586 replies to this topic

[Lucas Ashrock]

Kymeric, on 12 December 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:

For what it's worth, I've run across a good number of defeated bots.  So GW2 at least wins against them some of the time.

Where? Dungeons? Nope, you just need a bot following the last member of the group and spam all skills randomly, sometimes using the dodge button. Ye, sometimes he's dead, someone rev him, the fight keep going, and ends. And i used the most "challenging" kind of content where a bot "would" have difficulties but minimal and you wouldn't even realize what is going on and he's a bot except if badly programmed about the follow part. Outside, a bot can farm a legendary alone mats by mats while you do your stuff. Just picking where to farm. Like the famous bridge.

@MazingerZ Ye, clearly seems different. But when you play a challenging match timed to be faster, a dodge (move horse to the left side) or a walk back (move back a queen) is your win or loss of the match (you're 1shotted you need a rez)
And nope, as much fritz made his show, there are still humans able to compete and win against it. Processing speed and reaction time, ye.
Clearly, a chess program doesn't have to deal with terrain and me3 ai or an ambush thinking "crap, wait" etc. But i can tell you, a chess program would be a great core for a possible bot to deal with terrain and me3 ai.

Edited by Lucas Ashrock, 12 December 2012 - 04:45 PM.

[Cronos988]

While you have nicely described why a bot is harder to create for ME 3 than for GW 2, My point was that whether or not you can create a bot for it is not equal to having a good game or not.

It seems to me that ME 3 is considered great here because it requires teamwork and tactical, lateral, thinking. You like games with tactical thinking and teamwork. I do too, actually. I really enjoy playing games like Dota 2 or Planetside. However, it does not follow that GW 2 is a bad game because it has a focus on other aspects of gameplay. Just like chess isn't a bad game because it requires no teamwork.

Lack of decent AI is something that is very common to MMORPGs, I don't think it is due to lazy developers though. There are probably technical reasons behind it. Games that have to simulate many battles at a time (The X-Series comes to mind) usually have very simple AI routines to cope with limited processing power.

[Lucas Ashrock]

I guess, in a more rude version of the point, it was: gw2 is a brainless game where people is illuded to even be better or pro dodging more or better timed, when a bot can do the same if his dodge routine triggered in time, and you're playing with a bot not even realizing it. Something ME3 would never see.
Ye, it's low-class programmer lazyness. ME3 programmers are not aliens, nor special brains able to create a proper ai while other humans are still working on it.

Edited by Lucas Ashrock, 12 December 2012 - 05:17 PM.

[Feathermoore]

ME3's AI is nothing special... there are shooters with AI well above the capability of that game I think it was FEAR that had AI that I was first ever challenged by... and Crisis if you don't ever use cloak. Making a bot for a game is determined by the information that a bot can get, as well as the AI fighting on the other end. There is no actual reason to make a bot for ME3, which is why you don't see any, not because "it isn't possible to make one." The fact that the AI in ME3 is supposedly so good proves that you can make a bot. Heck, Bioware neutered the AI companions in the game because they were too powerful if they had the same AI as the enemy and they are basically "game given bots". Bots are only made if there is actually a benefit to making them which is why you see them in MMOs so much.

Not to say that this has any bearing on the quality of GW2 gameplay (the PvE is hardly challenging), but your argument about bots is completely unrelated. It also helps if you don't consistently use only a single game to support your points. I personally found ME3 to be an empty, worthless game that didn't challenge me in the slightest with the only challenge being having to deal with the cover system's wonkyness. A complete waste of money for me. The AI was abusable because it was actually simple. It reacts the same way to a situation every time, and the battles are all so similar that the enemy is pretty much always using the same tactic and it never changes. Woopdeedoo, just like every other AI system out there. The only thing that ever makes it "hard" is when the computer "cheats" by having access to abilities or resources that you don't... just like ever other shooter. The AI doesn't think, it reacts exactly as programed.

I think GW2's open world PvE battles are terrible, but this is an mmo and that is kinda one of the features of the genre (one that sucks). But do you know WHY the open world PvE sucks? Because it is balanced for solo-player interaction in a world that you usually have a group of people. There are no "groups" of structured enemies that have any sort of interaction with each other. ME3 is a group oriented game where the AI has access to specialized units. GW1 had this as well (and had terrible AI, better than most MMOs though). The game would be so much more rewarding if the world was balanced around the idea that groups of people need to work together. This idea that a person should be able to play an MMO alone is holding the genre back.

