Curse

FlamingMetroid · May 19, 2008, 08:15 PM // 20:15

didn't I win this thread on the first page?

Quote:

Originally Posted by most awesome person ever

ya pretty much, Its a free-to-play game, its not going to have every feature of every MMO ever created.
I still find it fun though,
If you don't, then don't play it.

yup, yeah I did.

Dr Strangelove · May 19, 2008, 08:27 PM // 20:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

The "free to play" payment method isn't revolutionary when you think about it. Each chapter is just another expansion pack, although the stand-alone feature is pretty nifty.

You're correct, it isn't. However, it is increasingly uncommon for online RPGs to be free-to-play.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Monthly fees aren't *just* there to eat up your wallet, you know. While there is an opportunity for the developers to earn a bit more cash from your account, they do a hell of a lot more than good. Having GM's in every server is just one of the many perks.

In a perfect world, I'd receive 15 dollars worth of content every month I subscribed. In reality, this just doesn't happen. I'm happy to pay developers for their work, especially for continued work on a game I love. I'm not willing to pay money for nothing.

If a game is worth more than 50 bucks for the box, I'll gladly pay that. There's no reason I wouldn't pay 150 dollars for a huge, well-made game.

I'll gladly pay for additional content if I can keep it. 15 dollars should buy me 15 dollars worth of stuff, not rent it.

If you have upkeep costs, I'll pay those. I somewhat doubt they're 15 bucks a month.

If developers choose to have monthly fees, I'd prefer they didn't change their game to maximize the incoming fees. However, this doesn't happen in reality.

-Sonata- · May 19, 2008, 08:35 PM // 20:35

Every game has its life cycle. They can't last forever; Even MMO's/CORPG's, or whatever other label you wish to stamp on it. Every game goes through it.

Guild Wars is going through its life cycle too. I still love the game, but I'm honest with myself in knowing that the technology available today, versus 5 years ago, has changed drastically. This game isn't perfect; I have my issues in some areas like many others. The perfect game though will never exist. Yet, I will play as long as I continue to enjoy the game. When that ends, I'll put it away and move on quietly and not hang onto the past. I've said it before - Some players seem to marry their games and when they move onto something else, they treat the old game like a bitter divorce, including Time-Spent arguements and financial investments.

I don't believe this game is dying, nor do I believe it will be dead anytime soon. However, we all know it has passed its pinnacle. That shouldn't be faulted on Anet, but should be just accepted as the natural cycle of online games. The developers know that too, that the peak was reached, otherwise they would not be in development for GW2.

Given such a competitve market though, the fact that Guild Wars has lived a long life and will continue to do so is a sign that it did and continues to do something right in a market where you have higher percentage of having your game fold.

Quality is subjective to each player and comparing personal views of quality to a new release game Vs. Guild Wars is like comparing the quality of GTA 1 against GTA 4. Since the early development of Guild Wars to present day; Technology in developing a game has changed too much.

The cycle will continue 3-5 years from now after GW2 comes out. We'll all have this same conversation about quality, enjoyment, bordem, and state-of-the-art gameplay (PvE and/or PvP) in regards to that game. The only thing a game developer can do is develop a game to current standards upon its expected release date and keep it as innovative as possible until the cycle approaches its end.

DarkNecrid · May 19, 2008, 08:36 PM // 20:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Strangelove

No monthly fees in an MMO is what makes GW unique..

Nope, there's like 6,000,000 free MMOs out there. Try again.

Malice Black · May 19, 2008, 08:40 PM // 20:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkNecrid

Nope, there's like 6,000,000 free MMOs out there. Try again.

GW is by far the best of the F2P games though. Mythos and other such crap just don't compare.

DarkNecrid · May 19, 2008, 08:41 PM // 20:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malice Black

GW is by far the best of the F2P games though. Mythos and other such crap just don't compare.

Of course, but you just proved my point: it isn't the F2P that makes it revolutionary.

edit; though mind you mythos is pretty good. Troll with cigar + dual guns = epic win

MarlinBackna · May 19, 2008, 08:47 PM // 20:47

Quote:

Nope, there's like 6,000,000 free MMOs out there. Try again.

And they mostly suck, or have microtransactions, making it different than GW. Nice try.

Quote:

The only thing a game developer can do is develop a game to current standards upon its expected release date and keep it as innovative as possible until the cycle approaches its end.

*claps*
That is the point we people that continue playing the game want to make. It is like saying the Model T was a bad car in comparison to a Mustang. The Model T was revolutionary not for being a car, but for being developed differently than any car previous to it. Of course, the Model T had its problems and they were improved over time, but there is only so much you can do to a Model T. So you have the Model U (GW2) :P.

Also, what is the deal with all of these AoC people? No offense, but as I have rationalized my decision to support GW until its death, you guys have rationalized that AoC will blow every MMO out of the water, which is strange for a game that hasn't come out yet. So please, shut up, play AoC for at least a year, then pass judgment on GW vs. AoC.

