Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help
* * - - - 6 votes

GW2 has a content, not a feature problem.


  • Please log in to reply
281 replies to this topic

#1 Baron von Scrufflebutt

Baron von Scrufflebutt

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 3300 posts

Posted 17 April 2014 - 07:42 AM

I like the Feature patch. The PvP changes are atrocious, but since A.Net seems hell-bent on making GW2 into a PvE game, even that shit makes sense. It's not good, but it makes sense. Looking past that, as I said, I think there's a lot in this patch that one can like: A.Net is certainly continuing to push the envelope when it comes to making an MMO as accessible as possible. I've always considered GW2 to be the best MMO on the market when it comes to features and accessibility and this just further cements that position and leave the competition behind. GW2 set the bar and this is what I now expect to see from other MMOs. And sadly, those other MMOs are not achieving that bar.

The problem though, is that GW2's content isn't of the same quality as its features: while GW2 leads the MMO pack when it comes to features, when it comes to content, GW2, at best, manages to catch up, and at worst, trails way behind the competition. GW2 fails at incorporating those amazing features into a game worth playing: a superb dye system loses a lot of its shine, when the loot, that it's being used on, is utterly boring. Or the fact that you get to play with your friends from all over the EU (without being forced into servers), matters little when everything can be C+SPACE'd. We have an amazing foundation, now we need a game on top of that.

Once again, I like the changes and I can't imagine the game without them: but neither I, nor my friends, are playing the game. We see the game grow and it's amazing, but nobody wants to play it, because playing it isn't as amazing. And the reason why it's not amazing is because the game has a content, not a feature problem: thus, A.Net spending its limited resources on features is a mistake.

#2 Soki

Soki

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 833 posts
  • Location:My own little world \~w~/
  • Guild Tag:[Bern]
  • Server:Isle of Janthir

Posted 17 April 2014 - 07:47 AM

Quite true.
GW2 suffers from a major PvE polish problem that I don't think will ever be addressed - and the dungeons they have worked on after launch were temporary aside from Fractals.
That's stupid.

#3 davadude

davadude

    Seraph Guardian

  • News Correspondents
  • 1395 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands
  • Profession:Elementalist
  • Guild Tag:[Team]
  • Server:Gandara

Posted 17 April 2014 - 07:49 AM

They just spent more than one year exclusively developing features in the form of the Living Story and holiday updates.  If you like them or not, don't care, but it was content-focused.  They do one feature patch that aims at improving the QOL and making it easier for them to add new content (megaserver system makes it much simpler to add zones), and the complaints begin about too much time being put into feature-only patches, even though this is the first one.
Davadude - Guru Village Idiot

#4 konsta_hoptrop

konsta_hoptrop

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 340 posts

Posted 17 April 2014 - 07:58 AM

dude other MMO games that are almost 2 years old, added half a dozen new instances and dungeons at least(permanent) . new class, new skills. The Baron is right, content wise GW2 is behind other MMOs and online games. I know that diablo 3 isnt in the same genre but its nearly same age as GW2 and already has full content expansion....  
And please dont advertise that LS patches.. they are joke. Temporary content that takes max 2-3 hours to complete and most of them are based on gem store items and promotions. Game with name Guild wars 2 still doesnt has gvg battles and guild halls? WTF Anet. The reality is that the game was far away from finished when they released it and they still can't catch up , they still cant build the main game and its content and features, thats why i doubt we ll see real new content soon :S

Edited by konsta_hoptrop, 17 April 2014 - 07:58 AM.


#5 Baron von Scrufflebutt

Baron von Scrufflebutt

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 3300 posts

Posted 17 April 2014 - 08:35 AM

View Postdavadude, on 17 April 2014 - 07:49 AM, said:

They just spent more than one year exclusively developing features in the form of the Living Story and holiday updates.  If you like them or not, don't care, but it was content-focused.  They do one feature patch that aims at improving the QOL and making it easier for them to add new content (megaserver system makes it much simpler to add zones), and the complaints begin about too much time being put into feature-only patches, even though this is the first one.

