Gamespot Nightfall review: 8,2. Lower than Factions. WTH?:/

Well, until you've beaten Nightfall with your first character, it is sureley the best GW-chapter. But afterwards? I guess if reviewers had taken an even closer look on the game the scores would be even lower.
Most of the reasons have been mentioned already (not much new, iteration of the same), but one thing was missing: the replayability.
In my opinion with Nightfall ( FAR superior PvP-only characters, farming unwanted, no elitemissions/...) ANet finally completely killed off the endgame. The only usable part of your PvE-Toon after beating the game ist it's characterslot, when you delete it :/

Makes sense to me. I liked Factions better.

PvP is Guild Wars' endgame. The game is built with that in mind and with that expectation.

The purpose of your PvE "toon" is to have an enjoyable way (quests, co-op missions, etc.) to unlock skills that you will eventually use to create PvP characters when you are "done".

When the game was first released, and part of the game's original design, there was no way to unlock skills for a PvP character. You had to unlock them in PvE. They changed it after a few months by adding faction that you could gain from playing PvP.

If "endgame" is supposed to mean "repeatable challenges for experienced players" then you've got it already in PvP. However, if you are looking for big maps to farm for phat lewt, then WoW might be the better game for you.

Guild Wars is a game that can be completed (unlike WoW). When you've played the content, you're done! You can replay the content with different character builds if you like, or you can play PvP, or you play the next chapter when it comes out.

I don't see the problem. If the game isn't long enough for you, then you have nothing to fear, another chapter will be released in 6 months.

hhhmm i had thought they give better rattings before. yea gamespot does have a point however there ratings is far from the other ratings I seen. must have given gw nf a 9 to 9.5. there is one sight that gve it a 3.5 out of 5

the quests are still too fedex, I would a agree there needs to be better trading system and little things like that to improve the game, better end game content. Other than that it is just farming or pvp.

The third Dawn of War game got an 8.8, and the new content in that DoW isn't remarkable compared to the new content in the third Guild Wars game. This isn't about rewarding innovation.

Frankly, Guild Wars got a low score because everyone and their brother is a WoW fanboy. The score of 8.2 reflects a full point deduction based on the fact that the reviewer lost 20 hours he could have spent raiding for phat loot being forced to play through a game without a jump button or a level 60 cap.

yea know what anet is market targeting mmorpg or rpg players soooo that means if they want to stay in the market they will have to change!


keep telling players to go to wow and they will, I think pvp has hurt this game by far. I said it once I will say agin anet will not be in the top ratings unless the rpg gets better!

nightfall is a far better game than the fisrt because of better rpg!

That market is cornered. There are a billion online RPGs that already fit that mold. A.net should be going after the truly casual gamer (most gamers never finish 40 hour games) and the truly competitive gamer (...where's my HvH ladder?).

Note that Dawn of War's single player campaign is well and rightly pathetic. The action is online and competitive, and the game is selling like hotcakes with good reviews all around. Competitive games can and do sell well -- but most of the market probably sees GW as "WoW's stinky little brother" instead of a superior PvP experience.

WoW is the most popular online RPG game ever and its PvE end-game is......killing some raid dungeon bosses 10,000 times and hope for a drop. After year or two, you finally get everything and then its PvE has nothing to offer.

So difference between GW and WoW PvE end-game is time consuming lottery for the WoW. I guess, people like to join lotteries.

If PvE end-game is really the reason for relatively low Nightfall review score...well then I don't have much faith for reviewers.

lol luck with that, anet should be making better worlds with mounts,ships homes,more freedom and better stories. That is what will keep the game.

if you want pvp, epic battles, mounted combat, pvp battle ships, large scale war fare,and 1 on1 with your charactor. However the rpg is the thing anet will have to focus at!


P.s. i am not talking about more grind. I am talking about better rpg.

You have made some valid points , I have a feeling people will not be so happy once they have completed the game but by then maybe anet will have added the elite pve areas that everyone seems to love. This is what we need more of once we finish the main game.

