Curse

blue.rellik · May 25, 2008, 07:35 AM // 07:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Strangelove

And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

This killed me

arcanemacabre · May 25, 2008, 07:46 AM // 07:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

Name one other game in Starcraft's genre that has a monthly fee to compare it with.

I'd say the same for GW, seeing as it isn't an MMO.

Inger · May 25, 2008, 07:52 AM // 07:52

You guys can't really say no one would play GW if it had a monthly fee, because conversely if it had a monthly fee there would also subsequently be better content. Hopefully at least

Its like the saying goes, you get what you pay for.

RotteN · May 25, 2008, 07:54 AM // 07:54

It's still the only RP-ish game with decent competitive PvP (arena-style).

Surely PvPers talk all the time about all the stuff that "could be better". But all in all, it's not bad, and it's surely better than most of the alternatives.

Avarre · May 25, 2008, 08:16 AM // 08:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

I'd say the same for GW, seeing as it isn't an MMO.

Explain to me how GW, advertised as a CORPG, is in any way competitive?

If anything, that's just a classification trick. GW bears almost all the same game design features of every other online rpg that define the category. Trying to explain GW can't be compared to MMOs due to its subtly different categorization is just playing semantics, especially as GW has been designed in the manner of a MMO continually.

arcanemacabre · May 25, 2008, 08:32 AM // 08:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

Explain to me how GW, advertised as a CORPG, is in any way competitive?

Not sure what you're getting at, here. How is it not competitive? Does it not have some of the best PvP of any RPG out there? Hell, even PvE is increasingly competitive, what with titles that do nothing but show off (which is competition). Without the competition, it is nothing but a single- or multi-player RPG. Period. Nothing massive about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

If anything, that's just a classification trick. GW bears almost all the same game design features of every other online rpg that define the category. Trying to explain GW can't be compared to MMOs due to its subtly different categorization is just playing semantics, especially as GW has been designed in the manner of a MMO continually.

This isn't semantics, GW isn't massive. The closest game GW resembles is Diablo, and I would like to hear how similar it is to MMOs. Guild Wars 2 will likely be a different story, and if it is still subscription free, then we can make the comparisons.

enter_the_zone · May 25, 2008, 08:34 AM // 08:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abedeus

qft. If there was a monthly in GW, nobody would play.

Well, you say that. But if GW had always had a monthly and it paid for regular additional content, I reckon more people would still be playing.

Angelica · May 25, 2008, 08:48 AM // 08:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ork Pride

gw is a peasant not a king.

^^ That's your opinion!

I like GW to me it's the best game ever, not because it's free but because it has the best looking characters, the best game animations [very natural] and the most important thing to is; the very easy way to play it!

I did not play many other RPGs that I liked as GW, beside Diablo!

I just started to play Age of Conan [Hyborian Adventures] but I'm really disappointed, after waiting so long for it I thought it would be awesome. The only thing that I liked was the water and the way the toons swim!

I have already decided to leave it alone, sigh what a waste of money!

Also I tried Hellgate London, which in my opinion is much better than Conan, but not enough for me to continue to play it.

At the end of my so called rant I concluded that up til now Guild Wars is the best game for me and I really hope Anet wont disappoint me with GW2.

I enjoy this game even now after almost three years of playing, it has never happened to me before...... well beside Diablo that is!

A big thank you to all the awesome people who work at Anet to make this game even better for the future!

PS. If I had to pay to play GW .... I would gladly do so!

Abedeus · May 25, 2008, 09:06 AM // 09:06

Lul, maybe you like GW so because you think Diablo is an RPG. This explains A LOT.

Quote:

This isn't semantics, GW isn't massive. The closest game GW resembles is Diablo, and I would like to hear how similar it is to MMOs. Guild Wars 2 will likely be a different story, and if it is still subscription free, then we can make the comparisons.

Last time I checked, Diablo or Diablo 2 had servers that players host (on battle.net, but still) and the only time you can see more than 7 other people was on chatrooms, without interaction.

