Curse

Redfeather1975 · Mar 12, 2008, 04:00 AM // 04:00

bhavv, the avatar change is some silly joke from another forum.
I asked if two applicants had exactly the same qualifications, except one had an eyepatch, who would you hire.
Then I changed my avatar because I found out eyepatches are an advantage in the corporate world.

1 up and 2 down · Mar 12, 2008, 04:18 AM // 04:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cacheelma

If you CARE enough to read those 2 threads (instead of just searching for "Guild Wars" and posting it here to make a pointless reply), you'd see that.-

In the first thread (GW copying WoW), most replies say that "and Wow didn't copy other games?" or "WoW copies from both EQ and DnD" or "EQ copied from DnD" or "Nobody cares about GW".

You see, none of those DIRECTLY attacks GW in anyway.

And in the second thread (This isn't GW, this is PvE game), the OP is saying that WoW isn't a PvP-based game like GW, it's a PvE game. Most replies in the thread are either about "WoW PvP is good too" or "WoW has both PvE and PvP which is why it's a good game" or "Personally I don't like GW because I can't jump" (notice how it says "personally"? It's his own opinion and I don't think he tried to attack the game with that).

All in all neither of the threads is a GW-bashing thread in anyway.

Did I mention neither of them goes beyond 4th page?

'

The person I quoted said that the people on the WoW forums don't even bother to talk about GW. So I proved him wrong. I never said that they were threads that attacked Guild Wars.

So in conclusion, my thread examples are perfectly legitimate.

Edit: Yes I did use the search function and I read the first page for each thread. X)

Oh yeah, the WoW official forum's search function, in my opinion, is worse than Guru's.

Zinger314 · Mar 12, 2008, 04:24 AM // 04:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1 up and 2 down

So in conclusion, my thread examples are perfectly legitimate.

Your threads were made, what, last September? Last December?

I believe there's a statue a limitations there...

1 up and 2 down · Mar 12, 2008, 04:30 AM // 04:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zinger314

Your threads were made, what, last September? Last December?

I believe there's a statue a limitations there...

I wouldn't say so. My point was, that on the WoW forums they talk about Guild Wars. I proved my point with those thread links.

Also, they aren't to terribly old. It's not like they are a year old or something.

Redfeather1975 · Mar 12, 2008, 04:32 AM // 04:32

Regardless of what someone likes, they'll eventually get bored of it.
Then they suddenly like something else. I don't know of anyone who has escaped that.

Cacheelma · Mar 12, 2008, 04:54 AM // 04:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1 up and 2 down

I wouldn't say so. My point was, that on the WoW forums they talk about Guild Wars. I proved my point with those thread links.

Also, they aren't to terribly old. It's not like they are a year old or something.

We "talk" about Wow in this thread (as in, the "Wow" doesn't stay just a subject name OR a reference).

GW was used merely as a reference in those threads. Nobody "talks" about it. Even though the first thread's OP tried to bash GW, nobody cared to discuss the matter and changed the subject to "how WoW copied other games" instead.

How we "talk" about Wow here on guru is different from what they "do" with GW there. I think that's the point AuraofMana tried to make.

And obviously it's true. You can't even stop yourself from bashing WoW forum's search engine.

Again, how sad?

1 up and 2 down · Mar 12, 2008, 05:19 AM // 05:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cacheelma

We "talk" about Wow in this thread (as in, the "Wow" doesn't stay just a subject name OR a reference).

GW was used merely as a reference in those threads. Nobody "talks" about it. Even though the first thread's OP tried to bash GW, nobody cared to discuss the matter and changed the subject to "how WoW copied other games" instead.

How we "talk" about Wow here on guru is different from what they "do" with GW there. I think that's the point AuraofMana tried to make.

And obviously it's true. You can't even stop yourself from bashing WoW forum's search engine.

Again, how sad?

This is my final input on the matter.

1. AuraofMana said, and I quote "No one talks about GW on WOW forums because they don't give a shit about you.

I proved him/her wrong with my first link. It doesn't matter how little or how much they mention/reference GW in those links. The point of of the matter is the obviously care enough about Guild Wars to mention it, even reference it. Despite the fact that there are tons of other games to compare to WoW.

