So far I have two blue Sylvari, one Orange, and one Black. Tried purple for a mesmer, but couldn't seem to find a way to dye armor that didn't either clash or look to matchy with his skin. Still, male Sylvari have my favorite body model for making armor look good.
But I keep thinking I should have at least one Charr. I don't want to waste a bunch of experience scrolls on one, though, only to find I just can't enjoy them.
Toying with the idea of using outfits or selective armor to try and make my Revenant look as light armor as possible. I like the idea of the channeling, hammer wielding clothy. Which takes me back to Sylvari since the hulking Charr and Norn just look weird as clothies to me.
The quickest advances in tech and game design seem to be in figuring out how better to exploit players to get them to pay more for lower investments in developer time/skill. I wouldn't hold out for any good MMOs coming out in the near future.
I'm currently holding out hope that Camelot Unchained will be good. Not amazing, not revolutionary, but good. I haven't followed it closely, but have read up on it from time to time. There are some old-school or hardcore choices they are making that don't really suit me, but on the whole, the project looks exciting. One of the primary reasons is that it seems to be a tightly focused game, ready to try and satisfy a niche audience, rather than trying to please everyone. Then again, that's one of the reasons I thought GW2 was going to be great. Before launch (and for a short while after) it felt like a game that knew it wanted to target the immersive player, and didn't feel the need to cater to the treadmill farmers or the elite guild raid types. I wonder, if it hadn't been as successful at launch, if it would still be a more targeted game today.
The other thing about CU is that they are making a stab at sandbox and user-generated content. IMO, that's the only way we're going to see MMORPGs move forward from a game design standpoint, because there's no way to hire enough people to turn out the content needed for the full-time-job players. When someone finally figures out a way to really harness community content creation without it breaking the game or flooding it with trash, it could free up game designers to focus on the structure while the community makes sure there is always something new.
Haggus, on 13 March 2015 - 09:29 AM, said:
Many people who think Guild Wars, or other earlier MMOs, were superior to this game have VERY rose-colored glasses concerning those games. It reminds me of a woman thinking of her first love, remembering all the great things she thinks she remembers about him. They forget he was an ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, who drank a lot, chased other girls, and was a minute-man in the bedroom. Still, at the 20 year high school reunion, they'll be chasing that same balding 'tard around the room, wanting to "catch the magic" of that first time.
So keep dreaming about how hot that first love was. You are much better off with this girl.
Kinda agree there. In my case, I have it even worse. I've only played MMORPGs recently, and have no prior game to look back on with nostalgia. Instead, I'm constantly hoping for an MMORPG that at least partially recreates my joy in tabletop RPGs when I was a kid. That's an incredibly high bar to set.
There have been moments when GW2 has done that, but most of them have been pre-80 out exploring the world. I remember ArenaNet trumpeting their design goal that "endgame" would be seamless with leveling. When we hit 80, we're supposed to feel like we're continuing on in the same vein that we've been playing up to that point. Unfortunately, they abandoned the linear progression that exists from 1-80 for an endgame that severely steepens the progression curve.
Pre-80, progression is a natural part of playing any content in the game. Post-80, I either have to actively choose to ignore rewards or pursue them. There's not much room for middle ground. Which takes me from that table-top like atmosphere to something much closer to the typical MMORPG atmosphere.
raspberry jam, on 13 January 2015 - 03:08 PM, said:
Not really bro, most GMOs are perfectly safe to eat and in the vast majority of cases do not cause cancer, allergy or any other health problem.
Exactly what Monsanto said about rBGH as they harassed dairies by suing them for marketing their milk as hormone free. Hey, it was FDA approved!
History is full of products and procedures that have been declared safe by Science! only later to be found to be dangerous by science at a later date. Dismissing people with concerns about relatively recent technology, especially when huge amounts of money are at stake, is naive, at best.