---

- "I've already witnessed the problem in microcosm when at least three dungeon groups I was in couldn't get a player from another instance of the same zone in with us to start the dungeon, and eventually the groups broke up with sour epithets hurled at ArenaNet and one overly dramatic claim of canceling a preorder. That bitterness, I fear, will explode on a massive scale if the guesting system fails in the same way."

---

That author is overly dramatizing things in this article. Not very serious.

About the endgame : it has never been about what to do at endgame with successful MMOs, but how to do anything, so in most cases : good combat mechanics that makes me want to play again various stuff. And GW2 is precisely delivering on that point. 

People should stop being delusional about endgame : nobody's gonna magically bring you a fresh new game when you end the game. Because hey, you just ended the game. So it's all about giving you the same content, but with another level of difficulty, just like in any videogame. So in a genre where combat is 90% of your time, you'd better have good, not boring, easily renewable combat mechanics.

This is the first game since WoW : TBC where I'm totally fine with imagining myself juicing my lvl 80 time only with fights, may they be old content re-run. All the other recent MMOs (including latest WoW xpacs) where I got fed up with the game, it started with the combat mechanics boring me from a certain point in time. And I could guess that boredom from the first hours of play (because they weren't fresh enough). Here, it's not the case at all,  I just want to fight with my Thief for hours and hours.

If only internet 'journalism' was subject to some sort of editorial rigour....

Perjorative language and the use of absolute statements to deal with what at best amount to informed guesses is very poor.

I will deal with each part of the article in order;

1. Will the Community Be Weak?

He starts well enough here - making a valid point many people are worried about. He doesn't however point out the rather obvious fact that judging community interraction from a beta - where there are no permanent guilds, targetted resource farming, dedicated dungeon grouping and grouped people who know each other (not to mention dedicated RP'ers running events) is not representative.

2. Can the Endgame Keep Players Happy for More Than a Couple of Months?

Claiming that 'innevitable claims of boredom' will occur a month or two after launch after addressing what he thinks endgame will involve in one sentence is as ridiculous as comparing the game to SW:TOR - 'cleared in a matter of days'. The clear implication here is of course that large numbers of players will clear the content in a matter of days and then innevitably complain. He fails to address the WvW PvP, the DE/downscaling content model, nor does he have the slightest sensible thing to say about the dungeons or the scale of challenge in the unseen highest level zones. There is simply no balanced assessment here - it is two assumptions piled on top of the smallest of foundations. This would be inadequate enough in a forum post - never mind an article on a major media site.

3. Will the Lack of a Trinity Actually Work?

This one is just amazing. In BWE2, having personally grouped with a 'ragtag group' (as he puts it) and having downed the 'Eater of Ghosts' in that explorable iteration of the Ascalonian Catacombs I was both impressed and pleased at the level of difficulty, the skill and cooperation shown by the group I was with and the innovative ways we managed to deal with things. Having to think about how to make our collective abiities 'fit' over a soution and radically change who did what in each boss encounter was a breath of fresh air. Sorry - all dungeons in all MMOs at first are multiple wipefests if they are well designed. It takes time and effort. This guy clearly likes his challenges dumbed down. Implying that the Dev's he was playing with were 'experts' in PvE and therefore the no-trinity model doesn't work is a the laziest form of tangential reasoning - and entirely invalidates this part of the article. A clear case of garbage in, garbage out.

4. Is There an Infestation of Bugs Waiting to Happen?

Way too much 'biblical catastrophe' language used here - he laces this entire section with doomladen 'innevitabilities' without the slightest reasonable justification. Bitterness exploding on a massive scale? Catastrophic backlash? All this based upon the statement - "if the guesting system fails". Having witnessed a single failure of a single feature in a single beta he cries DOOM! This is about as bias as one can get whilst still trying to look neutral (at least to the most undiscerning of audiences at any rate....).