[Snapalope]

The AI in the original FEAR was good.  Not to mention it scared me shitless when I was playing with surround sound on full blast at 2 am.

[Lucas Ashrock]

No doubt about FEAR, was famous about it. Noone said me3=god. I think was something  he knew very well and find challenging instead of the zergfest gw2 is. Exactly as you explained, Feathermoore, is enough to call this game a junk of mmo like any other and even lower.
So the point was to make an mmo with closed customer targets and much more, gw2 as a real teamwork, not a zergfest buttonspam and F to rev. Now add their fancy bugged fractals.

Edited by Lucas Ashrock, 12 December 2012 - 06:03 PM.

[Sinful01]

Feathermoore, on 12 December 2012 - 05:43 PM, said:

But do you know WHY the open world PvE sucks? Because it is balanced for solo-player interaction in a world that you usually have a group of people. There are no "groups" of structured enemies that have any sort of interaction with each other. ME3 is a group oriented game where the AI has access to specialized units. GW1 had this as well (and had terrible AI, better than most MMOs though). The game would be so much more rewarding if the world was balanced around the idea that groups of people need to work together. This idea that a person should be able to play an MMO alone is holding the genre back.

You also have to toss in the fact that in most MMOs (GW2 included) they need to balance the PvE such that, in general, someone new to MMOs, someone with limited skill, and/or someone that just flat out plays poorly can succeed decently enough that they don't get frustrated and quit in a huff.  They wouldn't want to turn any customers away.

This of course includes, in many games, not only "character playing" but "character building". GW2 isn't as "build correctly or suck" as other MMOs are (in The Secret World, for instance, you could easily build crappily and gimp yourself, which meant now being forced to grind XP in lower level areas to buy better skills and ungimp yourself) but it is still a factor.

Someone will call this "dumbing down".  I prefer to call it "targeted design" based on whom they think they can sell to, and attempting not to drive people away by it being "too hard".

[Lucas Ashrock]

No i doubt he meant "hard is good, easy is for dumbs". Such a childish mmo we paid, if the target was a 4y buttonspammer kid.
Clearly yes, they fixed the "this build or nothing" you can do a DE naked spamming randomly some skills and still complete it.
Weee!!

[MazingerZ]

Sinful01, on 12 December 2012 - 06:16 PM, said:

You also have to toss in the fact that in most MMOs (GW2 included) they need to balance the PvE such that, in general, someone new to MMOs, someone with limited skill, and/or someone that just flat out plays poorly can succeed decently enough that they don't get frustrated and quit in a huff.  They wouldn't want to turn any customers away.

Yeah, that's fine for starting levels, but I know in WoW 1.0, when you hit the late teens, the difficulty increased.  Silverpine and Hillsbrad were like OMG, WTF that hurts!  Any game eases its players into more difficult combat situations.

[blindude]

OMG!!! You are comparing the multiplayer aspect of pc games with gw2 normal pve and farming nodes and mobs.
Are you serious??
I dont get why i have to state the obvious here but ..at least be kind enough to talk about gw2 spvp when you compare its combat depth to see if bots can cop.Also get it in your *ing mind how much different is designing instances for 8 man parties compared to content that is out in the open world... This thread makes me wwant to pull my hair out.

[jeremynsl]

Let me come at this topic from a different angle.  I'm only level 60.  I played quite a bit for the first month after release, but I've had much less time for gaming since then.  So I put GW2 off for awhile.

Now I jump back in, hoping to do some PvE - dungeons and zones.  But my server is just about empty.  I'm doing the Charr zones, and the 50-60 zone and 60-70 zone have been just wastelands.  Literally no one is around...  Its like you hear an echo.  So the DEs are mostly of course impossible unless you are far overleveled.  I also tried to join a PUG for TA with no luck for 20 minutes.  

So after all this I figured my server (Sanctum of Rall) was suddenly low pop and perhaps I should switch.  But upon checking, the pop is listed as 'Full'!!  Wow.

Now I do understand that many players must be already at 80 and are grinding out Orr, explorable dungeons or the new fractals (don't even know what those are).  But if there is no one in the starting/mid-zones - I don't see how GW2 can survive.  If I received GW2 as a Christmas present, say, I would be super-upset if no one is playing PvE for the first 70+ levels!  It would be boring as hell to play and needless to say, most new players would NEVER REACH lvl 80!

