Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help
- - - - -

Survey: Guild Wars 2, the revolutionary MMO?


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#1 Veldan

Veldan

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 278 posts

Posted 29 March 2013 - 03:01 PM

Hello people. To collect some player's opinions about current topics and some of the changes GW2 made compared to other games, I created a survey. I avoided questions about stuff like class balance or dungeon encounters, and tried to look at the game as a whole. Here is the link to it:

http://ow.ly/jzoD4

Results are viewable after you complete it (or at http://ow.ly/jzpST, but don't look before answering the survey). Thanks in advance :)

Also, let me know if you think any question should be added.

#2 sonofdiablo

sonofdiablo

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 43 posts

Posted 29 March 2013 - 05:32 PM

No it's hardly revolutionary it's just different from most of the other ones. That was touted as the reason it's like it is for the crying casuals who didn't have unlimited time to play an MMO everyday but wanted to be at the top of something in a game. Well this is it for them. Just like GW1 it's easy to max out your level, easy to get maxed out gear and easy to get into pvp. Everything is easy and candyland and romper room so most of them are happy now. The only bad thing about a game like this is "there's no point" in playing it really especially if you're hardcore playalot type. But, what draws in the hardcore playalot types is there's no stupid monthly fee.

WOW is too old to start playing now and most of the others as well. The newer ones like Age of Conan and Warhammer are just lame. Guild Wars origional had a great experience it just didn't have any vertical progression and that's what a game like this needs for the hardcore. When Anet gets up off their laurels and see this they can draw a massive crowd from WOW and other MMOs. Just make a game like GW1 (with lots of skills and heroes) with no monthly fee and progressive vertical gameplay and the numbers will come.

I still play GW1 the most. I go back every week to play the Zashien quests and get the travelers gifts. I just like playing with more than one character and GW1 lets me do that with heroes or even henchies if I don't mind their builds. I like groups in rpgs I just don't like PUGS.

#3 Lunacy Polish

Lunacy Polish

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 455 posts

Posted 29 March 2013 - 06:06 PM

When you get old and graduate school and work and pay bills and other such nonsense people over 30 do, it is really hard to enjoy a typical MMO.

GW2 works for me for that reason.  My younger self would not have liked it.  I agree it is something of a condensed experience but that is perfect tor me.  There is really not another MMO I can play that lets me be as competitive as this one because /age just does not matter.

To be honest I so not expect the traditional MMO junkie who places a higher premium on games occupying his time to like it.  Ten years ago I would have burned through this thing in 6 weeks.  But old fart me loves it despite its warts.

#4 Relyt

Relyt

    Pale Tree Seedling

  • New Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 29 March 2013 - 07:22 PM

The results kinda scare me, for the sake of the game. Most think that it is just another MMO. Most like WvW the best. So it would seem WvW is the main thing keeping it alive right now. There are a lot of games that are coming out soon that have similar features to WvW. Some say even better WvW system (large scale battles that never end). Since most people think of this just another MMO, they'd probably be more inclined to buy the new games that are coming out. The two main MMOs im talking about are Wildstar and The Elder Scrolls Online.

But we'll see what happens.

#5 Bryant Again

Bryant Again

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 859 posts
  • Location:Michigan
  • Profession:Warrior

Posted 29 March 2013 - 09:01 PM

I wouldn't say GW2 is revolutionary, but it does introduce a lot of cool ideas while trimming a lot of the fat that's typical in MMOs.

#6 Desild

Desild

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 969 posts
  • Location:New Eden
  • Profession:Guardian
  • Guild Tag:[DKAL]
  • Server:Piken Square

Posted 29 March 2013 - 09:28 PM

Only thing revolutionary about Guild Wars 2 is its ability to seemingly suck my soul without me attaining any enjoyment from it, whatsover. Maybe. I remember at some points musing how "interesting" it was, but the fun was all sucked out like poison with its poised stance of being "fair". ArenaNet's idea of "fairness" is leaving me really depressed, I'm telling you.

At least WoW, while sucking my soul (and my wallet) had the advantage of being entertaining. Until Cataclism that is, however.

