Curse

HuntMaster Avatar · May 19, 2008, 12:58 AM // 00:58

I thought we already knew guildwars was subpar? Whats the point of this thread? To recap on things we already know? Guildwars is the swapmeet special of the mmo world, we know this already. But its free to play online, so we play it until something better comes along.

I havn't played in over a week due to the hack drama, and honestly I do not miss it at all. I see now that you endlessly work in guildwars for Nothing, Yes nothing. You cap skills you will never used, You buy items that are exactly the same, only they look different, same with armor. You spend hours and hours grinding titles that dont have any benefit to the game. Guildwars is like a ratmaze with no cheese at the end.

I'v been playing d2 lod, almost level 92. And have been having more fun leveling up and getting new gear than I have in gw. Just bought gta4, the storyline is 100% more interesting than gw's simply because of the acting, gta4 has some emotion behind it, gw does not. CoD4 has high action, keeps you interested and locked in place for hours trying to beat your highest level score. GW gets dull after 30 minutes if that. Once you have played one quest or mission in gw, you have played them all. Only difference is the later missions and quests become more tedious and anal, requiring limited skills and equipment to beat each one.

As a pve player I now understand that pve was just added as an optional play mode, its not the main focus of the game, if it were we would have more variety to choose from, PvP is the main focus, its how you win prizes and get famous, Nether of which i care for much. So GW turns into a one a week game, pop on, play some pvp, log off. Weekends are the lure to catch us, the fish who dont normally play daily, we come back, play the event, then leave til the next one.

The game is seriously lacking, but for those players who enjoy it, thats fine and dandy, I am glad they can enjoy gw and find the fun in it. For players like myself, gw is very shallow, once you get past the pretty cosmetics its just an empty husk with nothing inside. Not to meantion the almost complete lack of customer support. Their "its not our fault and we dont care" approach just makes the game less desirable to play.

Overall I give gw a 3/10 score, because its pretty, its got little funfactor and the sounds isnt bad, but after the novelty wears off, its just another wanna be surrounded by games it wishes it could be.

Malice Black · May 19, 2008, 01:06 AM // 01:06

GW deserves a 7/10 for originality. They broke the mould, and made a playable F2P game.

However, times change, and people now expect said F2P game to have P2P content. In comes GW2, F2P and will have many options that were originally only open to those that were willing to play. But, by that time the P2P world will have moved on, leaving GW in it's tracks once more.

You want Armani, but get George of Asda. (unless your British, you prob won't understand this)

Frank Dudenstein · May 19, 2008, 01:13 AM // 01:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malice Black

True MMO's have world PvP, which makes the game a whole lot more interesting. The AoC PvP players laugh at GW arena PvP.

Wow I haven't hear something that good in a long time. I needed that :-)

AoC/WoW World PvP (if that's what you want to call it) is all about running around ganking unsuspecting noobs with your uberleet gear.

Guildwars PvP was built for the competitive community that wants skill, teamwork, and tactics to decide the outcome of a match. Hence you get arenas and balanced equipment and unhappy kids. Its what competitive people want ... sorry...

aapo · May 19, 2008, 01:17 AM // 01:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante the Warlord

Even though it does have its bad points, a good arguer would bring up what good points there are about the game. You obviously posted a bit for this game otherwise you wouldn't have that title "Krytan Explorer". Why would you play the game this long because it has those terrible qualities?

- You are correct. GW has indeed improved a lot during support phase of game's lifetime. Quest location markers, material storage, skill selection window improvements, skill templates, lip movement and traders are the kind of quality things that I've been very pleased with. They don't "add" anything per se, but make gaming experience in general more enjoyable one. Game is fun to play through, but it has little replay value. When suggested to repeat same content, the quality of content becomes critical. It makes me wonder why they made minigames like Polymock, but left them on obviously unfinished state. It's not like Pokémon, where there would be market for Polymock pieces, different builds, genders and breeding etc. (i.e. quality) in addition to obvious PvP capability. People play through the questline to get those summoning skills, not for the minigame itself. Once you learn the trick to beat AI the game loses appeal quickly.