Darksun · May 19, 2008, 08:57 PM // 20:57

So much of what the OP said is simply NOT TRUE,that there is little to say in response..

aapo · May 19, 2008, 09:09 PM // 21:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkdreamr

I'm sorry, but I think you're confusing the game, with the presentation of the game. As so many people do. Every "quality" issue you mention, from animations to minigames to free targeting spells or changes in game mechanics....is essentially superficial. No game can have every desired feature. It's impossible. But that's not a reason for complaints. Every single game you play comes down to having fun by doing your best within the given constraints and rules.

- Well, I'm mainly complaining about lack of features, not what they should be. Those are just examples from the top of my head.

When every enemy in FPS game dies in slightly different way it adds excitement into game. Human brain needs some variation and that's why farming Kurzick points outside Lurgardis is probably the most boring thing to do, but some people think the reward is worth it. For me, the fatal mistake happens when I start to think what should I do after I have that max PvE skill? That's when I start to realize that every area in the game is just a copy of another with different (internally similar) enemies. If I could beat the game without PvE skills, where I need those PvE skills? To have fun one-hit-killing some enemies I previously killed in 3 hits?

When I move my Archer with Woodsmanship I trait to forest square in order to receive 0.5 + 0.2 = 0.7 defense bonus in Civilization IV, it feels like it matters. I can guarantee that if every unit was the same in Civ IV, there would be no traits and no defense bonuses based on terrain, the game would become dull and straightforward as hell. This feeling of dullness is what I among many are experiencing in Guild Wars. Sure, I could change my Survivor insignias to +10 against blunt damage insignias, but what the hell is the point? Guy's hammer does fricking cold damage. I could drop the powerplay attitude and use unpopular skills, but the only effect I would see is drop in killing speed. I could get the next title, but I already have one. Besides there's always someone who plays more than me and who's prancing around in KoaBD6. I could play Random Arenas, but having Monk is too big factor to ignore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkdreamr

Why do people play WoW when the graphics are so awful? Because of the gameplay. Sure, they complain about the graphics all day, but when it comes down to it, having fun playing a game comes down to gameplay and not the presentation. That is, the experience you have playing a game is *mostly* due to how the game works, and not how the game looks.

- Exactly. I still play games that are 13 years old, because they were made to be fun. Things the developers put in the game, they put on purpose. Graphics have nothing to do with it. You can show emotes with 16x32 pixel characters if you want to! That's the kind of effort I'm talking about. These days we have beautiful graphic engines and software companies who couldn't give crap about how fun their games will be. A few selling lines on the box and off you go.

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkdreamr

Basically, if you are standing in the Guild Hall all day then you are bored with this game, and you shouldn't look for shiny animations and minigames to rekindle your interest because it is gone. The real game is not Power Attack, 5 energy, 10 recharge, 20 damage. It is the meta of combinations of skills in a bar, combinations of bars in a game, and the strategical and tactical decisions made by every player on every team. From that standpoint, more skills = more combinations = more fun, and you can see that from the fact that there are only a handful of skills that are never used in some build or other.

- Yes. There is an issue when skills are so similar that it's not worth taking some skills ever. Making battles 80% about your equipped skillbar is of course a choice made, since after all you can't dodge that lightning or run away if snared. When that Shadow Shroud hits you, either you got Holy Veil superglued on your bar or you're a dead Monk.

Counter-strike (for the sake of an example): Use grenades HE/flash/smoke, take cover, call teammates, get in firing position. There's lot of possibilities to get out of sticky situations. Possibilities make a good game. Guild Wars' problems aren't even that hard to solve, the system is just made to be too rigid. Adding random chance would be a good start.

Bryant Again · May 19, 2008, 09:13 PM // 21:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Strangelove

You're correct, it isn't. However, it is increasingly uncommon for online RPGs to be free-to-play.

It's more uncommon to see RPGs be online only. I've found Guild Wars to have more intact with Titan's Quest or Diablo 2 than any other MMO I've seen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Strangelove

In a perfect world, I'd receive 15 dollars worth of content every month I subscribed. In reality, this just doesn't happen. I'm happy to pay developers for their work, especially for continued work on a game I love. I'm not willing to pay money for nothing.

I'm not sure what you mean by "pay money for nothing". That money goes in many places besides Blizzards wallets. If you feel that the wallop load of content they've provided for the past few years is "nothing", then I'm *really* lost.

Regarding the rest, the worth of the game is what you make it. But all in all, it's hard to call monthly fees "wrong" when you don't have to play the game (even though I know that's not what you said, just providing a message to others).

Nightmares Hammer · May 19, 2008, 09:17 PM // 21:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ctb

The no true Scotsmen argument, eh? How many people do you think are going to fall for such a weak refutation?

Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this sentence...?

Turtle222 · May 19, 2008, 09:25 PM // 21:25

I don't think the OP understands what quality is, even in an apparent "effort" context.

Perhaps it is my expertise in business that influences this outlook, i don't know.

