How did Guild Wars match up to YOUR expectations?
generik
I was just checking to see if the expansion is already available for preorder, and... nope.
What I did notice is this little passage that they use to describe Guild Wars, ---- advertising anybody?
Guild Wars is a new kind of MMORPG experience. It eliminates the less exciting aspects of world-map play by using a mission-based design, while keeping the features that make online role-players great. Make new allies in towns or outposts, form a party, and then go tackle a quest together. Your party always has its own unique copy of the quest map -- so camping, kill-stealing, and long lines to complete quests are all things of the past. As you play your quest, you have unprecedented levels of freedom: Your magic can build bridges and open up new pathways, or it can burn down forests and villages. Best of all, you'll never meet new players that you can't play with or compete against, because their characters are on a different Server than yours. In Guild Wars, all characters live in one seamless world.
Sounds very exciting isn't it?
Except, the reality really bites, hard. What magic and "power" is there to speak of? World and environmental changing powers? Please, moments ago I cleared a "zone", so I just walked over to another "zone", come back a second later, and *ding* everything is back to the way it was! Even all the rotted corpses of the mobs have magically reanimated back to life! And oh yes, no matter how big that fire storm was, it didn't even burn down a small shrub!
I'm not even going to touch on the seamless world bit, that would be quite hilarious.
Quite frankly, how many of you seriously enjoyed GW for its intriguing and involving story line, and wonderful and immersive PvE experience?
How would you suggest it can be improved upon?
What I did notice is this little passage that they use to describe Guild Wars, ---- advertising anybody?
Guild Wars is a new kind of MMORPG experience. It eliminates the less exciting aspects of world-map play by using a mission-based design, while keeping the features that make online role-players great. Make new allies in towns or outposts, form a party, and then go tackle a quest together. Your party always has its own unique copy of the quest map -- so camping, kill-stealing, and long lines to complete quests are all things of the past. As you play your quest, you have unprecedented levels of freedom: Your magic can build bridges and open up new pathways, or it can burn down forests and villages. Best of all, you'll never meet new players that you can't play with or compete against, because their characters are on a different Server than yours. In Guild Wars, all characters live in one seamless world.
Sounds very exciting isn't it?
Except, the reality really bites, hard. What magic and "power" is there to speak of? World and environmental changing powers? Please, moments ago I cleared a "zone", so I just walked over to another "zone", come back a second later, and *ding* everything is back to the way it was! Even all the rotted corpses of the mobs have magically reanimated back to life! And oh yes, no matter how big that fire storm was, it didn't even burn down a small shrub!
I'm not even going to touch on the seamless world bit, that would be quite hilarious.
Quite frankly, how many of you seriously enjoyed GW for its intriguing and involving story line, and wonderful and immersive PvE experience?
How would you suggest it can be improved upon?
Tyrent Frath
to be fair...seamless refers to the lack of 100 different "realms" as in WoW, not to the blatantly obvious lack of a JUMP available...that was the only thing that really made me mad in the begining...i like jumping >.<
theclam
I like GW because it has interesting and strategic combat. Are the storyline and immersiveness acceptable? Yeah, they're not great, but they work fine.
Personally, I think that a persistent world is extremely difficult to do. If you could burn down shrubs, then you'd have to simulate them growing back, or eventually your world would be completely barren. If you clear an entire zone of mobs, then what would you do once all the mobs in the game are dead? They have to respawn somehow. And if every player had different copies of the world, how would you reconcile the differences?
Yes, PvE could be better, but I'm happy with what we have now. It's pretty good. Plus, it would have taken another 2 years to implement this, so we wouldn't be playing GW.
If you want such an experience, then Morrowind is highly recommended.
Personally, I think that a persistent world is extremely difficult to do. If you could burn down shrubs, then you'd have to simulate them growing back, or eventually your world would be completely barren. If you clear an entire zone of mobs, then what would you do once all the mobs in the game are dead? They have to respawn somehow. And if every player had different copies of the world, how would you reconcile the differences?
Yes, PvE could be better, but I'm happy with what we have now. It's pretty good. Plus, it would have taken another 2 years to implement this, so we wouldn't be playing GW.
If you want such an experience, then Morrowind is highly recommended.
Tyrent Frath
Quote:
Originally Posted by theclam
If you want such an experience, then Morrowind is highly recommended.
|
Sagius Truthbarron
Well, I know where you're comming from. The world could use some more interactivity and more involvement for players. Let's face it, there is none, at all.
That aspect of the game I am disapointed with; otherwise, everything else is fine with me.
That aspect of the game I am disapointed with; otherwise, everything else is fine with me.
generik
Yeah, that's exactly what I meant.
On one hand there is a certain realism of this game in the sense that a human being cannot become "godly" (ie: singlehandly wipe out a zone)
*thinks*
Then again it is possible in SOME zones, but my big bone is really with this whole idea of zoning.
On one hand there is a certain realism of this game in the sense that a human being cannot become "godly" (ie: singlehandly wipe out a zone)
*thinks*
Then again it is possible in SOME zones, but my big bone is really with this whole idea of zoning.
Turbo Wombat
Admittedly, I thought the story could have used a bit more work. After Hell's Precipice when Glint was saying "The Flameseeker Prophicies are now complete." my immediate reaction was 'What the ----? That's kinda lame. And what the hell are the Flameseeker Prophicies?'
While I don't believe every shrub and blade of grass should have the ability to be destroyed, I must also say that I was disappointed that interaction between players and the environment was essentially limited to 'pull lever, open gate/extend bridge'. Even the seeds in Maguuma was just a small variation.
What I am extremely pleased about are the skill/attribute system, the level cap, and the fact that you get your own zone while out of town. All three of these points (err... actually the lack thereof) can be seen in this little story from AC2:
Me and a few people of similar, and realitivly low, level partied together in order to beat a dungeon that was quite challenging for its level. When we were about 1/2 way down, some level 'stupid' character and his lower level vassal from the alliance blew past us, slaughtering everything on the way with 1 hit kills (because they had thrown all their XP into a few select skills). We follow them down hoping to hitch a bit of a free ride, but when they get to the bottom and kill the boss (in 2 hits <_<) they grab the quest item we were trying for and port out. Two minutes later, the respawn kill us and as the camera pans around our corpses, we see the quest item respawn as well.
I like GW more than any other MMO I've tried because this crap doesn't happen.
While I don't believe every shrub and blade of grass should have the ability to be destroyed, I must also say that I was disappointed that interaction between players and the environment was essentially limited to 'pull lever, open gate/extend bridge'. Even the seeds in Maguuma was just a small variation.
What I am extremely pleased about are the skill/attribute system, the level cap, and the fact that you get your own zone while out of town. All three of these points (err... actually the lack thereof) can be seen in this little story from AC2:
Me and a few people of similar, and realitivly low, level partied together in order to beat a dungeon that was quite challenging for its level. When we were about 1/2 way down, some level 'stupid' character and his lower level vassal from the alliance blew past us, slaughtering everything on the way with 1 hit kills (because they had thrown all their XP into a few select skills). We follow them down hoping to hitch a bit of a free ride, but when they get to the bottom and kill the boss (in 2 hits <_<) they grab the quest item we were trying for and port out. Two minutes later, the respawn kill us and as the camera pans around our corpses, we see the quest item respawn as well.
I like GW more than any other MMO I've tried because this crap doesn't happen.
Lady Lozza
Firstly there are a number of different aspects that, in my mind, make up and enjoyable game. I'm going to use Morrowind as my bench mark because it is, with the sole exception of KOTOR (and for completely different reasons), the MOST enjoyable game I have ever had the pleasure of playing.
So the question is what do most players generally want from an RPG?
1) Playability - easy controls, easy-to-understand and learn game play.
2) Re-playablity - a unique and different experience the 2nd and 3rd time around.
3) Immersion - ability to believe the world on their screen is an actual world, and that they are a part of it.
4) A storyline - self-explanitory.
5) Freedom - an ability to deviate from the storyline, if they so choose.
It should be noted that HOW these things are achieve is irrelevant.
Morrowind:
1) Playability 9/10 - spell control was a pain, cliff-racers were a pain to kill.
2) Replayability 9/10 - there was so much to do that, once finishing the game I just had to make another character to do more quests. 3rd time around was something of a drag though.
3) Immersion 10/10 - beautiful, believable atmosphere.
4) Storyline 10/10 - I really loved the main storyline and all the side ones that could be taken.
5) Freedom 9/10 - lacking only in the fact that if you wished to "finish" the game you had to do the same main storyline as everyone else. Otherwise the freedom of this game was great, after years of having to play characters all of the same D&D make Morrowind was a breath of fresh air.
Guild Wars:
1) Playablity 9/10 - easy to play, though sometimes it can be a little hard to fully understand the effects a spell/skill is having on the opponent.
2) Replayability 7/10 - the first couple of characters inevitably get deleted well before the end of the game. Completing it multiple times can be something of a chore.
3) Immersion 8/10 - there is a certain atmosphere lacking in GW, but that is generally it. The environment is certainly engaging enough.
4) Storyline 6/10 - good enough, a little linear but with enough to keep pulling player's through the game. With a couple of exceptions the quests don't seem to tie in well enough with the SL, something I found rather disappointing.
5) Freedom 7/10 - you don't HAVE to do all the missions or all the quests, you can simply hunt/farm/chat/socialise, you can play characters any way you want, but ultimately to finish the game you don't really have a choice in what you do.