As I said, I very much like this patch and I can not imagine the game without it. In a perfect world, we would be getting content and features updates with features and content being perfect. The world isn't perfect though, thus A.Net is stuck with limited resources, which means they need to choose what said resources will be wasted on. So, the question is: should they waste their resources on something that they already excel at or should they waste their resources on something that they are quite weak at? Both options will ultimately improve the game, but which one makes more sense?

What I am arguing is that due to how weak GW2 is in the content-area, and given how amazing it is in the feature-area, A.Net should prioritize content. And if that means that they need to divert the feature-resources to this cause, sadly, so be it.



As for LS: LS is part of the problem. It's an amazing FEATURE, but the CONTENT it delivers is shit. Either by being poorly done, or by being temporary: which means that those that missed out on it do not get the see the benefit of all of A.Net's hard work.

Edited by Baron von Scrufflebutt, 17 April 2014 - 08:37 AM.


#6 DarkHorseKnight

DarkHorseKnight

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 159 posts

Posted 17 April 2014 - 08:49 AM

You may well be right, but that doesn't take away from the feature patch. The feature patch is excellent and has made the game a lot more fun and a lot better.

The main problem is really that they decided in the this living story thing and they went for it. Developing a single living story patch probably takes 3 months time. So that means but the second LS patch they were already committing resources to the next 4-5. So once you started with living story it became near impossible to stop. Until now anyway.

Other major problem is that despite nearly 1 year of living story they never really managed to get anything quite right. The best thing they did all year was the fractured update. And wouldn't you know it was also the only one that actually added new permanent content.....

If they could weave story elements into new permanent new content stuff that would be all the better. It would excite the crow of people who love to speculate on the official forums (even though I think those people are mental) and it would also excite the people who enjoy like playing the game too. Hopefully they figure that out pretty quick or... well things are gonna get stale fast.

Edited by DarkHorseKnight, 17 April 2014 - 08:49 AM.


#7 Baron von Scrufflebutt

Baron von Scrufflebutt

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 3300 posts

Posted 17 April 2014 - 08:57 AM

View PostDarkHorseKnight, on 17 April 2014 - 08:49 AM, said:

You may well be right, but that doesn't take away from the feature patch. The feature patch is excellent and has made the game a lot more fun and a lot better.

As I said, I think that just further showcases how much the game really needs content improvement: I like a lot of this patch and yet I would be willing to give up on a number of its features (I'd still like to keep the Megaserver and account-wide dyes/WXP :P), if that would mean that we would get more and better content. I like the Wardrobe, but if we could get a number of quests for each map instead: I'd prefer the quests. The game needs content more than it needs these, albeit superb, features.

#8 davadude

davadude

    Seraph Guardian

  • News Correspondents
  • 1395 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands
  • Profession:Elementalist
  • Guild Tag:[Team]
  • Server:Gandara

Posted 17 April 2014 - 10:18 AM

View PostBaron von Scrufflebutt, on 17 April 2014 - 08:35 AM, said:

As I said, I very much like this patch and I can not imagine the game without it. In a perfect world, we would be getting content and features updates with features and content being perfect. The world isn't perfect though, thus A.Net is stuck with limited resources, which means they need to choose what said resources will be wasted on. So, the question is: should they waste their resources on something that they already excel at or should they waste their resources on something that they are quite weak at? Both options will ultimately improve the game, but which one makes more sense?

Sorry if I came off a bit harsh, really wasn't.

The point is, if they have limited resources, they can opt to do an uneven split.  Currently, they seem to be focusing 95% of their efforts on developing (temporary) content, and 5% on features, if the past year is used as a measurement.  This feature patch actually addressed issues with a lot of the existing content in ways you may not have noticed yet (not a jab at you, but as the patch is almost 24 hours old, you may not have seen it in-game yet).

Renown hearts, dynamic events, and meta events rely on other people to be viable.  The problem with pre-feature patch PvE was that many zones were empty, desolate, or abandoned, and attempting to do the existing content was impossible or unenjoyable, as the other people, the players that make some content viable, and other more interesting, just didn't work.

With the megaserver, the successes are already being seen (yesterday, popped into Timberline randomly and was doing all metas and events with many others without coordination).  This patch has, arguably, revitalized this PvE content by simply making many of these formerly impossible events and hearts possible again. In that sense, the game may have been strong feature wise, but it lacked support for the existing content.  Now, with the correct tools in place, Arenanet can not only more easily get back to creating content... the existing content is still there.

