128 replies to this topic

[NELiXERY]

Lady Rhonwyn, on 06 September 2012 - 07:25 AM, said:

When I go on holiday, as soon as I close the door behind me, I'm enjoying my holiday.

I like that post, only because I've never been on a plane. People may think after a few times, being on a plane is boring, but then again, if it's first class...

I see what you mean by that analogy though. You'd wanna enjoy everything about the game, not just the destination (end-game) itself.

[ToroNagga]

Misce, on 06 September 2012 - 08:03 AM, said:

It's not my one opinion. Take a look at the forums - it's swamped with complaints.

Then don't play!  It really isn't a problem, if you don't like something, don't do it!  This is, after all supposed to be a recreation activity that people do because they enjoy it, not because they have too.  I understand it's not for everyone, I don't like football games or platform jumpers, in fact I absolutely detested Mario/Sonic/Zool and all the other generic clones so I never bought them.  How simple is that?

Personally I think this is the game I have been waiting for without really knowing it.  I really get an Elder Scrolls (Morrowind/Oblivion/Skyrim) epic vibe from some locations, especially with the background music (Jeremy Soule worked on these too I believe).  In others I feel like part of a massive action film (Kingdom of Heaven maybe?) when I help siege a fortresses in WvWvW.  I don't feel isolated from the outer/real world like I would playing an Elder Scrolls style RPG, but I don't feel like you must be in a massive guild full of elite players to actually succeed either.  I can do what I want, at the pace I want, and enjoy it as a whole game rather than racing through parts to get to something else.  It is clear the Devs have put a LOT of effort into making it.  Yes it's not perfect yet and there a loads of bugs that can be frustrating, but with so much in it, that was bound to happen.  They are a business, in a lot of ways, only a small one, so they had to balance the release against the financial model they are working to.

If you really hate it that much, BUGGER OFF and don't play!!! leave it alone forever or maybe come back after a couple of months and see if you like it then.  At the end of the day, if you don't enjoy it you are wasting your time and should be doing something you do enjoy.

[InfiniteRetro]

why are people under this retardation that a game like WoW isnt fun at all until you reach level cap? i do love this anet indoctrination that all other mmos are dull and boring and somehow by stealing warhammer/rifts technology they somehow have made mmos fun again?

yes, joining in on a quest without ANY interaction to the npc, barely any chatting to other players is somehow evolutionary. no, its LAZY, its welfare questing. no trinity means no responsibility for anyone else, which goes against what an mmo is since thats why classes exist in rpgs i the first place.

30 to 80 is BORING. you're doing the same shit you do in other mmos except on a more welfare level. i guess this generation are to lazy to really engage in the story as long as its 'handed to you'. you might have to pick up quests and venture out into the world in WoW but that promotes far more immersion and exploring than a game that basically adds you to a pool of other players taking part in something without barely a word spoken.

if arenanet were smart they would have removed levels completely like The Secret World. or keep the level cap of 20 from gw1 and not have zones listed by what level you should be.

even if wow didnt exist gw2 is a barstard version of gw1. and when you have the newbie fanboys who think gw2 is all that while they barely cut their teeth in gw1 say the first game was some pile of shit remember one thing:

you wouldnt have a sequel if it wasnt for the following of the first.

[brokenlockpick]

Misce, on 06 September 2012 - 07:19 AM, said:

Friend, the problem is that the game is boring. Just because ANet made that conscious decision from the very start doesn't make it ok.

yup, it is, and if you're from a pvp background, well, wow, must have taken lots of meetings to make it so awful

and obviously the types of people who find opinions other than own something to attack don't like this sorta comment, so perhaps flame here and then go and make a ''awesome game'' thread

[Lady Rhonwyn]

mentalvortex, on 06 September 2012 - 09:52 AM, said:

But the enjoyment of the story is completely subjective. I don't really understand the opinions of people who think this game has the most in-depth and most immersive story-telling in recent decades. Either they haven't played many RPGs or...again it's opinion. I don't know - I do feel like storytelling can be objectively shallow though.

I find the story entertaining.  A way to give some backstory to my character, but nothing more than that.  And, honestly, I prefer it that way.  I can ignore the story if I want to, without missing too much.

I don't think the story in a MMO, due to the basic idea of a MMO, can't be too deep: you cannot change the world permanently, because others will be playing in that same world and will be at different stages of their story (and those changes wouldn't make sense to them)

[MrLarone]

Well said Timebomb.

Can especially sympathise with feeling of not progressing.

Traits are supposed to fill that niche I guess, but at a new perk every 5 levels feels a little too spread out.

Keeping your gear up to date is another thing, but personally feels more like a chore as, 9 times out of 10,  my next set up is just more of the same. depends on luck on finding sigils (and salavging them off in on the wrong gear)... perhaps once I get my crafting up and can make my own sigils that will get better.

In terms of where I am actually finding that progression... actually getting from A to B.

Trying to ween myself off of waypoints as it's turning into an expensive habit, which means I'm having to plan my route a lot further than I want to go to X and kill Y.

Achievements help too.

Really you have to accept that you're already playing at top level (due to scaling) and really it's the journey that matters. Do that, I find, and the game is most definately enjoyable.

The above does remind me a little of a criticisim I once heard of film:

"You may well enjoy this, but it only shows you have a greater imagination than those who wrote it."

Anet have certainly given me a fantastic playground to play in... whether it's what the MMORPG connoisseurs find agreeable is another matter http://xkcd.com/915/

Edited by MrLarone, 06 September 2012 - 10:29 AM.

[Red_Falcon]

I think GW2 suits players who don't need a game to tell them what to do but rather just like to set their own objectives.
For instance in GW1 I made it a personal challenge to explore all Tyria and solo every zone on my Warrior.
I made a goal to collect all the skins I liked - now that has taken me some time as some were FoW armors and very rare golds.
I even managed to solo the large majority of FoW with Talkhora keeping boons on me (skeletons were the hard part, blind spamming).
Another thing was soloing the first coop mission because I couldn't stand that you simply had to run from the charrs, I killed them all.

I feel GW2 is more of a playground for you to find your stuff to do just like GW1 rather than a game full of artificial invisible walls you have to break by grinding.

[Lady Rhonwyn]

Red_Falcon, on 06 September 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

I think GW2 suits players who don't need a game to tell them what to do but rather just like to set their own objectives.
For instance in GW1 I made it a personal challenge to explore all Tyria and solo every zone on my Warrior.
I made a goal to collect all the skins I liked - now that has taken me some time as some were FoW armors and very rare golds.
I even managed to solo the large majority of FoW with Talkhora keeping boons on me (skeletons were the hard part, blind spamming).
Another thing was soloing the first coop mission because I couldn't stand that you simply had to run from the charrs, I killed them all.

