Originally posted by Volkon

Ah, gotcha. However, if I may be so bold, everything they've said is in the game and working is in the game and working. It's been seen to be working. WvW is working well, Mike B's video here shows that nicely. It works wonderfully. DE's are working. The end of the trinity is working excceptionally well. Everything they've promised, they only did so when they knew they could deliver. THAT'S the difference.

Fair enough, but if I may be so bold I'll wait until about the three month mark to agree :).

Originally posted by Volkon

Originally posted by Distopia

Originally posted by Volkon

Originally posted by Distopia

Originally posted by Volkon

 

So far they have failed to fail to meet any expectations they've been expected to meet. What they say is in the game is in the game. Besides, first hand experience is dramatically better than the word of mouth. With the caveat that I haven't played or tried Tera, this is the most fluidic combat system I've yet to experience. The absence of the trinity adds an entirely new level of dynamics that have to be experienced to appreciate. As much as I've enjoyed videos of the game even they pale in comparison to having your own go at it.

 

Friday comes. We'll see who has what to say.

WIth all due respect, Ilum was in TOR but did it work out for it? I could cite quite a few examples like that. In the game doesn't mean much until it's withstood the test of time. I don't doubt GW2 will be a decent game, but that doesn't mean everything about it will be, and that's really the key. As that will decide what "honest" feedback is like after launch, I say honest because we all know not all feedback will be (positive or negative).

Friday through monday also doesn't mean much in the big picture. It will still be new and shiny at that point, so most feedback will be shiny.

 

What does Ilum have to do with GW2? WvW is a completely different animal. What a strange comparison.

 

But  yeah, most of the feedback should indeed be shiny.

The comparison wasn't between Ilum and WVW, just features that are in a game, yet don't work out right in the end. That's the only point I was making, one could also point to AOC sieges for this example. Or a number of things in MMO's from the past.

I'm just saying be careful stating something like everything they've said is in the game and working, Ilum worked week one too, however it didn't take long for real problems to arise. These are big games, lots to account for, some things just get overlooked.

I know I for one wouldn't expect players from opposite factions to work together to cheat a system and give each other a helping hand in becoming stronger in PVP, but it happened, I mean one could do the same thing in BF2, but have you ever seen it?

Ah, gotcha. However, if I may be so bold, everything they've said is in the game and working is in the game and working. It's been seen to be working. WvW is working well, Mike B's video here shows that nicely. It works wonderfully. DE's are working. The end of the trinity is working excceptionally well. Everything they've promised, they only did so when they knew they could deliver. THAT'S the difference.

No, you didn't get it. Illum's kill-trade flaw was not a bug which you would be able to quickly see by just looking in a video, it was a strictly mechanical flaw which arose due to a combination of reward system and penalty system. No matter how many videos you saw before the game was released, you would not be able to see the kill-trade flaw unless someone explicitly showed it.

If Arenanet released the numbers associated with World vs World mechanics, then yes, we may be able to try to find mechanical flaws.

Originally posted by FearTHeFro

So basically this game won't be a hit with people who are bad at games? I could care less, with all the games now days that cater to people with 20 iq it wil be a breath of fresh air to finally be a skill based mmo. Haven't seen one of those in ages and if people don't like it well then thats too bad for them.

Kinda, even though I don't think being good at game is a good way to measure IQ... 

The thing is that most MMOs have been trying to make everyone content and I am not sure that is a good technique, it seems smarter to pick a large enough group an make them happy instead. It will cost you some players but chanses are that the people who gets happy stay longer.

You can't make everyone happy.

Originally posted by Corehaven

Everything you listed is a massive problem in other mmos as I see them.   Im glad GW2 doesnt have these issues and finally I get to play an mmo where my skill matters, and not what shoulder pads Im wearing. 

/thread

I couldn't have said it better myself.

---

Originally posted by Mythios11
This is the official GW2 fanboi rebuttal to anyone who criticizes the game.   I think ArenaNet should market this on a T-shirt or something.  

