Link: http://www.pcgamer.com/previews/guild-wars-2-preview-5/

Interesting article.  Article makes DE sound seemingly like Rift's rifts, if you ask me.

edit: made link clickable.

I learned not to believe anyones Preview, ohhh how they said AoC was amazing, and SWTOR was incredible, these companies are a joke, best preview is your own, play it then you decide, never listen to anyone.  end of story

I tend to agree, yet my issue came in yesterday and had nothing else to read while doing my business.

this guy is ******* >.< he chooses human and then bitches about the way they look... why didn't he choose a different race?!?!? He says he chose human for the starting area.. yet the 3 areas to choose from are equally fleshed out and most of us have seen some great footage of these areas.. I played the Charr and it was great. I love how he says he did human because its been done the most... WTF! This tells me he didn't even try, wwatched vids from others and gave the game 10 min regardless of what he says. Also what does this guy have against women looking pretty... I am a woman and dammit I WANT my char to look pretty. Why doesn't he play a male toon if it bothers him so much?

Ah ha.. read farther in "its not the old republic".. explains A LOT. Yea I stopped reading.. too many innacuracies and canned responses. This guy should go back to writing for SWTOR.. perhaps he can write about how it isn't dead because ppl took advatage of FREE game time.

I actually disagree. He admits that his problems with the fantasy-esque art direction is subjective.  He just doesn't like how all female humans are gorgeous.  I think its a fair point to be honest.

He then goes on, and shows his reactions to each aspect of the game.  Just because he mentions SWTOR and played it, does not make him a bad person.   In SWTOR, story is the biggest aspect of the game, and hes just drawing some comparisons between the two.  That doesn't make his article unreadable.  

Most of his points are valid, albeit a little subjective.  He like's almost everything, and comes down to the fact that he feels GW2 is a natural evolution of WoW. (The only thing he dislikes in the article is the model-like appearance of humans, and the lack of lasting social interaction.)  I don't think the article is bad by any means, and it is like the OP stated, quite interesting.  You can never have enough constructive criticism, and I like how he balances his ideas with examples and not just opinions. 

he is writing an article.. it is his job to be unbiased... yet he isnsists on setting himself up to not like it. He plays what he doesn't like.. Humans are supposed to be these perfect type ppl in this game.. the women ARE pretty.. even TOO pretty but why bitch about it when you insist on playing it... It makes no sense for a journalist to set himself up to be biased. A lot of his in, first page and a half is as far as I could get is either not complete or biased.

Originally posted by ariboersma

he is writing an article.. it is his job to be unbiased... yet he isnsists on setting himself up to not like it. He plays what he doesn't like.. Humans are supposed to be these perfect type ppl in this game.. the women ARE pretty.. even TOO pretty but why bitch about it when you insist on playing it... It makes no sense for a journalist to set himself up to be biased. A lot of his in, first page and a half is as far as I could get is either not complete or biased.

I think you and I are thinking about it very differently.  His job is not to be unbiased, his job is to present his opinion.  If you read past the first page you will find that most of what he has to say about the game is positive.  He is not writing for the New York TImes, he's writing for a gaming site that reviews games.  He has a right to like what he likes, and talk about what he doesn't.  He admits his flaws within the article.  He did not immediately know that making a female human character required him to look pretty.  He was unsatisfied, that every human female in the game looked like a model.  If he chose a different race, that does not mean that his problem with the art direction is fixed.  He cannot play what he wants to play, because what he wants to play is simply not there.  He wants to play a realistic, older human female, and the game simply doesn't give him that option. He wanted the art direction to be realistiic.  If you disagree, that's fine.  But you should be able to look past an opinion, even if it is different from your own.  As the article progresses, the author looks past his own subjective opinions, and ultimately provides a generally, postiive experience of the game.  GW2 is in beta, they are in need of opinions.  

Originally posted by Finit

I actually disagree. He admits that his problems with the fantasy-esque art direction is subjective.  He just doesn't like how all female humans are gorgeous.  I think its a fair point to be honest.

He then goes on, and shows his reactions to each aspect of the game.  Just because he mentions SWTOR and played it, does not make him a bad person.   In SWTOR, story is the biggest aspect of the game, and hes just drawing some comparisons between the two.  That doesn't make his article unreadable.  

