Curse

Jawz Swordthane · Jun 30, 2005, 06:45 PM // 18:45

A good number of posts in this forum are PvP vs. PvE related. I think it would be best for ANET to pick one side or the other as you will not be able to please both. Since EQ, WoW and others are better (by a long shot) in the PvE element I would suggest the ANET cater to the PvP crowd. Unlock all skills, give a large number of weapons selection and allow people to move around attribute points whenever they choose.

Malchiel · Jun 30, 2005, 06:46 PM // 18:46

Then they would displease the ppl who likes PvP and PvE. Great idea. Afterall, why not displease the ppl for whom the game was originally made?

Venjance · Jun 30, 2005, 06:48 PM // 18:48

I disagree that other games PvE is "much better". For me, the PvE in GW has a good storyline and point. Unlike some other PvE mmorpgs. "Let's go kill a camp of blah, blah that sit there in the same place everyday waiting to be slaughtered"

Jawz Swordthane · Jun 30, 2005, 07:00 PM // 19:00

Guild Wars is a really good game but the storyline is pitiful. I still dont understand why in the world we left Ascalon behind. If I had a choice I certainly would not leave my homeland and its people behind while they were fighting for their very existence. Also, Prince Rurik is one of the worst characters in any game period. As for grinding the same mobs in the same spots; it is the exact same in GW. When you enter a mission the same exact mobs are in the same exact areas. When you leave a town the exact smae mobs are in the exact same areas. The quests in GW dont even compare to the ones in WoW. Now Guild Wars is a great game, the graqphics are out of this world and I love to play. However, ANET should stick to their strong-point (and their selling-point) and totally eliminate the grind for players who do not choose to participate in it.

DarrenJasper · Jun 30, 2005, 07:03 PM // 19:03

Guild Wars was created to cater to the PvP crowd. Then somewhere down the line I guess the publishers leaned on them to add a PvE element and pretend it's just as important, in order to make more money. It's all been downhill from there.

Prince Daniel · Jun 30, 2005, 07:06 PM // 19:06

Guild Wars doesnt need to pick a side, it attracts a hell of a lot more people having both pvp and pve. They seem to be pleasing everyone aswell. By throwing away pve you are throwing away the core of the game and vice versa.

Sandman Uk · Jun 30, 2005, 07:07 PM // 19:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jawz Swordthane

A good number of posts in this forum are PvP vs. PvE related. I think it would be best for ANET to pick one side or the other as you will not be able to please both. Since EQ, WoW and others are better (by a long shot) in the PvE element I would suggest the ANET cater to the PvP crowd. Unlock all skills, give a large number of weapons selection and allow people to move around attribute points whenever they choose.

I think they have already

Dyeeo · Jun 30, 2005, 07:20 PM // 19:20

GODAMN. Just stop arguing about the patch for ONE week! I argued about the farming nerf patch but now I am fine. Lets just wait to see what they do with the PvE patch next week.

Weezer_Blue · Jun 30, 2005, 07:26 PM // 19:26

They don't need to pick a side. They need to isolate them from each other.

Why do I need to unlock stuff before I PvP (it's more viable in PvE, at the moment)?

Why do I need to wait for the arbitrary barrier of Favor of the Gods to be fullfilled before I can go to the Fissure/Underworld?

sigh*

ZigZag Rollmeister · Jun 30, 2005, 07:34 PM // 19:34

*ahem*

I thought they picked a side when they named the game "Guild Wars"

Arvydas · Jun 30, 2005, 07:39 PM // 19:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZigZag Rollmeister

*ahem*

I thought they picked a side when they named the game "Guild Wars"

Guild wars was mentioned in the manuscript, the X factor of weakened human kingdoms that allowed charrs take North Wall and thus the beginning of pre-searing ascalon

the name thus play a role in PvE as well.

ZigZag Rollmeister · Jun 30, 2005, 07:43 PM // 19:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arvydas

Guild wars was mentioned in the manuscript, the X factor of weakened human kingdoms that allowed charrs take North Wall and thus the beginning of pre-searing ascalon

the name thus play a role in PvE as well.

As an Afterthought.

And using that example doesn't justify that the game is called guild wars even though the storyline never mentions it outside of the one little blurb in the game manual.

GvG and PvP are the foundations of the game....always have been. PvE was just to sell more copies.