Turtle222 · May 19, 2008, 09:33 PM // 21:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Strangelove

You're correct, it isn't. However, it is increasingly uncommon for online RPGs to be free-to-play.

In a perfect world, I'd receive 15 dollars worth of content every month I subscribed. In reality, this just doesn't happen. I'm happy to pay developers for their work, especially for continued work on a game I love. I'm not willing to pay money for nothing.

If a game is worth more than 50 bucks for the box, I'll gladly pay that. There's no reason I wouldn't pay 150 dollars for a huge, well-made game.

I'll gladly pay for additional content if I can keep it. 15 dollars should buy me 15 dollars worth of stuff, not rent it.

If you have upkeep costs, I'll pay those. I somewhat doubt they're 15 bucks a month.

If developers choose to have monthly fees, I'd prefer they didn't change their game to maximize the incoming fees. However, this doesn't happen in reality.

this is pretty much why i respect every post Dr Strangelove makes

AOD_EaSyKiLL · May 19, 2008, 09:46 PM // 21:46

Age of Conan, lol

All you noobs can be proud of the fact that you will be paying $15 a month to continue beta testing that game.

Maybe one day it will have something going for it besides graphics.

1 million beta signups? I signed up 8 or 10 times myself, go figure

700,000 unique visitors? Not much for a highly publicised launch IMO.

Servers overloaded............Check
3 day early play scam.................Check
Unbalanced Skills................Check
Cookie Cutter builds...............Check
Little Kids in a "mature" enviroment..........Check
More fun than Guild Wars........................Blank

Red Sand · May 19, 2008, 09:51 PM // 21:51

I think the OP mistakes Quality for Complexity.

GW is simple.

As simple as Chess.

With hundreds of Idiots believing that they are Grandmaster's.

Dr Strangelove · May 19, 2008, 09:54 PM // 21:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

It's more uncommon to see RPGs be online only. I've found Guild Wars to have more intact with Titan's Quest or Diablo 2 than any other MMO I've seen.

Online games are a relatively new market, but I'd argue they're vastly overtaking offline games. There's simply a lot more money in it for developers. Major titles that remain completely offline like Oblivion are something of a dying breed.

At any rate, that wasn't my point. I enjoy online games because I like other people (despite what you might guess from my trolling here). I like RPGs because they tend to provide a lot of playtime for my money. It's exceedingly rare to find a truly free-to-play online RPG that doesn't suck horribly. This doesn't count microtransaction games or "optional" subscription games.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

I'm not sure what you mean by "pay money for nothing". That money goes in many places besides Blizzards wallets. If you feel that the wallop load of content they've provided for the past few years is "nothing", then I'm *really* lost.

Blizzard has produced tons of stuff over the last few years for their players. However, if you stop subscribing, you don't have any rights to any of it. You own nothing, and you can't play with what you've already spent money on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Regarding the rest, the worth of the game is what you make it. But all in all, it's hard to call monthly fees "wrong" when you don't have to play the game (even though I know that's not what you said, just providing a message to others).

I used to have the idea that monthly fee games can be worth the extra money if they provide content to justify the 15 bucks. I've subscribed to Eve, WoW, and Hellgate: London in the past. The fact is, a 3 month subscription costs the same as a new game. Therefore, a subscription game should provide a full game's worth of content every 3 months. This doesn't happen anywhere. Frankly, it's probably impossible given that top-tier MMOs take years to produce, so it's unlikely they'll make a full new game in 3 months. Even if it did happen, it's still a poor value for my money, since I'd be able to keep a new game forever, while I can't keep my 3 months of content.

Don't get me wrong, all the games I mentioned above are good games, that isn't the issue. The issue is getting good value for my money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turtle222

this is pretty much why i respect every post Dr Strangelove makes

Malice Black · May 19, 2008, 10:13 PM // 22:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightmares Hammer

Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this sentence...?

He's ragging on the Scots, hang him!

Snow Bunny · May 19, 2008, 10:14 PM // 22:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

They don't understand or appreciate balanced arena PvP, or competitive games. They just want to run around with the buds and gank people. It's a different kind of game, and you can't really compare the two.

Honestly Malice your trolling and shameless promotion of AoC is just getting tiresome. Yes it's probably going to be a decent game, but there's really no need to mention it in virtually every post you make.

I really can't say it better.

DarkGanni · May 19, 2008, 10:16 PM // 22:16

Don't like it? Play a different game, no one will miss you.

I'm playing GW for 3 years now, haven't played any others, I'd say its a high quality game.

- Ganni

SerenitySilverstar · May 19, 2008, 10:30 PM // 22:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by -Sonata-

The cycle will continue 3-5 years from now after GW2 comes out. We'll all have this same conversation about quality, enjoyment, bordem, and state-of-the-art gameplay (PvE and/or PvP) in regards to that game.

Great post Sonata. I've been trying to articulate this for the longest time. I also liked your comparison of how players "marry and divorce" their games

Yes, players need to learn to adapt with their games, not the other way around.