Most of his points are valid, albeit a little subjective.  He like's almost everything, and comes down to the fact that he feels GW2 is a natural evolution of WoW. (The only thing he dislikes in the article is the model-like appearance of humans, and the lack of lasting social interaction.)  I don't think the article is bad by any means, and it is like the OP stated, quite interesting.  You can never have enough constructive criticism, and I like how he balances his ideas with examples and not just opinions. 

Couldnt agree more

Not sure why the hate on this preview. I thought it was rather balanced and the criticism fair. The overall theme of the piece was very positive and dented the obvious skepticism he had entering the game for the first time. 

About the part on female models. He has a point. When was the last time a game let you make a fat/ugly female? You can fiddle with some of the face settings to make a face look out of proportion, but from the start the models are overly beautified. More to the point you have adventuring females running around in ice cold mountains during a snow storm wearing little more than a leather bikini. GW2 is certainly not as bad about this as other games, see Tera the pedobear theme park, but it is a disturbing continuation of female objectification which I personally think adds quite a bit to the horny teen misogynistic atmosphere female gamers have to contend with. Female toons can certainly be made to look good if the player wants, but it should be a concious choice and not something that is built into the character creation. 

Personally I would love to run with a 300 lb Valkerie looking female toon named Bertha wearing a full breastplate armor and chewing nails. That is the kind of woman you want running with you and not towards you at the start of battle. Throw me up against a ninty lb child who looks like she came from a Victoria Secret store and all you will get from me is disdain. 

deleted

If you read the entire article, he praises the DEs and makes me want April 27 to get here sooner. I can't wait for this game omfg

Originally posted by Finit

Originally posted by ariboersma

he is writing an article.. it is his job to be unbiased... yet he isnsists on setting himself up to not like it. He plays what he doesn't like.. Humans are supposed to be these perfect type ppl in this game.. the women ARE pretty.. even TOO pretty but why bitch about it when you insist on playing it... It makes no sense for a journalist to set himself up to be biased. A lot of his in, first page and a half is as far as I could get is either not complete or biased.

I think you and I are thinking about it very differently.  His job is not to be unbiased, his job is to present his opinion.  If you read past the first page you will find that most of what he has to say about the game is positive.  He is not writing for the New York TImes, he's writing for a gaming site that reviews games.  He has a right to like what he likes, and talk about what he doesn't.  He admits his flaws within the article.  He did not immediately know that making a female human character required him to look pretty.  He was unsatisfied, that every human female in the game looked like a model.  If he chose a different race, that does not mean that his problem with the art direction is fixed.  He cannot play what he wants to play, because what he wants to play is simply not there.  He wants to play a realistic, older human female, and the game simply doesn't give him that option. He wanted the art direction to be realistiic.  If you disagree, that's fine.  But you should be able to look past an opinion, even if it is different from your own.  As the article progresses, the author looks past his own subjective opinions, and ultimately provides a generally, postiive experience of the game.  GW2 is in beta, they are in need of opinions.  

Ya but what MMO does (old age human)?   Sorry the guy is a joke.  He faults GW2 for not creating connections between players (making friends).  Yet does not say how he never ran a dungeon.  You don't find a "great healer" untill you start runnining Dungeons. You have next to no interaction with other players untill you get to Dungeons in most MMO's.   Sorry but he can't fault something he never tried.  He comes across as a rampant SWtOR  Fanboy.  

Originally posted by atziluth

Not sure why the hate on this preview. I thought it was rather balanced and the criticism fair. The overall theme of the piece was very positive and dented the obvious skepticism he had entering the game for the first time. 

About the part on female models. He has a point. When was the last time a game let you make a fat/ugly female? You can fiddle with some of the face settings to make a face look out of proportion, but from the start the models are overly beautified. More to the point you have adventuring females running around in ice cold mountains during a snow storm wearing little more than a leather bikini. GW2 is certainly not as bad about this as other games, see Tera the pedobear theme park, but it is a disturbing continuation of female objectification which I personally think adds quite a bit to the horny teen misogynistic atmosphere female gamers have to contend with. Female toons can certainly be made to look good if the player wants, but it should be a concious choice and not something that is built into the character creation. 