Bit of a rant, but you see where I'm coming from?

EDIT: Fixed botched sentence.

Edited by davadude, 17 April 2014 - 10:19 AM.

Davadude - Guru Village Idiot

#9 Beyond Freedom

Beyond Freedom

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 247 posts
  • Location:In your dreams.
  • Profession:Thief

Posted 17 April 2014 - 10:26 AM

View Postdavadude, on 17 April 2014 - 10:18 AM, said:

Renown hearts, dynamic events, and meta events rely on other people to be viable.

Dragon and temple events rely on other people to be accomplishable. Hearts, DEs? Totally soloable.

#10 davadude

davadude

    Seraph Guardian

  • News Correspondents
  • 1395 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands
  • Profession:Elementalist
  • Guild Tag:[Team]
  • Server:Gandara

Posted 17 April 2014 - 10:40 AM

View PostBeyond Freedom, on 17 April 2014 - 10:26 AM, said:

Dragon and temple events rely on other people to be accomplishable. Hearts, DEs? Totally soloable.

There are plenty of dynamic events that are not labelled as [GROUP EVENT] that require more than two or three people.  Asuran megastatue, Harathi final camp capture, and events that scale badly.

Hearts was my mistake, thanks.
Davadude - Guru Village Idiot

#11 Baron von Scrufflebutt

Baron von Scrufflebutt

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 3300 posts

Posted 17 April 2014 - 10:41 AM

View Postdavadude, on 17 April 2014 - 10:18 AM, said:

Bit of a rant, but you see where I'm coming from?

I very much agree with the notion that Megaserver was needed: I do consider it to be the best part of the patch, but sadly, it didn't launch fully (that's why I consider WXP as the best part of the patch that actually launched). The problem is that the reason why we needed the Megaserver was because the game's content wasn't appealing enough to keep the masses engaged.

That's the issue here, good content has the potential to turn the tide (Me and my friends stopped playing because the game wasn't fun enough to play, despite the fact that we wish each and every single game had Megaservers or Deposit All Collectibles.), whereas features, at best, will only slow down the game's deterioration.

Just to be perfectly clear, I am not advocating the idea that GW2 should never again get any features: but the reality is that those features won't matter, unless they first give us a game worth playing and this is what they need to focus on. For instance, GW1 (or D3) lacks a massive number of features GW2 has (and I'd LOVE to see them implemented into GW1/D3), but I deal with that because the content is enjoyable. On the other hand, I am not going to bother with shitty gameplay, just so that I can easily deposit my collectibles.





EDIT:
Also, the reason why I am advocating the focus on content, is because, as I said, GW2's features are already really amazing. I am not saying that content always trumps features: for instance, I refuse to play WoW because it lacks certain features, but in the case of GW2, the features are so much better that content needs priority.

Edited by Baron von Scrufflebutt, 17 April 2014 - 10:48 AM.


#12 Feathermoore

Feathermoore

    Underdog

  • Super Moderators
  • 3838 posts
  • Guild Tag:[AWWW]
  • Server:Crystal Desert

Posted 17 April 2014 - 01:15 PM

View PostBaron von Scrufflebutt, on 17 April 2014 - 07:42 AM, said:

The PvP changes are atrocious, but since A.Net seems hell-bent on making GW2 into a PvE game, even that shit makes sense. It's not good, but it makes sense.

GW2 is a PvE game. They don't have to do anything to make it that. But I understand the sentiment.


I agree to an extent, but I am a strong proponent of filling in holes in game systems or adding things that support future updates. One of the "side effects" (really design reasons) for the megaserver is that it allows ANet to be more aggressive with adding zones. Colin explicitly stated this in our interview as one of the goals of the system.

So while it is lacking content, this patch specifically does patch (heh) a few holes that will actually allow for more aggressive expansion of content in the future. Think of it as a foundation for a new wing or something. Hopefully the new season starts off with a bang, taking full advantage of the changes.

Little Mabel won't be able to be here it's our worst fear. She's busy working on her garden that she's growing up in space.


Why hello there forumite. Would you like me to review some moderation you did not agree with? Never fear! PM is here! Want to be a better poster? Check on this link! And this one!