#7 SunRoamer

SunRoamer

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 652 posts

Posted 30 March 2013 - 11:00 AM

You should add a third option at the end:

Evolutionary MMO

I feel like calling it "revolutionary" is way too strong a word, but at the same time it is most definitely not "just another MMO" for me ;)

#8 Dasryn

Dasryn

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1570 posts
  • Location:USA (GMT -5)
  • Profession:Thief
  • Guild Tag:[Myth]
  • Server:Tarnished Coast

Posted 30 March 2013 - 11:27 AM

i think as the results show, the things that GW2 does right are getting universal praise.  but its not a perfect game (what is?) so the things people dont like are pretty obvious as well.

for the most part people are really enthusiastic about the things i am so i think GW2 is headed in the right direction.

#9 beadnbutter32

beadnbutter32

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 618 posts
  • Location:Highway 61 Central US
  • Server:Henge of Denravi

Posted 30 March 2013 - 11:50 AM

Anet employs sockpuppet contractors to stuff forums and polls, so I would not put to much into your results.

If gw2 was the new hotness they would be charging $60-70 for it instead of cutting the price as they are now.

The only thing revolutionary bout this game is how Anet spends more on marketing than on any other expense.

Still waiting for rangers to be viable and ranger pets to be un-borked.

#10 dannywolt

dannywolt

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 382 posts
  • Location:Oregon, USA
  • Guild Tag:[ProT]
  • Server:Fort Aspenwood

Posted 30 March 2013 - 12:04 PM

View Postbeadnbutter32, on 30 March 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

Anet employs sockpuppet contractors to stuff forums and polls, so I would not put to much into your results.

If gw2 was the new hotness they would be charging $60-70 for it instead of cutting the price as they are now.

The only thing revolutionary bout this game is how Anet spends more on marketing than on any other expense.

Still waiting for rangers to be viable and ranger pets to be un-borked.

Spends more on marketing? I recall that GW2 had no noticeable TV ad campaign unlike all other big MMO launches. Please provide a source to back up this claim. GW2 uses a micro-transaction model so more copies sold (regardless of box price) equals more revenue for A-Net.

View PostSunRoamer, on 30 March 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

You should add a third option at the end:

Evolutionary MMO

I feel like calling it "revolutionary" is way too strong a word, but at the same time it is most definitely not "just another MMO" for me ;)

I agree. I answered 'revolutionary' simply because GW2 is not like all the other MMOs out there and really improves some parts of the game. Some of the other yes/no questions were difficult for me as well. I voted against direct trade, not because I object to it in principle, but because I love the absence of 'WTS' spam in GW2. I like both the living story and one-time events and find them to complement each other. I also like the design of hearts (multiple paths to completion) but miss the storyline and lore development from traditional quests.

#11 Cures

Cures

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 118 posts
  • Guild Tag:[FCoL]
  • Server:Gunnar’s Hold

Posted 30 March 2013 - 12:44 PM

thx for the survey - very interesting and nice to see that most people obviously appreciate the way ANET is going (as i do).

Edited by Cures, 30 March 2013 - 12:44 PM.


#12 Perm Shadow Form

Perm Shadow Form

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 412 posts

Posted 30 March 2013 - 01:13 PM

I bet everyone, even those who didn't play GW1 answered the question -"For those who played the original Guild Wars: which game do you find more enjoyable?"

Edited by Perm Shadow Form, 30 March 2013 - 01:13 PM.


#13 Raytla

Raytla

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 116 posts
  • Location:Canada
  • Guild Tag:[KotA]
  • Server:Sanctum of Rall

Posted 30 March 2013 - 02:33 PM

View PostPerm Shadow Form, on 30 March 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:

I bet everyone, even those who didn't play GW1 answered the question -"For those who played the original Guild Wars: which game do you find more enjoyable?"

Actually I didn`t answer that question I left it blank.