---

You don't like it, you don't buy it, case closed.

It shall not fail.

---

Originally posted by FearTHeFro
So basically this game won't be a hit with people who are bad at games?

---

GW2 is just a game for people who don't like mandatory grind.

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

No, you didn't get it. Illum's kill-trade flaw was not a bug which you would be able to quickly see by just looking in a video, it was a strictly mechanical flaw which arose due to a combination of reward system and penalty system. No matter how many videos you saw before the game was released, you would not be able to see the kill-trade flaw unless someone explicitly showed it.

If Arenanet released the numbers associated with World vs World mechanics, then yes, we may be able to try to find mechanical flaws.

Dunno about you, but I know a lot of people that saw Illum being garbage before TOR was released. The writing was definitely on the wall. They promised epic battles, but they didn't show any of the mechanics delivering on that promise. Shortly prior to release they just showed a last minute video saying 'look we're telling the truth!'. That's not the same has having dozens of videos from different people showing a mechanic is working. Not even close.

That said, again, GW2 isn't perfect. It will have errors & mistakes. However, that's not important. What's important is whether or not there's a good enough foundation there to fix these issues & expand upon. Furthermore, it's important to have a developer that actually seems willing to do the work necessary to make it happen. Anet has proven themselves so far on both fronts.

They've built a strong foundation for their game, and they're willing to make changes if something isn't working.

Originally posted by aesperus

Dunno about you, but I know a lot of people that saw Illum being garbage before TOR was released. The writing was definitely on the wall. They promised epic battles, but they didn't show any of the mechanics delivering on that promise. Shortly prior to release they just showed a last minute video saying 'look we're telling the truth!'. That's not the same has having dozens of videos from different people showing a mechanic is working. Not even close.

That said, again, GW2 isn't perfect. It will have errors & mistakes. However, that's not important. What's important is whether or not there's a good enough foundation there to fix these issues & expand upon. Furthermore, it's important to have a developer that actually seems willing to do the work necessary to make it happen. Anet has proven themselves so far on both fronts.

They've built a strong foundation for their game, and they're willing to make changes if something isn't working.

Why was the writing on the wall? How could the writing be on the wall, when something wasn't really seen? Have we seen much of GW2's competitive PVP? Nope, but does that mean the writing is on the wall that it is bad? Not shown =/= bad?  That's no better than those doing that to GW2 right now, you folks get all up in arms about that. What about the races that will not be present in this BWE? Not shown, not in build, obviously means it's a broken shamble of a design.. How about Biowares plague outbreak event, was that obviously broken? As it wasn't shown really at all or talked about before they released 1.2.

Ilum was fun the first few times my guild and I went there, aside from lag, but we figured that was because we had two full guilds on repub and I believe almost 3 on the imp side fighting it out, lowbies and all, it was a blast, and it worked.  but the true problems hadn't shown their face yet. It wasn't until a few weeks later that they did.

Point being everything looks all rosey when you first see/experience it. At that point players are just playing, doing as the mechanics expect of them, they haven't begun to explore how they can exploit or cheat them.

Every company wants to fix things, every company is willing to expand things, it's a matter of priority and time, do you think Bioware is content with something they took months to years to design being scrapped altogether? If you do you really need to lay off the (insert)-aid.

Originally posted by aesperus

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

No, you didn't get it. Illum's kill-trade flaw was not a bug which you would be able to quickly see by just looking in a video, it was a strictly mechanical flaw which arose due to a combination of reward system and penalty system. No matter how many videos you saw before the game was released, you would not be able to see the kill-trade flaw unless someone explicitly showed it.

If Arenanet released the numbers associated with World vs World mechanics, then yes, we may be able to try to find mechanical flaws.

Dunno about you, but I know a lot of people that saw Illum being garbage before TOR was released. The writing was definitely on the wall. They promised epic battles, but they didn't show any of the mechanics delivering on that promise. Shortly prior to release they just showed a last minute video saying 'look we're telling the truth!'. That's not the same has having dozens of videos from different people showing a mechanic is working. Not even close.

