Quality of Guild Wars. - Guild Wars Guru archive powered by Guild Wars Legacy

Glider of chaos

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: Jul 2006

A/N

19 May 2008 at 05:48 - 41

Quote:

Originally Posted by aapo

- I was talking about depth = quality.

Ability to stop, save, rewind, fastforward observer mode match.
Seeing what hexes, conditions, skillbar, energy levels players have on observer.
Fun minigames and other events with other people. Standing on Guild Hall all day gets boring.

That's quality!

Yeh, that's quality.
I, for one, really want an ability to record demos to analyze them later

. Events are kinda lacking as well... but as I said GW isn't perfect

Quote:

Originally Posted by aapo

- I was talking about depth = quality.

Making those NPCs acknowledge that you are/aren't the world-saving hero of people.

That's quality!

Wrong!
That's just bells and whistles. They are nice to have but there's no impact on depth

Quote:

Originally Posted by aapo

- I was talking about depth = quality.

Allowing free target by mouse cursor for that Firestorm.
Trophies that have some purpose in the game, not just collector stuff.
Experience not being meaningless after level 20.

That's quality!

Sorry, that's game design decisions that shape the rules. Rules have some impact on depth of coarse but you can't list em in quality list

Quote:

Originally Posted by aapo

- Chess and checkers are the epitomes of quality games! Show me a person who can make a game that remains popular thousands of years, can be ported to any system and played IRL. Where rules are so simple to learn and there's nothing arbitrary about them. The game offers vast tactical depth and even helps to alleviate symptoms of Alzheimer's disease. I tell you the one who discovered Chess is a fricking genius.

Exactly. And there's almost no features you spoke of in chess. The thing is that chess almost perfectly balanced tactical pvp game

Ec]-[oMaN

Desert Nomad

Join Date: May 2005

Toronto, Ont.

[DT][pT][jT][Grim][Nion]

W/

19 May 2008 at 05:52 - 42

Quote:

Originally Posted by aapo

- *sigh* I guess you're right after all. If you want cheap and fast car you want two cars. Quality costs money, servers cost money, support team costs money. No monthly fee means that the company doesn't have much. They're hiring newbies there and the selling argument after all is "no monthly fee". But it's a strange thing, I've never paid more than 50€ for any game I can remember and you can see how different the effort has been for some.

I've said this many times in the past, and I'll ask you the same, "Name me one pay to play game that you enjoyed and also thought the money you were paying out was justified" Sadly I can't name one. Furthermore ones justifications on what makes something of "importance or of good quality" will differ from person to person. My idea of a quality game will differ greatly from yours or the next guy.

aapo

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Apr 2006

19 May 2008 at 06:26 - 43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ec]-[oMaN

I've said this many times in the past, and I'll ask you the same, "Name me one pay to play game that you enjoyed and also thought the money you were paying out was justified" Sadly I can't name one.

- I can't either. It seems that companies want to run dedicated servers for their MMORPGs and that's taking all the cash. Also the restrains of having x number of people on certain instance adds extra limits to the actual game design. Some games have so involving storyline it almost feels like you're reading a book with multiple choices.

I've tried to tell that software companies should just focus on making quality core for games. It's rather incredible that audience of millions is still treated as passive consumers in 2008! Think about the wasted potential. How many of us would not like to have custom GvG tournaments? You know, adjust skill selection, select your guildhall, input your own VoD times and archer strengths. If the game is based on instances (for the record Diablo II was), then where's the map editor? Warcraft III had campaign edition and you could do anything from layout to AI to scripted events. Some play six hours a day and love the game, only to see it go to waste by mismanagement. "If you don't like it go buy WoW". Some fat guy at ANET decides what's appropriate skillbalances and overdoes them every time. I really don't get it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ec]-[oMaN

Furthermore ones justifications on what makes something of "importance or of good quality" will differ from person to person. My idea of a quality game will differ greatly from yours or the next guy.

- That's true also. I'd like to ask what was ANET's idea of quality on Polymock and Jade Quarry? How easy the latter would be to fix. Put a little speed on the carrier, adjust proper strength, have hex reduction.

mazey vorstagg

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Aug 2006

Nodnol

Meeting of Lost Minds

E/Mo

19 May 2008 at 06:32 - 44

Have you played wow?

All the skills there are either red bar up or red bar down. In GW at least there's variation, and skills requiring thought.

Not that I don't love wow....

Avarre

Bubblegum Patrol

Join Date: Dec 2005

Singapore Armed Forces

19 May 2008 at 06:35 - 45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malice Black

True MMO's have world PvP, which makes the game a whole lot more interesting. The AoC PvP players laugh at GW arena PvP.

