Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help
* * * * - 11 votes

Rate GW2!


  • Please log in to reply
314 replies to this topic

Poll: How Do You Rate GW2? (716 member(s) have cast votes)

How Do You Rate GW2? 0 being the lowest (worst) and 10 being the highest (best)

  1. 0 (worst game evar!) (3 votes [0.42%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.42%

  2. 1 (4 votes [0.56%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.56%

  3. 2 (6 votes [0.84%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.84%

  4. 3 (12 votes [1.68%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.68%

  5. 4 (20 votes [2.79%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.79%

  6. 5 (24 votes [3.35%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.35%

  7. 6 (54 votes [7.54%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.54%

  8. 7 (107 votes [14.94%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.94%

  9. 8 (203 votes [28.35%])

    Percentage of vote: 28.35%

  10. 9 (184 votes [25.70%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.70%

  11. 10 (OMG GW2 have my babies!) (99 votes [13.83%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.83%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#241 DOSGAMES

DOSGAMES

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 112 posts
  • Location:Iowa
  • Guild Tag:[HoH]
  • Server:Henge of Denravi

Posted 09 November 2012 - 01:09 AM

I think people are mistaken in thinking that the rating is objective just because it's rated in a point scale.  Numbers are objective, but when you ask a human being to pick one based on their experience, it becomes completely subjective.

I have no problem with someone giving Guild Wars 2 a 10.  I don't think they are delusional or Fanbois.

At my work we receive customer surveys. Our customers are asked to rate their experience from 1-10.  We actually consider the survey a failure if the customer rates us anything less than a 10.  This is not because we believe we are perfect but, because people will rate a given thing a '10' if they are completely happy with the experience.

Edited by DOSGAMES, 09 November 2012 - 01:09 AM.


#242 Viroid

Viroid

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 25 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 07:50 AM

View PostSilent The Legend, on 08 November 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

I have a trouble with them, too, actually. It is not perfect and it doesnt justify a 9 or a 10, but 4 is just totally unnecessary and wrong, people which vote 4 are just considering the bad things of the game, ignoring the good things that do exist in this game. For instance, I gave it a solid 7. But, again, 9 or 10 are completely wrong.

So i predict you are going to be rich in round about 5-6 years...
You know how a perfect mmo should look  like, should feel, should be programmed and so on, So i am looking forward to the release date of your mmo.
Otherwise i can´t explain how you could compare GW2 or any other mmo with a perfect mmo.

For me 10 Points is the only possible vote....never saw any gamebreaking bugs or sth like that. Never saw a release nearly as good as GW2 release. Never saw developers working so fast on new content an bugfixing.

So you can start argueing about personal feelings, or you can start accepting, that there are people who think GW2 is the best mmo released until now.
The best is not perfect, i know, but as long as nobody can tell me how a perfect mmo should be, i have to give the highest rating.

#243 JustTz

JustTz

    Pale Tree Seedling

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • Guild Tag:[Fury]
  • Server:Aurora Glade

Posted 09 November 2012 - 08:23 AM

Only daoc can be 10.
I rated gw2 a healthy 9.

#244 XPhiler

XPhiler

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1766 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 08:40 AM

View PostMinion, on 08 November 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

You were so close to hitting the nail on the proverbial head, yet you chose to dismiss the notion.... There is no perfect game. Guild Wars wasn't perfect and neither is GW2. You should be reasonable and look at every aspect of the game. How can you imply it's perfect or close to such when there are so many issues, anomalies, bugs and broken promises?

You misunderstood what I mean, I never dismissed the notion that there is no such thing as a perfect game. I actually stated multiple times that perfection is an impossiblity. I simply stated that 10 doesnt represent perfection at all! I said that there was no point to have a score level thats just impossible to reach for everyone and I mean Everyone thats including gw1, gw2, wow, everquest, vanguard, league of legends anygame you name is not perfect!

So with that in mind whats the point of having a score level thats there just for show if we know without a doubt it will never be used? I think it would be pointless to just simply avoid it because it embodies a phylosofical concept that can never be achieved. So you use it for the next best thing, to score games that closely approach your definition of a perfect game (which is still light years away from what a perfect game is! )

I mean for me a perfect game would have so much variety that I would never want to play another game. it would require impossible amount of processing power. I honestly love every genre so for me the perfect MMO would be something like a sandbox scifi where everything is build by the player from the smallers gun to moon sized space stations. It would have a strategy component, 1st person shooter game play, class mmo game play and survival horror elements. You'd have a planet side sandbox game play where you're on foot 1st or 3rd person, you can build ships go explore the galaxy which should procedurally be infinite, colonize other planets, build a space empire. have a 1st person space battle component ala eve online but I also happen to like fantasy so there should be matrix like simulations where your character can relax by playing a fantasy style mmo in the mmo that would be its own sandbox with crafting, exploration, magic and what not. You'd also have a surival horror simulation and any other game type you enjoy playing so that this game would truely be a one stop shop of all the game plays you like. Ohh and it all has to feel real matrix style of course. Every game would score a 0 compared to that dont you think ?