I also think anet should work to wards beter questing and move away from fedx type questing too as well.

but all in all the has gotten better alot of reviews have being saying that.

"The Good: Features a great-looking new continent to explore, filled with countless quests; two interesting but complex new character professions add even more depth; gameplay still offers an excellent mix of action, role-playing, and strategy."


"The Bad: The core game hasn't changed much, and its shortcomings are still there; new hero characters can be complicated to manage."

Since when is it a bad thing that the core hasn't changed much? Do they expect Guild Wars to change into the next FIFA game? Or let's put some cars in the game and make players capable of putting Neon and NOS on it!
Sheesh, hypocritical bastards... And if they can't handle the heroes... they shouldn't even use them then: Henchmen are still available for the lazy bum (and when i did Attack at the Kodash with my level 14 Koss, who was still wielding his 2-3 dmg start machete, I noticed afterwards that he still had his horrible starter build)... Gamespot's reviewer was intimidated by the hero skillbar thing... and thought that newbies to the game would be intimidated by it as well (which it isn't imo)

And shortcomings, meh... each game has them.; Call of Duty 3 still has the hordes of mindless Germans storming you, for example.
Not a point.
He's just polarizing the minor shortcomings... too lazy to see through them

Nightfall better than Prophecies? I've yet to decide... but it's going to be a VERY close call in my opinion.

PS: in case you didn't know yet, Gamespot's review sucks donkey bum. I'd prefer the community ratings, which are closer to the truth

I agree with the review and what a few have posted here. From what i played in the preview event it was more of the same while ignoring some of the core problems of this game. These core problems such as reconnects, trade improvements, and better party forming system have been known since just before or right after the release of Prophecies. As long as Arenanet continues to ignore these problems while pumping out more of the same then i dont see them get high ratings.

You'll also note that along the side it says;
"We Say: 8.2"
"You Say: 9.4"
"They Say: 8.2"


Obviously the general fanbase is a little more excited for this game than the reviewers of Gamespot, who are all probably fromping around with their level 60 Paladins and Shamans in WoW anyway.
I bet you any money Burning Crusades gets at least a 9, and Burning Crusades is pretty much offering the same thing that Nightfall has in terms of new characters/province/maybe a bit of gameplay. Yet it will get rave reviews.
So say my predictions, I could be wrong.
Not to say that there's anything wrong with that either, I'm just saying that Gamespot is extremely biased.

That really is an absurd rating for the game.
I personally think Nightfall beats the pants off of factions in every aspect.

Guild Wars follow the Dynasty Warriors syndrome. New Character, new modes, new features, etc etc... but what else does it bring to the table? Its good, no doubt, but when its all said and done, its pretty much the same game play.

Based off of what? What site doesn't put WoW over GW? That's a baseless statement.

NO! NO! WRONG!

That's exactly what ANet should NOT do with Guild Wars. I'm all for making Guild Wars better at what it does, but it is a completely suicidal approach to make Guild Wars what it is not.

First and foremost, Guild Wars is a game. Games have rules. If you inject some other game's rules into it, then it's not the same game. The worst thing a game can do is dilute itself.

Look at WoW. It's a great game based on character advancement (levelling). You might call it grind. Whatever. What it does, it does perfectly. It's hard to deny that. It's great fun.

It also has a PvP "option". It's an interesting pastime, and it can be fun, but it's hardly "fair". When you look at it, PvP is "bolted" onto WoW as an alternate play option. "Levelling" is not conducive to competitive PvP, whoever raids the most, loots the most, plays the most (leveling) has the unquestionable advantage.

Guild Wars was built from the ground up to be a PvP game. But, PvP can be quite intimidating for the uninitiated, and a "fantasy PvP" game is a hard sell, honestly. So, they chose to have a PvE RPG using all the same mechanics that players would eventually use to play PvE. You might say that in Guild Wars, PvE is "bolted" onto a PvP engine.