#14 Veldan

Veldan

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 278 posts

Posted 30 March 2013 - 06:05 PM

Thanks all for the replies, nice to see guru ppl care more than the ppl on official forums :)

View PostDesild, on 29 March 2013 - 09:28 PM, said:

Only thing revolutionary about Guild Wars 2 is its ability to seemingly suck my soul without me attaining any enjoyment from it, whatsover.

lol

View PostSunRoamer, on 30 March 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

You should add a third option at the end:

Evolutionary MMO

I feel like calling it "revolutionary" is way too strong a word, but at the same time it is most definitely not "just another MMO" for me ;)

Yeah I think you are right and I should have...  however I don't wanna do it now, cause while adding a question is fine imo, adding an option would mess up the results of this question.


View Postbeadnbutter32, on 30 March 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

Anet employs sockpuppet contractors to stuff forums and polls, so I would not put to much into your results.

If they did that, the poll would have more votes. Besides, I don't believe they do this anyway.

View PostPerm Shadow Form, on 30 March 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:

I bet everyone, even those who didn't play GW1 answered the question -"For those who played the original Guild Wars: which game do you find more enjoyable?"

Yeah, I found it kinda weird that this question's answer is so divided among the extremes... one logical answer would be that ppl who played GW1 are voting in favor of it, but ppl who didn't play it are answering anyway and in favor of GW2. No real way to avoid this though.

#15 ThiaTheMuse

ThiaTheMuse

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 117 posts
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Guild Tag:[Slam]
  • Server:Stormbluff Isle

Posted 30 March 2013 - 09:34 PM

I feel like you should probably reword some of these options. A lot of them seemed kinda extreme.

#16 Featherman

Featherman

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1028 posts
  • Location:Frolicking in Kalos

Posted 31 March 2013 - 02:04 AM

GW2 is an MMP that tries its best to avoid the pitfalls of the themepark genre: the level scaling, treadmills, complex combat option, commitment. It does so at the cost of gameplay aesthetics. It's sort of like the prostitute of MMOS in that you pay it to have fun for a short while, not expecting a deep experience.

#17 Larsen

Larsen

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 224 posts

Posted 31 March 2013 - 03:26 AM

I think it was naive - profoundly stupid, really - to think they could succeed with a game with such a low ceiling. Among all those I played (and quit) with, the overwhelming reason for disappointment has been the absence of purpose in GW2.

There's something to be said of the actual quality of the existing features as well, of course -- they're not exactly great, and the PvP in particular has been disastrous. However, people can live with strange design if they feel something for the game itself. Vanilla WoW wasn't exactly a masterpiece of genius design, and almost everything was vastly changed even in its first expansion, but people were able to tolerate the archaic raiding system, the nearly non-existent PvP system and the godawful class design because the fundamentals of the game made them care.

GW2 doesn't make people care. There's nothing to care about. The thing that should have been the hook - competitive PvP - was dead on arrival and tragically the game's worst feature when it should have been its best. The ceiling of a game's PvP side is as high as the players make it since the level of popularity and competition sets the ceiling. In PvE it's more about the content, and it's obvious that this was never meant to be GW2's strength. It can't carry the game, it was meant to be a side-dish to the game's supposedly groundbreaking PvP scene, but that was a catastrophe. Since this caused the game to rely on its very lean PvE side for sustenance, there was never much hope. People came for the steak, but the steak was inedible so there was nothing but potatoes and that's hardly a meal by itself.

I've always said that it was a huge mistake to shoehorn Guild Wars into an MMORPG mold without actually providing what people traditionally come to MMORPGs for. GW1 was not really an MMORPG; it was a mission-based co-op RPG with communal cities, more akin to something like Path of Exile. It was certainly not in any way comparable to games like EQ and WoW. Trying to hammer GW gameplay into an EQ/WoW-shaped hole didn't work.

The game offers nothing for casuals that any other mainstream MMORPG doesn't offer, it's just that there's nothing above that in GW2. There's nothing to make people care, and this is important even to players who never see the higher tiers of gameplay. The existence of difficult and exclusive content is what inspires ambition and drives people to care about a game, and a huge part of the appeal of traditional MMORPGs is the fact that there's such a high ceiling. People wouldn't care about WoW if there was no content above heroic dungeons. That's basically the extent of GW2. The absence of any higher content instill a lack of purpose and ambition that stifles the drive even of those players who weren't actually going to participate in a hypothetical equivalent to WoW's hardmore raids or EQ's epic quests. Just the fact that these things existed in those games was enough to make all the "lesser" content feel relevant and interesting. There was a reason for doing it, and the journey felt meaningful because there was room to grow, a higher ceiling, things to care about.

