Curse

Winterclaw · Aug 05, 2009, 06:16 AM // 06:16

As the title says, how well did Arenanet do? What are the things they did right and you would like to see copied in other games? What are fair criticisms of what they did wrong?

Let me start this thread out with some positives:

Limited skill bars
I think that because you can only carry 8 skills at a time really made this game. There is no scrolling through multiple skill bars and I think that was for the better.

Core Classes
While the core classes aren't perfect, for the most part Anet did a fairly good job on them. I like the fact monks have protection skills and aren't red bar go up only. I like the fact that warriors play different depending on the type of weapon they are carrying. I like the fact that els can play support roles and aren't damage only (water el player here). Memsers are pretty cool too. I think that the classes more or less aren't limited to one playstyle only is a great feature.

Warriors as DPS
Tanking is bad, espcially in pvp, so I never want to see another dedicated tanking class in MMOs again... the guys with the 4 foot long swords and huge axes shouldn't be doing minimal damage compared to the guy with the 2-inch pocket knife.

Heroes/Henchmen
I'm not sure this was the best way to make the game soloable and there are a lot of drawbacks to the system, however heroes and henchmen do allow you to play without the randomness of pugs. The fact that you can control the builds and skills of up to 3 other characters in your party isn't to be underestimated. In some form or another I'd really like to see this in other games.

Looks
Admit it, GW looked pretty good for its time and has aged fairly well. Presearing, shing jea, and the shiverpeaks are all really beautiful places.

Female Els
Rawr.

No monthly Fee
Another thing that has drawbacks, but not having a monthly fee makes it a lot easier to come back to this game.

Gwen-chan
Undeniably cute. I hope Gwen and Gwen-chan come back for the sequel somehow (time travel or an identical descendant with the same name).

Strong Start
There would have never been two follow-up chapters and an expansion if there wasn't a lot of potential and fun in the original game... people wouldn't have come back to bought more. Thus the core gameplay works well enough.

Low level cap
I think that along with the no monthly fees and limited skill bars this made the game. You didn't have to grind through 100 levels. I'll admit proph was pretty slow but Factions and NF cleared that up. I like the fact that character growth after 20 is mostly about finding the right build and tailoring it to your situation.

Tomm · Aug 05, 2009, 06:26 AM // 06:26

No monthly Fee!
'nuff said!

M'Aiq The Liar · Aug 05, 2009, 06:27 AM // 06:27

The limited skill bars, low emphasis on leveling, and discouraging pure tanking (though this changed as the game aged) were positives that they definitely should consider when making Guild Wars 2. I will have to disagree with you about the core classes though. The monk is the only real essential class out of the six in a party. You can get by without any of the other five, but not a monk. And it's not just that you can get by with one, later on you have to have two or in some instances three on your team. They should look into making the class less of a must have in the future, maybe by giving other classes better survivability.

(edit) Please note that I'm referring to PvE, not PvP. I know that's completely different.

Bob Slydell · Aug 05, 2009, 06:38 AM // 06:38

I think they did a lot of good with this game. While I enjoy Factions NF and EoTN, nothing beats Pre.

I think Presearing Ascalon and the rest of Prophicies are what arena net did a hell of a great job on.

Quote:

Female Els
Rawr.

And this too!

RedNova88 · Aug 05, 2009, 06:57 AM // 06:57

While I think Anet took a wrong turn at Factions and another at NF, and a third at EotN that doesn't distract much from the fact that Anet has done a lot of risky things in GW that turned out to be a good thing. Prior to GW I honestly can't think of an MMO that lacked a dedicated tanking class. This is what got me to make a Warrior in the first place. Knowing that I wasn't going to get pushed into swinging at a dragons crotch for 30 minutes really inspired me to play a Warrior. The lack of a screen filled with 80 skills is indeed another risky move, as nearly every MMO out there gave characters a slew of abilities and most would fall into the disuse. *looks at his shamans sentry totem skill* My only real dislike in GW is that very few titles actually require any skill, and generally are just about time wasted and money spent. Anet caved and time and money sinks were added in to hush the little crybabies. People act as if Anet owes them anything when they payed 40$ or so for a game that has likely given them more entertainment than a typical 60$ game that you would beat in 6 hours, play multiplayer for a couple days, then shrug it off.

Lhim · Aug 05, 2009, 07:00 AM // 07:00

Positives:
* No mana and health potions
* Concept of all classes, especially Rits

* No monthly fees
* Lore and Cutscenes
* Sorrow's Furnace, FoW, UW
* Updates
* Heroes (later timestage of the game)
* Ability to change builds and redistribute attribute points in towns to adept to certain areas
* Maptravel
* Animations

Negatives
* Balance (SR, non-core classes)
* No randomization of foes when entering an area
* Heroes
* DoA
* Pop-ups in desert
* Fendi Nin

Probably more that I'm forgetting right now.

Bryant Again · Aug 05, 2009, 07:04 AM // 07:04

Given that it's ANet's first foray into this kind of thing, I feel that it went extremely well. Hopefully they'll learn a bit more how to keep it stabalized with GW2.

BlueXIV · Aug 05, 2009, 07:17 AM // 07:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by M'Aiq The Liar

The limited skill bars, low emphasis on leveling, and discouraging pure tanking (though this changed as the game aged) were positives that they definitely should consider when making Guild Wars 2. I will have to disagree with you about the core classes though. The monk is the only real essential class out of the six in a party. You can get by without any of the other five, but not a monk. And it's not just that you can get by with one, later on you have to have two or in some instances three on your team. They should look into making the class less of a must have in the future, maybe by giving other classes better survivability.