That said, again, GW2 isn't perfect. It will have errors & mistakes. However, that's not important. What's important is whether or not there's a good enough foundation there to fix these issues & expand upon. Furthermore, it's important to have a developer that actually seems willing to do the work necessary to make it happen. Anet has proven themselves so far on both fronts.

They've built a strong foundation for their game, and they're willing to make changes if something isn't working.

You may have known parts that you disliked, but you couldn't have known about that there would be a reward-penalty flaw such that kill-trading became efficient. Certain flaws you can see directly, others you can't. 

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

You may have known parts that you disliked, but you couldn't have known about that there would be a reward-penalty flaw such that kill-trading became efficient. Certain flaws you can see directly, others you can't. 

I'm not saying I did. However, what I didn't see was any thought being put into making a functional world-pvp system. They talked about how epic it would be, how it would have objectives, but that's about it. I've played & worked on enough games to know that that isn't good design. A lot of the best games, even the simple ones, have a lot of thought that went into making them the way they are. When I see a developer using buzz words instead of details, I get very skeptical / worried. If I see that there is some good reasoning behind what a developer is doing, even if i don't agree with it, I find it generally works out a lot better.

This was a huge problem with TOR throughout development. The only thing they really seemed to put a lot of thought into was the dialogue. They talked extensively about the dialogue, but when it came to core game mechanics, they were much less vocal. We start to hear a lot more generalizations and promises, and less lengthy discussions about these things. That's rarely ever a good sign. What do we have in TOR today? A game that's #1 best feature by a landslide is the story, while everything else is rather sub-par.

Originally posted by Skuz

Originally posted by ictown

 

I'm confident that GW2 will be an excellent game and find a dedicated audience that will really enjoy it. I am not confident that GW2 will be a hit with more mainstream MMO players though, for the following reasons and these are the same reasons that is wrong with mmos today.

1. Players don’t want to look cool, they want to be cool.

 

Every time a player makes a choice based on a 1% dodge bonus, or wears stupid looking armor with great stats over visual aesthetics they are opting for substance over style. GW2 getting rid of these substantive differences between the races and high-level gear means that while a player may look cooler than another, they aren’t actually better than anyone else, and players will quickly realize it is a shallow system.

 

It's EASY to say that at the launch of a title, but when a game is going on 5 years old or more then it's a completely different argument I'm afraid & this point is rather blinkered & lacking of in-depth knowledge.

 

2. Players want to be the best without actually being the best.

 

Players want an advantage over everyone else, especially if they can achieve that with mediocre ability spread out over countless hours of monotony that the next guy can’t or won’t invest; a weapon that provides both a stat advantage and exclusive access to a dungeon to get an increased advantage allows mediocre players to get better simply through willpower and time invested versus actual skill or growth. GW2 goes the opposite direction of this, so far as to de-level players going backward in content, almost negating in total what advances they attained through gear and stats alone to keep things interesting. When stats fail to make players better, most players will have nowhere to turn.

 

No, players do NOT want to have an advantage over everyone else, not good ones anyway, the majority want a platform that is fair in the game so that their personal skills & aptitudes will be what shine through, the frustration players feel when they are not the best is easily attributable to class balance is a lot of games because so few ever get anywhere close to balanced & Guild Wars 2 will not be any different in that respect.

 

MMO's are based on gear progression so stats need to have an effect to have a point in wanting to improve them, when players "de-level" & the stats on their gear are adjusted this is more to do with making that lower level content still relevant, challenging & exciting rather than pointless due to overgearing, it has nothing at all to do with the players having a desire for an unfair advantage.

 

3. When players can’t be the best they want somebody (preferably) or something else (works too) to blame instead of themselves.

