Curse

coil · Dec 29, 2007, 06:00 AM // 06:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zinger314

It is odd, however, that World of Warcraft beat Guild Wars into being accept into the MLG.

i would actually start playing again if GW were ever to become 'pro'

Master Knightfall · Dec 29, 2007, 06:42 AM // 06:42

Quote:

Ergo, this thread. While I will admit that Guild Wars and WoW are very different, they are comparable in the sense that they are both RPGs. I know that many people have heard and stated different things about WoW when the subject is brought up on these forums; most of the time, they are completely and utterly wrong, their information is out-of-date, or they are bias.

Your very opening statement shows that you are exactly what you say others are...namely "wrong". You attempt to put YOURSELF on some pedestal as that you are MORE informed than anyone else (which you are not of course) and that your opinion is sound and non biased (which it is not). Next time try to make an un-biased opinion without first attacking your audience or those that are not here to defend such hogwash.

Bryant Again · Dec 29, 2007, 07:15 AM // 07:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHannum

The trick is if they can create a WoW like immersion in the world while simultaneously making it feel fun to every sized group, if they can manage that, they will have beaten Blizzard at their own game.

That's impossible, since I don't know of a single person that hasn't had fun playing with their friends. There are also a large majority of techinical reasons, as well, but I'm too lazy to list those.

Quote:

Originally Posted by coil

i would actually start playing again if GW were ever to become 'pro'

There was actually a very detailed thread from *way* long ago by Twicky_kid that explained why Guild Wars won't be in the MLG. If memory serves, it revolved or had something to do with ANet wanting to host their own championship.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Knightfall

Your very opening statement shows that you are exactly what you say others are...namely "wrong". You attempt to put YOURSELF on some pedestal as that you are MORE informed than anyone else (which you are not of course) and that your opinion is sound and non biased (which it is not).

Zinger is right about two things: One, that he knows a HELL of a lot more about WoW than most people on this forum. And two, that most people on this forum have posted, when concerned with WoW, crap. I would know, since I've always been one to defend WoW and have seen a vast amount of poor and ill-informed posts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Knightfall

Next time try to make an un-biased opinion without first attacking your audience or those that are not here to defend such hogwash.

This is perhaps the least biased comparison thread you will ever see on the Guru, that's saying quite a lot. I highly doubt anyone could do any better.

xmancho1 · Dec 29, 2007, 10:04 AM // 10:04

yes the both games have pros and cons but what you havent seen in wow( which made me quite the game ) is the all the classes are so god damn unbalanced in pvp and i liked the all pvp low , mid and high-end , and the thing anyone can have an epic thru the arena? yes the pve in wow requires a lot of tactics but if u havent got a tank u cant do it , in gw it requires more team play and good builds and pulling. A raid of 40-25 men can be good but organizing a 25 men is really hard, and what about the ppl who havent seen the Black Temple or Naxxramas, what about the good old lvl 60 raids !? no wow is all about the money !

DivineEnvoy · Dec 29, 2007, 10:05 AM // 10:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Zinger is right about two things: One, that he knows a HELL of a lot more about WoW than most people on this forum. And two, that most people on this forum have posted, when concerned with WoW, crap. I would know, since I've always been one to defend WoW and have seen a vast amount of poor and ill-informed posts.

This shows that most Guild Wars players don't care about World of Warcraft. It also shows that they find it as an insult as someone makes a thread on a Guild Wars forum and claims that World of Warcraft is more intelligent than the game they are playing, and mostly, they are highly annoyed when someone tries to convince them to play World of Warcraft on a Guild Wars forum.

What else did you expect?

NeverAlive · Dec 29, 2007, 10:19 AM // 10:19

maybe i m just having trouble understanding his wording. for example, when he says WoW is more intellegent than GW, what does that mean? since game itself isn't an animal with brain that thinks or solves problem. does he mean to say playing WoW require higher player(human) intellegence than GW? i don't wanna jump to the conclusion... but u can see how some people here can see this as a bit of insult.

also about the aggro, isn't it the same in GW?

CHannum · Dec 29, 2007, 01:49 PM // 13:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

That's impossible, since I don't know of a single person that hasn't had fun playing with their friends. There are also a large majority of techinical reasons, as well, but I'm too lazy to list those.

You didn't even read my post.

WoW has a more immersive game world due to seamless zoning, free movement, better art direction in making environments feel "real" to the player, and more deliberate dungeon design, full stop.

GW has a superior group mechanic for experiencing content, full stop. You can go it yourself, you can go it with 1, 2, 3 or more human players. Regardless of the number of players, the vast majority of content is accessible and fun.

