Brilliant, absolutely brilliant!
- Viewing Profile: Reputation: Baron von Scrufflebutt
Baron von ScrufflebuttMember Since 02 Jun 2012
Offline Last Active Private
- Group Members
- Active Posts 3080
- Profile Views 15422
- Member Title Golem Rider
- Age Age Unknown
- Birthday Birthday Unknown
Posted Cutthroat on 07 March 2014 - 01:17 PM
Brilliant, absolutely brilliant!
Posted Nikephoros on 18 February 2014 - 04:45 PM
Conversely, if you see "Arah p2 full melee, meta builds only" and you join with your PVT bowbear don't be surprised when you get kicked and please don't complain.
I feel like half of the problem is a failure of people to properly label their LFG descriptions and the other half is people who ignore or dont even read the ones that are properly labeled.
I don't see why this is so hard, if you have particular expectations make that explicit.
Posted ObscureThreat on 16 February 2014 - 11:31 PM
Posted Featherman on 12 February 2014 - 03:14 AM
Unlike competitive games, RPGs are designed to end at some point or another. The emphasis on progression through non-reducible equity in the form of stats and loot works best in games that have definite endings like a session of DnD, a FF or Dragon Quest. In these types of games the loot helps to add decision making or pacing throughout gameplay. Players are most likely not playing FF for the sake of finding rare loot, however, a sudden rare loot drop can change the way they approach challenges. This often works best when the loot or progression is unexpected and creatively designed, and has enough depth that the player is constantly discovering new things.
MMORPGs perverse this by making progression the impetus for gameplay rather than a tool for decision making. The fact that MMOs not designed creates power creep which has a great mny implications. The designers are rarely ever inclined reduce the player's accrued power, but seem to more than willing to shift the maxim. They'll do it because it's easy and it keeps the players hooked, challenge and decision making be damned. This is the kind of baggage GW2 was never able to subvert.
Posted Karuro on 10 February 2014 - 01:05 AM
Posted raspberry jam on 09 February 2014 - 03:34 PM
In contrast, GW2 is first and foremost an MMO which copied all other MMOs on the market, at best introducing new ideas that were modified versions of stuff that already existed. Now there's nothing wrong with copying, there is something wrong with making the copy bad. On top of that ANet are pushing the cash shop more than King does. This again would not be a problem if it happened to a new IP - but it didn't, it happened to the GW series. The GW1 playerbase was promised a game that contained all the best from GW1, but in true-MMO form. Some of us realized that that sounded impossible, but we thought that if anyone could pull it off, it would be ANet.
We were wrong.
(Obviously, the Doppelganger has nothing to do with teamwork. It's more about being able to beat yourself. The "specialty trick build" trick is not a trick, it's being aware of your own weaknesses.)
Posted Sir Moak on 07 February 2014 - 08:12 AM
The first one is very simple, after having problems with the state GW2 is currently in, I logged into GW1 recently, deleted my PvP character and started a new necro in Prophecies. My mind was actually blown at how deep and engaging the combat is in GW1. I started playing with the usual GW2 facerolling style and as soon as I got to level 3 enemies I was destroyed. That was the moment I realized that even in the beginning of the game you have to play strategically with the very limited skill set you have. Sure the game gets a lot easier when you actually have a party of henchmen or heroes, but these few hours of low level play already showed the massive difference between the mentalities of the two games.
The other one is a GW2 story, specifically the second krait tower thing part of the Living Story. I was playing with my new level 80 warrior (yeah, I enjoy making new characters and going through the core content a lot more than the recent LS updates), which was built as a dps warrior with some versatile utility (traited on using warhorn as condition conversion). I got the the boss krait with a friend of mine who disconnected and couldn't get back to the instanced fight, so I tried to take on the boss alone. I was constantly dodging, clearing conditions (which were reapplied a second later), dealing with adds and occasionally damaging the boss. And I wasn't getting anywhere in the fight. I didn't rage at this point, but after a while I had to concede that I wasn't getting anywhere in killing the boss. At that point I broke out the greatsword, stood in front of the boss ignoring the adds, conditions and basically everything that was going on around me and started spamming hundred blades. And this is where the rage came. I killed the boss without a problem! I was actually furious! What's the point of playing intelligently in GW2 if it does not have any consequences if you just faceroll everything? Where is the sense of achievement if all you do is repeat the same robotic keypresses?
Rose tinted glasses or not, these two examples show exactly why GW1 veterans prefer GW1 in many ways.
Making builds and preparing for certain situations is not really an option in GW2. Just take a look at the PvE builds in the profession forums. There are not too many and 99% of them focuses on DPS. In comparison check out this wiki for GW1 builds:
Oh and you can read the comparison I made here:
Posted Miragee on 05 February 2014 - 05:02 PM
GW1 isn't without faults, as being said. No game is. Powercreep with a lot of new skills, especially PvE skills killed a lot of the game's basics. Title grind, gimmick skills like shadow form etc. But gw1 was one of these games that is especially unique it what it provides, content- and mechanic-wise. And if you happen to like those things it's practically THE game made for you. GW2 doesn't have that. It has some new mechanics but at it's core it's a rather generic MMO. Making a list of features I really liked about gw1 and eventually made it a master piece for me:
- everything instanced with set amount of players
- this allowed for 98 % of the content to be designed for groups
- it also allowed for a skill system that is also designed on group and class interaction (tons of skills with limited bars (8 skills), two-class system and interactions between mutiple skills and classes made it a very very deep system); solutions for PvE and PvP encounters thus most of the times could be reached by players learning how to combine certain skills
- combat system (movemen, decision-making, skills, roles)
- the main and side stories in PvE, the lore is really compelling in GW
- beautiful to rough areas with unique feelings (lore and music by jeremy soule had a huge part of it, too)
- exciting PvP modes
- no level increase, no better items over time and thus way less power creep over time than in other games
- free trading system without AH (I comment on that later)
- the feeling of being able to do everything you want and reaching your goal regardless, completly free decision to grind or not (yes I know, many say this about gw2, too, but gw2 often times gives the feeling you need to, even if you don't, it's weird) and grind, at least for me, was actually fun if done from times to times
For the AH part: I don't necessarily disagree with feathermoore here. The trade system could have been better. Spamming the chat in Kamadan/LS wasn't really fun. But I really liked that there was no central AH. The AH in gw2 is one of the main problems that trading is so time efficient. It also makes the market very volatile to changes in the market (be it through farming spots, patches, bugs or whatever) and also gives super-riches the opportunity to control parts of the whole market completely (like with precursors). It also takes away the option of bartering which I really like and also the social option of it. I personally never had a problem with the GW trade system since I'm a fan of forum-trading anyways.