Now setting phylosofy aside I honestly dont see the point of putting in a scale you're suppose to measure something by that is an impossiblity. So for me 10 doesnt mean perfect it means as close to perfect as humanly possible nothing more! (which btw dont even think gw2 reaches if you check i gave it a score of 9 because it lacks difficulty and housing which are both achievable)

#245 Seccy

Seccy

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 15 posts
  • Guild Tag:[EG]
  • Server:Desolation

Posted 09 November 2012 - 11:56 AM

It's a fantastic game but has a few flaws, so I gave it an 8. Hopefully the content update on the 16th will be as good as it should be

#246 Silent The Legend

Silent The Legend

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 267 posts
  • Server:Aurora Glade

Posted 09 November 2012 - 01:19 PM

View PostViroid, on 09 November 2012 - 07:50 AM, said:


So i predict you are going to be rich in round about 5-6 years...
You know how a perfect mmo should look  like, should feel, should be programmed and so on, So i am looking forward to the release date of your mmo.
Otherwise i can´t explain how you could compare GW2 or any other mmo with a perfect mmo.

For me 10 Points is the only possible vote....never saw any gamebreaking bugs or sth like that. Never saw a release nearly as good as GW2 release. Never saw developers working so fast on new content an bugfixing.

So you can start argueing about personal feelings, or you can start accepting, that there are people who think GW2 is the best mmo released until now.
The best is not perfect, i know, but as long as nobody can tell me how a perfect mmo should be, i have to give the highest rating.

Oh I do and I would do it. Except I know nothing about programming so I cant do it. But if thinking about something would make it real(so, if I was God), I would do your epic MMO you would rate 11/10 and I would fix many issues in real life as well. Except its not possible.

#247 XPhiler

XPhiler

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1766 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 01:34 PM

View PostSilent The Legend, on 09 November 2012 - 01:19 PM, said:

Oh I do and I would do it. Except I know nothing about programming so I cant do it. But if thinking about something would make it real(so, if I was God), I would do your epic MMO you would rate 11/10 and I would fix many issues in real life as well. Except its not possible.

I dont think you would simply because people like opposite things and you can implement both in all events. Some people like open world pvp where they attack everyone at any time while others hate that. If you implement a flag system you'll take away from those who want the ability to attack everyone making it less perfect to them, if you dont you'll alienate the others. Some like action combat other people like tab targeting. You might think you can implement both but then one group might think they're at a disadvantage because tab targetting requires less skill for example. Its not really possible to please everyone ergo its not possible to do a game thats perfect for everyone ! only one thats perfect for you and others who like the same exact things you like!

#248 Dasryn

Dasryn

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1503 posts
  • Location:USA (GMT -5)
  • Profession:Thief
  • Guild Tag:[MYTH]
  • Server:Tarnished Coast

Posted 09 November 2012 - 01:49 PM

View PostViroid, on 09 November 2012 - 07:50 AM, said:


So i predict you are going to be rich in round about 5-6 years...
You know how a perfect mmo should look  like, should feel, should be programmed and so on, So i am looking forward to the release date of your mmo.
Otherwise i can´t explain how you could compare GW2 or any other mmo with a perfect mmo.

For me 10 Points is the only possible vote....never saw any gamebreaking bugs or sth like that. Never saw a release nearly as good as GW2 release. Never saw developers working so fast on new content an bugfixing.

So you can start argueing about personal feelings, or you can start accepting, that there are people who think GW2 is the best mmo released until now.
The best is not perfect, i know, but as long as nobody can tell me how a perfect mmo should be, i have to give the highest rating.

emphasized areas, all of it.

#249 Vayra86

Vayra86

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 174 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 01:49 PM

In fact, people want rather similar things. Better yet, people want the same things as others, simply because others want certain things. Present day economy proves it -  we are all part of the group, our opinions vary but all point in the same direction. We all look for the same core value in things. This goes for games too.

So there is definitely a range of definitions to be made for a 'good' game. They really are not that hard to think up either. And once the basic needs of players are catered to, the game is regarded as good. The small things, like I see in this thread, about whether or not there is a PvP flag, a certain game mode and whatnot, are secondary and will not make or break a game.

GW2 however has a few glaring errors in judging what players would define as a good game. There are a lot of smoke screens (the DE's, the expansive game world) but once you play GW2 for a while you see that many of the proposedly good elements are just the same old stuff in a different shape. On the other hand, certain elements that make a game enticing to return to and keep playing are simply not there at all. And those are also elements you would expect in a 'good' game.