 

Only bad losers do

 

Eventually things don’t work out as many players wish, and when that happens it’s easier to blame the healers or the tank, or the opposing faction, or the guildie who picked the dumbest class and is wasting a raid slot, etc. instead of doing a self-examination and figuring out how they can improve and then acting to do so. Considering that GW2 is more reliant on player-skill than any other MMO, and that professions are essentially jacks of all trades, finger-pointing will be awkward at best and accusations against balance issues or ad hominem attacks against ArenaNet just won’t work long-term for bad players.

 

Wrong, player-skill is not as important as player knowledge, knowing how a event, mob or dungeon functions is almost all of what you need to learn, the skill is a small percentage, much like driving a car the skill of driving is a tiny portion of the overall act, the biggest part is observation, this part of the post is just completely lacking in understanding of how MMO's & a lot of games in general operate.

 

4. Players don’t want to have to think, they just want to act.

 

Wrong, some players prefer action-leaning games with a bit of thinking, others prefer thinking games with a bit of action & everything inbetween is liked by some too.

 

Many MMOs cater to skill rotations, cool-down management, and provide high-reward abilities with no risks associated with their use. A perceived “I Win” button like Moa Morph that can actually miss is a foreign concept to many players, and one that will probably ruin their sense of fun in the face of more skillful opponents or challenging NPCs.

 

Pure misguided conjecture, you are making huge assumptions about how players behave & perceive their actions, this is crass generalisation.

 

While some players are sighing in relief about the “low” number of skills in GW2, this is an illusion or an oversimplification, as many of the traits really do add an unparalleled level of depth to profession customization. That there is no one “right” answer for a profession, coupled with the fact that the “right traits and skills” would still require skillful and thoughtful use by the player, will only frustrate players more accustomed to traditional MMORPG gameplay conventions.

 

Wow, genius you know that a ton of MMO's have things that affect the abilities right? GW2 may have a slightly altered approach but it's a variation on a theme & has been seen before in various guises, you are blowing the proverbial smoke up people's butts here.

 

5. Players need validation.

 

In most MMOs it’s a simple matter to find one or two character builds that are optimal for the way the game is designed. In higher-level content, if a build can fulfill a role in a raid, and the raid succeeds, the build is successful, and the feedback is readily apparent. GW2’s reliance on player-skill and player-choice throws this system of evaluation out the window, and every request to evaluate a given build veils thinly the requestor’s doubts about having enough personal skill to succeed in spite of mistakes, oversights, and/or shortcomings at the trait and skill picking level. With player-skill being such an integral variable that many players won't honestly want to evaluate, validation will be difficult to come by.

If people are willing to accept new changes in GW2, I think its going to be a smashing hit. At some point, there has to mmo that tries to differentiate standard EQ/WOW based system and you know what, Guild Wars decided to do that. 

 

GW2 doesn't have raiding, & I already addressed your misconceptions about player skill above,  so what is your point here?

Overall this post is rather ill-informed fanboism, but I took the time to argue the points it made poorly.

You do know that the point of playing an RPG, whether it be an MMO or not, is to play the character.  With its strengths and weaknesses, with the class or skill structure based on dice rolls modified by character stats, not twitch skills.  What you're talking about is a bastardization of the genre or a complete over running of it by FPS action junkies.

Originally posted by aesperus? A game that's #1 best feature by a landslide is the story, while everything else is rather sub-par.

Thats Bioware in a nutshell, at least since around 2003-4.

Originally posted by Vorthanion

You do know that the point of playing an RPG, whether it be an MMO or not, is to play the character.  With its strengths and weaknesses, with the class or skill structure based on dice rolls modified by character stats, not twitch skills.  What you're talking about is a bastardization of the genre or a complete over running of it by FPS action junkies.

Playing a character have nothing to do with combat mechanics.You can easily make a good RPG game with very FPS like mechanics or you can make it turnbased, it doesn't really matter.

RPG games is about telling a story together with other people, many of the best RPGs games around have been semi twitched-based like Daggerfall.

Heck, there is even pen and paper RPGs without dicerolls, like "Amber" (It is great, try it). P&P games have a myriad of different mechanics even if many people seems to think that there only is D&D.

