Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help

El Duderino

Member Since 25 Jan 2013
Offline Last Active Today, 02:56 AM

#2353105 How you guys think the game ended up being?

Posted Shayne Hawke on 13 March 2015 - 07:37 PM

View PostHaggus, 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.

Guild Wars was a great game, for its time.  They used a unique model of combat and set-up, and were the first good tournament-style PvP game.  That being said, I can make a laundry list of ways it was inferior to this game.  Same for UO, WoW, EQ, TSW, or any other games you throw out there.  Some of it is personal, as are all opinions; but a lot of it is based on sheer limitations of the games.  While I may bitch about certain aspects of this game, I will NEVER miss the Trinity; Build Wars; X-Y axis limitations; Non-persistent zones; the nerf-bat that, at one point, came out every month; IWAY; Sabway; every-other-way; Shadow Form and the hate for 'Sins; perishables making even Hard Mode a walk-through; lack of crafting or an auction house(Kamadan doesn't count), Sins running like Quasimodo; Rangers running like they were holding in a suppository; ... the list goes on.

So keep dreaming about how hot that first love was.  You are much better off with this girl.

You're justifying dating one crazy person by pointing out that their older sibling you'd been dating before was also crazy, like you've somehow made an improvement or justified anything.


#2353051 How you guys think the game ended up being?

Posted Shayne Hawke on 13 March 2015 - 06:32 AM

View PostKymeric, on 12 March 2015 - 08:02 PM, said:

Still, there's something about a shared online world that keeps me coming back to the least of evils.

I still hope advances in tech and game design will at some point provide us with an answer to the problem of content locusts and MMO production.

MMOs are a type of game which demand a great level of commitment in order to get a filling experience from them.  I can't expect a reasonable return on that commitment from today's MMO worlds and developers.  If ANet really is the least of the evils with their continued history of deceit and poor/nonexistent planning, the best response is to simply disengage and go find something else to spend time on.  There are better ways to share an experience with others online.

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.


#2353009 How you guys think the game ended up being?

Posted Shayne Hawke on 12 March 2015 - 07:39 PM

What it ended up being was a critical component to my realizing that MMOs as a genre are in pretty bad shape right now.


#2352940 How you guys think the game ended up being?

Posted Baron von Scrufflebutt on 11 March 2015 - 07:39 PM

I think that the last few years have really shown how much better the game could have been on launch, had it released in 2013 rather than 2012.


#2351416 Revenant Worries; GW2 Worries: The Good and the Bad

Posted Hobbesqt on 20 February 2015 - 01:53 PM

View PostI post stuff, on 20 February 2015 - 01:45 PM, said:

No this isn't a bit exaggerated. It's completely exaggerated, glass half empty thinking.

I agree. Glass half empty thinking isn't really needed here.

View PostI post stuff, on 20 February 2015 - 01:45 PM, said:

But like I said, they'll try to "fix" combat and we'll end up with the most idiotic combat system ever before the game dies.

Wait...what? Did you just talk about exaggeration...and then? Huh?!

0.o

o.O

(⊙_◎)

(⊙.☉)7

(; ̄д ̄)

¯\(°_o)/¯


#2351362 Lore and dialogue writer John Ryan leaves GW2

Posted Arkham Creed on 20 February 2015 - 02:29 AM

I am of a dual opinion here...


*If he was involved in the original game, personal story (pre-screw up), or Living World Season 2: That's too bad, wish him luck.

*If he was involved in Living World Season 1: Good riddance; don't let the door hit you on the way out.


#2351098 Will you play again?

Posted Arkham Creed on 17 February 2015 - 07:42 PM

View PostEl Duderino, on 17 February 2015 - 07:29 PM, said:

I appreciate the info, but probably not. I've been too far removed and can't see myself coming back at this time unless it was much more like the previous game. If the expansion turns out really well and everyone says how incredible it is, then I may have to have a peek. We will see...

I admit I never did much GvG in my time, but the new Stronghold mode seems heavily inspired by old GvG, just updated with some WvW systems. Basically each team gets a keep they have to defend from assault while trying to push into the other team's. NPC guards and attackers can be recruited to help you defend or push, and the fight ends when one team slays the other's "Guild Lord." The new WvW inspired features are the inclusion of gates and walls that cannot be destroyed by players directly and siege weapons.


#2349586 Will you play again?

Posted Feathermoore on 04 February 2015 - 02:07 PM

I highly doubt it will be a single zone. My play time will increase but it won't increase until the expansion is a short time away. I am caught up on the LS so nothing to see here for the most part.


BTW, if The Falls and the Bloodstone are not in the expansion I will flip my desk.


#2347697 Is GW2 dead now or is it just the forums?

Posted Mordakai on 26 January 2015 - 03:20 AM

View PostI post stuff, on 25 January 2015 - 11:01 PM, said:


That's subjective.

And?  So is yours.  Most people's posts here are subjective, and even ones that try to be "objective" are usually biased.

(Not that it's a bad thing...  I personally think it's impossible to be truly unbiased.  We all are informed by unique experiences and backgrounds that color our viewpoints).


#2346300 Is GW2 dead now or is it just the forums?

Posted raspberry jam on 14 January 2015 - 12:54 PM

View PostBaron von Scrufflebutt, on 14 January 2015 - 09:13 AM, said:

GW1 feels like grabbing a bunch of friends, shoving them into a car and going on a road trip. GW2 feels like bumping into people in the mall.
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.
I love how GW1 actually gives the feeling you have when you sit down with a group of friends and play D&D.

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.


#2344929 Is GW2 dead now or is it just the forums?