World PvP is a terrible idea for GW. Guild Wars classes are built differently than other games - they are not balanced to any level on a solo basic, only full group setups are. Any form of open World PvP would just result in certain 1-class gimmicks ganking people.

Arena combat fits Guild Wars much better as it allows balance for group setups, and hence competitive play. World PvP almost always is not a fair setup for competition. Other MMO players can laugh at it all they like, but the fact remains arena play is going to be more skillful at the upper tier.

Overall, I'd say the PvE quality is quite low - it's pretty, but has little depth. That's not necessarily a bad thing if you take the assumption Guild Wars wasn't meant to be a full PvE game. The PvP stood out as extremely high quality at first, this has declined somewhat. Now PvE is the focus, but the quality of it remains poor.

Longasc

Forge Runner

Join Date: May 2005

19 May 2008 at 06:42 - 46

A very interesting read (@OP).

I think you are right, we could use some more quality. Skills competing with each other so much with only 8 slots available has become more and more an issue with every new expansion. The "good 9th skill" has become common, a good skill, but there are 8 better ones for the build.

In general, we have skills that are used very often, and hundreds of skills that are rarely used at all. I think we could really do with less, but more diverse and interesting skills.

But many other games are exactly like that, too - they are not that diverse.
Take EQ, EQ2, Lineage and WoW - they are combat oriented games, following the level-up philosophy started by EQ.

I think the stone-old Ultima Online was the first true MMO ever, and was much advanced than many modern day MMOs and MMO-like games. I still see Guild Wars more as a spiced up Diablo than a fully fledged MMO, btw.

Ultima Online offered and still offers crafting, housing, and role-playing to an extent that has no parallel in the more straight forward quest driven combat oriented xp grinders. (The game client has been overhauled twice or thrice already, but its still old fashioned nowadays)

Still, these the more simple mmos are the standard nowadays.

Do not expect too much from GW and similar games, mazey put it bluntly, compared to the other games out there GW is not that bad.

PvE in GW is quite simple and could really use some love. The focus has shifted more towards PvE, but it has not been reflected in general pve design as much as people would like it. Ursan Blessing and making the game ever easier does not work given the nature of making builds and decisions in GW. I hope they make PvE a bit more challenging and offer more options than the mostly mindless grind titles they added.

tmakinen

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Nov 2005

www.mybearfriend.net

Servants of Fortuna [SoF]

E/

19 May 2008 at 06:49 - 47

My issue with the OP is that s/he tries to prove that a washing machine can't be considered a quality oven. While certainly true, it is also absurdly misguided. I could make a similar list showing that GW is not a quality FPS game, or a quality puzzle game, or a quality Tetris clone. Sheesh, can't ANet devs do anything right? You wouldn't think that one can fail at something as simple as Tetris but regardless of how much I play GW I can't find the first falling block. Clearly, this game is lacking depth!

arcanemacabre

Grotto Attendant

Join Date: Feb 2006

North Kryta Province

Angel Sharks [As]

19 May 2008 at 06:54 - 48

It's not that I don't agree with you, aapo, because I do to an extent, I just don't see any point in this thread. You've summed up all of Sardelac (well, select ideas - some of the better ones, maybe some not as good for GW), but it accomplishes nothing that Sardelac itself already does, which is not much at all. If anything, Anet agrees with you, which is why they are scrapping GW in favor of a total revamp of a sequel. Time will tell just how much they will fix with GW2, but until then, you can't expect them to go all out and fix a bunch of stuff in their current product.

As far as getting what you pay for - I disagree. I have personally gotten way more than I paid for, in my opinion. No game is perfect, but what I paid for GW (all chapters/expansions, secondary acct, etc.), it was close enough, and I have nothing to complain about there. Anet went above and beyond for the pricetag, and continue to do so with [relatively] regular free updates.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aapo

"If you don't like it go buy WoW"

That's just a terrible, terrible suggestion. If you don't like it, go buy AoC.

dunky_g

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Dec 2005

[SNOW]

19 May 2008 at 09:26 - 49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevin

Ignore that guy's post, he has trouble reading anything longer then a sentence.

I for one agree with your post, lets just hope Anet adds the extra few man hours to make GW2 a truly unique experience.

No.

I just doubt the things the OP is saying wont be implied because there too different to how GW is now, and I doubt that Anet will deviate from the origional game play that dramaticaly, considering its how they have managed to shift 6million+ copies of the 1st game.

