| 65 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
9/04/12 10:20:26 AM#41
Originally posted by Lawlmonster You're welcome! |
|
|
9/04/12 10:23:04 AM#42
Originally posted by Creslin321 So you say so, and it s the way. Got it. Funny how I think it s a big step backwards in MMOs, and quite possibly one of the most boring ones at that. To comment on the server/realm pride, it doesn t exist at all. No one will care, most won t even remember who they re fighting, it s just team blue/red etc. I m actually kind of sick of people comparing anything WvW to DAOC RvR, only thing similar is it has keps. Orbs are an f n joke. Keeps, outside of the ridiculous doors, are way too easy to take. The classes themselves in DAOC offered diversity, and unique roles, everyone in GW2 is just dps as hard as you can, and hope you win. I resubbed DAOC last week, after quite a few matches in WvW, and I can t beleive, even today, no one can get close to what is DAOC RvR. I didn t even get into DF.
|
|
|
9/04/12 10:27:25 AM#43
Well OP, i don't agree that GW2 is that great, but, the important thing is that you're having fun and found an mmorpg for yourself after all this time. I don't know how long it will last, but, atleats for now, you're happy. Thanks for sharinga nd happy gaming OP.
|
|
Originally posted by RebelScum99 Running out of content has never been a reason for me to lose faith in MMORPGs. |
|
|
9/04/12 11:53:20 AM#45
Originally posted by Deto123 I see that you typed a lot of stuff...but I don't really see any arguments here. All your really said is: GW2 is boring and is a step backwards (why?) DAoC rules, GW2 drools! (do you remember ToA? Also, in DAoC you had to grind all the way to max level to really participate on even footing in RvR...in GW2 you can do it day 1...big step up IMO) It's cool that you don't like the game...but if you post things like you said above, folks will argue with you, and rightly so ;).
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob? |
|
|
9/04/12 11:55:18 AM#46
Originally posted by Lawlmonster Yes. And the reason being that GW2 made the intelligent move of designing a game based HEAVILY on PvP. PvE will always have a limited lifespan- it's simply not possible to cost effectively put out PvE content at a pace to keep up with the MMO community. PvP on the other hand, when done right, never gets old. There's a reason people still play Counter-Strike, and why CS:GO is essentially just an updated version of that game. I feel like GW2 has the chance to become the first MMO to implement PvP so well that it lasts for several years as well. |
|
|
9/04/12 12:02:19 PM#47
Originally posted by Creslin321 Ok lets see, no you didn t have to level to 50 to do such things. The battlegrounds, were a smaller version of the real frontiers, and fun as hell. At level 45 I did enter RvR and competed quite well. Sure I would be better with my epic and level 50, but I still did. I don t consider the leveling to 50 a grind at all, I actually really enjoyed it. If you like simplistic, handholding games, then all the power to you, I prefer games with some edge, challenge, etc. I don t want to hear you say, try GW2 dungeon then we ll talk challenge. The game in general has to be one of the most easy, simple, redundant games I ve ever played. I could go into details of how DAOCs RvR is superior to WvW, but anyone who played it knows what I m talking about. TOA i ll give you that, but I still think with TOA RvR is superior. |
|
|
9/04/12 12:05:21 PM#48
Originally posted by Deto123 That's cool, you're entitled to your opinion. I remember ToA basically being two people with powerups that made them nigh invincible beating on each other forever Dragonball Z style...but maybe you're remembering it differently ;). Don't get the wrong idea though, I think DAoC was an amazing game...I'm just not stuck on it forever. You should give newer games a chance, you may actually like them. I'm pretty sure you decided to hate GW2 before you even tried it based on what you think about it...there is far less hand-holding in GW2 than there is in say, WoW. Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob? |
|
|
9/04/12 12:08:02 PM#49
Originally posted by Lawlmonster GW1 lasted far longer than that, and it is IMO...a far inferior game to GW2. So I really don't see why everyone thinks that GW2 "failing" in a matter of months is such a sure thing. Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob? |
|
|
9/04/12 12:17:14 PM#50
The failing comments almost without fail come from players that did not like or understand gw1. If a person are incapable of understanding that it is possible for a game to be fun and not appeal to your personal tastes then it is impossible to persuade otherwise.
rpg/mmorg history: Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW (9500 hrs on main mage)> oblivion > LOTR (480 Hunter) > Rift (230 hours mage) > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(350 elementalist) Now playing GW2/Diablo 3/Rift Waiting Archeage. |
|
|
9/04/12 12:56:14 PM#51
Originally posted by Creslin321 That's been the nature of the beast for the past five or more years, and the original Guild Wars is certainly still chugging along, though I'd question how relevant it is in the current MMO space. Also, I can't predict what will happen to GW2 as well as some of you who are actually playing it, which is why I asked the question here, but can you blame any massively enthusiast for pontificating upon the life of this particular product when the history of the genre itself hasn't provided much in the way of evidence that the industry is capable of bestowing long living products to the market? Three to six months has been the trend for a good while now. Mechanically speaking of what is already available in the game, what do you think is going to keep GW2 fresh for years to come? "This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran) |
|
|
9/04/12 12:57:50 PM#52
Glad you like it OP but it is just a little over a week old. Jumping the gun much ?
