Curse

buggsy · Jun 10, 2005, 10:28 AM // 10:28

I love Diablo II. Bought it when it first came out. Stopped playing for about 3 years, and started playing again 6 months ago until Guild Wars came out. Lousy graphics for 2005, but im not the kind of guy thats all too impressed with graphics as long as gameplay is good.

Guild wars has the same exact instancing as Diablo II. Meet in chatroom (town), join a team (enter mission). Maximum number of 8 players. Except Diablo II has something better then Guild Wars, iff you have somebody leave your team, anybody can join an ongoing game. Now isnt that sweet. 7 year old technology not implimented here? Thats not right.

Now I wouldnt mind 3D Diablo, which is kind of what Guild wars is all about. I actually like the rumers theres a Diablo III on the way. But Diablo II even has another thing Guild Wars doesnt have. 3 difficulty levels. Guild Wars only has 1 difficulty level. This 7 year old game has more diversity then a brand spanking new game, 2005. I can count on my fingers the amount of diversity in Guild Wars (ranger, monk, necro, elementalist, warrior=5). I can do a whole lot more in Diablo II.

And as far as PvP is concerned in Diablo? I never cared for it. And guess what, that 7 year old game has more options in PvP then this brand spanking new game. You can PvP in any area on the map, while fighting NPC's at the same time. Holey moley.

Like I said, its hard to put into words. "Diversity" is all I can come up with.

PieXags · Jun 10, 2005, 10:31 AM // 10:31

Oh yeah! Well you can dye the lining on your staff an awkward color that doesn't match the bottle in this game!

Aaaaagh · Jun 10, 2005, 10:40 AM // 10:40

I get your point, but have you thought it out? It simply wouldnt work here, and this is the reason. In D2 map exploration was not a huge concern, you had waypoints that anyone could easily give you and the map changed every time you reloaded. In GW map exploration is a huge deal, you need to get to certain places and it can be difficult. If someone could just join in at any time everyone would exploit it. People would just jump in right before loading the next town/area or right before a quest NPC. It simply doesnt work here, its not about not utilizing technology, its about a completely different type of game.

The only similarities D2 and GW share are no monthly fee.....ok thats it, only one.

Silent Thunder · Jun 10, 2005, 10:49 AM // 10:49

you are thinking about it as in if they were trying to be different from D2. Actually they were trying to be different from games like EQ. Where if you have PvP in every zone you would have Camp Stealing, Pking, so on and so forth... ANet has said that those are the reasons that they made the game instanced.

Elena · Jun 10, 2005, 10:51 AM // 10:51

oh and you forgot mesmer so thats six ^^

Ninna · Jun 10, 2005, 10:57 AM // 10:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by buggsy

iff you have somebody leave your team, anybody can join an ongoing game. Now isnt that sweet.

Diablo is more efficient for soloing
and doesnt care much about people staying together in a team

many new people joining the Diablo map never joined the party
- and just went off to solo in a different area of the map

none · Jun 10, 2005, 11:23 AM // 11:23

Quote:

But Diablo II even has another thing Guild Wars doesnt have. 3 difficulty levels.

And it takes less time to finish all three difficulty levels as it takes completing Guild Wars with only one. If you praise someone for not creating new content, but instead just copy & paste and add 100 HP to every monster out there, then something must be wrong.

Synncial77 · Jun 10, 2005, 12:20 PM // 12:20

I know that this game "isn't Diablo 2" but Diablo 2 did some things that kept it insanely addictive for endless months (and years).

Besides the random maps (which just wouldn't work with Guild Wars) the two other components that it had were three different difficulty levels (plus the hardcore mode) and tons of high end loot.

Think about it, the Guild War experience kind of comes to a screaming halt once you've gone through the campain once. Everything is pretty much the same afterwards. There's really no compelling reason to keep playing through the world you've already unlocked when you've completed all the quests and missions. Sure, there's PvP but fighting in teams of 8 (especially 6 team matches) is confusing and stagnant. Sure, some people have "mastered it" but your everyday PvEer just won't ever really be a presense in this area.

The other thing, being loot, WAS a compelling thing to come back to. And I'm not just talking about the solo farming builds where you could decimate 5+ guys in seconds. Even when in a full team loot drops are pretty unrewarding now.

If I could pick any one thing to increase the replayability of Guild Wars it would have to be the addition of a Hard Core realm for PvE. This, combined with a Hard Core ladder showing the players with the highest experience points displayed on the Guild Wars website would give players an actual reason to battle through the game yet again. With the constant fear of permanent death looming over your shoulder as you try to get to the end of the game, people would really start to act and depend on solid teamwork to get through the missions. And, yes, ressurection would still have it's place in this system. Basically, permanent death would only happen if all your party members died on the map/mission you were on. If one party member were able to finish the mission or zone to a different map then everyone would survive.

