Guild Wars should pick a side

A good number of posts in this forum are PvP vs. PvE related. I think it would be best for ANET to pick one side or the other as you will not be able to please both. Since EQ, WoW and others are better (by a long shot) in the PvE element I would suggest the ANET cater to the PvP crowd. Unlock all skills, give a large number of weapons selection and allow people to move around attribute points whenever they choose.

Then they would displease the ppl who likes PvP and PvE. Great idea. Afterall, why not displease the ppl for whom the game was originally made?

I disagree that other games PvE is "much better". For me, the PvE in GW has a good storyline and point. Unlike some other PvE mmorpgs. "Let's go kill a camp of blah, blah that sit there in the same place everyday waiting to be slaughtered"

Guild Wars is a really good game but the storyline is pitiful. I still dont understand why in the world we left Ascalon behind. If I had a choice I certainly would not leave my homeland and its people behind while they were fighting for their very existence. Also, Prince Rurik is one of the worst characters in any game period. As for grinding the same mobs in the same spots; it is the exact same in GW. When you enter a mission the same exact mobs are in the same exact areas. When you leave a town the exact smae mobs are in the exact same areas. The quests in GW dont even compare to the ones in WoW. Now Guild Wars is a great game, the graqphics are out of this world and I love to play. However, ANET should stick to their strong-point (and their selling-point) and totally eliminate the grind for players who do not choose to participate in it.

Guild Wars was created to cater to the PvP crowd. Then somewhere down the line I guess the publishers leaned on them to add a PvE element and pretend it's just as important, in order to make more money. It's all been downhill from there.

Guild Wars doesnt need to pick a side, it attracts a hell of a lot more people having both pvp and pve. They seem to be pleasing everyone aswell. By throwing away pve you are throwing away the core of the game and vice versa.

I think they have already

GODAMN. Just stop arguing about the patch for ONE week! I argued about the farming nerf patch but now I am fine. Lets just wait to see what they do with the PvE patch next week.

They don't need to pick a side. They need to isolate them from each other.

Why do I need to unlock stuff before I PvP (it's more viable in PvE, at the moment)?

Why do I need to wait for the arbitrary barrier of Favor of the Gods to be fullfilled before I can go to the Fissure/Underworld?


sigh*

*ahem*

I thought they picked a side when they named the game "Guild Wars"

Guild wars was mentioned in the manuscript, the X factor of weakened human kingdoms that allowed charrs take North Wall and thus the beginning of pre-searing ascalon

the name thus play a role in PvE as well.

As an Afterthought.


And using that example doesn't justify that the game is called guild wars even though the storyline never mentions it outside of the one little blurb in the game manual.




GvG and PvP are the foundations of the game....always have been. PvE was just to sell more copies.


EDIT: Not trying to be a pompous fool here. It's just that the game has been marketed for PvP since day one, and I'm willing to recognize that even though I play PvE almost exclusively.

Quoted for truth

i wasn't trying to justify why it's called guild wars, just to say the pve side has something to do with the name. and i'm not here to argue whether it was picked because of pvp. it was just FYI.

I thought you had a serious post until I read that.
Dong! wrong answer.
I am certain many other former players of these games would disagree with you as well.
Additional detail and expansions can always be added; challenging gameplay and balance cannot.
By this alone, GW is "better by a long shot" than any of the titles you mention - and many more i have played that you didn't.

Talesin

It's actually mentioned a lot of times in the game.

1. So instance raids in EQ and WoW are not challenging?

2. Classes cannot be balanced with patches?

3 How in the hell do you know which games I have and have not played?

it could be, jawz, that its cause he's a good few years older than you and has had a chance to play a good many games that were not around when you were...
(just pointing out)

and i hear lots of peeps who are with us in GW that *used* to play EQ,Wow ect, and *Chose* to come play GW.

1. EQ1 was challenging up through SoV, after that, bleh. WoW is *mildly* challenging once you get to MC -- before that it is the most mindless of mindless grinds with quests and dungeons I could (and I did) in my sleep. MC quickly loses its appeal once you know the strats and grind for the "best" gear.

2. No, not really. GW has a very balanced set of game mechanics. EQ1&2 and WoW do not. And without vastly changing the way the games work and/or vastly altering how a class plays (spells, skills, equipment, etc.) they could not hope to balance the games. Mostly, those MMOs just play juggling acts where they strengthen one set of classes to the point that they have to strengthen the other set, and so on.

In GW, you not only have balance, you also have infinite challenge. The PvE aspect poses some interesting challenge, but it diminishes the same way the other MMOs do (after you have the gear and strats). However, the PvE remains slightly more challenging due to the difficulty of the NPCs and limitations on party size. Most notably however, GW shines in the that PvP offers infinite challenge: Guilds are constantly raising the bar and mixing up the strats required for success. You can't get that in some static game like EQ or WoW.

