Curse

FoxBat · Jan 25, 2009, 05:13 AM // 05:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom The Pale

Actually this would not be a change at all from GW. Prophicies was in fact laid out exactly like this. If you followed all primary quests and missions then when you completed Hell's Precipice you would be around lvl 17-19.

If you followed all primary quests and missions (and didn't just run to sanctum cay), you hit 20 after augury rock- the so-called "ascension." You'd be hard pressed to do otherwise unless you are simply running through missions without killing anything.

Crom The Pale · Jan 25, 2009, 05:21 AM // 05:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoxBat

If you followed all primary quests and missions (and didn't just run to sanctum cay), you hit 20 after augury rock- the so-called "ascension." You'd be hard pressed to do otherwise unless you are simply running through missions without killing anything.

Your forgetting that ascending used to only give you a max of 2000 exp, not the now buffed 50 000 exp.

mrvrod · Jan 25, 2009, 03:30 PM // 15:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

The reason for a higher level cap is to attract immature players from other MMORPGs that think only having 20 levels that you can max in a single day is 'ghey' (in the words of an anonymous player in some other MMORPG).

Anet want more players so they are aiming to turn GW2 into more of a wow clone, based on the information we have so far - raised level cap, no heroes or hench, play the game solo with a pet or with others, ZOMG sounds like WoW!

Well, I've never played wow, and since I'm 43 I 'hope' I've grown past the immature stage.

Do all of you that are completely against raising levels just stop playing your characters after they complete a chapter and reach lvl 20?

I have a favorite character that I play, and if the lvl # was a true indication of the xp she's accrued. I couldn't even begin to guess her lvl (over 100 I'm certain).

There are those here who are advocating unlimited power and level, there's nothing wrong with wanting that, but I've always stated in my posts that all I want is a true indication of the xp my char has accumulated. Maybe it's because I'm from the old pen & paper D&D days.

There's been some real good discussion on this subject and some 'immature' rants. In the end, A-net will make the game they want to make. Some of us will be happy, some will be content, some will not be happy, and some will angrily leave the franchise in search for a game that is more to their liking.

The OP asked what we thought the lvl cap should be and why. To label people for their opinion, I believe, shows a lack of maturity on your part.

theryl2002 · Jan 25, 2009, 05:03 PM // 17:03

Cant believe this is still being discussed, they should just open up a limitless level cap, and give it a Fury-ish system where level doesnt matter in pvp, all it does is give you access to more abilities. Or they could do a Warhammer ish system where as soon as you enter a PvP zone it automatically scales your level to the average level of the players in the zone (ie. a lvl 10 enters a zone where 50 lvl 30-40's are already participating, it automatically scales you to 33-35), or they could just do to the PvP zones what they have stated that they are going to do with GvG, as soon as you enter that zone, be it at lvl 1, 2, 50, 100, 1000, your automatically adjusted to a set level, say 50, and battle commences. There are so many ways to properly allow World pvp that can accompany a limitless level-cap. Just remember World PvP doesnt mean you can PvP anywhere in the world, it just means there are areas in the world that arent instanced where you can partake in pvp. I think they should also introduce the pvp flagging system for non level capped areas, cause you know we're gonna wanna flag up when someone runs up and steals your minerals you were camping the spawn for.

cthulhu reborn · Jan 25, 2009, 05:04 PM // 17:04

What I still think is hilarious, is that people constantly worry about GW2 turning into a WoW clone. There were already tons of games out before WoW was ever conceived that had higher levels etc.
It really is silly to keep comparing GW(2) to WoW and talk about things that are not specific to WoW.

In this case the higher level cap we are expecting for GW2 is not specific for WoW. As I said most games, if not all, have a higher level cap. So yes, you can say that a higher level cap is more like other fantasy games out there, but not specifically "like WoW". For that it is too general a feature.

As far as the level cap for GW2 I am for an approach where there is no level cap and at some points the levels become honorary levels that only reflect xp gain and no longer give bonuses to the character. Also I feel that at some point higher levels should give less bonuses than the lower levels.

All in all it is hard to say much about it, because in the end, more levels will have an effect on how skills and attributes work in game and we know too little about GW2 to really know what they are doing with that. So I will see what they've made of it when it comes out and decide then whether I like it or not...if indeed feel I want to pick up and play GW2 at all. Time will tell

DreamWind · Jan 25, 2009, 07:31 PM // 19:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

And elite armors and new weapons weren't promoted and added at every expansion as well, and it *wasn't* such a wildly supported form of "endgame"?

