577 replies to this topic

[EagleDelta1]

I want to pose this question to everyone in the thread:

Why compare GW2 to any other MMO, including GW1?

Why can't we just accept that it is a new (and different) game than it's predecessor?

Personally, I like the high level.  I like it because I enjoy playing the game and don't feel like I'm grinding to death just to get to level 80.  I like that while gear is NOT the center point of the game, it actually has some sort of meaning this time.  I like that how well I play is actually based off skill rather than some ability to put together a good "build" or have the right gear.

I just spent the last 3 days in the Human starter zone doing dailies for fun and it lead me to find parts of the zone I never knew existed.  I met new people, I learned how to play the mesmer a bit better and I just simply had fun.  That is where GW2 is successful, NOT it trying to be or NOT be like GW1, WoW, Rift, or any other MMOs out there.  GW2 is both very familiar and different.  It takes elements from GW1 and a host of other MMOs out there and combines them with different mechanics that make it much, much better than other games out there.  GW2 has drawn a lot of new players.  Hell, I have a lot of friends get the game that didn't want to play GW1 or played it and got bored really fast.

I have only ever played AC on story mode. No other dungeons - not because I didn't want to, but because I just haven't.  I still have a lot of fun. I don't need everything right here and now to be happy - why does anyone else?

I really think people are missing the point here.  If you're only playing GW2 for the dungeons or for the events or any other one thing, then you're missing the entire point of the game.  The game IS designed to have fun - from lvl 1 to 80.  It is NOT designed for people that want to have everything at once, nor is it designed for people that like to grind the best gear.  If you want to play GW1, go play GW1, If you want to play a WoW - go play WoW.  I could go on and on.  Play GW2 for what it is and stop whining that it's not like this "other game" or that "other game".

Edited by EagleDelta1, 26 February 2013 - 08:19 PM.

[El Duderino]

EagleDelta1, on 26 February 2013 - 08:18 PM, said:

I want to pose this question to everyone in the thread:

Why compare GW2 to any other MMO, including GW1?

Why can't we just accept that it is a new (and different) game than it's predecessor?

[snip]

If you want to play GW1, go play GW1

I do want to play GW1, but alas, it is rather dead and hasn't seen a meaningful update in quite some time.

It has been said multiple times before, but first, because it IS GW1's predecessor and 2, see the following:

Quote

Mike O'Brien: "We founded ArenaNet to innovate, so Guild Wars 2 is our opportunity to question everything, to make a game that defies existing conventions. If you love MMOs, you'll want to check out Guild Wars 2, and if you hate MMOs, you'll really want to check out Guild Wars 2. Guild Wars 2 takes everything you love about Guild Wars 1 and puts it into a persistent world that's got more active combat, a fully-branching, personalized storyline, a new event system to get people playing together, and still no monthly fees."

Edited by El Duderino, 26 February 2013 - 08:29 PM.

[EagleDelta1]

El Duderino, on 26 February 2013 - 08:26 PM, said:

I do want to play GW1, but alas, it is rather dead and hasn't seen a meaningful update in quite some time.

It has been said multiple times before, but first, because it IS GW1's predecessor and 2, see the following:

I don't care if GW1 was GW2's predecessor or not.  I like the Final Fantasy series, The Elder Scrolls series and in both cases the games have drastically changed with each iteration (and still been good).  In the gaming world it doesn't matter if the game is exactly like its predecessor or not.

As for the quote - don't care.  That's marketing speak, our company does it all the time.  It's a generic comment that's directed at a generic fan base - what you, Me, or raspberry or anyone else loved about GW1 could be drastically different - it is a statement made to resonate with as many fans as possible, that's all.  What we all liked about GW1 couldn't be replicated without remaking GW1 and what is the point in that?  I don't buy new CoD games every year because why spend more money on something that just looks better than the last one?  I want a whole new game not a rehash - when I feel like play GW1 style games, I'll play GW1

Edited by EagleDelta1, 26 February 2013 - 08:40 PM.

[El Duderino]

EagleDelta1, on 26 February 2013 - 08:33 PM, said:

I don't care if GW1 was GW2's predecessor or not.  I like the Final Fantasy series, The Elder Scrolls series and in both cases the games have drastically changed with each iteration (and still been good).  In the gaming world it doesn't matter if the game is exactly like its predecessor or not.

As for the quote - don't care.  That's marketing speak, our company does it all the time.  It's a generic comment that's directed at a generic fan base - what you, Me, or raspberry or anyone else loved about GW1 could be drastically different - it is a statement made to resonate with as many fans as possible, that's all.  What we all liked about GW1 couldn't be replicated without remaking GW1 and what is the point in that?  I don't buy new CoD games every year because why spend more money on something that just looks better than the last one?  I want a whole new game not a rehash - when I feel like play GW1 style games, I'll play GW1

Well just because you don't care doesn't mean that I care to listen to you when you ask us to stop comparing GW2 to GW1.

Here, take a play from your own book. Don't like it? Find another forum to read where they don't compare the two.

I couldn't care less about what you like, want or your personal life.

I guess I should have just said I don't care what you have to say first, instead of trying to answer your question. This way, I could have just answered the same way you did to me.

Edited by El Duderino, 26 February 2013 - 08:43 PM.

[majiger]

EagleDelta1, on 26 February 2013 - 08:33 PM, said:

I don't care if GW1 was GW2's predecessor or not.  I like the Final Fantasy series, The Elder Scrolls series and in both cases the games have drastically changed with each iteration (and still been good).  In the gaming world it doesn't matter if the game is exactly like its predecessor or not.