Phoenix Tears

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Feb 2007

19 May 2008 at 13:48 - 50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinraith

GW's an action RPG, and in that it succeeds marvelously. If you want an MMO, go play one. Some of us are very happy that this isn't one.

which pills have you eaten to see in GW an action RPG ? lol Want some too and maybe also the pink red miracle glasses on top of your nose that lets you see things, how they are not in reality

Would Guild Wars be a Action RPG, then its gameplay would be alot more like console games ala Devil May Cry, Chaos Legion, FF7 Dirge of Cerberus, Gothic 1-3, Drakan 1&2, Parasite Eve 1-2, Kingdom Hearts 1-2, The Elder Scrolls Oblivion, Drakengard 1-2 ...

or like upcoming MMO's a la Evan online
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjeFznDIXnY

thats a real Online action RPG !! and I hope really, that the battle system of GW2 will become alot more like that of this game, because such gameplay makes alot more fun and is alot more entertaining, than the crap boring battle system that GW1 has, which looks like as if children play with toy soldiers - so borign that you could fall asleep instantly, when looking at it too long, because Guild Wars's gameplay as ZERO Action Elements

JR

Re:tired

Join Date: Nov 2005

W/

19 May 2008 at 14:18 - 51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malice Black

The AoC PvP players laugh at GW arena PvP.

They don't understand or appreciate balanced arena PvP, or competitive games. They just want to run around with the buds and gank people. It's a different kind of game, and you can't really compare the two.

Honestly Malice your trolling and shameless promotion of AoC is just getting tiresome. Yes it's probably going to be a decent game, but there's really no need to mention it in virtually every post you make.

Kakumei

Forge Runner

Join Date: Jul 2005

Grind is subjective

learn this please

19 May 2008 at 14:29 - 52

I'm not going to read the thread, there's no point, your OP is awful enough that I'm just going to address it and not any replies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aapo

Let's just start by defining what 'quality' means here. I think the the word "effort" makes a pretty good mental image of what it means to make a quality work. You see it on small things. So small it almost feels subconscious. Color codes in item names, different modifications in items, different ways to get a task done. When you're holding a big hammer it "feels" like you're holding a big hammer.

Quality != details. Additional small details can occasionally be an indicator of quality, but the two are definitely not the same.

Quote:

Poor quality FPS makes no distinction of hit location.

Uh, no? An unrealistic FPS makes no distinction of hit location. That's completely unrelated to quality.

Would you call Doom "lacking in quality"? A large amount of gamers would consider Doom one of the best FPS games in history--myself among them--and there was definitely no distinction of hit location in Doom.

Quote:

Some developers may think that bothering with small things - adding couple of extra animations and variations is inconsequential, but it has huge subconscious effect on players' minds.

This is pretty accurate, but doesn't really have anything to do with quality.

Quote:

Staying on the FPS example, good quality game takes care of the small things. There is distinction in hit location and the game code also places semantic importance of certain locations on body. For example getting hit on leg might reduce movement speed and result in tilt on camera balance, whereas getting hit on hand might result to unability to use weapon for a short moment. First part of making quality is thus making distinction.

NO NO NO NO NO NO

I hate people who push this kind of thing in games. I'm not saying having it is a sign of poor quality, but nor is it a sign of good quality. I, personally, cannot stand the more "realistic" FPS games. Realism isn't quality isn't fun.

Quote:

There's myriad of other examples of poor quality:
- Characters move at same speed, have same dialogue and other modifiers

Having all characters move at the same speed makes balance easier. Differing speeds for different classes might add an additional layer of depth, but I don't know if that layer would be a fun one, or balanced well at all.

Quote:

- Many areas of the game have monsters with same 3d-model.

No argument here. :\ Same problem with the newer armor sets--you guys make beautiful armor art, Anet, just quit reusing the old meshes.

Quote:

- Quest structure is "go there, get/kill this, come back" always.

This is a problem with RPGs in general, not just Guild Wars. It's not at all an easy problem to fix, either.

Quote:

- There is little interraction with other players, emotes should be more usable.

Because having people come over and /kneel in front of me and say "lol suking ur cok" isn't annoying enough already.

Very little of your post has anything to do with quality--it reads far more like every other laundry list of "why can't GW be more like other MMOs??????"

Nightmares Hammer

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: Dec 2007

W/

19 May 2008 at 14:39 - 53

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

Honestly Malice your trolling and shameless promotion of AoC is just getting tiresome. Yes it's probably going to be a decent game, but there's really no need to mention it in virtually every post you make.

Finally, someone gets it...

As for the OP: shouldn't this be closed? All he's doing is trolling GW.

Targren

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Aug 2007

Primeval Warlords[wuw]

R/

19 May 2008 at 14:51 - 54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esan

Also, GW1 has been end-of-lifed for over a year. If you still want to complain about it, feel free, but no one really cares, least of all Anet.

I do not think that means what you think it means.

