Originally posted by Talemire
The game does need more means for progression, in all fairness. Would be cool to be able to upgrade/skill up weapons or abilities. Maybe an alternate advancement type of system to hone in your spec or something. Something more.

I'd agree with the abilities part.  That's something I'd like them to change is the small amount of abilities we have available to us.  I'd love to see a progression for more weapons based skills especially.

But I don't want to see power progression in terms of gear.

Originally posted by adam_nox

Originally posted by Creslin321

Good review Bill, I agree with it.

But the best part of this review is reading all of the vitriol from the jilted anti-fans of GW2 ;).

jilted?  Do you even know what the word means?

 

This review is a joke though. 

 

 Unlike your review which was so well done? Your review included the comment that you spent little time with traits but you spent 20 trait points on your ranger in beastmastery and wondered why your ranger was not a great sniper. Hard to take you seriously when your gameplay knowledge is sorely lacking.

I'm sorry I bought the game, it's like sugarcoated same shit mmo we've been playing since WOW. This review is all about the sugarcoat.

" Guild Wars 2 lives up to its hype." and "INNOVATION – 10" made me LOL.

Overall the review is so fake , it feels like reading about another game...

I agree with 98% of the review. GW2 deserves a HUGE high-five for what they did to mix up and change the way we play. The idea of a quest hub (imo) refers to the (!) and (?) that litter the world and cause you to run to one place and run back to the quest giver and most times to run back again and return again for yet another set of a quests. GW2 stops the hamster wheeling and lets you play the way you want to. With each hearted public quest area you are given choices how you would like to complete the quest. You can kill and/or collect. You can assist the faction in the area in other ways. Sometimes there are even puzzle like options to do. It isn't littered with kill 100 boars and bring me back their heads questing. For that change alone I say "THANK YOU IMMENSELY ANET!"

With the innovation score I would have given them more a 9, just because with that area most people are looking for something "new". With GW2 there is a lot of the "old", but what most fail to see at a glance is how Anet took the old and made it exciting; made it with more passion and frankly the way it should have been in the first place. One example of this is the NPC voice acting in the game and the background atmosphere sounds. They did it in such a way that it makes almost every zone feel alive and lived in. They put more love into this one area than 80% of other MMOs put into their whole game. The simplified UI (though I would like to see a few more options added. i.e. AOE looting, customize the action bar sizing separately) is a breath of fresh air to the cluttered action bars of other MMOs.

The over all score of the review, Murphy, I completely agree with and I look forward to more PvPing in the future. The PvP is a different animal compared to other MMOs and WvWvW will take some getting use to for me, BUT this gamer has been pleased, ney, drop to the floor "thank ya Jeezuz" happy for this MMO.

I will defend Tyria for years to come!

I think I'm onto something here.  Most people that are so enamored of this game seem to be WoW burnouts ( having spent years and years playing WoW).  Thus, the slighest change from those years of experience for them is being viewed as "innovation." (Additionally, I think these same people are the ones crying "WoW Clone" so much)

I, for one, spent (at most) 2 or so months playing WoW and never experienced that symptom.  Be interesting to see how many people really like this game who didn't play WoW for years on end....

Just a theory, of course.

Originally posted by grimal

I think I'm onto something here.  Most people that are so enamored of this game seem to be WoW burnouts ( having spent years and years playing WoW).  Thus, the slighest change from those years of experience for them is being viewed as "innovation." (Additionally, I think these same people are the ones crying "WoW Clone" so much)

I, for one, spent (at most) 2 or so months playing WoW and never experienced that symptom.  Be interesting to see how many people really like this game who didn't play WoW for years on end....

Just a theory, of course.

 

well i played wow for about 2 years on and off at launch so its been many many years since I played wow so i wouldn't call that being a wow burnout. Thinks it's more people who are burnt out on the tiered gear treadmill/raid type themeparks more than anything.

Yes this game is innovating dosen't matter how you see it, GW2 dosen't really follow the mainstream games, they took bits here and there mixed them up and expanded on the ideas and yes I call that innovation and not  revolutionary features.

Just one question for all you "there is no innovation at all"? you all tend to just write what the game has, never  have I read your ideas that has never EVER been seen in a game since dawn of gaming, can you guys please write me a innovating list that will work in a MMORPG and consider many gamers love to greaf and destroy, so I say please again write me a list of innovating ideas, how it will be implented and how it can work in a MMORG without imploding.

I have also read that several people find this game very antisocial, why is that?

