Originally posted by Adalwulff

Originally posted by arctarus

Originally posted by Adalwulff

Originally posted by arctarus

Originally posted by Malevil

Originally posted by arctarus
Year 2012AD, seems like new genre of mmo is offering lesser and lesser contents, smaller and smaller world compare to games being release last time.

u  

I will probably never cease to be amazed by things ppl are able to pull out of their ass and gz you  amazed me again.

1) world in gw is by all reports from press beta HUGE

2) seamless world is not content, preloading world instead of using loading screens adds exactly ZERO content. Yes its nice immersion thing to not have loading screens but thats it.

I wonder if all ppl for who loading screen is such gamebreaker, better not use fast travel in other games, becouse of loading screens they get.

 

Contents as in player housing etc...

and.please, barren size zone is anything but huge.

im not saying gw2 sux, just a trend I notice for most mmo . Different players have different things that will make or break for them which from another player pov is nothing. But that doesn't make their view invalid.

 

Actually, a players view can be invalid, when they forget common sense/logic, and the kind of game thier talking about.

The barrens is huge, its also kind of empty. If you put 200+ players there, the lag will crash even high-end systems. Now, since GW2 is PvP based, with large scale battles and sieges, your going to have the problem with lag.

So, why would any game dev in thier right mind, create a game with one gigantic, seamless world, with 1000's of players battleing it out, and on top of all that, you want immersion, and content flowing all around you. In a word, IMPOSSIBLE!

Its no accident, that single player games, like Skrym, are beautifull to look at, and rich with content, the reason is simple, there arent 1000 other players there creating laggg.

 

For your info.there's no open world pvp in gw2, all the pvp happens in instances battleground. So will 100 vs 100 lag? Maybe? But it won't affect the rest of the world.

so isit.possible to have a huge seamless world, YES!

 

Another clueless WoW player harrasing others looking for something better.

Your talking about one small part of GW2's PvP, the WvWvW zone is huge, not a battleground, and it holds more than 100 vs 100.

Not even a good try, you obviously havent read a single think about the game...lol

I wonder, do some of you play other games aswell, like non-mmo games. The majority of them have loading screens and some of the best are very immersive. I don't find no seamless worlds problematic, in fact, I don't care that much from a personal perspective. From a technical perspective I'd agree to rate GW2 somewhat down, because mostly seamless worlds have been there for ages. But does it make the game less fun? Does it hinder your progress in any way? Do you think you will miss something because you had to load the zone first?

Tbh, I don't mind seams or no seams between zones, what I mind is the actual number of players for each zone or the maximum count of it. I want to play with other people in the zone. I played GW1 for 7 years, I've seen instancing, cherished its flaws and its advantages a lot. I am pretty glad that GW2 still has instancing where it makes sense, but I also want to be able to run into people, play with them for a short while and then go separate ways.

The last point is the most important thing in an mmo(rpg). It doesn't matter if your fun seems to be interupted for a short period of time due to a zone transition, what matters is that you can find other people in the world.

Originally posted by Xasapis

I actually enjoy both aspects, although I tend to spend more time PvPing than PvEing. In any case, regarding GW2 this is a mute point, since PvP will happen in a specific zone, isolated from the rest of the world. So in this case this is not a PvP anywhere game (like Tera or Archage) but PvP on specific zone. Which again I'm fine with it, considering that they are merging population from three separate servers to achieve that.

Now you just sound desperate.

Anet is not "merging" anything, they are basing the PvP on the DAOC model, using 3 servers instead of 3 factions. The WvWvW map is huge with multiple points to control, the terrain also has points of control.

And, thier is no isolation, you can move between PvE and PvP worlds, and there will be benifits for the PvE world from acheivements made in the PvP world, so they are very much connected.

Its about server pride, not your lust for the some shiney set of armor, where you then sit in ogrimar so everyone can see how cool you look.

Originally posted by Xasapis

Tera, from personal experience, is seamless all right. And if all the videos of aerial and naval travel are any indication, Archage is seamless as well. I am also not so sure about the big battles. I've seen footage of archage siege warfare, so that's big. I don't believe I've seen something similar from Tera, but they run on the same engine, so I doubt that it can't be done.

In any case, I believe you missed my points entirely. What I was trying to say is:

• High graphics and detailed seamless worlds are possible.
• I'm ok with GW2 having zoned areas, considering the purchase model they follow.