I feel GW2 is more of a playground for you to find your stuff to do just like GW1 rather than a game full of artificial invisible walls you have to break by grinding.

Very nicely worded what I was thinking too!  People kept asking me why I wanted to get that 4th GWAMM.  My answer: because I can.  It was an objective I set myself.  And GW2 is very good at letting me set my own objective...

[XPhiler]

mentalvortex, on 06 September 2012 - 09:52 AM, said:

Do you play many single player RPGs? I don't mean this to be a slight on you but the only reason DEs are such a big deal in GW2 is because it's an MMO and that's a hard function to implement in MMOs. "DEs" have been around in single player RPGs since the 90s. The whole game contains dynamic events and unlike GW2 they're permanent.

But the enjoyment of the story is completely subjective. I don't really understand the opinions of people who think this game has the most in-depth and most immersive story-telling in recent decades. Either they haven't played many RPGs or...again it's opinion. I don't know - I do feel like storytelling can be objectively shallow though.

Yes I played plenty of single Player Games and RPGs. No game has anything close imho. Which single player RPG has dynamic events in it? If they're permanent by definition they're not Dynamic! That would be a regular quest of which outcome that is being visually reflected in the game world rather then simply have it reflected back simply by an NPC that tells it has happened . Let me explain with the witcher 2. There is a point in which you prepair to defend a city from an invasion. Nothing happens before you actually trigger the mission that starts the invasion and once it is resolved nothing happens to reflect this city is under siege. And come on no war especially invovling multiple countries is resolving in 1 small engagement.

There are two sides to any coin. Dynamiic events have a repetition issue but static quests have their own issues as well. They're always perfectly timed with you. No matter how much you delay, stop at the tavern or whatever you'll always walk in as an excution is about to happen giving you a chance to do something about it. Simply speaking Events happen exactly at the right time ,thats equally unrealistic. I would love it personally if like Gw2 in single player RPGs I can just get to see NPCs come to live. The elder scroll series did start this to a degree but it doesnt go as far as GW2 has taken it in my opinion. You dont follow a black smith to the mines where he starts mining only to be attacked by beasts and actually dies. That would make a game feel more immersive and more enjoyable giving you a reason to explore around.

Just look at the walk through for games like the witcher 2 to understand what I mean anything that happens is cataloged one thing after the other. Even the few side quests they are they all have to be triggered and follow a linear progression.  In GW2 this is less so. You can never know which Dynamic events you will come face to face with, you will never know at which point they start, and you never know how they will progress because they can branch in different ways.

Dont get me wrong, still think that over all the witcher 2 is a better game then gw2 in many ways. But there are things that are done better in Gw2 then in the witcher 2 and a feeling of world alive is in my opinion one of them!

I didnt say Gw2 has the most indepth most immerssive story telling in the last decade! I said it has a good story that keeps me engaged! Does every new RPG you play have the best story? never had one that had a weaker story then a game that came before it and still enjoyed it? just cause a story isnt the best ever it doesnt mean its bad and cant be enjoyed! For starters the fact you can play the game multiple times and have a completely different story each time is already notable, how many single player RPGs can claim more then a single storyline? GW2 has at least that I know off 15 distinct 1 - 20 storylines and 3 distinct 20 - 54 (I only got till here so far not sure if the story will continue based on the faction and I have no idea how the 15 distinct 1 - 20 storylines effect the 3 distinct storylines. For all I know the choice you make significantly effect the 3 distinct storylines as well. And this also ignoring the fact that at least in my storyline between 20 - 54 I had to do choices that I am pretty sure would have taken my distinct storyline in a few different direction. so Each of those 3 distinct 20 - 54 storylines have also distinct paths. In terms of story there is an amazing amount and the fact you shape the story based on your choices is great. Again which this is also something that happens in single player RPGs it doesnt happen to this scale as far as I am aware off.

Heart Collector, on 06 September 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

Can't say I disagree with either of your points. And yeah, the story so far at least isn't that brilliant (though I'm still very early in the game, it could change). However I find it quite adequate, so far it does it's job and does have me invested, albeit not at the edge of my seat! Guess I'm spoiled by point and click adventures when it comes to the story

Yes Invested is a good way describe it, I agree. You have to consider this is an MMO that interms of story it has to put out a ton of it when compared to a single player game. In many MMOs I generally end up at a point of clicking accept looking at the quest log to see wha tI need to do next. Thats what for me is described as a bad story when I end up not really caring why I am doing what I am doing. On the other hand in GW2 when it comes to dynamic events so far I have always been, Cant wait to finish this task to see what happens next. If a dynamic event chain starts with an npc asking for help to collect artificats you know deep down this is not going to end well, it never does and its great to see step by step how it does infact end badly and thats great!

at then end I know this dynamic event will not turn into a lord of rings epic story where we'll have to fight whole sieges to deal with the troublesome artifcat that we're sure to find. (its cliche' but its a good cliche' because it gets you curious since there are many ways how the story can turn out) But it doesnt need to be, all it needs to do is keep the story interesting enough and portray the story well enough that I keep wanting to see what happens with the trouble some artifcat till the end. And it does that so well, that had I to come across that Dynamic event again I wouldnt mind redoing it because it is both fun and challenging and there are steps in the story that I know can go in different ways if the event fails during those steps.

Edited by XPhiler, 06 September 2012 - 11:01 AM.

[Misce]

InfiniteRetro, on 06 September 2012 - 10:14 AM, said:

why are people under this retardation that a game like WoW isnt fun at all until you reach level cap? i do love this anet indoctrination that all other mmos are dull and boring and somehow by stealing warhammer/rifts technology they somehow have made mmos fun again?

yes, joining in on a quest without ANY interaction to the npc, barely any chatting to other players is somehow evolutionary. no, its LAZY, its welfare questing. no trinity means no responsibility for anyone else, which goes against what an mmo is since thats why classes exist in rpgs i the first place.