Mix the two, ta-dah, better game than either. There is no technical reason why this can't be done and it has NOTHING to do with having fun playing with friends. Whether it's more fun or not with friends doesn't change the fact that it's still fun without them. There isn't even a comparison to WoW, which puts you in the position of play with strangers (YMMV) or play with friends (YMMV) or don't play for a lot of the content. Then again, you're the one who told me that after 9 months of playing with friends in WoW and finding the whole endgame decidedly lacking in fun because it had turned into work that I just hadn't found the right group. Yes, any game that puts friends in the position of abandoning the "weaker links" just to get "elite" areas and endgame encounters completed is sooo well designed

tmr819 · Dec 29, 2007, 02:27 PM // 14:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHannum

WoW has a more immersive game world due to seamless zoning, free movement, better art direction in making environments feel "real" to the player, and more deliberate dungeon design, full stop.

GW has a superior group mechanic for experiencing content, full stop. You can go it yourself, you can go it with 1, 2, 3 or more human players. Regardless of the number of players, the vast majority of content is accessible and fun.

This is very well and very succinctly stated, CHannum.

Presumably, AreneNet could incorporate all of the positives of WoW listed above and still retain the positives of the current form of GW as well. The qualities of both games listed in the quote above are not mutually exclusive.

Where it all gets dicey, from my perspective, is in GW2's stated intention to (1) add persistent regions and (2) eliminate the heroes/henches now used to fill out solo/small-group teams.

I really do not think the addition of a single NPC "companion" that ArenaNet has talked about will adequately replace the variety and fun of the current system. However, in playing a mage or warrior in WoW, I have often been envious of the two classes in WoW that do have a "minion" of sorts: Rangers and Warlocks. In playing WoW, I have often wished my Warrior had a "healer" or "dps minion" or that my Mage had a "tank" minion. Perhaps GW2 will basically offer something like that: a more WoW-like game wherein all classes (not just Rangers and Warlocks) have a customizable "minion" or "pet" of sorts. Perhaps at the character creation screen in GW2, you could also create this "minion" as well -- perhaps it could be human or animal or some other type of creature, that you could then develop to become a tank, dps, or healer or some combination thereof depending on what you wanted for your avatar. That's just a guess, of course.

Such a system would not be that bad for most PvE; however, I still can't see how one companion would get you through, say, a 5-man dungeon as a solo player -- unless the plan is to scale the instances to player group size...

I am hopeful that ArenaNet can work all this out. Even if they cannot, however, and GW2 ends up being a "step backward" from GW1, I still think the game is going to be scads better than WoW -- at least from a single-player/casual player/small-group-oriented perspective.

Bryant Again · Dec 29, 2007, 05:09 PM // 17:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHannum

You didn't even read my post.

Nah not really, it was pretty late.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHannum

*snip* Then again, you're the one who told me that after 9 months of playing with friends in WoW and finding the whole endgame decidedly lacking in fun because it had turned into work that I just hadn't found the right group.

That was the polite way of saying it. From the way it sounded, it seemed like you and your friends were rather inexperienced. I don't think I've ever had so much trouble with whiping and respawns. The only time that *did* happen was my first time in a Shadow Labs pug. I had a free schedule that day so I didn't mind so much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHannum

Yes, any game that puts friends in the position of abandoning the "weaker links" just to get "elite" areas and endgame encounters completed is sooo well designed

How about instead of abandoning them you and your friends figure out why you all aren't doing so hot? If my guild just abandoned the newbies, I would not have as many friends as I do now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmr819

I really do not think the addition of a single NPC "companion" that ArenaNet has talked about will adequately replace the variety and fun of the current system. However, in playing a mage or warrior in WoW, I have often been envious of the two classes in WoW that do have a "minion" of sorts: Rangers and Warlocks. In playing WoW, I have often wished my Warrior had a "healer" or "dps minion" or that my Mage had a "tank" minion. Perhaps GW2 will basically offer something like that: a more WoW-like game wherein all classes (not just Rangers and Warlocks) have a customizable "minion" or "pet" of sorts. Perhaps at the character creation screen in GW2, you could also create this "minion" as well -- perhaps it could be human or animal or some other type of creature, that you could then develop to become a tank, dps, or healer or some combination thereof depending on what you wanted for your avatar. That's just a guess, of course.

The current system is really fun and complex, no doubt, but it really puts PUGs in a nasty position. When the whole game population is so split up and when you need a full party of 8 (that's quite a lot of people) for nearly *ever* single area, finding a group gets really hard.