Originally posted by Distopia

Originally posted by aesperus? A game that's #1 best feature by a landslide is the story, while everything else is rather sub-par.

Thats Bioware in a nutshell, at least since around 2003-4.

Oh no doubt. And definitely after early 2000s.

Personally, I was not one of the people that was fooled w/ SWTOR. I was vocal about it's flaws prior to release, and I'm vocal now. I did play it, but only for the story. I haven't played it in a while, though. I only found a couple stories to my liking.

Honestly, I haven't been dissapointed w/ an MMO since EQ2. I've generally known what I'm getting. I've been pleasantly surprised by games like LotRO, and WoW, but I can't think of a game that's really let me down since EQ2. I suppose I could say WAR (as it was buggy, and some of the features they promised didn't make it to launch), but I honestly had a damn good time w/ their PvP system. I actually liked being able to PvP tank, and I enjoyed playing some of the classes everyone thought sucked, but still managed to do well w/ them. But that's just me.

I still think people are projecting other game's failures onto this one, even if it's not warranted. I may be wrong, it might flop, but if it does I highly doubt it'll be for any of the reasons people are saying currently.

Originally posted by Loke666

Originally posted by Vorthanion

You do know that the point of playing an RPG, whether it be an MMO or not, is to play the character.  With its strengths and weaknesses, with the class or skill structure based on dice rolls modified by character stats, not twitch skills.  What you're talking about is a bastardization of the genre or a complete over running of it by FPS action junkies.

Playing a character have nothing to do with combat mechanics.You can easily make a good RPG game with very FPS like mechanics or you can make it turnbased, it doesn't really matter.

RPG games is about telling a story together with other people, many of the best RPGs games around have been semi twitched-based like Daggerfall.

Heck, there is even pen and paper RPGs without dicerolls, like "Amber" (It is great, try it). P&P games have a myriad of different mechanics even if many people seems to think that there only is D&D.

Wow, talk about a purist, lol.

I think Loke said best. RPG is about telling a story, not combat mechanics. While I do enjoy interesting combat, I don't think for a second that they have to be any certain way (other than balanced). Hell, Kingdom of Amalur is a really fun RPG, and it's very much based on twitch skills as well as gear / abilities. Or even better yet, Skyrim. Or hell, what about DeusEx? All really good RPG games, with very compelling stories, and mechanics that are more based on your ability to aim & avoid damage, than trading numbers with a stationary mob.

Originally posted by aesperus

Originally posted by Loke666

Originally posted by Vorthanion

You do know that the point of playing an RPG, whether it be an MMO or not, is to play the character.  With its strengths and weaknesses, with the class or skill structure based on dice rolls modified by character stats, not twitch skills.  What you're talking about is a bastardization of the genre or a complete over running of it by FPS action junkies.

Playing a character have nothing to do with combat mechanics.You can easily make a good RPG game with very FPS like mechanics or you can make it turnbased, it doesn't really matter.

RPG games is about telling a story together with other people, many of the best RPGs games around have been semi twitched-based like Daggerfall.

Heck, there is even pen and paper RPGs without dicerolls, like "Amber" (It is great, try it). P&P games have a myriad of different mechanics even if many people seems to think that there only is D&D.

Wow, talk about a purist, lol.

I think Loke said best. RPG is about telling a story, not combat mechanics. While I do enjoy interesting combat, I don't think for a second that they have to be any certain way (other than balanced). Hell, Kingdom of Amalur is a really fun RPG, and it's very much based on twitch skills as well as gear / abilities. Or even better yet, Skyrim. Or hell, what about DeusEx? All really good RPG games, with very compelling stories, and mechanics that are more based on your ability to aim & avoid damage, than trading numbers with a stationary mob.

Errr, no, it does not have to have a single word of story to be a RPG. Several RPGs can be pure dungeon-crawlers without any stories and still be considered to be RPGs. RPGs are about "Role-Playing" and not necessarely only in the MMORPG "roleplaying server" sense.