So I don't really know what the answer is but it seems like Anet has a serious problem on their hands.  They might have to go full-on F2P and just take micro-transactions to get new people trying the game.  Because otherwise its just going to be the hardcore lvl 80 players left and their userbase will never expand.

[Sinful01]

jeremynsl, on 12 December 2012 - 08:00 PM, said:

Let me come at this topic from a different angle.  I'm only level 60.  I played quite a bit for the first month after release, but I've had much less time for gaming since then.  So I put GW2 off for awhile.

Now I jump back in, hoping to do some PvE - dungeons and zones.  But my server is just about empty.  I'm doing the Charr zones, and the 50-60 zone and 60-70 zone have been just wastelands.  Literally no one is around...  Its like you hear an echo.  So the DEs are mostly of course impossible unless you are far overleveled.  I also tried to join a PUG for TA with no luck for 20 minutes.  

So after all this I figured my server (Sanctum of Rall) was suddenly low pop and perhaps I should switch.  But upon checking, the pop is listed as 'Full'!!  Wow.

Now I do understand that many players must be already at 80 and are grinding out Orr, explorable dungeons or the new fractals (don't even know what those are).  But if there is no one in the starting/mid-zones - I don't see how GW2 can survive.  If I received GW2 as a Christmas present, say, I would be super-upset if no one is playing PvE for the first 70+ levels!  It would be boring as hell to play and needless to say, most new players would NEVER REACH lvl 80!

So I don't really know what the answer is but it seems like Anet has a serious problem on their hands.  They might have to go full-on F2P and just take micro-transactions to get new people trying the game.  Because otherwise its just going to be the hardcore lvl 80 players left and their userbase will never expand.

Yup yup.  I recently got a character from 60-80 .. had to do most of it in WvW (which if fine, I prefer WvW when it is a good match) but in off times I literally could not find enough people to do DEs.  I leveled doing hearts and random mobs if I had to level through PvE.

Good thing is ... with the holiday coming up, many new people will pick up GW2.  That'll add some much needed new blood to things, and fill in the lower levels with actual new people (and not just alts crafting for XP or whatever).

Bad thing is .. the servers are all FULL!  However will these new people get to play?!

(Note: I think the 'full' status is BS by Anet making the server populations look good. ... and magically around December 26th many of the servers will open up and have room for the influx of new people.)

[blindude]

Sinful01, on 12 December 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

(Note: I think the 'full' status is BS by Anet making the server populations look good. ... and magically around December 26th many of the servers will open up and have room for the influx of new people.)

OR maybe..just maybe they want to cap the population of one server relevantly to the others so that there wont be unbalance in wvw.Even if the whole player population quite today tommorow they might still need to do such things to control player transfers.
But of course we should assume the worst andn then compalin and accuse the company of being the devil cause after all thats the purpose of tyrian assembly..
They should rename it to Whiner's Assemply imo..

[MazingerZ]

jeremynsl, on 12 December 2012 - 08:00 PM, said:

Now I jump back in, hoping to do some PvE - dungeons and zones.  But my server is just about empty.  I'm doing the Charr zones, and the 50-60 zone and 60-70 zone have been just wastelands.  Literally no one is around...  Its like you hear an echo.  So the DEs are mostly of course impossible unless you are far overleveled.  I also tried to join a PUG for TA with no luck for 20 minutes.

To be fair, the personal story doesn't lead you anywhere near those areas.  The best you get is Fields of Ruin for Vigil (30-40) and Blazeridge Mountains if you pick an Ogre sympathy (available only to Norn and Charr) (40-50).  After that, you get pulled south and spend the next 30 levels fighting with Zhaitan's forces.

That's really a major failing of the personal story.  You either spend money WP'ing around to see a new place, or you level in the zone where your Pact missions are going to be.

Also, in big bold letter, the server status of 'FULL' is the number of attached accounts to the server, not the number of people active and online.  They may adjust that status, I suppose, based on how many accounts go 'inactive' due to long periods of inactivity.  However, those statuses don't mean how many people are online.

Edited by MazingerZ, 12 December 2012 - 09:07 PM.

[jeremynsl]

Yes, I did both those areas as I am Vigil and did the Ogre storyline.  Lately my storyline hasn't really 'pulled' me anywhere.  I have been screwing about in Lions Arch mostly.  I think my lvl 62 story quest takes me elsewhere, but I have only just reached level 60.  So if I want to level PvE in the meantime to reach lvl 62 (I don't do WvW - never got used to it) then it seemed to make sense to level in my own races' zones.

