Curse

Mithie · Aug 11, 2005, 02:41 PM // 14:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

...Dungeon Siege... Pool of Radiance 2, Dungeon Lords...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You're done.

20 years of CRPG my GORED ENGINE.

How can you compare plot-driven single player RPG's like BG, BGII, or KOTOR with CORPG's like Guild Wars anyhoo? That's like comparing Bush with Cheney to see who can square dance better. Use more appropriate analogies if you want your arguments to hold weight.

Numa Pompilius · Aug 11, 2005, 02:49 PM // 14:49

Speaking of fun/tedium ratio, that's exactly why BG1 is a worse game than GW. Random respawning mobs scaled to your level so it'd take half an hour to kill them Every. Single. Fricking. Step. And the joy when they broke and ran from you so you'd get to spend five minutes hunting them around the field until they got stuck in a bush so you could kill them and finally end the encounter.
BG2 was a massive step up compared to the mindless hack&slash of BG1.

Also, I don't believe a single game I mentioned was shareware. In fact, they're the biggest titles of the last few years.

It's nice we now agree that GW PvE is not at all "crap". You feel it's below average, I feel it's above average, and we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

As for UAE, I've all along argued FOR that. I want the PvE completely separated from the PvP, because the PvP'ers are disruptive in PvE. Much of what problems there are in PvE stems from PvP players playing PvE, hating it, and making sure everyone shares their pain. It's got a lot better after Anet enabled unlocking through PvP, though.

However, what I want is irrelevant, what matters is what Anet wants, and Anet do not want to separate PvP from PvE.

Mithie · Aug 11, 2005, 02:54 PM // 14:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

Speaking of fun/tedium ratio, that's exactly why BG1 is a worse game than GW.

Are you HONESTLY comparing an infinity engine story driven game with an online RPG??

Numa Pompilius · Aug 11, 2005, 03:00 PM // 15:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mithie

How can you compare plot-driven single player RPG's like BG, BGII, or KOTOR with CORPG's like Guild Wars anyhoo?

Because there's no difference. The stories are simply vehicles to carry you between combats. Some games, like PS:T and KOTOR, are more linear and can therefore put more effort and focus on the story, while other, like Morrowind and GW, are less linear and can not focus as much on the story.

The real meat of any fantasy RPG is the combat. The story, even when it's good like in PS:T or KOTOR, is there to get you to the next fight.

It's true that GW is intended to be played cooperatively, but it can be soloed, and then the difference to a sprawling party-based cRPG like BG2 is zero.

Mithie · Aug 11, 2005, 03:15 PM // 15:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

The real meat of any fantasy RPG is the combat. The story, even when it's good like in PS:T or KOTOR

No. The meat of a story driven RPG is the writing and the plot.

The meat of a freeform RPG are the degrees of freedom.

The meat of an action RPG *IS* the combat.

PS:T was a story driven game. The point of combat in PS:T is to further the story. The story IS NOT a vehicle for combat.

I can beat PS:T with only one compulsory fight: with Ravel. The rest can be beaten with stealth/conversations. Hell, any RPG where you can talk the end boss to death should be a major hint that the game is *NOT* built around combat.

JMadisonIV · Aug 11, 2005, 05:04 PM // 17:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

The fact of the matter is that the PvE in GW is quite good. That people eventually tire of a game which takes about 100+ hours to play through is hardly surprising, and definitely not proof that the PvE sucks.

The PvP of GW is completely uninteresting to me, as it reminds me of Magic the Gathering. If I want PvP I'll instead fire up an FPS.

quoted for truth.

I don't agree with the "this is a PvP game, if you like PvE play something else" sentiment.

If I want a skill-based PvP game, I'll play Planetside, or Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, or any other twitch-based Shooter. Guild Wars PvP is utterly unimpressive to me, but then again I've never been a fan of small-scale PvP, I 've always been a fan of Siege.