5. Is Combat Interesting Enough?

The only WOW which should be indulged in this part of the article is the reaction to having the combat part of GW2 compared to WoW combat.... stating that it is dissapointing compared to TERA and too much like WoW is yet another illustration that this review is backed by little more than a cursory glance at combat footage rather than significant hands on experience. The closest combat I have ever played compared to GW2 is Age of Conan - one of the things Funcom actually did right in that game. The experiences in combat the author talks about here are overwhelmingly at odds with the experiences of countless beta players and reflect the limitations of the reviewer far more than they do the game.

I will quote the last paragraph of the article verbatim - as it makes my point for me;

"Nothing to Fear but Fear Itself?

Of course, none of these things are certain. As with every game launch, there are a terrifying number of "what ifs" that'll remain unanswered right up until we start up the final product and jump in to explore. I'll be in there from the first moments on, so you can expect to see me put each of these fears to the test during the review process."

.... personally I would have preferred if the author had put his 'fears' to the test BEFORE writing this rubbish. Anyone using the word 'terrifying' to describe the shortcomings of a game as yet unreleased needs to learn how to express himself in less extreme language - language which could perhaps reflect the true extent and comparative importance of the issues rather than the biased negative hype this review tries to present to the reader as a 'balanced view'.

I have seen less bias critiques by the offices of politicians slagging off their election opponents whilst simultaneously trying to make their candidate seem statesmanlike.

I've had my morning cofee and am in a good mood - so I'll review this review with a generous score;

3/10

he died alot !!! ???? Mmmm :p i don't die at all with the people i played ( ranger , grd and necro )

Originally posted by Aerowyn

Originally posted by GamerUntouch
Seems like the author doesn't understand the design of this game at all.

yea got the same feeling reading that

So anyone with concerns or criticism "just doesn't get it"?  I see.

Originally posted by Sideras

Originally posted by Syno23
I'm concerned how they're going to raise money for expansions, at what quality, what will endgame be like, things that GW2 cannot service to hardcore players.

And with hardcore players you mean PvE no life raiders. There is WvW and sPvP and we haven't seen endgame PvE yet. There was a time before WoW when people did lots of PvP because before WoW, PvP was actually FUUUUUN, FUUUUUN, F-U-NNNNN. Not grindy, FUNNNNN.

I don't pvp and don't like it in GW2.  Having pvp as your "end game" activity isn't my idea of fun.

Originally posted by Ackbar
I wonder how much Blizzard paid IGN to write that one sided garbage

Unbelievable.

Originally posted by Ginaz

Originally posted by Aerowyn

Originally posted by GamerUntouch
Seems like the author doesn't understand the design of this game at all.

yea got the same feeling reading that

So anyone with concerns or criticism "just doesn't get it"?  I see.

Why don't you read my detailed post - no point accusing critics of the article for 'automated' one-line responses to criticism of the game with a one-liner yourself - thrown in after a detailed response posted just before you.

You cannot take exception to short unsupported statements based on the qualifying words 'seems' and 'feeling' with your own one-liner which nevertheless speaks in certainties - it blows any credibility your post has clear out of the water.

Labelling the author of the article as the representative voice of 'anyone with concerns or criticism' is deeply misleading - either intentionally or unwittingly. I have seen many posts critical of elements of the game supported by evidence and logically and reasonably argued. These respondents you criticise and negativel label are not addressing them - they are addressing the obvious bias in the article.

Read the article, try to take a balanced view and THEN post.... otherwise, ironically,  you only demonstrate the same extreme bias you are criticising.

Originally posted by Caliburn101

Originally posted by Ginaz

Originally posted by Aerowyn

Originally posted by GamerUntouch
Seems like the author doesn't understand the design of this game at all.

yea got the same feeling reading that

So anyone with concerns or criticism "just doesn't get it"?  I see.

Why don't you read my detailed post - no point accusing critics of the article for 'automated' one-line responses to criticism of the game with a one-liner yourself - thrown in after a detailed response posted just before you.