But if you want to compare Diablo and GW... GW fails miserably. Diablo II is in Guinness Book of World Records "2000 edition" for the fastest selling game. In two weeks over 1 million copies were sold. And after a year, 2,8 millions. If GW was equal to it, there would be already at least 8,4 sold copies of it. And lets not forget that 2,8 millions of stand-alone game, not all expansions.

Quote:

A big thank you to all the awesome people who work at Anet to make this game even better for the future!

Yes, thanks that game from Very Damn Good went to Lol what the hell is that bear doing here? .

Arduin · May 25, 2008, 09:09 AM // 09:09

For me, GW is still King. And now off for some more adventuring.

English Warrior · May 25, 2008, 09:12 AM // 09:12

guild wars is anything but king there are so many flaws in different parts of the game its unhuman.

arcanemacabre · May 25, 2008, 09:18 AM // 09:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abedeus

Lul, maybe you like GW so because you think Diablo is an RPG. This explains A LOT.

First of all, why must a game be positioned squarely in a developed genre in order to be liked? Second of all, if it isn't an RPG, what is it? The way I see it, RPG can describe a whole slew of 'sub-genres,' including, but not limited to, MMORPG and CORPG. Note the last three letters in them thar acronyms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abedeus

the only time you can see more than 7 other people was on chatrooms, without interaction.

Exactly my point. What do you suppose towns/outposts are? They are glorified chat rooms with animated avatars. Once you're actually playing GW, you're not going to see more than 7 others (aside from PvP and of course Urgoz/Deep where you can party with a whole 4 more people!). Thanks for clarifying that. - It isn't massive -

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abedeus

But if you want to compare Diablo and GW... GW fails miserably. Diablo II is in Guinness Book of World Records "2000 edition" for the fastest selling game. In two weeks over 1 million copies were sold. And after a year, 2,8 millions. If GW was equal to it, there would be already at least 8,4 sold copies of it. And lets not forget that 2,8 millions of stand-alone game, not all expansions.

Agreed, except for the "fails miserably" part. 5 million copies is nothing to scoff at. "Not as successful," sure, but certainly not "fails miserably." Just goes to show that overall, Diablo was the better game (relative to the era, of course). I don't deny that for a second.

WinterSnowblind · May 25, 2008, 09:19 AM // 09:19

Guild Wars is still the only online RPG I've ever enjoyed playing, unless you count Diablo or Neverwinter Nights, and only part of that has to do with the fact there's no monthly fee. If I thought it was a bad game, I wouldn't play it, fee or not. Personally, I hated World of Warcraft, Final Fantasy XI and City of Heroes, and wouldn't go near them, even if they were free.

I'm shocked by how many people seem to hate the game, but stick around anyway. That seems totally illogical to me, ever thought about trying something else? Or do you really have that little to be doing with your life?

Safer Saviour · May 25, 2008, 09:19 AM // 09:19

Guild Wars is a great game but it used to be so much better. Before heroes, people actually used to play with each other but now 90% of the game is solo-play and because most of the areas are instanced, it makes for a pretty antisocial experience.

I still love the 8-skill build system, the low level cap and some of the designs are amazing too but it's just stopped being fun really. I am looking forward to Guild Wars 2 though and I wish there was more news on it.

I'd still rather play Guild Wars than WoW and yes, monthy fees do factor into that decision. WoW just isn't worth the money and whilst Guild Wars probably isn't at the moment, it used to be.

Courage! · May 25, 2008, 09:21 AM // 09:21

guild wars is like glue as much as u hate it u just stay there

Cab Tastic · May 25, 2008, 09:30 AM // 09:30

Last time I looked GW wasn't free. I distinctly remember handing over cash for it.

Abedeus · May 25, 2008, 09:38 AM // 09:38

Quote:

guild wars is like glue as much as u hate it u just stay there

Yeah. I guess that's why so many people left the game already. Oh, wait, they got bored. I mean - if I can solo fow with heroes... Who can't? It's just god damn boring.

Quote:

First of all, why must a game be positioned squarely in a developed genre in order to be liked? Second of all, if it isn't an RPG, what is it? The way I see it, RPG can describe a whole slew of 'sub-genres,' including, but not limited to, MMORPG and CORPG. Note the last three letters in them thar acronyms.

