A Litany of Comparison: GW and World of Warcraft

i would actually start playing again if GW were ever to become 'pro'

Your very opening statement shows that you are exactly what you say others are...namely "wrong". You attempt to put YOURSELF on some pedestal as that you are MORE informed than anyone else (which you are not of course) and that your opinion is sound and non biased (which it is not). Next time try to make an un-biased opinion without first attacking your audience or those that are not here to defend such hogwash.

That's impossible, since I don't know of a single person that hasn't had fun playing with their friends. There are also a large majority of techinical reasons, as well, but I'm too lazy to list those.

There was actually a very detailed thread from *way* long ago by Twicky_kid that explained why Guild Wars won't be in the MLG. If memory serves, it revolved or had something to do with ANet wanting to host their own championship.

Zinger is right about two things: One, that he knows a HELL of a lot more about WoW than most people on this forum. And two, that most people on this forum have posted, when concerned with WoW, crap. I would know, since I've always been one to defend WoW and have seen a vast amount of poor and ill-informed posts.

This is perhaps the least biased comparison thread you will ever see on the Guru, that's saying quite a lot. I highly doubt anyone could do any better.

yes the both games have pros and cons but what you havent seen in wow( which made me quite the game ) is the all the classes are so god damn unbalanced in pvp and i liked the all pvp low , mid and high-end , and the thing anyone can have an epic thru the arena? yes the pve in wow requires a lot of tactics but if u havent got a tank u cant do it , in gw it requires more team play and good builds and pulling. A raid of 40-25 men can be good but organizing a 25 men is really hard, and what about the ppl who havent seen the Black Temple or Naxxramas, what about the good old lvl 60 raids !? no wow is all about the money !

This shows that most Guild Wars players don't care about World of Warcraft. It also shows that they find it as an insult as someone makes a thread on a Guild Wars forum and claims that World of Warcraft is more intelligent than the game they are playing, and mostly, they are highly annoyed when someone tries to convince them to play World of Warcraft on a Guild Wars forum.

What else did you expect?

maybe i m just having trouble understanding his wording. for example, when he says WoW is more intellegent than GW, what does that mean? since game itself isn't an animal with brain that thinks or solves problem. does he mean to say playing WoW require higher player(human) intellegence than GW? i don't wanna jump to the conclusion... but u can see how some people here can see this as a bit of insult.

also about the aggro, isn't it the same in GW?

You didn't even read my post.

WoW has a more immersive game world due to seamless zoning, free movement, better art direction in making environments feel "real" to the player, and more deliberate dungeon design, full stop.

GW has a superior group mechanic for experiencing content, full stop. You can go it yourself, you can go it with 1, 2, 3 or more human players. Regardless of the number of players, the vast majority of content is accessible and fun.

Mix the two, ta-dah, better game than either. There is no technical reason why this can't be done and it has NOTHING to do with having fun playing with friends. Whether it's more fun or not with friends doesn't change the fact that it's still fun without them. There isn't even a comparison to WoW, which puts you in the position of play with strangers (YMMV) or play with friends (YMMV) or don't play for a lot of the content. Then again, you're the one who told me that after 9 months of playing with friends in WoW and finding the whole endgame decidedly lacking in fun because it had turned into work that I just hadn't found the right group. Yes, any game that puts friends in the position of abandoning the "weaker links" just to get "elite" areas and endgame encounters completed is sooo well designed

This is very well and very succinctly stated, CHannum.

Presumably, AreneNet could incorporate all of the positives of WoW listed above and still retain the positives of the current form of GW as well. The qualities of both games listed in the quote above are not mutually exclusive.

Where it all gets dicey, from my perspective, is in GW2's stated intention to (1) add persistent regions and (2) eliminate the heroes/henches now used to fill out solo/small-group teams.