The next question is what do players want in a fantasy game?
1) Imagination - they want to see new things that they have not seen in other games, or they themselves have never thought up.
2) Realism - most players want the scenery AND the characters to have, at least, a touch of realism.
3) Sword and sorcery - well that is the definition of fantasy, isn't it?
Morrowind:
1) Imagination 10/10 - it was Morrowind, what more needs to be said, even if those cliff racers were a pain in the rear.
2) Realism 10/10 - for its time Morrowind was one of the most graphic intensive and realistic games to be brought out on the market, this contributed highly to the immersion value of the game, and consequently its sales.
3) Sword and sorcery 10/10 - we got that too, we got it together, and we got it however we liked it, though spell casting was something of a pain at times.
GW:
1) Imagination 9/10 - it's good, but it isn't Morrowind. Foes stick to a very certain class in PvE and can be very predictable.
2) Realism 9/10 - for today's standard it certainly isn't top, but it IS and online game and I understand there are severe restrictions on the graphics components.
3) Sword and sorcery 10/10 - you can't really be both and be effective at both, however I also believe that this is sensible in an online game such as GW. Godly characters that cast and hack should be reserved for single player games only. Spells are really quite easy to cast.
Finally, my MMO wish lists:
1) No quest camping.
2) No randomly killing lower lvl characters just because you can.
3) Easy team setup.
4) No respawning, once I've cleared a map area I would like it to stay cleared, thank you very much.
5) Separate map areas, transport between (at least some) towns.
6) Variety in game play style and characters.
7) Customisation and gold sinks, once you get money you have to have something to do with it after all
Since Morrowind isn't MMO, it doesn't get a look in here. Guild Wars meets all my wish list requirements, though it could do with some improvements (notably the team setup). Many of the problems I have experienced in GW have more to do with the people who play the game than the game itself and I choose not to let those things get me down.
All in all I give GW a 9/10 as there is plenty of room for improvement but having said that the flaws of the game and game play do NOT lessen my enjoyment of the game in any considerable manner.
So the question is what do most players generally want from an RPG?
1) Playability - easy controls, easy-to-understand and learn game play.
2) Re-playablity - a unique and different experience the 2nd and 3rd time around.
3) Immersion - ability to believe the world on their screen is an actual world, and that they are a part of it.
4) A storyline - self-explanitory.
5) Freedom - an ability to deviate from the storyline, if they so choose.
It should be noted that HOW these things are achieve is irrelevant.
Morrowind:
1) Playability 9/10 - spell control was a pain, cliff-racers were a pain to kill.
2) Replayability 9/10 - there was so much to do that, once finishing the game I just had to make another character to do more quests. 3rd time around was something of a drag though.
3) Immersion 10/10 - beautiful, believable atmosphere.
4) Storyline 10/10 - I really loved the main storyline and all the side ones that could be taken.
5) Freedom 9/10 - lacking only in the fact that if you wished to "finish" the game you had to do the same main storyline as everyone else. Otherwise the freedom of this game was great, after years of having to play characters all of the same D&D make Morrowind was a breath of fresh air.
Guild Wars:
1) Playablity 9/10 - easy to play, though sometimes it can be a little hard to fully understand the effects a spell/skill is having on the opponent.
2) Replayability 7/10 - the first couple of characters inevitably get deleted well before the end of the game. Completing it multiple times can be something of a chore.
3) Immersion 8/10 - there is a certain atmosphere lacking in GW, but that is generally it. The environment is certainly engaging enough.
4) Storyline 6/10 - good enough, a little linear but with enough to keep pulling player's through the game. With a couple of exceptions the quests don't seem to tie in well enough with the SL, something I found rather disappointing.
5) Freedom 7/10 - you don't HAVE to do all the missions or all the quests, you can simply hunt/farm/chat/socialise, you can play characters any way you want, but ultimately to finish the game you don't really have a choice in what you do.
The next question is what do players want in a fantasy game?
1) Imagination - they want to see new things that they have not seen in other games, or they themselves have never thought up.
2) Realism - most players want the scenery AND the characters to have, at least, a touch of realism.
3) Sword and sorcery - well that is the definition of fantasy, isn't it?
Morrowind:
1) Imagination 10/10 - it was Morrowind, what more needs to be said, even if those cliff racers were a pain in the rear.
2) Realism 10/10 - for its time Morrowind was one of the most graphic intensive and realistic games to be brought out on the market, this contributed highly to the immersion value of the game, and consequently its sales.
3) Sword and sorcery 10/10 - we got that too, we got it together, and we got it however we liked it, though spell casting was something of a pain at times.
GW:
1) Imagination 9/10 - it's good, but it isn't Morrowind. Foes stick to a very certain class in PvE and can be very predictable.
2) Realism 9/10 - for today's standard it certainly isn't top, but it IS and online game and I understand there are severe restrictions on the graphics components.
3) Sword and sorcery 10/10 - you can't really be both and be effective at both, however I also believe that this is sensible in an online game such as GW. Godly characters that cast and hack should be reserved for single player games only. Spells are really quite easy to cast.
Finally, my MMO wish lists:
1) No quest camping.
2) No randomly killing lower lvl characters just because you can.
3) Easy team setup.
4) No respawning, once I've cleared a map area I would like it to stay cleared, thank you very much.
5) Separate map areas, transport between (at least some) towns.
6) Variety in game play style and characters.
7) Customisation and gold sinks, once you get money you have to have something to do with it after all
Since Morrowind isn't MMO, it doesn't get a look in here. Guild Wars meets all my wish list requirements, though it could do with some improvements (notably the team setup). Many of the problems I have experienced in GW have more to do with the people who play the game than the game itself and I choose not to let those things get me down.
All in all I give GW a 9/10 as there is plenty of room for improvement but having said that the flaws of the game and game play do NOT lessen my enjoyment of the game in any considerable manner.
Tsunami Rain
I'm totally pleased with Guild Wars. Arena Net has done a good job keeping us updated on news and events (love the events) and sending in people like gaile gray to take sugestions from us (the users). I'm also pleased about the level cap and the fact that I don't have to play 5,000 hours to get to max level. I'd also like to say that the Guild Wars economy has held steady (except for maybe one day when it reset and all of the runes and dyes were dirt cheap). The only aspect that I feel that lacks praise would be the monster/henchman AI (but we all know the development team is working very hard on that). In conclusion Guild Wars surpassed my expectations (truthfully I didn't know how well it would hold out). 10/10
lg5000
It went beyond MY expectations because I was only going to play it a little on my son's account to see what type of game it is.. 2 days later, I had my own account .
Love the graphics in it, and just recently, put a char through the pve side of things because I missed pre-searing and enjoyed the story.
So I guess, for me, owning a comp with a decent graphics card paid off a year after I had the comp, as I wasn't gaming before GW came along and my son asked if he could get a copy after watching my b/f play many, many times.
Love the graphics in it, and just recently, put a char through the pve side of things because I missed pre-searing and enjoyed the story.
So I guess, for me, owning a comp with a decent graphics card paid off a year after I had the comp, as I wasn't gaming before GW came along and my son asked if he could get a copy after watching my b/f play many, many times.
Morangen
I think guildwars has met almost all of my expectations (except for the fact that the friends that got me interested in it during the BWE stopped playing about two months after release). I could deal with the story line being more in depth, but its enjoyable.
I think though that my favorite part about the game is the customizability and the scenery. (example) When I was running around in the desert I saw this massive statue in the distance. I decided, lets go look at it so I fought my way to the thing and realized that it wasnt there. At first I thought that I was in the wrong place, but then I noticed that it had fallen over and was a bridge that led onto this giant mesa (it was a mirage from a distance). I thought that was so cool.
I think though that my favorite part about the game is the customizability and the scenery. (example) When I was running around in the desert I saw this massive statue in the distance. I decided, lets go look at it so I fought my way to the thing and realized that it wasnt there. At first I thought that I was in the wrong place, but then I noticed that it had fallen over and was a bridge that led onto this giant mesa (it was a mirage from a distance). I thought that was so cool.
Lady Lozza
Orbberius - if you disagree with my opinion by all means voice it in a full English sentence (or two). My opinion is only my opinion afterall and I certainly do not expect that everyone (or even anyone) will agree with it, and I am more than interested in hearing the opinion of others.
generik
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morangen
I think though that my favorite part about the game is the customizability and the scenery. (example) When I was running around in the desert I saw this massive statue in the distance. I decided, lets go look at it so I fought my way to the thing and realized that it wasnt there. At first I thought that I was in the wrong place, but then I noticed that it had fallen over and was a bridge that led onto this giant mesa (it was a mirage from a distance). I thought that was so cool.
|
Yeah, these things are only possible with instances. What I do find disappointing about GW is "running", or rather more specifically, the desire to be run. The PvE landscape is so tedious and unrewarding that after the first time you seriously don't even want to do it anymore.
Gaile said something to the effect of how it will change with chapter 2, so I really wonder what will be changed
Grimm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Lozza
Firstly there are a number of different aspects that, in my mind, make up and enjoyable game. I'm going to use Morrowind as my bench mark because it is, with the sole exception of KOTOR (and for completely different reasons), the MOST enjoyable game I have ever had the pleasure of playing.