Those games are seamless, but they don't run on the same engine. Tera uses Unreal Engine 3, whereas Archeage uses Cryengine 3. Also I too don't mind having zoned areas, as long as each one is interesting and unique. Rift has a seamless world also minus Ember Isle, but each zone is pretty much forgettable and dull. I'd trade the seamless world in that game for something a bit more interesting thats for sure.

Originally posted by Adalwulff

Originally posted by Exilor

Originally posted by Adalwulff

Originally posted by cinos

Originally posted by Exilor

Originally posted by Adalwulff

Originally posted by Exilor

Originally posted by Adalwulff

GW2 has always been advertised as a PvP game.

Where?

 

LOL?

You mean you see something different?  Where?

I mean, where has it been advertised as a PvP game? It's a honest question.

I'm interested in where Adalwulff heard this too.

Especially considering that they didn't even start showing pvp until Gamescom last year.

 

So, you guys are saying that GW2 was shown as a Raiders game, like WoW? Show me where?

GW1 and GW2 were both built around PvP mechanics, not PvE. Most MMO's of late were built the other way around, with PvP being added last because of player demand, WoW included. Yes, there was a time when WoW had no BG's.

So your telling me, either you didnt know GW1 and 2 were built around PvP mechanics, or you think that isnt important. Which is it?

I'm not saying such things. I just asked a question.

 

You are not "just asking a question"...lol

You are demanding proof, that GW2 is not built around PvP, when you cannot prove otherwise. And, you wont be able too either, because there is none.

Yes I am, a question that could be answered simply by saying where has it been advertised as a PvP game. Maybe a specific trailer about PvP, dunno. Don't bother with all that defensiveness, I'm not attacking you, the game, or the PvP of the game.

Originally posted by Alarahs

Originally posted by Adalwulff

Originally posted by cinos

Originally posted by Exilor

Originally posted by Adalwulff

Originally posted by Exilor

Originally posted by Adalwulff

GW2 has always been advertised as a PvP game.

Where?

 

LOL?

You mean you see something different?  Where?

I mean, where has it been advertised as a PvP game? It's a honest question.

I'm interested in where Adalwulff heard this too.

Especially considering that they didn't even start showing pvp until Gamescom last year.

 

So, you guys are saying that GW2 was shown as a Raiders game, like WoW? Show me where?

GW1 and GW2 were both built around PvP mechanics, not PvE. Most MMO's of late were built the other way around, with PvP being added last because of player demand, WoW included. Yes, there was a time when WoW had no BG's.

So your telling me, either you didnt know GW1 and 2 were built around PvP mechanics, or you think that isnt important. Which is it?

Guild Wars wasn't built around PvP, it was designed to accommodate both PvP and PvE style play.  Arenanet is doing the same thing with Guild Wars 2.  Both games really do have a bit of a split personallity.  Within Guild Wars you can play exclusively PvE and have a full featured game without a lot of exposure to PvP (a bit, here and there, but not a lot of exposure).  You can also play exclusively PvP and not feel that you have only part of a game.  I'm going to guess that Guild Wars 2 will be quite similar in this way.

 

Note:  Guild Wars did get the reputation of being a PvP game, which is not the same as being designed as a PvP game. This reputation came after the initial release, and was supported by Arenanet through several e-sport type events.  I remember it well.  As bad as I am at PvP, I took part in one of the early events.  It was fun, but I did feel sorry for my team mates!

Yes it was, you even defined it without realizing it.

The game was designed around the PvP mechanics like I said before, the classes were balanced, taht is why it became popular with e-sports. They took that same concept and built GW2, only they expanded both the PvP and the PvE, but seperated them to access more players.

Games that are built around PvE, the PvP is usually unbalanced. Even as good as DAOC was, the classes were not balanced, becasue the game was not built around PvP mechanics.

Originally posted by Adalwulff

Originally posted by Exilor

Originally posted by Adalwulff

Originally posted by cinos

Originally posted by Exilor

Originally posted by Adalwulff

Originally posted by Exilor

Originally posted by Adalwulff

GW2 has always been advertised as a PvP game.

Where?

 

LOL?

You mean you see something different?  Where?

I mean, where has it been advertised as a PvP game? It's a honest question.

I'm interested in where Adalwulff heard this too.

Especially considering that they didn't even start showing pvp until Gamescom last year.

 

So, you guys are saying that GW2 was shown as a Raiders game, like WoW? Show me where?

