|85 posts found|
Trying to Unlock stuff for GW2 but game is UNplayable(Video Inside)
Lion's Arch (General) « Guild Wars
7/26/12 6:38:27 PM
From what I remember, GW puts all of its data into a file called GW.dat or something similar, which can get pretty huge (a few gig as I remember)
After patching, I always used to find that it fragmented horribly, so got into the habit of running Power Defragmenter frequently on my guild wars directory - that helped me , I think....
Edit: I used to also run with the -image tag ...needed to do that to make it playable too
If you want information overload, go to http://gw2census.com/charts.php
For me, personally, my characters will be as follows, in decreasing order of interest -
1 - Male Human Mesmer (main)
2 - Male Asura Engineer (could be female human, however)
3 - Female Human Thief (could be male asura if above is female human)
4 - Male Charr Necromancer
5 - Female Norn Ranger
to add some more info, was underwhelmed by the Sylvari, in spite of my familarity with Gloranthan Aldryami. Re the Norn, the male builds just don't do it for me - they look almost rectangular, whereas the females just look muscular.
As far as factors that motivate me, it's mostly about the look - I try to avoid choices that look ugly or ill-designed to me. I prefer the understated to the overstated, in general
I played a little of SWTOR in the beta - I disliked the jedi story, but the imperial agent story (what I saw of it) was quite good.
SWTOR has more of a continuous narrative running through the game in that there's a main plot that your character is following, whereas TSW emphasises story arcs more.
For TSW, aside from 1 or 2 instances (early Templar side springs to mind for me) the characterisation in TSW is pretty good. There's a difference in what the 2 games are aiming at re that too - SWTOR is about the story of a hero or anti-hero, whereas TSW is less "heroic" and thus, for me, preferable.
Combat mechanics-wise, I wouldn't say that either are particularly great. SWTOR is what you've seen in WoW, Rift etc. before and TSW is pretty close to that, although it is tied into the idea of 7 actives and 7 passives in a similar manner to GW1's skillset of 8 skills total
As far as the feel of the world goes, TSW hands down for me, but I'm not into moral dualism and much prefer tones of grey to black and white.
One area where TSW does suffer is that, in dialogue, you don't have any choices...in fact, your character stays silent - some people even comment on this in game. Whilst this can lead to a feeling that one lacks choice, it also means that one doesn't end up having someone do a voice over who sounds completely out of place for how one imagines one's character.
As far as alts and classes etc., in SWTOR each character can only acquire the skills from one side of their class tree (e.g. a jedi knight can only ever be a jedi knight or jedi guardian), and one can't change class. By contrast, TSW allows you to pick up all skills on one character, so the main reason for alting would be to run through as a different secret society or to try different looks, personalities, or even just try the early game with a different setup. Bothe ways have their +ve and -ve sides IMO. The flexibility of the TSW setup means that it becomes more difficult to base a characterisation around the skills and competencies of the character.
Both games are essentially based around the tank/dps/healer trinity, although TSW allows you to bend this - a fusion can work well in solo actually (better, even!), but going for the traditional roles is better in the hardest dungeons.
The investigation missions in TSW are pretty darn hard - you *need* that in-game browser for all sorts of things, whether it's looking up the different names of Egyptian pharaohs or converting hexadecimal into ascii. The suberfuge missions are quite fun too...the idea there is that charging in guns/swords/foci blazing isn't going to work.
Finally, both games have RP servers. SWTOR has several and TSW has one (Arcadia) but is in the process of opening a second (Leviathan).
A few themes that I'd associate with the different games are :
SWTOR - high space opera, heroic/anti-heroic, light and dark
TSW - modernity, occult, agent, Cthulhu
...I'm not sure if my ramblings will help, but on never knows.
For my money, I prefer TSW for the short-term, and am likely to move to GW2 later. I'm not keen on SWTOR (though quite enjoyed the original KOTOR)
Originally posted by Beyorn
As long as they do the story right, that sounds good...but why an MMO? Why not go for KOTOR 3 or the like? I guess the obvious answer is that at least a moderate success with SWTOR + subs was anticipated to pull in more cash than a single-player game, and that some members of the dev team were over-optimistic re what they could deliver.
The real question IMIO is why someone mainly interested in an immersive, story-oriented game for solo play would sub over the long term to an MMO if story is what they want. Would there not be better options? I guess the lack of KOTOR 3 would be felt by some, esp. Star Wars fans, so I guess I can understand. After all, it is Star Wars.
Re pulling the plug, I can't see why they would. Financially, most of the costs are sunk. I imagine that a rationalisation of staff and ongoing costs etc. would allow it to be decently profitable. Sunk costs also tend to gather a psychological commitment that isn't easy to shake...one need only look at various housing markets for examples of this.
Colour me unsurprised...
Much of the discussion I've seen of late has hinged on either problems with SWTOR, or problems with the population.
It was perhaps inevitable given the approach taken nearing release of "throwing people at the problem".
All I'm hoping is that any employees would have foreseen this to some extent and prepared to the best of their ability....'tis not a good time to be out of work (barring decent reserves of capital or assured income etc.)