As for the quote - don't care.  That's marketing speak, our company does it all the time.  It's a generic comment that's directed at a generic fan base - what you, Me, or raspberry or anyone else loved about GW1 could be drastically different - it is a statement made to resonate with as many fans as possible, that's all.  What we all liked about GW1 couldn't be replicated without remaking GW1 and what is the point in that?  I don't buy new CoD games every year because why spend more money on something that just looks better than the last one?  I want a whole new game not a rehash - when I feel like play GW1 style games, I'll play GW1

The problem with that argument there is that Final Fantasy, Elder Scrolls and CoD games are not sequals to each other.

Final Fantasy has a differing mythos depending on the game. A couple connect but only with hints and references and if anythingthat is just for the fan base.
Elder Scrolls has one giant lore book and Bethesda just pulls whatever race they want to focus on out of this book and makes the game. It all does connect if you read the books in the game or listen to certain NPC interactions.
CoD is CoD. Same shooter with a different name. No one expects any differerent.

However, when MMOs release a new game under the name of *Old Game* 2 people exect something more than taking the lore and throwing away everything else learned in that game.
Everquest 2, Lineage 2, Ragnarok Online 2, Vindictus (Aka Mabinogi 2); are all sequals to mmo titles that were big, depending on region.
Did any of them just scrap everything that fans enjoyed about the game and decided to make the sequal into something that you'd hardly recognize as a predecessor? No.
Aside from Vindictus taking the action route and RO2 getting a 3D art style instead of sprites, the ground work was used from the previous game.

So to say that ANet had no obligation to make GW1 fans happy first and foremost when making a sequal for a game they played for 6+ years is quite wrong.
No one asked for a rehash but a better GW1. Who didn't like have a large amount of skills to choose from? Why did 1000+ skills get replaced by "450 skills: over 250 from weapon choices, 35 from healing, 200 utility, 8 racial, and 60 elites."

Divide that among 7 Proffessions, then factor in only specific weapons are used, then factor in the fact that elites are not even elite status to what we'd expect and you realise that 450 skill pool is maybe about 300 at most.

Not to mention being able to dual class, what was wrong with that? As far as I knew everyone that playe GW1 enjoyed that because no other game would let you do that. I ran a Warrior/Ranger with a Bow + Pet until the end of Prophecies and that was great.

I'm not even going to bother listing off every thing that they could have take from GW1 but customization was one of its big things. I don't see it anymore.

[EagleDelta1]

majiger, on 26 February 2013 - 09:12 PM, said:

The problem with that argument there is that Final Fantasy, Elder Scrolls and CoD games are not sequals to each other.

Final Fantasy has a differing mythos depending on the game. A couple connect but only with hints and references and if anythingthat is just for the fan base.
Elder Scrolls has one giant lore book and Bethesda just pulls whatever race they want to focus on out of this book and makes the game. It all does connect if you read the books in the game or listen to certain NPC interactions.
CoD is CoD. Same shooter with a different name. No one expects any differerent.

However, when MMOs release a new game under the name of *Old Game* 2 people exect something more than taking the lore and throwing away everything else learned in that game.
Everquest 2, Lineage 2, Ragnarok Online 2, Vindictus (Aka Mabinogi 2); are all sequals to mmo titles that were big, depending on region.
Did any of them just scrap everything that fans enjoyed about the game and decided to make the sequal into something that you'd hardly recognize as a predecessor? No.
Aside from Vindictus taking the action route and RO2 getting a 3D art style instead of sprites, the ground work was used from the previous game.

So to say that ANet had no obligation to make GW1 fans happy first and foremost when making a sequal for a game they played for 6+ years is quite wrong.
No one asked for a rehash but a better GW1. Who didn't like have a large amount of skills to choose from? Why did 1000+ skills get replaced by "450 skills: over 250 from weapon choices, 35 from healing, 200 utility, 8 racial, and 60 elites."

Divide that among 7 Proffessions, then factor in only specific weapons are used, then factor in the fact that elites are not even elite status to what we'd expect and you realise that 450 skill pool is maybe about 300 at most.

Not to mention being able to dual class, what was wrong with that? As far as I knew everyone that playe GW1 enjoyed that because no other game would let you do that. I ran a Warrior/Ranger with a Bow + Pet until the end of Prophecies and that was great.

I'm not even going to bother listing off every thing that they could have take from GW1 but customization was one of its big things. I don't see it anymore.

I see what you're saying, but you're still missing the point: I was referring to gameplay, not mythos.  They don't always go hand in hand.

If they did, then the Elder Scrolls would all be exactly alike (the core is similar, but overall they are not exactly alike... not even close)

Same with Certain FF games:  Just because Final Fantasy XII, FF12: Revenant Wings, Final Fantasy Tactics A2, Final Fantasy Tactics and Vagrant Story are all set in the same world with the same lore (Ivalice) - they are all very, very different games.

No company has an obligation only to their older fans - if companies did that, they'd all go under for not finding ways to bring in new customers... that's business. (And Arena Net is a business first and foremost).