It's hard to deny that Guild Wars is not the best "role-playing" experience. But the gameplay sure is a ton of fun. I actually feel like I'm playing Guild Wars not just doing Guild Wars.

I'm a Guild Wars player. I'm an Unreal Tournament player. I'm a chess player.

I'm playing World of Warcraft. I'm playing Baldur's Gate. I'm mowing my grass.

See the difference?

Mounts? What's the point? To run into mobs faster? You can map travel, so there's no need for a faster mode of transportation. Instantaneous is fast enough, thanks. Mounts wouldn't fit into the "gameplay" of Guild Wars.

Ships? Where are you going to travel? Into more mobs? See Mounts!

Homes? That's what Guild Halls are for I guess. Is the intention to bake bread so you can feed the skales breadcrumbs? Guild Wars gameplay is about combat, not bakery, nor about "consumable" items (like potions, apples, etc.) It's about skills... more like Magic: The Gathering.

Freedom? You might mean the ability to jump. How would jumping benefit the gameplay of Guild Wars (which is more RTS-like)? It wouldn't. It would be a nightmare. There's a reason WoW looks like it does. It's so there are no places you can get "stuck" in the world. It makes the world look "cartoony". You would have to start from scratch if you allowed jumping and build an entirely different game engine (and game).

I'm all for better stories. However, remember that Guild Wars is a game about tactical RTS-like combat. Even moreso, it's a game that is designed around the gameplay of Magic: The Gathering, not Dungeons & Dragons.

I think this is the problem. People review Guild Wars through the eyes of a WoW player. It's not WoW. It's GW.

well i understand the poor score.
from an objective point of view NF has some obvious faults.
-storage space hasn't been improved
-game not completed upon release (the missing elite misions from the manual)
-trading system not improved
-pve pug formation system not improved
-pvp areas became 50% Player versus Ai..
-no new options to mix appearence of our chars

from my experience with NF, i found PVE more enjoyable than factions even with all these faults. i'm happy about heores and pve but i was very disappointed with changes to heroes ascent and with the heroes being allowed into pvp. right now i'm not sure it justifies the 40$ i payed for it. it might justify it with the content anet promissed in a few months but so far, i'm not impressed.

IT IS a MULTIPLAYER. The fact that Heroes were added doesn't change the fact that some people would still use Henches. Henches were always there and still are.

Oh, oh, I want diablo 2's endgame.
Baal runs until I faint!
xD

Gamestop are bias half the time and they seem to care about... pretty graphics with little or no gameplay depth. Look at their reviews for Gears of War or Halo 2. They loves the games made for Xbox360 for some unknown reason. Also they use guest reviewers half the time which is only personal point of views that judge these games. So i tend to stay away from Gamestop for one thing, they don't seen to have the money or resources to hire real reviewers to do game reviews.

I totally agree with this. I've played through the PVE content once and I'm starting to get bored. HA is TOTALLY trashed now, and it seems like there isn't much left to keep me entertained in this game. If ANET is going to justify making people pay FULL retail price for their expansions, they better be able to ATLEAST provide the most basic stuff like improved storage, new HA maps, trading systems, LFG systems, all of which SHOULD have been in place in factions in the FIRST place.

Don't get me wrong, I love the heros and the PVE content is decent, but I mean seriously, this is the THIRD expansion, and I've already paid full price for 2 expansions already is it too much for me to expect a bit more?

Did you know, that the original concept of guild wars did not include PvP-only characters? In early days you were supposed to build up your character, for hunting the arenas and like that. The PvP-only characters were introduced, in my opinion, to get some more customers from the pvp-only fraction and to get more distance to other onlinerpgs like wow, etc.