No. There is a large difference. The previous things you mention were things that you could do in the endgame, but they weren't promoted as THE endgame (PvP was). Today titles and HoM ARE the endgame promoted by Anet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

It's their best *and* their first. It doesn't mean it's their last.

Again...changing your best is good...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

That's a pretty rusty definition because that means eventually at some point, anything and everything in a game will become grind.

Which is basically true. Anything static will eventually become easy and grindable to somebody. Of course that isn't the type of grind we are talking about in this thread, but still. The only things that don't become that way are dynamic (like say PvP).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Number of people boned = X. There could be just as many people upset at ANet making a much more similar game as there are people for it.

There could be. But they will never get back the people they boned (at least not many of them). It remains to be seen how good their choices will be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Bigger numbers can be a bit more specific to track in terms of progress and journey.

It is known more widely as a lot of other things ("I AM MORE UBER THAN U"). Besides, what is said in this thread just shows my point that these numbers DO mean something to people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulhu reborn

What I still think is hilarious, is that people constantly worry about GW2 turning into a WoW clone. There were already tons of games out before WoW was ever conceived that had higher levels etc.
It really is silly to keep comparing GW(2) to WoW and talk about things that are not specific to WoW.

The comparison is legitimate. WoW is basically one of the most successful games in history at this point. Every MMO from here on out will be compared to it, and there will be a lot of wannabe clones released trying to copy the formula. Anything Anet does to make Guild Wars more like WoW will be commented on because Guild Wars at release was almost exactly the opposite of everything else out there (including WoW). I think it is completely legitimate to compare anything to it from here on out.

bhavv · Jan 25, 2009, 08:06 PM // 20:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yawgmoth

I have big hopes in GW2 having completely unique levelling model.

It can have a completely different design than any other MMO out there, so don't be so closed-minded, thinking high levels = wow clone.

If they do it right there can be high levels and there can be no strict max level and no strict power cap at all (strict caps suck, drop them please), and still keeping the no-grind policy and having the game almost as friendly to casuals and players who join after a year since release and free of discrimination as GW1 is. Win-Win.

You can have more than half of the game as content for levels 80%-100%+ (it doesn't really matter what number is the level 100%, can be 40, 50, 60, 100, 150, anything) content and elite areas level 95%+ and levelling doesn't have to stop at level 100%!
Go above the 'max'! for coolness, elite status and slight power gain too, so the great feeling of progress and character improvement never ends. (just properely balance things, a lv105% for example shouldn't be able to do things an lv100% can't).

So drop your WoW-minds, a character 10 levels higher doesn't have to be godlike in comparison. He can just be 10% more efficient in GW2, nothing gamebreaking!

Too much optimism killed AoC and Spore.

Anet mentioned that lower leveled players in a group would be temporarilly buffed to higher levels.

The comparison to WoW is being used because that is what GW2 is pounding like. Remember the key features that made GW unique?

No level grind? Skill > time played? Party with others or alone with henchmen and heroes?

Now add level grind. Make skill = power which is relevant on how long you play for. Remove the brilliant H/H system and ability to customise your own group however you like.

GW2 just lost everthing that I liked about GW1 which made it unique, and went ahead and added features that made me quit playing other MMOs after getting fed up of grinding.

It doesnt matter how they implement more levels, if you have to grind for levels, you arent playing Guild Wars, you are playing a typical WoW clone.

We probably have had no more information yet on GW2 because Anet realised they made a huge mistake and are rethinking about adding more levels and keeping H/H. If you had a brilliant and unique game model that was only ruined by your own careless game changes and updates, why not try and go back to what was initially great about the game? The problem is they cant because this is an MMO, and all MMOs need grind to keep people playing.

If Anet really want to change GW2 so much from GW1 into a game with typical MMO features, that doesnt make me optimistic about the game, it just makes me think WTF are Anet doing?