As for your other comments:

1. 1000+ skills to choose from - dude I'm a Sys Admin/Dev - I wouldn't want to spend everyday rebalancing that many skills, especially when only 25% are used at any given time.  - this is probably a way of cutting labor costs and focus dev teams on more future projects and content than balancing skills.  Developers are expensive (avg yearly income in the US is 100K+ per Dev)

2. Dual Profs - with the design of GW2 (one of the few designs that didn't change) skill system - dual profs would be nigh impossible to balance considering all the combinations - again labor costs being cut and workflow streamlined.

3. GW1 was fun, but it was obviously a very dated model.  I'm all for the way it was made, but I stand by GW2 is not GW1 and that is one of the most shallow arguments I've ever heard "I want it more like this game over here!".  It also gives the impression that you feel entitled to the decision making process just because you bought this other product of theirs.  Doesn't work that way, especially when part of the goal is to bring in new customers that either didn't try or didn't want the previous product.

4. Finally - there has to be a balance between customization and... well... balance.  Too much customization and that leads to a rebalancing nightmare, too much "balancing" and it can lead to no customization.  It's much like how Computer Security (or Security in general) you have to balance between keeping something safe and keeping it appealing/open.  The more open it is, the easier it can be taken advantage of to hurt others.  The more secure it is, the less freedom you have.  You can't go one way or another otherwise it becomes impossible - balance is key.  There is still a lot of customization.

One last thing - Lore =/= gameplay.  Isn't that one of the big things that GW fans were crying out with when explaining how a sylvari could be a necromancer?  Why is it now being used in the opposite way?

You have a right to your opinion and I have mine.  But clamouring about how a game isn't nearly an exact copy of the last game is childish.  Two different products with two different target audiences that overlap slightly.  Start looking at what you buy from the business perspective and you might start to understand the reasons some companies do things.  A company's #1 purpose is to make money so that they can pay bills, pay staff, and create new products to make more money.  Next comes how they are going to expand their market.  Last - look at keeping old customers.  Once you are a customer, you only matter if the amount of old customers leaving outwieghs the new ones coming in.

Edited by EagleDelta1, 26 February 2013 - 11:10 PM.

[El Duderino]

EagleDelta1, on 26 February 2013 - 11:09 PM, said:

You have a right to your opinion and I have mine.  But clamouring about how a game isn't nearly an exact copy of the last game is childish.  Two different products with two different target audiences that overlap slightly.  Start looking at what you buy from the business perspective and you might start to understand the reasons some companies do things.  A company's #1 purpose is to make money so that they can pay bills, pay staff, and create new products to make more money.  Next comes how they are going to expand their market.  Last - look at keeping old customers.  Once you are a customer, you only matter if the amount of old customers leaving outwieghs the new ones coming in.

So, why then, would ArenaNet make a game that is wholly unlike GW1, which was a huge financial success?

I agree that balancing that many skills would be difficult. I also agree no one thought that GW2 would be an exact replica of GW1.

I also don't think that is what people are arguing about.

The problem is that for all the things that GW1 did well. All the things that made it a success. GW2 didn't do any of them.

Oh, ya, I own my own business, so I think I can handle looking at things from a business' point of view rather than a Sys Admin/Dev.

What I wouldn't do is alienate the people that made my last game successful for 6-7 years.

Edited by El Duderino, 27 February 2013 - 12:52 AM.

[Impmon]

It should've been 30th.  By 30 you have every skill you'll need and from that point on you're grinding to 80th.  Those 50 levels are just annoying.

They could've made every zone from 30 and up "end - game" zones & nobody would be saying "what do we do at 80?"  Since they'd be trying to obtain the gear for those zones, not just farming for 42k cursed shore armor.

[majiger]

EagleDelta1, on 26 February 2013 - 11:09 PM, said:

I see what you're saying, but you're still missing the point: I was referring to gameplay, not mythos.  They don't always go hand in hand.

If they did, then the Elder Scrolls would all be exactly alike (the core is similar, but overall they are not exactly alike... not even close)

Same with Certain FF games:  Just because Final Fantasy XII, FF12: Revenant Wings, Final Fantasy Tactics A2, Final Fantasy Tactics and Vagrant Story are all set in the same world with the same lore (Ivalice) - they are all very, very different games.

No company has an obligation only to their older fans - if companies did that, they'd all go under for not finding ways to bring in new customers... that's business. (And Arena Net is a business first and foremost).

As for your other comments:

1. 1000+ skills to choose from - dude I'm a Sys Admin/Dev - I wouldn't want to spend everyday rebalancing that many skills, especially when only 25% are used at any given time.  - this is probably a way of cutting labor costs and focus dev teams on more future projects and content than balancing skills.  Developers are expensive (avg yearly income in the US is 100K+ per Dev)

2. Dual Profs - with the design of GW2 (one of the few designs that didn't change) skill system - dual profs would be nigh impossible to balance considering all the combinations - again labor costs being cut and workflow streamlined.

3. GW1 was fun, but it was obviously a very dated model.  I'm all for the way it was made, but I stand by GW2 is not GW1 and that is one of the most shallow arguments I've ever heard "I want it more like this game over here!".  It also gives the impression that you feel entitled to the decision making process just because you bought this other product of theirs.  Doesn't work that way, especially when part of the goal is to bring in new customers that either didn't try or didn't want the previous product.

4. Finally - there has to be a balance between customization and... well... balance.  Too much customization and that leads to a rebalancing nightmare, too much "balancing" and it can lead to no customization.  It's much like how Computer Security (or Security in general) you have to balance between keeping something safe and keeping it appealing/open.  The more open it is, the easier it can be taken advantage of to hurt others.  The more secure it is, the less freedom you have.  You can't go one way or another otherwise it becomes impossible - balance is key.  There is still a lot of customization.