Nope, PvP is not the endgame of Guild Wars anymore. It once used to be like this, but not anymore. There is no viable way to get onto the same level as a disposable-pvp-hero with a rpg-character. For example: A superior vigor can be used in one armor in rpg. You have 10 professions/characters with 15 heroes each, and, if you want at least some of the flexibility of pvpcharacters, several armorsets. And now think about other runes, mods and equipment? Even if you stick to a single character and do not care about heroes, how are you supposed to get to a level you can get by spending 6.000 balthazarfaction (equalling very few hours of RA) for unlocking superior vigor and using a pvp-character? Not to mention the utopic amounts of platinum needed to unlock the skills for your rpgcharacters. Even if you just buy all of the primary class skills and secondary skills only when needed, it would, even with farming still possible like during the early days of GW, take years. On the contrary the PvP-charactercreation has been made even easier and more powerful, not to forget faction has been doubled again.
Nope, PvP isn't the endgame of PvE and the unlocks are no reason either, as it is much faster unlocking via balthazar.
Somebody picking up Guild Wars and playing ten hours with premades in the RA, spending the faction he gets for warrior unlocks, gets a more flexible AND better equipped warrior as somebody playing 100s of hours of PvE with his warrior. So where is the point to play PvE, except for the story, when PvP, the supposed endgame, is available to you at the start?

Anet wants to cater to both, PvE(only) and PvP(only). In my opinion it will not work eternally. The idea of both parts being equally treated and pushed will just result in a significant part of the community not being happy as both parts are opposites and will always suffer from each other. I think they have to make the decision which part of the game is their major focus. Putting an estimated 90% of work into a PvE-part that is 50% of the game is bad. And this has to be decided before the positiv influence of the "no monthly fees" and the "very nice but not hardware hungry engine" arguements on the sales vanishes. And not to forget, two expansions a year at 45€ equal 7.5€/month too, that's waht many don't think about. And the "you don't have to buy them if you don't want" arguement isn't viable anymore, too, if you compare some of the nightfallskills with prophecies and if you want to play the PvP-part.

From my point of view (!) this is the biggest problem Guild Wars has and with the third chapter it even got worse. After playing through a pretty nice, a bit too easy but still very enjoyable campaign, I don't really feel to continue playing PvE, as, to be honest, the RPG-Part of the game is pretty shallow. PvP alone doesn't keep me playing, too. I got the most fun out of playing both with the same toons and I'm not alone. But tee problem with that ist explained above.

I thought Gamespot gave a fair review and agree with the points raised in defence of it.

Chapter 4 is meant to be under way now and I wonder how many of the shortcomings will be addressed, or whether it'll be more of the same. If they haven't already decided to, it's hard to see them wanting to do it now, especially when Nightfall isn't actually finished yet. And if they have decided to fix some things I wonder if they will put themselves on the line and say, "Yes, it's definitely going to be there in the next campaign.".

Nightfall had to address concerns raised over the PvE portion of Factions and it's done well on that side, IMO. But I think that Chapter 4 or later might have to address player fatigue, especially with long outstanding issues. 4 runs of a game which is much and much the same gets pretty hard going.

i wanna see how they will review "WOW:Burning Crusades" later

since, the core of the game probably won't change that much also,
10/10 ??

I am sorry for being hard on Gamespot (and going off the deep end with my ranting), but really I see some points to their negative thinking. However they have constantly let me down in the past before. I am speechless to their own undermining, since it’s not as bad like what they have done in other reviews; but holds true to the Gamespot formula in being hypocritical.

More ranting below about them being Hypocritical; again if interested read or skip it’s your choice.

They use to provide wanted information about games, when they started out; but now they have become so freak’en hypocritical. It’s all in the way they preview a game and then review it. Here let me give you an example. When they previewed Prey that FPS game many hailed it as a revolutionary game, in mechanics and gameplay. After which they smashed it into the ground stating, it’s the worst thing to hit the video game market; because it feels repetitive as the other FPS that came before. They did the same thing with Fable (Xbox), Halo 2 (Xbox), Hitman Blood Money (PC, Xbox, PS2, and Xbox 360), Neverwinter Nights 2 (PC), American McGee’s Alice (PC), and etc. Even though they did lack in some of these area’s they exploited, they go way over the top in their reviews. While it’s always reverse in their previews, that is hypocritical in it self; and that is a fact. Yes in thier previews they could highlight these so called misgivings, but they don’t instead they praise them. GW Nightfall is another victim of this problem, and other games will soon follow.

