Guild Wars 2--Updated Impressions

I think one of Guild Wars' folly was that you needed a party for everything. And especially in later campaigns the required number of people is 8. When you think about it, that's quite a lot. The first few raids in WoW need 10, and that's high-end!

Granted, you do have henchmen and heroes. But most henchmen are remarkably subpar and heroes won't be much better than them if you're a newer player.

I probably could've just took a sentance of your post to take up less space, but you post good stuff. So I quoted it for people to read again!

Ah, Hogger. No other mob has killed as many players as he has : )

That said, you won't find a whole lot of people for early quests and the like. Not much of a problem since most (if not all?) of the group quests and group areas can now be done alone. So no longer a biggie ; )

Good luck doing the Deep with that.

WoW's trial account CAN'T USE LFG function. You can't even TALK in any of the public chat channel. (1. General, 2. Trade, or 4. LookingForGroup)

FAIL. Try again, without lies.

You know no offense intended here, but considering you prefer not to play with others, why are you playing MASSIVE MULTIPLAYER ONLINE GAMES???

You can't?
I never noticed as i just bought it and played it with my guild... that sucks

Thankfully GW is not a MMORPG.

GW is a CORPG.


And just because people dont want to group with random players does not mean they dont want to play online with others.

Many play with guilds members and friends. When they arent on they go solo.
Then people who came for the PvP and when in PvE like to go solo.
Those people that do pug but when they dont have time or no one else is on go solo.

I know several of my friends purchased GW because they could play with their friends when they are on and if not grab AI. They would not have purchased it had taking AI not been an option.

And then yes, there are those who purchased it with the sole purpose of taking AI.
Why did I purchase an online game where I could do that? Because GW is advertised as a game where you can do that.

I hope they don't change GW too much.

Guildwars is get in, bash some skulls, get out. Total time used: 2 hours

World of Warcraft is get in, wait 2 hours for a raid group, have 12 wipes, a healer leaves, get a new healer, wipe 20 more times, then you finally kill him, then some one steals all the loot and shards. Total time wasted: 7 hours

Nope. No auction house. No mailing. You can't even send a whisper to someone unless he/she starts it first.

All the more reasons why I upgraded to full in just a few days (the trial play time I had left were added on top of the free month though, so it's all good).

Believe it or not, some people play online games just because they are a cool experience. Since there are other people playing, the gameplay experience changes, even if you don't ever actually group with someone!

I have a level 20 Hunter in WoW, and I haven't been in a group once (although that will have to change for the Deadmines).

I think most sucessful MMORPGs don't require you to group with other people. Of course, you'll miss out on some content, but where is it written you have to experience everything in a game to enjoy it?

The multiplayer part is a real plus, my friend, because it gives me the option of playing with other players. In Guild Wars, you can make that choice virtually whenever and wherever you want to; in WoW, you are required to group in order to access the instances. Period.

I think that is a very fundamental difference between the two games, and it is why I prefer Guild Wars.

As for "Massive", let's get real for a moment. Most players in any MMORPG are still in small groups of players for most of the content. WoW may be a "massively multiplayer" game, but it still breaks down to very small groups and solo most of the time you are playing. The advantage of the "massive", to me anyway, is that the player pool is large when you want to find a group. Somehow the advantage of the "massive" eluded me in WoW; I would sometimes wait for 30 to 45 minutes in "LFG Limbo Hell" for a group to form for some instance or other before finally giving up in complete exasperation. Not fun.

In Guild Wars, I can pop online, ask my guild/alliance if anyone wants to go to ABC dungeon or do XYZ mission. If no one does or if I just feel like going on my own, I can proceed anyway and complete said mission or dungeon in the time it would take my WoW alter ego to even find a group, let alone complete that dungeon or quest.

--WoW says: "STOP. WAIT. You MUST have 5 human players in a BALANCED group or you CANNOT complete said instance."
--Guild Wars says: "You MAY complete this instance with any combination of 1 to 8 players and BALANCE is never an issue because of the Heroes you can bring along. HAVE FUN."

--WoW says: "NO. WAIT. You CANNOT play now; you must MEET THE REQUIREMENTS, dude."
--Guild Wars says: "You want to play now? Well, of course you may!"

You know the old saying, "When Mom says 'No,' ask Grandma"? Well, Guild Wars is Grandma, and Grandma has spoiled me rotten.

If you're pugging a raid than yeah, you will have wasted a lot of time. I rarely ever see that, thankfully. I think I can safely say that 99.9% of raids are guild groups.