One last thing - Lore =/= gameplay.  Isn't that one of the big things that GW fans were crying out with when explaining how a sylvari could be a necromancer?  Why is it now being used in the opposite way?

You have a right to your opinion and I have mine.  But clamouring about how a game isn't nearly an exact copy of the last game is childish.  Two different products with two different target audiences that overlap slightly.  Start looking at what you buy from the business perspective and you might start to understand the reasons some companies do things.  A company's #1 purpose is to make money so that they can pay bills, pay staff, and create new products to make more money.  Next comes how they are going to expand their market.  Last - look at keeping old customers.  Once you are a customer, you only matter if the amount of old customers leaving outwieghs the new ones coming in.

I'm not stating that it needs 1k+ skills because I know that maybe 500 at most were ever used or that dual proffs are a must or anything like that, no.

What I am trying to say is that Guild Wars 1, Prophecies, out of the box had a larger degree of freedom with customization than 90% of MMOs out there. I at least assumed that GW2 would have half of that.

I think we all expected GW2 to build on that, not take away from what made GW1 such a good game. I never expected it to be like GW1 nor did anyone else but when in the Design Manifesto they tell us that they will take what we love in GW1 and build on it I expect that to actually happen.

Unless they thought that all we liked was: The proffessions, weapon/armor skins and holiday event, I don't see what GW2 took from GW1 that the original player base loved about the game.

I get that in the MMO market everyone is trying to beat WoW, but if you just make your game more similiar to WoW (Not saying GW2 is a clone but you can tell it moved away from unique to generic) then you are simply competing for the same space.

Level 20 gave us a freedom from other MMOs because it let us to exlplore the world without worrying "Oh no! Do I have enough of X stat for this area? Maybe I should have geard with Y instead?" Ya we had runes and different armor abilities but they were never you have to run this here or else you die!
Sure when you start to farm stuff you need specific gear or else you farm inefficently but that's past end game.

[escada_assassin]

XPhiler, on 26 February 2013 - 02:04 PM, said:

You're trying to please people too hard. The choices you list have sever consequences. Removing DR and RNG is nice but that means you need to increase the requirements to keep the same time line. If you dont increase requirements people will get bored of the game quickly cause they'll quickly end up with nothing to do amongst other issues. IE if corrupted greatsword requires 30 corrupted lodestone and there is no RNG to ensure it takes a month to get those 30 corrupted lodestones you will need to make it so one needs 1000s to make up for the speed of acquiring lodestones. People who farm and sell corrupted lodestones are now out of luck because corrupted lodestone sell for copper rather then a gold since they're very easy to come by now. There will be absolutely no good drops any more in the game. Right now if you get a charged lodestone during a CoE run, wow 3g in a single drop, that is awesome but thats only possible cause charged lodestones are hard to come by because there isnt a lot of places you can aquire them and thanks to RNG they're pretty rare. With no RNG a charged lodestone would end up costing less then copper ore (that would be harder to come by due to node respawn time)  because its just too common.

If people can fully gear their character in a week and they can get all they need to craft a legendary in a month what will they log for the 2nd month? Do you think people will enjoy playing the game if every drop they have is meaningless (no rng means everything is common and everything common means people will only buy said stuff for cheap or none at all) ?

You'll make people happy in the short term. but  then they'll have no goals to reach after that. Instant gratification isnt always a good thing.

That is what would happen if they tried to please everyone. That was my point.

[XPhiler]

asbasb, on 26 February 2013 - 04:53 PM, said:

Does he get to play explorable areas in Hard Mode? heh.

Ohh yeah cause playing an explorable area in hard mode really made that explorable area profitable.. I forgot that detail... ohh wait no it didnt.

[XPhiler]

raspberry jam, on 26 February 2013 - 05:01 PM, said:

^ Edit: Ah, yeah, HM was a thing too of course. Both storyline, and playing in explorables, either for vanquish or for just the fun of it.

If I wasn't getting a character through one of the storylines, or (as you said), trying to get a green or capping a skill, I'd probably be playing PvP or doing one of the elite areas, either alone or in a group. That said though there have been times when I just wandered around the crystal desert or post-searing Ascalon, exploring the place.

I think a large part of the feeling that GW1 PvE had was because it was intended as a place to play around and maybe get nice-looking stuff. GW1 was originally meant to have PvP as endgame. No much effort was put into getting people to get stuck in PvE, but the result was that PvE felt unforced, free, and fun.

And how is that any different then Gw2 exactly? how is PvE in gw2 forced, locked and boring? capturing the skills was changed to skill challenges which technically make the whole thing more free as if you want a particular skill you're not forced to play a particular map and fight just 1 particular mob you're free to do that anywhere in the world. Lack of greens is an issue. There are a few such things spread around the world like the final rest who actually got to drop the first time (that we know off) just yesterday. 6 months for a drop is probably a bit too sever. Hope they add more skins and thus can make it a bit more frequent, thats an area that definitely needs improvement over gw1. Then again to be fair greens where not there at launch but introduced later.