GaaaaaH · May 19, 2008, 01:20 AM // 01:20

^^^you just flamed the op, who was disagreeing with the statement (as were you).

and Huntmaster, this game is old, you forget that.

Lawrence Chang · May 19, 2008, 01:25 AM // 01:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris616263

HAHAHAHAHAHA! "Well made". ALL time-wasters created by unimaginative bores at Blizzard. All of the little interactions in WoW don't really count as quality, just lack of imagination...

You left out the part where all of the zones in WoW are effectively pre-searing copies. Not to mention how WoW has the very same "Kill X monsters" "Collect X objects" quests. Too much emphasis on "quality content" like fishing and mining maybe?

So much emphasis on "quality content" like fishing and mining that the game is a boring grindfest to level 70, and then the only remaining points are raids/pvp?

Also, if you'd like to compare games like WoW to GW, why don't you compare the "private" WoW servers to GW. "Private" servers are free-to-play, just like GW. However, "private" servers on WoW are buggy and mostly unplayable.

Concerning FREE content, when you compare GW to the other free-to-play MMO games, GW is the king of the hill.

GW is not FREE. It is the only MMORPG that has an initial cost but no monthly fee. Therefore, since its the only RPG in its class, you can't really compare it to other RPGs. So of course it's going to be less featured than MMORPGs that require you to pay monthly (i.e WoW). It is lacking in several areas, but its funny how people like you are crying over legit criticism. Doesn't hurt to point out the bad things of GW.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Dudenstein

Wow I haven't hear something that good in a long time. I needed that :-)

AoC/WoW World PvP (if that's what you want to call it) is all about running around ganking unsuspecting noobs with your uberleet gear.

Guildwars PvP was built for the competitive community that wants skill, teamwork, and tactics to decide the outcome of a match. Hence you get arenas and balanced equipment and unhappy kids. Its what competitive people want ... sorry...

I like how they cater to the competitive people, but some of us (alot of us) like to just mess around. They should have included "normal" PvP and competitive PvP. Those of us who just wanna F around play casual, while there is the competitive PvP area that is very structured for tournaments/contests.

Breakfast Mc Rit · May 19, 2008, 01:26 AM // 01:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by aapo

- How many people have seen Avril Lavigne's Girlfriend video on YouTube? 84 million dude. Must be about 70 times better than The Beatles' Penny Lane with only 1.2 million! Is this sound argument to you? Please don't bring numbers to discussion of quality...

YouTube doesn't even begin to sum up the amount of people that have listened to and enjoyed (key word there that you may have missed) The Beatles. That idea is laughable. Numbers has nothing to do with quality? In some cases it doesn't, but when you're bringing something new to the market you need quality to sell your product well. I wouldn't have bought two more campaigns and an expansion pack if it sucked.

Guild Wars is just not the right game for some people. Anyone who argues that this game is not fun is ignoring the amount of people that really enjoy playing the game. Is WoW (or MtG, or D&D, etc.) not fun? Obviously not, but I wouldn't play it because it's just not the type of game I'm into.

Esan · May 19, 2008, 01:31 AM // 01:31

If Guild Wars were truly of low quality, the fansite boards would not be infested with so-called "retired" players who nevertheless seem to be ever active on the forums and in-game. I'm not pointing my finger solely at Guru.

Also, GW1 has been end-of-lifed for over a year. If you still want to complain about it, feel free, but no one really cares, least of all Anet.

Diddy bow · May 19, 2008, 01:42 AM // 01:42

I think MMO's are garurenteed to fail, they are fun at first, but eventually every nook and cranny is known and everyone is incrediblly good at it, you know, the stage where an offline game would be traded in or become a coaster. But not a MMO, for an MMO you are suggested to get to this stage as quick as you can to be able to "compete" in both a pve and pve setting, to end the fun and reach the grind is the goal and still playing a game at this point is what leads a game WAY past its normal life time and leads people to be highly critical of any little feature of the game, like would you ever critisise GTA4 for having a gun clip though the hand a tiny bit when you shoot it. For a game without a fee guild wars is increbley well updated but people will never be happy with it.