At least it ain't like the Guild Wars party search where you have to stay seated in one place. In WoW if I need an instance or something I'll put it in LFG, say what I am and what I need a couple times in the LFG chat channel, and then proceed to farm, do dailies, whatever I want.

"But a lot of people hate Grandma's soup"...What I mean by that is essentially why I'm worried about who I'm recommending the game to.

Guild Wars is nearly the polar opposite of WoW on a large number of levels - mainly in terms of gear, progression, and people requirement. That's generally what most MMO's are all about: Leveling up, getting some cool gear, and playing with a bunch of people as you kill a big beastie. Guild Wars just has the big beastie part, really.

What I've said quite frequently in the past is this: I don't want people coming to Guild Wars with the expectations that it'll be WoW-lite.

That aside, what Lonesamurai said confuses me. I remember him fully agreeing that Guild Wars wasn't an MMO at sometime awhile ago.

Again, Bryant you hate it. Saying that your friends hate it, especially having never played GW, is just you being transparent and dancing around you personal feelings for GW.

Strange, but I found just the opposite. While in WoW I would recommend GW to many friends who just couldn't keep up with the grind-curve, and were always complaining about being left behind, because their real-life required more attention--WoW needing to be played like a job for the most part, fun for some, but just mind-numbing for others. Or I'd recommend it to friends who loved to PvP, but just couldn't handled the borked PvP WoW hand to offer. GW has benefited from WoWs popularity in that most casual players who play it, and enjoy it to a point, then realize that GW is a much better option for their busy Real-Life schedules. Seems WoW tastes more like grandma's soup with an ole smelly shoe thrown in.

The friends that are asking for another game because they're burned-out on WoW are going to find their way here, regardless of how much you don't what them to be. You're delusional if you think you know what's best for them, I certainly don't, but those I did recommend to GW are still here.


Thank god for that, and lets hope Arena Net has no intention of making it such. Although many WoW burn-outs are wanting GW2 to be WoW lite. And wouldn't it just be horrible if you recommended it as the first alternative to the Evercrack Level Grind? Suggested they give it a try and see what they think? What are you afraid of? Afraid they may actually like GW?? Having a hard time grasping that concept??? Or afraid, the industry will turn towards a better system and your Evercrack will be No more?

I think you are definitely delusional on this point, most of us feel GW is an MMO. It's your opinion that it's not.

Why are people forever trying to claim that an entirely instanced game is massively multiplayer (and yes, that's massively, not massive, get your terminology straight)? It's as though they have no idea what the words mean, or something. GW is an online action RPG, GW2 will be an MMOG. Speaking as someone that doesn't waste their time with MMOG's, I won't be bothering with it.

Of the four friends I *have* recommended it to (who used to play WoW), they haven't been very forgiving to me for recommending it. There's other reasons I'm cautious. Since Fileplanet's been advertising the free campaign trials I direct them to there, instead (which is something I told you awhile ago). I don't know a whole lot who have stayed with it.

And please stop saying I hate or am "spiteful" of Guild Wars. That's a terribly disgusting assumption and just damages your credibility.

It lacks a grind-curve which is good, yes. But it lacks many other things, as I've stated, as well: Gear progession, longer/higher level progression, and end-game. WoW, and hell RPGs in general, are popular because of these things. My friends like them. People like them. That's why Guild Wars 2 is going down that similar direction: it's giving people what they want while still providing a solid and different game.

Um, they're my friends. I know much more about them than you do. I'd appreciate it if you weren't so assumptious.

I've showed Guild Wars to a few of my good friends, only a couple stuck with it. I hope that changes with GW2.

But WoW is an entirely instanced game, having hundreds of separate servers. What's the difference? One instance being larger than the other? Can you meet up and play with anyone with a WoW account? No. Can you in GW, yes. How many can join an instance in WoW 40ish? in GW? not as many. Arguing semantics is nothing more that mental masturbation--It's a personal experience, and most of us try not to notice.

To many of us GW1 is an MMO. Aguing that it isn't won't change that fact.

Regarding the OP, this is old news, so old in fact, that the last time something like this appeared a few weeks back, Arena Net stated that much has changed since those early press releases.

Words have meanings. You can choose to ignore that and call it "opinion" but no one's going to know what you're talking about. I stopped reading when you called wow "entirely instanced" because it's clear you have no honest interest in discussing the matter.

You misunderstand what is meant by instanced.

Its the fact that when you leave an outpost or enter a mission you head into your own instance. Only your team is there and no one else can join.