I honestly cannot understand how one can feel that gw1 PvE was a place to play around and Gw2 PvE isnt. like you yourself admit if you went to a zone in gw1 it was to explore. Are you saying Gw2 has no such value? I loved exploring in gw1, the huge diverse world was great but in Gw2 its even better, there are things that you can actually discover, hidden things. There are things you can unlock while exploring. There are jumping puzzles, secret areas that are truely hard to find. As great as gw1 was it had none of that. I just cant understand how anyone can say gw1 did exploration right but gw2 didnt. What is it that made exploration in gw1 enjoyable for you thats lacking from gw2?

[XPhiler]

El Duderino, on 26 February 2013 - 11:28 PM, said:

So, why then, would ArenaNet make a game that is wholly unlike GW1, which was a huge financial success?

I agree that balancing that many skills would be difficult. I also agree no one thought that GW2 would be an exact replica of GW1.

I also don't think that is what people are arguing about.

The problem is that for all the things that GW1 did well. All the things that made it a success. GW2 didn't do any of them.

Oh, ya, I own my own business, so I think I can handle looking at things from a business' point of view rather than a Sys Admin/Dev.

What I wouldn't do is alienate the people that made my last game successful for 6-7 years.

I personally dont think they did. What I loved in Gw1 is all in Gw2 and in some cases done in a better way.

I enjoyed the freedom the dual classes and myriad of skills to choose from gave me. I could create a character that wasnt tied to stereotypical character class each other MMO forced you. Want a caster that also has a support role... go for it. Gw2 doesnt mirror the same system exactly but still achieves the same result by providing very generic skills that can be employed in nearly every situation. For me I would say Gw2 is an improvement because while Gw1 gave you endless flexibility in creating a build the build you create ends up very specialized so while I can do a caster thats also support if I went pure DPS I will have no support capabiltiies even though I might end up needing it. Not so in Gw2. Every build allows tweaking to support multiple roles at the same time. To me Gw2 provides greater freedom.

In Gw1 I loved the fact that due to the low level cap no zone became irrelevant and unlike other MMOs at endgame i wasnt locked in one specific content I could play anything I felt like while also working towards my goal. Gw2 doesnt have that low level cap but thanks to the scaling system every single zone is open to me just the same.

In Gw1 I loved the fact that while questing things arent static and thus feel fake. I still remember the very first time (okey it was the 2nd to be honest) I played the game and an NPC gave me this quest to help him gather some devourer eggs. Like I was used to from previous MMOs  I expect to go get the eggs and get back to the npc who wouldnt bother lift a finger to get what he needs. Thats how I was used for things to happen in other MMOs but not so in Guild wars, the NPC to my surprise came with me and I had to guard him while he did the collecting. That was my first real episode of immersion in an MMO. Gw2 just does that with Dynamic events and it does that in the open world so I dont have to sacrifice having players around to get that which is great.

In Gw1 I didnt have to worry about armor and weapons. they all came natural and unlike many other MMOs I never felt the need to grind to get that armor set that was needed for anything... (well there was some grinding to get heroes armor but that was more for HOM then the actual game) in Gw2 I still dont feel I need to worry about armor and weapons. There are more tiers which is a downside compared to gw1, thats true but on the other hand a rare set is more then enough and thats super easy to get.

Exploration well I already went through this in my previous post. gw1 was a great place to explore and so is Gw2, with the added benefit of having stuff to actually discover and enjoy while exploring.

Implementation wise there is no doubt that gw2 is very different to gw1 but at least for me personally they didnt lie when they said "Guild Wars 2 takes everything you love about Guild Wars 1 and puts it into a persistent world that's got more active combat, a fully-branching, personalized storyline, a new event system to get people playing together, and still no monthly fees."

Of course I dont represent all of the human race so I am sure my experience isnt the same as everyone else experience. Its clear you dont feel they did migrate the soul of what makes gw1 gw1 successfully to gw2. Different people like different things. Just pointing out that for some thats exactly what Arenanet did.

[XPhiler]

escada_assassin, on 27 February 2013 - 08:09 AM, said:

That is what would happen if they tried to please everyone. That was my point.

Sure only they didnt try to please everyone at all as its quite evident by the feedback on the forum. They simply tried to please as many people as possible without compromising the integrity of the game. Obviously choices still have consequences so you're right in that some of the problems for a group of players come from trying to please a different group of players. Thats unavoidable. After all its only logical to assume if they focused to please one group of people they would totally alienate the other group who wouldnt get anything they want.

Instead they tried to build a world were both have what they want and both can flourish in their own play style. Unfortunately human nature gets in the way of that.

[escada_assassin]

XPhiler, on 27 February 2013 - 10:20 AM, said:

Sure only they didnt try to please everyone at all as its quite evident by the feedback on the forum. They simply tried to please as many people as possible without compromising the integrity of the game. Obviously choices still have consequences so you're right in that some of the problems for a group of players come from trying to please a different group of players. Thats unavoidable. After all its only logical to assume if they focused to please one group of people they would totally alienate the other group who wouldnt get anything they want.

Instead they tried to build a world were both have what they want and both can flourish in their own play style. Unfortunately human nature gets in the way of that.

Word. :} I thought they should maybe narrow the categories of people whom they address the game to. I think they should just make up their minds and follow that path in game. Whether I (and not only me) like it or not.

[XPhiler]

escada_assassin, on 27 February 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

Word. :} I thought they should maybe narrow the categories of people whom they address the game to. I think they should just make up their minds and follow that path in game. Whether I (and not only me) like it or not.

They did. The path they chose is to make an open ended game allowing players to play the way they want rather then forcing them in one specific play style. Thats a path like all others.

[relyk]

Getting to level 20 took longer than getting to level 80.