EoTN was released in August of last year.
Latest update released was last week.

Killed u man

Forge Runner

Join Date: Feb 2006

19 May 2008 at 14:56 - 55

Can we just close the thread with a big fat note stating: "You get what you pay for"

For the GW-fanboys (I don't mean well reasoned people, I mean retards who will still suck Anet's ... even if they made Ursan do triple amounts of damage):
GW isn't as godly as you praise it to be, there is WAY better PvP games out there. Heck, I myself concider GW one of the "worst" PvP games when it comes down to skill (Ever since NF, it's 95% skill bar, and 5% skill)

For the GW-haters:
You guys are still here, arn't you? You're still playing the game, arn't you? Anet DID do an amazing job creating this game. Don't compare it to pay MMo's, because that's simply unfair towards GW. GW is a good game (that did in fact deteriorate when more compaigns were added ) that gives U MORE than what U pay for.

Bryant Again

Hall Hero

Join Date: Feb 2006

19 May 2008 at 15:30 - 56

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

They don't understand or appreciate balanced arena PvP, or competitive games. They just want to run around with the buds and gank people. It's a different kind of game, and you can't really compare the two.

Honestly Malice your trolling and shameless promotion of AoC is just getting tiresome. Yes it's probably going to be a decent game, but there's really no need to mention it in virtually every post you make.

I like to quote the truth.

I will say I liked the mention of having too many skills in Aapo's op. While it's good to have a large assessment of skills, it's hard to attain a focus of variety. While Guild Wars is still pretty solid in terms of PvP, I felt that there were additions to the game that made balance and other aspects of it a bit negative...I guess, for me, it's hard to explain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kakumei

Uh, no? An unrealistic FPS makes no distinction of hit location. That's completely unrelated to quality.

Would you call Doom "lacking in quality"? A large amount of gamers would consider Doom one of the best FPS games in history--myself among them--and there was definitely no distinction of hit location in Doom.

Example: TF2. Most fun I've had with an FPS since I was introduced to the Doom series (nothing beats Doom 2), and unrealistic as hell.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kakumei

This is a problem with RPGs in general, not just Guild Wars. It's not at all an easy problem to fix, either.

Ever notice how most quests in Oblivion are "go here, do this", yet I haven't heard a single complaint about them? I guess it depends on how "interesting" they make the quests, with Oblivion's way of making them "interesting" is having every conversation is voice acted.

moriz

??ber t??k-n??sh'??n

Join Date: Jan 2006

Canada

R/

19 May 2008 at 15:38 - 57

why GW is a high quality game:

A: looks very good
B: runs on everything

that there shows real programming skill. for instance, GW is newer than L2, yet have lower system requirements, and runs a lot smoother. it also runs smoother than WoW and looks better at the same time.

until AoC can run on my aging P4 with fx5500 PCI, it is NOT a higher quality game.

Ctb

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Apr 2006

W/

19 May 2008 at 16:32 - 58

Quote:

True MMO's have world PvP, which makes the game a whole lot more interesting.

The no true Scotsmen argument, eh? How many people do you think are going to fall for such a weak refutation?

Quote:

The AoC PvP players laugh at GW arena PvP.

All six of them?

Seriously, enough. Your constant trolling for AoC is so irritating I have a bad opinion of the game already, and I don't think I've ever even seen a preview for it.

DarkNecrid

Furnace Stoker

Join Date: Jul 2006

19 May 2008 at 16:52 - 59

Quote:

Originally Posted by moriz

why GW is a high quality game:

A: looks very good
B: runs on everything

that there shows real programming skill. for instance, GW is newer than L2, yet have lower system requirements, and runs a lot smoother. it also runs smoother than WoW and looks better at the same time.

until AoC can run on my aging P4 with fx5500 PCI, it is NOT a higher quality game.

QFT!

Hell, I play it at 20-40fps on an SiS Mirage2 and 512MB of RAM so...

Iuris

Forge Runner

Join Date: Nov 2006

Crazy ducks from the Forest

W/

19 May 2008 at 16:55 - 60

I disagree with the OP's core definition of quality.

Quality of a game is not the accuracy of the game's simulation, nor is it the presence/absence of any specific feature. One may have a quality game that does not simulate specific hit location and does not simulate fishing - it's how well the fishing part of a game is implemented that determines quality.

GW intentionally did not implement item creation in the way other games did. Whis is a design decision - GW is not supposed to be about mining or fishing. It's also not about being able to hit an opponent's eye.

What GW is about is really... GW. What it set out to do, it has done very well, with great success.

Killed u man

Forge Runner

Join Date: Feb 2006

19 May 2008 at 17:07 - 61

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iuris

I disagree with the OP's core definition of quality.