So the question is what do most players generally want from an RPG? 1) Playability - easy controls, easy-to-understand and learn game play. 2) Re-playablity - a unique and different experience the 2nd and 3rd time around. 3) Immersion - ability to believe the world on their screen is an actual world, and that they are a part of it. 4) A storyline - self-explanitory. 5) Freedom - an ability to deviate from the storyline, if they so choose. It should be noted that HOW these things are achieve is irrelevant. Morrowind: 1) Playability 9/10 - spell control was a pain, cliff-racers were a pain to kill. 2) Replayability 9/10 - there was so much to do that, once finishing the game I just had to make another character to do more quests. 3rd time around was something of a drag though. 3) Immersion 10/10 - beautiful, believable atmosphere. 4) Storyline 10/10 - I really loved the main storyline and all the side ones that could be taken. 5) Freedom 9/10 - lacking only in the fact that if you wished to "finish" the game you had to do the same main storyline as everyone else. Otherwise the freedom of this game was great, after years of having to play characters all of the same D&D make Morrowind was a breath of fresh air. Guild Wars: 1) Playablity 9/10 - easy to play, though sometimes it can be a little hard to fully understand the effects a spell/skill is having on the opponent. 2) Replayability 7/10 - the first couple of characters inevitably get deleted well before the end of the game. Completing it multiple times can be something of a chore. 3) Immersion 8/10 - there is a certain atmosphere lacking in GW, but that is generally it. The environment is certainly engaging enough. 4) Storyline 6/10 - good enough, a little linear but with enough to keep pulling player's through the game. With a couple of exceptions the quests don't seem to tie in well enough with the SL, something I found rather disappointing. 5) Freedom 7/10 - you don't HAVE to do all the missions or all the quests, you can simply hunt/farm/chat/socialise, you can play characters any way you want, but ultimately to finish the game you don't really have a choice in what you do. The next question is what do players want in a fantasy game? 1) Imagination - they want to see new things that they have not seen in other games, or they themselves have never thought up. 2) Realism - most players want the scenery AND the characters to have, at least, a touch of realism. 3) Sword and sorcery - well that is the definition of fantasy, isn't it? Morrowind: 1) Imagination 10/10 - it was Morrowind, what more needs to be said, even if those cliff racers were a pain in the rear. 2) Realism 10/10 - for its time Morrowind was one of the most graphic intensive and realistic games to be brought out on the market, this contributed highly to the immersion value of the game, and consequently its sales. 3) Sword and sorcery 10/10 - we got that too, we got it together, and we got it however we liked it, though spell casting was something of a pain at times. GW: 1) Imagination 9/10 - it's good, but it isn't Morrowind. Foes stick to a very certain class in PvE and can be very predictable. 2) Realism 9/10 - for today's standard it certainly isn't top, but it IS and online game and I understand there are severe restrictions on the graphics components. 3) Sword and sorcery 10/10 - you can't really be both and be effective at both, however I also believe that this is sensible in an online game such as GW. Godly characters that cast and hack should be reserved for single player games only. Spells are really quite easy to cast. Finally, my MMO wish lists: 1) No quest camping. 2) No randomly killing lower lvl characters just because you can. 3) Easy team setup. 4) No respawning, once I've cleared a map area I would like it to stay cleared, thank you very much. 5) Separate map areas, transport between (at least some) towns. 6) Variety in game play style and characters. 7) Customisation and gold sinks, once you get money you have to have something to do with it after all Since Morrowind isn't MMO, it doesn't get a look in here. Guild Wars meets all my wish list requirements, though it could do with some improvements (notably the team setup). Many of the problems I have experienced in GW have more to do with the people who play the game than the game itself and I choose not to let those things get me down. All in all I give GW a 9/10 as there is plenty of room for improvement but having said that the flaws of the game and game play do NOT lessen my enjoyment of the game in any considerable manner. |
GW is not very immersive at all. It's not very realistic. When I first started playing I was expecting basically a free MMO, and I was rather disappointed at first. But once I began to actually see what the game was about and appreciate the ways in which it differed from an RPG, I began to love it.
I think if you are interested in immersiveness and an actual "role-playing" experience, either a traditional MMO or a good single-player RPG are the ways to go. I find it very hard to be immersed in multi-player games, personally, because 99% of the player-base have no clue what role-playing means.
Anyway, if you enjoy GW, that's great, but I think comparing it to a real RPG is not very enlightening.
Excer
When i first heard about GW i thought it was all about the PvP. The idea of guild battles along with the skill system all appealed to me (graphic expecially). When I got the game I was like "OMG theres a pve section to this game?!" So of course it exceded my expectations there since i thought the game would contain half of what it does =P. I guess the only thing i was disappointed about is the nature rituals. The game descriptions I read at places made it sound like the rituals would change the terrain itself, like make a huge cliff rise out of the ground or something lol.
Knido
first game ive played for over 6 months ^^
other than baten kaitos since i have yet to beat it :P
other than baten kaitos since i have yet to beat it :P
Orbberius
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Lozza
Orbberius - if you disagree with my opinion by all means voice it in a full English sentence (or two). My opinion is only my opinion afterall and I certainly do not expect that everyone (or even anyone) will agree with it, and I am more than interested in hearing the opinion of others.
|
Your IGN-worthy ratings aside, the basic point is, Morrowind's combat mechanics are amazingly bad. I wouldn't play Morrowind for how it controls, that's for sure.
And yeah, as someone said, the best part of GW is PvPing, particularly with your guild in a sort of war against other guilds, which you completely ignored. I don't really agree with what you think most RPG players want either, but since neither of us know what most RPG players really want, I'll let it go.
LifeInfusion
I think it surpassed my expectations because some of the player suggestions actually were implemented *cough cape toggle cough*.
The holiday quests, although somewhat boring since they were just collector's that traded you stuff or NPcs that gave out things, were enjoyable because of the influx of players at every holiday.
The snowball fight in the chirstmas event was BRILLIANT. That was one of my the player suggestions, minigames that actually have something other than cast, hack and slash.
Been playing since World Preview Event and the E3 for everyone beta events and it never quite bored me. It has always been the players that really turned me off of playing for a while (teaming with incompetent players, selling stuff is a chore, farmign is rampant and people are lazy). Really, at its core Guild Wars is the best game I have played, but the players need to really clean up their act. The game is PvE or PvP. There is not such category as farming, spamming, or scamming newbies when you choose what mode you play in.
Some pluses:
-Decent graphics even at low levels of detail (good on my 4 year old Athlon XP)
-You don't need a T1 connection to play in PvP
-There is no killstealing/camping/pking craziness
-Death penalties are not permanent
-PvP is more strategic than level based (aka level 20 cap; 456 skills)
... it is shame players do not innovate more often and develop unique builds ...once again, not GW's fault, the players' fault
-No monthly fee
-Different builds for different players : 30 different primary-secondary combinations
-No HUGE patches
-PvP plays like a FPS
-Pretty scenery
-Pets/minions
-emotes
-It doesn't have cheesy characters like in WoW: elves/hoardes???? we don't need/want that
-attempts to balance skills
-8 skills allowed at once = more strategy
-Henchman to avoid people that do not know what they are doing
-PVP characters
Cons (sorry, nothing is perfect)
-Auction system not implemented yet (to be in Chpater 2 though)
-Warrior Knight armor imbalance
-Hard to speak to group of people unless guildmate
-Hard to team unless guild group
-Classes played are usually warrior or fire elementalist and monks are scarce (players' fault)
-You don't get to burn down/blow up/utterly destroy the scenery
-No ingame voice chat support
-Rollercoaster economy (players' fault)
-Some people are perverted (players' fault)
-No common sense /Immaturity of some players (player's fault)
-Armor is common for everyone usually (how many black 15k platemail warriors... players' fault, now it's happening to Fissure armor)
-If a hill is with a 5 degree incline, you walk in a wide arcing circle and in many pathways to get over it , probably for gameplay purposes... but it gets kind of annoying
-takes forever to get all skills without fow/uw/sf quests
-drops kind of crappy ever since chinese/korean farmers caused major drop "nerfs" (not as good as when first released)
-no official messageboard/forum (players don't know each other outside of game)
-henchmen can be dumb (as people)
-not as famous a game as Warcraft Series or Final Fantasy Series
The holiday quests, although somewhat boring since they were just collector's that traded you stuff or NPcs that gave out things, were enjoyable because of the influx of players at every holiday.
The snowball fight in the chirstmas event was BRILLIANT. That was one of my the player suggestions, minigames that actually have something other than cast, hack and slash.
Been playing since World Preview Event and the E3 for everyone beta events and it never quite bored me. It has always been the players that really turned me off of playing for a while (teaming with incompetent players, selling stuff is a chore, farmign is rampant and people are lazy). Really, at its core Guild Wars is the best game I have played, but the players need to really clean up their act. The game is PvE or PvP. There is not such category as farming, spamming, or scamming newbies when you choose what mode you play in.