[Pyrea]

I don't mind getting up to 80, can do this reletavily quickly. Am usually 80 and still have 70% of world still to explore. Do not think about it too much and it gives you a bit of progression. Part of the fun anyway is to get your level up as it gives you something to look forward to and plan on imo

[El Duderino]

XPhiler, on 27 February 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:

I personally dont think they did. What I loved in Gw1 is all in Gw2 and in some cases done in a better way.

Implementation wise there is no doubt that gw2 is very different to gw1 but at least for me personally they didnt lie when they said "Guild Wars 2 takes everything you love about Guild Wars 1 and puts it into a persistent world that's got more active combat, a fully-branching, personalized storyline, a new event system to get people playing together, and still no monthly fees."

Of course I dont represent all of the human race so I am sure my experience isnt the same as everyone else experience. Its clear you dont feel they did migrate the soul of what makes gw1 gw1 successfully to gw2. Different people like different things. Just pointing out that for some thats exactly what Arenanet did.

There are definitely people that played both that like GW2 more.

And there are a lot that don't. I would reference the following threads as proof of that:

http://www.guildwars...s-think-of-gw2/

http://teamquitter.c...hp?f=55&t=29540

http://www.guildwars...social-failure/

Again, I mostly PvP, and to the PvP community it has been much more of a disappointment than, perhaps, the PvE community.

And, before anyone says anything about PvP not being a money maker, I would point you to the success of League of Legends as a counter argument. Almost every PvP player I know that played GW1 is either playing LoL or another MOBA, if they are playing anything at all. And, many of those people bought GW2, were excited about it, and then ultimately disappointed enough to leave it behind for good.

[EagleDelta1]

El Duderino, on 27 February 2013 - 05:28 PM, said:

There are definitely people that played both that like GW2 more.

And there are a lot that don't. I would reference the following threads as proof of that:

http://www.guildwars...s-think-of-gw2/

http://teamquitter.c...hp?f=55&t=29540

http://www.guildwars...social-failure/

Again, I mostly PvP, and to the PvP community it has been much more of a disappointment than, perhaps, the PvE community.

And, before anyone says anything about PvP not being a money maker, I would point you to the success of League of Legends as a counter argument. Almost every PvP player I know that played GW1 is either playing LoL or another MOBA, if they are playing anything at all. And, many of those people bought GW2, were excited about it, and then ultimately disappointed enough to leave it behind for good.

League of Legends is an entirely different game though.  It's not technically classified as an MMO or MMORPG.  It's a MOBA.  Yes, PvP can be a money maker, if that's all you do with a game's multiplayer.  COD is successful due to it's mutliplayer (which is mainly PvP).  However, when a game is being built for both PvE and PvP multiplayer then one of two things usually happens:

1. PvP gets the shaft in favor of CooP PvE.
2. PvP and PvE exist in the same "zone".  Basically Open world PvP.  This works better for MMOs as people go to an MMO not only for massive multiplayer gaming, but to experience another world.  Structured PvP can't do this.  Things like WvW or a full PvP game like EVE achieve this - because your actions affect the world and aren't just a one-off encounter with leaderboards.

Granted this is personal preference, but I think when it comes to MMO games, a large majority of players don't want the GW1 sPvP model.  Not because it is bad, but because the market is saturated with games like that already.  I already play COD, League of Legends, DOTA2, Battlefield for the structured matches with leaderboards, K/D ratio (doubt GW2 has this), etc.  I don't want ANOTHER game like that, even if the gameplay is a bit different.  I believe this is how a lot of players feel, they buy GW2, or another MMO, for the world not the PvP.  Simply because sPvP Match style Multiplayer is everywhere and a lot of people don't want to play the SAME gametype over and over just with different mechanics.

As for your forum links:

Regardless of what your opinion is of the game - we are the Vocal Minority and that counts for very little if the rest of the player-base, namely the non-vocal player base, doesn't agree with us or make their voice heard.

Edited by EagleDelta1, 27 February 2013 - 08:54 PM.

[El Duderino]

EagleDelta1, on 27 February 2013 - 08:51 PM, said:

League of Legends is an entirely different game though.  It's not technically classified as an MMO or MMORPG.  It's a MOBA.  Yes, PvP can be a money maker, if that's all you do with a game's multiplayer.  COD is successful due to it's mutliplayer (which is mainly PvP).  However, when a game is being built for both PvE and PvP multiplayer then one of two things usually happens:

1. PvP gets the shaft in favor of CooP PvE.
2. PvP and PvE exist in the same "zone".  Basically Open world PvP.  This works better for MMOs as people go to an MMO not only for massive multiplayer gaming, but to experience another world.  Structured PvP can't do this.  Things like WvW or a full PvP game like EVE achieve this - because your actions affect the world and aren't just a one-off encounter with leaderboards.

Granted this is personal preference, but I think when it comes to MMO games, a large majority of players don't want the GW1 sPvP model.  Not because it is bad, but because the market is saturated with games like that already.  I already play COD, League of Legends, DOTA2, Battlefield for the structured matches with leaderboards, K/D ratio (doubt GW2 has this), etc.  I don't want ANOTHER game like that, even if the gameplay is a bit different.  I believe this is how a lot of players feel, they buy GW2, or another MMO, for the world not the PvP.  Simply because sPvP Match style Multiplayer is everywhere and a lot of people don't want to play the SAME gametype over and over just with different mechanics.