I really do not think the addition of a single NPC "companion" that ArenaNet has talked about will adequately replace the variety and fun of the current system. However, in playing a mage or warrior in WoW, I have often been envious of the two classes in WoW that do have a "minion" of sorts: Rangers and Warlocks. In playing WoW, I have often wished my Warrior had a "healer" or "dps minion" or that my Mage had a "tank" minion. Perhaps GW2 will basically offer something like that: a more WoW-like game wherein all classes (not just Rangers and Warlocks) have a customizable "minion" or "pet" of sorts. Perhaps at the character creation screen in GW2, you could also create this "minion" as well -- perhaps it could be human or animal or some other type of creature, that you could then develop to become a tank, dps, or healer or some combination thereof depending on what you wanted for your avatar. That's just a guess, of course.

Such a system would not be that bad for most PvE; however, I still can't see how one companion would get you through, say, a 5-man dungeon as a solo player -- unless the plan is to scale the instances to player group size...

I am hopeful that ArenaNet can work all this out. Even if they cannot, however, and GW2 ends up being a "step backward" from GW1, I still think the game is going to be scads better than WoW -- at least from a single-player/casual player/small-group-oriented perspective.

Nah not really, it was pretty late.

That was the polite way of saying it. From the way it sounded, it seemed like you and your friends were rather inexperienced. I don't think I've ever had so much trouble with whiping and respawns. The only time that *did* happen was my first time in a Shadow Labs pug. I had a free schedule that day so I didn't mind so much.

How about instead of abandoning them you and your friends figure out why you all aren't doing so hot? If my guild just abandoned the newbies, I would not have as many friends as I do now.

The current system is really fun and complex, no doubt, but it really puts PUGs in a nasty position. When the whole game population is so split up and when you need a full party of 8 (that's quite a lot of people) for nearly *ever* single area, finding a group gets really hard.

I'd only be concerned with soloing if they carry over the combat and skill system from GW1 to GW2, but I don't think that's the case. If ANet can still keep the game fun, challenging and interesting when you're soloing (hell, Oblivion could), then GW2 will do great.

The only thing I'll say in this thread (as most things have been said by others already), is that if you're going to try to compare two games like this, try keeping the number of pros and cons for each game generally even. When I first read your OP several days ago, it was very obvious which game you had more experience with because you were more detailed in your explanation of the pros and cons of WoW. This (combined with the semantics of your OP) gives bias to your comparisons, or, if you prefer, the illusion of bias even though you may have intended none.

As for my being on topic, and my opinion there, each is a great game. WoW is more 'classic' fantasy/rpg and uses a lot of common traits. That, combined with its lore's age, gives it great popularity. GW tried to break away from the norm, and managed to do so quite well, in my opinion. When GW2 comes out, I certainly won't be calling it a 'wow-clone' just because it shares the common elements which Wow is mainly based itself on.

But I will say that while the games are comparable, it mainly boils down to what kind of player you are and which game appeals more to you from the onset. Some like cartoony graphics, some like realism. Some are constrained by their RW lives more so than others. I like some of the concepts I've seen in WoW, and I enjoy the complexity of strategy involved in GW. But because of my RL constraints (older machine, bandwidth, cost, etc) I chose a game I could always drop. I'm glad I've enjoyed it, but I'm not going to bash WoW just because I don't play it(or vice versa). Sour grapes, folks.

But that's just my two cents

A nice writeup, but far from unbiased.

By the numbers WOW is the best game on the market of mmo's/mmorpgs bar none that is the bottom line of all things good and evil here. GW's has merely SOLD 4 millioin copies, that does not mean it has 4 million players hardly. More like 750,000 if that many anymore. But, WOW on the other hand has 8 million SUBSCRIBERS, yes that is a solid number of people paying $15 a month whether they play or not the subscriber figures don't lie. WOW is just stomping GWs in the dirt as far as population and sales and subscibers go. You can HATE it all you like, but, you'll never win or will GWs ever be better or at the top of the charts constantly like the WOW series is.

The thing about GWs is it is basically for the majority of two types of gamers. The poor and parents who don't want to tend to their kids. All you have to do is read the ingame text and you can see this to be true. Notice I said majority now, not ALL people who play GWs fall into these two catagories, but, these are the two basic ones those that play GWs play it.