As The Secret World is story-focussed in a similar-ish way to SWTOR, I wonder what effect TSW will have on SWTOR subs. (For me, TSW is more immersive than SWTOR. Now playing TSW for a little while, and I find it much more entertainingthan I'd given it credit for in my earlier posts - I guess I just dislike Mr Sonnac and a couple of others!)
You could do worse than look at
That gives you a lot of info on how weapons synergise, and on which effects.
An odd question.....but for the first month, sure! After that'd it'd depend on how much fun I was having. I'm hoping GW2 will be good, but we'll see.
I'm not exactly poor, so $15 a month isn't too significant for me.
The more important "investment" in a game wouldn't be money for me, but time. MMOs are really quite a cheap form of entertainment compared to others IMO, barring someone going completely nuts in an item shop!
As for quality, from what little I've played so far, the game is able to stand on its own merits, and the lack of monthly sub isn't a significant motivator for me.
(Voted yes, btw)
The Secret World opinion after playing share yours
Beta Reviews & Impressions [ARCHIVED] « The Secret World
6/16/12 2:27:24 PM
Well.....played it in the 1st beta, uninstalled....now have reinstalled, tried again, and uninstalled, sadly.
I like AoC (shocking, I know!), but TSW just didn't cut it for me.
I like TSW's idea of investigation missions - damn smart idea, even if it will be easy to google solutions or look them up on a wiki eventually
The minecraft-like crafting is a really nice touch
It's good to see an MMO try to break away from the normal fantasy tropes
The animations are poor IMO
Combat felt dull and uninteresting, but I didn't unlock many of the higher tier skills, so may not be judging on all the facts here
The feel of the world doesn't quite gel for me...whereas a genuine Call of Cthulhu setting would feel menacing and scary, this felt somewhat ridiculous. I think I see what they're aiming at, but to get the right feel would require more stage-setting, I think. I would have preferred it had they made magic and the occult far more mysterious and alien (and yes, this is one of my complaints re AoC too re the magic)
The voice acting - both in quality, and in the silence of the player character - the latter makes it much less immersive (...what am I...a mute?....or just the strong, silent type?). As regards quality, although I found much of it lacking, I did like the Prophet in the templar starter area - that piece was really good quality. To be clear, what was lacking wasn't so much that the voice actors themselves did a bad job, but more that their lines tended to be written badly.
IMO, there's a disconnect between the freedom of the skill system and the level of immersion required to "get into" the world and get the horror aspects of the setting working well. Being able to switch between being, say, an expert shotgun user, a blindingly fast swordsman and a tough-as-nails chaos mage makes it harder to identify with one's character.
The BWE2, what class did you like best POLL
General Discussion « Guild Wars 2
6/11/12 5:00:08 PM
Tough call.....my main will still be mesmer (love that class!), but I found the necro a lot more fun this time than last BWE. I still want to spend a bit more time on engineer - don't feel I've really done the class justice with my goes at it thus far.
Edit : Should say, I found the necro more fun when going with a staff/scepter-dagger setup and focussing on wells....got a bit more used to the crowd control options, which was fun, and also toggling death shroud. The previous time I went with axe and tried minions (not so fun for me)
has "when it's ready" changed your expectations and what you're willing to accept?
General Discussion « Guild Wars 2
5/24/12 12:12:01 PM
Re the OP, yes, I have high expectations about the release quality of GW2, and they sure can't be let off the hook with an excuse that release was rushed due to financial constraints, as some other MMOs could be.
That said, from what I've played, everything has seemed very smooth, so I doubt I'll have many issues with it.
You have a point....as it's a self-selected sample, one's not entitled to take it as necessarily representative of the viewpoint of the gaming community as a whole.
I enjoyed the beta.....but I'm one of that self-selected sample group ^^
Not as good as the hype?
Beta Weekend Event Reviews & Impressions (Archived) « Guild Wars 2
5/16/12 1:35:16 PM
Originally posted by Lucioon
To be fair, it's been in Age of Conan for 4 years, so it's not quite as groundbreaking as you say....though the double-tap dodging is both more meaningful and fluid in GW2
Having tried the beta (several times now!), it's a "no" for me.
Edit: To clarify, I mean that I'm not intending to subscribe.
Is it wrong that I like Rift's DEs better than GW2s DEs?
General Discussion « Rift
5/04/12 4:23:35 PM
Right? Wrong? I'm sure you know that these terms don't really apply too well to subjective preferences like this...
Anyhow, on topic, I quite liked Rift's dynamic events when Rift released, but GW2's impressed me a lot more. After 6-8 weeks play in Rift, the zone events felt quite repetitive....I'll have to see how things work out in GW2.
One of the big pluses that GW2 has is the level-scaling thing whereby a high-level character will get autolevelled down in a lowbie zone, meaning that the event can be a challenge for them too, though rewards could be an issue for some.
In Rift, it also felt like one was competing against others for one's tier (& rewards) in a DE, but in GW2, getting gold level feels easier, so GW2 may lead to more genuinely cooperative play...so I'm wonderin if GW2's setup might actually lead to more community-building.