You cannot take exception to short unsupported statements based on the qualifying words 'seems' and 'feeling' with your own one-liner which nevertheless speaks in certainties - it blows any credibility your post has clear out of the water.

Labelling the author of the article as the representative voice of 'anyone with concerns or criticism' is deeply misleading - either intentionally or unwittingly. I have seen many posts critical of elements of the game supported by evidence and logically and reasonably argued. These respondents you criticise and negativel label are not addressing them - they are addressing the obvious bias in the article.

Read the article, try to take a balanced view and THEN post.... otherwise, ironically,  you only demonstrate the same extreme bias you are criticising.

What?

Oh "Hark hark the dogs do bark." A blog writer posts something about GW2 that isn't pure Kool-aide drinking prose and here you all are once again to pile on like a ton of bricks. Haysoos Mirimba! Do you guys ever really listen to yourselves!?

"Well in my opinion, that guy's opinion is rubbish, he has to be a complete moron!!"

Disagreeing with the guy is fine, but why is it that everytime someone posts some ideas that aren't lock step with yours you rabble immediately decry that the person in question must just be a no talent ass clown with no earthly idea of what he is talking about, as if your petty and mean spirited opinon is somehow more justifiable than their . . .  petty and mean spirited opinion?

And before someone pipes up with the reply of "Well because he IS a no talent fuckwit", you might want to think back to a couple of months ago when some of you were jizzing all over his article where he outlined why GW2 will be better than SWTOR. You sure seemed like you felt he was of sound mind and body back then, but now he has voiced his O P I N I O N that perhaps GW2 might have some of the same issues every other fucking MMO has had at launch, you people go all Jekyll and Hyde on him.

I seriously think that some of you need to get a grip, turn the hysteria down a couple of notches, and remember the old handsaw about opinions, assholes, and the comparableness there of.

Oh and "Rabble rabble rabblle, burn the witch!!! etc."

sigh.

Originally posted by Caliburn101

If only internet 'journalism' was subject to some sort of editorial rigour....

Perjorative language and the use of absolute statements to deal with what at best amount to informed guesses is very poor.

I will deal with each part of the article in order;

1. Will the Community Be Weak?

He starts well enough here - making a valid point many people are worried about. He doesn't however point out the rather obvious fact that judging community interraction from a beta - where there are no permanent guilds, targetted resource farming, dedicated dungeon grouping and grouped people who know each other (not to mention dedicated RP'ers running events) is not representative.

2. Can the Endgame Keep Players Happy for More Than a Couple of Months?

Claiming that 'innevitable claims of boredom' will occur a month or two after launch after addressing what he thinks endgame will involve in one sentence is as ridiculous as comparing the game to SW:TOR - 'cleared in a matter of days'. The clear implication here is of course that large numbers of players will clear the content in a matter of days and then innevitably complain. He fails to address the WvW PvP, the DE/downscaling content model, nor does he have the slightest sensible thing to say about the dungeons or the scale of challenge in the unseen highest level zones. There is simply no balanced assessment here - it is two assumptions piled on top of the smallest of foundations. This would be inadequate enough in a forum post - never mind an article on a major media site.

3. Will the Lack of a Trinity Actually Work?

This one is just amazing. In BWE2, having personally grouped with a 'ragtag group' (as he puts it) and having downed the 'Eater of Ghosts' in that explorable iteration of the Ascalonian Catacombs I was both impressed and pleased at the level of difficulty, the skill and cooperation shown by the group I was with and the innovative ways we managed to deal with things. Having to think about how to make our collective abiities 'fit' over a soution and radically change who did what in each boss encounter was a breath of fresh air. Sorry - all dungeons in all MMOs at first are multiple wipefests if they are well designed. It takes time and effort. This guy clearly likes his challenges dumbed down. Implying that the Dev's he was playing with were 'experts' in PvE and therefore the no-trinity model doesn't work is a the laziest form of tangential reasoning - and entirely invalidates this part of the article. A clear case of garbage in, garbage out.