There's pretty much nothing in GW2 that you can't get in most any other MMORPG except for one thing: you can ensure that nobody's character is stronger than yours, even though you put in practically no effort. That's really the one thing GW2 offers. Its failings have reduced it to a game for people who can't put in the time (or aren't good enough at playing video games) to rise to the top, but nevertheless feel the need to not have anyone be superior to themselves. That's not much of a market to cater to, and probably not the type of player any developer would be proud of serving.

#18 Trei

Trei

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 2909 posts
  • Server:Jade Quarry

Posted 31 March 2013 - 03:35 AM

View PostVeldan, on 30 March 2013 - 06:05 PM, said:

Yeah, I found it kinda weird that this question's answer is so divided among the extremes... one logical answer would be that ppl who played GW1 are voting in favor of it, but ppl who didn't play it are answering anyway and in favor of GW2. No real way to avoid this though.
It would have been a simple thing to include the option for "I did not play Guild Wars".

That option itself would be telling in how many GW1 players are not playing GW2 (thus not even on this forums to see this poll), if most poll takers end up choosing it.

#19 Trei

Trei

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 2909 posts
  • Server:Jade Quarry

Posted 31 March 2013 - 03:49 AM

View PostLarsen, on 31 March 2013 - 03:26 AM, said:

There's pretty much nothing in GW2 that you can't get in most any other MMORPG except for one thing: you can ensure that nobody's character is stronger than yours, even though you put in practically no effort. That's really the one thing GW2 offers. Its failings have reduced it to a game for people who can't put in the time (or aren't good enough at playing video games) to rise to the top, but nevertheless feel the need to not have anyone be superior to themselves. That's not much of a market to cater to, and probably not the type of player any developer would be proud of serving.
Reduced...?
You seem to have some misunderstanding here, which probably would account for the angry undertones in your post.
GW2 was made with this market segment in mind, it did not get "reduced to it" by failing in something.

I would rather serve these segment of people who merely "feel the need to not have anyone be superior to themselves", than the segment who feel the need to be superior to others, that they are superior.

I would have no reason to not be proud of serving them.

It is very much a vast, largely untapped market most other MMO developers have yet to be able to fathom with the archaic subscription schemes their game models are built around.

Anet isn't the one who is naive here...

Edited by Trei, 31 March 2013 - 03:50 AM.


#20 lmaonade

lmaonade

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1121 posts
  • Location:That one place with the thing
  • Guild Tag:[NGE]
  • Server:Crystal Desert

Posted 31 March 2013 - 07:00 AM

imho, GW2 is a revolution that did not succeed. It tried to be too different and too many things at once so it collapsed on itself. Many of Anet's ideas for this game have been nice, WvW is nice, Dynamic Events are nice, Hearts are nice, but only in idea, they failed to polish it in implementation and it definitely shows.

GW2's current design is too casual and that will be its downfall, they flattened out the experience curve but the hammer was too big and flattened everything else with it, because GW2 is so easy to get into, it's also easy to finish and be done with.

I'd liken GW2 to a gilded doorknob, it's shiny and nice and rich on the outside, but once you peel back the layer of gold you get something that is plain and dull.

In the end, GW2 will definitely enjoy relative commercial success, after all, the strongest point of this game is PRESENTATION, but the game stretches itself too thin to fulfill the expectations that come with it. Yes, there is a huge market of ultra casual players that could enjoy a game such as this, since depth is not something that casual gamers are looking for. But I know for a fact that GW2 will disappoint most traditional/hardcore gamers, it either doesn't have or severely limits what they are looking for.

#21 Veldan

Veldan

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 278 posts

Posted 31 March 2013 - 12:37 PM

View PostLarsen, on 31 March 2013 - 03:26 AM, said:


View Postlmaonade, on 31 March 2013 - 07:00 AM, said:


Two nice posts, I totally agree with them.