To bring it down: GW1 does the core aspects for an online RPG, which are PvE world with the "right" flair, combat system and deep planning in skillsystem perfectly for me as a person and also adds a lot of nice features (like no level cap increase) which I adore. Yes it has problems (most of them came later, when Anet started to change directions with Nightfall and EotN). But even from an objective perspective it does a lot of things right (note, right doesn't mean that you have to like them). It's unique (as there is no similar game to it) and definately a masterpiece (again, that doesn't mean you have to like it or it's gameplay).
Posted Feathermoore on 05 February 2014 - 04:20 PM
What was it about GW1 that made it the powerful memory that it is? Well if you go with the idea that it is just wishing for the old times, GW1 managed to pull players into the world from the very beginning (this is PvE not PvP, at the start PvP was really hard to get into). You started in a beautiful rustic world full of life and color. You were introduced to a complex class and skill system slowly during this time and got to know a few central characters. And then this world was ripped from you in the searing and you get dumped in a wasteland version of all the areas you had just developed a connection to. It was jarring and powerful at the time. While the story was cliche at times, you had relatable characters and despicable enemies.
The central feature of the game that most people miss is the dual class mechanics and the flexibility and depth that it allowed. Creating a skill bar that revolved around complex interactions between the skills themselves, attributes, and weapon modifications was a game in of itself that rewarded you. The game was designed from the ground up as a group game. You didn't fight single mobs, you fought groups of enemies that would later begin to utilize some of the same strategies that players would use creating diverse teams of mobs that required strategy to defeat. You didn't build an 8 skill character, you built a 64 skill team.
Power creep eventually overran the game to a degree but it isn't like that doesn't happen in all games. Certain systems could be deemed a failure or a negative feature. The lack of trade system, the original idea of refund points for changing attribute points, the overcreation of skills with questionable uses, heavy handed nerfs of too many skills at a single time, creating new classes that didn't mesh with the existing ones (the original Paragon being the figurehead of this), and the unfriendly PvP system due to complexity and learning curve.
Some of these Anet learned from and fixed in GW2. Some they actually fixed later on in GW1. Oddly enough, some of them that they fixed in GW1 they then brought back in GW2 (refund points for attributes in GW1 were removed to allow for free respeccing while traits in GW2 have a respeccing cost.)
Was GW1 as good as people make it seem? Yes, if you are willing to put the time and effort into actually learning the game. It isn't something you can just pick up and play expecting to get everything out of it. I spent thousands of hours in game and probably just as many out of game researching and theorycrafting. I had the spare time to do this in college, I don't now. The skills have changed enough since I last played that I would need to spend an evening reading the skill changes to see how the game works. Just something that comes with the game.
Is the game as perfect as some posts can make it seem? Not at all. It had major flaws that everyone who played the game is aware of. That doesn't mean it isn't a great game though since the flaws are side effects of the systems that made it great. You can still play it now and see for yourself. I reinstall it every once in a while and it still is fun to play.
I played it actively for 6 years and still log in every now and again. You can't call it rose colored glasses. Rose colored glasses don't keep you playing a game.
Posted El Duderino on 03 February 2014 - 08:16 PM
I think I agree with this. Despite the fact that outsourcing and low wages can spawn uninspired creations, it isn't a necessity or even something that is inherent in outsourcing. However, when the management of a game basically isn't trying to be innovative, that is all that is needed to ruin the ambitions of the people below them to create something spectacular.
I think from reading some of Oppenheimer's posts, as well as some other cues around the internet, we can assume that the management team is dysfunctional at best and would rather be "safe" with their development than truly innovative.
Posted MazingerZ on 03 February 2014 - 07:55 PM
I've always viewed it as problematic. The ability to turn cash into in-game purchasing power in an economy where scarcity and value is controlled by the people accepting the cash doesn't strike anyone else as remotely problematic? Where the balance is to keep the majority of the masses from outright refusing to play, but make sure the systems encourage a respectable return of revenue from the practice?
Posted El Duderino on 31 January 2014 - 03:05 PM
On my attempts at second characters, I would be done with all checkpoints in an area and unable to move on because I wasn't a high enough level and would get slaughtered.
That experience definitely dampened my mood to keep playing. I felt as if I wasn't playing my main, everything was a chore. I don't tend to like chores.
Posted El Duderino on 31 January 2014 - 06:34 PM
I have experienced this first hand and it is terrible. There is nothing worse than trying to play a game where you complete all of the "checkpoint" content and cannot continue on because you didn't level enough.
Posted MisterB on 30 January 2014 - 07:34 PM
Posted Bryant Again on 31 January 2014 - 04:25 AM
I don't feel comfortable supporting a game going in a direction that I disagree with. The closest I came to that was when I considered buying a splitter until I saw the obscene cost it would require.
But essentially, I don't love the game enough to throw money at it.