Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help

Millimidget

Member Since 19 Sep 2012
Offline Last Active Dec 11 2014 05:54 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Is GW2 dead now or is it just the forums?

11 December 2014 - 05:31 AM

View PostHaggus, on 10 December 2014 - 12:01 AM, said:

When was WoW  "niche"?
Friends and family alpha.

In Topic: Is GW2 dead now or is it just the forums?

09 December 2014 - 07:52 PM

View PostI post stuff, on 09 December 2014 - 07:19 PM, said:

The difference between me and you is that I'm here for a thoughtful discussion, while you are here to argue until your hands bleed.
Classic.

And here I thought the blind fanboyism had died out.

View PostI post stuff, on 09 December 2014 - 06:08 PM, said:

You also overestimate how big of a role GW played in the success of GW2. If you look back at the hype, it will become painfully obvious that very few people were familiar with the original. Yes, GW did play a role and there is no reason why it shouldn't have, because that's just how things work, but it certainly wasn't the main reason why GW2 has generated so much hype and critical acclaim.
The hype train never would have taken off if they didn't have GW there for name recognition. I personally never played GW, and until coming to GW2 never met anyone who acknowledged playing it, either. But it's not as though I hadn't heard the claims, that GW was a good game, etc.

In Topic: Is GW2 dead now or is it just the forums?

13 November 2014 - 03:28 PM

View Postraspberry jam, on 13 November 2014 - 11:13 AM, said:

Well, you can, but there is no realistic way to make scripts large enough for players not to spot the scripting during the lifetime of an MMO - or actually, way before that. I mean, we're talking about the genre where devs release updates that are planned to last for 6 months, and then players complete the content in one week, it's completely explored and on three different wikis in two weeks, and everyone is tired of it in three weeks.
I sometimes (cough) complain about GW2, but I have to admit that making an MMO is no easy task. MMO players devour content at an amazing rate.
Most of the content locusts would be content with content that actually has some legs, like sPvP or high end raiding. They're only rushing so they can get that tiny edge while chasing the illusion that they're #1PvPer or world's first boss kill. Despite the stigma against it, they're at least trying to engage in some sort of community, even if it's not the text based one the game takes place in, and often times you'll find that they're perfectly sociable people (they're also usually using voice chat).

Also, wikis inside two weeks? You know Dulfy gets pre-release info for/access to content in multiple MMOs, and most of the rest just copy off her, right? And, worse, developers are happy to give it to her.

View Postraspberry jam, on 13 November 2014 - 11:13 AM, said:

What I meant was that instead of scripting, ANet should have aimed at a more emergent style of world. It's been known for a long time that many simple scripts interacting with each other can create huge complexity and appear lifelike. Yet because of a single event that occurred a long time ago (the UO fiasco, search for "virtual ecosystem") no MMO dev team dare do it. But of course it would work given that the devs stay away from pointless things such as making random critters actually count in the ecosystem. Imagine actual evil armies or dragon bosses or what not travelling across Tyria, and us fighting them, instead of having a script that says "respawn X bad guys at this location every 20 minutes".
And that's moreso the scope I'm looking for them to approach it on; actually, your suggestion is somewhat grander, but along the same lines. Personally, I think a big part of the problem is QoL features such as quest trackers, which totally remove any thought involved in engaging in most content. That window where you're actually mentally engaging in the game in order to figure out where to go or whatever, is the best opportunity for a developer to also engage you with some well placed lore or easter egg or whatnot. Shallow or totally opaque dungeon encounters, something GW2 was extremely guilty of IMO, don't really help, but currently seem endemic to the genre.

I guess the conclusion I would draw here is that through our own desire to be lazy and have things handed to us, we've ensured that the current generation of MMOs are unable to even maintain our interest. People on both sides of the spectrum, players and developers alike, seem equally inclined to embrace and continue on with the status quo.

View PostFeathermoore, on 13 November 2014 - 02:28 PM, said:

GW2 just isn't a social game at the core. Just like how LoL or Starcraft aren't social games. The design doesn't require/push players together. This actually can increase any feeling that the game is losing players. Since you don't really interact with others, it already feels less alive than an MMO that actually encourages socializing.
Haven't you heard? There are no more MMOs which encourage socializing (that I know of).

I kid, but I'm sure we've all noticed the same trend, and you're spot on in your analysis. The issue is definitely multi-faceted. To elaborate on what I was saying above in my earlier post, the act of sitting at the computer and logging into and playing an MMO usually involves you sitting alone in a room. It's a hurdle developers should be aiming to overcome when designing MMOs, but they've fallen into the trap of believing that they'll generate more revenue by taking a two-step approach of designing much of the game for solo questing, while slapping on some group-only content here and there; perhaps that's just a logical outcome of the casual v. hardcore debate.

Think of some of the great titles in MMO history, and how many of them absolutely required group game play, often for some relatively mundane stuff. Add in the growth of 3rd party voice chat, social media, and the proliferation of solo-friendly mechanics (ie companions/minions), and top if off with developers who just don't seem cognizant that you need to literally force people to interact, and it's no surprise that gaming has grown to be such a lonely experience.