Quality of a game is not the accuracy of the game's simulation, nor is it the presence/absence of any specific feature. One may have a quality game that does not simulate specific hit location and does not simulate fishing - it's how well the fishing part of a game is implemented that determines quality.

GW intentionally did not implement item creation in the way other games did. Whis is a design decision - GW is not supposed to be about mining or fishing. It's also not about being able to hit an opponent's eye.

What GW is about is really... GW. What it set out to do, it has done very well, with great success.

Whereas I agree that GW is a good game, you can hardly say it has done it's objectives with "great succes"...

It WAS supposed to be a PvP game, now it's based on PvE, that clearly seeing what a joke PvP has become. Every format is ruled by gimmicks (A/D spikes even in GvG) and it's barely PvP no more... (Rock Paper Scissor ftw?)

Read my prev. post to learn I'm not a hater, and I surely appreciate what GW has achieved, but lately, I find more "PvP-satisfaction" in Runescape...

I'm rly sorry to come of so aggressive, but I really hate this blind favoratism that's been going on lately. (I don't know, iz them peeps trying to getz an invite to GW2 Beta?)

The recurring arguement is ALWAYS that U don't have to pay monthly fees.
However, when U purely look at the game, the fact that U DON'T have to pay doesn't matter. And when U look at GW like that, it doesn't even live up to the shadow of the PvP game Anet promised it to be in 2005...

Rocky Raccoon

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Jan 2007

Massachusetts, USA

Guardians of the Cosmos

R/Mo

19 May 2008 at 17:30 - 62

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightmares Hammer

Finally, someone gets it...

As for the OP: shouldn't this be closed? All he's doing is trolling GW.

I just thought if you ignored him he would go way, was I wrong.

To the OP, all people have different levels of acceptable quality.

Edge Martinez

Jungle Guide

Join Date: May 2005

NC

DKL

19 May 2008 at 17:45 - 63

Visually, Guildwars is stunning. No problem on quality there. For some reason I always get 60 fps, give or take 3. Doesn't matter if I set it at lowest settings, or highest with full aa.

Plotwise, I think Guildwars does as good, if not a better job with an overall storyline than anything out there.

The Guildwars experience? Of like six different minds here, but to sum it up, PvE is really starting to get boring with all the 'must have' builds. Ursan is really killing it for me. PvP is kind of the same way, but I don't really mind the fixed builds for HoH. Lesser PvP, like RA and TA is where I spend most of the time, because of the variety. And lastly, AB's are always fun, but they get a bit tiresome with not much map rotation.

Pricewise? GW rules all.

So overall, GW is very high in quality on my list. The best part is I get to keep playing with the same folks I've gamed with for almost 10 years, and there's something about the game we all like, even if it's not the same thing.

I really don't see what the heck quantity has to do with this.

~ Dan ~

Forge Runner

Join Date: Dec 2006

D/

19 May 2008 at 18:07 - 64

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ctb

All six of them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numerous Sources

Funcom and Eidos are proud to confirm some of the impressive figures powering the Age of Conan launch, and the two companies are happy to reveal that the Age of Conan Beta has passed 1 million sign-ups! As one of the most anticipated MMO’s ever, the 1 million mark confirms the amazing interest in the game.

In addition to the incredible beta numbers, Funcom confirms that almost 800.000 gamers have signed up for the Clan of Conan newsletter.

Last week alone over 725.000 unique visitors came to the Age of Conan sites.

Oh yes, all 6 of them.

Seriously, don't hate the game because you can't accept it will be better than GW.

Quote:

Originally Posted by moriz

until AoC can run on my aging P4 with fx5500 PCI, it is NOT a higher quality game.

inorite

I wish a nintendo 64 had xbox 360 graphics.

aapo

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Apr 2006

19 May 2008 at 18:10 - 65

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iuris

Quality of a game is not the accuracy of the game's simulation, nor is it the presence/absence of any specific feature. One may have a quality game that does not simulate specific hit location and does not simulate fishing - it's how well the fishing part of a game is implemented that determines quality.

- That's exactly what I'm talking about! Finally someone gets it. I was using realism as an example of quality for game where it would fit and improve the playing experience. Doom was a good game because it revolutionalized the whole FPS genre. Every game for 2 years past that was referred as "Doom clone with something extra". Same thing for level-up system. It was hugely popular and everyone and their brother wanted their games to have level-up system. Even GW copies the level-up system, but this seems sloppy decision for it has no impact outside the starting island in the last 2 chapters of the game. Everyone's level 20 = redundant attribute = bad. How many things make other things obsolete? 100 skills when 20 are actually viable = bad. 5 different level armor when max armor is available at start -> people go get max armor -> 4 other level armors become redundant = bad.