30 to 80 is BORING. you're doing the same shit you do in other mmos except on a more welfare level. i guess this generation are to lazy to really engage in the story as long as its 'handed to you'. you might have to pick up quests and venture out into the world in WoW but that promotes far more immersion and exploring than a game that basically adds you to a pool of other players taking part in something without barely a word spoken.

if arenanet were smart they would have removed levels completely like The Secret World. or keep the level cap of 20 from gw1 and not have zones listed by what level you should be.

even if wow didnt exist gw2 is a barstard version of gw1. and when you have the newbie fanboys who think gw2 is all that while they barely cut their teeth in gw1 say the first game was some pile of shit remember one thing:

you wouldnt have a sequel if it wasnt for the following of the first.

brokenlockpick, on 06 September 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

yup, it is, and if you're from a pvp background, well, wow, must have taken lots of meetings to make it so awful

and obviously the types of people who find opinions other than own something to attack don't like this sorta comment, so perhaps flame here and then go and make a ''awesome game'' thread

Agreed with both.

You see, it's not "my one opinion" nor are my critic posts the half of all complaints about GW2. It's a made up argument you fanbois use to make me sound like a minority, while everyone else is bloody thrilled by this mediocrity.

Edited by Misce, 06 September 2012 - 11:31 AM.

[mentalvortex]

XPhiler, on 06 September 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

If they're permanent by definition they're not Dynamic!

Your definition of dynamic is a little off. Dynamic means "continuous change" which is actually the opposite of what DEs are currently given a long time scale. A world being dynamic changes around you based on your actions. Dynamic in no way means the same events have to repeat themselves in order to fulfill the definition. They only made it this way because it's an MMO and they have to repeat themselves for all players to be able to enjoy them. Look at any modern RPG - almost all of them you encounter an event in the game that gives you a choice which changes the outcome of the game. If you put those throughout the games you're in a dynamic world and those are "dynamic events". Lots of games have that.

Quote

There is a point in which you prepair to defend a city from an invasion. Nothing happens before you actually trigger the mission that starts the invasion and once it is resolved nothing happens to reflect this city is under siege.

Naming one structured quest in the game does not mean the game has no dynamic events. In Act 2 (Roche) there are camps being under attack by Rotfiends and if you don't save them - they're dead. There are similarly many quests that involve a choice that impact the rest of the game. You can choose to allow Roche to kill King Henselt which then has a drastic impact in how the game ends. You can also (must be done quickly) choose to throw Iorveth his sword in order to defends himself - or you can leave him for dead. A "DE" triggers in Act 2 when you see a man training for a duel to the death coming up. You can choose to fight by him in order to avoid his certain death - or you can allow him to go through with it. All of these events change the story in various ways and they're all dynamic. GW2 just tried to make the concept of choice prevalent in their game.

Quote

There are two sides to any coin. Dynamiic events have a repetition issue but static quests have their own issues as well. They're always perfectly timed with you. No matter how much you delay, stop at the tavern or whatever you'll always walk in as an excution is about to happen giving you a chance to do something about it.

Again, this isn't true of all games. You keep saying all games have only static quests which makes me believe you've played few RPGs. There are many RPGs with time based quests that if you do not do them in a certain time, the negative outcome will happen. Mass Effect is a current example of featuring that, but also The Witcher has some of those as well. Hell, lots of games have that.

Quote

Just look at the walk through for games like the witcher 2 to understand what I mean anything that happens is cataloged one thing after the other. Even the few side quests they are they all have to be triggered and follow a linear progression.  In GW2 this is less so. You can never know which Dynamic events you will come face to face with, you will never know at which point they start, and you never know how they will progress because they can branch in different ways.

This is a strange comparison, as the outcomes in GW2 are much more limited than the ones in The Witcher 2. GW2 has a positive outcome and a negative outcome for every dynamic event. There is no shades of grey. You help them or you don't. Then the next quest proceeds. Saying they have "unexpected random results" is really really confusing to me. As I said - they have 2 results. And to you saying they "happen randomly" that's also false - ANet doesn't have devs sitting by randomly pressing a button to trigger a DE. They're all timer based assumingly dependent (maybe even not) how many players are in the game. You talk of walkthroughs as making players know every step. Not only does that ruin the fun, the same thing can happen to GW2 in a month or even less. Give GW2 some time and players will come up with a wiki (they probably already have) that lists the location of every DE, the positive or negative effect that comes after it, and the time it takes for the DE to start up again. Games have to be structured up to a point, I don't know how you can argue GW2 is completely freeform.

Quote

I didnt say Gw2 has the most indepth most immerssive story telling in the last decade! I said it has a good story that keeps me engaged! Does every new RPG you play have the best story? never had one that had a weaker story then a game that came before it and still enjoyed it? just cause a story isnt the best ever it doesnt mean its bad and cant be enjoyed

[/size]

This is a good point and one I made to an extreme. I just said "the best story ever" because with the way a lot of posts are making it sound they think that GW2 has the best everything in a game. I'm of the personal opinion that the storyline in GW2 is bland. Not perhaps bad, but bland and not enjoyable. Of course this is subjective to a point, but I really don't even think it can qualify as a good story. If GW2 were a book detailing one path, it would be a bad one. But that's just it - it's a game. An MMO no less, as Heart has said MMOs have generally been weak in the story department so it doesn't impact the game as much as other genres and you can still have fun.

Quote

For starters the fact you can play the game multiple times and have a completely different story each time is already notable, how many single player RPGs can claim more then a single storyline?

There's a few - to say that GW2 was the first to have different playable characters with different storylines would be wrong. In fact, GW2 has a starting system that borrows directly from Dragon Age: Origins. Secret of Mana 2 had 3 different complete storylines and that game came out in 1995.

[XPhiler]

InfiniteRetro, on 06 September 2012 - 10:14 AM, said:

why are people under this retardation that a game like WoW isnt fun at all until you reach level cap? i do love this anet indoctrination that all other mmos are dull and boring and somehow by stealing warhammer/rifts technology they somehow have made mmos fun again?

yes, joining in on a quest without ANY interaction to the npc, barely any chatting to other players is somehow evolutionary. no, its LAZY, its welfare questing. no trinity means no responsibility for anyone else, which goes against what an mmo is since thats why classes exist in rpgs i the first place.

30 to 80 is BORING. you're doing the same shit you do in other mmos except on a more welfare level. i guess this generation are to lazy to really engage in the story as long as its 'handed to you'. you might have to pick up quests and venture out into the world in WoW but that promotes far more immersion and exploring than a game that basically adds you to a pool of other players taking part in something without barely a word spoken.

if arenanet were smart they would have removed levels completely like The Secret World. or keep the level cap of 20 from gw1 and not have zones listed by what level you should be.

even if wow didnt exist gw2 is a barstard version of gw1. and when you have the newbie fanboys who think gw2 is all that while they barely cut their teeth in gw1 say the first game was some pile of shit remember one thing:

you wouldnt have a sequel if it wasnt for the following of the first.