Thats an instance. Not having seperate servers.


So the fact that GW uses fully instanced areas stops it from being a massively multiplayer game.

I didn't say Guild Wars in my post anywhere did i? No, i was reffering to MMO's in general

In context they do. Let me rephrase my first point. So it's not taken out of context. "Because WoW has hundreds of Servers it is an Instanced Game. Having many copies/Instances of the same environment. ." Semantics give words meaning, and agruing their differences is just white-noise. Everytime I take a group of 8 players from a large outpost instance in GW, to a smaller PvE instance in GW it's as if Arena Net has just given me my own server, in fact they have given me my own server, a server I only have to share with the people I choose to share it with. . . Semantics anyone?? Grilled or Fried?? Sauce or ketchup??? Seems you actually have to pay real cash to Blizzard to to play with friends on another instance of WoW.


Sorry for being so presumptuous, first time I've heard you say this, I'll try and read more carefully, my apologies. You're usually stating that you won't recommend GW to WoW friends. Glad to see you've actually tried, albeit unsuccessfully.

I actually still like to think of GW as an MMORPG, a "marginally multiplayer online RPG."

What struck me as mildly interesting about the text was that, old or not, (i) it appeared in PC GAMER UK in January 2008 and (ii) it stated/intimated a couple of things I had not read elsewhere before (i.e., players having the option to join up with an "AI party"). It may not be accurate, as you say, but it was interesting to me nonetheless.

Let's face it, ArenaNet has been awfully silent about whatever it is that "has [greatly] changed since those early press releases". I find that rather peculiar, frankly, but I'm sure they are just being careful. At one point I had been interested in an online game in development called "Gods and Heroes." They had a polished website and beta, etc., and yet that game went right down the tubes. I'm sure ArenaNet would not want to repeat a fiasco like that.

With so little "official" information, one is left to sift through scraps to see whether or not there's anything new to be found.

The instancing, for me, makes it feel less like a gameworld and more like Diablo. Each outpost just feels like a chatroom on Battle.net. Of course other people may be more immersed than I get, but it always feels pretty desolate in an explorable.

I've been recommending like this for awhile now. Not a whole lot have been terribly inclined to pick it up.

And I don't just "not recommend it to WoW friends", it's that I "don't recommend it to WoW friends because x, y and z."

Yes, and the Word "Grind" struck me as a rather peculiar way for Arena Net to endear it's fan base, as well as the fact that neither article quotes a valid source.


Arena Net will definitely do what's best for their company, if they feel that WoWs style of gaming is what's best for a non-subscription game then they'll have a lot of selling to do to their current fanbase. They'll likely not release game altering details until they have a huge amount of promotional content to follow it up -- To sugar coat what might turn-off some GW1 fans.

There will likely be a huge promotional for Hall of Monuments title/achievement transfers/rewards revealed, to get players interested in GW1 prior to GW2.

For some of us, that's precisely its appeal. I never signed up for an MMOG, and I've never understood why so much of the GW player base is so intent on turning it into one. I guess with GW2 they've finally gotten their way, though.

Don't be so sure, I'm only guessing but the entire persistent world may have many optional Instanced areas. Enter an area, talk to an npc or whatever, and you're fired into your own private instance of the persistent area. Do this with the entire Game World and you get the best of both worlds: persistent and entirely instanced, just pick your poison. Think of the persistent world as one very large GW1 outpost.

I have the sad feeling that they detected that 95% of their players are PvE players that really embrace GRIND of all kinds, and impossible-to-fail-gameplay with overpowered skills so that they do not have to think that much.

This mentality actually fits the standard grinder-MMO, but it is even duller, as level-progression-games at least field a steady challenge, if it is too hard they grind to level up, whereas GW would stagnate on a very low level of gameplay.


I hope ANet tries to give us more diverse and challenging PvE gameplay. This will automatically make people become better and find more enjoyment in the many possibilities (skill choices etc.) the game offers, or hopefully will offer.

...and hence World of Warcraft is not a MMO, because it uses fully instanced areas. QED.

"MMORPG" is not a rigorously defined term, and no universal agreement on how big it has to be to be "massive", how many players are required for "multiplayer", whether it has to be 100% "online", and just what the hell is required for something to be a "role playing game" anyway.

It's a fluff marketing term, and one ArenaNet avoided because they felt it gave the wrong connotations to Guild Wars - specifically that it has the connotation "monthly fees".