And are you saying that zones that aren't featured in our personal stories should be empty?  I would expect all zones would feature in some classes personal story though, no?

I'm fine with venturing out to find a higher pop 60-70 zone though!  Any ideas?

MazingerZ, on 12 December 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

To be fair, the personal story doesn't lead you anywhere near those areas.  The best you get is Fields of Ruin for Vigil (30-40) and Blazeridge Mountains if you pick an Ogre sympathy (available only to Norn and Charr) (40-50).  After that, you get pulled south and spend the next 30 levels fighting with Zhaitan's forces.

That's really a major failing of the personal story.  You either spend money WP'ing around to see a new place, or you level in the zone where your Pact missions are going to be.

Also, in big bold letter, the server status of 'FULL' is the number of attached accounts to the server, not the number of people active and online.  They may adjust that status, I suppose, based on how many accounts go 'inactive' due to long periods of inactivity.  However, those statuses don't mean how many people are online.

Edited by jeremynsl, 12 December 2012 - 09:44 PM.

[MazingerZ]

Spoiler

Once you take back Claw Island, your story pulls you to Timberline Falls.  How you choose to get there is entirely up to you.  From there, you go to the Straits of Devastation and into Orr.

[DuskWolf]

@Sinful01

Yes, but this is what difficulty levels are for. Why hasn't any MMO picked up the idea that some people don't want an easy to play game that relies purely on armour and weapon numbers for the entirety of the experience? I don't want that. This is why bots are so good at playing it, as I've explained.

The fact of the matter is is that you could easily put out two versions of a game. One which has more intelligent AI, and is based around actual difficulty that challenges the player, andt hen you could have a version where it's totally VP and you can grind for gear rather than actually needing to think tactically or to have quick response times. There are reasons why people go on and on about how there are so many bots in GW2 and how there are more bots than people, even, these days.

I've already explained the differences between the styles of bots. GW2 is a very simplistic game which operates on a two-dimensional plane. Any half-arsed coder could create a slipshod bot for that which is successful 80% of the time. And yes, some people want a game that's that easy. Where the game almost plays itself. Where having X better numbers versus Y worse numbers on a mob automatically means that you win a fight.

I want at least one MMO where, no matter where you are in the game, numbers can never determine whether you win or lose a fight. This is why I keep pining for an MMO like ME3. ME3 has difficulty levels, which is something that MMOs need. You can pick a difficulty level that suits you, and that works. And you can have one difficulty level that, no matter what gear you're using, you can't auto-win because of your gear.

GW2 is a game where having the right gear is an automatic victory, even in WvW to a very large degree. It's obvious why you can write a bot that works for that. Hell, it's easier to write a bot that plays a game like that successfully than it is to write a bot that plays Bomberman well.

As I keep stressing: GW2 is so easy that the game plays itself.

If I wanted something that played itself, I'd watch a movie.

You have no idea how much I pine for something which has the beauty of TERA (GW2 continues to be kind of ugly to me, I'm sorry, maybe due to how generic it is and how much character/environment clipping there is), the world/races of GW2, the storytelling of TSW/TOR and the gameplay of something like Planetside2. Even Penny Arcade said similar. I just really want that game.

Edited by DuskWolf, 13 December 2012 - 12:10 AM.

[Dasryn]

i dont think GW2 content is too easy per se, and no this isnt fanboism, its the truth.  i fought that steam creature champion in the portal event out in Lornar's Pass, and there were four of us, and i was doing everything in my power and using every skill and all my ingenuity to stay alive and keep the other three alive.  it was insane.  after we finally downed that champ, we all stood there in a circle because we knew we just had an epic encounter.

in an encounter like that, there are a lot of things going on that the player must pay attention to and i will be honest, that specific moment has been few in my time playing GW2, but it tells me that not all the encounter is facerollable.

the one thing i hate about some of the other larger scaled events is that the champion bosses are just so unforgivable to melee classes.  this is a balancing issue i hope gets resolved.

[Ghostwing]

Rickter, on 13 December 2012 - 12:20 AM, said:

the one thing i hate about some of the other larger scaled events is that the champion bosses are just so unforgivable to melee classes.  this is a balancing issue i hope gets resolved.

I've come to accept this by equipping a ranged weap as a sub weapon. You do way more DPS as melee (even the traditionally ranged classes do) so I melee and dodge the best I can, and when I'm either out of endurance or low on health I'll back up and rifle till my heal comes off CD and then I'll melee again. I don't know which boss you're specifically referring to, but some of the one-hitters have huge telegraphs that aren't impossible to dodge with a roll.

