Quality of Guild Wars.

didn't I win this thread on the first page?

yup, yeah I did.

You're correct, it isn't. However, it is increasingly uncommon for online RPGs to be free-to-play.

In a perfect world, I'd receive 15 dollars worth of content every month I subscribed. In reality, this just doesn't happen. I'm happy to pay developers for their work, especially for continued work on a game I love. I'm not willing to pay money for nothing.

If a game is worth more than 50 bucks for the box, I'll gladly pay that. There's no reason I wouldn't pay 150 dollars for a huge, well-made game.

I'll gladly pay for additional content if I can keep it. 15 dollars should buy me 15 dollars worth of stuff, not rent it.

If you have upkeep costs, I'll pay those. I somewhat doubt they're 15 bucks a month.

If developers choose to have monthly fees, I'd prefer they didn't change their game to maximize the incoming fees. However, this doesn't happen in reality.

Every game has its life cycle. They can't last forever; Even MMO's/CORPG's, or whatever other label you wish to stamp on it. Every game goes through it.

Guild Wars is going through its life cycle too. I still love the game, but I'm honest with myself in knowing that the technology available today, versus 5 years ago, has changed drastically. This game isn't perfect; I have my issues in some areas like many others. The perfect game though will never exist. Yet, I will play as long as I continue to enjoy the game. When that ends, I'll put it away and move on quietly and not hang onto the past. I've said it before - Some players seem to marry their games and when they move onto something else, they treat the old game like a bitter divorce, including Time-Spent arguements and financial investments.



I don't believe this game is dying, nor do I believe it will be dead anytime soon. However, we all know it has passed its pinnacle. That shouldn't be faulted on Anet, but should be just accepted as the natural cycle of online games. The developers know that too, that the peak was reached, otherwise they would not be in development for GW2.

Given such a competitve market though, the fact that Guild Wars has lived a long life and will continue to do so is a sign that it did and continues to do something right in a market where you have higher percentage of having your game fold.

Quality is subjective to each player and comparing personal views of quality to a new release game Vs. Guild Wars is like comparing the quality of GTA 1 against GTA 4. Since the early development of Guild Wars to present day; Technology in developing a game has changed too much.

The cycle will continue 3-5 years from now after GW2 comes out. We'll all have this same conversation about quality, enjoyment, bordem, and state-of-the-art gameplay (PvE and/or PvP) in regards to that game. The only thing a game developer can do is develop a game to current standards upon its expected release date and keep it as innovative as possible until the cycle approaches its end.

Nope, there's like 6,000,000 free MMOs out there. Try again.

GW is by far the best of the F2P games though. Mythos and other such crap just don't compare.

Of course, but you just proved my point: it isn't the F2P that makes it revolutionary.

edit; though mind you mythos is pretty good. Troll with cigar + dual guns = epic win

And they mostly suck, or have microtransactions, making it different than GW. Nice try.
*claps*
That is the point we people that continue playing the game want to make. It is like saying the Model T was a bad car in comparison to a Mustang. The Model T was revolutionary not for being a car, but for being developed differently than any car previous to it. Of course, the Model T had its problems and they were improved over time, but there is only so much you can do to a Model T. So you have the Model U (GW2) :P.

Also, what is the deal with all of these AoC people? No offense, but as I have rationalized my decision to support GW until its death, you guys have rationalized that AoC will blow every MMO out of the water, which is strange for a game that hasn't come out yet. So please, shut up, play AoC for at least a year, then pass judgment on GW vs. AoC.

So much of what the OP said is simply NOT TRUE,that there is little to say in response..

- Well, I'm mainly complaining about lack of features, not what they should be. Those are just examples from the top of my head.
When every enemy in FPS game dies in slightly different way it adds excitement into game. Human brain needs some variation and that's why farming Kurzick points outside Lurgardis is probably the most boring thing to do, but some people think the reward is worth it. For me, the fatal mistake happens when I start to think what should I do after I have that max PvE skill? That's when I start to realize that every area in the game is just a copy of another with different (internally similar) enemies. If I could beat the game without PvE skills, where I need those PvE skills? To have fun one-hit-killing some enemies I previously killed in 3 hits?

When I move my Archer with Woodsmanship I trait to forest square in order to receive 0.5 + 0.2 = 0.7 defense bonus in Civilization IV, it feels like it matters. I can guarantee that if every unit was the same in Civ IV, there would be no traits and no defense bonuses based on terrain, the game would become dull and straightforward as hell. This feeling of dullness is what I among many are experiencing in Guild Wars. Sure, I could change my Survivor insignias to +10 against blunt damage insignias, but what the hell is the point? Guy's hammer does fricking cold damage. I could drop the powerplay attitude and use unpopular skills, but the only effect I would see is drop in killing speed. I could get the next title, but I already have one. Besides there's always someone who plays more than me and who's prancing around in KoaBD6. I could play Random Arenas, but having Monk is too big factor to ignore.