#13 typographie

typographie

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 2024 posts
  • Guild Tag:[LAW]

Posted 17 April 2014 - 01:44 PM

View PostBeyond Freedom, on 17 April 2014 - 10:26 AM, said:

Hearts, DEs? Totally soloable.

Yeah, renown hearts are almost universally soloable, and boring. Doing that content on a completely empty map feels lonely and lifeless. I find that running into other players doing the same heart or DE as I am to add considerably to my interest in doing them. Hell, even just having an active map chat helps a lot.

There's plenty of DEs that aren't soloable, at least not for the low-level/poorly-equipped/brand new players who benefit most from doing them. Obviously there's Group events involving champion mobs, by and large not soloable, that are now happening with much more regularity. But even just asking those types of players to solo a Veteran and its minions can be a tall order sometimes, and that's not an uncommon situation.

#14 Konzacelt

Konzacelt

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 569 posts
  • Location:a prairie under a clear, blue sky
  • Guild Tag:[PD]
  • Server:Sanctum of Rall

Posted 17 April 2014 - 03:04 PM

View PostFeathermoore, on 17 April 2014 - 01:15 PM, said:

GW2 is a PvE game. They don't have to do anything to make it that. But I understand the sentiment.


I agree to an extent, but I am a strong proponent of filling in holes in game systems or adding things that support future updates. One of the "side effects" (really design reasons) for the megaserver is that it allows ANet to be more aggressive with adding zones. Colin explicitly stated this in our interview as one of the goals of the system.

So while it is lacking content, this patch specifically does patch (heh) a few holes that will actually allow for more aggressive expansion of content in the future. Think of it as a foundation for a new wing or something. Hopefully the new season starts off with a bang, taking full advantage of the changes.

I agree with your reasoning behind it.

But what in the wide, wide, world of sports took them this friggin' long to even begin to think about adding new zones/maps?  Did they really think the LS would sustain the player base like new content would?  I actually like most of the changes.  But to me, they seem more like ANet finally caving on what they want to do, and rather doing now what the players would like to see.

Edited by Konzacelt, 17 April 2014 - 03:05 PM.


#15 MCBiohazard

MCBiohazard

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 263 posts

Posted 17 April 2014 - 03:17 PM

Guild Wars 2 isn't even up to its second anniversary yet. I know people tend to have rose tinted glasses for all sorts of MMOs that have since matured into fully fleshed and featured games but all MMOs are universally lacking polish and content at the start. What made any of you think that GW2 would be any different aside from unrealistically believing in PR hype? Most games only really hit their stride approaching the third year instead of the second, the first two years typically are spent pushing out everything the devs couldn't get ready for release date and iterating on what works and what doesn't. Arenanet seems to have partially found a thread to go on and this feature patch while not perfect is a sizeable step forward in polishing the game.

I agree with the others that the best feature of this patch is the megaserver, I feel it has breathed new life into all of the extant zones that it has been implemented in and more importantly, it ensures that adding new zones to the game won't bleed the life out of all the areas that are already there. Running off on a tangent here but I feel good things are sure to follow and the best part is that you don't have to wait around for it passively, A-Net sticking to the one box to play model lets you do something else while the game is in the process of maturing. If LS isn't your thing, you can just not participate unless you're somehow so invested in it that you keep playing even though you don't like it, which would be weird, right? Not going expansion based means you won't have to pay for another box to see any new stuff that you actually want to see.

There will be more to come.

#16 Konzacelt

Konzacelt

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 569 posts
  • Location:a prairie under a clear, blue sky
  • Guild Tag:[PD]
  • Server:Sanctum of Rall

Posted 17 April 2014 - 03:39 PM

View PostMCBiohazard, on 17 April 2014 - 03:17 PM, said:

Most games only really hit their stride approaching the third year instead of the second, the first two years typically are spent pushing out everything the devs couldn't get ready for release date and iterating on what works and what doesn't.
If that's true, that's really irresponsible.  And depressing.

Quote

Not going expansion based means you won't have to pay for another box to see any new stuff that you actually want to see.
Perhaps, but that also means I have to accept anything I don't want to see either.  At least with a paid expansion I get to glean its content/features beforehand and decide whether or not I like it before buying it.