Anet's definition of fun turns out to be "fun is whatever does not cost you any trouble". But to preserve game balance, things that do not cost any trouble and are only 'fun', can never be rewarding things to do. Because then everyone would do them, and everyone would no longer regard said activity as part of the fun. Anet deliberately creates a 'no-incentive' basis for virtually everything you can do in GW2. There are no real 'places to be' for players, because everything is 'fun'. This philosophy is working against the cohesion of the game and actually makes it less enjoyable.

Players have nothing to strive for. That is why I gave GW2 a meagre 6 out of 10. Once they create real incentive to play, once they make it rewarding, that score would go up to an 8 or 9 for me.

#250 Silent The Legend

Silent The Legend

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 267 posts
  • Server:Aurora Glade

Posted 09 November 2012 - 02:04 PM

View PostXPhiler, on 09 November 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

I dont think you would simply because people like opposite things and you can implement both in all events. Some people like open world pvp where they attack everyone at any time while others hate that. If you implement a flag system you'll take away from those who want the ability to attack everyone making it less perfect to them, if you dont you'll alienate the others. Some like action combat other people like tab targeting. You might think you can implement both but then one group might think they're at a disadvantage because tab targetting requires less skill for example. Its not really possible to please everyone ergo its not possible to do a game thats perfect for everyone ! only one thats perfect for you and others who like the same exact things you like!

As I already said, the perfect game does not exist, perfection does not exist, and thus I cant create a game that is perfect. But I would create a game that can be objectively rated around 9, with 7 being the least you can ever expect, and 9.5 being the most. And that point about satisfying everyone is not really a big problem, I just need to implement everything. Of course, you cant implement everything, and thats why I wouldnt give my game a score of 10. But definitely, I would be able to do something around 9.

#251 Arquenya

Arquenya

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1187 posts
  • Location:Netherlands
  • Guild Tag:[DVDF]
  • Server:Gandara

Posted 09 November 2012 - 02:23 PM

View PostXPhiler, on 09 November 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

I dont think you would simply because people like opposite things and you can implement both in all events. Some people like open world pvp where they attack everyone at any time while others hate that. If you implement a flag system you'll take away from those who want the ability to attack everyone making it less perfect to them, if you dont you'll alienate the others.
In a lot of cases it's not or/or but you can have both. You can have a few open world PvP areas without any need to go there for 100% world completeion, for example. While at the same time have all kinds of arena-style PvP options like CTF, 4vs4 random, king of the hill, and so on. Or have realistic armour and skimpy Conan style armour and over the top WoW/anime style armours. They can peacefully co-exist! :-)

View PostVayra86, on 09 November 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

In fact, people want rather similar things. Better yet, people want the same things as others, simply because others want certain things. Present day economy proves it -  we are all part of the group, our opinions vary but all point in the same direction. We all look for the same core value in things. This goes for games too.

Anet's definition of fun turns out to be "fun is whatever does not cost you any trouble". But to preserve game balance, things that do not cost any trouble and are only 'fun', can never be rewarding things to do. Because then everyone would do them, and everyone would no longer regard said activity as part of the fun. Anet deliberately creates a 'no-incentive' basis for virtually everything you can do in GW2. There are no real 'places to be' for players, because everything is 'fun'. This philosophy is working against the cohesion of the game and actually makes it less enjoyable.

Players have nothing to strive for. That is why I gave GW2 a meagre 6 out of 10. Once they create real incentive to play, once they make it rewarding, that score would go up to an 8 or 9 for me.

I can understand this. By making nothing hard, there's no sense of progression, nothing to make you something of a unique snowflake, have something distinguishable, be it armours, titles or other stuff.
Everyone can do everything, even if a dungeon costs a good team 0 deaths and horrible players die 20 times. Bosses aren't a challenge in zergs and you even have to make sure you tag anything at all before the zerg devours them. That's not good gameplay imo.

Edited by Arquenya, 09 November 2012 - 02:28 PM.


#252 XPhiler

XPhiler

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1766 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 04:12 PM

View PostVayra86, on 09 November 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

In fact, people want rather similar things. Better yet, people want the same things as others, simply because others want certain things. Present day economy proves it -  we are all part of the group, our opinions vary but all point in the same direction. We all look for the same core value in things. This goes for games too.

So there is definitely a range of definitions to be made for a 'good' game. They really are not that hard to think up either. And once the basic needs of players are catered to, the game is regarded as good. The small things, like I see in this thread, about whether or not there is a PvP flag, a certain game mode and whatnot, are secondary and will not make or break a game.

GW2 however has a few glaring errors in judging what players would define as a good game. There are a lot of smoke screens (the DE's, the expansive game world) but once you play GW2 for a while you see that many of the proposedly good elements are just the same old stuff in a different shape. On the other hand, certain elements that make a game enticing to return to and keep playing are simply not there at all. And those are also elements you would expect in a 'good' game.