View PostTrei, on 31 March 2013 - 03:35 AM, said:

It would have been a simple thing to include the option for "I did not play Guild Wars".

But then they could also simply not answer the question, and the results for the other two options would be the same.

#22 Trei

Trei

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 2909 posts
  • Server:Jade Quarry

Posted 31 March 2013 - 01:44 PM

View PostVeldan, on 31 March 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

But then they could also simply not answer the question, and the results for the other two options would be the same.
Do we assume everyone who took the poll to know they can actually leave questions in an online survey unanswered and still get to progress and complete it?

#23 Sandpit

Sandpit

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 159 posts

Posted 31 March 2013 - 02:35 PM

Just a mass of fail polls, most of the options I don't want to select

#24 Butr0sButr0s

Butr0sButr0s

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 112 posts
  • Location:Boston, MA, USA

Posted 31 March 2013 - 03:15 PM

View Postlmaonade, on 31 March 2013 - 07:00 AM, said:

But I know for a fact that GW2 will disappoint most traditional/hardcore gamers, it either doesn't have or severely limits what they are looking for.

It hasn't disappointed me, on the contrary I think its one of the best games I've played in my 30 years of gaming.  I've spent close to 400 hours on a single character and have yet to feel bored or find a lack of things to do.

I've found that gamers tend to fall into two categories - 1) those that like engaging in content, and 2) those that like the rewards that come from completing content.  I think the game delivers for the first group in spades.  The vistas, dynamic events, boss encounters, etc are all well done and I run many of the dungeons multiple times even though I don't need the tokens.

For the second there's not nearly as much to offer.  I wouldn't have a problem with expanding the top end, but the issue I have is with gamers who rush through every aspect of the game just to check off a box for a trophy or reward.  I always wondered if there was an option in the cash shop that said "for $1 you don't even have to run the daily dungeon, just get the chest and tokens directly!" how many people pay for it.

#25 Lunacy Polish

Lunacy Polish

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 455 posts

Posted 31 March 2013 - 03:36 PM

View PostLarsen, on 31 March 2013 - 03:26 AM, said:

The game offers nothing for casuals that any other mainstream MMORPG doesn't offer, it's just that there's nothing above that in GW2.
<snip>
There was a reason for doing it, and the journey felt meaningful because there was room to grow, a higher ceiling, things to care about.

I disagree with the first sentence, agree with the second, and disagree with the third.

Tell me, how is someone who plays in short bursts, who doesn't play every day, supposed to be competitive in games that revolve around 6 hour raids to get the best items, reach content gated behind level requirements, or grind through 15 tiers of gear ever supposed to be relevant in games that focus on these elements?

Maybe, here's a crazy thought, maybe having a game where people who don't want so much to do on the market is okay, since everything else better addresses other tastes?

Also, there are so many things I haven't even remotely accomplished yet I can't agree with that last sentence.  There's more game here than I can play.

View PostLarsen, on 31 March 2013 - 03:26 AM, said:

There's pretty much nothing in GW2 that you can't get in most any other MMORPG except for one thing: you can ensure that nobody's character is stronger than yours, even though you put in practically no effort. That's really the one thing GW2 offers. Its failings have reduced it to a game for people who can't put in the time (or aren't good enough at playing video games) to rise to the top, but nevertheless feel the need to not have anyone be superior to themselves. That's not much of a market to cater to, and probably not the type of player any developer would be proud of serving.

But that's not a failing.  A failing is map design in WvW, or the way Events work, etc.

Here's the thing: if I want a competitive game, I've got to find one where it the ceiling is low enough people who live in their mom's basement and grind out 70 hours a week can't just make anyone who doesn't play like that irrelevant because their stat sticks have more stats than your entire character might.

The other thing too is since that's less than 50% of your potential base, your most dedicated players, if allowed to vertically out progress everyone else, have no meaningful competition other than each other.  That sounds really lame to me.  It's like a basketball league with only 4 teams.  If you want to think of it another way, why should these types of players value any other players' presence in the game unless those dreaded "casual" players can actually make a difference?