I'm looking forward to GW2, having enjoyed the beta (I played GW1 for about 2 years or so).......but I only managed 6-8 weeks in Rift....it just never really grabbed me (though chloromancer was fun).
Pretty much, yeah. And no, you weren't doing it wrong. However, an assassin can do OK in the daytime as long as you use crowd controls and other tools right, but it is certainly far easier for a 'sin at night.
I rolled an assassin character for that purpose - to try the whole sneaky sneaky stabby stabby thing.
By and large, in the daytime & outside, stealth is pretty useless (though has some uses for rangers), though there are a few spots offering a little more cover e.g. the shade of trees, or up against the edges of some areas.
I learnt to do 1 of 2 things when soloing on my assassin - either do his levelling/questing etc at night, or if I wanted to play during the daytime, not try to stealth, but instead shoot them with my crossbow to pull (it's surprising how much an assassin can do with an xbow). Indoor instances of course don't suffer from the day/night thing, but one has to be careful in some areas depending on how much light is around.
I'm also perhaps lucky as I have several characters I enjoy - if I want to do some solo stuff, I sometimes play my assassin if it's night, or play something else if it isn't.....probably not the answer you want.
I guess it's realistic that someone can't sneak around in broad daylight in the open and not be seen, but it does mean that the opportunities for the stealth-style gameplay are quite limited.
One thing which AoC never implemented (but should have, IMO) is some kind of facing system for mobs, and determining whether or not the mob sees you based on that.
[Mod Edit] AoC still dominates all other MMO's in Combat
General Discussion « Age of Conan
4/25/12 11:37:24 AM
Well, as a player of AoC, I really enjoy the combat system, and find it by far preferable to other MMOs I've tried e.g. Rift (though I did like the interrupt-based gameplay of some classes/setups in GW1). IMO the casting system could do with some added complexity (would love to see spellweaving made harder). The lack of global cooldown is also something I like.
Graphics/animations - yeah, I think it's great, although it still demands a good PC to play it, and although Funcom have made great progress in reducing system load, there are IMO still some issues such as memory leaks (but much milder now) to deal with.
As far as why people left at the beginning, it's tough to recall exactly (yeah, I was there), but the game was pretty buggy back then. Many also felt that Funcom had made promises but failed to keep them (the poor implementation of city sieges was a big let down for some of my friends).
Some poor decisions re balance didn't help (the gems era, for example, re PvP). Many people had a good 1st impression of Tortage, as I recall, but the world after Tortage was thinner on voiceovers and content, and that put some peoples' backs up.
Funcom have sorted out some of these issues (to varying degrees), but I suspect that it's not even on some peoples' radar as their memory of it from near release is of a buggy mess.
There's been some info announced about it today in the monthly development update at
- goes into some depth, but it's a way off yet.
Now that SWTOR is obviously a success
General Discussion « Star Wars: The Old Republic
2/14/12 7:28:07 PM
Once.....just *once*, I'd like to see people pay attention to the semantics of the term "success"...and how success is related to a goal. People will have different criteria for what is to count as a success as they have different aims in mind.
Without a consensus of what would constitute success, people are using the term in wildly differing ways, rendering discussion of whether or not SWToR is a success....well, really pretty meaningless.
I believe that the OP is posting the thread in this way purely to elicit a response.
If the OP really wanted feedback on what should be added, a better question would have been something like "Now that you've played it for a month (or so), what would you like to see next?"
From what you write it does sound like the DT or guardian would suit you well.
Guardians are indeed able to take a ton of punishment, but the sword/shield spec (juggernaut) has very low damage. They also have no selfhealing per se. If one wants to do better damage on a guard (and sacrifice some of one's aggro tools and a little survivability) polearm is good....however, that won't suit the look you want.
Dark Templars take a little more damage from opponents but have more tools to counteract damage (e.g. lifetaps, soul barrier, or a dread shadow). With the right spec and good gear they can also put out very high dps. They have some healing abilities (lifetaps, martyrdom - a "green" heal that requires that the DT damage themself, and perhaps even dark hand).
One last option would be to go for a dual-wielding carnage conqueror with some defensive feats, but this isn't as solid as the above 2 choices. Where the other 2 above can main-tank, a carnage conq is better thought of as an off-tank (or outright dps depending on setup). One can solo ok due to a balance of dps and mitigation. Conquerors do have a half-power "green" heal coming from a banner that they can plant.
As regards the feel of the classes, guardian is a classic armoured soldier - all physical stuff, with no magic, rock solid; DT is a warrior who gets by with a combination of swordsmanship and dark/blood magic; conqueror is mostly physical, but has some (very) minor elemental magic aspects, and some group-affecting buffs - the original concept of the conqueror was a "commander" type.
Age of Conan: Unchained: SOTW: Age of Conan Edition: Winner's Announcement!
News & Features Discussion « General Discussion
1/20/12 4:41:04 PM
Congratulations! That's one really nice screenshot. But remember, a vicious, attack-trained wolf is for life, not just for Christmas