I think basically on a side note to A-Net; this is what all these people, that of course dislike the direction of GW is heading are really saying: "I want a GW game that features the best from World of Warcraft & The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion, but holds true to what Guild Wars is." Not that these things should be implemented from my own point of view, but if you’re interested in what “they” have to say. In some respects I know a game does not have to be perfect to be enjoyable.

Wait until WoW:Burning crusade comes out, GS will give it 10/10.
Most of reviews of magazines or sites comes from WoW grinding lvl 60 mentality, they compare every MMORPG being released with the features of WoW, and to be honest no one can review or measure complex game like guild wars like its fans.

100% better then Factions IMO, hated it, never finsihed and porbably wont for awhile, until i want titles...

I agree pretty much with the entirety of the Gamespot review, and I'm actually quite impressed at the author's perceptiveness.

Nightfall would be the best game in the series so far. The team's obviously gone to a lot of effort to improve the game for those who've played previous chapters, they've listened to a lot of feedback after Factions (too much, IMO - they threw out some babies with that bathwater), and if nothing else they've jammed a ferocious amount of content in there!

...But they've done everything in their power to kill the pick-up group, and that makes it the worst of the three. Worse than Prophecies, worse than Factions. Because it's become a single-player RPG, only without dialogue trees and with a messed up online-style economy!

Finishing the game with my Mesmer (I know, bad PuG karma here to start with), I played in a grand total of four single-mission PuGs. Of them, three were two-man six-hero jobs, and those three all started out the same way:

Random player: Guys, I'm starting to feel really lonely and bored here. Does anybody else miss human contact and want to do the mission with a person, and not just heroes? (<- honest to goodness actual quote! The other two said something similar, if less emo)

Me: ...Holy crap, he's perfectly right. /invite.


The fourth group was a full human PuG in one of the harder missions where everyone was stressed and insisted on "perfect" builds. Inevitably, we wiped - because the nature of the new-and-improved aggro system, where mobs chase you forever and there's lots of unpredictable patrols, meant that dynamic human play was a liability. Henchies, over whom I have surgically precise movement control, made it through with almost no difficulty.

Look, I've still enjoyed Nightfall. There's a lot of content, and a fair chunk of it's genuinely fun. The writing quality isn't quite up to the standard we convinced ourselves it would be after the PvE preview, but it's still head and shoulders above the other two. But an 8.2-scoring review? Yeah, that sounds about right.

Check out the similar column for things like the latest Dragon Ball Budokai game, any Madden, and any unreleased but highly hyped game. The "You Say" rating is always ridiculously inflated and bears no relation to the game's actual quality.

Gamespot are wetting themselves over the PS3 and Wii atm so any PC game isn't going to get a look in. Quite obviously the person playing NF is a pleb. Yes, there are features missing we want but the one thing about Anet is they constantly add things as we go, so that argument is pointless.

ALL GW games beat WoW hands down (and yes, I own WoW). Yet they cream over WoW like it's the be all and end all. It's pooh.

What a dumb review.

"Guild Wars Nightfall gives you even more to manage by introducing the concept of hero characters that join your own created character during the course of the campaign... they'll fight and follow automatically for the most part"

Ah yes, more to manage... yet there are only basic commands, and the heroes attack automatically?

"... and they have their own sets of skills, as well as their own inventories--and it's up to you to decide what to do with all that"

Um, they don't have their own skillset or inventories... and their default bar is fine until you have access to later areas.

in a way that was fun. why does GW players not replay the games missions and bosses in the same fashion as the Diablo 2 community did?

Was it because that D2 just had endless and endless and endless amounts of weapons and armor that dropped?


