Mhenlo, on 02 July 2013 - 12:11 AM, said:
I didn't realize that a game called Guild Wars 2 wouldn't be anything like, nor incorporate anything from, the original. And, when I mean incorporate, I mean the things that were almost universally heralded as extraordinary parts of the original game that made it why it was so good.
Is that too much to ask, that one picks up on the good things the previous one did? I didn't realize that was a point worth arguing. If they wanted to make a new game completely unlike the last, they should have chose a new name. I, like I am sure many others did, bought the game thinking it couldn't have been that much of change from Guild Wars 1; at least not in the ways that made Guild Wars 1 really really fun.
So, yes, the game is different and I think it is totally reasonable to expect that they failed to live up to the standard that Guild Wars 1 left us, regardless of the changes or differences. If you want to talk objectively about things that make games good, then you would be hard pressed to find things that make Guild Wars 2 better than Guild Wars 1.
Not only that, but it's not like my opinion is some singular opinion that has no merit. The entire PvP community from Guild Wars 1 has by and large rejected Guild Wars 2. In fact, most Guild Wars 1 players (especially those from Prophecies) have rejected the changes made to Guild Wars 2. I fail to see how a community that is asking for something close to what we had in a game that was one of the most popular MMO-style games ever made can be wrong about what they want or what is good for a game. You can certainly argue the point that GW2 was designed to be bigger than GW1. So far, however, that reality has fallen flat on its face and there is a very good change GW2 never sees more than 4 million copies sold, not to mention the 6.5 million its predecessor sold.
1st&2nd paragraph: I never stated that that wouldn't be a natural assumption for those that didn't follow gw2 closely. And no its not too much to ask for the good things in guild wars 1 to be brought over to guild wars 2. That's not the point that i'm arguing. I'm arguing over the simple line that people use regularly when they talk about "tehy promised this and we got that". The fact that it isn't like its predecessor isn't a completely valid argument (it has some points, some good things not being brought over) but when the developers have stated in interviews and such that guild wars 2 is a different game than guild wars 1 it doesn't hold ground that much. (btw the name was chosen becoze they were continuing on the lore not the whole game itself, whether that's a good or bad choice isn't really worth discussing, coze it is what it is) The part where you bought it thinking it was gonna be like gw1, you can't blame the developers because you didn't look into the game you bought.
3rd: I'm not gonna argue with the fact that Gw1 was a better game than gw2 becoze i agree with it a bit. Never said that guild wars 2 was somehow better. I simply pointed out that it was stated before release that the games wouldn't be similar to each other and name was only a lore continuation. Guild wars 2 was made to be what they couldn't do with guild wars 1.
4th: Never said your opinion had no merit, and yes pvp isn't the most popular in gw2. Guildwars 1 had a huge pvp crowd but pvp was always seen as the thing you do when you reach max lvl. And once again asking for something similar was never the debate, it was specifically that line which makes it sound like they lied to us telling how alike the games were gonna be when they didn't, they told us straight up, this is gonna be a different game than gw1. (jsut a technicall not, gw1 wasn't an mmo, it was a corpg
). And no, gw2 wasn't designed to be bigger than guild wars 1. It was made to be different than guild wars 1, to do the things they never could with guild wars 1, how well that worked out , again, isn't the debate.
in short: It's not that i disagree with you wanting things that made guildwars 1 great to be in gw2 too, what i do disagree on is the use of the argument "its not like its predeccessor" since they have stated before launch that the games wouldn't be the same. It certainly imaginable to assume that , due to the name sounding more like a sequal than a game of its own, it would be the same. But then the argument isn't about what anet did, its what you didn't, that's look at the game and what it is. It's not like they were gonna put a massive headline on the box saying "THIS GAME IS DIFFERENT THAN GUILD WARS 1" . That's what interviews are for.