- Exactly. I still play games that are 13 years old, because they were made to be fun. Things the developers put in the game, they put on purpose. Graphics have nothing to do with it. You can show emotes with 16x32 pixel characters if you want to! That's the kind of effort I'm talking about. These days we have beautiful graphic engines and software companies who couldn't give crap about how fun their games will be. A few selling lines on the box and off you go.

- Yes. There is an issue when skills are so similar that it's not worth taking some skills ever. Making battles 80% about your equipped skillbar is of course a choice made, since after all you can't dodge that lightning or run away if snared. When that Shadow Shroud hits you, either you got Holy Veil superglued on your bar or you're a dead Monk.

Counter-strike (for the sake of an example): Use grenades HE/flash/smoke, take cover, call teammates, get in firing position. There's lot of possibilities to get out of sticky situations. Possibilities make a good game. Guild Wars' problems aren't even that hard to solve, the system is just made to be too rigid. Adding random chance would be a good start.

It's more uncommon to see RPGs be online only. I've found Guild Wars to have more intact with Titan's Quest or Diablo 2 than any other MMO I've seen.

I'm not sure what you mean by "pay money for nothing". That money goes in many places besides Blizzards wallets. If you feel that the wallop load of content they've provided for the past few years is "nothing", then I'm *really* lost.

Regarding the rest, the worth of the game is what you make it. But all in all, it's hard to call monthly fees "wrong" when you don't have to play the game (even though I know that's not what you said, just providing a message to others).

Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this sentence...?

I don't think the OP understands what quality is, even in an apparent "effort" context.

Perhaps it is my expertise in business that influences this outlook, i don't know.

this is pretty much why i respect every post Dr Strangelove makes

Age of Conan, lol

All you noobs can be proud of the fact that you will be paying $15 a month to continue beta testing that game.

Maybe one day it will have something going for it besides graphics.

1 million beta signups? I signed up 8 or 10 times myself, go figure

700,000 unique visitors? Not much for a highly publicised launch IMO.

Servers overloaded............Check
3 day early play scam.................Check
Unbalanced Skills................Check
Cookie Cutter builds...............Check
Little Kids in a "mature" enviroment..........Check
More fun than Guild Wars........................Blank

I think the OP mistakes Quality for Complexity.

GW is simple.

As simple as Chess.

With hundreds of Idiots believing that they are Grandmaster's.

Online games are a relatively new market, but I'd argue they're vastly overtaking offline games. There's simply a lot more money in it for developers. Major titles that remain completely offline like Oblivion are something of a dying breed.

At any rate, that wasn't my point. I enjoy online games because I like other people (despite what you might guess from my trolling here). I like RPGs because they tend to provide a lot of playtime for my money. It's exceedingly rare to find a truly free-to-play online RPG that doesn't suck horribly. This doesn't count microtransaction games or "optional" subscription games.


Blizzard has produced tons of stuff over the last few years for their players. However, if you stop subscribing, you don't have any rights to any of it. You own nothing, and you can't play with what you've already spent money on.

I used to have the idea that monthly fee games can be worth the extra money if they provide content to justify the 15 bucks. I've subscribed to Eve, WoW, and Hellgate: London in the past. The fact is, a 3 month subscription costs the same as a new game. Therefore, a subscription game should provide a full game's worth of content every 3 months. This doesn't happen anywhere. Frankly, it's probably impossible given that top-tier MMOs take years to produce, so it's unlikely they'll make a full new game in 3 months. Even if it did happen, it's still a poor value for my money, since I'd be able to keep a new game forever, while I can't keep my 3 months of content.

Don't get me wrong, all the games I mentioned above are good games, that isn't the issue. The issue is getting good value for my money.

He's ragging on the Scots, hang him!

I really can't say it better.

Don't like it? Play a different game, no one will miss you.

I'm playing GW for 3 years now, haven't played any others, I'd say its a high quality game.

- Ganni

Great post Sonata. I've been trying to articulate this for the longest time. I also liked your comparison of how players "marry and divorce" their games

Yes, players need to learn to adapt with their games, not the other way around.

In the world of gaming, some of us are destined to be polygamists.

^quote of the century

I really doubt it. The only revolutionary change in gaming tech since 2003 is the advent of DirectX 10. Every other change has been incremental. My budget laptop today is only roughly twice as good as my desktop in 2003, which means that change has been more gradual than in decades past.