The so-called 8 million subscribers was only a report to a certain time, and at this point, we do not know whether this number has increased or decreased or remained the same. As of the four millions sales of Guild Wars copies, we do not know the exact number of players who purchased them either. In other words, you are trying to prove that World of Warcraft is a better game than Guild Wars by rationalize with two unknown variables. Nice try.

Secondly, majority of the players of Guild Wars are not kids nor poor. In fact, many of us are grown-adults; also, just because many of us choose to prioritize our time in real life over a game, it does not mean that we are poor; it simply means that we choose to live a different life style. Please do not rationalize and insult the Guild Wars community.

I'm really not detecting a lot of hate for WoW here in this thread, actually. (Ironically, the harshest criticism of WoW seems to come from those who have not really played it much or for very long -- or is that just my imagination? ) Anyway, the OP and most of us that have played WoW do appreciate much of what that game has to offer.

I think/suspect that AreneNet's goal in developing GW2 is simply -- and quite understandably -- to broaden the general appeal for Guild Wars and to enlarge its market share, not necessarily to "kill WoW" (something not likely to happen anyway). I think WoW is going to start to fade of its own accord, because the game, with each successive expansion, is becoming increasingly less accessible to casual players. For myself, the sticking point was having a bucketload of important content -- the instances and Big Boss encounters therein -- that I was paying for but could hardly very play, due to RL time constraints, etc. Coordinating raid schedules is OK for some players but is just, well, not ever going to work for me.

That's not "hating WoW", it's just saying that WoW's primo content, its instances, are for the most part off-limits for players like me. That gets old.

I am taking what ArenaNet has stated repeatedly, via developer interviews, etc., at face value: that they have several years of solid experience with a most successful game series that has been increasingly hampered by aging mechanics and interface, and they needed to "reinvent" the game markedly to make it better.

And that brings us to... Ta-Dah! Guild Wars 2.

Which is ... nowhere, because GW2 is only a few articles here and there and quite a lot of speculation :P

Honestly, WoW may have a lot to bring to the gamers, but it comes at a price. Not that the no-monthly-fee of GW does not come at a price too, but at least it's much easier regarding the decisions to make.

I was tempted to say that GW's audience is a bit more mature than WoW's, but comments about the terrible state of the GW population (alas) made me think twice. There are really great people, but tons of script kiddies. I wonder whether the vastness of WoW's world could hide the fact that WoW's population is the same. (the 2 games should also be compared with regards to their communities)

The number has increased, actually. It's 9 million active accounts.

I'm really confused when people say "Guild Wars is WoW's biggest competitor!" For one, Guild Wars bases it's success on copies sold - just like any normal RPG. If you're gonna call it a "successful MMO", then I'm going to have to whole-hearty disagree with you. MMO's make a big chunk of their dough (and their "success" is also determined) by the number of active players.

In this sense, GW seems rather minuscule. For one, it's not 3.5 million of one single campaign, it's all of them combined. Secondly, you have to take in the fact that a lot of those copies sold all belong to one account (and two accounts may be belonging to one person because back then there was a 4 slot limit). So when you take all of this into account, the Guild War's universe starts to seem a little teensie.

And if you're gonna compare copies sold, then WoW completely crushes Guild Wars. If it has 9 million subscribers, and if it's the horrible game everyone here claims it to be, then holy damn that must be a big number.

This is where WoW really shows its integrity. If WoW wanted to be the money-eating machine that it's so accused of being, then why has Blizzard made their game to be inaccessible by a large percent of the gaming population?

Next to Dawn of War and StarCraft, GW has one of the worst playerbases I've seen.

I have to give you that, although WoW is moving in a (slightly) more GW-ward direction in at least one respect: they are making a lot of the group/elite quests that once were impossible to solo now solo-accessible, and they have raised the xp and monetary rewards of quests also as a nod to solo players trying to level up all by their lonesome. WoW has made a number of ... concessions ... or perhaps "adjustments" is a better word ... to accommodate solo/casual players. Like the ArenaNet team, Blizzard, too, is learning from experience. I hear EQ2 is also a lot more solo/casual friendly than EQ1 was/is, although I really cannot speak to that.