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

Errr, no, it does not have to have a single word of story to be a RPG. Several RPGs can be pure dungeon-crawlers without any stories and still be considered to be RPGs. RPGs are about "Role-Playing" and not necessarely only in the MMORPG "roleplaying server" sense.

By that definition, almost every game can be considered an RPG. In BF3 you're assuming the 'role' of a soldier. In mario you're assuming the role of a plumber rescuing his princess from bizarre creatures.

This is the definition found on wiki:

"A role-playing game (RPG and sometimes roleplaying game) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting, or through a process of structured decision-making or character development."

While it's true that nowadays games tend to blur the line between genres more often, there seems to be a clear understanding that there is an element of story required to be considered an RPG. This is why diablo is considered an RPG, even though it's a dungeon crawler. There is a story being played out, even if you are ignoring it.

Originally posted by aesperus

Originally posted by Distopia

Originally posted by aesperus? A game that's #1 best feature by a landslide is the story, while everything else is rather sub-par.

Thats Bioware in a nutshell, at least since around 2003-4.

Oh no doubt. And definitely after early 2000s.

Personally, I was not one of the people that was fooled w/ SWTOR. I was vocal about it's flaws prior to release, and I'm vocal now. I did play it, but only for the story. I haven't played it in a while, though. I only found a couple stories to my liking.

Honestly, I haven't been dissapointed w/ an MMO since EQ2. I've generally known what I'm getting. I've been pleasantly surprised by games like LotRO, and WoW, but I can't think of a game that's really let me down since EQ2. I suppose I could say WAR (as it was buggy, and some of the features they promised didn't make it to launch), but I honestly had a damn good time w/ their PvP system. I actually liked being able to PvP tank, and I enjoyed playing some of the classes everyone thought sucked, but still managed to do well w/ them. But that's just me.

I still think people are projecting other game's failures onto this one, even if it's not warranted. I may be wrong, it might flop, but if it does I highly doubt it'll be for any of the reasons people are saying currently.

 

I haven't been disappointed since SWG's NGE really, maybe it was the fact that was so bad. But at that time I learned to never really put much into an MMO instead just try and enjoy the ride. Since then I've been content with those I've played, even TOR.

Yes there's a lot of projecting going on, gamers as a whole are just like that today, we're really a negative bunch if you view us collectively. Maybe it's a lack of sun lol. We seem to overly strive off negative vibes, just look how many emote smiles while talking about someone else who failed. To me (this has been a while now) it seems in large part many would rather watch a game fail than watch one succeed.

Originally posted by aesperus

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

Errr, no, it does not have to have a single word of story to be a RPG. Several RPGs can be pure dungeon-crawlers without any stories and still be considered to be RPGs. RPGs are about "Role-Playing" and not necessarely only in the MMORPG "roleplaying server" sense.

By that definition, almost every game can be considered an RPG. In BF3 you're assuming the 'role' of a soldier. In mario you're assuming the role of a plumber rescuing his princess from bizarre creatures.

This is the definition found on wiki:

"A role-playing game (RPG and sometimes roleplaying game) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting, or through a process of structured decision-making or character development."

While it's true that nowadays games tend to blur the line between genres more often, there seems to be a clear understanding that there is an element of story required to be considered an RPG. This is why diablo is considered an RPG, even though it's a dungeon crawler. There is a story being played out, even if you are ignoring it.

I suppose the focus of the game must lie on the role-playing rather than other elements. That would exclude a lot of games where they have a different focus.

Edit: The reason why it wouldn't make sense to require a story to be categorized as a RPG, is because genre-categorization is supposed to be a way to sort games. If a game without its story practically remains the same game, then the resulting game ought to be put in the same category. Just imagine Final Fantasy I without its story: it remains very much the same game. A better example is Etrian Odyssey (http://ds.ign.com/articles/788/788909p1.html), which has practically no story and remains very identical without the small story; yet there is no doubt about it being a RPG.