And yet, GW1 did it really well. Many mane people would suggest that GW1's PvP was the best MMO PvP ever made. And the PvP in GW1 was basically a MOBA.

Yes, they ran in to problems with balance when they introduced new professions and skills - but those things could have been easily remedied in GW2 (and many thought that was part of the reason for making GW2).

So, to say that it couldn't have been done seems a bit silly considering that the same company that made GW1 made GW2 and GW1 did it better than anyone.

Furthermore, the state of PvP in GW2 is so bad that, comparatively speaking, it is a colossal failure.

Also, none of the MOBAs you referenced hold a candle to GW1s PvP, I merely mentioned LoL because I anticipated the common argument that PvP doesn't matter because it isn't a money maker.

Edited by El Duderino, 27 February 2013 - 08:59 PM.

[Lordkrall]

And anyone that would suggest that GW1s PvP was a MMO PvP in any way at all should be ignored seeing as GW1 was not a MMO.

[EagleDelta1]

El Duderino, on 27 February 2013 - 08:57 PM, said:

And yet, GW1 did it really well. Many mane people would suggest that GW1's PvP was the best MMO PvP ever made. And the PvP in GW1 was basically a MOBA.

Yes, they ran in to problems with balance when they introduced new professions and skills - but those things could have been easily remedied in GW2 (and many thought that was part of the reason for making GW2).

So, to say that it couldn't have been done seems a bit silly considering that the same company that made GW1 made GW2 and GW1 did it better than anyone.

Furthermore, the state of PvP in GW2 is so bad that, comparatively speaking, it is a colossal failure.

Also, none of the MOBAs you referenced hold a candle to GW1s PvP, I merely mentioned LoL because I anticipated the common argument that PvP doesn't matter because it isn't a money maker.

I'm not saying GW1 did it badly or that it was a failure.  I'm saying that GW1 sPvP modes are generally found, in some form, everywhere else in PC and Console Multiplayer.  I would argue that the most successful PvP MMOs are Planetside 2 and EVE - where PvP is ingrained in the very fabric of those games.  GW1 and GW2 separates it out (as do most MMOs).  Again, personal preferences here, but how many people do you think really want to spend $60 on a game where the main focus of the "end game" is to play the same modes that they've been playing on their other $60 games, just in a different way?

I won't and a lot of others won't.  Not at a $60 price tag.

Edited by EagleDelta1, 27 February 2013 - 09:20 PM.

[El Duderino]

EagleDelta1, on 27 February 2013 - 09:19 PM, said:

I'm not saying GW1 did it badly or that it was a failure.  I'm saying that GW1 sPvP modes are generally found, in some form, everywhere else in PC and Console Multiplayer.  I would argue that the most successful PvP MMOs are Planetside 2 and EVE - where PvP is ingrained in the very fabric of those games.  GW1 and GW2 separates it out (as do most MMOs).  Again, personal preferences here, but how many people do you think really want to spend $60 on a game where the main focus of the "end game" is to play the same modes that they've been playing on their other $60 games, just in a different way?

I won't and a lot of others won't.  Not at a $60 price tag.

I would have to agree to strongly disagree. Give me a game that I can pay $60 for now that will be like GW1 PvP and have an active player base and you won't ever see me on this forum again.

Also, the answer to your question of who would pay $60 to play an updated GW1 PvP that is balanced can be found at teamquitter.com.

Edited by El Duderino, 27 February 2013 - 09:56 PM.

[EagleDelta1]

El Duderino, on 27 February 2013 - 09:55 PM, said:

I would have to agree to strongly disagree. Give me a game that I can pay $60 for now that will be like GW1 PvP and have an active player base and you won't ever see me on this forum again.

Also, the answer to your question of who would pay $60 to play an updated GW1 PvP that is balanced can be found at teamquitter.com.

that's not what I asked.  I asked who, in the general population, would pay $60 for a game that gives them more of what they already have in other $60 games?  Not who from the GW1 or GW2 community.  That gives me no useful data, only heavily biased data.

Edited by EagleDelta1, 27 February 2013 - 10:10 PM.

[El Duderino]

EagleDelta1, on 27 February 2013 - 10:06 PM, said:

that's not what I asked.  I asked who, in the general population, would pay $60 for a game that gives them more of what they already have in other $60 games?  Not who from the GW1 or GW2 community.  That gives me no useful data, only heavily biased data.

Every single Madden player ever.
Every Single CoD player ever.
Every single Battlefield player ever.

I can keep going...

$60 isn't a lot of money by the way.

Also, you didn't answer my question - where is this hidden game that is like GW1 that has an active population that you referred to before?

Edited by El Duderino, 27 February 2013 - 10:14 PM.

[EagleDelta1]

El Duderino, on 27 February 2013 - 10:07 PM, said:

Every single Madden player ever.
Every Single CoD player ever.
Every single Battlefield player ever.

I can keep going...

$60 isn't a lot of money by the way.

Also, you didn't answer my question - where is this hidden game that is like GW1 that has an active population that you referred to before?

I didn't say anything about a game exactly like GW1.  I said I wouldn't (and a LOT of people I know) pay $60 for a game that basically gives me a MOBA/RPG hybrid that has the SAME modes (just with different names) as the COD, Battlefield, StarCraft, etc already have? Hell, PlanetSide 2 has some of the same features (just on a much larger scale) than GW1..... and it's FREE.