Since I guess you're refering to me cause I am the one that brought that subject, I will answer you. I stopped playing WoW in time when indoctrination told me that GW was a bad game that was only about pvp so I had completely skipped over it at that time. I didnt get to play Gw1 until years after I stopped playing WoW. Anyhow I wasnt talking about WoW (there are many other MMOs out there not just WoW) because from what I hear leveling in WoW changed substentially since I played so I cannot really comment on that any longer.

Always Keep in mind different people have different tastes, Just like you believe people who think leveling in WoW is not fun are brainwashed so do others think people who think that GW2 has the same experiance as other MMOs are just as equally brainwashed as well.

Truth is no game can be everything for everyone.

If you like story and you have the pacience to follow dynamic events and lore while playing they're just great an unparallell experiance! If on other hand you like to get into the action and kill stuff, Gw2 is likely to be something you will not like and not see any difference from other games cause all you'll do is run around homing in on any dynamic event you see, reach its objective and move on. If all you do is kill stuff then yes Gw2 is like any other MMO you kill stuff in there too. Whats different is the presentation but obviously people who dont care about that in the first place will not see the difference while people who care about that stuff will see it clearly as day!

Look, levels, skill, armor whatever is all a progression system. Its not really that different, in TSW progression works similar to GW1 you're still getting essentially getting Experiance that you use to buy the skills to form up your build. Without the necessary skills and armor you'll still not be able to experiances high level zones because you will end up dead. Whats the difference between that an a Level?

[Arquenya]

Cailais, on 06 September 2012 - 11:50 AM, said:

Some bad news Mince I'm afraid - MMO forums typically comprise around 1% of the playing population, so even if every single thread and topic here was a complaint, and every singly comment within those topic also supported that complaint the combined total would still be fraction of the community.  In fact many commentators in the industry suggest that forums are a really bad indication of player satisfaction.

So I'm afraid you are most likely in a minority position - but that's not a 'bad thing' per se but it does dilute your argument that GW2 should be radically changed.  You personally may find GW2 "boring", but you will also accept that many do not and therefore changing the game to suit your preferences may adversely impact on the enjoyment of those other players.

Well we just don't know, most people aren't forum posters, we can only guess that the GW2 guru forum is or isn't representative.

But let's be honest: next to the comments here there's a lot of game reviews that do specify some of the game's flaws and ways to improve it. No game is perfect and neither is GW2. So that leaves room for improvement. I don't see why people shouldn't offer suggestions and tell what's not so good about the game. It's not that ANet said they're never going to listen to their players and the game isn't set in stone yet; there's alot of patches, updates and even expansions on their way.

Misce, on 06 September 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

GW2 is EXACTLY the game that holds your hand, helping you all the way, telling you what to do, allowing you LESS freedom of choice and play styles. That's EXACTLY the problem with it, that's why it's boring. It's a paradox that you claim it to be a game that is a playground where you do what you like, hahah.

Personally I don't find GW2 boring. But some aspects are a bit disappointing.

Like the fact that completing a map 100%, jump into every single DE you encounter and gathering everything you find doesn't give enough XP to move on to the next area, forcing you to either grind DE's, do PvP, find another area for the same level range or craft a lot. In my opinion that shouldn't be the case; if you're done with an area, you should be OK to move on.

Or the travel fees, I moved to another area for additional xp but travelling back to towns or the bank costs me loads and loads of silver. If I want to have enough gold for skillbooks and such I better don't do that. But that cuts off an alternative for getting xp. It's a lose/lose situation. It's really disappointing.

Don't think I don't like the game. But things could have been done a bit nicer.

[mentalvortex]

Arquenya, on 06 September 2012 - 12:06 PM, said:

Like the fact that completing a map 100%, jump into every single DE you encounter and gathering everything you find doesn't give enough XP to move on to the next area, forcing you to either grind DE's, do PvP, find another area for the same level range or craft a lot. In my opinion that shouldn't be the case; if you're done with an area, you should be OK to move on.

I'm going to help you out on this point because I've said the same thing and people are going to jump over you saying "you're wrong." There have been players voicing the exact opposite - that leveling is extremely quick and they're getting to 80 much too quickly. The main difference is crafting.

You and I seem to not be crafting very much (none at all in my case since the beginning) so we're at a disadvantage for experience gaining. Like you said, getting 100% isn't enough - you have to do outside things. People who enjoy crafting and spend their time farming all their nodes while they go for 100% seem to be able to progress to the next area. I think it should be agreed upon that not crafting shouldn't be punishable. The JOYSTIQ review for example expressed our problems with leveling - so we're not alone in this fact.

Just wanted to say you're not alone before you get jumped all over.

[Heart Collector]

mentalvortex, on 06 September 2012 - 12:13 PM, said:

I'm going to help you out on this point because I've said the same thing and people are going to jump over you saying "you're wrong." There have been players voicing the exact opposite - that leveling is extremely quick and they're getting to 80 much too quickly. The main difference is crafting.

You and I seem to not be crafting very much (none at all in my case since the beginning) so we're at a disadvantage for experience gaining. Like you said, getting 100% isn't enough - you have to do outside things. People who enjoy crafting and spend their time farming all their nodes while they go for 100% seem to be able to progress to the next area. I think it should be agreed upon that not crafting shouldn't be punishable. The JOYSTIQ review for example expressed our problems with leveling - so we're not alone in this fact.

Just wanted to say you're not alone before you get jumped all over.

I just crafted for the first time myself yesterday (had't bothered before) and I must say I was surprised at how much XP a few minutes of crafting can give you. Thankfully I liked the crafting system with its discovery mechanic and all! But it's not something I'll be doing too religiously - I'd rather be out exploring the world. Though crafting is a good option for when I have little time to play and I need my "fix"

[Sheolkyr]

I'm not sure what confused so many people about this. ANet made is very clear from the beginning that they were going to make this as far away from WoW as possible, not just another clone with 1 or 2 minor changes. I think most people are just stuck in the mold created by WoW and followed by nearly every potential developer trying to recreate it's success so that now, GW2 is completely unfamiliar. Things like standardized gear pvp and a lack of true raiding are foreign to most people who come from WoW or similar MMOs. I've saw TONS of people bashing 5 mans pre-launch (and still) because they are so used to 5 man dungeons being faceroll AoE-fests and thinking there is no difficulty without 25 people, but I bet 99% of those people would wipe twice, then give up on AC story saying ANet made it too hard and cry for nerfs.