The PvE and PvP balance in GW is very well done. They should probably lower the faction prices on the PvP rewards in order to strike a compromise between the two modes of play, but otherwise, they have done a great job at presenting something that is essentially 2 games in a very cohesive fashion. I just like to think that I got 2 games for the price of one

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Like Adelburn fought in the Guild Wars, which is why he is even king now yada yada Barradin was rightful king yada yada . . or something. It's been a while. I read it the first time through, but didn't pay attention after that . . and for the first half of the game the first time through was in beta weekend events so it's been a while.

I think they tried to use a name that could be incorporated in both PVE and PVP, so the arguements over the name are just silly.

There is a lot of draw from other MMorph's (FFXI myself). This is one game that has Pvp, GvG, and PvE all wrapped up that allows for many different people to play in different ways.

That's the reason why it draws so many people too it, it's appealing on different levels to different people. I "dabbled" in Pvp but am pretty much PvE. My goal is to beat the game aka get all the bonuses mission done, all the quests down, a copy of all the different armor types from fissure, unlock all my skills for both professions.

As I am nearing the last missions, thinking about Pvp and once far enough will probable start doing PvP until the expansion comes out then I will jump back in PvE again.

Since the game can be "divide" and looked at two diffrent angles it's always going to have this rift of PvE Vd PvP/GvV.

I think Arenanet is Unique that they have a system for both. and that they add content for both. That's what got me to buy the game and not even consider WoW. I played Wow in beta and I was like well... oh so, its a little more campy then I would have expected in WoW... sure its big and has vast areas... but the unique instance quality in guildwars was what drew me to it. And the unique PvP style was also a big draw. add in the free to play aspect and its a no brainer. GuildWars all the way. there is something for EVERYONE. and that's the way we like it.

Well, if it wasn't for the PvE, a lot of people wouldn't be playing.

I, for instance, would never, ever, have bought GW if it only had the PvP.

If it really WAS Counterstrike: fantasy, if it really was eye-hand coordination skill based, then I'd be interested, as I'm an fps player at heart, but I'm not interested in a glorified hockey card game.

I really don't see where people get off thinking that Guild Wars is PvP centric. I mean come on, think for a second; do you really think they are releasing expansions due to the PvP side of it?? The upcoming 'Chapters' are going to exists to evolve and continue the story line. Last time I checked the story line was PvE element. Get over yourselves. The game was designed with both aspects in mind and has done a good job trying to meld them together. The responses from Arena Net in the form of weekly patches is absolutely unique and shows they intend to support the majority of the customer base by continuing to cater to both sides.

Catering to one side completely... words don't exist to adequately describe just how stupid that idea is.

Guild Wars probably (I wasn't there, so I dont know) started out very pvp oriented in the betas because pvp content is small and quick to make (not the programming, the art, level design, etc.). The pve content would have taken a longer time, and the game was released when it was completely done.

I'm sure the UAS in the betas was a way for them to get a lot of stuff tested, rather than a feature they were trialing in the game. I wonder why they took out the skill bracelets tho - they sound interesting.

Edit: Yes, GW should pick a side. I wish the devs would just go, "There will be no UAS, period. And faction rewards will be tweaked from our internal data of how quickly people unlock things." And people can just move on. The big problem of ANet's "responsiveness" is that people think that they can kick up a fuss and get things changed to how they personally like it. Actually, that's not that bad, uh, I'd like better combat graphics..... :P

'Cuz the PvE side of the game is just so chock-full of that, isn't it?

And for the record, it can, and it has.


I think a better argument for PvE being better in GW than other MMORPGs, is that other MMORPGs require monthly fees. That has a lot of power.

The Skill charm and ring are not Gone per say... but the are not in the game currently... I have heard they are still in the alpha build though, so it may make a reappearance some day. During the betas they were kind of buggy as I remembered.

and the reason some ( meaning not me ) people say that is was PvP based was that was how they originally pitched it back in the betas, but it evolved from just that to what it is today...
Its mostly just beta testers complaining.. let them blow their wind. the real testers knew what the beta was all about... TESTING... now that its live it about PLAYING.

Exactly. So if GW didn't have PvE, there would be a lot less people buying the game (myself included). I haven't played an online RPG since Diablo 2 since MMORPGs just don't appeal to me. This game is more similar to Diablo 2 than any other game out there at the moment (except for perhaps Sacred, but that's getting old) and I was hoping they could also develop more on the PvE since it's pretty good IMHO.