Why does people not want to repeatedly do Shiro?


I have never heard anyone say "hey wanna do a shiro run?".

I mean...


Why is Anet not more vocal? I dont understand this? Why wont they at least talk to the community explain. what is so wrong with a few designers, sound artists, lead programmers taking 5-10 minutes each day or so, to reply to the community?

why do they leave us in the dark constantly. if they said they dont want to add a new LFG system, then why dont they just say so? I dont understand it...

I dont understand why Anet just lays itself down and take all the heat without trying to defend its choices.
It's depressing really.

why is it that feels like that WoW, continues to gain momentum and grow larger(now 7,5 MILLION SUBSCRIBERS), while GW seems to shrink and loss momentum, popularity and attention. its like no one even bothers reviewing GW anymore. whats with the late reviews? or lack of sites talking about it? its like nightfall has become this lame afterthought that no one wants to play or recommend. Thats at least how I feel, about the gaming industrys reaction to GW. Its funny how Gamespot makes an 8 hour marathon live for the wow expansion, but cant be arsed enough to even make a video review for nightfall

I do think Guild Wars could use a better trade system, however, LFG system???

That never works in MMOs lol

You're better of typing "LFG'

"new hero characters can be complicated to manage."

you are joking?!!!! This is so frickin simple! Flag them all individually or as a team. Aggressive, Defensive, Avoid Combat. Drag the skills like you would yourself. Add weapons and runes LIKE you would yourself.... you think this is complicated, you must think swg is some kind of ultra puzzle! [pre-cu]

There has been much request for mounts, removal of instanced areas, OCD farming, and so on. The Sardelac Sanitarium used to be and probably still is filled with request that sounded more like features from WoW than Guild Wars. There has also been topics posted defending the grinding nature of Guild Wars, from skill to item acquisition. Most of these topics pointed to WoW and other mmorpg but all were accepted and agreed upon by Guild Wars players.

If Guild War's own player base can not differentiate between WoW and Guild Wars then how do you expect a reviewer, who has a limited time with a game, to do so?

mmm. Yes, the reviewers don't really know what they're talking about. The allegations that "gameplay grows stale after lv20" are ludicrous, it shows they're really reviewing GW with a traditional MMO mindset, which it is not. Just look at gamespot's review summary for NF: "a new iteration set in an egyptian-inspired continent"... did they even play the game?

However, they do have a point in criticizing the lack of improvements in trade and group formation. So what if Anet implements those by the time chapter 4 comes, what will they criticize? I'm sure they'll find something.

edit: I just read the Gamespy review (they usually seem much more appropriate than the ones in gamespot imo). It's mostly positive, the only qualms being the difficulty of controlling heroes while playing (it forgets to cite that you dont even need to control them if you dont want), and the need for veteran characters to grind sunspear points (valid point). It got a 4 star score out of 5, which is pretty good for gamespy (equivalent to "great!" according to their score, which is exactly what NWN2 got, for example)

WoW shipped *missing* BattleGrounds (a big feature) and PVP Honor System

both features were in the manual and not patched into game until 8 months later June 2005, but Gamespot gave WoW a 9.5 anyhow

It's sad that GW is reviewed to WoW's standards. I don't want GW to be like WoW. Yet I feel that GW has already made too many concessions to the grind style of gaming. With Factions came titles. Ok, but I can ignore them, no big deal. With Nightfall came titles that actually have meaning. Now I have to grind to gain an advantage (Lightbringer title, Wisdom title, etc.) I can't say I like where this is heading.

GW is about the casual player, and heroes and the new salvaging system are great. (Although, having to unlock skills for the heroes could be a bit of a grind for the new casual player). I think that it should continue to develop along those lines. And the reviewers need to get a clue if they think the level 20 cap is a problem.

Well, every few months GW is getting closer to WoW. That's not why I think it got a lower score. I do think that it was given a lower score because of the fact it isn't the first expansion, and Factions had that advantage.