Guild Wars is a "CORPG" due to marketing reasons, not some sort of universally agreed upon definition of "MMORPG". I personally refer to GW as a MMORPG, because it clearly belongs to that class of games, while the class "CORPG" doesn't exist, and no-one knows what it is, outside ANet marketing jargons.

I guess that means Diablo was an MMO too, who knew? You can redefine any term broadly enough as to make it meaningless, but there's little enough point in doing it outside of simple intellectual dishonesty.

I'm really anticipating Guild Wars 2! I think It will be a huge hit if the creators and all the people working behind it put all their effort at this project. I really liked the short article at Games Radar.

Of course you are free to take it how you will, but that doesnt mean there isnt a common accepted meaning for the term.

Guild wars is not massively multiplayer because there is a fixed limit of 1 team in each instance (with exception for a couple of missions).

WoW is massively multiplayer because for the majority of the game you are in areas containing other players.


You also have to remember that the terms arent only there to define the level of instancing either. Just 1 thing wont swing it either way.


Also as for CORPG not "existing" I must say thats incorrect. Sure the average gamer wont know the term, but you go to a proper gaming community and people will.

Its the same as FPS-Z, a lot of casual gamers wont know what that means, but again, go to a gaming community and everyone will.

Can we not turn this into another GW vs. the World thread? I'm sick and tired of that already.

Focus on the game you come here to talk about, WITHOUT bashing some other games because it would make you (and your favorite game) feel (and look) better.

Thanks.

The words "exception" and "majority" mean that it's a gliding scale, not a discrete one. It's like debating whether this bluegreen color is blue, or green?

My point is simply that it's pointless to debate definitions. Partly because definitions by necessity are 100% subjective.


As for the subject... the more I hear about GW2, the less interested I get.
Removing henches/heroes, making the world persistent, those aren't necessarily deal-breakers for me as long as the game is soloable, but they're sure not selling points either.
However, the biggest reason I increasingly think I wont like GW2 is the direction in which GW1 has been moving the last year or so - it's obvious from recent changes that ArenaNet consider PvE players functional idiots unable to design their own skillsets or deal with any kind of challenge, and that ArenaNet now consider PvE = grind.

Guild Wars PvE used to be not at all about grind, now it's all about grind, and I assume that this change of heart on ArenaNets part will carry over into GW2.

If you want GW 2 to have challenge, having persistent worlds is the way to do it. Having mobs respawn on you trapping you=challenge. Although some of you sissy boys won't think so!

Also I'm sure they'll follow their "quest to cap" formula hopefully.

So, because Guild Wars gives you the option to play the game with AI controlled parties, it ceases to be a MMORPG?

And if you enter an area in WoW where there are NO other people (I've done this before, so it is possible), then does it cease to be a MMORPG?

While there may be "accepted" meaning of words, that doesn't mean they are correct.

For example, ask people what "grind" is and you'll get different answers (there was a whole thread on the subject somewhere). "MMORPG" is the same thing...


For me, a MMORPG has to have two main features:

Someway to customize your character, and the ability to change that character's abilities through online play.

The ability to play with other people online. I think Guild Wars meets that definition, but regardless, this discussion is about Guild Wars 2, which certainly will be a MMORPG under any definition.

EDIT: Just realized my definition would fit some of the new shooters coming out. Made me think: would you characterize shooters that permanently increase you character's abilities as a MMORPG? If not, what makes it different?

Well, originally, I just posted the article link because it seemed to offer an admittedly small, thin, and flimsy shred of hope that Heroes and henches (aka "AI party") might be making an encore in GW2. In the arid wasteland of LITTLE TO NO NEWS from ArenaNet, it was ... something. A crumb, a crust. Perhaps even a false hope. But something.

Ya see, it is the fate of the Heroes/henches in GW2 that most concerns me. All of the other GW2 innovations I've heard of sound either pretty good to me or at least not bad. But <<to the tune of "I Want My MTV">>, "I Want My Henchies …" (yeah, I know it doesn't rhyme. ). I have long felt that these poor guys (Koss and me, we go WAAAY back!) are a critical feature and one that separates GW from the rest of the herd of generic MMOs. This "single NPC companion" thing sounds like such a backward step. It's better than nothing but still ... subpar. If they restrict its use to the persistent areas and make it "summonable" like a WoW ranger pet or WoW warlock minion, that'd be OK, I guess. Maybe even really good.