Anet's definition of fun turns out to be "fun is whatever does not cost you any trouble". But to preserve game balance, things that do not cost any trouble and are only 'fun', can never be rewarding things to do. Because then everyone would do them, and everyone would no longer regard said activity as part of the fun. Anet deliberately creates a 'no-incentive' basis for virtually everything you can do in GW2. There are no real 'places to be' for players, because everything is 'fun'. This philosophy is working against the cohesion of the game and actually makes it less enjoyable.

Players have nothing to strive for. That is why I gave GW2 a meagre 6 out of 10. Once they create real incentive to play, once they make it rewarding, that score would go up to an 8 or 9 for me.

I am afraid I feel your posts itself contradicts your message in several ways!
by message I mean that players want similar things.

For you dynamic events may be a smoke screen but for me are not, for me they're truely revolutionary. Why the diversity of opinion? because we're likely looking for different things when it comes to questing.
The main thing I look for in questing is story! Leveling / combat comes secondary to that for me. Dynamic events to me when compared to traditional questing is like comparing a static picture to a full flegged movie and I will explain my analogy.
In a traditional side quest you'll get a small back story to explain why you're being asked to do what you're being asked to do. Generally It will be of a form similar to winter is approaching we need cloths bla bla please get us some wolf pelts. You do the quest but all the changes the quest did are only conseptual IE the NPC tells you that you saved the day but nothing changes anywhere. While still not perfect Dynamic events are dramatic change from that. For starters things are happening right in front of you.

Quoting my favorite dynamic event a master of whispers agent is worried about pirates getting hold of dwarven artifacts so he goes to a fellow undercover agent and asks him to round up the artifacts to get them out of the pirates reach. He actually walks over and talks to the inkeeper and before that you can actually see him on the hill watching the pirate encampment below. The inn keeper actually travels to the area where the artifacts are asks the players to collect them for him, walks back has the agent investigate the artifacts. He will find one that appears particularly dangerous  and while that happens pirates actually try to steal them. If you fail to stop them, the pirates will pick up the dangerous artifact and unleash a demon who will turn them into his minions and they'll attack you. If you stop them the agent will decide with the inn keeper to send the artifact off to an expert for safe keeping. He calls a transport and you actually see him calling over a raven, he attaches a note to the raven, the raven flys off and 2 minutes or so later a caravan will come, the caravan will take the artifact to the expert who will decide to destroy the artifact etc... This all happens right infront of your eyes and all has incredible attention to detail.

bottomline Me personally can never see dynamic events as smoke screens because to me the story delivery is many times ahead of any other side questing I've seen in any other MMO. But I can understand that a person who doesnt care that much about story and instead is only interested in the activities you do in the quests themselves might not find them any different then any other MMO because at the end of the day in any game you can only do 3 things. kill, interact or travel! so yes obviously you dont do anything different in the dynamic events itself then say any quest in WoW !

Same thing with incentives, I personally find cosmetics a far better insentive then actual progression for many reason. For one having progression makes it problematic to take a break from the game because doing so puts you behind your friends / guild who might actually keep progressing. Worst yet in many MMOs I played progression is tried to a specific activity which is generally raiding and I hate playing the same content repeatedly for a long period of time. Cosmetic progression on the other hand solves all of these issues for me. Takeing a break from aquiring a weapon skin will not put me behind anyone and If I get bored running dungeons I am free to switch to Dynamic Events, WvW or whatever other content and work towards something else cause again doesnt matter how long I get a cosmetic item, it has 0 effect on my effectiveness on the game! Progression be definition also has to gate content (other wise it wouldnt be progression at all) meaning my gaming world will be smaller until I finish all the progression which generally is designed to take a long long time! worst then that the progression itself is the real smoke screen. I finish a tier 1 dungeon to get the gear necessary to do the tier 2 dungeon but the tier 1 dungeon is now useless for me cause it offers nothing for me and the tier 2 dungeon isnt easier the tier 1 dungeon I just did, its more or less the same difficulty so did I really become more powerful ?  or did I just unlock a new dungeon to do ?

But it doesnt matter cause different players like different things. For you more actual gear progression would make the game more fun, for me it would make it less fun. For you changing dynamic events to regular questing might make the game more fun (easier access, always there available) for me it would make it a lot less fun because I loose the element I love the most, an evolving story with every Dynamic Event Chain!

Also I disagree with your statement regarding what today's economy. Once again people like different things, some thing capitalism is the best system others thing capitalism is a really bad system and communism is the way to go, others think communism is a disaster to be avoided at all costs. Bottomline even here there a lot of differnet economic systems simply because different people have a different idea of whats the best way. suffice to say wikipedia lists 53 differnet economic systems:
http://en.wikipedia....Economic_system

Its definitely not as simple as you think to make a good game! many people believe gw2 is a good game as is it is as clearly shown by the 9 - 10 ratings given! While others definitely think there is a lot of things that require improvement as proved by the 0 - 6 ratings!