GoodApollo1234 · Jan 25, 2009, 08:07 PM // 20:07

I actually kind of like the idea of no level cap, provided there is a power plateau at a relatively low level (50 would be fine, 20 or so would be ideal). It would be kinda fun to show off your "would-be" level, as sort of a plus for those of us who ARE willing to pour hours upon hours into playing the game.

kupp · Jan 25, 2009, 08:14 PM // 20:14

I find it funny when you're saying that GW2 lost everything GW1 had when we don't have anything to judge it for. And the reason why Anet would abandon the formula that made GW a winner for another WoW wannabe format is way beyond me. I think you people started panicking for no reason when they said we'd lose the permanent instanced areas (even if not all) and you'd have the ability to solo. We have no idea how those things will be implemented, it might even be better than what it is now.

bhavv · Jan 25, 2009, 08:26 PM // 20:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoodApollo1234

I actually kind of like the idea of no level cap, provided there is a power plateau at a relatively low level (50 would be fine, 20 or so would be ideal). It would be kinda fun to show off your "would-be" level, as sort of a plus for those of us who ARE willing to pour hours upon hours into playing the game.

All it would do is bring level discrimination to GW. The 'OMG, you are a low level, that makes you a noob, I R high level and that makes me pro' kids would overrun the game.

People that enjoy the merits of the current level cap and old skill > time features... Oh why do I even bother, they've already left the game ages ago.

Go ahead and make GW2 another typical level grind game, the players that used to enjoy GW1 will be long gone by then.

bhavv · Jan 25, 2009, 08:52 PM // 20:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by kupp

I find it funny when you're saying that GW2 lost everything GW1 had when we don't have anything to judge it for. And the reason why Anet would abandon the formula that made GW a winner for another WoW wannabe format is way beyond me. I think you people started panicking for no reason when they said we'd lose the permanent instanced areas (even if not all) and you'd have the ability to solo. We have no idea how those things will be implemented, it might even be better than what it is now.

I am speaking in a hypothetical sense that if such changes were made, that is how I would feel about the game. My suggestions are based purely on Anet saying that GW2 will have more levels, no more heroes and hench, and be soloable with a companion. Sorry, but running around solo with a pet in GW would defy the whole fun that is H/H. I absolutely adore the H/H system. I couldnt care less if it would be soloable or not, without my own customised party of AI characters, it will in no way whatsoever be anything like GW1 to me, it will instead be exactly like soloing in WoW, Lotro, or AoC, in other words, hi boring WoW clone.

I have tried just about every MMO on the market, nothing is as fun as being able to use H/H is. Running around solo is just boring in comparison, the only game that it is enjoyable in is The Elder Scrolls series.

GW = Grind free level cap for all, and H/H for immense enjoyment of PVE. If just those two features get removed, GW is dead for me personally.

Bryant Again · Jan 25, 2009, 09:18 PM // 21:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

No. There is a large difference. The previous things you mention were things that you could do in the endgame, but they weren't promoted as THE endgame (PvP was).

Do you ever see a game where PvP was promoted as "an endgame?" When you're done with the story component, what else is there to do in a game besides participate in the online matches? You can say this of every single game with multiplayer attached, all the way from Doom to Neverwinter Nights and then some.

The problem? Not everyone likes PvP and not everyone likes to play with others, and their only choice is to play something else. However more developers are starting to take note of this, largely Epic with Gears of War 2's Horde and bots-only modes. It's meant less to shift focus away from one to the other and more to broaden your focus and attention to a wider variety of players.

So to correct a statement:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Today titles and HoM ARE the endgame promoted by Anet.

...for those who have no interest in PvP. The PvP is still there. The problem wasn't in the direction, it was in the performance.

And now again, two of the same:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Again...changing your best is good...

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

There could be. But they will never get back the people they boned (at least not many of them). It remains to be seen how good their choices will be.

Apples and oranges. The same great taste doesn't stay great for everyone. Some people get bored of the same thing, some don't. Some will shun an artist for experimenting, others won't.

Also, their choices will only be "bad" if they're performed bad. I'd have nothing against ANet wanting to make a racing game as long as it's a good racing game. I'll appreciate any direction they take as long as the performance is solid. Broken record, gooooooo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

It is known more widely as a lot of other things ("I AM MORE UBER THAN U"). Besides, what is said in this thread just shows my point that these numbers DO mean something to people.

But (SUP BROKEN RECORD) not for the same reasons. What we don't know is which view ANet is taking in mind when implementing these higher levels: A Blizzard way or a Bioware way? An EQ way or an Oblivion way?