I don't think this game is too hard playing melee, as long as you're willing to accept that you can't melee some mobs forever (which can actually be done. Just not by me. Because that shit is hard. But I've seen it). I think it's too easy playing as full-out ranged, even though it takes a little longer to kill stuff. That presents the question, why do you want all the benefits of being melee but none of the drawbacks?

DuskWolf, on 13 December 2012 - 12:08 AM, said:

You have no idea how much I pine for something which has the beauty of TERA (GW2 continues to be kind of ugly to me, I'm sorry, maybe due to how generic it is and how much character/environment clipping there is), the world/races of GW2, the storytelling of TSW/TOR and the gameplay of something like Planetside2. Even Penny Arcade said similar. I just really want that game.

You're better off going into the Planetside 2 forums and telling them to create stories and make better graphics than coming here and saying the GW2 gameplay should change to Planetside 2...which is solely a pvp game...

If you're talking about a MMOFPS, Firefall looks to be that.

Edited by Ghostwing, 13 December 2012 - 01:12 AM.

[Dasryn]

Ghostwing, on 13 December 2012 - 12:55 AM, said:

I've come to accept this by equipping a ranged weap as a sub weapon.

i play a guardian, and my ranged options are limited.  and dont tell me to equip scepter. . . i use sword/shield + staff because of the heavy support build im running.  it synergizes with my traits and im not changing it over some random unbalanced pve abortion called a champion boss battle.

[Ghostwing]

Rickter, on 13 December 2012 - 01:31 AM, said:

i play a guardian, and my ranged options are limited.  and dont tell me to equip scepter. . . i use sword/shield + staff because of the heavy support build im running.  it synergizes with my traits and im not changing it over some random unbalanced pve abortion called a champion boss battle.

Some builds are going to be limited for some situations and better for others.

I'm not sure what you mean by balance but I'm against making melee any easier than it is other than taking out particle effects to make telegraphs easier to see.

[Dasryn]

Ghostwing, on 13 December 2012 - 01:46 AM, said:

Some builds are going to be limited for some situations and better for others.

I'm not sure what you mean by balance but I'm against making melee any easier than it is other than taking out particle effects to make telegraphs easier to see.

you are missing my point.  im saying the current heavy hitting boss mechanics are extremely unforgiving to melee players.  melee must deal with a lot more than ranged as of right now and thats what imean by balance.  

in other words:  it aint fair that melee gotta be on the tips of their toes while ranged is sitting back tickling each other's armpits..

[Ghostwing]

Rickter, on 13 December 2012 - 02:36 AM, said:

you are missing my point.  im saying the current heavy hitting boss mechanics are extremely unforgiving to melee players.  melee must deal with a lot more than ranged as of right now and thats what imean by balance.  

in other words:  it aint fair that melee gotta be on the tips of their toes while ranged is sitting back tickling each other's armpits..

Yes, and melee deal a lot more damage than ranged--that is a fact, and that's been explained by the devs multiple times, and which I stated in my previous post. To do that damage, you take the risk of taking heavier damage that you have to dodge or mitigate with either a build or an ability. It's not impossible. I've seen it done. If you can't do it, then you have to adapt by either changing your build to your playstyle, or get better. It's completely fair in that if you have the benefit of doing more DPS as a melee than a ranged, and the drawback is that you're in more danger. Can't handle the heat of melee, well, play ranged.

I don't know if you read the entirety of my previous post. I switch out to a ranged weapon till I can get back into the melee fray. I don't stay ranged for the rest of the fight. I don't know what your idea of balancing would be, but man, I hope they don't nerf the game anymore than they already have. If you're saying they should balance it by making it HARDER for ranged, then yeah. I don't think that is needed though; I don't care if the current PVE game is easier for ranged characters.

Now, I am not saying for a fact that some bosses don't have cheap one shotters. I personally haven't met very many, other than the times where I couldn't see the telegraph because of the particle effects.

Edit: Maybe some background will help show where I am coming from. I tried playing a ranged ranger and I hated it because I was in 0 danger. I play a warrior because melee requires dodging and defense abilities that I have to press at the moment, and I get rewarded for it by putting out heaps of DPS. Playing melee ranger was a little harder, perhaps psychologically, because they wear medium armor. I don't want the PVE game to become where everything is as easy to play as a primarily ranged character, and that I can basically AFK at melee range. I am perfectly fine with having to switch to ranged for some moments of a fight and then switching back to melee IN THE SAME FIGHT when my health or endurance is back.