Posted Phineas Poe on 23 December 2014 - 03:55 PM

View PostEl Duderino, on 19 December 2014 - 06:12 PM, said:

Well Phineas, I agree with this 100%. For as much as I would have rather had a game similar to GW1, I wasn't terribly unhappy with GW2 until I finished leveling my first character and said, "Now what?"

WvW was okay for a while, but became stale and monotonous. Dungeons can only be run so many times before they were boring. By the time they did anything unique with boss encounters, I had had enough of the game.

I'm sorry to keep harping about GW1, but it's the only other MMO-ish game that I have ever played, so it the only thing I have to compare GW2 to; but, GW1 gave me lots of opportunities to make me feel like I was in control of what I wanted to do in regards to end-game, without it ever getting stale. GvG, HA and RA were extraordinarily well made and terrific time wasters. Furthermore, the various max-level content areas, specific with rare drops unique to each zone, gave me plenty of opportunity to have fun treasure seeking.

Had GW2 given me even a glimpse of this style of end-game, I think I would have forgiven the differences I had with it in regards to combat and would still be playing it. As such, I couldn't be bothered to grind a second character past level 40 and gave up.

TBH, if GW2 didn't have armor insignias and simply had stat allocation through runes in sigils (kind of like GW1) I think a lot would have been more satisfied with the end-game. There are dungeon armor sets in this game that are absolutely fantastic but offered bad stats. And until the wardrobe came out there wasn't really a good way to collect gear and use it effectively.

If GW2 had the wardrobe and collections system at launch, it probably would have fared better for a lot of players; but because these changes came 1.5 to 2 years down the pipeline, well after most players had done all the dungeons they wanted to, they're under-utilized.

I've ran so many fractals and dungeon runs to fund two legendaries. And after I'm burnt out of doing them, they now come out with collection quests.

♥♥♥♥. That.


#2344722 Is GW2 dead now or is it just the forums?

Posted Captain Bulldozer on 19 December 2014 - 12:51 AM

I think some of you have missed the mark... by quite a bit in fact.  Why did GW never attain the popularity of WoW?  There are a few basic points that pretty much sum it up:

1)  No one had ever heard of Arena.net when GW1 was released.  On the other hand, Blizzard was a very well established company even back then due to it's massively popular RTS games.  GW1 was Arenanet's first game of note.

2)  Marketing.  GW1 had a very small marketing budget, most gamers who would have loved GW never heard about it, or heard about it AFTER they had already invested themselves in WoW.

3)  Playing GW1 was more challenging than playing WoW (or many other MMOs to this point).  Being successful often required synergy, teamwork and intelligence on a level that WoW has never really matched. While this is one of the things that made the game great, it's also something that turned off a lot of players.  PvP was difficult to enter because of this, and even PvE (at least for a while) could be massively challenging.

4)  Budget and business plan..  WoW's budget allowed for a real usable z-axis, something GW1 did not pay for. WoW was supported by a subscription model that isn't so different from a drug habit.  You don't have to sell the best quality coke to keep people coming back for more.  GW on the other hand required massive new content releases to make money, driving the quality of those releases up, but also making the game feel less accessible to new players (how many people said, "I can't get into it on an equal footing when there are already 2 expansions out there..." and din't buy it for that reason?)

I don't think GW2 is like Soviet Russian.  GW1 is basically Germany: tight, efficient, creative and well thought out.  Wow is like the USA: big, dumbed down and full of fat stupid people with more money than intelligence. I guess that makes GW2 something like the USA in the movie Idiocracy:  bigger, stupider and less likely to get better.


#2344686 Is GW2 dead now or is it just the forums?

Posted ExplosivePinata on 18 December 2014 - 09:29 AM

View PostCutthroat, on 15 December 2014 - 05:06 PM, said:

GW2 is like Finland - there are lots of introverts & melancholic people. I don't want to play a game which reminds me of real life. :P

GW2 is more like Sweden, specifically for IKEA, instead of content we get furniture rearranging and always for the worse. I'll just have to live with the fact that Guild Wars was a one off and the talent has left the building. Now we have Cox's and interns  all ramming their pet projects down our throats with no thought to "Is this actually fun?".


#2344677 Introducing the New Daily Achievement System

Posted Haggus on 18 December 2014 - 01:00 AM

View PostEl Duderino, on 17 December 2014 - 11:26 PM, said:

Perhaps you should stop worrying and trying to change the way people feel and the merits of their feelings and argue the actual change. I understand that it is insignificant as far as players are concerned. However, as far as objectively grading its objectives and motives, it falls flat on its face. It is neither good game design - as it has nothing to do with game design - and it is a rather bad incentive to get people to play. I mean, that is exactly what it is - an incentive to get people to log in. As such, it doesn't really address any of the core reasons why someone may not be logging in.
This.  You could almost argue it's a way to generate more Raptr votes to make it look more successful.

As far as game issues, I think the Silverwastes is a better step in the right direction.  Interesting side stories, multi-layered exploration possibilities, cray-cray events on a continuous loop... If they expanded on the things they did there, fleshing out stories and putting in challenges that are more than whack-a-mole-while-surviving-condi-my-character-wishes-they-had, they would keep people for more than a log-in or three hours of living story.


#2344641 Introducing the New Daily Achievement System

Posted Konzacelt on 17 December 2014 - 06:41 PM

View PostEl Duderino, on 16 December 2014 - 05:45 PM, said:

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 wouldn't say it's completely desperate, merely rather desperate. :P

As an amusing comparison, GW1 actually encouraged you not to play the game too much.  I still remember those "You have been playing for X hours, please take a break." reminders.  Not a chance in hell GW2 ANet would have the balls to implement that.  One can almost hear the pinkslip from NCSoft landing on that poor employee's desk in Bellevue.