I've been showing that not everyone wants higher caps for the same reasons. Some people indeed just see it as nothing but a number.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

It doesnt matter how they implement more levels, if you have to grind for levels, you arent playing Guild Wars, you are playing a typical WoW clone.

That's only if they make it to where you have to grind for those levels, though. Unless you consider long time to reach = grind, in which case Oblivion is apparently an off-line WoW clone.

kupp · Jan 25, 2009, 09:49 PM // 21:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

My suggestions are based purely on Anet saying that GW2 will have more levels, no more heroes and hench, and be soloable with a companion. Sorry, but running around solo with a pet in GW would defy the whole fun that is H/H. I absolutely adore the H/H system. I couldnt care less if it would be soloable or not, without my own customised party of AI characters, it will in no way whatsoever be anything like GW1 to me, it will instead be exactly like soloing in WoW, Lotro, or AoC, in other words, hi boring WoW clone.

That I didn't know. Shame, the first thing that comes to my mind when I think about GW is the party system and the whole teamwork. I was wondering how that would work in GW2, but must have missed that line in wich Anet said they would remove H/H from the game. Kinda sad really.

But still, I stand by my point. The fact is we have nothing to judge the game for even from what they've told us, in the end we can get a good product there. I've been playing for quite a while and have all campaigns, and I love GW how it is now.... If it does turn out to be a WoW clone then I definitly won't play it. But I'll give Anet and GW2 the benefit of the doubt and I'll be following the game very close, might even buy it if I like what I see from the first impressions after the open beta/release.

DreamWind · Jan 26, 2009, 01:03 AM // 01:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Do you ever see a game where PvP was promoted as "an endgame?"

Yes, many...including Guild Wars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

The problem? Not everyone likes PvP and not everyone likes to play with others, and their only choice is to play something else.

Who's problem? The players who bought the game hoping it was something else? Surely its not Anet's problem. They created a game where the players got more than enough for their money. Is it the job of every single player or PvP game with no monthly fee to continually add new content?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

However more developers are starting to take note of this, largely Epic with Gears of War 2's Horde and bots-only modes. It's meant less to shift focus away from one to the other and more to broaden your focus and attention to a wider variety of players.

That is fine...but in this case it was a complete shift in focus rather than just a broadening of horizons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

...for those who have no interest in PvP. The PvP is still there. The problem wasn't in the direction, it was in the performance.

What do you mean the performance? I see no problems with the performance...I see problems with the direction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Apples and oranges. The same great taste doesn't stay great for everyone. Some people get bored of the same thing, some don't. Some will shun an artist for experimenting, others won't.

Fine. But if I don't like oranges why did I buy an orange expecting an apple, and then complain to the orange producers that they should make apples instead?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Also, their choices will only be "bad" if they're performed bad. I'd have nothing against ANet wanting to make a racing game as long as it's a good racing game. I'll appreciate any direction they take as long as the performance is solid. Broken record, gooooooo.

Of course. I agree with what you are saying, but what does that have to do with the direction of the Guild Wars franchise? If I don't like a certain type of game, I don't care how good it is, I still won't like it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

But (SUP BROKEN RECORD) not for the same reasons. What we don't know is which view ANet is taking in mind when implementing these higher levels: A Blizzard way or a Bioware way? An EQ way or an Oblivion way?

I've been showing that not everyone wants higher caps for the same reasons. Some people indeed just see it as nothing but a number.

We don't know how Anet is going to do it, but we can make educated guesses.

But on your other point...if level is nothing but a number, then why the need to raise it!?!?!?! Why not make it as insignificant as possible (since it is just a number)? This want to track your progress doesn't fly with me. It is bad logic to say that the number means nothing and then proceed to say it should be raised with no valid reasons for raising it.

Bryant Again · Jan 26, 2009, 02:28 AM // 02:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

That is fine...but in this case it was a complete shift in focus rather than just a broadening of horizons.

The mention of games with competitive multiplayer stating it was their "endgame" was more a point to show that it goes without saying. There's *always* going to be that "endgame" if competitive multiplayer of any sort is supported, and stating such is essentially redundant (and as shown is causing some unforeseen complications).

In terms of their focus, has ANet ever officially stated that "this is the endgame now"?

The rest of the above passage gets more or less replied to below:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

What do you mean the performance? I see no problems with the performance...I see problems with the direction.