Some pluses:
-Decent graphics even at low levels of detail (good on my 4 year old Athlon XP)
-You don't need a T1 connection to play in PvP
-There is no killstealing/camping/pking craziness
-Death penalties are not permanent
-PvP is more strategic than level based (aka level 20 cap; 456 skills)
... it is shame players do not innovate more often and develop unique builds ...once again, not GW's fault, the players' fault
-No monthly fee
-Different builds for different players : 30 different primary-secondary combinations
-No HUGE patches
-PvP plays like a FPS
-Pretty scenery
-Pets/minions
-emotes
-It doesn't have cheesy characters like in WoW: elves/hoardes???? we don't need/want that
-attempts to balance skills
-8 skills allowed at once = more strategy
-Henchman to avoid people that do not know what they are doing
-PVP characters
Cons (sorry, nothing is perfect)
-Auction system not implemented yet (to be in Chpater 2 though)
-Warrior Knight armor imbalance
-Hard to speak to group of people unless guildmate
-Hard to team unless guild group
-Classes played are usually warrior or fire elementalist and monks are scarce (players' fault)
-You don't get to burn down/blow up/utterly destroy the scenery
-No ingame voice chat support
-Rollercoaster economy (players' fault)
-Some people are perverted (players' fault)
-No common sense /Immaturity of some players (player's fault)
-Armor is common for everyone usually (how many black 15k platemail warriors... players' fault, now it's happening to Fissure armor)
-If a hill is with a 5 degree incline, you walk in a wide arcing circle and in many pathways to get over it , probably for gameplay purposes... but it gets kind of annoying
-takes forever to get all skills without fow/uw/sf quests
-drops kind of crappy ever since chinese/korean farmers caused major drop "nerfs" (not as good as when first released)
-no official messageboard/forum (players don't know each other outside of game)
-henchmen can be dumb (as people)
-not as famous a game as Warcraft Series or Final Fantasy Series
JiggyFly
I think they took the "simple rpg" (if it can be called that) approach, in that every quest is: Point A to Point B and quite frankly even the harder ones ilike the SF or Glint quests lead you by the hand. It doesn't bother me because it's still a great game with it's pvp and all. But coming from FFXI (Final Fantasy 11) I can definitely say the PvE quests in Guild Wars can almost be compared to a console Platformerin that their simplicity is almost ridiculous. The only thing that makes them hard is that you have to be skilled enough to fight through the various zones (which after a month or two of playing isn't that hard).
I don't think their advertising was sooo bad because Guild Wars really does have solutions to frequent problems that players had with other MMORPG. But to be brutally honest most of the solutions, made the game simplier and easier.
I don't think their advertising was sooo bad because Guild Wars really does have solutions to frequent problems that players had with other MMORPG. But to be brutally honest most of the solutions, made the game simplier and easier.
Andi DeMorte
Lady Lozza... I love your format so much, as I do feel it sums up what most RPG’s are looking for in a RPG, that I am going to steal it for my post as well... Thanks!
1) Playability - *nods nods* easy to control you pc and become acclimated to the skill, etc.
2) Re-playablity - That a null... I cant seem to get past Lions Arch anytime I replay... I just lose interest... although with Andi as a monk I am finding it a different experience so I have high hopes of actually completing the game with her. There are only a few different quests for different professions so every run through is almost identical to the last.
3) Immersion - I have a hard time being immersed into the world. The graphics are beautiful, 2nd to none, but the next point (storyline) is a big reason why I have a had time immersing. Also it’s not too bad to get into it when you’re on your own but anytime you’re in a town/outpost or PUG it’s all ooc... to be immersed is to always/mostly be ic but the game mechanics are really not set up for that so it’s hard to expect people to play ic.
4) A storyline - I really really think that the writers have ADD... resolution with Ascalon? How does me ferreting around like a messenger boy missions fit in? Why am I PvPing? What the hell? Yeah...
5) Freedom - Well... at least in a "real" RPG you can choose to be an evil, neutral of lawful hero... you don't have that in GW... either you're good or you're... ummm... good. The real freedom is in you can choose to do all the missions or not... you can choose to create a PvP pc or a RPG pc.
Imagination, realism, sword/sorcery aside I feel that GW is not a RPG... I know I joke by calling it a FAG ( Fantasy Action Game ) but really that is a more accurate description... somewhere between a FPS and a RPG but not accurately label as either. As Grimm has said if you don’t think of it as a RPG at all but accept it for what it actually (FAG!) it’s enjoyable enough.
*disclaimer - I am rather tired tonite after a very tiring day at work. Had I not been so tired my post would have been more thought out, better argued, chock full of rant and grammatically correct. *hugs* ~ Andi
*wonders where the bridge building skill is located as that can come in handy... gives everyone a hug and kiss then runs of to search the guru to see what profession has that skill*
1) Playability - *nods nods* easy to control you pc and become acclimated to the skill, etc.
2) Re-playablity - That a null... I cant seem to get past Lions Arch anytime I replay... I just lose interest... although with Andi as a monk I am finding it a different experience so I have high hopes of actually completing the game with her. There are only a few different quests for different professions so every run through is almost identical to the last.
3) Immersion - I have a hard time being immersed into the world. The graphics are beautiful, 2nd to none, but the next point (storyline) is a big reason why I have a had time immersing. Also it’s not too bad to get into it when you’re on your own but anytime you’re in a town/outpost or PUG it’s all ooc... to be immersed is to always/mostly be ic but the game mechanics are really not set up for that so it’s hard to expect people to play ic.
4) A storyline - I really really think that the writers have ADD... resolution with Ascalon? How does me ferreting around like a messenger boy missions fit in? Why am I PvPing? What the hell? Yeah...
5) Freedom - Well... at least in a "real" RPG you can choose to be an evil, neutral of lawful hero... you don't have that in GW... either you're good or you're... ummm... good. The real freedom is in you can choose to do all the missions or not... you can choose to create a PvP pc or a RPG pc.
Imagination, realism, sword/sorcery aside I feel that GW is not a RPG... I know I joke by calling it a FAG ( Fantasy Action Game ) but really that is a more accurate description... somewhere between a FPS and a RPG but not accurately label as either. As Grimm has said if you don’t think of it as a RPG at all but accept it for what it actually (FAG!) it’s enjoyable enough.
*disclaimer - I am rather tired tonite after a very tiring day at work. Had I not been so tired my post would have been more thought out, better argued, chock full of rant and grammatically correct. *hugs* ~ Andi
*wonders where the bridge building skill is located as that can come in handy... gives everyone a hug and kiss then runs of to search the guru to see what profession has that skill*
Andi DeMorte
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiggyFly
I don't think their advertising was sooo bad because Guild Wars really does have solutions to frequent problems that players had with other MMORPG. But to be brutally honest most of the solutions, made the game simplier and easier.
|
Thanks Jiggly *hugs*
Lady Lozza
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimm
You seem to completely ignore PvP in GW, which the game was designed around. GW is not, strictly speaking an RPG. TES:3 (Morrowind) is. GW is a strategic/tactical game with a few RPG components, more akin to a real-time Magic: the Gathering than a traditional RPG. Nor is GW an MMO. It's a new type of game.
GW is not very immersive at all. It's not very realistic. When I first started playing I was expecting basically a free MMO, and I was rather disappointed at first. But once I began to actually see what the game was about and appreciate the ways in which it differed from an RPG, I began to love it. I think if you are interested in immersiveness and an actual "role-playing" experience, either a traditional MMO or a good single-player RPG are the ways to go. I find it very hard to be immersed in multi-player games, personally, because 99% of the player-base have no clue what role-playing means. Anyway, if you enjoy GW, that's great, but I think comparing it to a real RPG is not very enlightening. |
1) MMO = Massively Multi-player Online
2) RPG = Role Playing Game
If you are in agreement on my definitions, then I fail to see how either of these terms do not apply to GW.
Of course if you want to get really technical, we should scrap the term RPG when refering to computer games at all because "real" RPG is really reserved for the table top, late at night, with all your secret friends who enjoy playing dress-up.
However let us imagine for just one moment that RPG is not reserved for the most secret of secret meetings. In the gaming industry RPG is a "type" or "format" of game. Games are typically classified as RPG, FPS, or RTS (though occassionally recently the classification of "arcade" and "classic" have occassionally been popping up). Action/Adventure/Fantasy is genre, not type or classification. Most games receive both genre and type definitions.
Now I'm fairly sure that we can agree that GW is neither "arcade" or "classic". GW isn't really RTS either (though info on GW:F seems to suggest we will be seeing some of that soon), which leaves RPG and FPS. Certainly GW has some similarities to FPS but, when push comes to shove, it isn't FPS, leaving only RPG and it fits most of the criteria for that catagory. Remember here we are talking about electronic games, not CCG, not table-top RPG, not board games.
On account of your accusation that GW is not MMO I would like to point out that simply because GW does not follow the same structure as WoW and EQ2, etc, does not make it any less MMO than any of these games. GW has players, from all around the world, logging on and playing together, it is not simply a multiplayer game that you can hook up to a LAN hub. Does this on fit the definition of MMO? I honestly fail to see how you can suggest otherwise.
I debate the idea that GW was designed to be solely, or even primarily, a PvP game. From the reading I have done, GW was designed to take the PvP out of RPG, while still offering it as a mode of play. I don't not think for a minute that GW was designed as a PvE solely or primarily either. In fact, with all the reading I've done on GW:F recently, I am convinced that GW was designed to be a multi-format game, a one-stop-show for gamers who, like myself, enjoy all types of games (RPG, FPS & RTS).
Immersion is not contributed (solely) to realism. Realism can play a very large part in the feeling of immersion, but the real pulling power of the game is much more emphemeral than that. The addition of pre-searing in GW was a master piece. If you want to witness this pulling power, the immersionn that players have experienced, take yourself to Ascalon City and just sit and watch and listen as all the new players comment on how ugly Ascalon has become, whether they can go back, and how much they hate this new map. Pre-searing was intended to, and succeeded in, giving players a sense of belonging and then a sense of loss. This is immersion. You don't need an in-game S.O or family. You don't need to even pretend you are a part of the world to have experienced some form of immersion. Only players who rush though the game, never taking the time to view the cut-scenes or the scenery around them will miss having such an experience. Rurik may have been as annoying as all hell but most people I've talked to had some sort of "feelings" about the things that he did. Some players side with Rurik about leaving Ascalon, others don't (even though we don't really have a choice in the matter). Some say it was good he died, because now he can join Althea, others are simply glad that he is gone. To "feel" anything at all for the characters (even annoyance) shows some level of immersion, that we are thinking about them actually being a person even though we know they are onnly an image on the computer screen.