Do you chat more when you are grouped in other games or are you like most gamers, speedtrhue the quest and write a short text in group chat..."thanks all, I'm off" after the quest is done?

Are you that guy who actively write in chat asking for groups to kill this or that?

Or are you that guy who waiting for other people to write in chat asking for groups to kill this or that?

Now you see most people have a hard time to interact with people they never have met, so they tend not to write in chat just waiting for that special guy who have some balls to pop the question.

On to longevity, this is highly a personal taste, if you are the one who plays 6-7 hours a day so you can bumrush to max level so you can be part of the leet 80 crew and you are not that fond of WvWvW or crafting then yes this game won't hold much longevity for you.

If you are like me, taking my time leveling up several toons at the same time, love crafting,exploring and WvWvW then yes this game will have longvity for you.

Ohh I forgot what's all about this Zerg talk that keeps popping up as a "valid" argument that WvWvW sucks?

What do you want, 1v1, small 5 man rambo style open world PvP?

WvWvW is a server battle and in battles, here it comes "gasp" there are armies (gamer term: zerg) of cource there is a big blob running around trying to capture points, and if it's a pug blob well they don't have a pissing chance against a guild blob so what's so bad about this?

How is that any different from USA and it's allied invaded IRAQ, now that's a MASSIVE zerg.

And lastly I have also seen some freak arguments that "hey GW2 is just like any other game out there with killing mobs, collecting stuff and mats".....well DUH..what did you expect.

Maby you who have this argument really are looking for is no crafting, mobless and emty world and your start your toon at max level with all the bells and wizzles, or have I missed your point all together, if so,, please explain how this could be done any better.

Originally posted by Eir_S

Originally posted by Izik

Originally posted by ShakyMo







Izik:







This game isn't designed for you. I like gw2, but I can't bloody stand EQ, and I'm not that keen on wow.

 

Well considering both of those games created this genre, I think it's fair to compare them to GW2.

How can something that wasn't released until 2004 be credited with creating the genre?  It (WoW) didn't create anything, it popularized the genre.  This kind of quote is as bad as saying "WoW was the first MMO".

 

Because WoW invented the modern day questing system, thus changing the genre forever by creating "themepark" mmos. Maybe you need a history lesson.

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by grimal

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by grimal

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Yakamomoto

this score is a joke. Boring story, boring fetch quests, not worth a sub. 6/10 at best

 

thanls for such reviews, now we can be prepared for another 10 years of brain dead quest goals and collect quests. Thanks, really

 

 I really don't like golf, like at all, and I also have something against Italian plumbers.  So I give Mario Golf a 4/10.

Do you see anything wrong with this review score?

Ah yes, I based my score completely on personal preferences, biases, and ignored any of the objective merits of the game.  Anyone who gives GW2 something below a 7, is doing the same.

Creslin, you are usually very fair.  But for some reasor n, you seem to denounce anyone who gives GW2 a score lower than you deem acceptable.  You love the game, fine.   But just because someone doesn't love your game, you dismiss their view entirely.

This reeks of arrogance.

 It's not arrogance, I just see anything below a seven for GW2 as being outside of a reasonable score, and thus I question it.  Also, my statement would allow for someone to give GW2 say like a 7.1, which is a pretty freaking low score.  That's a C-.

It's kind of like if someone gave The Matrix (first one) a 6, I would say they are smoking crack.  Or on a more rational level, their subjective, personal feelings about the movie did not allow them to see its objective merits.

Even if I personally HATE a game, I would still try to give it points for things that it did well objectively, or compared with its peers.  I really did not like SWTOR for example, but I gave it like an 8 if I remember right.

Also, I want to clarify that there is an issue of different "scales" here.  Some people really like to explore every number from 1-10, and give games a 4 that are like an 8 on metacritic.  I just want to be clear that I base all my scales (and your scales) off of the US grading system...which is pretty accepted among all the reviews out there.

So essentially....if someone has a wildly different view than you, you think they are "smoking crack" or are not seeing things objectively?  Wow.  If that's not arrogance, I clearly don't know what is.

 

No, that's not what I said, and you know it.  If someone like golf, and I don't, I don't tell them that it sucks.  I don't like Eve, but I don't see a need to go to the Eve forums and tell them about how I don't like the game and couldn't play it for an hour.  In fact, I completely accept their differing opinion of the game as valid.

In this case though, I'm just saying that your opinion is biased and not objective in the slightest.  Yep, I am saying that, not beating around the bush here.