And then there are people who don't see a problem with the direction and then you get stuck (see: this thread).

"GW would be fine if ANet just was able to not suck ass with their performance."
"ANet wouldn't need to improve their performance if they just didn't go down this road."
And it goes on...

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Fine. But if I don't like oranges why did I buy an orange expecting an apple, and then complain to the orange producers that they should make apples instead?

I'd say "welcome to online RPGs". If you want a 100% chance of never getting dicked over then your best bet is to stay as far away from them as possible, because they are always changing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

Of course. I agree with what you are saying, but what does that have to do with the direction of the Guild Wars franchise?

Showing that what they're doing isn't "bad". They just want to try something different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

We don't know how Anet is going to do it, but we can make educated guesses.

And this goes exactly, directly back to the saying of "wait and see" - because until we get our hands on that game, nothing is certain.

It will be bad judging by their past actions? Only if they fail to recognize their mistakes. They fail to recognize them? That's why we're seeing GW2. Record, go.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

But on your other point...if level is nothing but a number, then why the need to raise it!?!?!?!

You know what I'm going to say here, and since you and I both know that we have complete opposite and opposing views on it, it's going to go nowhere, i.e. an impasse.

Some believe that if the level is so meaningless, erase it. Others believe that because it's so meaningless you can do whatever you want with it. There are implications/advantages with both.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kupp

That I didn't know. Shame, the first thing that comes to my mind when I think about GW is the party system and the whole teamwork. I was wondering how that would work in GW2, but must have missed that line in wich Anet said they would remove H/H from the game. Kinda sad really.

Given all that happened because of the party system, it's understandable for ANet to not want to have to tinker with something like it again. But just because it will no longer have those mechanics doesn't mean that GW2 won't be interesting, especially since it's been stated how much more open-ended it's going to become.

DreamWind · Jan 26, 2009, 03:22 AM // 03:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

In terms of their focus, has ANet ever officially stated that "this is the endgame now"?

Not in those exact terms, but basically yes. Besides, its not like they have to...its pretty obvious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

And then there are people who don't see a problem with the direction and then you get stuck (see: this thread).

But if the performance was good, those same people wouldn't have had a problem if the direction remained the same. If the direction changes, all you do is piss a lot of people off who enjoyed the previous direction. You don't really gain much and you risk performance being worse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

I'd say "welcome to online RPGs". If you want a 100% chance of never getting dicked over then your best bet is to stay as far away from them as possible, because they are always changing.

There is a big difference between making changes to a game and completely changing the direction/philosophy of a game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Showing that what they're doing isn't "bad". They just want to try something different.

Which is "bad" if the previous something was "good".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

And this goes exactly, directly back to the saying of "wait and see" - because until we get our hands on that game, nothing is certain.

It will be bad judging by their past actions? Only if they fail to recognize their mistakes. They fail to recognize them? That's why we're seeing GW2. Record, go.

Both on some levels. What is certain is what has been announced, and what Anet has done (and is still doing) in GW1.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Some believe that if the level is so meaningless, erase it. Others believe that because it's so meaningless you can do whatever you want with it. There are implications/advantages with both.

Ok let me try to explain my problem. Yes there are people as you describe, but there are many more who aren't that way. If you believe level is meaningless and that you can do whatever you want with it (like raise it), there has to be a reason behind it to satisfy the people who think you can't do what you want with it (like me). There are even more people (probably multiple times over) who believe the level DOES mean something and want the level raised for that reason. I have problems with both of those.

bhavv · Jan 26, 2009, 09:26 AM // 09:26

Quote:

That's only if they make it to where you have to grind for those levels, though. Unless you consider long time to reach = grind, in which case Oblivion is apparently an off-line WoW clone.

How is oblivion a wow clone?

1) You can play through the whole game at level 1 thanks to level scaling with no pressure to level up.

2) Leveling up happens as you simply play the game and use your skills

3) you can reach level 30 in the vanilla unmodded game in just 2 days as I can.

4) If you want to start the game at level 50 with no grind whatsoever, open up the console and use the Advskill and Advlevel commands.

There is no grind in oblivion at all if you choose not to play it.

