaces who bought a lot if ingame items). Trust my word on it!


Back on topic, well, I guess nobody likes good news, and everyone likes whining

[Numa Pompilius]

Originally Posted by Tuna

1. GW is a MMORPG

I'm not going to find it for you but GW is officially a 'CORPG' or something.

Like I said: it's a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. That's MMORPG to me, I don't see the point of separating it from e.g. WoW because WoW's got more persistent sections and less instances than GW. Arguably GW is more massive than WoW, as I can team up with anyone on any server in europe or usa, while in WoW I'd be limited to the guys on my server.

2. Best Graphics
Uh... what was this 'HL2' game?

OK, make it "prettier" graphics then.
HL2 had better physics, but the textures and models were about the same, and the lighting was worse. Doom3 *does* have better graphics, technically, but the impression isn't as good - GW simply is prettier, even though it has lower polygon count & less advanced lighting.

3. Best PvP in an RPG

You're probably right. However, I don't really agree that GW is centered around the RPG element.

To me, and probably many other, it is. In fact, I've logged several hundred hours in PvP, and no more than perhaps 10 hours in PvP. Personally I'd rate the PvE of GW as at least as good as that of EQ2. Haven't played WoW, so I don't know how that compares.

4. several hundred hours to explore the world

I could probably start a new character w/o twinks or rushes and kill every monster in <150 hours. Less than 100 if I hit level 20 and then went back to do it.

Because you've done it so many times you can do it in your sleep. How long did it take for your first character to explore the world & finish the PvE?

5. Cheapest MMO

There are free ones. Crappy free ones, but still free ones.

Ah, that's true, I'll give you that one. Forgot about the free/sw ones.

[Tuna]

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

Like I said: it's a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game.

Back before this game came out there were large discussions about this. Basically, since its instanced it falls under 'not mmorpg.'

OK, make it "prettier" graphics then.
HL2 had better physics, but the textures and models were about the same, and the lighting was worse. Doom3 *does* have better graphics, technically, but the impression isn't as good - GW simply is prettier, even though it has lower polygon count & less advanced lighting.

Actually, I'm pretty sure HL2 has some of the most advanced models we've ever seen. Technologically wise it beats out GW in pretty much everything. Doom 3 had good... darkness... Prettier is pretty much an opinion of style and its fine with me if you think that way.

Because you've done it so many times you can do it in your sleep. How long did it take for your first character to explore the world & finish the PvE?

150 hours or less (pvp included), not entirely sure since that char is long gone. Where did you think my number came from?