#17 raspberry jam

raspberry jam

    Vigil Crusader

  • Members
  • 4809 posts

Posted 17 April 2014 - 03:55 PM

View PostMCBiohazard, on 17 April 2014 - 03:17 PM, said:

Not going expansion based means you won't have to pay for another box to see any new stuff that you actually want to see.
I see it the other way around. Going expansion based means you can pay and actually get to keep content instead of it being deleted from your game.

#18 konsta_hoptrop

konsta_hoptrop

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 340 posts

Posted 17 April 2014 - 04:09 PM

View Postraspberry jam, on 17 April 2014 - 03:55 PM, said:

I see it the other way around. Going expansion based means you can pay and actually get to keep content instead of it being deleted from your game.
lets stop with the illusions-  that Living story updates are nothing like a full content expansion. I prefer to pay and get something worthy playing , then some rushed patches for free

Edited by konsta_hoptrop, 17 April 2014 - 04:09 PM.


#19 MazingerZ

MazingerZ

    Golem Rider

  • Curse Premium
  • Curse Premium
  • 2274 posts
  • Profession:Guardian
  • Guild Tag:[CYRL]
  • Server:Tarnished Coast

Posted 17 April 2014 - 04:10 PM

View PostMCBiohazard, on 17 April 2014 - 03:17 PM, said:

Guild Wars 2 isn't even up to its second anniversary yet. I know people tend to have rose tinted glasses for all sorts of MMOs that have since matured into fully fleshed and featured games but all MMOs are universally lacking polish and content at the start. What made any of you think that GW2 would be any different aside from unrealistically believing in PR hype? Most games only really hit their stride approaching the third year instead of the second, the first two years typically are spent pushing out everything the devs couldn't get ready for release date and iterating on what works and what doesn't. Arenanet seems to have partially found a thread to go on and this feature patch while not perfect is a sizeable step forward in polishing the game.

I agree with the others that the best feature of this patch is the megaserver, I feel it has breathed new life into all of the extant zones that it has been implemented in and more importantly, it ensures that adding new zones to the game won't bleed the life out of all the areas that are already there. Running off on a tangent here but I feel good things are sure to follow and the best part is that you don't have to wait around for it passively, A-Net sticking to the one box to play model lets you do something else while the game is in the process of maturing. If LS isn't your thing, you can just not participate unless you're somehow so invested in it that you keep playing even though you don't like it, which would be weird, right? Not going expansion based means you won't have to pay for another box to see any new stuff that you actually want to see.

There will be more to come.

Yet the game apparently relies on that hype to launch successfully.  Can you imagine the game if it had launched with its current player-based, but didn't attrition nearly as much?  It would have been considered a market failure.  The only way to get them to deliver on even half their BS is to hold their feet to the fire.

It's pretty apparent that they stumbled post-launch.  You can tell by the sudden changing of the content delivery format following releases like Mad King, Lost Shores and Wintersday 2012.

The only part of the patch that was probably innovative was the "mega-server" concept, which even then was cribbed from WoW's cross-realm zones and ESO's own 'mega-server' concept.  Even then, it lacks a certain level of polish due to hopping zones (which seems more of an asian MMO motif, when choosing 'channels' like RO2 or TERA).

The only reason it seemed innovative was because the system that was supposed to keep the world vibrant... down-ranking and dynamic events... were abject failures in that regard.  The community still pushed itself out of those areas because rewards were placed away from them.  Now they're just corralling every loose person from the herd, because if you take a few drips from enough cups, you'll eventually end up with another cup.

Everything else... the wardrobe, account-bound WXP... a lot of it were sufficient no-brainers even at launch and that the community had
pined for it all for the past 6 months to a year.

View PostFeathermoore, on 17 April 2014 - 01:15 PM, said:

So while it is lacking content, this patch specifically does patch (heh) a few holes that will actually allow for more aggressive expansion of content in the future. Think of it as a foundation for a new wing or something. Hopefully the new season starts off with a bang, taking full advantage of the changes.

What specifically is the argument for this?  They release content every content patch and it populates itself for about a day and then dwindles out.  The only thing this might address is the fact that areas will be more condensed to keep at least one zerg active going forward.  The only way it could possibly fail is if after the first week, activity on the LS events are so low that they still have issues after a mega-server implementation.