If you are so intent on your score of GW2 being right, why don't you go ahead and justify it for us.  Tell us all the objective reasons why you think GW2 deserves a D score.  Now mind you, we are using the same scale that metacritic winds up averaging to here.  So this puts GW2 in the same league as games like:

Ghost Recon Online and Star Trek Online

So tell us, why do you believe that GW2 is on par with those two games?

 

 

That is what you said.  Look above. I'll underline the parts for you.  I just find it very interesting how close-minded you are about this game.  You have basically determined that this game, whether one likes it or not, is a 7.  This is what you said.  So, you are in fact placing your view onto others...

Let's try this another way, if I say something like:

Homeland is a great show.  It is a solid 9.  Anyone that rates it below a 7 is obviously biased.

I am essentially stating it is a fact that the show, regardless of opinion, is a 7.

I am saying my opinion is a fact.

See what I mean?

Also, just because you have a philosophy about recognizing a game as having a base value, does not mean everyone else needs to.  That is your philosophy.  It doesn't need to be mine.

Originally posted by rush1984

well im glad the reviewer enjoys it so much but i dont feel  like it deserves such a high rating.

 

i dont believe the reviewer got lvl 80 because he would know how little stuff there is to do, unless you call map completion and grinding buggy dungeons fun.

theres probaly thousands of posts of people on forums complaining about how boring the game is .

i however just quit entirely i got 4 weeks of fun out of the game so i guess it could have been worst

im a long time mmo player over 10 years now and gw2 was the quickest i become bored of any mmo, i even played aion and aoc even swtor for longer .

gw2 just doesnt have any longevity unless you are super casual and play only an hour a night, which im told is their target audience anyway.

 

i give it 7/10 which is still a good rating if only because they atleast tried to think outside the box

 

That is a good point and really reflects my experience with this game coz I basically play for a few hours every evening after work and loving it still. I can't imagine myself quitting the game for a while to come.

Originally posted by Aerowyn

Originally posted by grimal

I think I'm onto something here.  Most people that are so enamored of this game seem to be WoW burnouts ( having spent years and years playing WoW).  Thus, the slighest change from those years of experience for them is being viewed as "innovation." (Additionally, I think these same people are the ones crying "WoW Clone" so much)

I, for one, spent (at most) 2 or so months playing WoW and never experienced that symptom.  Be interesting to see how many people really like this game who didn't play WoW for years on end....

Just a theory, of course.

 

well i played wow for about 2 years on and off at launch so its been many many years since I played wow so i wouldn't call that being a wow burnout. Thinks it's more people who are burnt out on the tiered gear treadmill/raid type themeparks more than anything.

I'd consider 2 years to be burnout.  Anything really above the normal for a themepark game (0 to 6 or so months).

I read with interest the posts where people have stated their opinion that this game has far less replayability than game X. 

Different people will enjoy different games, Personally I play 5-6 hrs a night mon-thur nights plus 20-30 hrs each weekend and  I have not yet run out of "fun" content in GW2.    

Maybe my limited game experience is causing me to enjoy this game so much, The shortlist of games I have played over the last 15 or so years includes, UO, EQ1, DAOC, WoW, Horizons ( istaria), EvE, Lotro, AION, Rift, and SWTOR.

None of the above games had significantly more replayability "for me"  but to each their own.    I agree with the overall rating but likely would have rated the polish as lower, for the time being.

I think some folks are forgetting that reviews are also opinions. Bill is no more qualified than any of you to rate games, he's just giving his personal experience, which is probably part of his job. If you treat reviews as definitive guides to which games you should play, then you're probably missing out on some truely enjoyable gameplay.

Personally, I'd give GW2 an 8.0. I can't see the 9.3 score myself. [mod edit]

Originally posted by Balverine

Originally posted by Wolvards

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

Originally posted by Kuppa

Originally posted by grimal

Longevity 9?   How in the world did you come up with this number?

Edit:  I guess since "hundreds and hundreds of hours" equals a 9, the expectation is for an MMO to satiate our appetites for a month?  If so, what's the big deal if it's B2P or P2P since all the content is done within that first month and there is never a need to pay past the inital box price?

There is tons of longetivity in this game simply with the pvp. Best in the industry, IMO.

I was going to leave this whole review and thread alone and let the super fans have their moment all cheering about how amazing this unamazing game is.

 

Best PvP in the industry? I've PvPed in pretty much every MMO that has had the option and I've been playing MMOs since The Realm. This is some of the most boring PvP I have ever encountered in my entire gaming life. This statement is so absurd I can't even fathom it.

