I'M SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO GUILD WARS 2

Posts

Pages: 1
Versalia
reach for the stars but the airships are in the way
1143
http://www.destructoid.com/guild-wars-2-isn-t-like-any-mmo-you-ve-played-before-222175.phtml

I've been following the development of this game very closely, and it looks incredibly solid. The only thing I was iffy about was the "event" system in place of quests.

If you're not familiar, instead of NPCs standing around with a star or a ! over their heads, quests are triggered by interacting with your environment. The world has multiple event chains, none of which result in "failure," just a different loop of events/end to the quest (since lots of quests/events are interconnected in some way).

This article aroused me. I just wanted to share.
Well, it is true that Guild Wars 2 isn't like any MMO I've played before...
Craze
golden grand piano
11206
By "very closely," Versa means "daily fellatio."

And, uh, while I'm not quite as excited, I am definitely interested and want to try it out. The payment structure (buy the game, it's yours) also helps.
Maybe I should... actually play this?

author=Versalia
If you're not familiar, instead of NPCs standing around with a star or a ! over their heads, quests are triggered by interacting with your environment. The world has multiple event chains, none of which result in "failure," just a different loop of events/end to the quest (since lots of quests/events are interconnected in some way).


This sounds pretty cool, I'd say.
This idea of localized questing is nothing new. While its not the primary system, the same style of questing is found in The Old Republic, and to slightly different extent RIFT and Warhammer Online.

The game definitely seems cool. With no particular tanks and healers I don't know how sustainable PvE encounters will last. They sound like they are going to be highly scripted, and thus have no replay-ability. Although that may not be the case, I don't know.

I didn't particularly like Guild Wars 1. I finished the main storyline in a weekend only to find out my character build wasn't viable, so I had to start from scratch. Which I did, and had much less fun.
author=prexus
This idea of localized questing is nothing new. While its not the primary system, the same style of questing is found in The Old Republic, and to slightly different extent RIFT and Warhammer Online.


The devs have acknowledged that; the difference here is that what you do, actually has an impact on the world. To quote the devs: "If you repel a centaur invasion, then they stop trying for a while; you can the rebuild the town, reestablish trade caravans, and probably take the fight to the centaur encampment. If, on the contrary, you fail to defend the town, their merchants are unavailable for as long as the town is under their control, and you have the chance to mount an offensive to retake the village".

author=prexus
The game definitely seems cool. With no particular tanks and healers I don't know how sustainable PvE encounters will last. They sound like they are going to be highly scripted, and thus have no replay-ability. Although that may not be the case, I don't know.


Every class has been balanced to be self-sustainable. You have your own heals, and you can even "resurrect" yourself. There is mob control, damage mitigation, and DPS; they decided to design combat in a very dynamic way, so all of those roles can be filled by YOU, making the switch between them, practically on the fly.

author=prexus
I didn't particularly like Guild Wars 1. I finished the main storyline in a weekend only to find out my character build wasn't viable, so I had to start from scratch. Which I did, and had much less fun.


Sorry if this sounds... pedantic, but you needed to lrn2play. GW1 was VERY flexible; if you found that in one area you were having problems, all you needed to do was to change your skills. The game has 1,300+ skills, and they're available if you have the game that they belong to (GW1 had 3 chapters and 1 expansion; skills belonged to one of those). All you really needed to do was the correct skill vendor to get more skills. You did NOT have to re roll a character.
Versalia
reach for the stars but the airships are in the way
1143
Large basically covered most of the things I'd say in response to Prexus, especially re: the questing system. It's NOT exactly like TOR and it's not simply "localized questing," but more a domino effect that can roll around the world. My major concerns were availability (with a ton of players running around, how many of these events do you actually get to trigger yourself?) and happenstance (with incredibly bad luck and timing, what happens if you run around for hours and don't run into any events?) but it seems like those aren't really issues.

author=Large
author=prexus
The game definitely seems cool. With no particular tanks and healers I don't know how sustainable PvE encounters will last. They sound like they are going to be highly scripted, and thus have no replay-ability. Although that may not be the case, I don't know.

Every class has been balanced to be self-sustainable. You have your own heals, and you can even "resurrect" yourself. There is mob control, damage mitigation, and DPS; they decided to design combat in a very dynamic way, so all of those roles can be filled by YOU, making the switch between them, practically on the fly.

Pretty much this. All classes can contribute to damage, support, and utility in SOME way. They've also removed "healing" as a major support mechanic - healing exists, but not in giant bursts. It's something you have to dole out, and pay much more attention to damage mitigation and dodging in the first place.
author=large
author=prexus
I didn't particularly like Guild Wars 1. I finished the main storyline in a weekend only to find out my character build wasn't viable, so I had to start from scratch. Which I did, and had much less fun.