Why design something that is generally not used or has no significance for players? That is the question.

I am not saying that GW should or should not have level-up system. Whatever the game has, we can evaluate how well it works in itself. If thing works well, is popular and enjoyable it is generally of good quality.

MarlinBackna

Krytan Explorer

Join Date: May 2007

[TAM]

W/

19 May 2008 at 18:43 - 66

Quote:

I find more "PvP-satisfaction" in Runescape...

Take that back. Runescape's PvP was screwed to hell after that update. PvP in Runescape is now just dumb, along with its communist economy.
/endrant

Quote:

when max armor is available at start

It technically isn't. The game was not designed for you to get max armor at first. Running/ferrying is not a result of the design, it is a result of the players wanting to play the game as fast as they could and exploiting the game to do so.

Quote:

Everyone's level 20 = redundant attribute = bad

What would you rather, 100 levels? I love the fact that everyone is at the same level and that power is determined by skill and not time. Elitism in that sense was thrown out because of that, and it stopped the formation of elitism in GW until titles were made (which were basically levels anyway).

You could say many things about GW's "redundancy", but there is one thing that is true: it is simply the logistical bullcrap that accompanies the game. Every game has it so the game doesn't turned into a exploited screw-fest. It keeps order and structure to the game. Unfortunately, the result is running, ferrying, scamming, hacking, duping, etc. because some people refuse to play the game and want to play their game. These people makes the game seem low quality, when it is really the people.

Rocky Raccoon

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Jan 2007

Massachusetts, USA

Guardians of the Cosmos

R/Mo

19 May 2008 at 18:44 - 67

Quote:

Originally Posted by aapo

I am not saying that GW should or should not have level-up system. Whatever the game has, we can evaluate how well it works in itself. If thing works well, is popular and enjoyable it is generally of good quality.

I have been able to play the game with no problems (works well), multi-million units of Guild Wars sold (popular), many players going on 3 years (must be enjoyable); seems to me Guild Wars must be a quality game using your parameters.

Krill

Desert Nomad

Join Date: May 2005

America

19 May 2008 at 18:49 - 68

I have no idea what to make of the OP.

But, most people who have played this game for awhile are smart enough to know that once anet has your money everything else is of relatively low priority. That's why it's always taken months (if ever) to get desperately needed balancing. That's why in three years there has only been one big free add on to an existing title (Sorrow's Furnace). And that's why each of the expansion titles has upped the stupidity factor with expansion classes.

People who have played other game franchises, particular FPS ones, know that developers are fated to destroy their game. Unreal Tournament is the perfect example of a franchise that went from the premier game of its type (UT99) to a disaster (UT3). I suppose by that standard GW isn't as bad, but it certainly isn't still the same game it was in the summer of 2005, even though there was a lot of problems with the original game.

moriz

??ber t??k-n??sh'??n

Join Date: Jan 2006

Canada

R/

19 May 2008 at 18:49 - 69

so you think the minimal level progression had "no significance"? that's rather false.

the level progression does wonders for beginners who needs to get a feel of the game. the same goes with the starter armor progressions as well. not everyone is a veteran who's impatient to outfit their newest character. for the beginners, the level progression and different armor levels allows them to immerse in the GW world a lot better.

Ctb

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Apr 2006

W/

19 May 2008 at 18:58 - 70

Quote:

Seriously, don't hate the game because you can't accept it will be better than GW.

Holy flaming fanboyism, batman, don't hurt yourself, it was just a joke.

And "better than Guild Wars"? Yea, well, I realize all AoC has going for it right now is an insane level of fanboyism from a vocal minority who think they're a movement because there are a few hundred of them posting on video games boards right now, but I'll go ahead and reserve my own judgment until I've actually seen the game. Vanguard: Saga of Heroes had a crap ton of fanboy support and lots of "initial interest" at its start as well, but it was still a pile of steaming crap and fell flat on its face once the saner elements of the gaming world finally got to actually see it.

Again: I'll wait until I see the game. Website statistics and newsletters sign ups don't do squat to prove it's a worthwhile purchase. Giving the level of teeth-gnashing surrounding AoC, I'm not going to get my hopes up. Whenever you get fanboys screaming at this level, it's more often than not because it's an inferior product and they're hoping that if they yell loud enough nobody will notice its massive defects.

moriz

??ber t??k-n??sh'??n

Join Date: Jan 2006

Canada

R/

19 May 2008 at 19:20 - 71

i think the real reason why anyone would call GW a "poor quality" game, is because they are comparing a 3-year-old game with current standards. obviously that's an unfair comparison, and tbh, GW actually stands up to that comparison quite well.

the problem with GW is that you can't really compare it to anything. yes it's classified as a mmo, but it bears almost no resemblance to WoW nor L2, or any "classical" mmorpg, so you can't really do that comparison. GW actually compares quite well to diablo2. however, diablo2 is now 7-8 years old and makes for a very unfair comparison.

what we can all hope to agree on, is that GW is the first of its genre. despite its flaws (many of them have to do with how it is managed, not how it is developed and executed), GW is amazingly fun to play for its price point. don't know about you guys, but GW will forever be one of my favourite games of all times, as it will for many of you. that in itself, should be enough to classify it as a high quality game.