Personally, I'm getting exactly what I expected and exactly what I wanted from this game. If you came here with an open mind understanding what was going to make GW2 different, you're probably enjoying it. If you came here thinking that WoW is the be all end all of MMOs and everything good has to fit its template, you're probably not.

[Cailais]

Arquenya, on 06 September 2012 - 12:06 PM, said:

Like the fact that completing a map 100%, jump into every single DE you encounter and gathering everything you find doesn't give enough XP to move on to the next area, forcing you to either grind DE's, do PvP, find another area for the same level range or craft a lot. In my opinion that shouldn't be the case; if you're done with an area, you should be OK to move on.

Yeah that's an interesting one.  My view is that we could be seeing one of two things:

The first is that the xp reward per 'zone' is off and needs adjustment (something I think we'll see in a few weeks if that's the case)

or

Its by design and the intent is to encourage players to venture further afield and 'explore more'.  This would make sense in design terms (travel times means slower advancement, possibly more of a social experience and encourages use of crafting to stimulate an active economy.

Personally I think its the latter, but AN perhaps misjudged how jarring an experience that would be to players coming from the traditional MMO concept of 'complete zone A to level up for zone B'.

C.

[Cailais]

Misce, on 06 September 2012 - 12:32 PM, said:

By the way, soccer can use improvements too. Why in this digital era don't we have sensors that can signal whether the ball passes the goal line or if it was an out?

Oooh I can answer that one! The reason given by FIFA was that they wanted the game to be the same at every level (i.e. from amateur level of a local club through to the professional or international game) and the fear was that goal line technology would be to costly for amateur leagues to introduce.

C.

[Tallenn]

People have been playing in the Skinner box for so long, most are completely lost when you let them out of it. Many even get hostile about it. After all, the whole point of the box is conditioning, and it's very successful.

The OP has it surrounded. Most people just can't handle a lack of progression.

I'm sure many of you played Skyrim, so let's consider it for a moment. I know it's a single player game, but this discussion is about progression, or the lack of it. Is there progression in Skyrim? There can be. There are levels, so you get more powerful that way- levels award more stats, and access to better skills and spells. What about gear? Well, it really depends how you play. You can play in such a way that in short order, you can completely remove any kind of gear progression from the game. In other words, you can fit yourself out in the absolutely best gear possible with essentially minimal effort. Once you do that, there is no chance you will ever find an upgrade as a drop or quest reward. From a gear perspective, you've broken the stick, and eaten the carrot.

Now be honest, how many of you did that, at least on one character? After you did that, did you quit playing that character? Did you no longer find it fun? If so, then you have been so conditioned by the Skinner box that you can't enjoy life without it anymore. If however, you did continue to play that character, AND find it fun and exciting, there is hope for you! You CAN enjoy a game that doesn't condition you to perform a task and receive a reward. You can still enjoy a game just because it's fun to play, without the need for the task-reward conditioning of the Skinner box. Instead of being told what you should be doing (by being rewarded for doing the "right" thing enough times), you are able to figure out for yourself what you WANT to do.

[Heart Collector]

Tallenn, on 06 September 2012 - 12:39 PM, said:

People have been playing in the Skinner box for so long, most are completely lost when you let them out of it. Many even get hostile about it. After all, the whole point of the box is conditioning, and it's very successful.

The OP has it surrounded. Most people just can't handle a lack of progression.

I'm sure many of you played Skyrim, so let's consider it for a moment. I know it's a single player game, but this discussion is about progression, or the lack of it. Is there progression in Skyrim? There can be. There are levels, so you get more powerful that way- levels award more stats, and access to better skills and spells. What about gear? Well, it really depends how you play. You can play in such a way that in short order, you can completely remove any kind of gear progression from the game. In other words, you can fit yourself out in the absolutely best gear possible with essentially minimal effort. Once you do that, there is no chance you will ever find an upgrade as a drop or quest reward. From a gear perspective, you've broken the stick, and eaten the carrot.

Now be honest, how many of you did that, at least on one character? After you did that, did you quit playing that character? Did you no longer find it fun? If so, then you have been so conditioned by the Skinner box that you can't enjoy life without it anymore. If however, you did continue to play that character, AND find it fun and exciting, there is hope for you! You CAN enjoy a game that doesn't condition you to perform a task and receive a reward. You can still enjoy a game just because it's fun to play, without the need for the task-reward conditioning of the Skinner box. Instead of being told what you should be doing (by being rewarded for doing the "right" thing enough times), you are able to figure out for yourself what you WANT to do.

To be fair, I don't think that everyone used to WoW and the like are "Skinner box victims". One of the things I and many others love about RPGs is character progression... It's a great feeling, to feel your character grow and become more powerful in order to meet the challenges ahead. Granted, I don't consider changing your wardrobe "character" progression per se as my character itself remains static, but many people don't have this same oddity as me and see things differently.

However, sometimes this is taken a tad too far. People focus so much on the goal - progression - that they lose track of what's around them. The world, the story, side activites, easter eggs, all the little things that make up the virtual world our characters are living in. And it almost seems to become an obsession at times.

What I love about this game is this: I don't focus on my progression, it just happens naturally. I focus on the world, on exploration, on discovering new stuff. But I don't feel compelled to progress in any way, like I did in WoW and TOR. I do have an eye on my goal, but won't hesitate to take the scenic route - which is IMO what the game is all about.

[mentalvortex]

Cailais, on 06 September 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

Yeah that's an interesting one.  My view is that we could be seeing one of two things:

The first is that the xp reward per 'zone' is off and needs adjustment (something I think we'll see in a few weeks if that's the case)

or

Its by design and the intent is to encourage players to venture further afield and 'explore more'.  This would make sense in design terms (travel times means slower advancement, possibly more of a social experience and encourages use of crafting to stimulate an active economy.

Personally I think its the latter, but AN perhaps misjudged how jarring an experience that would be to players coming from the traditional MMO concept of 'complete zone A to level up for zone B'.

C.

I think it's the former given how they laid out the game. Areas being completely revealed to you on the map as soon as you enter them and every area containing at least one waypoint seems to show that they intended ease of movement from one area to another. I think if they wanted to achieve as you stated they could have used the "fog of war" mechanic in where you actually have to be at a certain area to permanently reveal it on the map. That could be very easily implemented.

It is "complete zone A to complete zone B" though. I don't see how this is jarring in the least.

[Arquenya]

Sheolkyr, on 06 September 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

I'm not sure what confused so many people about this. ANet made is very clear from the beginning that they were going to make this as far away from WoW as possible, not just another clone with 1 or 2 minor changes. I think most people are just stuck in the mold created by WoW and followed by nearly every potential developer trying to recreate it's success so that now, GW2 is completely unfamiliar.