Personally I would love to run with a 300 lb Valkerie looking female toon named Bertha wearing a full breastplate armor and chewing nails. That is the kind of woman you want running with you and not towards you at the start of battle. Throw me up against a ninty lb child who looks like she came from a Victoria Secret store and all you will get from me is disdain. 

They are called Norns and they are in the game.  

Originally posted by vardar

I learned not to believe anyones Preview, ohhh how they said AoC was amazing, and SWTOR was incredible, these companies are a joke, best preview is your own, play it then you decide, never listen to anyone.  end of story

Very true! A lot of these gaming journalists praised games that ended up tanking. Why should we listen to people who either were disingenuous or really had no clue what they were saying. In the end, the best and most important review is the one you do/experience for yourself.

Originally posted by Finit

Originally posted by ariboersma

he is writing an article.. it is his job to be unbiased... yet he isnsists on setting himself up to not like it. He plays what he doesn't like.. Humans are supposed to be these perfect type ppl in this game.. the women ARE pretty.. even TOO pretty but why bitch about it when you insist on playing it... It makes no sense for a journalist to set himself up to be biased. A lot of his in, first page and a half is as far as I could get is either not complete or biased.

I think you and I are thinking about it very differently.  His job is not to be unbiased, his job is to present his opinion.  If you read past the first page you will find that most of what he has to say about the game is positive.  He is not writing for the New York TImes, he's writing for a gaming site that reviews games.  He has a right to like what he likes, and talk about what he doesn't.  He admits his flaws within the article.  He did not immediately know that making a female human character required him to look pretty.  He was unsatisfied, that every human female in the game looked like a model.  If he chose a different race, that does not mean that his problem with the art direction is fixed.  He cannot play what he wants to play, because what he wants to play is simply not there.  He wants to play a realistic, older human female, and the game simply doesn't give him that option. He wanted the art direction to be realistiic.  If you disagree, that's fine.  But you should be able to look past an opinion, even if it is different from your own.  As the article progresses, the author looks past his own subjective opinions, and ultimately provides a generally, postiive experience of the game.  GW2 is in beta, they are in need of opinions.  

It isn't enough for it to be mostly positive, it has to be all positive.

Wow, that was a really good article.  In fact one of the better review articles I've read about any upcoming release in a long time.  He offered both subjective and objective opinions.  I'm sure we'll get more criticism driven angst posts by the Positivists of The Hive Mind as they just can't handle any negative opinion or critical insight.

One of the most interesting perspectives I've found was his comparison to how WoW tried to solve the EQ problem with points on how it succeeded and how it failed.

It's interesting he found the immediate encounters very social but lacking in deeper, more long lasting interaction.

Another thing I found personally interesting was the farmer with the worm problem.  The worm/queen quests outside Ashford Abbey anyone?

I really wish he had been able to discuss level cap play and how it feels.  I noticed he said he gained a half a level from an event or short series of events.  It sounds like leveling will be fast, and while that experience was interesting, it won't last long.  His comment about feeling like leveling was as important as cap made me wonder, well then what will level cap feel like?  If a few adventures will get you decked out, then what?  Game over?  Do it for no reason - ie: "Just for Fun" ^(TM)?  The leveling and story sound nice, but I'm still wondering about longevity.

This is the same guy that said this 

http://www.pcgamer.com/previews/star-wars-the-old-republic-preview-3/

Nothing bad to say about that fail game.  

V good preview imo. The writer is trying to say: "Another mmo, but one that goes back to basics and revamps them to solve a problem with previous mmos - don't expect more than this but also to expect a fun game". I think the reference to avatar is a nod to "this is not for everyone" but if it interests it will interest a lot ie visual/genre/mmo tick or cross at your leisure.

I think this is a reasonable review/preview. No, it doesn't praise everything about the game but why should it, GW2 isn't perfect. I think it highlights the important elements of the game. If people can't appreciate different perspectives about the game, or things that can be perceived as criticism, then I think we have a problem coming next weekend when these forums will be flooded with beta player opinions and those pretending to be in the beta.

Originally posted by TheYear1500

This is the same guy that said this 

 

http://www.pcgamer.com/previews/star-wars-the-old-republic-preview-3/

 

Nothing bad to say about that fail game.  

So are you then trying to say his praise of GW2 means its doom?