Curse

Bryant Again · Mar 20, 2009, 07:35 PM // 19:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ctb

I don't see why this is such a controversial thing...

Because, like I said earlier, a lot of people here are on a different page. You may've been referring to Alejji's post, but they may have not.

Master Fuhon · Mar 20, 2009, 08:58 PM // 20:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ctb

I'm talking about Alleji's post on page 9. If those two want to discuss the technical merits of each engine, I couldn't care less. I'm taking exception to the person who called everyone else who disagreed with him/her "blind morons" after making three clear statements of opinion about the design of the artwork in a video game.

I had to look the two words up, they aren't regular parts of my vocabulary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindness
Blindness (from Wikipedia) is the condition of lacking visual perception due to physiological or neurological factors.

Such neurological factors could be caused by Warcraft addiction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moron_(psychology)
And a moron, also according to wikipedia: "Moron" was coined in 1910 by psychologist Henry H. Goddard from the Greek word moros, which meant "dull" (as opposed to "sharp"), and used to describe a person with a mental age located between 8 and 12 on the Binet scale.

The term moron has a coined designation by its creator similar to the way it has been used in this thread. Cartoon looks are probably designed for people with mental ages somewhere close to between 8 and 12. The terminology “blind moron” came up in the discussion about looks; it wasn’t related fully to the game content itself.

So for future discussions, it would have been more appropriate for the methodology to have been included along with the label. At this point, I think if Alfred Binet had separated his theory of intelligence into multiple intelligences; people who think Warcraft looks better might be classifiable as “blind morons” within social/artistic intelligence disciplines. It might have to do with some consideration of neuroses involving preferences away from realistic looking objects or people, something that someone might consider some form of mental retardation. That’s just my assumption. I typically do not agree with the intelligence standardizations other people have, but I can see those types of things being classified that way based on development of the theory that came out of the early 1900s.

Talic · Mar 20, 2009, 10:45 PM // 22:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sonya

Graphics smafics WOW has 11 million SUBSCRIBERS, GW sold 6 million total copies of four parts, thus WOW rules is the best game out there for this type of play and makes more money every MONTH than GW did selling 6 million copies over 4 years. lol Which proves graphics are hardly the selling point of these games.

Graphics aside, I believe guild wars is niche marketed (mainly pvp and no subscription fee niche) is how it has done so well, it isn't trying to stand up to the behemoth known as WoW. The guild wars 2 in production however sounds like it is.. it may or may not be a fatal mistake, but that is up to time to decide.

Not going to touch the rest of the trolling in this thread, and as for the actual title name.. WoW can't kill guild wars because they are targeting different audiences.

snaek · Mar 20, 2009, 10:56 PM // 22:56

@master fuhon
i don't know if that was meant to be funny...but i lol'd

Master Fuhon · Mar 21, 2009, 12:35 AM // 00:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaek

@master fuhon
i don't know if that was meant to be funny...but i lol'd

The ability to laugh comes with the ability to recognize that one is not the joke. Or is it; the ability to laugh comes with the inability to recognize that one is the joke. That’s pretty funny in itself; because you have to have the ability to laugh in order to successfully detect when an ironic situation presents itself. Yes, laughing initially at irony is very good for you. It’s bad to not be laughing, or to be laughing continually at the same joke.

Zinger314 · Mar 21, 2009, 02:09 AM // 02:09

Guild Wars has no monthly fee. That's the only reason it has survived for this long.

Buster · Mar 21, 2009, 02:45 AM // 02:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zinger314

Guild Wars has no monthly fee. That's the only reason it has survived for this long.

As much as I like Guild Wars that is a very true statement but on the otherhand Guild Wars was not meant to have a monthly fee. Guild Wars and WOW are just different types of games. Though if people had to pay a fee for Guild Wars many would not play.

Cacheelma · Mar 21, 2009, 05:21 AM // 05:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lourens

GW and WoW are games with complete different gameplay and graphics as been said before personal taste theres no way you can compare those two games.
Whats the point of this thread? I mean its not like they are in a war they even got different communities ...

Agreed. Believe it or not (and this might come as a big suprise to a lot of people here) people on WoW's forum don't waste 11 pages discussing about games like GW. Hell, they don't even care to.

Bryant Again · Mar 21, 2009, 05:48 AM // 05:48

There's one thing GW really has that simply tops all other MMO's, and that's the instant PvP character creation. Not just because it in itself is awesome, but in terms of one of the most important factors in balancing: feedback.