I don't see anything wrong with it at the moment. People knew what they were getting when they purchased the game. Yes perhaps PvE wasn't seen at all during the beta stages, but they wanted to make sure the core gameplay was solid (i.e. the PvP, GvG) whilst they finished doing the PvE (which is probably simpler to code, but takes more time spent on extra mapping, scripting and sound).

i would think it would be PVE that was seen the most in beta I mean what do you REALLY need to test in pvp. Anything that you can test in pvp can be tested in pve. Plus pve has so much MORE to test than pvp.

Also PVE is the heart of the game NOT pvp. PVP is what 5 arenas wow so much to do. While PVE has SO MUCH more to offer. IF GW was just pvp it would NEVER of even got published. Who needs another fps when we have 10,000 all ready.

Well, I've not played WoW, but I've played EQ2, and yes, the PvE of GW is at least as good if not better.

Pick a side...right...and thus pissing off over half the people who play this game.

You see, if you choose to favor "just PvP" or "Just PvE", no matter which one you choose you're going to piss off over 50% of the people playing the game. Whichever you choose you'll piss off the opposite side AND all those who play BOTH.

It would be the stupidest move Anet could ever do, and they won't do it.

I think that both PvP and PvE are very well developed.

There's several dozen hours worth of gameplay in PvE. That's maybe not as much as in WoW, but it's far more than in Final Fantasy or Diablo. While the plot is weak, the gameplay is fun, interesting, challenging (maybe not to someone who has beaten the game a few times, but it is to someone who just got to Elona's Reach), and diverse.

PvP is so much better than almost everything single other RPG. There is true balance. In the months since release, how many balance patches have there been? None that I can remember. Sure, Warriors are a little weak, but they are still effective. Almost every build has a good, viable hard counter (minions - Edge of Extinction and AoE; aeromancer spike - Protective Spirit/Bond, Fertile Season, Mesmers). There are 3 different types of gameplay, Arena (random and arranged), Tombs, and GvG. All are fun and require varying amounts of strategy.

When can't good PvP and PvE experiences coexist in the same game? Why can't the intermingle? ArenaNet can satisfy all three types of player (PvE, PvP, and both), without major gameplay changes. In the last patch, they have shown that they aren't giving up on either side (new quests for PvE, new PvP rewards system).

I dunno, kinda seems to me like they picked a side. I mean, did they not totally nerf the hell out of farming anything, and make it so that items can be unlocked simply by playing PvP?

As they mentioned, the PvE patch is coming next....they are trying their best to cater to both groups. Lets be patient

And item unlocking is still much easier in PvE than PvP.

mild Spoilers below






Playing single player RPGS for over 10 years, i must say that the pve in Guild wars is a pathetic attempt. The story / plot is a joke. Lots of overacting, jumping around (you "jump" from one mission area to the next), unexplained stupidity (why leave ascalon? why join the mantle? why are the mantle suddenly evil). There is a background, and there is detail in the world, but compare it to Morrowind, and you end up with an empty game. The world feels like mazes in a game, and not like real areas.
Every single part of GW keeps reminding me that it is a game, and not a virtual world. This may be a good thing for pvp, but in pve, i seek other things.

The pve combat is ok, but nothing to great. It lacks depth, and the feeling of depth.80% of the skills are worthless in pve, at least most of the time. I reached Fire Islands after lots of failed attempts with PUGs in the later missions. I did not bother with PUGs before the desert. Also did the extremely easy Dragons Lair with henchmen. After winning the "hard" missions once, i realized that they are not hard, they just require a "key". Thirsty rivers is so easy if you know what to do in the second arena. Maybe i could do it with henchmen. Maybe it was better in the betas, and dumbed down for release. If they add henchmen controlls, other players will be redundant.


Actually, if GW keeps the "unlocking must take 1000h or more" concept, i will have most of the stuff unlocked when Gothic III and Oblivion will be released. Superior PvE without the jerks for the win. In other games, the massive part makes a difference. Player-run economies have a different feel then an AI script. In GW, there are instances, and there is LA dist. 1.

Hahaha... I've been playing single-player rpgs for over 20 years, and ironically, I was just going to suggest Morrowind as an example of a single-player RPG with an even weaker story and even more woody doorpost npcs. And, heck, GW's story is at least better and the henchmen more memorable than those in Neverwinter Nights, and if you want serious jumpiness and plot holes, try KOTOR2 or Kult: Heretic Kingdoms!

It's true GW cant measure up to the story / npc's of Baldurs Gate2, KOTOR1, Fallout or Planescape: Torment, but those are exceptional, and as such exceptions, not the rule, and GW is really about par for the rpg course. That doesn't mean they shouldn't try to improve things, of course; while there's no shame in being average, there's no pride in it either.