Blizzard/WoW still are not compromising on instance content being restricted to player groups only, it is true, but even there, they shelved the (ridiculous, in my opinion) 40-man raid instances when they came out with TBC in favor of smaller-group dungeons. I do wish they'd seriously rework their LFG mechanism, however. It is such a useless mess... It ought to work like a kind of "massive joint staging area" for dungeons that would form a group and then hearth the team directly to the instance in question when the team members are ready to go, kind of like the staging areas work in Prophecies ... but it doesn't.

Frankly, I wish GW offered something similar as well. I should be able to access/join a mission or dungeon group from *any* town or outpost, provided my toon had access to the appropriate town hub connection. But that's a subject for another thread.

At any rate, I do think the WoW of today is more solo/casual player-friendly than it was at launch.

its all about personal taste.

I know you added the disclaimer, but I had to add the subtext anyway - the vast majority of GW players I know play it because they love the game, not because they're kids (most are adults) and not because they're poor (most have a reasonable income). Heck, I myself have no problem with subscription fees, and would actually pay a subscription fee for GW (::gasp:: I know). I do love however that I don't feel like I HAVE to play because I'm paying.

Heck my family may still be paying for the WoW account, although we haven't logged in in over 6 months. Too much frustration with finding that your friends were all on other servers. :P

There's a very large number of us who play because GW is simply our game of choice, and we're a bit too large of a population to dismiss as the minority IMO. And at least a few people played WoW and got sick of feeling like it owned them. Not that there's anything wrong with being owned by a game, as there really isn't, it's like anything else, but I know for myself personally with a job and a boatload of other hobbies, I just wouldn't have time for WoW.

I will however agree on the playerbase point; granted the areas of WoW I played were filled with people yelling some pretty dumb stuff, but GW does tend to see a lot of extremes. I've met some of the nicest people I know in GW, and I've encountered some of the biggest jerks I've met in GW. Maybe that's because the really cool people are the ones with a real life who play GW because it's fun and that's it, and the jerky ones are the ones who are broke or who don't want to pay a monthly fee to abuse others. :P But what I love about GW is that I don't HAVE to put up with the jerks. Turn off local chat, go in my own instance with my alliance members. Ahhh bliss!

However WoW is not immune to that; I have seen some of my WoW playing friends frequently comment on bad behavior even in RL and dismiss it as "oh they must be Alliance". So either Alliance is full of bastards, or Horde folks really hold a grudge...

(and I definately could afford subscription fees as now I'm playing Tabula Rasa )

For what it does, it does awesomely. It's a universal party search that applies throughout the whole server and not just where you're located. You can set up what dungeons, quests, whatever that you're looking for. Not only that, but you even join a LFG chat channel.

The outpost staging areas in Prophechies are cool, granted. But if you need someone else and there's little to no one in the outpost, you're out of luck. It only takes two people at an instance in WoW to use a summoning stone, anyways.

Definantly moreso than ever - and it is indeed a good step in the right direction. But they're not totally selling out, however. Raids do still take a lot of effort and focus.

And it's less "GW-Ward" and more "casual-friendly", I'd say.

If GW2 has lots of things similar to WoW, it will look like a crap attempt to go mainstream (and going against a company they can't beat at making games like WoW I might add), and in doing so will ruin the best things GW did, almost like Oblivion. I'd much rather just have an improved (meaning better balanced, less bugged etc) version on GW1.

And as for worst player base, they're all pretty much the same, all there player bases are 80% human who are safely behind their moniters, and thus, ignorant, selfish, pathetic, hypcritical, arrogant, and immature in general, and this cannot be fixed (sanely that is).

The only thing I can see WoW has going for it as far as the player base goes, is that it's a "members only" club; you can't just buy the game and then have unlimited access like you can in GW. As such, you may have someone that bought GW 2 years ago and just visits when they're bored...