A simple glance at WoW or WAR's forums will show why. All of the class forums are massively flooded with essentially "dear devs, nerf scissors and rock, signed paper", and there are rarely any moments of unbiased discussion.

The near opposite can be said of GW: there's rarely any moments of biased discussion. GW isn't about playing your "main" as best as you can, it's about playing all of them as best as you can. Because of this it allows the devs a much more filter form of feedback.

This isn't saying there aren't problems, though. But I'd consider GW's situation five trillion times worse if most people were sticking to one class.

SS Necro · Mar 21, 2009, 06:18 AM // 06:18

You cannot compare any facet of either simply because WOW has 11 million active subs (as they report to stock holders) and GW has 5 million purchases , WOW is it's own game, GW is it's own game. And semantically speaking GW is NOT and mmo. It is 100% instanced. You have a 6 to 8 player max in most areas. MMO stands for MASSIVELY MULTI.... and so on.

This doesn't make GW a bad or less desireable game, they simply are not in the same class. LOTRO is an MMO, SWG is an MMO.

immortius · Mar 21, 2009, 08:38 AM // 08:38

You could probably boil it down to:

WoW cannot kill GW because:
1. WoW does not include the the gameplay or art style of GW, while being strictly as good as or superior to GW, so doesn't represent a strictly superior offering.
2. People can play multiple games
3. Blizzard don't own ArenaNet, so can't directly shut it down.

Arkantos · Mar 21, 2009, 08:42 AM // 08:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by immortius

You could probably boil it down to:

WoW cannot kill GW because:
1. WoW does not include the the gameplay or art style of GW, while being strictly as good as or superior to GW, so doesn't represent a strictly superior offering.
2. People can play multiple games
3. Blizzard don't own ArenaNet, so can't directly shut it down.

Tbh you can boil it down to GW is not a MMORPG, and is not trying to compete with WoW.

Eragon Zarroc · Mar 21, 2009, 08:48 AM // 08:48

wow cant beat gw because gw is free. when wow players go poor, they'll migrate to gw. (albeit blizzard will be rich and anet less so ;-))

RedNova88 · Mar 21, 2009, 08:48 AM // 08:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

There's one thing GW really has that simply tops all other MMO's, and that's the instant PvP character creation. Not just because it in itself is awesome, but in terms of one of the most important factors in balancing: feedback.

A simple glance at WoW or WAR's forums will show why. All of the class forums are massively flooded with essentially "dear devs, nerf scissors and rock, signed paper", and there are rarely any moments of unbiased discussion.

The near opposite can be said of GW: there's rarely any moments of biased discussion. GW isn't about playing your "main" as best as you can, it's about playing all of them as best as you can. Because of this it allows the devs a much more filter form of feedback.

This isn't saying there aren't problems, though. But I'd consider GW's situation five trillion times worse if most people were sticking to one class.

Agreed 100%! That's because people spend so much time on one character and they feel obligated to stick with just one or two characters, and they may or may not remain somewhat ignorant about other classes. In GW, I can imagine that about everyone that has tried every class available to them and probably has most at level 20. That, and the PvP in WoW is ridiculous nowadays, it is NOT the same game that it was in 04-05, and is no longer about actual PvP. Just a bunch of people dueling in a sand box is what the PvP scene looks like now. Oh, and for the record, you CAN make an instant PvP character in WoW, but it costs you money (hey big surprise) and you are ONLY allowed to participate in the arena (can't even do battlegrounds). I love/d WoW for all the great things it brought to the table, but now that world PvP is not really there it's not really much of a World of WARcraft. If you guys have/had played the game early on, you'd understand how far it's shifted, from amazing PvP, albeit unbalanced, to mediocre and still unbalanced.

To note on what Zinger said. Guild Wars was never intended to have a monthly fee, so it's kind of silly to say it would die if it had one.

Besides all that... Why have just one when you can have both? If you like them both and have a job, you can easily save up enough for GW, with enough on the side to pay 15$ a month.

Zakarr · Mar 21, 2009, 10:42 AM // 10:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nerfed Necro

You cannot compare any facet of either simply because WOW has 11 million active subs (as they report to stock holders) and GW has 5 million purchases , WOW is it's own game, GW is it's own game. And semantically speaking GW is NOT and mmo. It is 100% instanced. You have a 6 to 8 player max in most areas. MMO stands for MASSIVELY MULTI.... and so on.

This doesn't make GW a bad or less desireable game, they simply are not in the same class. LOTRO is an MMO, SWG is an MMO.