I agree that the maps are annoying. They're all of them basically labyrinths of gorges, with mobs at every choke point - and that gets real old. I realize they're designed that way to minimize the opportunity for people to bypass all opposition and then bitch about the game being too short (or, if they're forced to fight later, too hard) but it's annoying that you almost never can make any other tactical decision than which order to pull the mobs.

Combat: weeeell... I don't know. Again I'd say it's about average wrt complexity. It's tons more complex and challenging than in Morrowind or Dungeonsiege, but less so than in Gothic2 or Baldurs Gate2. Again, more space and more terrain effects would go a long way towards making combat more complex and varied.
(Personally, and I know this is a lost cause, I'd have liked the combat to be more eye-hand-coordination skill based, like FPS's are, than precalculate-which-combos-are-optimal skill based, like Magic the Gathering was.)

Also, and dont take this the wrong way - OF COURSE you tire after x00 hours of play!
Once you've played through the PvE once or twice, you know what to do when and where, and the challenge is pretty much gone. That's just how it is. Also, perhaps you SHOULD join PUGs - they'll certainly add a new dimension to the game for you.
Me, I got roughly a week out of KOTOR2, and was dissatisfied; a good solid month out of Morrowind and didn't feel cheated; I've already played GW for over one month and not tired yet.

Perhaps I'll tire soon and flip to Gothic3 or Oblivion, or perhaps Anet will rekindle my interest with patches - but it doesn't really matter. I've more than got my moneys worth already.

I bought a game that offered playable PvP and PvE from the very first day you logged on, which is exactly what I got.

What game did you buy ?

Even if Anet did decide to choose PvE or PvP above the other, there would still be a subset who weren't happy about something, that's just the way life is. With this in mind, why should they give up the uniqueness that their PvP/PvE blend offers, and become just another average market title. There is no game that has managed such a good balance of PvP and PvE so far, and certainly none that has been as well executed or is as well supported. Come on, weekly updates ?! I've being playing online games since '98, and none have even come close to that.

Yeah, that was a bad mistake. A better name would have been: Rune Wars

But seriously, Anet does not have to make any choice between pvp or pve. Allthough I think it wont do any harm if Anet responded to this discussion.

I've avoided this thread for fear that it will be filled with flames and fighting... but I'm worried that the OP wish could come true, so I'm just dipping in to offer a few other successful examples

-Grand Theft Auto should not pick a side between racing game and shooter
-Black and White 2 should not pick a side between being a city sim, RTS or god sim.

any other good examples of modern games blurring the lines between genres?

Morrowind did not have a story, thats why i loved it. Stories are just pathetic attempts at drama. They can be poor, like in GW, or sophisticated, like in BG II, but they remain railroaded drama (whaa the BBEG killed [insert family member / love interest], i will take revenge).

Morrowind was a world, full of lore. It had its weaknesses, it had lots. But it was still one of the most immersive games out there. Gothic being NR.1 [because it had a unique living world]. Fallout being second. Never played torment, but i hear its RP-heaven.

on topic:
You may like GW PVE, its up to you. But GW does not offer the immersive world like other MMOPRGS. It does not offer the social aspect like other MMORPGs (it feels like singleplayer games with coorp). The PvE is "medicore" at best, compared to Diablo II (much more loot), Gothic, KOTOR, BG II (much better story / world) or Morrowind (player freedom / customisation).
Why are there no comparisions to online RPGs you ask? Well GW is a singleplayer RPG with parts that require coorp-mode played online.

PvP is unique, but the devs decided to focus on everything but the "real" pvp. You say that fighting players in the arena or in GvG is pvp. Technically it is. But when "we" (the few remaining complainers) talk about pvp, we speak of pvp metagame with 450 skills and all unlocks. Many games offer the "current" pvp. Only the betas offered GW pvp.

You say GW has pvp you can play right out of the box (premades). Like every MMORPG out there that supports pvp. Yes it may take you 10h to reach a level that enables pvp there, but you can do it reasonably fast. You dont stand a chance, but who cares, you can pvp.

The catch? In GW, "levels" are not levels. The real levels (like level 60 in WoW) are called "unlocks". Unlike most RPGs, the progression is not linear... but there are key "levels" that you need to grind out. PvP premades DONT start maxed out. Saying so is equal to claiming that in WoW, a level 1 and a level 60 are equal, because both can "run" and "jump" and "attack".


Fighting other players with 8 skills that some other players may not have access too due to time constraints =! pvp

making a build choosing from 450 skills that EVERYONE has access too on the fly = GW pvp