Sorry I nearly forgot, I do agree with you though that making the game too accessble, ergo too easy it does detract from the game for many people!

Edited by XPhiler, 09 November 2012 - 04:13 PM.


#253 Segraine

Segraine

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 424 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 04:23 PM

GW2 is a 7 for me...some days a 6 or a 5. Something about it just doesn't hold my attention. I think it is mainly because I enjoy playing healer/protector above all other play styles, and GW2 just doesn't have that option. It is too focused on damage for my taste. Sure, I can play support hybrid (which is what I play, no dps cannon for me), but there is still to much damage even in those builds. Killing things is boring for me.

#254 XPhiler

XPhiler

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1766 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 04:29 PM

View PostArquenya, on 09 November 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

In a lot of cases it's not or/or but you can have both. You can have a few open world PvP areas without any need to go there for 100% world completeion, for example. While at the same time have all kinds of arena-style PvP options like CTF, 4vs4 random, king of the hill, and so on. Or have realistic armour and skimpy Conan style armour and over the top WoW/anime style armours. They can peacefully co-exist! :-)

I am afraid you're being too optimistic, look at gw2 as proof. How many people complain about a lack of open world PvP? WvW is exactly what you described an area where you have open world PvP while the other Zones are Areas where you dont have Open world PvP zones. Yet as long as there are even a few zones where players can hide safely to avoid PvP people who enjoy having the ability to gang anyone will be unhappy!

Same thing with mixing proper armor with skimpy armor, people in favor of proper armor generally hate even the sight of skimpy armor because it just kills immerssion for them or dont like the phylosofy behind it. Simply offering a way for them to avoid it will not make them happy as they will still come across it!

You just can never please anyone! Today I actually came across a really amazing example of this, I was reading a game news site and discovered Everquest 2 removed the limit of how much money f2p users can carry. And I went on the EQ2 forum to confirm that and guess what? there was a whole thread pages long of people angry at the change because they felt cheated somehow as they felt it lowered the value of their subscription. Absolutely nothing changed for them, this change didnt affect them in the least yet they were calling for refunds! Others were calling Sony crazy because they had just gimped in their opinion the major reason why people should subscribe to the game! Of course you had a few voices of reason explaining that its ridicolous and that this would likely result in a substential profit for SOE but there you have it even the one change that technically has only a possitive effect on the player base with zero negative effect for players still caused people to go up in arms and get angry!

Simply speaking it truely is impossible to please everyone!

View PostSegraine, on 09 November 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

GW2 is a 7 for me...some days a 6 or a 5. Something about it just doesn't hold my attention. I think it is mainly because I enjoy playing healer/protector above all other play styles, and GW2 just doesn't have that option. It is too focused on damage for my taste. Sure, I can play support hybrid (which is what I play, no dps cannon for me), but there is still to much damage even in those builds. Killing things is boring for me.

Why cant you focus exclusively on support? Sure you will do some "accidental" damage to surrounding mobs while supporting your allies but is that really a problem? I personally play a hybrid support / dps with my necro but could go full on support even with my existant build. I could for example keep a perma regen, clean conditions off allies, do 2 blinds and 1 interrupt every 18 - 40 seconds, inflict a cripple every 20 seconds, cause vulnerability on my enemies. If I change my traits around I could also have more healing to spread around.

Didnt really try it but I am sure I could have enough support to do to focus excusively on that if I wanted to!

#255 DuskWolf

DuskWolf

    Seraph Guardian

  • Banned
  • 1876 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 04:33 PM

I'm glad more and more people are recognising the zerging issue.

In my favourite games, like Guild Wars 1 (hard mode) and Champions Online (elite), you can't zerg. You actually have to have the right selection of powers (which you can change from a broad selection), and you have to account for enemy tactics. What bothers me about Guild Wars 2 is exactly what makes it zergy. And I'll try and sum it up again for future readers.

* The selection of abilities is painfully limited, not just in weapons but in utility skills, too. And mostly it's just reskins even then.
* Tactical movement isn't required in Guild Wars 2, you won't have a battle where a bunch of snipers move into position to heckle you.
* Mobs ignore friendlies. They don't heal, resurrect, or buff friendlies. They just do kamikaze-rush zerg-lines at the players. Mobs are idiots.
* I really have to stress this again: Mobs never stop to resurrect downed allies, thus adding a tactical layer. They just zerg on. Why?
* Condition adamage and conditions are useless, others have complained about this. Only flat damage has worth, especially against bosses.
* Most AoE heals are useless (engineer's healing turret is a good example). This lowers healing priority and encourages zergy-zerging.
* Any non-flat damage skills are astoundingly unfun and sterile (engineer's flamethrower), thus people just stick with flat damage as a basis.