This isn't going to change their content release tactics.  Its just addressing a point of failure with a presumption that there are enough people from all servers to do the content during the two week cycle, that no one is struggling to get a group going.  In fact, it just allows them to try and double-down on the content they've been releasing, which has been zerg heavy.

The issue foreseen with this implementation is how this will affect the demand for tactics (cross-realms are even more difficult to manage than than just PUGing on your local realm, historically speaking... because you don't know anyone.  especially a big issue when cross-realm BGs in WoW were added... fsck you, Moon Guard!) as well as any language barriers to execution, if the code ever decides that, due to small populations, merging language groups would be necessary.

Again, this probably isn't going to change their tactics, if anything, its just shows they're committed to how they've been putting content out and instead are addressing the issue of involvement on the community's end, not the content's.
It's okay to enjoy crap if you're willing to admit it's crap.
Every patch is like ArenaNet walking out onto the stage of the International Don't Kitten Up Championship, and then proceeding to shiv itself in the stomach 30 times while screaming "IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD! IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!"

#20 I post stuff

I post stuff

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 256 posts

Posted 17 April 2014 - 04:11 PM

View Postraspberry jam, on 17 April 2014 - 03:55 PM, said:

I see it the other way around. Going expansion based means you can pay and actually get to keep content instead of it being deleted from your game.
They are just impulsive... Maybe arrogant!

At first someone's like "Guys lets have zombie scarlet riding mecha raptors every week, with lasers and shit, and changing world!"

Then everyone goes "Wooooot let's do this mammoth task we don't have time, resources or talent for!"

6 months later everyone goes "Oh god why??? WHY?!"

#21 Phineas Poe

Phineas Poe

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1215 posts
  • Location:Washington, DC
  • Profession:Engineer
  • Guild Tag:[iQ]
  • Server:Dragonbrand

Posted 17 April 2014 - 04:17 PM

View PostBaron von Scrufflebutt, on 17 April 2014 - 10:41 AM, said:

but the reality is that those features won't matter unless they first give us a game worth playing and this is what they need to focus on.

I think oppositely.

If you don't think GW2 is a game worth playing with the base content, then I can't imagine that additional content in the future will change this for you. I think this is why so many people hated the Living Story. It wasn't that the content was temporary, it's that it was just more of the same stuff you already don't like about Guild Wars 2: the focus of open world content over instanced, for one.

I've never met a single person that bought a game on launch and hated it, only to come back and play it regularly after purchasing DLC content. If you hate Halo with the maps that came with the game at launch, I can't imagine a map pack or two will change that for you.

It is gameplay revisions that affect whether something is "worth playing." Halo Reach at launch was awful, but after fixing the DMR bloom it was a much better balanced game. It wasn't the new maps that revitalized the game, it was mechanic overhauls similarly done in the feature patch that launched on Tuesday. D3 didn't bring people back with a new campaign; it brought them back by fixing the shitty magic find system and by eliminating the RMAH.

Things like the mega-server system and account-wide WXP, ascended gear, legendaries are precisely what make things "worth it," and have completely re-invigorated my interests, a lot more than a new map would.

Edited by Phineas Poe, 17 April 2014 - 04:18 PM.


#22 MazingerZ

MazingerZ

    Golem Rider

  • Curse Premium
  • Curse Premium
  • 2274 posts
  • Profession:Guardian
  • Guild Tag:[CYRL]
  • Server:Tarnished Coast

Posted 17 April 2014 - 04:24 PM

View PostPhineas Poe, on 17 April 2014 - 04:17 PM, said:

I've never met a single person that bought a game on launch and hated it, only to come back and play it regularly after purchasing DLC content.

Must never have played Diablo 3 then... I honestly wonder what D3 did to turn that around, however...

Or Mass Effect 3... tho to be fair, no one had to pay for the DLC that turned it around.

Edited by MazingerZ, 17 April 2014 - 04:24 PM.

It's okay to enjoy crap if you're willing to admit it's crap.
Every patch is like ArenaNet walking out onto the stage of the International Don't Kitten Up Championship, and then proceeding to shiv itself in the stomach 30 times while screaming "IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD! IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!"