The other thing to keep in mind is that GW did not come w/ instant product recognition like WoW did. When GW came out, it was basically "just another game" and its major selling point was no monthly fees. Being able to say "from the makers of Diablo/Warcraft/Starcraft" on your box goes a long way to sell units.

Regardless, I tried WoW, didn't care for it, and moved on.

Wait. Oblivion sucked??

Dawn of War and Starcraft have given me some of my worst online gaming experiences. The fact that I'm also throwing Guild Wars next to them is terribly depressing. I'd like to say that GW is full of so many assholes because it's competitive, but I've had awesome experiences on CS and TF2, so that's out of the window.

Jeff Strain was one of the greatest minds at Blizzard. Knowing that was what got me sold.

And the "no monthly fees" thing is annoyingly misleading, since it causes people to think it's an MMO.

I've been really hard on WoW, so I'll try and tame my fury in this post by listing what I did like in WoW. (with a few jabs here and there)

I'd Been a huge Blizzard fan up until the second year of WoW.

The best of WoW.

Alterac Valley Vers.1 The one with the Huge map and tons of PvPvE; best MMO PvP experience I've ever had--Period. This was when players only had access to Blue gear, before Tier-Gear farming took hold and itemization borked PvP. The current version/latest patch of AV is a weak attempt at making it more GWish, they failed miserably.

Dungeons are simply Amazing -- true classics: Strath, Blackrock, Schol, ZG, DM . . . etc. (MC dungeons and higher are rather limp and derivative.) I've never encountered such beautifully constructed dungeons in a game. If GW2 could provide such quality, not necessarily quantity, but quality, they'll have a WoW killer on their hands. WoWs instanced dungeons are much less accessible than dungeons should be. It'd be nice if players could live within/spend more time in these dungeons, whether solo or grouped. Accessibility is abysmal in WoW.

Stealth is handled very well in WoW. The Bonus Mission Pack gave us a taste of what it could be like in GW2 with Gwen's skill--Conditional Stealth, stand near a specific texture, model or zone, shadow etc. and your stealth button lights up ready to use. Would like to see a full featured stealth system in GW. Funcom's Age of Conan will likely have an amazing stealth system.

Pets are far and away superior in WoW, Pets should play like heroes with their own skill-sets, etc. Were pets like heroes, then GW would have superior pets. I guess heroes are sorta like pets, in a weird way.

I enjoyed the grandness and presence of WoW cities. They have a sense of place and purpose and are Architecturally beautiful.

Flying was a nice immersive value in WoW, GW2 could at least add some sort of Hollywood flyby effect/animation rather than the loading screen. Just show a very fast dragon flight through the persistent environment, only long enough for the next town to load up. Same instant travel, just a better transition.

The familiarity of having the same players on the same server helps forge wonderful relationships. The fact that players do not have a dozen alts, allows you to recognize and develop relationships with many familiar faces. GW2 should focus on one avatar/character with many professions. Help players recognize each other. Less anonymity encourages accountability.

Well, there be some measures Arena Net should consider when building GW2. I guess I should have posted these in the GW2 Suggestion thread. I've been making loads of educated guesses/suggestions in that thread, based on what GWs has already done with instancing. It would, in fact, be very easy for Arena Net to increase instancing features, as well as create a massive persistent world. The best of both worlds.

WoW has, for me, a fundamentally flawed core. Level dependencies segregate players--not only competitively, but generally. Levels, and the huge itemization overhead that is the foundation of WoW is a fatal flaw in my opinion. A rather insidious way to hook players into stimulus addiction.

I'm guessing Arena Nets innovations will be Blizzard's Boon, were they to have taken a different direction and opted for a GW model, but in a pay-to-play format, you'd be seeing ten times the content, all of it re-playable, and no itemization issues.

Here's my prediction from this very thread on the other forum. The Evercrack system and all it's dated game mechanics has seen it's culmination in WoW, the future is GW.

By the time GW2 releases, Blizzard will have announced a GW clone for it's next MMO.

Leveling up, finding good gear, big levels - they're things that hook people because they enjoy it. Perhaps it's so addicting because it's fun.