If you want to nitpick about technical categories, this is correct. But if you want to see GW and WoW from player's point of view, it is not that simple.

Sure, GW is 100% instanced. WoW is heavily instanced too because player community has been divided to several hundred realms which are just copies from the same virtual world. One realm can hold something like 20,000 players and how many of them are online at the same time anyway? GW at least gives you an access to the whole player community without making new fresh start characters to different realms or ask real money payment from the transfer.

When talking about game experience itself, what benefits WoW's open world gives compared to GW's instanced world? I see the benefits when you are leveling a new character or making your first one. However, I don't see the benefits when you are at level 80.

Large amount of players are hanging in Ogrimmar (Horde) or Stormwind City (Alliance), talking crap or selling stuff in chat channels. Players can't do that in GW? WoW has shared trade channel with all four big cities. One of the is the most populated, second one is somewhat populated, third is barely populated and fourth is a ghost town. If you use trade channel, you can communicate with same amount of players as GW's typically populated town instance has. If you want to do general chat, it is a bit different thing because using trade channel as chat usually upset players and you go to their ignore list. So it is very minimal. GW doesn't have this problem. You can even switch town instance and have an access to another bunch of players.

Let's look the game when you have reach your maximum level. Do you wander around the open world or you do instanced areas like dungeons, raids or PvP? What open world can offer you? Low level ganking? Random pointless opposing faction city raids? Group playing with what? Some random group quests which usually are done before you are at max level anyway. Mostly open world is just daily quest solo grinding, hanging or ganking. You can't do solo grind in GW or hang with other players even if it is 100% instanced game?

I really fail to see why open world is so fantastic compared to instanced world when comparing WoW and GW. Open world theoretically could be way superior to instanced world, but its potential is not used much in WoW. Realm server will most likely crash if couple hundred players enter to the same visible area. Hurray for MASSIVE MULTIPLAYER!

Why WoW is more popular than GW? Because people have experience from early Warcraft series from years ago, because Blizzard makes quality games which have long history, because WoW will feed ego with epics items and cheap humiliation. GW requires skill for success. WoW requires just time, time and time.

DarkNecrid · Mar 21, 2009, 10:48 AM // 10:48

WoW killed GW on day 1 by them not being competitors and Blizzard doesn't give two shits about Guild Wars or ArenaNet because Guild Wars won't ever be a threat to them.

Now if Guild Wars 2 is god's grace to MMORPGing, then they might be worried, but Guild Wars and WoW were never really strong competitors with each other because they both attracted different crowds.

Fril Estelin · Mar 21, 2009, 11:28 AM // 11:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkNecrid

Now if Guild Wars 2 is god's grace to MMORPGing, then they might be worried

Slightly worried only. Activision Blizzard is a mammoth and WoW is more than an MMO now, it's become part of the society in unexpected ways (to show that games can improve kids learning skills, seen in the press). It's become a phenomenon, many many people know it without having played it, a politician organised a virtual march in WoW, it's on TV. It's become so big that only social pressure will bring it down (the same pressure that made it so big).

GW1 is making me very happy, it's the perfect game for a casual gamer like me. And I'll never ever give monthly payments to Activision Blizzard. WoW can never kill GW for me.

Lonesamurai · Mar 21, 2009, 02:07 PM // 14:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arkantos

Tbh you can boil it down to GW is not a MMORPG, and is not trying to compete with WoW.

Amen Brother

another good thread finishing quote... why is this thread still alive?

SS Necro · Mar 21, 2009, 09:03 PM // 21:03

I'm more concerned with the potential lawsuit from worlds.com. That may reshape the mmo landscape worldwide if successful. Why? GW generates no monthly income other than sales and add ons. So a large award of damages/license fees could really cripple if not end the game or any hopes of gw2.

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...ght=worlds.com

Verolyne · Mar 23, 2009, 01:45 AM // 01:45

heres my theory tell me what u think: wow is a hard core live-in-ur-moms-basemnt-and-lose-all-friends game. i used to play and you have to play ALL THE TIME to get a high level. also, ive found that in wow, you dont really have fun unless you are an extremely high level. people that are level 80 have put in at least 400 hours at the very VERY least. this is ridiculous. i quit wow for that reason. i the started GW and found its a more relaxed easy game. u arent searching for sunken treasure without a boat (metaphor) and u always no what to do and the biggest thing: you can play GW for a week or two and have a level 20 and the best obtainable armor in game. in wow that takes a year if your a hardcore gamer. simple. people want to have high level characters but they dont want to bust their asses doing it.