Statistical superiority is not competition.  In GW2 I have on several occasions scored kills on players with much more expensive skins, Legendary weapons, titles and ranks I can't get, etc. because at that moment in time, I was the better player.  That's competition, that's a game.  I won't claim I'm some great player, but I've been gaming long enough I have a few dirty tricks I'd like to think I should have a chance to matter when the fur starts to fly.

Better to reward people who play more with more variety, options, and distinctive appearances to show their work and effort.  A noob game is one where you can't lose because you do nothing else but play the game.

Edited by Lunacy Polish, 31 March 2013 - 03:48 PM.


#26 Baldur The Bold

Baldur The Bold

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 442 posts
  • Guild Tag:[ARM]
  • Server:Blackgate

Posted 31 March 2013 - 04:00 PM

The lack of trinity introduces something into gw2 that I cannot stand, the lack of thought. There is 0 reason to roll one class over another and 0 reason not to go solid dps. The game has 0 synergy between players and all events and dungeons alike make players nothing more than another member of the mob that has 0 thought to it aside from pressing 1-5 on your keyboard.
When was there a time when you intentionally did a combo with another player in your group?
The combat in events and WvW is too zergy and frankly rather boring as a whole. Not to mention your have to have a supercomputer to get even 30fps in most events and zergs.
I really wanted WvW to be something more than it is but realistically it is unplayable, even after the patch(which made it worse performance wise for most people).
It is really too bad because GW2 could have been something better than it is.
GW2 feels like a mmo that has lost its' way :(

#27 Aetou

Aetou

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 614 posts
  • Server:Tarnished Coast

Posted 31 March 2013 - 05:52 PM

GW2 started off as revolutionary but the recent additions of far too much vertical progression means that it no longer is.  Ascended Gear remains the biggest mistake in that regard, it should have just been Agony Resist + Exotic Stats and awesome visuals.  World v World is very good, and if you think class choice and combos don't matter then you aren't playing at a particularly high level because intentional combos are a massive part of my WvW experiences (they are hard to pull off if you aren't on voicechat though as in a pug people overlay too many fields.)  If it wasn't for WvW and the lack of a subscription fee I'd probably not still be here, but those two factors keep me logging far too many hours.

#28 Baldur The Bold

Baldur The Bold

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 442 posts
  • Guild Tag:[ARM]
  • Server:Blackgate

Posted 31 March 2013 - 05:56 PM

It would be cool if my skills would work in order to use the combos :P

#29 Mitobunny

Mitobunny

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 111 posts

Posted 31 March 2013 - 10:59 PM

I said it was revolutionary for one reason alone:
It TRIED to break the current mmo mold (WoW basically), and while it failed on several locations (ie DEs repeat so much they feel like quests, hearts and gear are grindy etc) it still started the mentality of "we want change". Notice now how every other MMO is changing? GW2 had so much of an initial fanbase on the desire of wanting something that was different. ArcheAge, WildStar (sandboxy elements are in the game), and even ESO are games that are trying to change. Especially ESO, when it was announced it originally sounded like a Guild Wars 2 clone than a WoW clone which only meant one thing: Guild Wars 2 basically started the revolution of change in our MMOs.

What I think will either make or break the idea of change in an MMO is EverQuest Next imo (if it succeeds that is), it is an mmo that wants to bring the world back to the community and focus less on the game which is something all MMOs desperately need.

Tldr; GW2 started the idea of change in our MMOs.

#30 asbasb

asbasb

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 985 posts

Posted 01 April 2013 - 12:55 AM

View PostMitobunny, on 31 March 2013 - 10:59 PM, said:

Guild Wars 2 basically started the revolution of change in our MMOs.

And that's why I don't regret having spent money on it, despite not being able to play the game anymore. If it stays successful enough, there may be a game coming out down the line that combines everything I love about GW1 and 2, while trying to stay the frack away from the things I hate.

It's funny, but IMO ANet wrote their own prophecy when they gave Pyre Fierceshot the line: "Revolutions eat their heroes."




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users