I agree that if you want a true immersion exeperience, to the point where you feel like it is YOU who is wandering through the lush green forest, then you need a single player RPG like Morrowind or the soon-to-be-released Oblivion.
Finally, my comparison to Morrowind was not done on the basis of both games being RPG, it was done because Morrowind is the MOST enjoyable game I have ever played, regardless of genre or classification. In my comparision I have tried to take into account that both games were designed with a very different idea in mind. For example, you might note that I have not been overly harsh in the storyline department. If I had been comparing it as another single-player RPG to TES3 then, I'm sorry to say it, GW would have performed very poorly.
generik
The PvP crowd can say all they want, about how GW is centred around PvP, has PvP roots, blah blah... but the fact remain, it is advertised on a leading online retailer (no doubt a good portion of the GW population must have gotten it there) as a MMORPG.
I'm sorry, but I will be perfectly happy to have Anet rid the guts of GW of underlying PvP elements and actually improve on its PvE elements, then to make it a glorified counterstrike where there is no incentive to do anything except to farm.
Admit it or not, PvP is really crippling PvE. Everybody knows that.
I'm sorry, but I will be perfectly happy to have Anet rid the guts of GW of underlying PvP elements and actually improve on its PvE elements, then to make it a glorified counterstrike where there is no incentive to do anything except to farm.
Admit it or not, PvP is really crippling PvE. Everybody knows that.
BBoy_Manchild
GW far exceded my expectations, i was hoping for a game like other mmorpgs where its all storyline with lots and lots of lvls and items types and lots of different mods for weapons, but i was quickly excepting of low lvl cap and lack of variety for weapons and mods (that is what i didnt really like about diablo 2, us people who didnt use any hacks like map hack and bots didnt have access to alot of the good uniques and runewords) but what keeps me hooked on GW is the arena style pvp, that was BRILLIANT ANET
generik
So I guess the final verdict is you either like counterstrike or you don't like GW, am I right to say so?
Kool Pajamas
This is my first online game. It has surpassed my expectations. I have played this game for nearly 1000 hours now. That is about 900 more than any other game I have EVER played. I have some video games that I bought and played once. I have some that I bought and never even played. I get bored with games so easy. For me to have 1000 hours on a game really means something.
The bad thing about Guild Wars is that as long as it is alive, I will never have a life.
The bad thing about Guild Wars is that as long as it is alive, I will never have a life.
hunnie bunny
Original paragraph
Guild Wars is a new kind of MMORPG experience. It eliminates the less exciting aspects of world-map play by using a mission-based design, while keeping the features that make online role-players great. Make new allies in towns or outposts, form a party, and then go tackle a quest together. Your party always has its own unique copy of the quest map -- so camping, kill-stealing, and long lines to complete quests are all things of the past. As you play your quest, you have unprecedented levels of freedom: Your magic can build bridges and open up new pathways, or it can burn down forests and villages. Best of all, you'll never meet new players that you can't play with or compete against, because their characters are on a different Server than yours. In Guild Wars, all characters live in one seamless world.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Were my expectations upto scratch? Very much not upto scratch id say.
Whenever I saw a review of guildwars, I saw it compared to WoW, or other such mmorpg games of the past. It cant be compared to them.
I agree with the below wholeheartidly, except for the loving part cause I dont do pvp:
Grimm
What makes a mmorpg the masive part is that you can go off and do your own thing and encounter others doing the same whilst you do it, its the basic prinicple. It is why you pay subscriptions, you have to pay for the huge servers that run the worlds in which everyone plays on the same world.
Guildwars however, takes an older approach, that of instances. Which in effect are mini 'few-player' games between a few friends. to quote the original advert
Eh? Thing of the past? Its a attribute of the modern computer based rpgs that such unfortunate events are possible.
Guildwars takes an approach closer to old *gasp* none subscription diablo series, in that each "game" instance is just a group max of 8 people in a individual run setting.
Think how diablo worked. You'd get a B.net lobby (town) with names along europe1-20 where you might meet people and start a game, with 1-8 players. That is closer to guildwars than everquest where you log onto your server with a couple thousand other players and have a free run of it, randomly meeting them in combat areas and making parties togther mid encounter.
With guildwars there is no need for some huge big server that could have 50+ people fighting a dragon, or a whole guild togther killing giants.
Instances are a cheap ass way to implement a so called 'mmo' game. I would be extremely dissatisifed if they considered charging a fee for a game that was entirly instance based. (unless they gave significant content increases per month, not guildwars "updates" of tiny changes in gui or 'balance')
In fact, to quote guildwars.com Q&a page, Gw's by their own definition isnt a mmorpg.
Now that defintion fits better.
Its primiarly an online competitive pvp game.
It has more indepth avatar creation options than counter strike(if that is sufficent to call it rpg).
However, if compared to, an example of a good online-rpg neverwinter nights, bugger all in the way of character customisation options. Class Skills and nothing else. Each warrior is virtually the same as the next based off at most 7 numbers, 8 skills and then items.
Items of which there is a tiny selection of useable armours and the core items themselfs have tiny variation in numbers, then there are no consumable items such as potions or scrolls(unless you count those pathetic double xp scrolls, which I heartily dont).
No strength,dex,constitution values. A lot of the same character is all you see, you can probably guess within a hundred or two how many hp's a character has when you see them in town.
I played and enjoyed the single player story line, but guildwars longevity is in the pvp alone. You wont get people playing the pve side of things for months on end unless they are looking to get stuff for pvp, it is pretty much unrewarding, not challenging, and ultimately not entertaining.
If the pvp mattered to the campaign world, if it was part of an on going online campaign like DaoC, if it was story based pvp such as the prolog mission where 2 groups fight each other for a task. Yes, I'd be interested. But the present ooc pvp just for pvps sake, ala counterstrike for me is a relative bore.
Guilds, whilst I can see the interest factor for those in the guild frankly dont mean anything to the campaign world. No one would care if any guild vanished, it doesnt effect the game world. Average player doesnt ever see or even care to see any one guild property even if it were destroyed by another guild(is such a thing possible even?).
-------------------------------------------------
Was guildwars worth the money spent on it? Yes.
It is a beautiful game, a very big game at that, fun running through the story once, maybe twice. Then it becomes something to put on the shelf unless you want ooc based pvp. Erm.. or unless the "soon to be" wife moans at me to play it with her.
I like my rpg's for long term immersion, socialising, character deveolpment and story.
And lastly.
Lady Lozza
I sincerely advise you to look at the online custom made player servers of Neverwinter nights. Its the cloest you get to a purist role player game on a pc. Nothing comes close to this, has everything you could want including a DM client(program that allows dungeon masters to play alongside players and dynamically make quests/events on the fly). Whatever you do though, dont run the single player game, Neverwinter nights was built with intent of the player base using the toolset to make their own campaign worlds, not play the poorly implemented example module.
The server I play on, ive been on for 3 years now, its a mini society in a persistant world enviroment, there is no such immersion in gw's, gw's is all ooc.
Guild Wars is a new kind of MMORPG experience. It eliminates the less exciting aspects of world-map play by using a mission-based design, while keeping the features that make online role-players great. Make new allies in towns or outposts, form a party, and then go tackle a quest together. Your party always has its own unique copy of the quest map -- so camping, kill-stealing, and long lines to complete quests are all things of the past. As you play your quest, you have unprecedented levels of freedom: Your magic can build bridges and open up new pathways, or it can burn down forests and villages. Best of all, you'll never meet new players that you can't play with or compete against, because their characters are on a different Server than yours. In Guild Wars, all characters live in one seamless world.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Were my expectations upto scratch? Very much not upto scratch id say.
Whenever I saw a review of guildwars, I saw it compared to WoW, or other such mmorpg games of the past. It cant be compared to them.
I agree with the below wholeheartidly, except for the loving part cause I dont do pvp:
Grimm
Quote:
You seem to completely ignore PvP in GW, which the game was designed around. GW is not, strictly speaking an RPG. TES:3 (Morrowind) is. GW is a strategic/tactical game with a few RPG components, more akin to a real-time Magic: the Gathering than a traditional RPG. Nor is GW an MMO. It's a new type of game. GW is not very immersive at all. It's not very realistic. When I first started playing I was expecting basically a free MMO, and I was rather disappointed at first. But once I began to actually see what the game was about and appreciate the ways in which it differed from an RPG, I began to love it. I think if you are interested in immersiveness and an actual "role-playing" experience, either a traditional MMO or a good single-player RPG are the ways to go. I find it very hard to be immersed in multi-player games, personally, because 99% of the player-base have no clue what role-playing means. Anyway, if you enjoy GW, that's great, but I think comparing it to a real RPG is not very enlightening. |
What makes a mmorpg the masive part is that you can go off and do your own thing and encounter others doing the same whilst you do it, its the basic prinicple. It is why you pay subscriptions, you have to pay for the huge servers that run the worlds in which everyone plays on the same world.