2. I didn't bash the WoW forums.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster.com

to attack physically or verbally <media bashing> <celebrity bashing>

I was never attacking the search feature there. I was merely stating the fact that the search function is worse than Guru's. Hmm do you count that as bashing? How about I put a more positive spin on it...

The Guru search function is better than the official WoW forum's. Is that better?

Apparently you have never used it or you would know what I am talking about. You are just mentioning it to make me look bad. And apparently you failed miserably.

So I did in-fact prove my point with my thread links, despite what you and others,who only seek to make me look bad because you support WoW or don't like me, say.

/nomorepostsfromme

Cacheelma · Mar 12, 2008, 05:25 AM // 05:25

..To make "you" look bad?!

Please. Who are you? Britney Spears?

arcanemacabre · Mar 12, 2008, 05:37 AM // 05:37

GW vs. WoW just reminds me so much of the Mac vs. PC debates. There are far more PCs out there than Macs, and they have much more support (games, apps, etc). So, Mac users feel they have to retaliate against PC every chance they get, while PC users generally don't care about Mac. Then there are those who say each have their uses and can't really be compared - Mac is better for multimedia, blah blah blah, and PC is of course better for gaming and business application. The quality of both computers may be (and probably are) equivalent, it's just that PC was way more successful. They can't be faulted for good business, but they can't have their product judged based on it, either.

My point is, it's entirely common for the smaller, less known/used brand/product to attack the more popular and widely used brand/product. We're lucky that it's only the users attacking, and not the company itself like Apple does. Yes, it's a fact that WoW is hugely more popular than GW. Does that fact make it a better game? No. Does that make Blizzard better than Arenanet? Yes. But to be fair, they did have much more money and a highly established franchise to base their game on.

Tijger · Mar 12, 2008, 07:21 AM // 07:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esan

That's because these titles are "like WoW, but worse" creations. I don't think a "like WoW, but better" title has been done yet, so there is a good bit of trail left to blaze.

Any developer who sets out to do "WoW but better" is going to fail, designing a good game should be the goal, let Blizzard take care of WoW.

Redfeather1975 · Mar 12, 2008, 07:36 AM // 07:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tijger

Any developer who sets out to do "WoW but better" is going to fail, designing a good game should be the goal, let Blizzard take care of WoW.

That's what Strain and Phineas have said in the past. That's why they think so many mmorpg developers fail. Because they are only trying to take something popular and try to make it better. It's how genres become stale too.

Longasc · Mar 12, 2008, 10:24 AM // 10:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redfeather1975

That's what Strain and Phineas have said in the past. That's why they think so many mmorpg developers fail. Because they are only trying to take something popular and try to make it better. It's how genres become stale too.

Yup.

Everyone at ANet said this, be it Phinney, Strain or O'Brien. We know the interviews in magazines and video interviews/audio interviews where they tell this over and over.

To sum up the gist, they always repeat this Mantra:

1. They want to do their own thing, something different.
2. And be good at it.
3. Most games trying to just copy WoW fail, because WoW is very good at what it does.
Back to 1: So they want to do their own thing... and what do they really do?

Redfeather said it some postings above, GW is simply not designed for sustained grinding. We have no progression in power in terms of levels or items.

But this actually IS why some GW players here chose to play GW, and not WoW. Different graphics styles or fee/no fee are not the deciding factors for me. I wanted to get away from the old Everquest-style of level- and itemgrind based gaming. I have already done this for years before, and this gaming principle has the unfortunate drawback to consume a lot of time.

One could think ANet knows their own promotion and statements.
But they added tons of options and things you can do, and they all involve the most horrible and monotonous grind ever seen. I doubt even followers of the "EQ/WoW-formula" enjoy that overly much, as killing 10 wolf cubs, later 20 wolves and then 30 dire wolves is almost a gameplay revolution compared to Remains of Sahlaja wurm runs for LB/SS.

ANet should abandon this idea of givin people something to do for ages. They said GW was designed to be played for a while, then to go away, come back, go away... the idea is that players come back.

I personally did not believe this could work, believing that players stick with a MMO till they are fed up and then move to the next. Which might take some time. - But it seems to have worked, GW was/is doing quite well.