Sorry if this sounds... pedantic, but you needed to lrn2play. GW1 was VERY flexible; if you found that in one area you were having problems, all you needed to do was to change your skills. The game has 1,300+ skills, and they're available if you have the game that they belong to (GW1 had 3 chapters and 1 expansion; skills belonged to one of those). All you really needed to do was the correct skill vendor to get more skills. You did NOT have to re roll a character.

Pretty much this. I am literally SHOCKED to hear your build wasn't viable, as that makes practically no sense. GW1 lets you respend your trait points and rebuild your skill bar ad infinitum, so all you really need to do is unlock better skills. :B

GW2 has a similar system for "traits," where you don't spend points in stats but instead in feats/talents. (Noxious Fumes: Your Poison does more damage. Stunning Blow: Your critical hits also stun. etc)
I wasn't looking to defend a point, but I was talking about stock GW, not including expansions. Obviously I didn't buy and play expansions if I didn't enjoy the initial game.

Also that "What you do has an effect on the world" claim has been made by generations of MMOs. It almost never works out the way it is said to. Even if it does, that isn't a selling point to me. I wouldn't want to travel to a town, wander in, and find that its an enemy camp and my vendors aren't available. If the vendors can be found elsewhere, nobody is going to bother liberating the town unless there is a reward for it. If there is a reward for it, players will just let it get taken over and then retake it for the reward. If the reward for defending it is the same as the reward for re-taking it, then the entire situation is moot and just a hassle.

Making all the classes capable of healing, crowd control, damage mitigation, and DPS doesn't make the combat more dynamic. In fact, it makes it multitudes less dynamic. If all the classes are the same, there is no point in having them. If there are differences, at least one is going to be better than another. If one is better than another, inevitably everyone will play that one class or be considered a scrub. If that happens, the developers will either nerf that class, or buff the others, which brings you back to everything being the same and there being no point to different classes. Even if the only difference is play style, there will be enough of a difference for players to min-max and pick the easiest/best class to play and think everyone else is scrub. That is how MMOs work. No MMO has overcome this yet. Either classes are different, and needed, or the same and some get ignored entirely.
author=prexus
I wasn't looking to defend a point, but I was talking about stock GW, not including expansions. Obviously I didn't buy and play expansions if I didn't enjoy the initial game.

Also that "What you do has an effect on the world" claim has been made by generations of MMOs. It almost never works out the way it is said to. Even if it does, that isn't a selling point to me. I wouldn't want to travel to a town, wander in, and find that its an enemy camp and my vendors aren't available. If the vendors can be found elsewhere, nobody is going to bother liberating the town unless there is a reward for it. If there is a reward for it, players will just let it get taken over and then retake it for the reward. If the reward for defending it is the same as the reward for re-taking it, then the entire situation is moot and just a hassle.

Making all the classes capable of healing, crowd control, damage mitigation, and DPS doesn't make the combat more dynamic. In fact, it makes it multitudes less dynamic. If all the classes are the same, there is no point in having them. If there are differences, at least one is going to be better than another. If one is better than another, inevitably everyone will play that one class or be considered a scrub. If that happens, the developers will either nerf that class, or buff the others, which brings you back to everything being the same and there being no point to different classes. Even if the only difference is play style, there will be enough of a difference for players to min-max and pick the easiest/best class to play and think everyone else is scrub. That is how MMOs work. No MMO has overcome this yet. Either classes are different, and needed, or the same and some get ignored entirely.


I can't even begin to say how strongly I disagree with all that you just said...

But, I'm going to respond to ONE of your statements:

author=prexus
If all the classes are the same, there is no point in having them. If there are differences, at least one is going to be better than another.


The classes are not the same; and there are differences. One class can be better at something than another, but the another compensates by being better at something than the one. This is called balance. In any case, we probably won't be able to convince because I also harbor some doubts regarding the viability of the combos between classes, but until I see and play more, I will not just say "Nah, not gonna play". Most press reviews (That come from last weekend's beta event, only for the media) agree on the point that each class feels unique, versatile, and most of all, effective in their own way.
I didn't say "Nah, not gonna play." I even said it looked pretty good.

I consider myself, at the very least, of above average experience with MMORPGs. I don't exactly have a dossier of my experiences with MMOs, but I have played my fair share from as far back as Ultima Online so I have seen all sorts of different styles.

For the record; I don't, and ArenaNET agrees, consider Guild Wars 1 to even be an MMORPG. I don't know if something changed in a later expansion, but only two parts of the game even had MMORPG qualities: Towns, which was pretty much just a visual representation of a chat room with vendors, and PvP; which considering everything was on an equal level in terms of statistics and gear, was an over glorified MOBA (Multiplayer Online Battle Arena, the genre that encompasses games like Defense of the Ancients, League of Legends, Heroes of Newerth, Battle of the Immortals, etc.)