Greentongue · Jun 10, 2005, 12:39 PM // 12:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synncial77

If I could pick any one thing to increase the replayability of Guild Wars it would have to be the addition of a Hard Core realm for PvE. This, combined with a Hard Core ladder showing the players with the highest experience points displayed on the Guild Wars website would give players an actual reason to battle through the game yet again. With the constant fear of permanent death looming over your shoulder as you try to get to the end of the game, people would really start to act and depend on solid teamwork to get through the missions. And, yes, ressurection would still have it's place in this system. Basically, permanent death would only happen if all your party members died on the map/mission you were on. If one party member were able to finish the mission or zone to a different map then everyone would survive.

I agree that this would be a Great addition. With the exception of Arenas/Tombs of course.
If there was an option for all PvE play to be "Harecore" it would certainly add to the game.

Coffee Despot · Jun 10, 2005, 01:09 PM // 13:09

Quote:

This 7 year old game has more diversity then a brand spanking new game, 2005.

Unless I blacked out for an entire year again, Diablo II wasn't released in 1998.

The problem with having folks join you mid-game is that we're lacking any sort of waypoint system. If someone randomly joins your team and they're just leaving Bergen while you're half-way through the Black Curtain (going after Galrath) then you'll have a long wait on your hands.

I suppose this could be solved by having anyone who joins your team zone in by the nearest entrance to the party. Still, how much work would this take to implement? It's a noble enough idea, but I wonder how tricky it'd be to code.

Tactical-Dillusions · Jun 10, 2005, 01:12 PM // 13:12

I have metioned this before in an obscure topic somewhere but this topic fits the bill and has a catchy title to grabs arenanets eyes.....

A RANDOM QUEST GENERATOR - never run out of quests, always something to do. Quests could be available after completing the game so to say and be anything from running a message to clearing an entire zone of enemies etc.

Another idea i put forward is a PVE DEATHMATCH idea. An arena for single players or groups that face ever increasing waves of mobs until the party is eventually defeated.
People or groups gain fame/recognition after reaching waypoints in the deathmatch/endurance.

Ideas such as these would expand the gameplay and playability of GW, keeping players ingame and giving them more enjoyment.

I do agree that the game can become stagnant for pve orientated people after completion and waiting for the next expansion all the time would just not be to everyones tastes.

Shamblemonkee · Jun 10, 2005, 01:24 PM // 13:24

Sounds like you are all waiting for Hellgate: London

Gaele · Jun 10, 2005, 01:26 PM // 13:26

The beauty of GW is that it brings a new face to gaming, coincidently changing it forever. A game like D2, Mu, Ragnarok, KnightOnline, LoM... they're all about running outside, THEN forming the party, then rushing the enemy with virtually no purpose other than to become more powerful. It's an endless climbing of stairs and although I don't question the addiction factor of Diablo II, it proves nothing about skill or in-brain calculations.

Guild Wars would be what I call a competitive RPG. Somewhat like having a race in grade school on who can finish Chrono Trigger quickest or compare levels with people you know who own the same game.
This is to me, intensely interesting, especially when you don't need to do it alone. You can get ahead of your friends while meeting new ones, badabing badaboom.
There's really no ground to compare GW to DII since they're almost completely different classes of gaming, one is a constantly online community you can see at all times, the other depends *entirely on strategy to keep your team mates alive and in game.

Dirkiess · Jun 10, 2005, 01:30 PM // 13:30

I'm all up for new addition for quests, ideas etc for GW to make it more enjoyable than it already is, well, for me anyway.

But i think a lot of people seem to miss one simple fact. Other than D2, where can you get hrs of gameplay that is continuious, depending on what and how you want to play for anywhere from £20-£35, about $35-$50 for our american cousins.

There are too many impatient people out there that want everything now, complete it in 10hrs and then complain there is nothing else for them to do.
Ok, 10hrs may be a small exaggeration, but you get the point.

I'm not really one for PvP but I still have a go, as I want to learn it, and playing against other players is like playing a game of chess. There are always better chess players out there, and to defeat them, is a reward.
If one chess player uses the same moves to try and defeat his opponents, then someone will always find a way around his moves to defeat him.

I look at PvP as one very big Chess Board with a large amount of moves to be made. Ok, the scenery may be the same, but does a chessboard ever change, no, the players tactics and moves is what changes.

I also don't tend to stay and play the game constantly either. I have other things I like to do, and coming back for a few hours here and there makes it more enjoyable, plus I like playing other games as well.

All time fav is Adventures, but I strongly like RPG and Strategy too, hence the analogy to Chess.