Diablo 2, Dungeon Siege and NwN's single-player (because multi can be even a game of chess - rly) are HACK&SLASHes. Games where plot is just an addition, where most of players play against tons of monsters, using overpowered skills to kill those enemies. Oh, wait, this reminds me something.

Quote:

I'm shocked by how many people seem to hate the game, but stick around anyway. That seems totally illogical to me, ever thought about trying something else? Or do you really have that little to be doing with your life?

We stick around because of either friends or we try to make this game as good as it used to be.

Want a funny screenshot? Tell me what you see is strange on it.
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/573/gw566vi1.jpg

I'll tell you - a player using no consumables, no ursan and only 6 heroes clears FoW. I had a screenshot when I did 7 or 10 quests, but for the first I have something broken with my screenshoting, images sometimes are not caught, and for the second I'm too damn bored after charging through ,,elite'' area. THERE IS NO REAL CHALLENGE. What's the point if I don't even need to call a target, killing Shadow Monks is just a matter of time before they'll be overwhelmed, heroes and players have infinite health and energy... Like a god damn cheat in a single-player game.

Bug John · May 25, 2008, 09:44 AM // 09:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cab Tastic

Last time I looked GW wasn't free. I distinctly remember handing over cash for it.

sometimes, I wonder if people like you really don't understand anything, or just write stupid answers on purpose : we're talking about monthly fees... of course, you have to buy a game to play it, do you expect developpers to work for free ?

GW has great graphics (better than any other online rpg of its generation imo), and by far the best pvp system

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abedeus

Yeah. I guess that's why so many people left the game already. Oh, wait, they got bored. I mean - if I can solo fow with heroes... Who can't? It's just god damn boring.

maybe, if you weren't using the most broken build in the game, it wouldn't be so boring

it's like you're dynamite fishing, and QQing because it's too easy

Targuil · May 25, 2008, 09:44 AM // 09:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abedeus

Yeah. I guess that's why so many people left the game already. Oh, wait, they got bored. I mean - if I can solo fow with heroes... Who can't? It's just god damn boring.

Diablo 2, Dungeon Siege and NwN's single-player (because multi can be even a game of chess - rly) are HACK&SLASHes. Games where plot is just an addition, where most of players play against tons of monsters, using overpowered skills to kill those enemies. Oh, wait, this reminds me something.

We stick around because of either friends or we try to make this game as good as it used to be.

Want a funny screenshot? Tell me what you see is strange on it.
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/573/gw566vi1.jpg

I'll tell you - a player using no consumables, no ursan and only 6 heroes clears FoW. I had a screenshot when I did 7 or 10 quests, but for the first I have something broken with my screenshoting, images sometimes are not caught, and for the second I'm too damn bored after charging through ,,elite'' area. THERE IS NO REAL CHALLENGE. What's the point if I don't even need to call a target, killing Shadow Monks is just a matter of time before they'll be overwhelmed, heroes and players have infinite health and energy... Like a god damn cheat in a single-player game.

You have "save yourselves" which is almost as overpowered as ursan. Maybe even more. And yes, fow is pretty easy. Try with that setup in HM and remove pve skills. And i see you're using new overpowered ether renewal too.

arcanemacabre · May 25, 2008, 09:52 AM // 09:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abedeus

Diablo 2, Dungeon Siege and NwN's single-player (because multi can be even a game of chess - rly) are HACK&SLASHes. Games where plot is just an addition, where most of players play against tons of monsters, using overpowered skills to kill those enemies.

And yet, still RPGs. There is still character progression, loot, dungeons, and random hit and damage calculations. Perhaps you can explain better what makes them not RPGs, rather than what makes them something else. I explained what makes GW not an MMO; it isn't difficult to do if you can pinpoint it.

Also, because I want to razz ya,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abedeus

Want a funny screenshot? Tell me what you see is strange on it.
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/573/gw566vi1.jpg

I'll tell you - a player using no consumables, no ursan and only 6 heroes clears FoW.

I can clearly see TntF! and SY! which are just as "easy button" as Ursan. Not really an achievement, if you ask me.