All of the PvE content was instanced, and only allowed for a small group of players to join. That is the exact reason that Diablo 2 isn't considered an MMORPG.

But this discussion isn't about Guild Wars and as I said, I wasn't saying what I did with an expectation to defend my opinion. I just worry about every new MMORPG that is coming out feeling the need to one-up the last. It leads to failure, and MMORPGs can't just fail. They need a certain level of success to be profitable. Lots of work goes into developing them, and even more work and money goes into maintaining them. It's one thing when an established game makes a shift in philosophy to improve on a bad game design (World of Warcraft making every class spec a viable option being a good example of this, Star Wars Galaxies 'New Game Enhancements' patch being a bad example of this,) but when a game that isn't even released yet tries bold new things you have to look at it objectively. You have to question how it is that they can do it, but so many others have failed.

You know what game had events that had a lasting effect on the world? Horizons. Go look it up. If you want to know any more information about that disaster, let me know. I've got all sorts of information about it's development and what it boasted to be able to do. In my opinion, one of the biggest disappointments in PC Gaming.
Versalia
reach for the stars but the airships are in the way
1143
author=Large
author=prexus
If all the classes are the same, there is no point in having them. If there are differences, at least one is going to be better than another.

The classes are not the same; and there are differences. One class can be better at something than another, but the another compensates by being better at something than the one. This is called balance.


This. I didn't say that all classes can do all things - they can contribute to all things. "Support" could mean raising ally armor, buffing movespeed so it's easier to dodge, etc. Adding to DPS could be as easy as one class having an armor-shredding debuff but not a lot of heavy DPS spells (still contributing handily to damage output without being able to "do it all").

I just worry about every new MMORPG that is coming out feeling the need to one-up the last.


Honestly, GW2 is NOT about one-uppance. It's about taking the design concepts they used in GW1 and refining them, taking them to the next level. They aren't trying to one-up anything but themselves, and that's exactly what successful companies do and have done. I've followed their development blogs pretty closely, and they thoroughly explain the WHY behind lots and lots of their choices and mechanics, and it's all extremely solid. The game is less about "look at how different this is!" and more about "we've improved on our own ideas and it came out refreshingly different."
Aren't MMOs nowadays just trying to copy WoW? GW2 seems like it's trying to insert its own model and strengthening their core audience (GW1 didn't fail btw).
Yeah, it didn't. I mean, WoW has what, 15 million accounts? GW1 had 6 million as of June last year, if I correctly recall. And those are not monthly paid accounts. That still gave their parent company (South Korea's Leviathan-sized NC Soft) enough motives to fund a sequel, with the same model.
I don't remember saying GW1 wasn't successful... I'm also pretty sure I never said that GW2 wasn't warranted.

Also, WoW topped at 11.5 million accounts (non-unique and including non-subscriptions in the Asian market as subscriptions don't exist there. They determined an 'account' based on a criteria regarding minutes of playtime purchased) and has sharply decreased since its 6th anniversary. It hasn't published its numbers in a long time but I imagine it is sitting around 8 million or so.

A lot of MMOs may draw from WoW but to say 'copy' would be like someone complaining that Minecraft 'copied' Dwarf Fortress. All of the ideas and ideals in WoW have existed for years. WoW itself was a 'copy' of EverQuest (to the extent that most new MMOs are a 'copy' of WoW,) but with improvements. In fact, during WoW's Beta, many new features that were added and announced directly correlated to one of the new features in the EverQuest expansion that was in development at the time.

I'm not saying WoW stole ideas, or that it was completely unique. Its just a good standard to reflect against.
Just to let everybody know: Beta signup form is up at the official GW2 site
Dudesoft
always a dudesoft, never a soft dude.
5391
I never got into Guild Wars like I thought I would. It had cool graphics but the dungeons and partying was a pain, or I had bad luck.
This however, looks incredible. Especially World PVP.
I'll be giving this a try, for sure.
I am getting GW 2 the moment it comes out, I am a huge fan of GW 1, logged over 1000 hours, and all of them were damn fun. And I played most of those hours solo, only with heroes/henchmen. Already signed for the beta, hope I get invited :D

I'm not sure how much I'll like it though, because of the emphasis on "group"... But since I can play solo and just join the ongoing events, it might be just fine.
Happy
♫ ♩ ♫ ♪ ♬ ♪
5007


Wooop, 2 months until release. Having played on a few stress tests and beta weekend, I can't wait. (Though yes I can. I'm worried how to manage my time when GW 2 comes out anyway. ._.)

I played as thief in the beta, though it wasn't as fun class as I expected (even though the beta was still loads of fun.) I might try elementalist in full release (though, maybe I just sucked when I tried to play as thief.) But at least I can say the game doesn't feel too easy.
Pages: 1