Notices |
Dec 25, 2008, 08:52 AM // 08:52 | #321 | |||||
Forge Runner
Join Date: Oct 2006
Profession: E/Mo
|
Quote:
Time spent playing is not part of time>skill though, as long as the time spent increases skill or is spent trying to increase skill. The very definition of grind is that there is no skill neccessary...it basically becomes mechanical repetition. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You are right about the free online play part though. Brilliant marketing by Anet...but its flaws have obviously been exposed over time. |
|||||
Dec 25, 2008, 02:01 PM // 14:01 | #322 |
Frost Gate Guardian
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: scotland
Guild: shadow hunters of light
Profession: W/Mo
|
dreamwind you would need the judgment of solomon to define grind
|
Dec 25, 2008, 08:35 PM // 20:35 | #323 | |
Forge Runner
Join Date: Oct 2006
Profession: E/Mo
|
Quote:
Soloman has spoken. Anyways I'm out of this thread for a while, be back to telling people on the internet they are wrong after the holidays! |
|
Dec 25, 2008, 11:31 PM // 23:31 | #324 | |
Ascalonian Squire
Join Date: Sep 2008
|
Quote:
The problem with that is that the Gaming industry (or any industry for that matter) doesn't always follow the dictionary when it classifies game genres and features. I.E. If the gaming industry followed the dictionary's definition of Role-Playing game, then ALL video games would be classified as such since you're always taking on some sort of role, but instead the gaming industry created it's own definition of RPG and made it into a specific Genre. Same can be said for grind. My exact definition of grind and it's effects on a game are probably different from yours. And as the definition gives NO specific definition of grind in a Gaming world, then you can't try and limit it. I've seen the dictionary argument used before ( in the case of GW being an RPG and how having/not having character development affects that) and it simply doesn't work if the said game, developer, or player base follows that definition. |
|
Dec 26, 2008, 03:27 AM // 03:27 | #325 |
Furnace Stoker
Join Date: Nov 2006
Guild: Ageis Ascending
Profession: W/
|
There is no "skill" in PvE by most players standards. Since the foes are static it is just a matter of learning what skills the monsters use, bringing the proper counters and taking the correct path through the mission/quest/dungeon. Once you learn this it is exactly the same every time.
Yes there is some skill for those that create the first builds and the most efficient builds. IF they never shared that knowledge maybe others would be forced to work a bit harder to find a means of completing PvE. The fact is once the first few people are through the game they tend to post builds on forums, and too offer help to those in need. Skill in GW has always been relegated to the PvP side of the game, where your opponents skill bars are random and unpredictable as well as live and not repetative. The topic of Time vs Grind doesn't even belong here since we have no idea of the ratio between levels and work required to achieve them. What we could disscuss are the goals of PvE. Is the main goal to reach max level or to complete the story line? How are those two linked together? Another question we can't answer yet is just how much will a players level effect the characters power/performance. Will the foes we fight in game be tied to their location (as in GW) or tied to the level of character fighting them? There is just far too much that we do NOT know about GW2 for anyone to make a solid argument one way or another. |
Dec 26, 2008, 06:03 AM // 06:03 | #326 |
Ascalonian Squire
Join Date: Sep 2008
|
My guess is, based off earlier interviews & information, is that they'll be tied to location since ANet is aiming for a primarily persistent world. It'd be very difficult to set enemy strength to level if you've got ppl from a wide range of levels in the same persistent location at the same time
|
Dec 26, 2008, 06:42 AM // 06:42 | #327 |
Frost Gate Guardian
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: You will never know!!!!
Guild: Guardians of Hades [GoH]
Profession: W/E
|
it should never stop so i can become immortal muwahahahahaha!
|
Dec 26, 2008, 03:06 PM // 15:06 | #328 | |
Forge Runner
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canada bro.