|
|
|
9/04/12 6:53:41 PM#53
Originally posted by Fozzik Good to see this post. EQ1 was my first mmo as well and lots of disappoints after that. Looking forward to checking out GW2. Thanks! |
|
|
9/04/12 6:55:01 PM#54
Originally posted by Jeff7477 Or you are for not playing! :) Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not. |
|
|
9/05/12 8:48:57 AM#55
Originally posted by DoomsDay01 Well of course you're entitled to your opinion but I think that's too restrictive a definition of MMORPG, especially nowadays when you have a lot more complex world-building going on with higher graphics requirements. It's easy to have a single unified world in a text game, but not so easy to have a single unified world when everything actually has to be designed, rendered, and work over the internet to co-ordinate everyone. Look at the problems Vanguard had with that, and on the highest technology game engine at the time. Also nowadays there's an expectation that there will be some at least some solo content where you're the hero of your own story set in a larger world. I think it's enough for an MMORPG to have a persistent world. That can bear some instancing. Of course there's a fuzzy area when you get to games like DDO, GW1 and CoH (although of the three CoH does have more of a persistent world feeling despite the instancing, since the instancing is only in missions, the rest of the world is proper big zones). And some multiplayer games are definitely on the other side of that (i.e. where the persistent world is totally vestigial and just a lobby for multiplayer instances). But at the end of the day, all games can do is give you an illusion of a persistent world (even big zones are really just big multiplayer instances), and so long as that illusion is of a persistent world where many people interact, then it's an MMORPG. It doesn't really matter how they handle it technically IMHO. For example EVE feels like a single unified world, but its dirty little secret is that it's actually probably the most heavily instanced MMORPG of them all :) Actually all that's in the same single virtual space is the chat system, the rest is just a very clever illusion of vast space. But you can't pull off the same kind of trick when a huge zone of earth, mountains, trees, etc., all have to be rendered and realized for a bunch of players to be in together. Having said that, I think the way DEs are handled is very much like the definition you're working with - after all, there's not really much functional difference between an open dungeon in Vanguard and a DE really, is there? Except DEs are more dynamic (not like a cave that just sits there with set content) and there's no kill stealing :) |
|
|
9/06/12 12:48:16 AM#56
Originally posted by gurugeorge I agree and dont mind "some" instancing but gw2 is not just some instancing, its a whole bunch of instances within instances just like DDO is, they just did a little better job of it then DDO did it. Oh and as for COH, the entire world is instanced, you just dont see it happen much anymore with the lower population. Every outdoor area was a zone and a new instance would pop up when a certain number of people entered the area. I also wouldn't call EVE instanced as there is never more than 1 instance of a given area, but you are right in that if nobody is in an area, that area doesn't exist until someone gates into it but that is about as invisible as you can get to the players.
As for just "having a persistent world" is enough to say its an mmo is being way to easy on the developers. If that was the case, the world I ran in Never Winter Nights would have been considered an mmo as the world was persistent and it was far from an mmo. It was fun, but not really an MMO. I am being more harsh on the developers. Games don't have to have 10 million people playing to make good money, EVE is a good example of that. Do I think GW2 is a good game? Yes I do! They could have made it much better if they had done some things better. I just can't call it an MMORPG with the way they have done this overflow system and the lack of better grouping mechanics. Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of solo stuff, but the grouping in this game is horrible if you have to start moving around the maps via waypoints and that is something that should never have been a problem in the first place, unless, grouping was a complete after thought. Heck at least in GW1, your group was all in the same insance when you went into one. How could they have screwed that up so badly now?
Anyways, its a fun game and I am enjoying it, even with all the problems they are having. |
|
|
9/06/12 1:21:02 AM#57
Originally posted by Lawlmonster All that stuff you play MMOs for could very well develop over time, in fact I'm 100% certain it will on many servers. For a server to rank well on the WvW tables, it needs an organised and effective WvWing community which is where all that other stuff comes in. It could be like DAOC became, where the mechanics of RvR were almost secondary to the planning and organisation that went on behind it. Or it might not, it's hard to say at them moment with GW2 only being a couple of weeks old and most of us are still figuring out the basics. Give it a few months and the dynamics will change. One thing though, it's never going to be a personal or guild competition like most other MMOs, all that is to be inter-server - at least for the successful WvW servers anyway. |
|
|
9/06/12 1:38:48 AM#58
Originally posted by Creslin321 LOL RIGHT?! same here. Everyone's like (just wait) well i've been playing for over a week. still no disappointment hmmm. Maybe we should stop listening to these haters who don't play the game or have never bought the thing or will never buy it or play it. That might give us some peace of mind. |
|
|
9/06/12 1:59:28 AM#59
Originally posted by MrReality
Yes and no. It's more than enough time to see that it's a much better game (IMHO) than a lot of other recent MMOs. AoC? WAR? Aion? Rift? Tera? TOR? TSW? No contest, even if it doesn't last. I hope it turns out to have some longevity too.. but even if it doesn't, it's still way ahead of the competition.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world. |
|
Originally posted by VhalnOriginally posted by MrReality Well I just agree with GW2 so much. I can find things I agree with everywhere. The things that I disagree with are few and spaced out. For me in the games that you listed it wasn't like that. |
|