Don't get me wrong, i like to read peoples ideas and possible improvements or additions to the game which will help to improve the overall experience, but instead of keep bringing up the same threads over and over, have a change, play something else for a while and then come back. If you still have the same feelings, then maybe you just no longer want to play GW.

joeljermon · Jun 10, 2005, 02:57 PM // 14:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by buggsy

This 7 year old game has more diversity then a brand spanking new game, 2005. I can count on my fingers the amount of diversity in Guild Wars (ranger, monk, necro, elementalist, warrior=5). I can do a whole lot more in Diablo II.

And as far as PvP is concerned in Diablo? I never cared for it. And guess what, that 7 year old game has more options in PvP then this brand spanking new game. You can PvP in any area on the map, while fighting NPC's at the same time. Holey moley.

You left off the mesmer. Anyway, the classes have a far greater variety of skills than Diablo, and the PvP is much deeper.

Snowman · Jun 10, 2005, 03:52 PM // 15:52

You right buggsy...

and to those who responded, buggsy is pointing out 'technical' similarities to DII.. not really the game play...

And I agree with this strongly.. we KNOW that the technology is there so they MUST have made an active decision NOT to incorperate it.. maybe the way they have written the code doesnt alow it?

Another game ...

Dungeon Siege!..

This was the same if you remember... in fact you could tick a box to make it an 'open' game.. so people could enter your instance.

This was GREAT fun!.. .. this simple little feature would REVOLOUTIONISE (sp) Guildwars.. I dont think ANYONE would be bored,..

BTW: I beta test Dungeon Siege II - dont bother, graphics are CRAP, but the game play is alot more addictive in terms of 'casual playing'

The Snowman

Rieselle · Jun 11, 2005, 08:23 PM // 20:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synncial77

I know that this game "isn't Diablo 2" but Diablo 2 did some things that kept it insanely addictive for endless months (and years).

Besides the random maps (which just wouldn't work with Guild Wars) the two other components that it had were three different difficulty levels (plus the hardcore mode) and tons of high end loot.

If I could pick any one thing to increase the replayability of Guild Wars it would have to be the addition of a Hard Core realm for PvE. This, combined with a Hard Core ladder showing the players with the highest experience points displayed on the Guild Wars website would give players an actual reason to battle through the game yet again. With the constant fear of permanent death looming over your shoulder as you try to get to the end of the game, people would really start to act and depend on solid teamwork to get through the missions. And, yes, ressurection would still have it's place in this system. Basically, permanent death would only happen if all your party members died on the map/mission you were on. If one party member were able to finish the mission or zone to a different map then everyone would survive.

I'd really like to see one (or several) infinitely deep randomly generated dungeons that get progressively harder. The enemies are all randomly placed and are completely free roaming. And are of random types. The challenge would be to take your team and try to get as deep as you can. The key point is that noone can get to the bottom, presumably by the 500th level or whatever you'll be hip deep in lvl 50 monsters all using several elite skills or something. Having a well-coordinated, balanced party that can respond to any situation should be the key.

Rewards or kudos can be given to people who get deepest in the dungeons, maybe even a ladder for pve'ing.

Perhaps for every 10 levels down you go, that you've never been before, you'll get a new skill point, unlock something of your choice, or some other thing that you need to farm for currently.

In summary, I'd like to see a random pve experience that rewards skill, is replayable and challenging. The trend in modern games is to make games that you "play through" and then it ends, what happened to games like Nethack, or arcade shooters where you would keep playing again and again to try to beat your personal record?

ihmurria · Jun 12, 2005, 12:35 AM // 00:35

A random dungeon type setting would be really nice.... it does get a little tiring to run the same land overand over again. Maybe that's just because I keep dying in missions though :S

This game is still quite young, it hasn't been around for five years (Diablo II case says copyright 2000, right?), it's only had a few online updates and no actual expansion pack -yet-. They're constantly trying to improve the game and listen to the customers, so rather than being "oooh, not enough diversity", coming up with actual suggestions is more likely to lead towards a game you enjoy.

so my suggestion is a randomly generated dungeon with a few levels, where the minimap works and shows you where you ahve and haven't been! Mmmm, randomly generated.

CtrlAltDel · Jun 12, 2005, 12:37 AM // 00:37

go back to playing diablow then

theclam · Jun 12, 2005, 12:52 AM // 00:52

Diablo is a good game, but it doesn't have anywhere near the diversity that Guild Wars does. In D2, there are 30*7 skills, for a total of 210. Guild Wars has about 450. In D2, you rarely use more than a dozen over the entire lifetime of a character. In addition, you can't change your skills without making a new character, and there are not very many good combos. GW is the exact opposite.

There are some advantages that D2 has over GW. One big advantage that D2 has, is that the item system is more robust (although there is a large power gap between the items that a hardcore gamer would use and the items that a casual gamer would use).

Still, I think that overall, GW is a better game, with more replayability.