GW1 and GW2 were both built around PvP mechanics, not PvE. Most MMO's of late were built the other way around, with PvP being added last because of player demand, WoW included. Yes, there was a time when WoW had no BG's.

So your telling me, either you didnt know GW1 and 2 were built around PvP mechanics, or you think that isnt important. Which is it?

I'm not saying such things. I just asked a question.

 

You are not "just asking a question"...lol

You are demanding proof, that GW2 is not built around PvP, when you cannot prove otherwise. And, you wont be able too either, because there is none.

So basically you make a claim that you cannot prove and infact demand that others, when challenged, that they produce proof that you are wrong instead? Aggressively so too.

The burdon of proof is on you. YOU made the statement to which the question of 'Where?' was prompted. It is up to you to show where you heard this. Not simply come back and say that those who question you and your mighty opinion should show you different. That's not how it works and just makes you seem foolish.

Bottom line, GW2 has not 'always' been advertised as a PvP game as you incorrectly claim. Infact the devs have always said that they saw no reason to focus all their resources on just one area and as such their game has equal focus for both PvE and PvP.

You're right about the game engines, I stand corrected.

Originally posted by cinos

Originally posted by Adalwulff

Originally posted by Exilor

Originally posted by Adalwulff

Originally posted by cinos

Originally posted by Exilor

Originally posted by Adalwulff

Originally posted by Exilor

Originally posted by Adalwulff

GW2 has always been advertised as a PvP game.

Where?

 

LOL?

You mean you see something different?  Where?

I mean, where has it been advertised as a PvP game? It's a honest question.

I'm interested in where Adalwulff heard this too.

Especially considering that they didn't even start showing pvp until Gamescom last year.

 

So, you guys are saying that GW2 was shown as a Raiders game, like WoW? Show me where?

GW1 and GW2 were both built around PvP mechanics, not PvE. Most MMO's of late were built the other way around, with PvP being added last because of player demand, WoW included. Yes, there was a time when WoW had no BG's.

So your telling me, either you didnt know GW1 and 2 were built around PvP mechanics, or you think that isnt important. Which is it?

I'm not saying such things. I just asked a question.

 

You are not "just asking a question"...lol

You are demanding proof, that GW2 is not built around PvP, when you cannot prove otherwise. And, you wont be able too either, because there is none.

So basically you make a claim that you cannot prove and infact demand that others, when challenged, that they produce proof that you are wrong instead?

The burdon of proof is on you. YOU made the statement to which the question of 'Where?' was prompted. It is up to you to show where you heard this. Not simply come back and say that those who question you and your mighty opinion should show you different. That's not how it works and just makes you seem foolish.

Bottom line, GW2 has not 'always' been advertised as a PvP game as you incorrectly claim. Infact the devs have always said that they saw no reason to focus all their resources on just one area and as such their game has equal focus for both PvE and PvP.

I already did explain it, the game was designed around PvP mechanics, that is why its one of the most balanced PvP games around.

You guys actually expect me to spend hours searching around the internet and provide you with links? When you are not willing to do the same? I find that interesting.

Your right, they did decide to focus on both PvE and PvP, and they even seperated the 2 to atracts more players of different tastes. But, the fact remains, that GW! and 2 are built around PvP mechanics. In other words the PvP was figured out before the PvE was, that is why it is so much more balanced.

Originally posted by lovefist

Originally posted by Xasapis

Tera, from personal experience, is seamless all right. And if all the videos of aerial and naval travel are any indication, Archage is seamless as well. I am also not so sure about the big battles. I've seen footage of archage siege warfare, so that's big. I don't believe I've seen something similar from Tera, but they run on the same engine, so I doubt that it can't be done.

In any case, I believe you missed my points entirely. What I was trying to say is:

• High graphics and detailed seamless worlds are possible.
• I'm ok with GW2 having zoned areas, considering the purchase model they follow.

Those games are seamless, but they don't run on the same engine. Tera uses Unreal Engine 3, whereas Archeage uses Cryengine 3. Also I too don't mind having zoned areas, as long as each one is interesting and unique. Rift has a seamless world also minus Ember Isle, but each zone is pretty much forgettable and dull. I'd trade the seamless world in that game for something a bit more interesting thats for sure.

Best comment all day.