I'd only be concerned with soloing if they carry over the combat and skill system from GW1 to GW2, but I don't think that's the case. If ANet can still keep the game fun, challenging and interesting when you're soloing (hell, Oblivion could), then GW2 will do great.

Sli Ander · Dec 29, 2007, 05:33 PM // 17:33

The only thing I'll say in this thread (as most things have been said by others already), is that if you're going to try to compare two games like this, try keeping the number of pros and cons for each game generally even. When I first read your OP several days ago, it was very obvious which game you had more experience with because you were more detailed in your explanation of the pros and cons of WoW. This (combined with the semantics of your OP) gives bias to your comparisons, or, if you prefer, the illusion of bias even though you may have intended none.

As for my being on topic, and my opinion there, each is a great game. WoW is more 'classic' fantasy/rpg and uses a lot of common traits. That, combined with its lore's age, gives it great popularity. GW tried to break away from the norm, and managed to do so quite well, in my opinion. When GW2 comes out, I certainly won't be calling it a 'wow-clone' just because it shares the common elements which Wow is mainly based itself on.

But I will say that while the games are comparable, it mainly boils down to what kind of player you are and which game appeals more to you from the onset. Some like cartoony graphics, some like realism. Some are constrained by their RW lives more so than others. I like some of the concepts I've seen in WoW, and I enjoy the complexity of strategy involved in GW. But because of my RL constraints (older machine, bandwidth, cost, etc) I chose a game I could always drop. I'm glad I've enjoyed it, but I'm not going to bash WoW just because I don't play it(or vice versa). Sour grapes, folks.

But that's just my two cents

kaldak · Dec 29, 2007, 05:35 PM // 17:35

A nice writeup, but far from unbiased.

Master Knightfall · Dec 29, 2007, 06:16 PM // 18:16

By the numbers WOW is the best game on the market of mmo's/mmorpgs bar none that is the bottom line of all things good and evil here.

GW's has merely SOLD 4 millioin copies, that does not mean it has 4 million players hardly. More like 750,000 if that many anymore. But, WOW on the other hand has 8 million SUBSCRIBERS, yes that is a solid number of people paying $15 a month whether they play or not the subscriber figures don't lie. WOW is just stomping GWs in the dirt as far as population and sales and subscibers go. You can HATE it all you like, but, you'll never win or will GWs ever be better or at the top of the charts constantly like the WOW series is.

The thing about GWs is it is basically for the majority of two types of gamers. The poor and parents who don't want to tend to their kids. All you have to do is read the ingame text and you can see this to be true. Notice I said majority now, not ALL people who play GWs fall into these two catagories, but, these are the two basic ones those that play GWs play it.

DivineEnvoy · Dec 29, 2007, 06:36 PM // 18:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Knightfall

By the numbers WOW is the best game on the market of mmo's/mmorpgs bar none that is the bottom line of all things good and evil here.

GW's has merely SOLD 4 millioin copies, that does not mean it has 4 million players hardly. More like 750,000 if that many anymore. But, WOW on the other hand has 8 million SUBSCRIBERS, yes that is a solid number of people paying $15 a month whether they play or not the subscriber figures don't lie. WOW is just stomping GWs in the dirt as far as population and sales and subscibers go. You can HATE it all you like, but, you'll never win or will GWs ever be better or at the top of the charts constantly like the WOW series is.

The thing about GWs is it is basically for the majority of two types of gamers. The poor and parents who don't want to tend to their kids. All you have to do is read the ingame text and you can see this to be true. Notice I said majority now, not ALL people who play GWs fall into these two catagories, but, these are the two basic ones those that play GWs play it.

The so-called 8 million subscribers was only a report to a certain time, and at this point, we do not know whether this number has increased or decreased or remained the same. As of the four millions sales of Guild Wars copies, we do not know the exact number of players who purchased them either. In other words, you are trying to prove that World of Warcraft is a better game than Guild Wars by rationalize with two unknown variables. Nice try.

Secondly, majority of the players of Guild Wars are not kids nor poor. In fact, many of us are grown-adults; also, just because many of us choose to prioritize our time in real life over a game, it does not mean that we are poor; it simply means that we choose to live a different life style. Please do not rationalize and insult the Guild Wars community.

tmr819 · Dec 29, 2007, 06:44 PM // 18:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Knightfall

You can HATE it all you like, but, you'll never win or will GWs ever be better or at the top of the charts constantly like the WOW series is.

I'm really not detecting a lot of hate for WoW here in this thread, actually. (Ironically, the harshest criticism of WoW seems to come from those who have not really played it much or for very long -- or is that just my imagination?