#23 MCBiohazard

MCBiohazard

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 263 posts

Posted 17 April 2014 - 04:28 PM

View PostMazingerZ, on 17 April 2014 - 04:10 PM, said:

Yet the game apparently relies on that hype to launch successfully.  Can you imagine the game if it had launched with its current player-based, but didn't attrition nearly as much?  It would have been considered a market failure.  The only way to get them to deliver on even half their BS is to hold their feet to the fire.

All MMOs rely on that hype. Every single one of them. Can you name one MMO that had a launch that met your every expectation of what it should be like? I am fairly sure you can't though you can probably name quite a few MMOs that eventually grew into what you wanted from them. That's how it goes for MMO development. The best laid plans and all. And while I heartily agree with you that A-net had to change course early post-release, that's not outside of the realm of possibility for any new MMO launch and certainly not unexpected. This keeps happening time and again and players always feel more disappointed than they reasonably should be given the history when they should just learn to manage their expectations and figure out if they want to hold interest in it as it develops or let it lie.

#24 Phineas Poe

Phineas Poe

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1215 posts
  • Location:Washington, DC
  • Profession:Engineer
  • Guild Tag:[iQ]
  • Server:Dragonbrand

Posted 17 April 2014 - 04:30 PM

View PostMazingerZ, on 17 April 2014 - 04:24 PM, said:

Must never have played Diablo 3 then... I honestly wonder what D3 did to turn that around, however...

Or Mass Effect 3... tho to be fair, no one had to pay for the DLC that turned it around.

Diablo III underwent several mechanical changes between its launch and RoS. It wasn't just new content that brought people back; it's that the problems they had with the game's fundamental mechanics were resolved. The feature patch is that very same resolution for Guild Wars 2. And hopefully it's just one of many to come.

Edit: And yes, I played Mass Effect 3. Changing the ending didn't bring me back, nor did it affect my overall distaste for how years of character-driven narrative was all decided upon one individual dialogue option.

Edited by Phineas Poe, 17 April 2014 - 04:35 PM.


#25 MazingerZ

MazingerZ

    Golem Rider

  • Curse Premium
  • Curse Premium
  • 2274 posts
  • Profession:Guardian
  • Guild Tag:[CYRL]
  • Server:Tarnished Coast

Posted 17 April 2014 - 04:35 PM

View PostMCBiohazard, on 17 April 2014 - 04:28 PM, said:

All MMOs rely on that hype. Every single one of them. Can you name one MMO that had a launch that met your every expectation of what it should be like? I am fairly sure you can't though you can probably name quite a few MMOs that eventually grew into what you wanted from them. That's how it goes for MMO development. The best laid plans and all. And while I heartily agree with you that A-net had to change course early post-release, that's not outside of the realm of possibility for any new MMO launch and certainly not unexpected. This keeps happening time and again and players always feel more disappointed than they reasonably should be given the history when they should just learn to manage their expectations and figure out if they want to hold interest in it as it develops or let it lie.

And here's the crux of it.  What ArenaNet doing is standard practice.  There is nothing special about what they're doing.  Its not to be lauded and to be barely acknowledged.  Is what they're doing great for the game?  Yes.  But that means they get to keep us as players.  When an MMORPG actually manages to meet their own hype at release is when they should be applauded.  No one should applaud when obligations are met.  They should applaud when 'above and beyond' is done...
It's okay to enjoy crap if you're willing to admit it's crap.
Every patch is like ArenaNet walking out onto the stage of the International Don't Kitten Up Championship, and then proceeding to shiv itself in the stomach 30 times while screaming "IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD! IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!"

#26 MCBiohazard

MCBiohazard

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 263 posts

Posted 17 April 2014 - 04:36 PM

View PostMazingerZ, on 17 April 2014 - 04:24 PM, said:

Must never have played Diablo 3 then... I honestly wonder what D3 did to turn that around, however...

Or Mass Effect 3... tho to be fair, no one had to pay for the DLC that turned it around.

I did play both and both experiences eventually soured me to replaying them, especially because as mostly single player games, there was no guarantee of any revision whatsoever. When they did get fixed, it came too late for me to reignite my interest.