Anyone, anyone, who has played Guild Wars 2 will know that all of the above is true. I'm not lying, damn it. You all know it's true. And these are the problems we face, these are the things we need ArenaNet to fix. Because whilst they remain as they are, it just results in zerging. So you switch to your flamethrower, your flamethrower does no crowd control (setting people on fire should) whatsoever, so you just ignore it and you use something that has a higher damage output. Do you see the problem? In Guild Wars 2, damage output is king. If you're not using the thing with the highest damage output, you're suboptimal.

And I hear this from dungeon runners, too. If you're specced for condition damage or crowd control then they just don't want you. This is how deep into the mire of zerg we are. We can stick our heads in the sand. We can make defensive attacks. And those who love to bald-faced lie like crazy sociopaths to the point where character assassination is a day to day activity can come after me all they like (you know who I'm talking about). But I won't stop pointing this out. This could be a great game, but right now everything in the game encourages and reinforces zerging as the way to play.

I'm just sad that we keep sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring this. There are other games out there which solve this problem; Champions Online and Guild Wars 1 being two great examples. I want Guild Wars 2 to not be a button-masher. It shouldn't be like WoW and Vindictus, but it is. The rule of Guild Wars 2 right now is faceroll 1-5 to victory. And everyone does that! You couldn't do that in Guild Wars 1 because there is no set 1-5. You couldn't do that in Champions Online because there is no set 1-5. Everything about how Guild Wars 2 is built right now encourages zerging.

And I am not happy about the zerging.

I just... I'd love to see more crowd control, for a start. Imagine how amazing it would be if the flamethrower had a CHANCE to apply the 'I AM ON FIRE!!!' condition. What would this do? It would cause enemies to run around randomly, flailing, for a short amount of time. This would be an amazing crowd control ability. It wouldn't have to happen with every strike, it could just be a proc after sustained damage, but what I've been told by some GW2 fanatics is that crowd control is bad, and that we should never have things like this. That the flamethrower shouldn't make people act as though they're actually on fire.

Because we have crazily zealous fanatics around here who'll try to shut down people like me who're constructively trying to make a better game for us all, ArenaNet will never actually know what's wrong with the game. But for me, it keeps coming back to the base point: The flamethrower is unfun. The flamethrower has the potential to be amazing. Why isn't it? The engineer has the potential to be amazing. Why isn't it? Here's another great example: Instead of the engineer's healing turret, why not give them a mobile spider-like drone which can be switched between healing or attack modes?

In healing mode it would try to get close to a player to inject them with something which is equivalent to a solo-player heal. But it can be destroyed by mobs (if they were smart enough to prioritise). And it could be switched into attack mode (raising the defensive and offensive capabilities of the drone) when not on healing duty to keep it alive. Tell me that's not an amazing idea. Instead, we get the piss poor healing turret which does absolutely no good at all. It's for reasons like this that sometimes I wish I'd been on their dev team, to help them get these things right.

And that isn't just egotism, because there are obvious things wrong with this game. Like I've just detailed. The engineer's healing turret is useless and unfun, the engineer's flamethrower is useless and unfun, so engineer players don't use these things. Instead they opt for flat damage and zerg. That's what I'm talking about. This is something that ArenaNet could fix, but I don't honestly know if they will. And until they do? There are other games out there which are more fun. The healing drone example I gave? Yeah. That's already in Champions Online. I'll be playing that.

#256 Jairyn

Jairyn

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1141 posts
  • Guild Tag:[BAMF]
  • Server:Dragonbrand

Posted 09 November 2012 - 04:37 PM

At the moment, the only complaint I can conjure with any vehemence is that I hate the voice acting. A lot of it sounds very amateur and text dialogue would have allowed for a lot more characterization, as opposed to everyone being utter milquetoast in their personal storyline because it has to apply to everyone. The work that went into voicing things could've made 10x the amount of characterization options and deepened the sense of personalization/roleplaying.

I give it a 10. There are kinks to work out, but I prefer GW2 to any other MMO I've tried. Best in show.

Edited by Jairyn, 09 November 2012 - 04:38 PM.


#257 Velicia

Velicia

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 150 posts
  • Location:England
  • Guild Tag:[BoD]
  • Server:Seafarer’s Rest

Posted 09 November 2012 - 04:39 PM

I rated the game as 8 out of 10.

Its a great game, with cool concepts, lore and game play.

I can see myself still playing in a few months time (mostly due to my more casual approach to the game and the fact there is no monthly subs.). Which is a dam site better than most new MMO's these days. I think out of the past year I've not stuck with a game for more than 2 months at a time (I normally always return to said games, but things just havn't caught my attention and held it for a long time.).