I’m not sure if you’re kidding but GW2 is definitely much more like WoW than GW ever was.

Examples:

• Bank now only accessible in towns and not in every outpost like GW;
  
• Mail and Auction House system;
  
• Leveling areas and dungeons instead of instances;
  
• Light/medium/heavy armour instead of class specific gear;
  
• Shoulderpads;
  
• No more storyline missions;
  
• Travelling portals between big cities;
  
• The “new” crafing and gathering in GW2 is very, very much like WoW’s crafting system;
  
• White, green, blue and gold gear;
  
• "Glancing” if you try to damage high level mobs (I hate it);
  
• No more secondary profession anymore;
  
• Jumping and swimming;
  
• Fees for travelling between outposts;
  
• Unique vendors in leveling areas for crafting materials and recipes;
  
• Servers instead of districts.

The list goes on and on. Anet has definitely set a few steps into the WoW direction, compared to GW.
Now that’s not bad at all. Personally I hated the lack of mail and an auction house in GW. And there’s even more that GW2 could adapt from WoW, like a hairdresser. Or being able to sit on chairs, I love that RPG style feature. CTF battlegrounds, my favourite. Mounts to make travelling more fun (and save expenses).
Let's say WoW has its shortcomings but is also just another game that could use some improvement!

Edited by Arquenya, 07 September 2012 - 07:02 AM.

[Cailais]

Tallenn, on 06 September 2012 - 12:39 PM, said:

People have been playing in the Skinner box for so long, most are completely lost when you let them out of it. Many even get hostile about it. After all, the whole point of the box is conditioning, and it's very successful.

The OP has it surrounded. Most people just can't handle a lack of progression.

I'm sure many of you played Skyrim, so let's consider it for a moment. I know it's a single player game, but this discussion is about progression, or the lack of it. Is there progression in Skyrim? There can be. There are levels, so you get more powerful that way- levels award more stats, and access to better skills and spells. What about gear? Well, it really depends how you play. You can play in such a way that in short order, you can completely remove any kind of gear progression from the game. In other words, you can fit yourself out in the absolutely best gear possible with essentially minimal effort. Once you do that, there is no chance you will ever find an upgrade as a drop or quest reward. From a gear perspective, you've broken the stick, and eaten the carrot.

Now be honest, how many of you did that, at least on one character? After you did that, did you quit playing that character? Did you no longer find it fun? If so, then you have been so conditioned by the Skinner box that you can't enjoy life without it anymore. If however, you did continue to play that character, AND find it fun and exciting, there is hope for you! You CAN enjoy a game that doesn't condition you to perform a task and receive a reward. You can still enjoy a game just because it's fun to play, without the need for the task-reward conditioning of the Skinner box. Instead of being told what you should be doing (by being rewarded for doing the "right" thing enough times), you are able to figure out for yourself what you WANT to do.

That's true to an extent.  I think what we are seeing post launch is a combination of factors.  Some players are, as you say, conditioned to the task=reward paradigm and equate the reward element to the highest level game play.  Others expected the task=reward skinner box to be completely absent.

What Arena Net actually designed was and is a skinner box, but they loosened the parameters of what defined a 'task' and what defined 'reward'.  Under WOWs design concept a task was 'quest - kill ten rats' and the reward was 'the sword of rodents'.  AN took that and reworked the task into 'do some activity' and once a given level of activity is reached you get to 'select your own reward'.  In principal the skinner box remains in place but its definition (levers if you will) has been expanded and made more general.

Arena Net also looked at how the element of 'do some activity' (tasks) could be more enjoyable in an of themselves - this involved reducing (whilst not wholly removing) the degree of repetition of a singular task (DEs), additional visual and auditory stimuli (cut scenes) and variety within task objectives (kill ten rats OR water those plants OR collect those coins OR combine all three).

Finally Arena Net looked at how the skinner box+progression (a series of skinner boxes reached through progression) was a one way trip.  You couldn't easily return to earlier task=reward boxes and re experience them with lower level players.  This was a design flaw in encouraging collaborative play and social interaction (the social interaction being a reward in and of itself).

GW2 is still essentially a skinner box (all games pretty much have to be by definition) but its more sophisticated than previous titles.

C.

[Red_Falcon]

Tallenn, on 06 September 2012 - 12:39 PM, said:

People have been playing in the Skinner box for so long, most are completely lost when you let them out of it. Many even get hostile about it. After all, the whole point of the box is conditioning, and it's very successful.

The OP has it surrounded. Most people just can't handle a lack of progression.

I'm sure many of you played Skyrim, so let's consider it for a moment. I know it's a single player game, but this discussion is about progression, or the lack of it. Is there progression in Skyrim? There can be. There are levels, so you get more powerful that way- levels award more stats, and access to better skills and spells. What about gear? Well, it really depends how you play. You can play in such a way that in short order, you can completely remove any kind of gear progression from the game. In other words, you can fit yourself out in the absolutely best gear possible with essentially minimal effort. Once you do that, there is no chance you will ever find an upgrade as a drop or quest reward. From a gear perspective, you've broken the stick, and eaten the carrot.

Now be honest, how many of you did that, at least on one character? After you did that, did you quit playing that character? Did you no longer find it fun? If so, then you have been so conditioned by the Skinner box that you can't enjoy life without it anymore. If however, you did continue to play that character, AND find it fun and exciting, there is hope for you! You CAN enjoy a game that doesn't condition you to perform a task and receive a reward. You can still enjoy a game just because it's fun to play, without the need for the task-reward conditioning of the Skinner box. Instead of being told what you should be doing (by being rewarded for doing the "right" thing enough times), you are able to figure out for yourself what you WANT to do.

Exactly what I was saying earlier.

GW2 was designed as a game that gives you a lot of content to enjoy without needing you to continuously have a carrot to chase, but letting you decide what to do and how.
Anet made a lot of effort trying to explain to players, and it's what we've been delivered.

[Heart Collector]

Arquenya, on 06 September 2012 - 12:56 PM, said:

I’m not sure if you’re kidding but GW is definitely much more like WoW than GW ever was.

<snip>

The list goes on and on. Anet has definitely set a few steps into the WoW direction, compared to GW.
Now that’s not bad at all. Personally I hated the lack of mail and an auction house in GW. And there’s even more that GW2 could adapt from WoW, like a hairdresser. Or being able to sit on chairs, I love that RPG style feature. CTF battlegrounds, my favourite. Mounts to make travelling more fun (and save expenses).