Ctb

Desert Nomad

Join Date: Apr 2006

W/

19 May 2008 at 19:26 - 72

Quote:

what we can all hope to agree on, is that GW is the first of its genre.

I don't think you can go that far. It's a variant on MMO themes. I don't think it's close to divergent enough to classify it as a whole new genre.

moriz

??ber t??k-n??sh'??n

Join Date: Jan 2006

Canada

R/

19 May 2008 at 19:32 - 73

GW looks like a MMO on the surface. under the hood and gameplay wise, it's much closer to a FPS-RTS cross than a MMO. so i think it is divergent enough.

~ Dan ~

Forge Runner

Join Date: Dec 2006

D/

19 May 2008 at 19:35 - 74

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ctb

Holy flaming fanboyism, batman, don't hurt yourself, it was just a joke.

And "better than Guild Wars"? Yea, well, I realize all AoC has going for it right now is an insane level of fanboyism from a vocal minority who think they're a movement because there are a few hundred of them posting on video games boards right now, but I'll go ahead and reserve my own judgment until I've actually seen the game. Vanguard: Saga of Heroes had a crap ton of fanboy support and lots of "initial interest" at its start as well, but it was still a pile of steaming crap and fell flat on its face once the saner elements of the gaming world finally got to actually see it.

Again: I'll wait until I see the game. Website statistics and newsletters sign ups don't do squat to prove it's a worthwhile purchase. Giving the level of teeth-gnashing surrounding AoC, I'm not going to get my hopes up. Whenever you get fanboys screaming at this level, it's more often than not because it's an inferior product and they're hoping that if they yell loud enough nobody will notice its massive defects.

Because i don't suck up and <3 GW, i'm an AoC fanboy? Going by potential and hype at least, it looks to be the next big thing. Content wise, it looks to offer more than GW. And if Funcom aren't a bunch of retarded geeks, they won't screw it up such as Anet did with GW. But yeah, we'll wait to see how it does after release.

There are faults with every single game. I accept that with AoC, which alone means i'm not a fanboy. However, most of this forum needs to open their eyes and realise GW isn't perfect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by moriz

i think the real reason why anyone would call GW a "poor quality" game, is because they are comparing a 3-year-old game with current standards. obviously that's an unfair comparison, and tbh, GW actually stands up to that comparison quite well.

Sure, GW is doing well if you consider it's a 3 year old game. But then, so is D2. But that isn't an excuse when comparing. The fact is there are more games out since, so argueing that GW is better because it's free and can run on crap PC's, isn't viable.

Dr Strangelove

Furnace Stoker

Join Date: Dec 2005

Wasting away again in Margaritaville

[HOTR]

19 May 2008 at 19:39 - 75

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ctb

I don't think you can go that far. It's a variant on MMO themes. I don't think it's close to divergent enough to classify it as a whole new genre.

No monthly fees in an MMO is what makes GW unique.

To that end, AoC could be the best game in the world, but I'll never play it because of the monthly fees. Monthly fees are one of the most abusive payments plans possible for a video game. Not only that, developers design games to maximize the income from monthly fees by dragging out the game and adding grind instead of making their game fun.

Bryant Again

Hall Hero

Join Date: Feb 2006

19 May 2008 at 19:41 - 76

The only thing that really springs to mind as "groundbreaking" would be skillbars. Aside from that, it feels like a traditional hack-and-slash RPG that can only be played online. Not to say that this is bad, since the game is fun as hell.

The "free to play" payment method isn't revolutionary when you think about it. Each chapter is just another expansion pack, although the stand-alone feature is pretty nifty.

Monthly fees aren't *just* there to eat up your wallet, you know. While there is an opportunity for the developers to earn a bit more cash from your account, they do a hell of a lot more than good. Having GM's in every server is just one of the many perks.