If Guild Wars is the future, and if all of what's said above is true, then why is GW2 headed in a somewhat WoWish direction?

Because Guild Wars 2 is a sell out

WoWish direction? Sorry your sadly mistaken. I'd go so far as to say GW2 may not have levels at all. GW1 currently does not have levels, Titles maybe, but 1-20 levels? They mean absolutely nothing in the Meta-game of GW1. And now mean even less with the EoTN buff, for lvl10s+. A Net seems to consider level as a rather valueless feature. And I agree completely with this direction. Titles, Ranks, optional development may be what they value more for GW2, especially considering that EoTN was billed as a small taste of where GW2 is headed.

Most of the hundreds of Guild-mates I had in WoW would disagree with you, raiding is more of a job, farming a single boss two dozen times to get everyone the same Tier gear is a bore, most everyone I've raided with tolerates it at least, but dreads it mostly--what else is there? We've put all this time into our characters, but we have no choice but to Raid til our hemroids hurt. WoW and Everquest style gaming is like a smelly old shoe, you're so used to seeing it around you just can't seem to justify throwing it away. It's done, old, passe, history as far as I'm concerned. Seems the growing popularity and steady, building success of GW should be an indication that there are viable alternatives to a smelly pair of old shoes.

...or it's because the specifically design the game to be addicting. At this point in time, it is not hard for a developer to do a little research and know what sorts of things keep people playing and paying, and to include such features into their game. Getting to the top, or getting *the* best piece of gear is a very strong motivator for people, and by making those goals hard to get and require a lot of time is an intentional decision. Blizzard could just as easily make max armor or max weapons easy to come by, so players can focus on the content instead of the grind, but they chose not to...

They stated that the level cap in GW2 could very well be infinite. That's the part of WoWish I was referring to. Now, having levels matter is something entirely different.

Likewise, all three of my guilds would very well disagree with you.

If those shoes are so goddamn smelly, why doesn't anyone notice?

That aside, I'd prefer that you refer to my above post concerning Guild Wars' "success". It's doing great as an RPG. As an MMO, it probably doesn't even compete with Lineage/Lineage 2.

At this point I'm referring less to WoW and more to RPGs in general. Oblivion would not be as fun if you started the game at level 25 and with Daedric armor weapons. Diablo would not be as enjoyable if you started with all of the best gear in the game and at level 99. My point is that people like progression, they like advancing a character, and they like getting stronger and better loot. It's why people play RPG's, essentially - besides playing as their alter ego.

If you consider playing through the raids and instances as "grinds", then I'd wonder what you'd consider content?

Raising levels, replacing gear every x levels, buying upgrades to existing spells...are primarily to restrict character progression, while conveying a sense of reward for playing longer. They are also time/money sinks to help prolong the progression necessary to access newer content.

It's why most online rpg's try very hard to design a system that hinders power leveling and gold farming tricks. They do a lot of analysis of playtime necessary to get from point A to point B and even know when players are willing to push through to another payment, usually levels 19, 29, ect....surprise surprise.

I haven't played alot of WoW, just a free trial and watched my friends play who own the game but I don't see it as an intelligent game in most ways, and this is for 1 particular reason....Macros. GWs doesn't have, you have to click on your skills when you need to use them stuff like that. From what I saw my friend do with macros all he did was run in, sit back and let them do the work, and get the loot. If you're going to say that WoW is an intelligent game thats fine but don't say it's more intelligent than GWs because it's not. If anything they're equally intelligent.

The number of active accounts for WoW is irrelevant because people only per server. I thought there was a huge thread about this between Bryant and I?


WoW has the biggest number of assholes in any other game. Hell look at their forum. When it first came out, magazines quoting on how bad the community was, saying its the worse bunch of people some have ever come across.

In terms of quality, I would say WoW is the worse gaming people I had to deal with. I would put Diablo 1 and 2 in there too, for fact that online Diablo was so bad.

I'm not talking about 9 million people playing together, I'm talking about 9 million playing period. What does server seperation have to do with it?

Stopping you right there because you should *never* come to conclusions based off of forums.

