Quality of Guild Wars.

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...

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.

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.

Oh yes, all 6 of them.

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

inorite

I wish a nintendo 64 had xbox 360 graphics.

- 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

- 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.

- 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.

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

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

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 .