MarkyX · Aug 11, 2005, 07:37 PM // 19:37

Quote:

Hell, any RPG where you can talk the end boss to death should be a major hint that the game is *NOT* built around combat.

Hooray for Fallout.

yslee · Aug 17, 2005, 05:37 PM // 17:37

This is a good thread, refershing to NOT see number crunching, and I hope ArenaNet is reading this as well!

I'd like to add my voice on the boring and tedious PvE experience. First a little background. I've been playing RPGs, both pen-and-paper and computer RPGs for a long time. I still have my first edition AD&D somewhere. I prefer a RPG with a good story and open-ended play, though I don't mind some hack-and-slash every now and then. I'm also the one that doesn't care for uber-loot, unlike most of the instant-gratification crowd, but am feel immensely rewarded with an awesome story or fufilling gameplay. I got Guild Wars thanks to the constant prodding of a friend, and having played it for a few weeks now I can see the game's promise, but at the same time some flaws are rather glaring even at this stage.

Now on to my views; like what others have said, there isn't enough variety (that's a key word in RPGs I feel) in what you can do; normally it's go from point A to point B, kill all the monsters along the way by aggro-ing them mob by mob, see what guy at point B wants, go to point C, do stuff at point C, then head back to collect your reward, while doing more mob by mob aggro-ing along the way. Add to the mostly linear path made by barriers and it gets very old very quickly. And this is just my first run in the game, and I'm barely halfway through.

I'm among those who'd like to see more variety of instanced areas instead of having the same monsters all the time at the same spots, and less monsters per area, but more interesting fights if there is a need to do battle. I think monsters need to be more unique in terms of skills, and have skills that are specially made for them. Not uber skills designed to counter player moves, but skills that would make sense for the respective monsters surviving in their environments, which can throw a surprise every now and then. Like what some have said, I'd like to fight less but feel more rewarded every time I finish a fight. The AI for the monsters can be quite decent, so let's see something more unique in the encounters rather than having the party mow through group after group of similar monsters like some broken lawnmower.

Also having the different gameplay modes suggested sound great. Imagine trying to escort a caravan, conduct a raid, defend a siege, as well as having your own freedom in doing these tasks. You could dictate where the caravan goes, how best to catch the enemy by surprise in a raid, and whether if sneaking out to sabotage a siege party would do any good. It could certainly add a lot of variety (there's that word again) in the game.

Someone mentioned about the guilds having relatively little presence in the PvE section, and it somewhat ruins the immersive experience. I think that's something that can be improved upon. Members of powerful guilds get some kind of recognition, and perhaps they can influence the gameworld in subtle ways (maybe they can even be linked to the extra gameplay modes mentioned above).

I'd also like to see branching mission storylines, where the PC has some effect on where the story can go. Obviously the conclusion has to remain the same, but the journey taken to reach that conclusion in the chapter can differ. If this is done though, it should be done as subtly as possible, otherwise I can see the barrage of questions from unadventerous newbies about which option is the best to go once they hit the fork in the road, so to speak. This might get a little complicated, and I don't expect to see it, but it'd be nice if the crack team at ArenaNet surprise me with the flexibility of the game's engine.

Finally I'd like to make the suggestion that ArenaNet get the guys who did the story for Warcraft/Starcraft from Blizzard! Guild Wars has a so-so story right now, but I'm hoping for better, given ArenaNet's pedigree, so if you guys are still chums with Blizzard, how about borrowing their writing team for a few months.. :P

Mhydrian · Aug 17, 2005, 05:51 PM // 17:51

The game starts to suck after youve beaten it once, and unlocking krap VIA PVP is horrible. I really would like to see more of a solo adventure PVE option. My idea of solo play wasnt with 7 braindead henchies.

The first time through the game is fun, after that though the missions are a chore, the battles repetitive. The mobs are retarded and enchantment strip like maniacs on crack. I cant even get off a healing breeze without it getting instantly stripped in some areas.