One feature that I thought would be good in GW2 is to make extremely rare and powerfull PVE skills difficult to find and aquire. Rather then grinding for levels, you could instead choose to grind for something like Pain Inverter if you want to aquire the skill. Then the differences between players wont be based on level, but on who has which skills. Also to compliment such an idea, they could have epic bosses that rather then requiring a high level to defeat, actually require the use of some of these PVE skills. So instead of grinding for titles and levels, you could instead be doing quest chains and raids to aquire these rare skills or powers.

Something like Gandalf having had to have adventured to and fought the Balrog in Moria before becoming Gandalf the White and gaining new powers.

Master Knightfall · Jan 26, 2009, 12:05 PM // 12:05

The thing about the Arena series: Daggerfall, Morrowboring and Oblivion is that you really have to take minors as your majors if you don't want to levelup too fast and enjoy the whole game. It's way too easy as you stated to get to level 30 or more in just a couple of days as using your majors levels you up a lot faster than using your minors. But, still the whole series is great except for Morrowboring...I just never could get into that sorry combat system it used. Daggerfall an Oblivion have the best combat system of the series.

Coraline Jones · Jan 27, 2009, 05:46 AM // 05:46

I find it really amazing that people can talk about something as vague as a "level" without having any information at all about what leveling up will give, how the game will play, or anything really relevant to the success of a game. No game has ever become a success or failure because players judged it as having too many levels. If I could ask NCSoft a single question about Aion, then I sure as heck would not ask them if they could limit levels in the game.

However, I can say that when players max out their levels too quickly (in Guild Wars, you can max out a character in a single day if you wanted), some players do get pretty upset and start to grumble about feeling cheated. Yes, some of my friends walked away when they hit Level 20 and felt like they couldn't get any more powerful. The convention in RPGs is to make leveling-up a big deal. There's a certain satisfaction in doing it, and if it wasn't important, then why bother implementing a level-up system at all. Guild Wars should have just used no XP entirely, made everybody Level 20 from the start, and changed the system so the game offered Skill Points as quest rewards.

Finally, I like how this thread talks about keeping the sanctity of Guild Wars, as if Guild Wars wasn't a flawed model in the first place. People will quote about how this game is "skill over time played", but then other threads will talk about how broken the PvE game is with PvE skills, consumables, and/or total lack of skill it takes to kill monsters is in the whole game. In the PvP spectrum, people complain about the lack of skill balance, the leeching, the bots, and how things like /rank emote and cape trim don't even equate to player skill anymore. In fact, I can't think of a single thing in Guild Wars that doesn't have a people heavily complaining about it. Dye on clothing. Quest rewards. Armor designs. Mission length. Hall of Monuments. In short, I find it amazing how people talk about how Guild Wars is some kind of gaming ideal, but immediately afterwards, another thread will whine about how terrible and busted it is. Looking over Guild Wars Guru, I think the latter seems to be more prevalent.

DreamWind · Jan 27, 2009, 06:08 AM // 06:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coraline Jones

The convention in RPGs is to make leveling-up a big deal. There's a certain satisfaction in doing it, and if it wasn't important, then why bother implementing a level-up system at all.

Guild Wars wasn't the conventional RPG. That was kind of the entire point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coraline Jones

Finally, I like how this thread talks about keeping the sanctity of Guild Wars, as if Guild Wars wasn't a flawed model in the first place.

It wasn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coraline Jones

People will quote about how this game is "skill over time played", but then other threads will talk about how broken the PvE game is with PvE skills, consumables, and/or total lack of skill it takes to kill monsters is in the whole game. In the PvP spectrum, people complain about the lack of skill balance, the leeching, the bots, and how things like /rank emote and cape trim don't even equate to player skill anymore. In fact, I can't think of a single thing in Guild Wars that doesn't have a people heavily complaining about it. Dye on clothing. Quest rewards. Armor designs. Mission length. Hall of Monuments. In short, I find it amazing how people talk about how Guild Wars is some kind of gaming ideal, but immediately afterwards, another thread will whine about how terrible and busted it is. Looking over Guild Wars Guru, I think the latter seems to be more prevalent.

I could go into detail on each and every thing you brought up, but let me make it short and sweet. Every single thing you mentioned is examples of things that moved away from that sanctity and originality of the game. The broken PvE game removes skill>time. The lack of skill balance moves away from the sanctity of the game's previous balance (not to mention makes PvP unplayable for many people). Don't get me started on HoM and titles. I think the raising of levels is just another example of moving away.