Profession: A/D
|
Quote:
Doesn't matter. You dont take your level 18 character into Pvp and expect your going at full performance. However the fact that the level cap is easy to meet means that 1) It does not take long for everyone to be at an even playing field. Which is good because in many games, not only is the level cap high, the exp you get is ridiculously low. If anything pve should just slightly ready you for pvp. So if theres grind, it's for good reason. 2) Skill > Time, doesn't mean you don't need to put in time. Some will disagree with my examples but say. Gunz online, a good person can get their shots, k style well, dodge the shots. A skilled person can beat a less skilled person with higher levels. However levels make you better in terms of equipment. If your skilled you'll win (unless the difference in skill is low), but time will make you even better. If you want GW to be like your out of the box console/PC fps, where you just get in and play, well good for you, but that doesn't keep the average person interested for long. Which is why a balance in where time is required (if your a pve character, or for skill unlocks in pvp) but not overcentralizing, and that skill can prevail, is necessary. Sorry if my sentence structure is horrible. |
|
Dec 28, 2008, 12:57 AM // 00:57 | #329 | ||
Hall Hero
Join Date: Feb 2006
|
Quote:
I put an emphasis more on the gameplay itself. As long as you can't beat everything within the campaigns without any thought or actual builds - replacing that instead with "grinded up titles and stats - I'm good. As long as it still requires actual input and coherent build organization to complete the most challenging and difficult areas in the game, I'm fine. What Ursan did was completely change what was required of you to succeed in the game. Good games require skill, and Ursan promoted little: it completely threw out team and profession organization, was linked to a title putting a *very* huge emphasis on "time", and overall required little knowledge besides "don't pull big groups". I don't see the introduction of all this new "grind" terribly damaging because there was already "grind" at the start with high-end armors and rare weapons, and the "grind" that's been implemented into Guild Wars is pretty much the same as those achievements in a lot of those 360 games. I don't find titles to be a problem because they a very short extension for the game for a segregated and selected group of players, while Ursan provided a different and drastically simpler way to play the game in its entirety. Ursan changed the gaming landscape, titles added more to that landscape. You claim Guild Wars is different from those other games because they didn't change. That's because most of them couldn't change, at least not in the way Guild Wars is able. Super Smash Bros Melee and Brawl included a trophy system, but the previous Smash titles didn't. XBox Live didn't implement achievements until the 360 came out. These games did in fact "change". As you've already stated, it's the fact that Guild Wars has changed - period - that's of concern. Not that it changed into something good, not that it changed into something bad, but that it just changed. Not only that but it was implied that ANet would never implement any of these types of systems - and this brings us to the subjective matter of interpretation. Like Lucky? Unlucky? Sweet Tooth? Party Animal? Oh noes, tha game is ruind. Meanwhile, the HoM is recognizing non-goldsink related tasks - completing any of the campaigns, collecting rare suits of armor, earning numerous mini-pets, etc. "Grind" according to whom? You? Not everyone is going to have the same definition. Over the holidays, one of my good friends from my horde guild in WoW was asking about GW. He asked if it had the same form of grind WoW had, with all of the rep grinds and etc. I told him that yes, there was a system very very similar to WoW rep grinds with the Factions and EOTN groups. But then I mentioned the fact that all gear and weapons are equal, regardless of rarity and whatnot. After I gave him a long description and explanation of how gear works in GW, he easily said "oh...but that's not grind". "Grind" to him meant having to do exceedingly tedious tasks repeatedly in order to get to the "good stuff". An example of that would be requiring you to be a Sunspear Castellen before you're even allowed to leave the starting isle in NF. Quote:
If it's because "it works" then what specifically about it "works", and why wouldn't a higher cap work just as well? How would that imply that a higher cap wouldn't work? If it's because it didn't want an emphasis on leveling, then why have a level at all? There are just as many reasons for having a level 20 cap as there are for having an X cap. Pretty much all of them subjective and dependent on how it's set up. A lot of people here are saying they want the level cap to be high and to take a while to max. Why they want that isn't fully shown, but it's unfair to assume they all want it to "take longer to grind out". Some might just want it as a marker to show how long and far they've progressed through the game. |
||
Dec 28, 2008, 03:10 AM // 03:10 | #330 |
Bubblegum Patrol
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Singapore Armed Forces
|
I wouldn't mind if they removed the leveling mechanic altogether and purely focused on zone design.