MarlinBackna · May 19, 2008, 01:50 AM // 01:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malice Black

True MMO's have world PvP, which makes the game a whole lot more interesting. The AoC PvP players laugh at GW arena PvP.
GW done good for what it is, but as one of the devs said "it's a stepping stone into other MMO's" (prob not quite 100% quote, but you get the point)

I'm going to have to go with a "No shit!" on that one. Seriously, GW is 3 years old, and had many flaws at launch, of which most were fixed, but some were added. AoC is brand new, so it will be a while before its flaws are found. But I do agree that for a new developer, GW was a monumental stepping stone proving two things: PvP/PvE balance can somewhat be achieved (hey, they tried at least) and that AAA free-to-play titles can work. And to also comment on the "if GW was pay-per-month", I don't think many people would have bought GW period if it wasn't f2p, but that is not what the GW business model is, now is it?
ADD: Keep in mind also that the MMO market was still kinda young at that point (read: WoW was not run-away popular yet), and GW probably could not have entered the market today as succesfully as it did.

To add about the numbers issue, think about this: GW over all three games and expansion has sold more copies than Diablo II, Civ IV, Warcraft III, Age of Empires(I, II, or III), etc. Think about the success of those games. Take it with a grain of salt though, as GW is really 3 games, but still...moving 5mil+ over three years is phenomenal and only beaten out by the likes of WoW, Starcraft, and The Sims. In a supposedly "dead" PC market, that's pretty great, especially for a first time developer (in comparison to Ensemble (AoE I: 4mil) and Blizzard (WCII: 2mil)). [info taken from Wikipedia]

Anet just needs to learn from their mistakes. With all the problems we seem to have with GW1, it simply made sense for them to start from scratch, and I am glad they had the insight to do so. Now just gives some GW2 info to chew on, and I will be set.

(It's been a year, Anet......

)

Snow Bunny · May 19, 2008, 01:50 AM // 01:50

It's better than anything else out there that doesn't have a monthly fee.

Until you show me something better with better PvP, I will play GW.

Or Starcraft.

wilderness · May 19, 2008, 01:55 AM // 01:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by aapo

Blurt

The game you're writing about doesn't exist yet. Either get a hand in making it or look elsewhere for your kicks.

DarkFlame · May 19, 2008, 02:23 AM // 02:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by aapo

I certainly hope that instead of getting new games and expansions with thirty new recursively similar areas we would get actual innovations in gameplay and enchantments that stack on top of existing game. It's much more than just changing variable values here and there on the code.

So what exactly is your point? That you agree with Anet's decision to go ahead with GW2 instead of letting GW1 spin out of control?

ogre_jd · May 19, 2008, 03:41 AM // 03:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by aapo

It makes me wonder why they made minigames like Polymock, but left them on obviously unfinished state.

Probably because a lot of EotN (most everything other than the terrain, voice acting, cutscenes and primary quest chains) is sloppy, at best. Really feels to me like something that was rushed out the door to meet an arbitrary deadline set by the higher-ups instead of giving the people who actually had to do the work the time they needed to get the side content right...

arcanemacabre · May 19, 2008, 03:55 AM // 03:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkFlame

So what exactly is your point? That you agree with Anet's decision to go ahead with GW2 instead of letting GW1 spin out of control?

Totally agree. The whole point of this thread is aapo basically saying "I don't like GW anymore. I think Anet should make GW2. Thank you for your time."

Worthless thread.

aapo · May 19, 2008, 04:08 AM // 04:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

Totally agree. The whole point of this thread is aapo basically saying "I don't like GW anymore. I think Anet should make GW2. Thank you for your time."

Worthless thread.

