GWNF will be the best online RPG in a very long time?

Why would I want a mount or a home? There's no 2 hour "run to get to where the action is" bs nor is there enough stuff to fill a home...besides, if you want a game that will let you sit down and eat dinner in your home, go play Sims 2. I doubt any game does that kind of thing better, ne?

I really don't know why people think that just because Guild Wars is an RPG, it must have garbage like mounts, homes, and competitive EXTREEEEEM LEVEL CAPS!!!! This game (well, the first chapter) proved crap like that was unnecessary for a game to be fun. I've also played a game with both those things in it that was utter shyte. I'd rather not need a mount or a home than need one and have one *chuckle*

Anyway, I'm still going to wait for the gerenic response from players I trust here. I can also say that the lack of a trading system will be an automatic "meh". Regardless, people like DeanBB, Kakumei, Avarre, etc....I'll likely ask you guys before actually buying this chapter. Some dude I don't know telling me to "trust him" and just buy it only makes me chuckle.

Every game has people who are dissapointed and feel it did not live up to the hype.

Of course there will be people who will always anything other than GWP, out of sheer principle, and because GWP was the first. It's best to just ignore does people.

I belive all things get better with age, both in life and death. Rock on.

If a game lacks features that popluar for a reason, how is that game going to compete with all the other games out there. You have to lookat what that game has to offer. Why should I buy gw over other games.Games are popular for a reason. What is anet going to sit back and still leave these popular features out! That is how a product or a comapny fast headsout of business.

As for sims well it was the opular game ever. I am not into it really. I am doing anet favor by telling them the truth. I have been around alot longer some you on these fourms. I was also known as the blackman on other fourms. I have to say anet has used alot of ideas. I have been trying to tell anet about rpg since last year. Now nightfall looks promising.I do know what i am talking about. I may not be a good write, But i just what works.

Don't beleave me, well tittles came up because of me fighting with pvpers on the fourms. Now tittles is a popluar thing!

You can listen what to what I have to say or not. However I just have a good since of things. I think the best move ever hiring jeff grubb. However I don't feel gw will be the best rpg ever. It lacks alot things other rpgs have. That is freedom and more choices. Will nightfall be a good seller i think it will. Whats is still going to be a problem well it will be the pvp.

I have to say pvp nad rpg players clash and that alone will still hurt the game, or effect the game potentiocal.


i can bet the best part of nightfall will be the worm, just hunch

How is the truth telling ANET to copy other games? GW has no need for Mounts, or houses.

Endgame content is there but not as much as you probably want it to be. This isn't WoW, Eve, or Evercrack. Every game isn't one size fits all, if one of the other games fit you then go do that. I've seen plenty of people convert from WoW, Evercrack and the like to GW and I've seen the exact opposite.

Also, If GW went completely PvP, that would kill half of its following and make it a niche game. Not to mention that taking complete credit for Anet adding titles is just wrong on so many levels. Especially when it was done in other RPGs before.

Dear OP: Fanboy +1

Seriously though, you need to proofread. The spelling and grammar mistakes are not minor...they are a disgrace to the English language. I apologize in advance if English is not the dominant language spoken/written by the author.

i think guild wars is the most unique mmorpg, maybe not the best or most popular, but close. i used to play runescape which has at least 40k players at any given time...usaully over 100k players at 3-9pm. the combat system sucks..you just click on your target and watch them fight, and if your skills are better you'll usaully win.

This will be the most pointless rant, of all time:

In regards to all the people who seem to think that GW needs to add features that other RPGs have in order to last; that's ridiculous.
Seriously.
One, the only thing GW needs that any other game has is an Auction House. And I think a vast majority of the GW community would agree with me on that.
Secondly, if every RPG out there had the same features, why not release one gigantic RPG with EVERYTHING in it and every expansive can have a new type of race: Next month can by customizable celebrities.
Lame.
Guild Wars is one of the most unique RPGs I've played in a while, and to be honest, I would much rather play it, for free, than any other RPG out there for 15$ a month. Because it's that worth it, albeit a little slow at times and a little repetitive.

If you want mounts, go play World of Warcraft. Or that new game that was just released where you're REQUIRED to ride a mount. Lame.
Mounts sure are interesting. But you have to take into account, GW is not a true MMORPG in the sense that there's hundreds of people walking around EVERYWHERE in the world. We see other people in cities/towns/outposts etc. only.. so what, if I may ask, would be the point to having a mount if you can only ride it in the city? Okay, so make the mounts rideable outside of town. Again, what would be the point of that? It would end up being exactly the same as charming a pet, only you ride it, and maybe you can add some fancy purple table cloths to it to make it look all medieval-like.