Just because YOU would doesn't mean the population will.  Madden is a non-issue, by the way - completely different type of game.  As for COD players... most COD players I know play COD and maybe Halo for PvP games.  Same with Battlefield players and Starcraft players. If they get an MMO game, they get it for the PvE, NOT the PvP.

Edited by EagleDelta1, 27 February 2013 - 10:25 PM.

[El Duderino]

EagleDelta1, on 27 February 2013 - 09:19 PM, said:

I'm not saying GW1 did it badly or that it was a failure.  I'm saying that GW1 sPvP modes are generally found, in some form, everywhere else in PC and Console Multiplayer.  I would argue that the most successful PvP MMOs are Planetside 2 and EVE - where PvP is ingrained in the very fabric of those games.  GW1 and GW2 separates it out (as do most MMOs).  Again, personal preferences here, but how many people do you think really want to spend $60 on a game where the main focus of the "end game" is to play the same modes that they've been playing on their other $60 games, just in a different way?

I won't and a lot of others won't.  Not at a $60 price tag.

EagleDelta1, on 27 February 2013 - 10:22 PM, said:

I didn't say anything about a game exactly like GW1.  I said I wouldn't (and a LOT of people I know) pay $60 for a game that basically gives me a MOBA/RPG hybrid that has the SAME modes (just with different names) as the COD, Battlefield, StarCraft, etc already have? Hell, PlanetSide 2 has some of the same features (just on a much larger scale) than GW1..... and it's FREE.

Just because YOU would doesn't mean the population will.  Madden is a non-issue, by the way - completely different type of game.  As for COD players... most COD players I know play COD and maybe Halo for PvP games.  Same with Battlefield players and Starcraft players. If they get an MMO game, they get it for the PvE, NOT the PvP.

I quoted you twice. Because, I am pretty sure you you said " I'm saying that GW1 sPvP modes are generally found, in some form, everywhere else in PC and Console Multiplayer." and I asked, "where is this game?"

You don't seem to have an answer.

But if you want to have some conversation about what people want to buy games and don't, then maybe this isn't the thread.

I simply want to have GW1 PvP in an updated game, and so do a lot of other people. I don't really know what you are trying to get at.

Perhaps you are arguing just for the sake of arguing?

EDIT: Also, you can't dismiss games and be choosy when you ask a generic question like  I asked who, in the general population, would pay $60 for a game that gives them more of what they already have in other $60 games?"

I gave you the games that people pay for, over and over again, that are really exactly the same. So, again, I think you are just arguing for the sake of argument.

Edited by El Duderino, 27 February 2013 - 10:35 PM.

[EagleDelta1]

El Duderino, on 27 February 2013 - 10:30 PM, said:

I quoted you twice. Because, I am pretty sure you you said " I'm saying that GW1 sPvP modes are generally found, in some form, everywhere else in PC and Console Multiplayer." and I asked, "where is this game?"

You don't seem to have an answer.

But if you want to have some conversation about what people want to buy games and don't, then maybe this isn't the thread.

I simply want to have GW1 PvP in an updated game, and so do a lot of other people. I don't really know what you are trying to get at.

Perhaps you are arguing just for the sake of arguing?

GW1 Modes GENERALLY - key word

But as for proof:

GW1 GvG - basically Clan vs Clan redesign of Bomb Placing PvP Modes found in the old Medal of Honor games and current COD games.  "Destroy other team's objective before they do it to you"
GW1 Random Arena - Basically Team Deathmatch with random Matchmaking.  Found in everything from Halo to COD to StarCraft now
GW1 Alliance Battles - Overly complicated variation on the "Capture point" PvP mode found in pretty much Every Battlefield since before GW1 was out as well as COD and Medal of Honor.
GW1 Codex Arena - Basically Team Deathmatch with limited "Weapons"/"Units"/"Skills" seen in most FPS, RTS, and RPG pvp modes already
GW1 Heroes Ascent - A lot like Killzone 2 and 3's Warzone mode - various objectives or trials completed with two teams vying against each other.
GW1 FA/JQ - Only truly unique mode and is very similar to WvW in that it is PvE + PvP.

Edited by EagleDelta1, 27 February 2013 - 10:45 PM.

[El Duderino]

EagleDelta1, on 27 February 2013 - 10:44 PM, said:

GW1 Modes GENERALLY - key word

But as for proof:

GW1 GvG - basically Clan vs Clan redesign of Bomb Placing PvP Modes found in the old Medal of Honor games and current COD games.  "Destroy other team's objective before they do it to you"
GW1 Random Arena - Basically Team Deathmatch with random Matchmaking.  Found in everything from Halo to COD to StarCraft now
GW1 Alliance Battles - Overly complicated variation on the "Capture point" PvP mode found in pretty much Every Battlefield since before GW1 was out as well as COD and Medal of Honor.
GW1 Codex Arena - Basically Team Deathmatch with limited "Weapons"/"Units"/"Skills" seen in most FPS, RTS, and RPG pvp modes already
GW1 Heroes Ascent - A lot like Killzone 2 and 3's Warzone mode - various objectives or trials completed with two teams vying against each other.
GW1 FA/JQ - Only truly unique mode and is very similar to WvW in that it is PvE + PvP.

So, other than the game modes, that are generally similar to other games, GW1 and all the games you mentioned are really nothing alike at all.

And you intend to use that as some sort of basis for an argument that is going to make some kind of point that makes sense?

Go ahead, I'm sure everyone will agree. (/sarcasm)