Didn't play GW1 but regarding the WoW topic I don't think it's bad to borrow a few features from it. I may not be into it anymore but it's a very good game nonetheless.

BTW: Mounts in this game could be fun, especially if they worked a bit like underwater combat, with their own special weapons and maybe even some mount "special attacks" There could even be jousting tournaments as minigames.

Edited by Heart Collector, 06 September 2012 - 01:06 PM.

[mentalvortex]

Arquenya, on 06 September 2012 - 12:56 PM, said:

I’m not sure if you’re kidding but GW is definitely much more like WoW than GW ever was.

Examples:
- Bank now only accessible in towns and not in every outpost like GW;
- Mail and Auction House system;
- Leveling areas and dungeons instead of instances;
- Light/medium/heavy armour instead of class specific gear;
- Shoulderpads;
- No more storyline missions;
- Travelling portals between big cities;
- The “new” crafing and gathering in GW2 is very, very much like WoW’s crafting system;
- White, green, blue and gold gear;
-“Glancing” if you try to damage high level mobs (I hate it);
- No more secondary profession anymore;
- Jumping and swimming;
- Fees for travelling between outposts;
- Unique vendors in leveling areas for crafting materials and recipes;

The list goes on and on. Anet has definitely set a few steps into the WoW direction, compared to GW.
Now that’s not bad at all. Personally I hated the lack of mail and an auction house in GW. And there’s even more that GW2 could adapt from WoW, like a hairdresser. Or being able to sit on chairs, I love that RPG style feature. CTF battlegrounds, my favourite. Mounts to make travelling more fun (and save expenses).

Honestly, the only reason that people are bashing WoW is because it was marketed that way. I have never seen more WoW bashing on any other MMO in my life. A few of the interviews Colin and others took potshot at WoW, as well as the game being marketed as "the MMO for people who don't like MMOs [WoW]".

So now that the game is released, of course players think that this game has to be the biggest departure from WoW in order for them to fully enjoy it. Many of them have not played WoW, either. As you stated, the game shares a ton of similarities with WoW and I've said the exact same thing that the game borrows more from WoW than it does in GW. I've been posting in another topic recently where people have been telling me that ANet has planned for a departure from GW and a more generic MMO style. I won't get into how wrong I think that is simply from the interviews saying it would be completely different from the MMO formula - but the release seems to be the case.

Many reviews of the game thus far have said "while the game is not revolutionary - it improves upon the MMO formula". That's what you're getting with GW2. I've personally vented disappointment because I wanted a departure from the MMO formula - but many still try to argue that the game is revolutionary.

I'd make a topic called "Do you think GW2 is revolutionary?" but I'd be flamed and the general consensus (since this is a fansite) would be yes.

[Cailais]

mentalvortex, on 06 September 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

I think it's the former given how they laid out the game. Areas being completely revealed to you on the map as soon as you enter them and every area containing at least one waypoint seems to show that they intended ease of movement from one area to another. I think if they wanted to achieve as you stated they could have used the "fog of war" mechanic in where you actually have to be at a certain area to permanently reveal it on the map. That could be very easily implemented.

It is "complete zone A to complete zone B" though. I don't see how this is jarring in the least.

Quite possible.  My guess is that Arena Net faced competing and contradictory design goals.  On one hand they wanted to step away or distance GW2 from the traditional quest+zone design delivered successfully by WOW whilst on the other hand they recognised that many players would be conditioned to expect this design format.  

GW2 is (probably rightly) a compromise.  I still think that the lack of sufficient resources in a given zone to fully level to progress is deliberate.  It pushes the player into doing 'something else' in order to progress and that drive to receive a reward is presumably intended to reduce the impression of repetition.  Using the skinner box model GW2 is basically saying "you wont get any more rewards here - why don't you try that box over there?"   By moving boxes your perception is one of change rather than grind (visual / audio clues giving the illusion of newness).

Why is that important? Well we tend to experience new things as being more exciting, less tedious and more rewarding - hence anti-grind. It's something of a trick of course (killing 10 centuars is really no different to killing 10 swamp spiders) but because the background stimuli is different we perceive the same process as being new and therefore fun.  

C.

[theSollith]

I like this game... a lot.

However, one thing that bugs me is the lack of difficulty in the events in game. They really should have made it more like the first GW where you had to do things like pulling and stuff more. Bosses just get bogged down by conditions and then become easy mode, when they should have more mobility and leap around with condition removing skills they use here and there. I mean it essentially comes down to spam conditions and win. The strategy element is just not there anymore and it just seems to be a giant zergfest in many areas of the game.

One thing they could do though, is while I don't think they should have progression in a traditional sense of just putting peoples stats on steroids, they could open up the PvE story elements and have special tasks in some of the DEs based on the order you chose to join. Base the PvE progression more on character than stats, building a role for your character in the world, rather than just battling through random events.

Overall the game is very enjoyable to just run around and explore, participate in events as they pop up, and play with others.

[XPhiler]

mentalvortex, on 06 September 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

Your definition of dynamic is a little off. Dynamic means "continuous change" which is actually the opposite of what DEs are currently given a long time scale. A world being dynamic changes around you based on your actions. Dynamic in no way means the same events have to repeat themselves in order to fulfill the definition. They only made it this way because it's an MMO and they have to repeat themselves for all players to be able to enjoy them. Look at any modern RPG - almost all of them you encounter an event in the game that gives you a choice which changes the outcome of the game. If you put those throughout the games you're in a dynamic world and those are "dynamic events". Lots of games have that.

Are you sure you played GW2 at all? First dynamic event  you come across in the human zone is the irrigation system water supply. Bandits want to sabotage it to cause a drought which will lead to a famine. They will try to poison it, if you stop them then they will try to blow up the pipe lines, if you dont stop them then it get poisoned, green myst will come out, further down hill the sprinklers will start spraying the green stuff which will cause ooze. This will lead to yet another event to clean the water supply up which will lead to the bandits trying to sabotage the pipe line. if they manage you will need guard the engineers to fix the piple as obviously the bandits will try to stop them.