(edit) Please note that I'm referring to PvE, not PvP. I know that's completely different.

I run without monks almost all the time :\
N/Rt healers anyone? Or Rt primaries in a spiritspam team?
OT: Lol @ M'Aiq The Liar. Elderscrolls ftw

Anyways, I think GW has done very well in catering to all kinds of gamers. I think Anet has made the game at least enjoyable no matter if you are a casual or a hardcore PvPer, something that isn't normally found in a game

Sindo · Aug 05, 2009, 07:21 AM // 07:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueXIV

I run without monks almost all the time :\
N/Rt healers anyone? Or Rt primaries in a spiritspam team?

Read much? This is out of the core classes. No Rt there.

I really think they did a lot of things right. I love the complication of PvP. There are so many things you can use to your advantage. Interrupts, energy denial, exhaustion, bodyblocking, the way criting works, being able to dodge...they all just added to an amazing experience.

cellardweller · Aug 05, 2009, 07:46 AM // 07:46

Limited skill bars, no GCD and no skills with inordinately long cooldowns made the combat feel fast and interesting.

Max gear available to everyone easily, a level cap that you could reach easily and no consumable items eliminated the grind and made the game about fun instead.

If we ignore the little missteps taken (pve skills, consumables) the game they did almost everything better than the next best game.

byteme! · Aug 05, 2009, 08:01 AM // 08:01

Limited skill bar (thinking man's game)
Heroes
Graphics
H/H
Secondary Professions
No monthly fee
99.9% server up time
Weekly events
Annual Parties
Low level cap

just to name a few....

Rhadamanthys · Aug 05, 2009, 08:56 AM // 08:56

+4 years and I'm still playing.

I'd say they did pretty well.

mathiastemplar · Aug 05, 2009, 09:10 AM // 09:10

3+ years, great game.
Anet did some mistakes, but i total, this game is very VERy nicely done

+I agree on all the above posetives<3

hf

Archress Shayleigh · Aug 05, 2009, 09:23 AM // 09:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by deank81

Negatives
* No randomization of foes when entering an area
* DoA
* Pop-ups in desert

DoA is good.
There are popups in many more places then desert.
Spawns (rofl) there are. a few sets of ways and the PC chooses one

Lhim · Aug 05, 2009, 09:38 AM // 09:38

I know, but somehow the ones in the desert annoy me.
With randomization I mean different groups (with different profs appropriate for that type of foe) in different places each time you enter.

Avarre · Aug 05, 2009, 11:29 AM // 11:29

GW is a really superb game overall, and like most quality products, seems largely accidental. A lot of the things done wrong appear to be from the devs not being quite sure what they intended the game to be. That doesn't change the fact that the general concept of the game is far more unique and interesting than a lot of the MMOs on the market.

Pros:
Low level cap and equipment requirements.
Skillbar and attribute design rather than d2-ish speccing.
Competitive organized PvP.
Map Travel.
Emphasis on skillbar design rather than character levels/eq.

Cons:
Unlocking creates massive barrier to entry.
Far too many skills added to the game.
New classes that added nothing and caused glaring imbalances.
Questionable dev response to balance feedback.
CR.

Perkunas · Aug 05, 2009, 07:53 PM // 19:53

Nearing 4 years of play, ~6000 hrs of play time. They did a very good job overall.

I still log on everyday for about an hour, some days, upwards of 5 or 6 hours. I liked Diablo 2 and Dungeon Siege a lot and thought that they were good games. This game, IMO, ran circles around both of them. DS2 came out and in many ways resembled Diablo 2, it's main competitor at that time. I had already played D2, so goodbye DS2. I hope GW2 does not replicate a certain competitor. Comments, here and on other forums, will tell me if I will buy GW2.

Painbringer · Aug 05, 2009, 08:17 PM // 20:17

They did the following right in my eyes

1. They have no monthly fee
2. They have added content since I started (although most will say not enough)
3. I have played steady for 3 years with no complaints (although I had a little bio-shock addiction for a little while)
4. They have set a mark for the competition that honestly will be hard to reach for most startups
5. They can keep it going on a skeleton staff (hats off to you)
6. They are competing with Blizzard and hold there own
7. They have numerous fan websites devoted to them (like what I am on right now)
8. They take action to resolve issues quickly
9. With the limited staff they still visit sites and chat etc... (although not as much as before)
10. They have 95% of us drooling over a new game that none of us have a clue on when it actually will be released and have basically given us a napkin sketch of info on it.

Back then · Aug 05, 2009, 08:55 PM // 20:55

H/H are bad. They either should have designed mobs so 1 person can clear their way through the story only have to group up for missions, or made the time between missions more then just grinding your way through a fixed path from point A to point B. Either way, NPC teammates have no place in a MMO.

I also hate the way maps were designed, where you caged in by invisible walls and such. This is mainly due to the world being instanced, which is also bad, but they could have made the maps much more open.

As for what they did right... the limited skills and dual profession system is what made guild wars successful.

own age myname · Aug 05, 2009, 09:00 PM // 21:00

Well, because of Guild Wars I can't get into any other MMOs. Plus it's the only game I've played for more then 2000+ hrs.

3 years and still playing and finding things to do.