Guildwars however, takes an older approach, that of instances. Which in effect are mini 'few-player' games between a few friends. to quote the original advert
Quote:
-- so camping, kill-stealing, and long lines to complete quests are all things of the past. |
Guildwars takes an approach closer to old *gasp* none subscription diablo series, in that each "game" instance is just a group max of 8 people in a individual run setting.
Think how diablo worked. You'd get a B.net lobby (town) with names along europe1-20 where you might meet people and start a game, with 1-8 players. That is closer to guildwars than everquest where you log onto your server with a couple thousand other players and have a free run of it, randomly meeting them in combat areas and making parties togther mid encounter.
With guildwars there is no need for some huge big server that could have 50+ people fighting a dragon, or a whole guild togther killing giants.
Instances are a cheap ass way to implement a so called 'mmo' game. I would be extremely dissatisifed if they considered charging a fee for a game that was entirly instance based. (unless they gave significant content increases per month, not guildwars "updates" of tiny changes in gui or 'balance')
In fact, to quote guildwars.com Q&a page, Gw's by their own definition isnt a mmorpg.
Quote:
Rather than labeling Guild Wars an MMORPG, we prefer to call it a CORPG (Competitive Online Role-Playing Game). |
Its primiarly an online competitive pvp game.
It has more indepth avatar creation options than counter strike(if that is sufficent to call it rpg).
However, if compared to, an example of a good online-rpg neverwinter nights, bugger all in the way of character customisation options. Class Skills and nothing else. Each warrior is virtually the same as the next based off at most 7 numbers, 8 skills and then items.
Items of which there is a tiny selection of useable armours and the core items themselfs have tiny variation in numbers, then there are no consumable items such as potions or scrolls(unless you count those pathetic double xp scrolls, which I heartily dont).
No strength,dex,constitution values. A lot of the same character is all you see, you can probably guess within a hundred or two how many hp's a character has when you see them in town.
I played and enjoyed the single player story line, but guildwars longevity is in the pvp alone. You wont get people playing the pve side of things for months on end unless they are looking to get stuff for pvp, it is pretty much unrewarding, not challenging, and ultimately not entertaining.
If the pvp mattered to the campaign world, if it was part of an on going online campaign like DaoC, if it was story based pvp such as the prolog mission where 2 groups fight each other for a task. Yes, I'd be interested. But the present ooc pvp just for pvps sake, ala counterstrike for me is a relative bore.
Guilds, whilst I can see the interest factor for those in the guild frankly dont mean anything to the campaign world. No one would care if any guild vanished, it doesnt effect the game world. Average player doesnt ever see or even care to see any one guild property even if it were destroyed by another guild(is such a thing possible even?).
-------------------------------------------------
Was guildwars worth the money spent on it? Yes.
It is a beautiful game, a very big game at that, fun running through the story once, maybe twice. Then it becomes something to put on the shelf unless you want ooc based pvp. Erm.. or unless the "soon to be" wife moans at me to play it with her.
I like my rpg's for long term immersion, socialising, character deveolpment and story.
And lastly.
Lady Lozza
Quote:
Of course if you want to get really technical, we should scrap the term RPG when refering to computer games at all because "real" RPG is really reserved for the table top, late at night, with all your secret friends who enjoy playing dress-up -- I agree that if you want a true immersion exeperience, to the point where you feel like it is YOU who is wandering through the lush green forest, then you need a single player RPG like Morrowind or the soon-to-be-released Oblivion. |
The server I play on, ive been on for 3 years now, its a mini society in a persistant world enviroment, there is no such immersion in gw's, gw's is all ooc.
Grimm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Lozza
I debate the idea that GW was designed to be solely, or even primarily, a PvP game. From the reading I have done, GW was designed to take the PvP out of RPG, while still offering it as a mode of play. I don't not think for a minute that GW was designed as a PvE solely or primarily either. In fact, with all the reading I've done on GW:F recently, I am convinced that GW was designed to be a multi-format game, a one-stop-show for gamers who, like myself, enjoy all types of games (RPG, FPS & RTS).
|
"Rather than labeling Guild Wars an MMORPG, we prefer to call it a CORPG (Competitive Online Role-Playing Game). Guild Wars was designed from the ground up to create the best possible competitive role-playing experience."
Notice the use of the word "competitive". I don't think they're talking about who can farm to get the most money or most uber items.
ArenaNet has also said how the original intent was for players to go through the RPG part in order to learn the game basics and unlock things and then take their characters into PvP, implying that PvP was the ultimate goal. This explains why the PvE part is fairly shallow compared to other online RPGs. They are adding more RP content after seeing that many people mainly play the RP part.
To me, it's fairly obvious that this was designed primarily as a PvP game/system. Fortunately,the cooperative part is quite good also. But negative points that you mentioned, like all monsters being of a specific class, are part of that design. This helps players to get used to fighting against various classes using their skills. The level 20 cap and the 8-slot skillbar point to its design as a PvP game system. I think these things work well in the cooperative RP part, but they're *crucially* important for the PvP part.
This shouldn't be interpreted as "PvP snobbery", as I enjoy the PvE part also and have finished the story thus far with 3 characters and unlocked all my skills through the RP part. I'm simply stating the the game and its deep and versatile combat/skill system was designed primarily with PvP in mind. A story-based RPG was then designed around this outstanding PvP game system. I think to ignore either is silly, as you're missing half the game.
My point in bringing up PvP at all was that your post seemed to completely ignore it and its important place in the design of the game. To me, games like WoW were designed first as a cooperative roleplaying game, with all the typical "RPG" elements: leveling up, finding cool magic items, becoming more and more powerful, and inhabiting an immersive world. GW was designed first as a competitive game and its RPG part cut back or eliminated many of the boring and unfun properties of most MMORPGs.
And I realize that there are lots of players on GW and that it is online. The fact is, however, that it is not a traditional MMORPG. Many terms are poorly chosen, in my opinion, and MMORPG is one of them.
GW is arguably an RPG in the sense that other electronic games are "RPG"s, but the majority aren't really. Morrowind is a true RPG in the sense that you can actually play a role and feel immersed in the world and make decisions about what your character does that actually have an impact. In MW, you can kill innocents or not, steal or not, etc, based on what you think your character would do. In the RP part of GW, you can do quests, missions, farm, explore, etc. You can't deviate from the completely linear storyline nor can you roleplay other than through interaction with other players.
Oh, and if you like Morrowind, I'd recommend The Elder Scrolls 2 : Daggerfall, the game that came before it. I think it's better in many ways (obviously not graphically). If you can look past the very dated technology, graphics, etc, it's quite an enjoyable game to this day.
Mandy Memory
Its not even a MMO they said it was a CORPG (competitive online role playing game)
Ive seen that description and to a point it follows that. Of course that was not what I was expecting, that came out long after I had already played. It was now only what I was expecting(which was a lot) but a whole lot better.
Ive seen that description and to a point it follows that. Of course that was not what I was expecting, that came out long after I had already played. It was now only what I was expecting(which was a lot) but a whole lot better.
Andy_M
I like it, as long as we all realize the pve part has to live within the contraints of the pvp part (level cap, small variety in weapons/armour that people actually use) then it's all good. For what it is it does it very well and for the 'hard-core' pve person (including myself I might add) then there is always the Elder Scrolls series/Kotor ect.
I think that the pvp/pve balance is about as good as it can get, it's us who muck it up
I think that the pvp/pve balance is about as good as it can get, it's us who muck it up
Lady Lozza
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimm
Look at what Arenanet calls this type of game (a type of game which it invented with GW): a "competitive online role-playing game". Look at the following quote from the official GW website:
"Rather than labeling Guild Wars an MMORPG, we prefer to call it a CORPG (Competitive Online Role-Playing Game). Guild Wars was designed from the ground up to create the best possible competitive role-playing experience." Notice the use of the word "competitive". I don't think they're talking about who can farm to get the most money or most uber items. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimm
ArenaNet has also said how the original intent was for players to go through the RPG part in order to learn the game basics and unlock things and then take their characters into PvP, implying that PvP was the ultimate goal. This explains why the PvE part is fairly shallow compared to other online RPGs. They are adding more RP content after seeing that many people mainly play the RP part.
To me, it's fairly obvious that this was designed primarily as a PvP game/system. Fortunately,the cooperative part is quite good also. But negative points that you mentioned, like all monsters being of a specific class, are part of that design. This helps players to get used to fighting against various classes using their skills. The level 20 cap and the 8-slot skillbar point to its design as a PvP game system. I think these things work well in the cooperative RP part, but they're *crucially* important for the PvP part. |
At the moment PvP is, I'm afraid to say it, basically first personal shooter. You need tactics, but then so does any good FPS team.
Lvl caps are important in ALL games, no matter what people think. Without a lvl cap there is no challenge. In fact I do believe that Anet have stated that they wanted to take out everything that was NOT fun about most classic online RPG. Since it is an online game lvl caps are even more important. It is not fun for a lvl20 character to have their butt kicked by a lvl60 character. On the other had I experience no enjoyment what so ever in owning lvl6 charr with a lvl20 character. There is no challenge and no sense of achievement. Playing with and against other characters, other real people is fun: enter co-op and PvP. Anet has stated that they intended to release more chapters of GW over time, so perhaps you might have inkling of where I'm coming from when I state that PvP and co-op are two concepts which, IMHO, were never meant to be separate. The name Guiild Wars alone suggest a very grand scale idea, yet we only have a maximum of 8 players in a team. With chapter 2 we will have the possibilties of alliances, is it all that hard to believe that this was in the works almost right from the beginning of the project? Do you really think that players would put in the hours in PvE simply to get unlocks and go and burn the hours at PvP. Speaking of which, have you ever wondered about HoH? Why favour is important. If it were a PvP game then favour would mean nothing, unless it too was a hint at is to come?