And houses???? WTF????
"Guys I can't play the match today I gotta re-furnish my house, sorry. My cat's sick too."
Wow, go play SIMS.
Again, GW is not a true MMORPG in relation to the vast number of other ones out there. You'll also notice, the games with MORE FEATURES, have a MONTHLY FEE. Good for you if you can pay off monthly fees every month on top of your cell phone bills and other bills. Not everybody can do that. And I'm pretty sure the biggest mistake ANET could make is erasing a large percentile of its community due to monthly fees, simply so they can add something lame like mounts or ... houses ...

Maybe we should have the ability to advance our own technology! Soon we'll have boon prots flying F-14 Tom Cats around and Wammos running around shouting MAXIMIZE or TERRORIZE and turning into gigantic M16s that can crawl up the sides of ridiculously oversized skyscrapers made out of Iron and Steel Ingots, ohp, wait, don't forget the 450 Ectoplasms needed for hydro. Can't live in Shing Jea Monastery without that cable.
Nope.
World's gonna end.

Oh waiit, that level 12 SS Necro just saved the world with a fleet of Mantid Monitors dressed up as the entire cast from every possible Sci-Fi TV show and/or movie ever made, excluding Star Wars because WoW already stole my wookie!
Oh, wait, I think I may see a Jedi in there too, WAIT ... oh, nope ... that's just Gaile Gray.

GW 4: The tyrian catacombs, the harvest temple's basement, and some place in elona each reveal a time portal and all the heroes go and smash the lich's head, shiro's and vera's (the bad boss of NF i think?) heads respectively before they do any harm. (In shiro's case, just smash the fortune teller) Then the gods will return to the lands and will boost your ascendance or something.

GW doesn't need mounts or houses, well, maybe a house where I can stash all my stuff...

It will be good, but the best RPG ever?...

I think I will reserve judgment on that one until Ive played Neverwinter Nights2.

Pure Pve 'rpg's' tend to do a better job, besides, you can control npcs in NW2 in a similar fashion.. so it will be interesting to compare them

What is the point of mounts is that they make the game fun to play. It's just that simple, that's why they should be included. Not lame mounts where you can't fight on them but rather real mounts where you can fight while mounted. There is obviously a lot of merit to the idea to put mounts into Guild Wars as seen in the developers' response as quoted by IGN in the NF preview:

To me it looks like such a statement is meant to string players along into false hopes of GW getting mounts even though in reality it's not going to happen. Basically they are trying to "have their cake and eat it too", by retaining the customers who want mounts by pretending it will happen, yet never actually delivering them. Ie: Exactly what (hasn't) happened with "trade improvements". In my view this "string 'em along yet never actually deliver the content" strategy is not going to retain customers in the long run. Hence it will increase GW sales and help retain long-term interest only if those things are actually put into the game.

A lot of players do take your advice and "go play WoW" or other games with mounts and houses and auction houses instead of Guild Wars. Therefore it would be in everyone's best interest if the devs did put mounts and houses and auction houses into Guild Wars so as to increase the number of players who are interested and retain the ones who are currently interested.

Nice read indeed.

I'm almost as giddy as I was before the Betas. I can't wait. The preview was very very promising. I'm quite more excited about the Dervish than I was for the Assasins.

I can't wait to see the changes in the Metagame.

Very excited. Again. Nice post

Rat

If the mounts fought, that would be different.
If there were mount battles, that would also be different.
If you could fight while on the mount, and the mount did nothing, I don't see a benefit to that. It's exactly the same as fighting on foot only instead you fight on the feet of an animal, or, in the air.
But the way I hear people talking about mounts, is not to fight with them, but simply for merit of having one so you can ride it around.
To me, to keep a game popular, you have to keep it innovative and NEW.
Houses and mounts are over-used and over-thought-of, regardless of what IGN has to say in any review/preview.
If every game had the same features, what is the point of having separate games? What is even the point of having separate design companies when all the games would appear the same, save for graphical and plot qualities?

I'll admit if the mounts could fight, or if they added some new form of PvP perhaps whereby you had mount battles, maybe. Wurms would indeed be cool to ride, but if you can't fight with them, then what's the point?
If they developed the same sort of system for a mount as they have for the new heroes where you can adjust their skills and what not, I think that would be an entirely different matter and I think, possibly, it could benefit the game. But again, to me it just seems so much more like other games, and I hate playing one game, and moving on to another that sounds more enticing, and realising, it's exactly the same only the world and the people in it are different.

added to that should be ships, wagons and chariots these have yet to be done in any mmorpg.

mini games such as chariot races for exmaple or any type of fun mini game

homes for people who want them

what has not been done is in any mmorpg is archaeology for history buffs stuff like that to push peoples thinking and mindsfor people who want to.

Who needs mounts when you can teleport across the world in mere seconds?
Also running is already easy enough as it is so there is no need to add a 'free ticket to skip content' to the game.

If mounts are added as part of a mini-game or special area of the world that's designed for them, that is cool.
Otherwise, NO!