The thing is that it's largely server dependent. The problem, though, is determining which servers are the worst (I'll get everyone here started: Don't play on Illidan.)

How can I put it, Oblivion was a good game, a very good game, but a bad Elder Scrolls game.


Your most likely right on that one, but you can't say that CS (Counter strike I assume) and TF2 don't have assholes in them.

I wouldn't say that, GW2 is simply answering what a large amount of people has been asking for. GW2 may be a sell out for the common GW gamer opposed to the hard core GW gamer.

Oblivion did suck (at least to me) by the way, sorry I mean it and I say what I mean. What the game boiled down to was being a jack of all trades, if you put the attributes you'd be using the least as your primaries and the attributes you'd be using the most as your secondaries, your over all attribute levels will sky rocket (due to the bonuses and what not as you level). So being specific in any grouping of attributes is incredibly impractical. To me it just wasn't fun, there was no sense of differentiation in Oblivion. My wizard would be wearing leather and plate mail, I never found a reason to equip him with a robe. Not to mention the animations in the game were horrendous, I dare you to go into third person. A wizard was my second character, but my first was a "rogue" type. When I got his acrobatics high enough to do back flips, I was sorely disappointed that his nimbleness was more equivalent to a retard throwing himself back against the floor. Pair crappy animations with a repetitive attack system, and spell effects that all basically looked the same, well... Oblivion just wasn't all that it was meant to be for me. Sure I enjoyed running around and stealing things from peoples houses, and what not, but I felt like I was playing GTA at that point and no longer an Elder Scrolls game. The freedom was great, but I just couldn't get over the artistic direction of the game, it didn't immerse me at all. The environments were beautiful yes, but the people, cold lifeless products of graphical rendering with out artistic talent. I liked the game, and I enjoyed playing it, but it definitely didn't deserve all the attention it got. To me the game just suffered from broken RPG mechanics from the beginning, something with more likeness to traditional D&D would've gotten the job done much better. Failed at the action element of which it claimed, sneaking as a rogue is fun and all... but its no Splinter Cell experience. Finally this game proves that artistic style > graphical power. Of course this is just from the eyes of a simple gamer and hardcore bio ware fan for his RPGing needs. /rant

I honestly try my best to remember the names, but I played on Shadow Council, Cenarion Circle, and Dethecus.
Out of those 3, only 1 seemed to have a lot of jerks. The other 2 seemed okay.

I'm sure he meant "awesome" in the most sarcastic sense possible. You really do get some epic pricks on those games.

You get epic pricks in ALL games, what matters is how many there are and how offen they ruin your fun.

In gun games? Nearly all of them and far, far more than in GW.

Could? I highly doubt Arena Net will turn GW2 into an Everquest clone, and they've stated such in more recent interviews.

The same reason people offer you breath mints, or suggest you brush your teeth, or that you need to use more deodorant. Sorry, many here in the GW community do notice the smell, a really awful smell. It's why this thread exists. It's the entire basis for the WoW vs GW argument. WoW's masterful use of Evercrack stimulus addiction smells to high heaven, people are finally catching on--thus GW success. You are wearing a pair of smelly old shoes, it's all I'm saying. You have just grown used to the stink. You'll likely never notice, or really care if it helps feed the gerbil wheel of addiction that you call Fun.



Playing through raid instances a few times or maybe even a handfull of times is content, even being able to solo/or two-team many times over a few years qualifies as sound game design. Being required group-up for untold (hemroid inducing) hours to play through Dozens(plural) of times to advance your character is a sick joke. Your guilds obviously suffer from the same blind addiction--an insidious waisting disease called Evercrack.

Sorry for being so harsh, but a few of my best WoW friends have lost it, they're showing such horrid signs of addiction that they constantly threaten their wives, families with divorce/abandonment, completely destroying real-life friendships etc. . . It's very sad, but unfortunately true.

WoW as a game does more harm than good.

p.s. the OP obviously does not PvP in WoW, as the only solid ground WoW pvp has is mid game. lvl 19, 29, etc. . . Even with the scourge of twinked players.