Ideally, I'd like to see at least four fully customizable Heroes (i.e., you could make them all smiting monks for a particular instance if you wanted to) for use in instanced areas only in GW2 (assuming the party size maximum in GW2 is, say, five, as in WoW). I do hope GW2 reduces the requisite party size from 8 to 4 or 5. Eight is cumbersome and unwieldy, imo. Moreover, assuming Heroes are still around, four Heroes would, I think, be fairly "micromanageable."

Just some "thinking out loud" here...

My favorite challenge from EQ2 was arriving at the place where I was to kill some Badguy and save the world from a fate worse than death - only to find that someone had just killed him. Or was in the process of killing him. So I had to wait while he respawned, so I could kill him again. And then during the fight have two random guys watching and commenting on how slow and noobish my killing of him was.

That really felt truly epic. Yeah.

Maybe it's just me, but I really don't see why one'd want random other people around when questing. In battlegrounds-style PvP yeah, sure, but during normal questing? I just don't see why that's supposedly fun or desirable.

Where on earth did you pick that up from?

The point is its only 1 team per instance, you cant go and hook up with other players mid mission.

Why would it no longer be an MMORPG? Just because there isnt someone there at that point doesnt mean the option for them to be isnt.

Is a single player game not a single player game when no one is playing it? Does the game somehow change?

Certainly many people have different views, grind is also a much broader term so its obvious you get a lot more different views on it.

The discussion of the meaning was based more on the original meaning rather than now how its used to describe a game of that nature. Before it simply did mean a game that was massively multiplayer, so a game where you had a lot of players in the same area at a time.

Now just having that doesnt make it an MMORPG for obvious reasons, so its a more a discussion on the fact that the game isnt massively multiplayer rather than it not having MMORPG features.

Well the ability to customize and change your char through online play fits into any online RPG, regardless of if its MMORPG, CORPG etc Hell even some online FPS have the options to customize chars, skills, eq etc.

And again playing with others goes for any online game.

So by your 2 main features some FPS are MMORPGS.


And thats why we have different genres that are accepted by a common defenition, yes there is wiggle room and features cross over.

But GW is most deffinately in its own category of CORPG, hell the main reason being its the game that created that category. CORPG is now another accepted genre, generally considered a sub genre or split off from MMORPGs due to the obvious similarities.


As I said before, its very much like FPS-Z. A lot of players will say FPS-Z games are FPS games. Because they are again very similar.
That however doesnt make them not FPS-Z games. Thats the point of the different category for them. The difference may be small but its enough of a change to the core gameplay for it to be different.

Have to admit, I've never heard the term FPS-Z.

Is that the term for the new MMOFPSRPG games?


The more I think about it, the more I hate the whole term "Massive Multiplayer Online." And the acronym MMORPG is just rediculous.

Someone needs to come up with a better name, with a pronounceable acronym for bonus points.

Worst part of persistant areas, for sure. Hopefully, Anet will think of someway around it, the obvious being no quests that require you to wait for something to respawn.

An FPS-Z is simply a FPS that makes heavy use of the Z axis.
Normally done through the use of jet packs and such.

So you can see how on the surface its a fairly small difference but when you get down into it, its a core game change that really does effect gameplay.

Ah, OK. The fact I never even knew that kind of reinforces my point I don't think many people care about the technical differences between a MMORPG or CORPG.

Back to the blending of RPG with FPS...

what do you think these new persistant characters in FPS games should be called?

Well, I consider GW an MORPG (dropping the "massive" because it doesn't really fit) and WoW an MMORPG. The purpose of any term is to convey as clearly as possible some meaning to as many people as possible. Most people know what is meant by "MMORPG" and "MORPG" and that's good enough for me. The rest is just ... pointless semantics, in my opinion. Like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

--TOTALLY OFF TOPIC--
Mordakai, have you run Deadmines yet? I am curious to find out what you think of the instanced part of WoW. When it "works", instancing in WoW can be very very good. It's just getting it to work that was always a problem for me. Like getting all the planets -- time, people, etc. -- to align in a particular way. Van Cleef and his crew, well, it's a fun dungeon. Good luck with it, if you haven't already been. And bear in mind that after killing many of the bosses a patrol sneaks up on your group from behind.

--BACK ON TOPIC--
So ... it's settled. GW is a MORPG. (Aren't you glad you have me to settle the matter once and for all? )

It depends on what the emphasis of the gameplay is, I guess. Bioshock has few RPG elements into it but it mostly just feels like a (very kick ass) shooter. Mass Effect has a very deep character creation and customization system so it feels more like an RPG.

So, if it focuses more on player skill and blowing stuff up, just a shooter. The more deep you get into customization and advancement, the more it becomes an RPG.