Rift

http://oyster.ignimgs.com/ve3d/images/03/86/38602_Motorstorm2-Screens-52.jpg

http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/995/20112513514.jpg

GW2

http://www.totalvideogames.com/img/uploaded/www.totalvideogames.com_69318_2.jpg

http://www.rpgreporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/15-Timberline-Falls.jpg

I almost can't tell them apart. I love boths graphic but too say Rifts graphics are anything less then great is just funny.

Originally posted by Adalwulff

Originally posted by cinos

snip

So basically you make a claim that you cannot prove and infact demand that others, when challenged, that they produce proof that you are wrong instead?

The burdon of proof is on you. YOU made the statement to which the question of 'Where?' was prompted. It is up to you to show where you heard this. Not simply come back and say that those who question you and your mighty opinion should show you different. That's not how it works and just makes you seem foolish.

Bottom line, GW2 has not 'always' been advertised as a PvP game as you incorrectly claim. Infact the devs have always said that they saw no reason to focus all their resources on just one area and as such their game has equal focus for both PvE and PvP.

 

I already did explain it, the game was designed around PvP mechanics, that is why its one of the most balanced PvP games around.

You guys actually expect me to spend hours searching around the internet and provide you with links? When you are not willing to do the same? I find that interesting.

Your right, they did decide to focus on both PvE and PvP, and they even seperated the 2 to atracts more players of different tastes. But, the fact remains, that GW! and 2 are built around PvP mechanics. In other words the PvP was figured out before the PvE was, that is why it is so much more balanced.

I find it interesting that you are prepared to make statements and then get aggressive when people challenge you, even asking them to prove your statements for you.

Why should we have to be willing to look for the proof ourselves? We're not the ones who said it in the first place. You did.

So either swallow your pride and retract your statement or find the proof that what you said is correct. It's that simple.

Originally posted by Adalwulff

Originally posted by cinos

Originally posted by Adalwulff

Originally posted by Exilor

Originally posted by Adalwulff

Originally posted by cinos

Originally posted by Exilor

Originally posted by Adalwulff

Originally posted by Exilor

Originally posted by Adalwulff

GW2 has always been advertised as a PvP game.

Where?

 

LOL?

You mean you see something different?  Where?

I mean, where has it been advertised as a PvP game? It's a honest question.

I'm interested in where Adalwulff heard this too.

Especially considering that they didn't even start showing pvp until Gamescom last year.

 

So, you guys are saying that GW2 was shown as a Raiders game, like WoW? Show me where?

GW1 and GW2 were both built around PvP mechanics, not PvE. Most MMO's of late were built the other way around, with PvP being added last because of player demand, WoW included. Yes, there was a time when WoW had no BG's.

So your telling me, either you didnt know GW1 and 2 were built around PvP mechanics, or you think that isnt important. Which is it?

I'm not saying such things. I just asked a question.

 

You are not "just asking a question"...lol

You are demanding proof, that GW2 is not built around PvP, when you cannot prove otherwise. And, you wont be able too either, because there is none.

So basically you make a claim that you cannot prove and infact demand that others, when challenged, that they produce proof that you are wrong instead?

The burdon of proof is on you. YOU made the statement to which the question of 'Where?' was prompted. It is up to you to show where you heard this. Not simply come back and say that those who question you and your mighty opinion should show you different. That's not how it works and just makes you seem foolish.

Bottom line, GW2 has not 'always' been advertised as a PvP game as you incorrectly claim. Infact the devs have always said that they saw no reason to focus all their resources on just one area and as such their game has equal focus for both PvE and PvP.

 

I already did explain it, the game was designed around PvP mechanics, that is why its one of the most balanced PvP games around.

You guys actually expect me to spend hours searching around the internet and provide you with links? When you are not willing to do the same? I find that interesting.

Your right, they did decide to focus on both PvE and PvP, and they even seperated the 2 to atracts more players of different tastes. But, the fact remains, that GW! and 2 are built around PvP mechanics. In other words the PvP was figured out before the PvE was, that is why it is so much more balanced.

Paragons want to know what you're smoking. A subpar PvE class and subpar PvP class, sounds balanced. Not to mention the past 6 months of having 1-4 Dervishes on a single team. Overrepresentation much?

Originally posted by Adalwulff

Originally posted by cinos

Originally posted by Adalwulff

Originally posted by Exilor

Originally posted by Adalwulff

Originally posted by cinos

Originally posted by Exilor

Originally posted by Adalwulff

Originally posted by Exilor

Originally posted by Adalwulff

GW2 has always been advertised as a PvP game.