The MMORPG genre is exactly where it was in 2003, and that is what should matter most to Anet.

- So nice of you to say that.

- "Haven't played any others", how do you know it's a good game then?

- I'm not sure if I'd want to sign message that is both offensive and stupid.

She told you no one would miss you. While you may be offended, it's probably very true: People leave games every day and aside for maybe one "I haven't seen _____ for a while" no one will miss any of us really. People get over losing their online friends pretty easily. RL happens.

And not only did Ganni sign it, she has her IGN posted in her profile.

Unlike you.



Edit: Grammar "seen" for "see"

I would say that the quality of GW is up there with some good RTS games like some I play with good detail.The only time there is any social interaction is if you want it most like RTS you have an offline mode and an online mode to go play in lobby.I could say guild size is number one factor as well as easy it takes to make a guild.

So are you going to address this, or are you going to silently concede that you're an idiot for writing an OP as terrible as you did?

If GW isn't a good game to me, then why would I get stuck on it for 3 years? I bought other games and they all ended up eating the dust cause I always came back to GW.

Like I said if you don't like GW, play another game.

This Thread is going nowhere, may aswell be locked already.

- Ganni

I'm not sure fighting fire with fire is a great idea. :/
Hell no it ain't. What about WoW? I would consider that after 2003, when WoW proved that MMOs can sell like hotcakes. GW only released a year after WoW, and WoW hadn't really picked up steam yet. The MMO market then was a whole lot different now that several AAA MMO titles have either done okay (ex. CoX, EVE) or busted (AutoAssault, Tabula Rasa) but none in comparison to the mighty WoW (and GW to some extent). Note: I am talking about North America here (read: Lineage I/II doesn't count).
However, many think WoW might peak soon (I'd say 6-8 months after Lich King) and WoW players will begin to migrate to other MMOs. Depending on the success of several AAA titles (AoC, GW2, Warhammer), we might see a new king in the horizon. I think that some title released in the next 3 years will overtake WoW as the most played MMO. GW2, again depending on how it turns out, has the timing and could have the capacity to win WoW players. Not that it really matters for GW2 success, but it could potentially gather a lot of attention, especially if PvE gets a large overhaul for GW2.

So no, the MMO market is not the same as it was when GW was released. It will be a whole new ballgame for GW2.

First sentence: Geez man, some of us skim through this stuff. If we're talking video games, and you capitalize the word Archer, at least be referring to Menchwarrior. BTW, for MW fans, http://www.smithandtinker.com/news/.

Second, since I stopped to read, you're not giving monks much credit. I've seen monk builds out there that frustrate everyone. PvP monks have gotten ten times better since the old days. In the end, GW is what it is, and imo it's pretty damn good. Complaining at this point of the game is just a little... late.

Your entire thread is stupid.

Honestly, little else can be said about it.

Synopsis: I am going to complain that Guild Wars isn't a quality game. Most disagree with me on the principal that it's not the best, but it's good for what it is. I disagree and will continue to make stupid, moronic comments.

A fairly succinct summary I'd say. Stop posting, and don't make any more threads designed to be flamefests by default.

Dude, what you're looking for is impossible. You do realize we're humans? Take changing the skills around for example. Okay, I accept that a lot of the skills look pretty dull with PS and a floating cloud, but you do realize if you want to make a "cool" animation for every single skill in the game, that would take vast amounts of time. You try it.

What you're looking for, is SO INTENSE quality that every character will be unique... AND THAT MY FRIEND, IS VERY RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOING HARD TO MAKE.

- Look what you wrote:

"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."

After reading this, I have no business talking to you or answering anything you're writing here. Get the **** out of my thread.

Epic fail. If you want to have a serious discussion about the quality of Guild Wars, please do it without blatant contradictions.

Shut up. You're stupid and your entire extended family is ugly. If I see you on the street, I'm going to headbutt you until you cry, then make derogatory comments about your fashion sense.

Both WoW and GW were in various stages of beta testing in 2003. The market was ripe for WoW then, or it wouldn't have been such a hit.

If WoW's continuing rise in popularity is any indication, the market hasn't moved since 2003. Why would GW2 adopt so much of WoW's design if it weren't still the MMORPG standard?

What exactly are you comparing it to?

Name a non pay to play online game that offers more

Makes me laugh when anyone quotes 'RPG' in the same line as GW go play Baldursgate/Neverwinter nights then think again.
I couldn't believe the appalling questing when I started Factions.

Actually the PvE is a lot more like those games than it is in MMO's that typically have no storyline so I find the comparison is in order.

Why don't you just answer his flippin' question, because it's clear to me that the above comment is a lame attempt to dodge it, but I won't allow that now will I.