EDIT: Not trying to be a pompous fool here. It's just that the game has been marketed for PvP since day one, and I'm willing to recognize that even though I play PvE almost exclusively.

DarrenJasper · Jun 30, 2005, 07:50 PM // 19:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZigZag Rollmeister

As an Afterthought.

And using that example doesn't justify that the game is called guild wars even though the storyline never mentions it outside of the one little blurb in the game manual.

GvG and PvP are the foundations of the game....always have been. PvE was just to sell more copies.

Quoted for truth

Arvydas · Jun 30, 2005, 07:51 PM // 19:51

i wasn't trying to justify why it's called guild wars, just to say the pve side has something to do with the name. and i'm not here to argue whether it was picked because of pvp. it was just FYI.

Talesin Darkbriar · Jun 30, 2005, 08:01 PM // 20:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jawz Swordthane

...Since EQ, WoW and others are better (by a long shot) in the PvE element I would suggest the ANET cater to the PvP crowd.

I thought you had a serious post until I read that.
Dong! wrong answer.
I am certain many other former players of these games would disagree with you as well.
Additional detail and expansions can always be added; challenging gameplay and balance cannot.
By this alone, GW is "better by a long shot" than any of the titles you mention - and many more i have played that you didn't.

Talesin

Luggage · Jun 30, 2005, 08:14 PM // 20:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZigZag Rollmeister

And using that example doesn't justify that the game is called guild wars even though the storyline never mentions it outside of the one little blurb in the game manual.

It's actually mentioned a lot of times in the game.

Jawz Swordthane · Jun 30, 2005, 08:20 PM // 20:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talesin Darkbriar

I thought you had a serious post until I read that.
Dong! wrong answer.
I am certain many other former players of these games would disagree with you as well.
Additional detail and expansions can always be added; challenging gameplay and balance cannot.
By this alone, GW is "better by a long shot" than any of the titles you mention - and many more i have played that you didn't.

Talesin

1. So instance raids in EQ and WoW are not challenging?

2. Classes cannot be balanced with patches?

3 How in the hell do you know which games I have and have not played?

Rayea · Jun 30, 2005, 08:29 PM // 20:29

it could be, jawz, that its cause he's a good few years older than you and has had a chance to play a good many games that were not around when you were...
(just pointing out)

and i hear lots of peeps who are with us in GW that *used* to play EQ,Wow ect, and *Chose* to come play GW.

Norin · Jun 30, 2005, 08:30 PM // 20:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jawz Swordthane

1. So instance raids in EQ and WoW are not challenging?

2. Classes cannot be balanced with patches?

1. EQ1 was challenging up through SoV, after that, bleh. WoW is *mildly* challenging once you get to MC -- before that it is the most mindless of mindless grinds with quests and dungeons I could (and I did) in my sleep. MC quickly loses its appeal once you know the strats and grind for the "best" gear.

2. No, not really. GW has a very balanced set of game mechanics. EQ1&2 and WoW do not. And without vastly changing the way the games work and/or vastly altering how a class plays (spells, skills, equipment, etc.) they could not hope to balance the games. Mostly, those MMOs just play juggling acts where they strengthen one set of classes to the point that they have to strengthen the other set, and so on.

In GW, you not only have balance, you also have infinite challenge. The PvE aspect poses some interesting challenge, but it diminishes the same way the other MMOs do (after you have the gear and strats). However, the PvE remains slightly more challenging due to the difficulty of the NPCs and limitations on party size. Most notably however, GW shines in the that PvP offers infinite challenge: Guilds are constantly raising the bar and mixing up the strats required for success. You can't get that in some static game like EQ or WoW.

The PvE and PvP balance in GW is very well done. They should probably lower the faction prices on the PvP rewards in order to strike a compromise between the two modes of play, but otherwise, they have done a great job at presenting something that is essentially 2 games in a very cohesive fashion. I just like to think that I got 2 games for the price of one

Sierra · Jun 30, 2005, 08:35 PM // 20:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luggage

It's actually mentioned a lot of times in the game.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Like Adelburn fought in the Guild Wars, which is why he is even king now yada yada Barradin was rightful king yada yada . . or something. It's been a while. I read it the first time through, but didn't pay attention after that . . and for the first half of the game the first time through was in beta weekend events so it's been a while.

I think they tried to use a name that could be incorporated in both PVE and PVP, so the arguements over the name are just silly.