) Anyway, the OP and most of us that have played WoW do appreciate much of what that game has to offer.

I think/suspect that AreneNet's goal in developing GW2 is simply -- and quite understandably -- to broaden the general appeal for Guild Wars and to enlarge its market share, not necessarily to "kill WoW" (something not likely to happen anyway). I think WoW is going to start to fade of its own accord, because the game, with each successive expansion, is becoming increasingly less accessible to casual players. For myself, the sticking point was having a bucketload of important content -- the instances and Big Boss encounters therein -- that I was paying for but could hardly very play, due to RL time constraints, etc. Coordinating raid schedules is OK for some players but is just, well, not ever going to work for me.

That's not "hating WoW", it's just saying that WoW's primo content, its instances, are for the most part off-limits for players like me. That gets old.

I am taking what ArenaNet has stated repeatedly, via developer interviews, etc., at face value: that they have several years of solid experience with a most successful game series that has been increasingly hampered by aging mechanics and interface, and they needed to "reinvent" the game markedly to make it better.

And that brings us to... Ta-Dah! Guild Wars 2.

Fril Estelin · Dec 29, 2007, 07:11 PM // 19:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmr819

And that brings us to... Ta-Dah! Guild Wars 2.

Which is ... nowhere, because GW2 is only a few articles here and there and quite a lot of speculation :P

Honestly, WoW may have a lot to bring to the gamers, but it comes at a price. Not that the no-monthly-fee of GW does not come at a price too, but at least it's much easier regarding the decisions to make.

I was tempted to say that GW's audience is a bit more mature than WoW's, but comments about the terrible state of the GW population (alas) made me think twice. There are really great people, but tons of script kiddies. I wonder whether the vastness of WoW's world could hide the fact that WoW's population is the same. (the 2 games should also be compared with regards to their communities)

Bryant Again · Dec 29, 2007, 07:39 PM // 19:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by DivineEnvoy

The so-called 8 million subscribers was only a report to a certain time, and at this point, we do not know whether this number has increased or decreased or remained the same. As of the four millions sales of Guild Wars copies, we do not know the exact number of players who purchased them either. In other words, you are trying to prove that World of Warcraft is a better game than Guild Wars by rationalize with two unknown variables. Nice try.

The number has increased, actually. It's 9 million active accounts.

I'm really confused when people say "Guild Wars is WoW's biggest competitor!" For one, Guild Wars bases it's success on copies sold - just like any normal RPG. If you're gonna call it a "successful MMO", then I'm going to have to whole-hearty disagree with you. MMO's make a big chunk of their dough (and their "success" is also determined) by the number of active players.

In this sense, GW seems rather minuscule. For one, it's not 3.5 million of one single campaign, it's all of them combined. Secondly, you have to take in the fact that a lot of those copies sold all belong to one account (and two accounts may be belonging to one person because back then there was a 4 slot limit). So when you take all of this into account, the Guild War's universe starts to seem a little teensie.

And if you're gonna compare copies sold, then WoW completely crushes Guild Wars. If it has 9 million subscribers, and if it's the horrible game everyone here claims it to be, then holy damn that must be a big number.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmr819

I think/suspect that AreneNet's goal in developing GW2 is simply -- and quite understandably -- to broaden the general appeal for Guild Wars and to enlarge its market share, not necessarily to "kill WoW" (something not likely to happen anyway). I think WoW is going to start to fade of its own accord, because the game, with each successive expansion, is becoming increasingly less accessible to casual players. For myself, the sticking point was having a bucketload of important content -- the instances and Big Boss encounters therein -- that I was paying for but could hardly very play, due to RL time constraints, etc. Coordinating raid schedules is OK for some players but is just, well, not ever going to work for me.

This is where WoW really shows its integrity. If WoW wanted to be the money-eating machine that it's so accused of being, then why has Blizzard made their game to be inaccessible by a large percent of the gaming population?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

I was tempted to say that GW's audience is a bit more mature than WoW's, but comments about the terrible state of the GW population (alas) made me think twice. There are really great people, but tons of script kiddies. I wonder whether the vastness of WoW's world could hide the fact that WoW's population is the same. (the 2 games should also be compared with regards to their communities)

Next to Dawn of War and StarCraft, GW has one of the worst playerbases I've seen.

tmr819 · Dec 29, 2007, 08:15 PM // 20:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

This is where WoW really shows its integrity. If WoW wanted to be the money-eating machine that it's so accused of being, then why has Blizzard made their game to be inaccessible by a large percent of the gaming population?