 

To put in perspective how crazy this statement is, it made me post in this thread when:

 

The innovation score should have been a 1. They literally did NOTHING new. How can they have a 10 innovation score without innovating? It is ridiculous. Yet I did not post in this thread.

Longevity? Really? The game gets boring faster than most MMOs out there. It is one massive boring kill task or WvW boring pointless zergfest. There is little longevity to this game on a large scale. There will be a small audience that sticks with it for a long time, like almost any product, but it doesn't have mainstream longevity at all. Yet I did not post in this thread.

Such a high overall score? They game was fairly polished (with a big exception being DEs that weren't in the starter zone. I can't count how many of those I saw bug out) which is a good thing. The graphics weren't bad, not amazing, but not bad. It is easy to learn and easy to figure out where to go next. All of those things are good things. The problem is the game lacked substance. They took out the fun part of MMOs: good/deep story, interesting quests in varied interesting dungeons with a wide variety of puzzles/bosses, having lots of customization, creating socialization, quality PvP with a point. It left in the kill and gather tasks and the exploration awards (which pretty much every game does now anyway). Yet I did not post.

 

But to have the insane audacity to claim best PvP in the industry. That blew my mind so much I literally had to post. To take a queue off of a pissed off NYT writer I will simply end with: Really? Best PvP in the industry, really? Really?

To claim it's the best PvP in the industry is just as bad as claiming it has the worst. 

Look at your point in orange.

That statement makes me disregard all of your "MMO experiences". I don't give a crap what you've played. If you can't look past a zerg, and see what a game has to offer. Then so be it, but I say it's a load of BS.

This goes for any poster, on any game, disregarding it because of a simple zerg.

Hating the game because of hackers, botters, siege placements, class or population imbalances, even a disagreement in game design are all things I can not refute. Because no matter how you play the game, those will always be there.

But a zerg? Really? Like, really?

 

Why? It is a just a pointless Zergfest. You seem to still miss his points, which are all correct.

 

Lol, I love this point. If you use the proper tactics and direct your people ahead of time to set builds that fit well with those tactics, and have the proper tools available to you to direct your forces, what looks like a pointless Zergfest could actually be one of the most epic fights you ever get into. Ask any Eve Online nullsec fleet commander about this. I haven't bothered to play GW2 because I don't want to pay $60 for from the sounds of it will amount to at most two months of gameplay before I get bored, but it sounds like you don't really have the necessary tools to truly command forces of that size. A Teamspeak/Ventrilo channel for voice chat and an established heirarchy of command as well as an overview list that shows all the players in an area along with their name, race, class, enemy/friendly status and distance from you could work wonders. The first two you could do on your own if you organize yourselves, but do you have the third?

Originally posted by grimgryphon

I think some folks are forgetting that reviews are also opinions. Bill is no more qualified than any of you to rate games, he's just giving his personal experience, which is probably part of his job. If you treat reviews as definitive guides to which games you should play, then you're probably missing out on some truely enjoyable gameplay.

Personally, I'd give GW2 an 8.0. I can't see the 9.3 score myself. 

[mod edit]

 

But a "review" is a critical analysis by definition.  It's more than just an opinion.  And being that he has stamped it with the "official MMORPG review" stamp it carries a bit more weight than any of the others here.

Originally posted by grimal

Originally posted by Aerowyn

Originally posted by grimal

I think I'm onto something here.  Most people that are so enamored of this game seem to be WoW burnouts ( having spent years and years playing WoW).  Thus, the slighest change from those years of experience for them is being viewed as "innovation." (Additionally, I think these same people are the ones crying "WoW Clone" so much)

I, for one, spent (at most) 2 or so months playing WoW and never experienced that symptom.  Be interesting to see how many people really like this game who didn't play WoW for years on end....

Just a theory, of course.

 

well i played wow for about 2 years on and off at launch so its been many many years since I played wow so i wouldn't call that being a wow burnout. Thinks it's more people who are burnt out on the tiered gear treadmill/raid type themeparks more than anything.

I'd consider 2 years to be burnout.  Anything really above the normal for a themepark game (0 to 6 or so months).

if i was still playing maybe but that was several years ago.. i don't consider being burnt out on a game I played half a decade ago. Also it was on and off for two years I hardly played for more than a couple months in a row.. Rift I probably played most consecutive of the recent themeparks(9 months). It's really a matter of what I said before burnt out on tiered gear based/raid focused endgame themeparks.. wow just happens to be one of those