Where?

 

LOL?

You mean you see something different?  Where?

I mean, where has it been advertised as a PvP game? It's a honest question.

I'm interested in where Adalwulff heard this too.

Especially considering that they didn't even start showing pvp until Gamescom last year.

 

So, you guys are saying that GW2 was shown as a Raiders game, like WoW? Show me where?

GW1 and GW2 were both built around PvP mechanics, not PvE. Most MMO's of late were built the other way around, with PvP being added last because of player demand, WoW included. Yes, there was a time when WoW had no BG's.

So your telling me, either you didnt know GW1 and 2 were built around PvP mechanics, or you think that isnt important. Which is it?

I'm not saying such things. I just asked a question.

 

You are not "just asking a question"...lol

You are demanding proof, that GW2 is not built around PvP, when you cannot prove otherwise. And, you wont be able too either, because there is none.

So basically you make a claim that you cannot prove and infact demand that others, when challenged, that they produce proof that you are wrong instead?

The burdon of proof is on you. YOU made the statement to which the question of 'Where?' was prompted. It is up to you to show where you heard this. Not simply come back and say that those who question you and your mighty opinion should show you different. That's not how it works and just makes you seem foolish.

Bottom line, GW2 has not 'always' been advertised as a PvP game as you incorrectly claim. Infact the devs have always said that they saw no reason to focus all their resources on just one area and as such their game has equal focus for both PvE and PvP.

 

I already did explain it, the game was designed around PvP mechanics, that is why its one of the most balanced PvP games around.

You guys actually expect me to spend hours searching around the internet and provide you with links? When you are not willing to do the same? I find that interesting.

Your right, they did decide to focus on both PvE and PvP, and they even seperated the 2 to atracts more players of different tastes. But, the fact remains, that GW! and 2 are built around PvP mechanics. In other words the PvP was figured out before the PvE was, that is why it is so much more balanced.

What links would you request of me? What do I need to prove to you?

Just mention where, man, no need to make a compilation of links.

They had instanced PvP in Guildwars so I have problems understanding why they would bother to design the game around PvP when it is instanced. That is only necessary where the two mix. Isn't 2 similar or am I wrong.

Originally posted by cheyane

They had instanced PvP in Guildwars so I have problems understanding why they would bother to design the game around PvP when it is instanced. That is only necessary where the two mix. Isn't 2 similar or am I wrong.

GW is nothing but little instanced zones with static mobs and restricive pathways you are forced to take.

The "ONLY" reason the crowed is excited about this game is the fact that its FREE to play. This is the spoiled entitlement generation that feels that like owes them something, just because they were indulged by their parents, and given a free ride through the public school system.

Have fun playing your "the world owes me" game.

Originally posted by Keogh

GW is nothing but little instanced zones with static mobs and restricive pathways you are forced to take.

The "ONLY" reason the crowed is excited about this game is the fact that its FREE to play. This is the spoiled entitlement generation that feels that like owes them something, just because they were indulged by their parents, and given a free ride through the public school system.

Have fun playing your "the world owes me" game.

 

I think you need to calm down.

Originally posted by Tawn47

Originally posted by Keogh

GW is nothing but little instanced zones with static mobs and restricive pathways you are forced to take.

The "ONLY" reason the crowed is excited about this game is the fact that its FREE to play. This is the spoiled entitlement generation that feels that like owes them something, just because they were indulged by their parents, and given a free ride through the public school system.

Have fun playing your "the world owes me" game.

 

I think you need to calm down.

Wow. He has some issues I think need addressing.

Not by us of course. We'd likely just mess him up even further. :p

Originally posted by cinos

Originally posted by Tawn47

Originally posted by Keogh

GW is nothing but little instanced zones with static mobs and restricive pathways you are forced to take.

The "ONLY" reason the crowed is excited about this game is the fact that its FREE to play. This is the spoiled entitlement generation that feels that like owes them something, just because they were indulged by their parents, and given a free ride through the public school system.

Have fun playing your "the world owes me" game.

 

I think you need to calm down.

Wow. He has some issues I think need addressing.

Not by us of course. We'd likely just mess him up even further. :p

I think hes one of the SWTOR fans who is upset at the hate the game received.  Naturally he wants a similar fate to befall GW2...  but unfortunately for him GW2 is shaping up quite well so far.

(btw..  free to play is just a bonus for me.  I would happily pay a subscription for GW2 if that was necessary)