@Avarre, since I missed it: WoW's PvP isn't balanced around 1v1 situations, either. While you can "outskill" a "rock" class as scissors on occasion, if the enemy knows what to do he'll just kill you.

moriz

??ber t??k-n??sh'??n

Join Date: Jan 2006

Canada

R/

19 May 2008 at 19:46 - 77

actually, it is viable. but that isn't the point. the point is, is that GW was THE hottest thing 3 years ago, similar to how AoC is right now. even after 3 years, GW is STILL one of the best mmorpgs (even though it's not really a mmorpg, but i digress) currently, and will go down as one of the best mmos in history. the reason why doom is still considered a good game today, is because people are comparing it to games available at that time. comparing the original doom to, say, TF2, it sucks. same thing with GW vs AoC, or anything today

what AoC will turn out, we don't know for sure. judging by the level of work the developers are putting into it, i'm sure it will be a very good game at the very least. however, my initial prediction is that it will never outsell GW, simply because of its higher requirements. i know i wouldn't consider it, at least until i've built my new computer.

aapo

Wilds Pathfinder

Join Date: Apr 2006

19 May 2008 at 19:47 - 78

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarlinBackna

It technically isn't. The game was not designed for you to get max armor at first. Running/ferrying is not a result of the design, it is a result of the players wanting to play the game as fast as they could and exploiting the game to do so.

- There's two things the game designer could do:
1. Stick with the original idea and close the loophole.
2. Investigate the phenomenon why players want to have max armor at the start and take lessons from it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarlinBackna

Quote:

Everyone's level 20 = redundant attribute = bad

What would you rather, 100 levels?

- Now be honest with me: Do you think the bolded item in that sentence was the key to understanding what I meant?
Why ANET adds levels and then says that level-upping is the devil in RPGs? Adds levels and then nerfs them to say "we don't have level-upping grind here!". That's just silly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarlinBackna

You could say many things about GW's "redundancy", but there is one thing that is true: it is simply the logistical bullcrap that accompanies the game. Every game has it so the game doesn't turned into a exploited screw-fest. It keeps order and structure to the game. Unfortunately, the result is running, ferrying, scamming, hacking, duping, etc. because some people refuse to play the game and want to play their game. These people makes the game seem low quality, when it is really the people.

- Ultimately it's still developers' decision what is possible to do in the game.

darkdreamr

Frost Gate Guardian

Join Date: Oct 2007

beyond the yellow brick road

She Left With Half My [GeAr]

Me/

19 May 2008 at 19:56 - 79

Quote:

Originally Posted by aapo

- I was talking about depth = quality.

Making those NPCs acknowledge that you are/aren't the world-saving hero of people.
Allowing free target by mouse cursor for that Firestorm.
Ability to stop, save, rewind, fastforward observer mode match.
Seeing what hexes, conditions, skillbar, energy levels players have on observer.
Trophies that have some purpose in the game, not just collector stuff.
Experience not being meaningless after level 20.
Fun minigames and other events with other people. Standing on Guild Hall all day gets boring.

That's quality!

I'm sorry, but I think you're confusing the game, with the presentation of the game. As so many people do. Every "quality" issue you mention, from animations to minigames to free targeting spells or changes in game mechanics....is essentially superficial. No game can have every desired feature. It's impossible. But that's not a reason for complaints. Every single game you play comes down to having fun by doing your best within the given constraints and rules.

Why do people play WoW when the graphics are so awful? Because of the gameplay. Sure, they complain about the graphics all day, but when it comes down to it, having fun playing a game comes down to gameplay and not the presentation. That is, the experience you have playing a game is *mostly* due to how the game works, and not how the game looks. (Disclaimer: I hate playing WoW but I digress.) That's why I have more fun playing Wolfenstein: ET than Crysis. Because the gameplay is so much better, it doesn't matter if it's a photorealistic world, or the NPCs can talk, or you have some crazy transparent HUD.

Basically, if you are standing in the Guild Hall all day then you are bored with this game, and you shouldn't look for shiny animations and minigames to rekindle your interest because it is gone. The real game is not Power Attack, 5 energy, 10 recharge, 20 damage. It is the meta of combinations of skills in a bar, combinations of bars in a game, and the strategical and tactical decisions made by every player on every team. From that standpoint, more skills = more combinations = more fun, and you can see that from the fact that there are only a handful of skills that are never used in some build or other.

Yes, little improvements like the ones you mentioned are nice. But they're not what makes a quality game. It sounds to me like you're just bored and need to find a new hobby.

-The Devil's Advocate

doudou_steve

Lion's Arch Merchant

Join Date: Dec 2007

Canada

Guildless QQ

W/

19 May 2008 at 20:06 - 80

i'm getting bored of QQ and *GW is bad , i'll tell you the bad sides!* threads. Can't we make Riverside Inn a happy place?

This is turning into a flamefest.

/close plz

OR

Create a QQ/Whine section .