#27 konsta_hoptrop

konsta_hoptrop

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 340 posts

Posted 17 April 2014 - 04:38 PM

i've liked everything about gw2 , the map , the combat, the classes, but do you know? things get boring when you do it again and again, same maps , same events, on 4-5 alts.. How that account bound dye system or wardrobe would help? You just start with same events and farms again but may be with different looks , some experimenting but for how long before you got bored again. I've spent 1200 hours on that map. Ok may be it's early for an expansion but they even dont tell us if they plan expansion system at all. And if their Living story 2.0 is same size content wide and same boredom plot wise.... logging in to see their new mining pick and mini pet pack in the gem store and 1 hour worth Living story events that are mainly collect couple of thing and fight recolored Nagas and Dredges on the starter maps.

Anet devs think that sustaining new players via promotions and overhyped in your face patches can save the population numbers and extend gw2 's life span without big efforts. But after some time when newcomers got bored like veteran players that play gw1 since 2005 and gw2 since beta tests, population is going to drop really bad and even that megaserver wont help to make-up the reduces. Gw1 lived for a long time because of the new campaigns and expansion and its epic pvp, gvg that lacks in gw2.

I ll say it again , I like the combat, gameplay, some of the armor sets, the map, the events,the customization of the characters but everything gets boring after some time. They cant rely on same content for 5-6-7 years. Without some major expansion i can't even imagine that game after 1 -2 years. IT is going to be a ghost town

#28 Konzacelt

Konzacelt

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 569 posts
  • Location:a prairie under a clear, blue sky
  • Guild Tag:[PD]
  • Server:Sanctum of Rall

Posted 17 April 2014 - 04:44 PM

View PostI post stuff, on 17 April 2014 - 04:11 PM, said:

They are just impulsive... Maybe arrogant!

At first someone's like "Guys lets have zombie scarlet riding mecha raptors every week, with lasers and shit..."

No one should ever listen to that guy.  Ever.

#29 MazingerZ

MazingerZ

    Golem Rider

  • Curse Premium
  • Curse Premium
  • 2274 posts
  • Profession:Guardian
  • Guild Tag:[CYRL]
  • Server:Tarnished Coast

Posted 17 April 2014 - 04:45 PM

View PostMCBiohazard, on 17 April 2014 - 04:36 PM, said:

I did play both and both experiences eventually soured me to replaying them, especially because as mostly single player games, there was no guarantee of any revision whatsoever. When they did get fixed, it came too late for me to reignite my interest.

That's not his point tho.  Buy the game at launch, hated it, trying DLC didn't change the mind due to underlying mechanics. You didn't even try to replay it with the new mechanics.

Despite Poe's counter-argument, D3 didn't change one wit of its actual game-play mechanics with RoS.  It only changed the reward mechanics.  D3's over-all game-play wasn't flawed, it was just the simple matter of reward, which was tied to the RMT of the RMAH.
It's okay to enjoy crap if you're willing to admit it's crap.
Every patch is like ArenaNet walking out onto the stage of the International Don't Kitten Up Championship, and then proceeding to shiv itself in the stomach 30 times while screaming "IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD! IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!"

#30 Baron von Scrufflebutt

Baron von Scrufflebutt

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 3300 posts

Posted 17 April 2014 - 04:49 PM

View PostPhineas Poe, on 17 April 2014 - 04:30 PM, said:

Diablo III underwent several mechanical changes between its launch and RoS. It wasn't new content that brought people back; it's that the problems they had with the game's fundamental mechanics were resolved.

The feature patch is that very same resolution for Guild Wars 2. And hopefully it's just one of many to come.

I think that D3 showcases nicely what happens when you fix the elements that are bringing the whole game down, rather than playing to your strengths. And it's here that Patch 2.0 and Feature Patch 1 differ greatly and this is ultimately the reason why one of them managed to turn the whole game around, while the other didn't do much.




EDIT:

View PostFeathermoore, on 17 April 2014 - 01:15 PM, said:

Hopefully the new season starts off with a bang, taking full advantage of the changes.

I want to believe.
But seriously, hopefully this will really be the case.

Edited by Baron von Scrufflebutt, 17 April 2014 - 04:51 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users