4. Is There an Infestation of Bugs Waiting to Happen?

Way too much 'biblical catastrophe' language used here - he laces this entire section with doomladen 'innevitabilities' without the slightest reasonable justification. Bitterness exploding on a massive scale? Catastrophic backlash? All this based upon the statement - "if the guesting system fails". Having witnessed a single failure of a single feature in a single beta he cries DOOM! This is about as bias as one can get whilst still trying to look neutral (at least to the most undiscerning of audiences at any rate....).

5. Is Combat Interesting Enough?

The only WOW which should be indulged in this part of the article is the reaction to having the combat part of GW2 compared to WoW combat.... stating that it is dissapointing compared to TERA and too much like WoW is yet another illustration that this review is backed by little more than a cursory glance at combat footage rather than significant hands on experience. The closest combat I have ever played compared to GW2 is Age of Conan - one of the things Funcom actually did right in that game. The experiences in combat the author talks about here are overwhelmingly at odds with the experiences of countless beta players and reflect the limitations of the reviewer far more than they do the game.

I will quote the last paragraph of the article verbatim - as it makes my point for me;

"Nothing to Fear but Fear Itself?

Of course, none of these things are certain. As with every game launch, there are a terrifying number of "what ifs" that'll remain unanswered right up until we start up the final product and jump in to explore. I'll be in there from the first moments on, so you can expect to see me put each of these fears to the test during the review process."

.... personally I would have preferred if the author had put his 'fears' to the test BEFORE writing this rubbish. Anyone using the word 'terrifying' to describe the shortcomings of a game as yet unreleased needs to learn how to express himself in less extreme language - language which could perhaps reflect the true extent and comparative importance of the issues rather than the biased negative hype this review tries to present to the reader as a 'balanced view'.

I have seen less bias critiques by the offices of politicians slagging off their election opponents whilst simultaneously trying to make their candidate seem statesmanlike.

I've had my morning cofee and am in a good mood - so I'll review this review with a generous score;

3/10

Very well said! But you have to keep in mind that those are his opinions and from his article it tells me one thing.

He probably played for five minutes and probably had zero intention of buying the game let alone playing it.

Seeing he compares it to WoW  makes no sense to me, your going to compare games that are out and seven years old to a game that hasn't even launched yet? This is someone who played WoW as a first mmorpg and thinks that it was WoW that started the genre , I love the article that you wrote to counter his , to me that is a perfect review of the reviewer and you sir should take his job, because this guy apparently doesn't know how to do it.

Well done!

p.S I cannot wait for GW2 , breath of fresh air for a vet that has been playing MUDS/mmorpg for 18-19 years hell ya!

Originally posted by Caliburn101

If only internet 'journalism' was subject to some sort of editorial rigour....

If only "legitimate" journalism did, too.

Hopeless Cause, Don Quixote.  No source is above being attributed with an agenda.  Not any actual agenda, mind you, stirring suspicion is sufficient...

Fox News, ABC News, New York Times, Washington Post--  We're having more fun of sneering at their perceived biases than following their actual news.

Originally posted by Tardcore

Oh "Hark hark the dogs do bark." A blog writer posts something about GW2 that isn't pure Kool-aide drinking prose and here you all are once again to pile on like a ton of bricks. Haysoos Mirimba! Do you guys ever really listen to yourselves!?

"Well in my opinion, that guy's opinion is rubbish, he has to be a complete moron!!"

Disagreeing with the guy is fine, but why is it that everytime someone posts some ideas that aren't lock step with yours you rabble immediately decry that the person in question must just be a no talent ass clown with no earthly idea of what he is talking about, as if your petty and mean spirited opinon is somehow more justifiable than their . . .  petty and mean spirited opinion?

And before someone pipes up with the reply of "Well because he IS a no talent fuckwit", you might want to think back to a couple of months ago when some of you were jizzing all over his article where he outlined why GW2 will be better than SWTOR. You sure seemed like you felt he was of sound mind and body back then, but now he has voiced his O P I N I O N that perhaps GW2 might have some of the same issues every other fucking MMO has had at launch, you people go all Jekyll and Hyde on him.