Edited by Ghostwing, 13 December 2012 - 03:33 AM.

[Dasryn]

fair enough i suppose.

[karekiz]

DuskWolf, on 13 December 2012 - 12:08 AM, said:

The fact of the matter is is that you could easily put out two versions of a game. One which has more intelligent AI, and is based around actual difficulty that challenges the player, andt hen you could have a version where it's totally VP and you can grind for gear rather than actually needing to think tactically or to have quick response times. There are reasons why people go on and on about how there are so many bots in GW2 and how there are more bots than people, even, these days.

Actually no...that is a terrible idea.  Why spread the balance in 1/2 and make it twice as hard to develop a good game?  Make it one or the other, not both.  It is one thing to have "Normal/heroic" dungeons it is another to create two entirely different styles of play for the entire game.  Not to mention your essentially KILLING your own population numbers by separating them.

GW2 suffers for this same idea.  Does it want to focus on E-Sports, WvW, or PvE?  It can't decided so all three suffer as a part of it...

Edited by karekiz, 13 December 2012 - 05:35 AM.

[omar316]

Feathermoore, on 12 December 2012 - 05:43 PM, said:

I think GW2's open world PvE battles are terrible, but this is an mmo and that is kinda one of the features of the genre (one that sucks). But do you know WHY the open world PvE sucks? Because it is balanced for solo-player interaction in a world that you usually have a group of people. There are no "groups" of structured enemies that have any sort of interaction with each other. ME3 is a group oriented game where the AI has access to specialized units. GW1 had this as well (and had terrible AI, better than most MMOs though). The game would be so much more rewarding if the world was balanced around the idea that groups of people need to work together. This idea that a person should be able to play an MMO alone is holding the genre back.

You got a new fan. I love you.

[Cronos988]

DuskWolf, on 13 December 2012 - 12:08 AM, said:

I want at least one MMO where, no matter where you are in the game, numbers can never determine whether you win or lose a fight. This is why I keep pining for an MMO like ME3. ME3 has difficulty levels, which is something that MMOs need. You can pick a difficulty level that suits you, and that works. And you can have one difficulty level that, no matter what gear you're using, you can't auto-win because of your gear.

Planetside 2? Dota/LoL might suit you, it's not exactly MMO, but yeah. I've had this discussion before: Stats are at the core of MMORPGs, saying you want one without stats is simply contradictory. Just play different games.

DuskWolf, on 13 December 2012 - 12:08 AM, said:

GW2 is a game where having the right gear is an automatic victory, even in WvW to a very large degree. It's obvious why you can write a bot that works for that. Hell, it's easier to write a bot that plays a game like that successfully than it is to write a bot that plays Bomberman well.

WvW is purely gear based? That is an interesting claim for sure.

DuskWolf, on 13 December 2012 - 12:08 AM, said:

As I keep stressing: GW2 is so easy that the game plays itself.

If I wanted something that played itself, I'd watch a movie.

You have no idea how much I pine for something which has the beauty of TERA (GW2 continues to be kind of ugly to me, I'm sorry, maybe due to how generic it is and how much character/environment clipping there is), the world/races of GW2, the storytelling of TSW/TOR and the gameplay of something like Planetside2. Even Penny Arcade said similar. I just really want that game.

So your argument is people are leaving Guild Wars 2 because it is not the most perfect game ever made?

[Mouse1981]

The very fact that so many people HAVE left GW2 makes it pretty much pointless to argue how good GW2 is. It isn't. It's a disappointment. It's bad. The opposite of fun and engaging. It's just... Blargh.

[Craywulf]

How does a person leave a game, when there's no obligation to stay? Just because it's a MMO doesn't mean you have to play it all the time. I go weeks before I log in. I don't consider it "leaving" when I just play it sparingly. I have too much other things going on in my life to dedicate myself to a game that has no obligations.

[Kymeric]

Kymeric, on 12 December 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:

For what it's worth, I've run across a good number of defeated bots.  So GW2 at least wins against them some of the time.

Lucas Ashrock, on 12 December 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

Where? Dungeons? Nope, you just need a bot following the last member of the group and spam all skills randomly, sometimes using the dodge button.

No, not dungeons.  Out in the open world.  You know, the ranger girls named Aslkjd laying naked on the ground?

Edited by Kymeric, 13 December 2012 - 10:51 AM.