That's not to say, GW2 doesn't have its flaws, it does, but so does every game so close to launch. And it seems Anet while not fast to fix certain issues are trying hard to placate the community and put interesting things into the game.
The simple fact we had Halloween and the new Lost Shores update only after one/two month of release, makes me extremely exited for the future of the game.

#258 raspberry jam

raspberry jam

    Vigil Crusader

  • Members
  • 4051 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 04:49 PM

Solid 7 out of 10. Which brings it head and shoulders over most MMOs, which are in the 2-3 score area, but not as high as GW1, which got a 9.8 from me.

Mostly, for me, it's a game that I play a little bit, and I'll probably stop pretty soon. Might look in again later on. Nothing to get overly excited about, but it's a solid title.
There is a tinge of sadness about that though, because it easily could get a 9 or above.

#259 DuskWolf

DuskWolf

    Seraph Guardian

  • Banned
  • 1876 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 04:57 PM

Exactly RJ. That's what bugs me. Guild Wars 2 could be oh so much better. Yet it's so disappointing.

It'd be great if we could command the battlefield intelligently and have mobs respond intelligently, but all there is is zerging from us and the mobs. I can't do substantial crowd control (it's not worth it), conditions just aren't worth it period, being a support character isn't worth it. So everyone in the game tells you you have to zerg. And everyone zergs through everything. If the game weren't so heavily geared towards zerging, I could love it. I'm just tired of it. I look at my engineer and why he's unfun, and that's because the abilities which aren't zerg-relevant are useless.

My flamethrower isn't relevant to a zerg, it misses a lot, it can't do crowd control, and even if it did, what passes for crowd control in Guild Wars 2 is pointless. This just makes me so sad. When I think of a flamethrower, like I said, it's something that could occasionally apply an 'I AM ON FIRE!!!' condition, as described above. And that would make it so fun. I mean, imagine using something like that on the Shatterer's minions, instead of just zergy-zerging them.

This is Zerg Wars 2. I don't want it to be, but it is, and it makes me really damn sad. There's so much potential for a better game, here.

#260 Omega X

Omega X

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 238 posts
  • Guild Tag:[OOM]
  • Server:Stormbluff Isle

Posted 09 November 2012 - 05:07 PM

Look at all those people that like what I don't like. How dare they like what I don't like. I'm me dammit.

#261 Xenigma

Xenigma

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 68 posts
  • Location:Charleston, SC

Posted 09 November 2012 - 05:51 PM

I think it's a 10/10, easy.  That doesn't mean it's perfect, mind (no game is), but I still think a few hundred hours in that the game is incredibly fun to play, has lots of things to do, looks gorgeous, has a great soundtrack, is already showing great potential for updates, and the list of praise goes on.  The few faults with the game (bugs, heavy grind at end-game, etc) are minor enough that I don't see a significant reason to dock points, especially when the problems are generally being fixed over time.  It's already one of my favorite games of any genre, and I can only imagine it will continue to improve as time goes on.

#262 DuskWolf

DuskWolf

    Seraph Guardian

  • Banned
  • 1876 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 07:53 PM

You know I've been talking about GW2 being a zerg?

I'm not the only one.

There's a fairly popular thread on the forums where people are saying the same thing. My stance of this game being Zerg Wars 2 is still firmly in place. I want it to not be. And we need to actually tell ArenaNet that we want Guild Wars 2, not Zerg Wars 2, instead of being bobble-headed yes men.

View PostOmega X, on 09 November 2012 - 05:07 PM, said:

Look at all those people that like what I don't like. How dare they like what I don't like. I'm me dammit.
Look at all those people undermining me with valid constructive cricitism. This game is me, damn it, so any slight against it is something that I take personally. And I must take it upon myself to zealously defend myself like a rabid fanatic, lest my confidence in this game's (and my own) perfection might be shook!

How dare they think that something could be improved! How dare they have thinking minds, with which to form opinions with! How dare they share those opinions in an open forum of discussion! Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Edited by DuskWolf, 09 November 2012 - 07:57 PM.


#263 Featherman

Featherman

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 645 posts
  • Location:California
  • Server:Northern Shiverpeaks

Posted 09 November 2012 - 08:12 PM

Doom and gloom tone and veiled insults don't do much for conversation.

I'm not sure how you define zerging. The thread is talking about the actual combat system, and many of the post reflect favorable opinions on it. The game could stand to use stronger enemies, and yes you could autoattack things to death if you don't care at all about efficiency. This is a consequence of making PvE accessible, but they're supposedly adding harder content with the new dungeon.