Now perhaps I'm reading a little too much between the lines here but it is my belief that PvP in GW was merely the pre-curser to what (it appears) is going to be starting in chapter 2: RTS by FPS (PvP) all wrapped up in a psudo-RPG package.
IMHO PvP as it stands was NEVER solely, nor primarily the goal of the game. The goal was to have a "competitive online rpg" <- Anet's own words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimm
This shouldn't be interpreted as "PvP snobbery", as I enjoy the PvE part also and have finished the story thus far with 3 characters and unlocked all my skills through the RP part. I'm simply stating the the game and its deep and versatile combat/skill system was designed primarily with PvP in mind. A story-based RPG was then designed around this outstanding PvP game system. I think to ignore either is silly, as you're missing half the game.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimm
My point in bringing up PvP at all was that your post seemed to completely ignore it and its important place in the design of the game. To me, games like WoW were designed first as a cooperative roleplaying game, with all the typical "RPG" elements: leveling up, finding cool magic items, becoming more and more powerful, and inhabiting an immersive world. GW was designed first as a competitive game and its RPG part cut back or eliminated many of the boring and unfun properties of most MMORPGs.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimm
And I realize that there are lots of players on GW and that it is online. The fact is, however, that it is not a traditional MMORPG. Many terms are poorly chosen, in my opinion, and MMORPG is one of them.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimm
GW is arguably an RPG in the sense that other electronic games are "RPG"s, but the majority aren't really. Morrowind is a true RPG in the sense that you can actually play a role and feel immersed in the world and make decisions about what your character does that actually have an impact. In MW, you can kill innocents or not, steal or not, etc, based on what you think your character would do. In the RP part of GW, you can do quests, missions, farm, explore, etc. You can't deviate from the completely linear storyline nor can you roleplay other than through interaction with other players.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimm
Oh, and if you like Morrowind, I'd recommend The Elder Scrolls 2 : Daggerfall, the game that came before it. I think it's better in many ways (obviously not graphically). If you can look past the very dated technology, graphics, etc, it's quite an enjoyable game to this day.
|
In many ways the evolution that appears to be happening in GW may very well (eventually) make it a game which is far more realistic representation of an "RPG" than what is currently classified as an RPG. Afterall, we can't all be the hero.
funbun
PvE: worse than expected. The storyline was mediocre, but considering I've read most every thing Tolkien wrote about Middle Earth and the seven Narnia books by C.W. Lewis, Anet had a lot to live up to.
PvP: Better than expected. At first I only bought GW for PvE. But the PvP is the exciting part GW. I only do quests which give me skills. cI like like playing in all arenas. I haven;'t done much GvG, but the logistics of getting 8 people to practice everyday is hard. I wish GW had a 4v4 championship.
Governing Structure (Anet): neutral. Over the summer Anet kept nerfing everything which pissedme off. I quit playing. I took about 3 months off. PvP is what brought me back. And the SF adjustments made the economy stable. I got sick and tired of monk runes costing 70k each. That was stupid. But now the prices are managable.
PvP: Better than expected. At first I only bought GW for PvE. But the PvP is the exciting part GW. I only do quests which give me skills. cI like like playing in all arenas. I haven;'t done much GvG, but the logistics of getting 8 people to practice everyday is hard. I wish GW had a 4v4 championship.
Governing Structure (Anet): neutral. Over the summer Anet kept nerfing everything which pissedme off. I quit playing. I took about 3 months off. PvP is what brought me back. And the SF adjustments made the economy stable. I got sick and tired of monk runes costing 70k each. That was stupid. But now the prices are managable.
VGJustice
Well, I'll just start this by saying that no other game of any kind has kept me this ocupied, ever. Technically not my first online game (Diablo, UT), but my first major online game. So, moving right along:
General thoughts:
-PvE: Plenty for me to explore, and enough things for me to find. Heck, I'm still finding spiffy little nooks and craneys all over the place. The missions can be troubling, but usually because of bad overall group structure or bad players. I'm hard pressed to find fault with the developers. I like the story, and I like how things get tied up at the end. Best ever? Maybe not. Passable? More than good enough for me :3
-PvP: I'm a newbling PvP'er, but I'm very satisfied with it. If I get rocked, I know it wasn't because of imbalance. I've NEVER felt cheated while playing against other players, and that's saying something. Closest I ever came to feeling cheated was when Thunderclap was being exploted by Rangers with lightning bows, but even then it was more funny and annoying than frustrating.
Pros:
-No monthly fees. Can't be said enough.
-Excelent overal game balance
-Good variety of weapons to select from
-Easy to obtain "max" armors and weapons
-Almost no lag issues (surprisingly)
Cons:
-Imperfect GvG matchup program
-Poor to midling friendly AI (the healer tries to tank??)
-Not enough character slots
-Players that seem to only want 1 of 3 character types, and my main isn't one of them
-Difficult initial learning curve (getting used to the game takes a while. Almost past the Northern Shiverpeaks)
-The "Worlds at War" option. Have to wait for a window to get into the hardest areas, and there's not much there once you actually get there
My thoughts on A.Net and NCSoft:
-I'm mostly impressed with them and their staff. I've had issues resolved quickly and fairly through their e-mail dialogues, I've seen player suggestions become game add-ons, and I've seen player complaints get attention. Everyone seems to be friendly on their staff. It's really nice seeing their openness.
Long story short, I'll buy the next chapter. Probably the chapter after that, too.
General thoughts:
-PvE: Plenty for me to explore, and enough things for me to find. Heck, I'm still finding spiffy little nooks and craneys all over the place. The missions can be troubling, but usually because of bad overall group structure or bad players. I'm hard pressed to find fault with the developers. I like the story, and I like how things get tied up at the end. Best ever? Maybe not. Passable? More than good enough for me :3
-PvP: I'm a newbling PvP'er, but I'm very satisfied with it. If I get rocked, I know it wasn't because of imbalance. I've NEVER felt cheated while playing against other players, and that's saying something. Closest I ever came to feeling cheated was when Thunderclap was being exploted by Rangers with lightning bows, but even then it was more funny and annoying than frustrating.
Pros:
-No monthly fees. Can't be said enough.
-Excelent overal game balance
-Good variety of weapons to select from
-Easy to obtain "max" armors and weapons
-Almost no lag issues (surprisingly)
Cons:
-Imperfect GvG matchup program
-Poor to midling friendly AI (the healer tries to tank??)
-Not enough character slots
-Players that seem to only want 1 of 3 character types, and my main isn't one of them
-Difficult initial learning curve (getting used to the game takes a while. Almost past the Northern Shiverpeaks)
-The "Worlds at War" option. Have to wait for a window to get into the hardest areas, and there's not much there once you actually get there
My thoughts on A.Net and NCSoft:
-I'm mostly impressed with them and their staff. I've had issues resolved quickly and fairly through their e-mail dialogues, I've seen player suggestions become game add-ons, and I've seen player complaints get attention. Everyone seems to be friendly on their staff. It's really nice seeing their openness.
Long story short, I'll buy the next chapter. Probably the chapter after that, too.
Numa Pompilius
It met or exceeded my expectations.
As an aside, I've been playing games in general and rpg's in particular since the early eighties, and GW is a good one. I find it mildly amusing that people trash a game they've spent a grand total of $40 on, after having gotten several hundred hours worth of excellent gaming out of it, as "boring" and "disappointing".
You tire of games eventually. It's the way of the world. Even MMORPGs aren't any different - people leave WoW because they get bored after a couple of months too.
And while Morrowind *may* have had greater replayability, it was also much smaller and much shorter. I played & loved Morrowind (which actually was not unlike a GW with only one player, I'll leave everyone to consider what that would be like) till I got bored to tears with it, and that took me two months. I've been playing GW since May, and am only now starting to get into the PvP side, after having completed four characters. Morrowinds combat mechanics and balancing was also, as has been pointed out, lacking to the point of being broken, and GW actually has a far better plot.
As for running, people run in GW because they think the game is about pwnorizing. People run because they either want to get an edge in PvP or impress people with their godly wealth. It's not a reflection on the game, it's a reflection on them.
Will I get Oblivion when it is released? Yes, I will.
Will I get the update for GW when it is released? Yes, I will.
Which future cRPG am I most looking forward to? Gothic 3.
As an aside, I've been playing games in general and rpg's in particular since the early eighties, and GW is a good one. I find it mildly amusing that people trash a game they've spent a grand total of $40 on, after having gotten several hundred hours worth of excellent gaming out of it, as "boring" and "disappointing".
You tire of games eventually. It's the way of the world. Even MMORPGs aren't any different - people leave WoW because they get bored after a couple of months too.
And while Morrowind *may* have had greater replayability, it was also much smaller and much shorter. I played & loved Morrowind (which actually was not unlike a GW with only one player, I'll leave everyone to consider what that would be like) till I got bored to tears with it, and that took me two months. I've been playing GW since May, and am only now starting to get into the PvP side, after having completed four characters. Morrowinds combat mechanics and balancing was also, as has been pointed out, lacking to the point of being broken, and GW actually has a far better plot.