__________________
And the heavens shall tremble. |
Dec 28, 2008, 04:49 AM // 04:49 | #331 | |
Furnace Stoker
Join Date: Nov 2006
Guild: Ageis Ascending
Profession: W/
|
Quote:
I am certainly not opposed to this idea, but how would you integrate character development without levels? Would every character start off with "max stats" and only aquire new skills as they progressed through the story? I tend to think that the 'no level' aproach would blur into the 'infinate' level aproach. |
|
Dec 28, 2008, 05:36 AM // 05:36 | #332 |
Likes naked dance offs
Join Date: Aug 2005
Guild: The Older Gamers [TOG]
|
Hasn't this question been answered already? The earlier you reach the level cap relative to the end of the game, the more content is available to actually play in once you have completed the tutorial/leveling up part of the game.
|
Dec 28, 2008, 05:59 AM // 05:59 | #333 | |
Hall Hero
Join Date: Feb 2006
|
Quote:
It's all about how it's set up. When you played Baldur's Gate or Nights of the Old Republic, was your thought always "I need to get to the cap to experience the actual game"? Like Zwei said, the level cap doesn't matter if they make the game start at 1. This is what we saw in Proph and saw abandoned in the later releases due to so many people already at level 20. |
|
Dec 28, 2008, 08:09 AM // 08:09 | #334 | |
Likes naked dance offs
Join Date: Aug 2005
Guild: The Older Gamers [TOG]
|
Quote:
|
|
Dec 28, 2008, 01:28 PM // 13:28 | #335 | |
Hall Hero
Join Date: Feb 2006
|
Quote:
I merely brought up KotOR and BG as examples where leveling shouldn't be a priority. If everything's done right, if everything is set in place, we shouldn't even care about leveling at all. That said, I don't see how Guild Wars contains more "replayability" than the previously mentioned RPGs. |
|
Dec 28, 2008, 02:14 PM // 14:14 | #336 |
Furnace Stoker
Join Date: Nov 2006
Guild: Ageis Ascending
Profession: W/
|
I have to agree with Bryant in one aspect.
When you have a high level cap that can be attained it doesn't mean you must in order to finish the game. Take a look back at almost all of the Final Fantasy games. The higher your level the easier it became to complete the game, but you never had to reach max as the only option to completing the game. When the level cap becomes a nessassary goal in order to complete the game then it is GRIND, and that is something GW is trying to avoid. In Prophicies you could complete the game without ever reaching level 20. That is the model that many wish GW2 to follow, regardless of whether the cap is at 20 or 200. |
Dec 28, 2008, 02:44 PM // 14:44 | #337 | ||
Bubblegum Patrol
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Singapore Armed Forces
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
And the heavens shall tremble. |
||
Dec 28, 2008, 03:51 PM // 15:51 | #338 |
Furnace Stoker
Join Date: Nov 2006
Guild: Ageis Ascending
Profession: W/
|
There is a reason that no levels is simple. This looks very much like the formula of a First Person Shooter. Your only change to the character you play is the weapons/skill you have equiped.
If skills/items are only awarded as mission completion rewards then you would have a game that is entirely focused upon completion of the story. So in fact characters would still have levels, just no number representing that level for others to see. Your level would be equal to what skills/items you had for that character. |
Dec 28, 2008, 04:49 PM // 16:49 | #339 |
Desert Nomad
Join Date: Jul 2006
Profession: W/R
|
Im all for lvl 50 caps with factions capping. But I am also for lowering the rewards for gaining in level.
|
Dec 29, 2008, 12:13 AM // 00:13 | #340 | ||
Likes naked dance offs
Join Date: Aug 2005
Guild: The Older Gamers [TOG]
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:19 PM // 15:19.
|