This means that at any one time the story of this irigation system can go:

X Bandits Tried to Poison -> they failed -> they tried to blow up -> they failed -> safe for a while
X Bandits Tried to poision -> they succeeded -> clean up the ooze and create an antidote -> cover engineer while he delivers antidote -> success -> bandits try to blow it up -> they fail -> safe for a while
X Bandits Tried to poision -> they succeeded -> clean up the ooze and create an antidote -> cover engineer while he delivers antidote -> bandits try to blow it up -> they succeeded -> Engineers try to fix it -> Engineers fail -> Irigation remains broken for a while
X Bandits Tried to poision -> they succeeded -> clean up the ooze and create an antidote -> cover engineer while he delivers antidote -> bandits try to blow it up -> they succeeded -> Engineers try to fix it -> Engineers succeeds -> Irigation remains safe for a while
.. Anyhow this is getting boring now. I  will not write every possible combination

Suffice to say there are 4 different states that all have 2 possible outcomes which means at any one point in time the story of this dynamic event chain can go in 16 different ways. how can you say its the same thing repeating if there are 16 different paths the story can go based on player success or failure? Whats more these changes happen whether you're there or not!

mentalvortex, on 06 September 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

Naming one structured quest in the game does not mean the game has no dynamic events. In Act 2 (Roche) there are camps being under attack by Rotfiends and if you don't save them - they're dead. There are similarly many quests that involve a choice that impact the rest of the game. You can choose to allow Roche to kill King Henselt which then has a drastic impact in how the game ends. You can also (must be done quickly) choose to throw Iorveth his sword in order to defends himself - or you can leave him for dead. A "DE" triggers in Act 2 when you see a man training for a duel to the death coming up. You can choose to fight by him in order to avoid his certain death - or you can allow him to go through with it. All of these events change the story in various ways and they're all dynamic. GW2 just tried to make the concept of choice prevalent in their game.

You yourself have just defined dynamic events as:  "Dynamic means "continuous change"" and you are quoting events that yes branch the story but have just a single time impact. so yes camp is attacked by rotfiends, you save it, it will never be attacked again even if you leave the game running for a 100 years which doesnt make sense in world terms either ! Rotfiends are all around you're attacked by them all the time but this camp suffers one attack only that you essentially trigger!

mentalvortex, on 06 September 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

Again, this isn't true of all games. You keep saying all games have only static quests which makes me believe you've played few RPGs. There are many RPGs with time based quests that if you do not do them in a certain time, the negative outcome will happen. Mass Effect is a current example of featuring that, but also The Witcher has some of those as well. Hell, lots of games have that.

No it isnt. Yes some quests might be on a timer but the timer only starts after you trigger the quest. Going back to your specific example from the witcher 2,

you have a timer on how long you can think whether you want to throw Iorveth his sword or not but that timer is designed in such away to work around you. In this case simply speaking events happen in a total convient way. You're basically caught up between 3 sides but the moment you get the timer is when you're free to act on it. If roche came just a few seconds when you start fighting letho you wouldnt be able to throw the sword even if you wanted to for example but no he shows up exactly before that fight begins. Also they shoot the skoiatel but not Iorveth? A better example was the other example about the camp attacked by the rotfiends, you can never get to the camp and find everyone dead simply because you got late because you stopped doing something else along the way. Simply every quest is static waiting there conviniently for the player. Its like the player always has perfect timing up to the milli second to see it in real world terms.

mentalvortex, on 06 September 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

This is a strange comparison, as the outcomes in GW2 are much more limited than the ones in The Witcher 2. GW2 has a positive outcome and a negative outcome for every dynamic event. There is no shades of grey. You help them or you don't. Then the next quest proceeds. Saying they have "unexpected random results" is really really confusing to me. As I said - they have 2 results. And to you saying they "happen randomly" that's also false - ANet doesn't have devs sitting by randomly pressing a button to trigger a DE. They're all timer based assumingly dependent (maybe even not) how many players are in the game. You talk of walkthroughs as making players know every step. Not only does that ruin the fun, the same thing can happen to GW2 in a month or even less. Give GW2 some time and players will come up with a wiki (they probably already have) that lists the location of every DE, the positive or negative effect that comes after it, and the time it takes for the DE to start up again. Games have to be structured up to a point, I don't know how you can argue GW2 is completely freeform.

You missunderstood me I never said things happen randomly, I said you never know which stage of the chain you're going to be facing with. Back to my original example on the irrigation system I can go there and find it quite, I can go there and find it already poisoned, I can go there and find bandits trying to poison it etc.. There is no guaranteed state of any dynamic events because they play out dynamic all the time unlike single player RPG where the quest doesnt play out until triggered. If I start The witcher 2 a million times I know that every single quest will be in preciesly the same state.
Also I never said Gw2 is freeform, This is not a sandbox which is also generally not totally free form either. I only said that Dynamic events are really dynamic, as in they continously change the world around you walk by the irrigation system 16 times and each time you could possibly see something different happening there. Walk by the same camp 16 times in The witcher and it will be the same all the time.

Another advantage of GW2 is that in time it will evolve, as new Dynamic events are introduced and existant ones are made to trigger more infrequent it will make the game feel more alive imho

mentalvortex, on 06 September 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

This is a good point and one I made to an extreme. I just said "the best story ever" because with the way a lot of posts are making it sound they think that GW2 has the best everything in a game. I'm of the personal opinion that the storyline in GW2 is bland. Not perhaps bad, but bland and not enjoyable. Of course this is subjective to a point, but I really don't even think it can qualify as a good story. If GW2 were a book detailing one path, it would be a bad one. But that's just it - it's a game. An MMO no less, as Heart has said MMOs have generally been weak in the story department so it doesn't impact the game as much as other genres and you can still have fun.

Agree, story is subjective! I like it, (dont think is exceptional dont get me wrong certainly not the best ever, but it keeps me engaged) you find it blant

mentalvortex, on 06 September 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

There's a few - to say that GW2 was the first to have different playable characters with different storylines would be wrong. In fact, GW2 has a starting system that borrows directly from Dragon Age: Origins. Secret of Mana 2 had 3 different complete storylines and that game came out in 1995.

I never said Gw2 was the first one to have different storylines I said it has perhaps the most main storylines especially compared to single player games.

Edited by XPhiler, 06 September 2012 - 01:51 PM.

[Clyne]

Misce, on 06 September 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

Dude/girl, whichever you are, give it a rest. You repeat yourself over and over and over, disregarding anything I tell you. You are basically having a monologue with yourself, you only use my name as your alter-ego. Seriously, stop fighting lost battles on the forums. Go do something else other than harassing me, I'm sure you'll think of something.

I think you should give it a rest.
You want an avenue to voice your biased opinion, do it with your pet and stuff.
Don't go around being a wet blanket telling others that this is a boring game.

You want your voice heard, do it via email or voice your opinion on their Facebook.

Edited by Clyne, 06 September 2012 - 01:27 PM.