I have to give you that, although WoW is moving in a (slightly) more GW-ward direction in at least one respect: they are making a lot of the group/elite quests that once were impossible to solo now solo-accessible, and they have raised the xp and monetary rewards of quests also as a nod to solo players trying to level up all by their lonesome. WoW has made a number of ... concessions ... or perhaps "adjustments" is a better word ... to accommodate solo/casual players. Like the ArenaNet team, Blizzard, too, is learning from experience. I hear EQ2 is also a lot more solo/casual friendly than EQ1 was/is, although I really cannot speak to that.

Blizzard/WoW still are not compromising on instance content being restricted to player groups only, it is true, but even there, they shelved the (ridiculous, in my opinion) 40-man raid instances when they came out with TBC in favor of smaller-group dungeons. I do wish they'd seriously rework their LFG mechanism, however. It is such a useless mess... It ought to work like a kind of "massive joint staging area" for dungeons that would form a group and then hearth the team directly to the instance in question when the team members are ready to go, kind of like the staging areas work in Prophecies ... but it doesn't.

Frankly, I wish GW offered something similar as well. I should be able to access/join a mission or dungeon group from *any* town or outpost, provided my toon had access to the appropriate town hub connection. But that's a subject for another thread.

At any rate, I do think the WoW of today is more solo/casual player-friendly than it was at launch.

Tamuril elansar · Dec 29, 2007, 08:27 PM // 20:27

its all about personal taste.

ElinoraNeSangre · Dec 29, 2007, 08:38 PM // 20:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Knightfall

The thing about GWs is it is basically for the majority of two types of gamers. The poor and parents who don't want to tend to their kids. All you have to do is read the ingame text and you can see this to be true. Notice I said majority now, not ALL people who play GWs fall into these two catagories, but, these are the two basic ones those that play GWs play it.

I know you added the disclaimer, but I had to add the subtext anyway - the vast majority of GW players I know play it because they love the game, not because they're kids (most are adults) and not because they're poor (most have a reasonable income). Heck, I myself have no problem with subscription fees, and would actually pay a subscription fee for GW (::gasp:: I know). I do love however that I don't feel like I HAVE to play because I'm paying.

Heck my family may still be paying for the WoW account, although we haven't logged in in over 6 months. Too much frustration with finding that your friends were all on other servers. :P

There's a very large number of us who play because GW is simply our game of choice, and we're a bit too large of a population to dismiss as the minority IMO. And at least a few people played WoW and got sick of feeling like it owned them. Not that there's anything wrong with being owned by a game, as there really isn't, it's like anything else, but I know for myself personally with a job and a boatload of other hobbies, I just wouldn't have time for WoW.

I will however agree on the playerbase point; granted the areas of WoW I played were filled with people yelling some pretty dumb stuff, but GW does tend to see a lot of extremes. I've met some of the nicest people I know in GW, and I've encountered some of the biggest jerks I've met in GW. Maybe that's because the really cool people are the ones with a real life who play GW because it's fun and that's it, and the jerky ones are the ones who are broke or who don't want to pay a monthly fee to abuse others. :P But what I love about GW is that I don't HAVE to put up with the jerks. Turn off local chat, go in my own instance with my alliance members. Ahhh bliss!

However WoW is not immune to that; I have seen some of my WoW playing friends frequently comment on bad behavior even in RL and dismiss it as "oh they must be Alliance". So either Alliance is full of bastards, or Horde folks really hold a grudge...

(and I definately could afford subscription fees as now I'm playing Tabula Rasa

)

Bryant Again · Dec 29, 2007, 10:01 PM // 22:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmr819

I do wish they'd seriously rework their LFG mechanism, however. It is such a useless mess... It ought to work like a kind of "massive joint staging area" for dungeons that would form a group and then hearth the team directly to the instance in question when the team members are ready to go, kind of like the staging areas work in Prophecies ... but it doesn't.

For what it does, it does awesomely. It's a universal party search that applies throughout the whole server and not just where you're located. You can set up what dungeons, quests, whatever that you're looking for. Not only that, but you even join a LFG chat channel.

The outpost staging areas in Prophechies are cool, granted. But if you need someone else and there's little to no one in the outpost, you're out of luck. It only takes two people at an instance in WoW to use a summoning stone, anyways.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmr819

At any rate, I do think the WoW of today is more solo/casual player-friendly than it was at launch.

Definantly moreso than ever - and it is indeed a good step in the right direction. But they're not totally selling out, however. Raids do still take a lot of effort and focus.

And it's less "GW-Ward" and more "casual-friendly", I'd say.