Now let's see is they create GW2 as the low cost fee-free alternative to WoW and similar games and borrow heavily from it, or if they really do their own thing. I would prefer the latter, nobody needs a slightly less attractive "WoW for the poor". Maybe they learnt something from GW:EN and iron out the bad parts. GW:EN was not much more than a testing ground made from the remnants of a scrapped chapter, after all. And it had some good ideas, too. The implementation was not always done well.

ogre_jd · Mar 12, 2008, 11:57 AM // 11:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

Adventure is a very powerful aspect of RPGs that GW misses out on. For example, Gandalf didnt just double click on the Mordor icon on his map, fast travel there and drop the one ring into the volcano.

Well, no. He couldn't safely carry the Ring himself, so he had to run Frodo there. When he failed in the Mines of Moria, with the resurrection shrine in a part of the map no one else had explored, he obviously mapped out. Aragon would've run them the rest of the way, if not for Boromir ruining the game for everyone by being an asshole and causing the party to split up and everyone to make their own way to their destinations in small groups.

Quote:

I still could never class GW as an RPG. It has absolutely no RPG quality to it at all. It is however an immensely fun skill based action adventure with some role playing elements, but it is far from what an actuall RPG offers in terms of gameplay. Is sonic the hedgehog an RPG because I role play sonic? No it is not. There is no character development or adventure in GW, therefore no it is not a real RGP.

You obviously haven't played many CRPGs, if you think it's far from what 'an actual' CRPG offers. Most, due to the requirement of allowing the player to choose different classes (and, at times, races) have either no character development or just very generic development. Most just stick with stats progression - though that tends to involve permanent choices, unlike in GW.

Plenty of adventure, too - both in the cutscenes and in what you do in between the cutscenes. Or do you consider that to be just mindless killing and roaming around to no purpose other than to get XP? If you do, you have my sympathy.

Esan · Mar 12, 2008, 03:23 PM // 15:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tijger

Any developer who sets out to do "WoW but better" is going to fail

You are so, so wrong. The (MMO)(RP)G genre is all about looking at what the others are doing and doing one better. It's probably the most derivative genre there is these days. "WoW" in "like WoW, but better" is just a template that refers to the current market standard.

Numa Pompilius · Mar 12, 2008, 04:00 PM // 16:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

So how is it that the 'I love GW but WoW sux' gamer cant understand the fact that WoW is actually an older game and therefore has a lower generations graphics?

WoW is actually just a few months older. It's contemporary to GW, not an "older generation".
It's just got intentionally weak graphics to run well on very old and very weak machines.

Jetdoc · Mar 12, 2008, 05:51 PM // 17:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inde

Which is funny because I actually love the look of WoW. It's not the same cookie-cutter "realistic" computer graphics that I've been seeing for the past 4 years on every MMO in production. It appealed to me solely for that reason.

It depends on how far into reality you want your game to be.

Personally, I can find myself "getting lost" in GW because the graphics, characters and textures can, at many times, seem very "real".

Whenever I dabbled in WoW, I was constantly reminded that I was playing a game based on the cartoonish nature of the landscapes and characters.

That, to me, is a very significant reason as to why I stuck with GW and not with WoW. If GW had kept the original cartoonish graphics shown in some of the screenshots (and on youtube), I most certainly would have moved onto something else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zinger314

I agree with Inde about the graphics. WoW has a much more aestetic appeal, while GW is just nature, nature, and nature.

Actually, I don't think Inde was inferring that WoW had some sort of aesthetic appeal...I think he simply was commenting that it was "different", and sometimes different can be refreshing if you've played a ton of games that attempted to look "real". Kind of like playing the Wii's Mario Bros after playing Playstation 3's Call of Duty.

AuraofMana · Mar 12, 2008, 06:23 PM // 18:23

1. GW having "skill > time" and "low level cap with no grind and effort" sounded great, except you hit max so fast you have nothing else to work for. So, what do players do? Grind, grind, grind, and grind some more. Titles are optional, but too bad that's all you can do after you beat the game.
Yes, PvP is another option, but you can't get in a "good" PvP group with ranks first. Joining a random one is really fun isn't it?