I seriously think that some of you need to get a grip, turn the hysteria down a couple of notches, and remember the old handsaw about opinions, assholes, and the comparableness there of.

 

Oh and "Rabble rabble rabblle, burn the witch!!! etc."

sigh.

Clearly he's had some sort of mental breakdown since the glorious sermon he wrote about GW2 being better then SWTOR . Why else would he have turned away from the truth and light of ANET?!

Now stop writing this dribble because your opinion is rubbish and mine is clearly not rubbish.

Right I'm off to bathe in Mike O'Brien's piss, it's good for the skin yo!

Originally posted by Caliburn101

If only internet 'journalism' was subject to some sort of editorial rigour....

If the article had been filled with praise then you would be touting as an outstanding work. It is an editorial blog about some of the potential weaknesses in GW2's design. I am a GW2 fan, but I am not so blind that I can't see that these are potential issues. There is no right or wrong when it comes to an opinionated blog and even less so when he addresses some valid concerns. Your feeble attempts to dismiss them are laughable at best.

Originally posted by Syno23
I'm concerned how they're going to raise money for expansions, at what quality, what will endgame be like, things that GW2 cannot service to hardcore players.

they did it very well for guild wars 1 and they didnt even have a store at first :) dont worry kitten, the milk will be ever so purfect

Originally posted by Mephster
Valid concerns that most people have expressed already. 

Yes they have. However, as someone else mentioned most of these complaints are about  items that Anet has said that they do not want in the game (trinity, gear grind, etc.). I agree with most of the criticism and that is why I won't make GW2 a keeper. I respect ANet for doing something different but look what happened to the other "different" game - TSW. GW2 will make money, a lot of money, but it won't be the next WOW.

Originally posted by Drachasor

It's just a 60 dollar game.

Let's not freak out and act like it's a major commitment.

Yes, but sadly there are many on this forum acting like it's something much much bigger.

Originally posted by GamerUntouch
Seems like the author doesn't understand the design of this game at all.

Agreed. His misunderstanding of the Trinty or how the role he chose to fill was actually an asset of the current system and not a throwback to the Trinity was one example of that.

Summed up well by Caliburn101 in this post.

Originally posted by Scarlyng

1) Communication: in Rift, SWtoR, even WoW, people don't communicate any more than they need to.  LFG tools killed that aspect.  Group up, do the event, split up and back to solo questing. Imo those desiring social interaction in an MMO going foerward are going to have to make their own.  If anything, GW2 eliminates one source of interpersonal friction by the elimination of asshattery like glowy stealing, kill-stealing and jumping ahead to the named while the person who cleared th path is finishing the alst mobs en route.

 

2) Longevity: At the price of a SP RPG, GW2 only needs to provide about 40-50 hours of content to be cost-effective from a  buyer's standpoint.  I have already played that long in the 3 BWE's and stress tests and my highest level character had seen about 3% of the game.  Assuming the same ratio of time to complete the remaining 90+ percent ... well, you do the math.  If GW2 lasts 3 months for me it will be a massive bargain.  If it lasts the nearly 3 years I spent in GW1, then even more of a bargain.  And if they produce additional content on an ongoing basis like they originally planned to do for GW1, then they will continue to get my money.

 

I'm not saying the game will be for everyone, but for me, and those who want things similar to what I want, then it will be a good game.

1) How can you include SWTOR in this example when the LFG tool was just recently implemented?  Communication has been an issue ever since MMOs have gone mainstream.  Developers can throw whatever tools they want, but if the community doesn't want to talk, they are not going to.

2) Agreed, the game (when compared to a SRPG) is comparable price-wise for content.  However, they are competing against larger MMOs.  I, personally, am not really looking for an MMO to play for only 40-50 hours.  I'd rather play one with a much longer sustainability.  Subscription cost for me is not an issue.  If I want a bargain, hell, I'll pick up a F2P title.