Here in GW2, there was one example I can think of immediately which demonstrates this; and it relates to downtime in group content, something that may just be on some developer's list of anti-fun mechanics. Sorrow's Embrace path 1 (IIRC) had a series of thirteen or so minion patrols which you would either need to wait for them all to pass and despawn, or try to fight and usually wipe often on. Waiting for the patrols to pass was the most social activity I encountered in this game, discounting any voice-chat based guild socializing I participated in. And then ANet went and changed it; how I don't remember, but even as lame as that design was, it was better than pushing us through the dungeon a few extra minutes faster.

In Topic: Where did Blizzard go wrong with D3 and what A.Net could learn from it.

13 November 2014 - 02:49 PM

View PostBaron von Scrufflebutt, on 13 November 2014 - 10:20 AM, said:

John Smith on this matter:
Part of me wants to say that's just something he's obligated to say, especially so because ANet seems so devoted to appealing to every possible player (to maximize box sales).

The rest of me wants to say, ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.

View PostBaron von Scrufflebutt, on 13 November 2014 - 10:20 AM, said:

Personally, I feel that the TP issue is very relevant because GW2 seems to have been designed to be about external rewards rather than internal ones. Very similar to D3: both games seem to be about grinding loot (in once case it's power in the other it's power  (ascended) followed by vanity).
In your response, you point out why I don't believe something as drastic as outright removing the TP would even resolve GW2's issues; the game isn't focused on what you label internal rewards, by which I assume you mean non-gear rewards. It's not as simple as tweaking drop rates, as was the case with D3.

View PostBaron von Scrufflebutt, on 13 November 2014 - 10:20 AM, said:

Knowing those checkpoints allows you to obtain gear cheaper and faster than you can obtain it by playing the game.
That's essentially the very definition of an AH. From a game play perspective, the distinction isn't whether you can get something faster by running to the AH and buying it, but whether the time investment required to get it from somewhere else even supports not going to the AH to buy it. D3 was an extreme example of the latter, where even with hundreds or thousands of hours of game play, there was no realistic expectation let alone a guarantee that you would pick up anything of value. GW2 isn't anywhere close to that, not even for a fresh account.

In Topic: Is GW2 dead now or is it just the forums?

13 November 2014 - 06:45 AM

View PostEl Duderino, on 11 November 2014 - 10:51 PM, said:

They apparently spent a lot of time looking at, and studying, LoL for help with their eSports efforts. Furthermore, it's not like their previous game wasn't known for some great PvP. Between GvG (which still isn't available, right?) and Heroes Ascent, there was so much fun to GW1's PvP that it is mind-numbingly baffling GW2 didn't ship with good PvP or have it available soon afterwards.
If I recall, you were a big fan of GW1. I never played it, so I can't speak for it's PvP. Off-topic, though I'm sure you've been back for quite awhile (I stopped playing GW2 or visiting this forum not long after you initially seemed to take a hiatus), it's good to see you posting here again.

I have to say that the idea that ANet only paid lip service to wanting GW2 to be an esport has some merit to it.

MOBAs are not good inspiration for MMO PvP. It seems like every new MMO I've played over the last few years has made the same mistake of assuming that slapping on some half-baked arena system (ie a MOBA) would be sufficient to maintain the interests of the PvP population. The one exception is SWTOR, but it has Mythic pedigree, and its PvP seems heavily influenced by its predecessor, WAR, which was also carried heavily by its PvP.

I can understand that, at least in GW2, they may have felt WvWvW would suffice. That's already 100x more than most developers are attempting these days. However, they fail to appreciate that the vast majority of gamers approach a game individually. That's not to say they aren't interested in engaging in group content, or joining a guild, even despite the disturbing trend I've witnessed across multiple games in which players keep their head down and are only interested in themselves.

It's merely an acknowledgment that not every MMO gamer has a half-dozen friends, IRL or otherwise, who can join them at any given moment. Indeed, even if you have access to that kind of social group, it's still overwhelmingly likely that you spend at least some if not much of your in-game time as an individual, effectively. Which is why more than any other recent mechanic/feature in MMO development, group finders have been clamored for the most.

They would have done themselves a tremendous favor, and made greater inroads towards making GW2 an esport, if they had developed a more robust sPvP system, patterned off of WoW or WAR or SWTOR or really any non-arena boxed PvP. Then again, this is a good place to quote myself from above.

View PostMillimidget, on 08 November 2014 - 01:41 AM, said:

Esports qualification is like 90% based on the size of the expected interest base, and maybe 10% based on gameplay. Blizzard could release The Sims: World of Warcraft Edition, and it would be an esport.

Ironically, the one MOBA which could actually serve as good inspiration for MMO PvP is HotS, because its primarily oriented around PvP combat, rather than the PvE farmfest which underpins all or almost all other MOBAs.