If by zerging you mean people bunching up and steamrolling through content then yes, that was a problem. Zerging is a consequence of population flux and this is an open world MMO so it becomes all the more noticeable when you get an influx of players. You can't really limit zerging without adversely the playerbase in general with this format of a game. People even bitched about overflows and they barely helped the situation during release. But as time moved on, the population evened out. Currently an my server, Northern Shiverpeaks, there's a fair amount of people exploring each map during peak hours, but not the insane amount during the first months of release. When leveling my alt I had absolutely no encounters zergs and if I needed help with an event I would ask in map chat and usually receive it in a matter of minutes. If all else failed I could ask my guild, etc etc. The only zerging or something remotely similar would occur in Cursed shore but, on my server at least, there would be no more than 10 people per event.

Edited by Featherman, 09 November 2012 - 08:28 PM.


#264 Solid_Gold

Solid_Gold

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 173 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 08:51 PM

View PostFeatherman, on 09 November 2012 - 08:12 PM, said:



I'm not sure how you define zerging. The thread is talking about the actual combat system, and many of the post reflect favorable opinions on it. The game could stand to use stronger enemies, and yes you could autoattack things to death if you don't care at all about efficiency. This is a consequence of making PvE accessible, but they're supposedly adding harder content with the new dungeon.

If by zerging you mean people bunching up and steamrolling through content then yes, that was a problem. Zerging is a consequence of population flux and this is an open world MMO so it becomes all the more noticeable when you get an influx of players. You can't really limit zerging without adversely the playerbase in general with this format of a game. People even bitched about overflows and they barely helped the situation during release. But as time moved on, the population evened out. Currently an my server, Northern Shiverpeaks, there's a fair amount of people exploring each map during peak hours, but not the insane amount during the first months of release. When leveling my alt I had absolutely no encounters zergs and if I needed help with an event I would ask in map chat and usually receive it in a matter of minutes. If all else failed I could ask my guild, etc etc. The only zerging or something remotely similar would occur in Cursed shore but, on my server at least, there would be no more than 10 people per event.


Are you even playing the same game as me ?

.

#265 Featherman

Featherman

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 645 posts
  • Location:California
  • Server:Northern Shiverpeaks

Posted 09 November 2012 - 09:12 PM

View PostSolid_Gold, on 09 November 2012 - 08:51 PM, said:

Are you even playing the same game as me ?

.

Apparently, yes. We're playing GW2 right? What's your server?

#266 Solid_Gold

Solid_Gold

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 173 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 09:19 PM

View PostFeatherman, on 09 November 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

Apparently, yes. We're playing GW2 right? What's your server?

Really, and why would my server matter ?

#267 Featherman

Featherman

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 645 posts
  • Location:California
  • Server:Northern Shiverpeaks

Posted 09 November 2012 - 09:22 PM

.

View PostSolid_Gold, on 09 November 2012 - 09:19 PM, said:

Really, and why would my server matter ?
Just to get an idea of the population. if you disagree with my own experience why not give examples yours?

#268 Solid_Gold

Solid_Gold

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 173 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 10:21 PM

View PostFeatherman, on 09 November 2012 - 09:22 PM, said:

.
Just to get an idea of the population. if you disagree with my own experience why not give examples yours?

My server population is high.

I don't rate this game really very high, certainly not an 8 or a 9.

I've expressed my dislikes of the game, my concerns and disappointment many times, I wouldn't want to keep repeating it all.

We were promised so much, and got a watered down far eastern/Asian/Korean grind.

It has a couple of good points, a lot of very bad points.

Anyway I'm just filling in time waiting for something better to come along.

#269 Featherman

Featherman

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 645 posts
  • Location:California
  • Server:Northern Shiverpeaks

Posted 09 November 2012 - 10:44 PM

View PostSolid_Gold, on 09 November 2012 - 10:21 PM, said:

My server population is high.

I don't rate this game really very high, certainly not an 8 or a 9.

I've expressed my dislikes of the game, my concerns and disappointment many times, I wouldn't want to keep repeating it all.

We were promised so much, and got a watered down far eastern/Asian/Korean grind.

It has a couple of good points, a lot of very bad points.

Anyway I'm just filling in time waiting for something better to come along.

That's too bad. Hope you find the right game for yourself. I did in GW2. I picked it up at random and wasn't expecting too much from it, so I was surprised at how pleased I was when I started playing. The grind it light and can be optional given how many ways the game offers you to level. Everything endgame has been optional, even the grindy stuff like legendaries. I have several level 80s most of which I leveled via crafting but I play since I have a lot of friends on who do WvW and more who are interested in buying it to join in. Many of my issues with the game can be fixed with balance tweaks.

Edited by Featherman, 09 November 2012 - 10:52 PM.


#270 FallenGravure

FallenGravure

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 14 posts
  • Location:Venice florida
  • Guild Tag:[SC]

Posted 09 November 2012 - 11:06 PM

I gave it a 5 a solid 5 it's not bad not amazing, good but not great not terrible, better than most worst then a few. Yup a 5 seems about right fair even and balanced. Till eso comes out this will do once it does though you can consider my ass gone...just sayin.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users