- It had something to do with qaul...quliat...difficult word, some WoW fanboy probably, this is FREE TO PLAY and NOT MMORPG and we don't need fishing here. Somebody tell him that. So yah, I can't read that wall o' text.

Glider of chaos · May 19, 2008, 04:11 AM // 04:11

So, OP stated that number of features = quality.

IMO that's simply wrong. Of course, there's a bit of truth there but it's not as simple as that.

Following this logic I can state that chess and checkers are low quality games.

And speaking of quality in FPS games (widely used as an example by OP). Take "makes no distinction of hit location" for example. And look at Unreal Tournament (yeh, that old game from 1999). Did it matter where you hit your opponent there? No. Sniper rifle and ripper out for now Did the game know where you hit him? Yes. Why doesn't it matter then? Because that's the part of game design.

Yeh, GW is far from perfect but trying to say that it's low quality based on lack of features is flawed logic example.

aapo · May 19, 2008, 04:34 AM // 04:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider of chaos

So, OP stated that number of features = quality.

- I was talking about depth = quality.

Making those NPCs acknowledge that you are/aren't the world-saving hero of people.
Allowing free target by mouse cursor for that Firestorm.
Ability to stop, save, rewind, fastforward observer mode match.
Seeing what hexes, conditions, skillbar, energy levels players have on observer.
Trophies that have some purpose in the game, not just collector stuff.
Experience not being meaningless after level 20.
Fun minigames and other events with other people. Standing on Guild Hall all day gets boring.

That's quality!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider of chaos

Following this logic I can state that chess and checkers are low quality games.

- Chess and checkers are the epitomes of quality games! Show me a person who can make a game that remains popular thousands of years, can be ported to any system and played IRL. Where rules are so simple to learn and there's nothing arbitrary about them. The game offers vast tactical depth and even helps to alleviate symptoms of Alzheimer's disease. I tell you the one who discovered Chess is a fricking genius.

arcanemacabre · May 19, 2008, 04:41 AM // 04:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by aapo

- It had something to do with qaul...quliat...difficult word, some WoW fanboy probably, this is FREE TO PLAY and NOT MMORPG and we don't need fishing here. Somebody tell him that. So yah, I can't read that wall o' text.

So what is your point, then? If it isn't that GW is of poor quality, and you want higher quality described as:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aapo

I certainly hope that instead of getting new games and expansions with thirty new recursively similar areas we would get actual innovations in gameplay and enchantments that stack on top of existing game. It's much more than just changing variable values here and there on the code.

Then perhaps I missed it, and I apologize.

Saying something is of poor quality does not make it so. You want certain features that you personally think the game should have, and therefore cry poor quality. That means you just don't like the game currently, and your suggestion is for Anet to fix this so that it meets your specifications of what you want in a 'perfect video game.' Been there, done that, worthless thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aapo

That's quality!

That's a different game! I personally suggest you go buy this perfect (for you) game, and stop complaining that GW doesn't live up to it. Hell, I wish GW had AI that was more advanced than the best players, completely customizable armor and weapons (design our own), and could be connected directly to our brains so that we don't have to use the keyboard and mouse for input. I also wish it gave me real money for killing mobs who also bleed Coca-Cola and crap cupcakes. That is quality. That is my kind of game. Do it, Anet! ARRGH!

aapo · May 19, 2008, 05:26 AM // 05:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

Saying something is of poor quality does not make it so. You want certain features that you personally think the game should have, and therefore cry poor quality. That means you just don't like the game currently, and your suggestion is for Anet to fix this so that it meets your specifications of what you want in a 'perfect video game.' Been there, done that, worthless thread.

- *sigh* I guess you're right after all. If you want cheap and fast car you want two cars. Quality costs money, servers cost money, support team costs money. No monthly fee means that the company doesn't have much. They're hiring newbies there and the selling argument after all is "no monthly fee". But it's a strange thing, I've never paid more than 50€ for any game I can remember and you can see how different the effort has been for some.