As for running, people run in GW because they think the game is about pwnorizing. People run because they either want to get an edge in PvP or impress people with their godly wealth. It's not a reflection on the game, it's a reflection on them.
Will I get Oblivion when it is released? Yes, I will.
Will I get the update for GW when it is released? Yes, I will.
Which future cRPG am I most looking forward to? Gothic 3.
SilentAssassin
Well for me, from the moment GuildWars was released I haven't bought any game any more and the only game I play is GuildWars and maybe will be GuildWars for a long time.
GuildWars is just the type of game I want to play, ...
Every game has it errors, but atleast A.net tries their best to solve these errors
GuildWars is just the type of game I want to play, ...
Every game has it errors, but atleast A.net tries their best to solve these errors
Anarkii
For me, Guild Wars has been very much beyond expectations. My initial reason for playing Guild Wars was that I couldnt afford WoW's monthly fee(Now I can, and I am playing that), and I was excited about the limitless possibilities GW seemed to offer.
It provided me 1000+ hours of very good gameplay experience, and thats worth the money spent and more
I've played DnD games, ES games and such. Their RPing is much better.
I've played WoW. Its quests, world content, depth is much better.
But GW is different. GW is good.
And yea, the gfx and music here kicks ass
<3 Jeremy Soule
It provided me 1000+ hours of very good gameplay experience, and thats worth the money spent and more
I've played DnD games, ES games and such. Their RPing is much better.
I've played WoW. Its quests, world content, depth is much better.
But GW is different. GW is good.
And yea, the gfx and music here kicks ass
<3 Jeremy Soule
Deathqueen
I'm going to go beyond Morrowind and say Daggerfall was the better experience of the two. First off I liked the combat engine of Daggerfall better. But, the main thing about Daggerfall I liked over every other rpg and mmorpg I've played is "randomness". Daggerfall provided randomness in spades. Random quest random missions random mobs and for the most part random loot according to level. I looked inside of Morrowind even did some modding on random spawns for dungeons. It's in the game to be so, but, Bethsoft just didn't go quite far enough in making it so. I added numerous monsters to dungeons to spawn by the level of my character, even increased the level because in Morrowind monsters were just too easy to kill, way too easy. I was beating guilds and city guards with a level 5 warrior and a couple of summon monster rings I found off of quest npc's.
I don't like games that remain the same. GW's remains the same. No matter how many times you go back into a zone, the same mobs are still there, basically in the same place and it just feels like a hack n slash of the same nature over and over and over again. Thus, this is why farming solo is so easy, once you see what monsters are in the zone and where, you can build a template to defeat them over and over and over again and evade those that would give you a hard time, Hydra farming is sooooo easy it's funny. Not good for longevity to me.
I'm not as excited about getting chapter 2 as I was chapter 1, and I was only excited about chapter 1 because I didn't know what was going to be in chapter 1 and of course the advertising is always a little vague. It says on the inside flap I can SOLO the entire game with henchies if I want, yet, I can't go into UW/FOW with them. Says the game IS MY ADVENTURE, doesn't say it's EVERYONES Adventure but MINE. So, I was pretty disappointed when I found I couldn't use henchies in UW/FOW.
Level caps. I'm not much of one that likes a finite number on anything, that restricts the value of the game also in the long term. A game must always provide extended goals in many catagories, not just loading up on some more skills when you only have 8 slots to use them anyway.
Restrictions on weapon/armor stats. Once again I'm not much of one that likes a finite number on weapons/armors because it too restricts the value of the game in the long term.
Ease of aquiring: This is one of the reason the trade system is a laugh and a joke. There are collectors spread out all over the map that provide you with everything you could want in collectors gear from weapons to armor that are essentually equal to anything you can buy, though there are a "handful" of dropped items that are still of some value and worth farming for or buying. Not like most rpgs or mmorpgs though. No one should ever know what the actual best item in the game is, no one should ever know that 15% is the max or 20% if < 50 health. That's a major problem of this game as well, too much is known before you even start. The build your own PVP character just gives too much away.
PVE to PVP: This I like, they give a good reason to PVE your character up for PVP since you can get more different items and weapons and armors to take with you in the PVP arena, whereas if you build a pre-made or custom made you are limited quite a bit. Only 2 weapon sets and 1 armor set. With a PVE for PVP character it's practically unlimited except for your inventory space.
For instance the HOD helm, no pre-made or custom made can have this item (smile) Also with a PVE character in PVP you can change out armors in a flash for certain circumstances another plus for playing a PVE character up to PVP. The value of my time I have put into the game should have importance as well as skill and intelligence and by playing a PVE up to PVP this does reward me for that time and effort, one of the better things about GW's, but, not really enough to hold me to the game overall because of what I have mentioned above.
The Story: While it started out great, it went into to many different directions and back again. Just as I was getting into the Charr war, here I am tossed into a dwarven war, then into a knight and druid war and a then into an undead war and then into dragons lair and then into hell it self and then back to some titans and lo and behold back to the Charr again. lol Too much changing around the story. I lost interest pretty much after N. Shiverpeaks.
I just hope the preview really shows us something spectacular, a couple of new arenas isn't going to go over to big with me though. And these faction wars already sounds like if you're not rank 3+ or in an elite guild you can forget participating because the larger guilds will ally and take it over.
I don't like games that remain the same. GW's remains the same. No matter how many times you go back into a zone, the same mobs are still there, basically in the same place and it just feels like a hack n slash of the same nature over and over and over again. Thus, this is why farming solo is so easy, once you see what monsters are in the zone and where, you can build a template to defeat them over and over and over again and evade those that would give you a hard time, Hydra farming is sooooo easy it's funny. Not good for longevity to me.
I'm not as excited about getting chapter 2 as I was chapter 1, and I was only excited about chapter 1 because I didn't know what was going to be in chapter 1 and of course the advertising is always a little vague. It says on the inside flap I can SOLO the entire game with henchies if I want, yet, I can't go into UW/FOW with them. Says the game IS MY ADVENTURE, doesn't say it's EVERYONES Adventure but MINE. So, I was pretty disappointed when I found I couldn't use henchies in UW/FOW.
Level caps. I'm not much of one that likes a finite number on anything, that restricts the value of the game also in the long term. A game must always provide extended goals in many catagories, not just loading up on some more skills when you only have 8 slots to use them anyway.
Restrictions on weapon/armor stats. Once again I'm not much of one that likes a finite number on weapons/armors because it too restricts the value of the game in the long term.
Ease of aquiring: This is one of the reason the trade system is a laugh and a joke. There are collectors spread out all over the map that provide you with everything you could want in collectors gear from weapons to armor that are essentually equal to anything you can buy, though there are a "handful" of dropped items that are still of some value and worth farming for or buying. Not like most rpgs or mmorpgs though. No one should ever know what the actual best item in the game is, no one should ever know that 15% is the max or 20% if < 50 health. That's a major problem of this game as well, too much is known before you even start. The build your own PVP character just gives too much away.
PVE to PVP: This I like, they give a good reason to PVE your character up for PVP since you can get more different items and weapons and armors to take with you in the PVP arena, whereas if you build a pre-made or custom made you are limited quite a bit. Only 2 weapon sets and 1 armor set. With a PVE for PVP character it's practically unlimited except for your inventory space.
For instance the HOD helm, no pre-made or custom made can have this item (smile) Also with a PVE character in PVP you can change out armors in a flash for certain circumstances another plus for playing a PVE character up to PVP. The value of my time I have put into the game should have importance as well as skill and intelligence and by playing a PVE up to PVP this does reward me for that time and effort, one of the better things about GW's, but, not really enough to hold me to the game overall because of what I have mentioned above.
The Story: While it started out great, it went into to many different directions and back again. Just as I was getting into the Charr war, here I am tossed into a dwarven war, then into a knight and druid war and a then into an undead war and then into dragons lair and then into hell it self and then back to some titans and lo and behold back to the Charr again. lol Too much changing around the story. I lost interest pretty much after N. Shiverpeaks.
I just hope the preview really shows us something spectacular, a couple of new arenas isn't going to go over to big with me though. And these faction wars already sounds like if you're not rank 3+ or in an elite guild you can forget participating because the larger guilds will ally and take it over.
Lady Lozza
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deathqueen
I just hope the preview really shows us something spectacular, a couple of new arenas isn't going to go over to big with me though. And these faction wars already sounds like if you're not rank 3+ or in an elite guild you can forget participating because the larger guilds will ally and take it over.
|
Bastard Son
Quote:
Originally Posted by hunnie bunny
I sincerely advise you to look at the online custom made player servers of Neverwinter nights. Its the cloest you get to a purist role player game on a pc. Nothing comes close to this, has everything you could want including a DM client(program that allows dungeon masters to play alongside players and dynamically make quests/events on the fly). Whatever you do though, dont run the single player game, Neverwinter nights was built with intent of the player base using the toolset to make their own campaign worlds, not play the poorly implemented example module.
The server I play on, ive been on for 3 years now, its a mini society in a persistant world enviroment, there is no such immersion in gw's, gw's is all ooc. |
funbun
Quote:
The Story: While it started out great, it went into to many different directions and back again. Just as I was getting into the Charr war, here I am tossed into a dwarven war, then into a knight and druid war and a then into an undead war and then into dragons lair and then into hell it self and then back to some titans and lo and behold back to the Charr again. lol Too much changing around the story. I lost interest pretty much after N. Shiverpeaks. |