- Level cap reduced
- Monk (primary healer) class introduced
- World is now fully instanced except cities/villages
- Crafting skills replaced with crafter NPCs
- Freely selectable skills for weapon instead of a locked bar
- End of LS: we'll stop removing content from the game
- Viewing Profile: Reputation: Baron von Scrufflebutt
Baron von ScrufflebuttMember Since 02 Jun 2012
Offline Last Active Private
- Group Members
- Active Posts 3332
- Profile Views 20958
- Member Title Golem Rider
- Age Age Unknown
- Birthday Birthday Unknown
Posted raspberry jam on 23 January 2015 - 09:04 AM
Posted raspberry jam on 14 January 2015 - 12:54 PM
Is one better than the other? Depends on what you are looking for. Personally, I agree with RJ; GW1 felt more meaningful and I prefer it over GW2.
The GW2 version would be playing D&D on your own, surrounded by people that you might or might not know and who are also playing on their own, and then some of those people suddenly joins in your game and leaves at random.
Posted raspberry jam on 13 January 2015 - 03:20 PM
The "meaningful" element of MMOs isn't about personalized experience but interacting with a community.
The reason I mentioned personal experience is that, as I explained if you even bothered to read the post, that personal experiences appear more meaningful. If you kill a boss together with 6 other guys that you just spent three hours together with trying to reach said boss, it feels meaningful. If you randomly run around and then a dragon appears for reasons that you don't know about and then you attack said dragon together with 30 other people who might or might not - you don't know - have been running around as randomly as you and know as much about the dragon as you, well that might be fun the first time (but not the 7th or 19th, especially if it happens while you are trying to get other things done), but certainly won't feel as meaningful.
Posted raspberry jam on 08 January 2015 - 03:31 PM
Posted Kymeric on 02 January 2015 - 03:16 PM
I honestly wouldn't find it surprising if the expansion is simply a massive, free patch.
Release new zones and "story" as a massive free patch so that everyone who is still playing can keep playing, but drop some of the biggies that people want into the cash shop for the revenue to support the expansion. Things like a new playable race, new profession, new weapon unlocks for existing professions wouldn't lock non-payers out of continuing with the game, but would be tantalizing enough to get a lot of players to fork over some money.
Posted Lemming on 18 December 2014 - 09:10 PM
Go read /r/GameDeals' threads so that I don't have to put the effort into doing the same stuff.
$6 is an alright price for MGR. Buy Civ 5 Complete for $12.50 instead of vanilla for $7.50. DS2 has a DX11 rerelease next year, so consider waiting another year.
Posted raspberry jam on 17 December 2014 - 01:29 PM
I wonder what effect a game in the same genre as GW1, but released 2015 or so, would have on the market.
Posted El Duderino on 16 December 2014 - 05:45 PM
Personally I think that for us veteran players it's easy to forget that you can put a lot of hours (and money) into the game just casually playing through the campaign and the zones. A MMO today can attract a far broader crowd then a few years ago.
The fact that they have yet to have announced hitting 5M Western sales. Seems like it would be an important milestone that would be announced. The fact that revenue is stagnant. I mean, there certainly is more pointing to the fact that they aren't attracting new players rather than the opposite. But, that was never my point. You were the one that was using ANet attracting new players as a point - therefore, it is on you to prove that point or concede that you can't use it as support for your argument.
I still don't think you understand my point. Giving people incentives just to LOG IN to a game is a completely desperate attempt at, well, getting people to log into a game. If the game was good enough, you wouldn't have to dangle a carrot in front of the customer simply to get them to engage with it, regardless of actually needing to play the game - which is the whole point of a game's existence.
I feel this really may be going over your head, because you think I am complaining. I'm not. I don't really care. I just think it is an incredibly sad state of affairs for GW2 if they have to give people rewards simply to log in. In fact, you can add this back to my first point as another reason why it seems the game isn't gaining new players and is stagnant.
Posted El Duderino on 16 December 2014 - 01:20 PM
How are they gaining new players if they aren't doing anything different? What evidence do you have that they are actually gaining new players enough to make up for attrition of old players?
You were the one that brought up the fact that ANet only makes $3.88 a player and that is the reason why they can't/won't make better content. Seems to me that a company that can't innovate because they aren't making enough money... isn't doing that well. Also, ANet has not only said that they will never make an expansion, they also haven't done so in 2 years. Thinking that they will at some point is just wishful and naive thinking.
I think you missed the point of my post completely. I'll try and make it more clear. A Skinner Box != a game. Hence, making your game more like a Skinner Box (E.g. giving people rewards for simply logging in and not actually playing the game) is rather boring, and pointless, game design. In fact, it can't even really be called game design, because it has nothing to do with actually playing or implementing anything to do with a game.
But, I suppose that not everyone expects much out of MMO's and GW2; whereas there are some of us that actually expect game designers to make objectively good game design choices. Such is life.
Posted raspberry jam on 16 December 2014 - 09:32 AM
All hail S:t B.F.
Posted El Duderino on 16 December 2014 - 04:14 AM
Seems to me if people like the game, they don't need to be incentivized just to log in.
Posted raspberry jam on 15 December 2014 - 11:17 AM
tl;dr: is reward for opening Notepad a good idea? y/n
Posted raspberry jam on 12 December 2014 - 01:22 PM
Posted El Duderino on 11 December 2014 - 03:20 PM
Not for nothing, but what you are describing, from a company perspective, is really a case of diminishing returns. If a company is only going to cater to the people that spend the most, without trying to innovate or attract other players, there is still going to be attrition in those numbers which will lead to less and less sales over time.
Remember, it's not the consumers job to fund a company's innovations. Most products come to market severely underfunded from the public and rely on debt and investments in order to bring that product to a point where it turns a profit. Therefore, it is never problematic for a consumer to demand from a company what they want or expect. It is up to that company to decide how they want to handle that information and how they want to create wealth through new products and innovation.
If their sales per customer is as sad as you say they are, then it seems to me that they are doing a poor job of finding ways to bring in and keep new customers and that their overall business plan and execution is rather lousy. I don't think what you are saying makes a very good case for customers not being allowed to tell a company what they will pay for - but a much better case for a company refusing to innovate and create sales where there were none before.
Also, the idea that a game can't make money through expansions or new content is utterly ridiculous. There are plenty of game companies out there that don't have micro transactions and come out with expansions or new iterations of themselves every 12-24 months - and they are making money hand over fist.
Posted El Duderino on 10 December 2014 - 07:46 PM
Give us new content, give us something we'll enjoy logging in for. Instead, we get a reward for logging in!?
Not just that, but I also have to wonder what kind of a player this will appeal to? If they are trying to appeal to the people that require a reward for simply logging in, what kind of future content can we expect? Will these players even want content that requires them to overcome challenges to gain the reward?
I think this is the underlying problem with the MMO genre, which is a byproduct of the themepark style MMO. Fun has largely stopped being the main influencer in MMOs and has been replaced by rewards. This is seen over and over again with the discussions we have about MMOs, their development and how developers use rewards to drive log ins and interactions.
I suppose that it really boils down to just another dopamine injections from the brain. Whether it is rewards, winning a PvP battle, completing a story: it is all just dopamine hits to the brain that make people coming back for more like Pavlov's dogs. Which makes me wonder if there is something that separates these things as being more important or better than the other in any objective way. Perhaps, it is the way in which you achieve the dopamine bump that should matter. So, for simple daily rewards, you basically are forced to log in and grind a bit, with a PvP match - you actually have to deftly find a way to win said match. If that is the case - I go back to my original statement then - sounds like a bore.
Sorry for the stream-of-consciousness rant...