2. "OMG anime/comics/old-school games doesn't look real, they must suck!"
It has always been a Blizzard standard to have games run well on midstream systems, and the fact that Blizzard has always used cartoonish looks on SC and WC series. Diablo series employed a more realistic/gothic/darkish look, mostly because it was done by Blizzard North (aka different styles).

3. Anet can say anything they want about what they are doing. Anet had this "vision" thing ever since the first year of GW release. All I have been seeing is more grind, horrible balancing, and more random crap. Now they realize it isn't working, so they want to go WOW. "We are being unique and making the REAL GW this time"
You know, a lot of Korean companies that copied D2 back then said the exact same thing.
What Anet needs to do is stop copying WOW and adding grindfest. Stick to what the original GW had and GW will be unique and enjoyable. Right now it's just a bunch of badly mixed elements and horrible balancing.

As for whoever played DotA on War3, I have to say DotA is kind of like WOW. People bash DotA for having a lot of ladder/melee abilities and multiple windwalks/impales, and how it's item driving, and not all the heroes are balanced. But you know what? It's fun, and that's what truly counts in a game. It is also fun that makes 90% of Battle.net's population play DotA. Anyone can say anything they want about a popular game, but until they can tell me the popular game isn't popular anymore, all their "theories" and "visions" ring false.

The "raise my integer" addiction has been a core basis of RPG along with story element and gameplay. MMORPGs like WOW throws all 3 at you, but most of all it's the leveling addiction. People play it because they are addicted to the fun part. It isn't because they can't stop, it's because they don't want to stop. If it's fun for them, I see no reason why they can't keep playing it.
As for GW, it tries to suck players in at first through PvP, which turned out more people are interested in PvE, which it had done a poor job in. So, to remedy that, instead of actually making good PvE contents, it threw in titles and all those other grindfest events in PvE (such as goldsinks) to keep people playing until Anet release its next expansion pack. However, even with the expansion pack, GW can't add anymore levels/powers or it will horribly imbalance the game (wish Anet also know what else they are doing that is screwing up the balance), so they throw new continents and throw more and more titles. Now they realize it doesn't work, so they decide to do GW2, and this time, this time they will make it with a great PvE content from the beginning (aka WOW-clone), so people will actually keep playing.

Danax · Mar 12, 2008, 06:33 PM // 18:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vilaptca

Graphics shouldn't have anything to do with the quality of a game.

I've tried arguing this at my work, but none of them seem to understand.

To this day, I would much rather play Perfect Dark on my N64, than games such as Gears of War on my 360. There is a reason you keep going back to those older games, and I can tell you it isn't the graphics. In 10 years, I won't even remember Gears of War, but I'm damn sure I'll still be playing Perfect Dark.

Yeah that's true, but it's pretty much Goldeneye for the N64 that i'll remember. It probably also has to do with simplicity. You could easily learn how to play Goldeneye in about 10 minutes and play with your friends, but these days games are complicated and you'd need to play tutorials and learn the 20 buttons to do well. Goldeneye was just pure fun because it was as to the point FPS that had good multiplayer options. You can't just play Gears of War with your friends if you've never played it before. It'd take a lot longer to learn it.

Numa Pompilius · Mar 12, 2008, 06:43 PM // 18:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inde

Which is funny because I actually love the look of WoW. It's not the same cookie-cutter "realistic" computer graphics that I've been seeing for the past 4 years on every MMO in production.

No, it does not use typical PC-style graphics, it uses typical console-style graphics, as seen in pretty much every console game except for the most recent generation of games for the PS3 and XBox360, and for the same reason: until the most recent generation consoles had extremely weak hardware, and made a virtue out of their inability to pull off semi-realistic graphics.
The cheery color scheme, complete lack of detail, small texture size, low polygon count, and omnidirectional lighting, are not due to a stylistic statement, they're due to technological constraints.

Bryant Again · Mar 12, 2008, 07:04 PM // 19:04

By "complete lack of detail" I hope you're referring to the engine's capabilities, since nearly every room and area in WoW - most especially in the inns and houses - are filled with many props and accessories, showing a good care in making the places look authentic.