Hence that is the reason why gw will never be the best rpg game ever. Nightfall maybe a good rpg per say, but will be the best no. Not when it is lacking rpg content.

To the other poster there is more to rpgies than hack n slash. You bash this you bash that is a pvp thing. Not a rpg player thing. The is more to life than fighting. If anet intended to make a pvp then make a pvp or action arcade game where you bash things.

If anet wants to market target market MMorpg players then do so. If they want to target market pvp players then do so. If you target market a product that is not what your target buyers want. Your going to have hard time selling your product to your target market.


Why are there mmorpgies in the first place? Why do they need a econmy? Your creating worlds because that is what mmorpgies want. I rpg players want worlds they can interact in and have fun.

Why bother making an mmorpg when you don't have the rpg in the first place. Anet would be better of making a just an "onlline game" You can interact with other people the same way.You if you want to make money then make a good rpg. make agood product.

Flawless Logic.Nothing but Flawless Logic.

People are still assuming that Guild Wars is an MMORPG.
It IS NOT, and it never HAS been.

Gamespot rectifies this fact YET AGAIN, as they and IGN have done many times, in their latest review of the Nightfall preview event:

As much as there are factors of the game that can be related to other MMORPGs, Guild Wars is NOT an MMORPG. Thus, ANet doesn't have to add any of the junk people are complaining about. We're lucky ANet listens to and respects their customers, for if they didn't, people who keep complaining wouldn't get the mild satisfaction of such things as the addition of ridable sand wurms in Nightfall. It's not a mount on the whole, per se, but it is a mild example of what we could have, and what may come in later chapters. And the only reason this is so, is due to the fact that so many people keep complaining about wanting MORE out of Guild Wars.
NEWS FLASH: Everything ANet has done in the past has been done to please their complaining customers, and hardcore respective fans, and yet, people still complain, and people still want more.
ANet doesn't have to give us any of this, for all we know, Chapter 4 could end up being a gigantic set of arenas for PvPers to fight in, because that was the original stress of the game when Prophecies was first released; the PvP fighting. Now they are making the game more RPG friendly because we have asked, and yet people still complain, and I don't know why, because Guild Wars was, again, never intended to be an MMORPG. So of course it's not going to be 'the best' out there.

The fact that Guild Wars has made money already proves that its a good product.

And its NOT an MMORPG. ITs a CORPG, and doesn't need useless functions like a house or mounts.

English clearly isn't this guy's first language...and I was reading this article hoping he was a beta tester or something, but it appears everything he said is just based on the preview event

It does not matter what it is called, they have an rpg tittle in it. They promote the game like it is like new type of rpg!

How long will it be when people will start to get bored with farming! Not everyone is into pvp, it will last soo long.THIS IS CLEARLY SHOWN THE FACT THAT PEOPLE DON'T LIKE FACTIONS AND THE PVP COUNT. (not sure I am sure how to bold) any back to topic the threads is about will gw ever be the best rpg. You guies just prove my point! there would be clash with pvp and pve all the time.

hence the reason anet is not on top of the mmorpg market

If making money were not an issue, this direction would be the best direction for Guild Wars. The current game is a pretty but ultimately unsatisfactory shell around a vibrant and engaging PvP core.

Unfortunately, ArenaNet has to make money from their games, and this means having to pander to the masses. I don't doubt ArenaNet faces a constant tension between making an original game and doing whatever is known to be popular in the market (perhaps at the urging of their Korean masters).

That said, I continue to hope that the current ascendancy of PvE is only a cyclical effect and we will get sweeping PvP improvements in campaign 4.

why have houses? mounts? its simple, it's called diversity, u dont like a house? dont buy the house, dont like the mount? dont buy it!

seriusly ranting about any new features would be like ranting about titles! HEY! i dont like the drunken title because i dont want to grind for it!... ... ... it's simple , dont grind for the title.

it's kinda hard to believe, that ppl want things their way man, even if the game doesnt need it, it'll ceirtanly please someone, the others can simply opt not to use these features.

those who like the feature use it, those who dont cuz they feel they dont need fine! all happy

no it wasnt according to JEFF STRAIN.

interview quote for proof.

I think that jeff grubb is the guy to make pvp and pve work well. I think that anet should turn to him for help. I have my ideas how to make it work. However jeff is pro and he has been aorund the business alot longer than me.

any way i love the fact anet is focusing on questing part. Getting from point a to point b.

Well good for Jeff Strain, that doesn't change the fact that the game isn't an MMORPG.

Loviatar's point is obviously not that it's an MMORPG; rather, he's refuting the claim that PvP was the original conception of the game. Maybe try reading a bit more slowly?

I know what he was referring to, thank you.

The reasoning behind my original post was that the game is not an MMORPG, which is what I was re-directing him to by saying that.
Sorry.
Maybe I should state myself more clearly next time.

come on, its only a matter of time before they add a pvp colleseum, right? a mediteranean themed chapter? who knows