Actually I agree with him, but not for the lack of trinity thing. I've been talking about how hard the dungeons are since the betas and all I ever got in response was "play better" or "you just need a coordinated team". Despite that, they're half right; if people are all playing at the top of their game, you'll make it through. But there's a LOT of frustration along the way in terms of learning experience and even then, it really only takes one fuck up to ruin the party for the rest of the group. The dungeons run along the same elitist vein as structured PvP, which is why I ignore them.

Ran story modes of all of them (which are all relatively easy) then crafted myself full exotic gear (including secondary weapon and accessories at this point). Now I have no need of the dungeons, and that works fine for me. This has been and - if the recent dev letter is any indication - always will be the weakest point of Guild Wars 2 for me, and the only content I go out of my way to avoid.

I've already given up on Bioware. They will never be a great company so long as they're a part of EA, and they'll never get rid of EA as long as they are Bioware. It's a done deal, completely over. I haven't bought a game from them in many years and I have no intention of ever changing that. I say good riddance to the doctors, I wish it happened sooner. True, they were behind the beginnngs of Bioware when they were great, but it's also true that the sellout to EA would never have happened without them. Now years later they're rich as can be off making beer or whatever, essentially tossing their company's name and its playerbase to the dogs for that extra yacht.

To hell with everyone involved, at least when they get my money they'll be the first to feel the drop in temp.

Originally posted by Tayah

Originally posted by Lord.Bachus

Combat it much more active and intesive then old time MMO´s.  Thats why most people dont even read whats in the map chat. We´re busy playing the game and having a great time

This happens to me a lot. When I'm out doing events and exploring I get lost in the game and forget my chat box is there.

This is my experience too, though I'm making a concerted effort to change that now. This is one of the most common complaints I see, but really I'm not intentionally ignoring people. There's just so much going on at once. Couple that with raidcall in my ears and guildees asking questions, and general/world chat are generally the least of my concern.

Elites that are harder to get aren't a bad idea. The rest of the OP's post makes no sense. You're still making builds with the trait system and anyone who has invested in GW1's meta knows that for the hundreds of skills available, there's less than a handful of builds per class that anyone actually used for the harder portions of the game, and for nerely all of competitive PvP. 

As for dual classing, it's a gimmick. What separates two classes from one another are skills, which means you could remove classes all together for the same effect (which isn't going to happen, get over it), so basically this just boils down to "I want more skills". That'll come with time, but it's never going to reach the point of GW1 because it was impossible for them to balance that, leading right back to the argument about a handful of builds.

I do miss heroes, though. I'm fine with them being gone, mostly I just liked collecting something that could actually do something, as opposed to minis which just hang about. However, BECAUSE of heroes in GW1, people didn't team up. In GW2 I team up regularly, for both PvE and PvP, and not just for dungeons. People recruit for story instances often, as they can be a challenge if you're not overleveled and/or prepared. If we had heroes, we'd never see teams, probably not even for dungeons.

A lot of you are in that "The US is the only country that matters" mode of thinking. Try to keep in mind there are veritable worlds existing beyond our borders ;\

Aion is actually been doing friggin beautifully in the East, it's just the West that didn't care for it. But they love that grindy shit over there. RNG with .000000001% chance of success? BRING IT. West players, not so much. I sure as hell don't have the patience for that crap. TERA failed both in the East and West so yeah, that one's not even worth mentioning at this point. But that B & S topped Aion is impressive because of how much those guys friggin love them some Aion. It also held the position. Whether it's "unbeatable" remains to be seen, but don't underestimate the draw of certain games just because our culture doesn't welcome them with open arms. That side of the world is a hell of a lot more profitable than we'll ever be anyway, just ask SEGA.

Personally, I think it will do extremely well both in the east and west. It very closely resembles Aion, but with a better combo system and ~far~ less grinding right out of the box. That's pretty much what it is, Aion Better, but with "Kill Bill" lookin' hookers running around with freakishly long legs kicking the shit out of your face instead of stabbing it with giant swords (although they do that, too).

Originally posted by TobiasGrey

Originally posted by gaeanprayer
What level areas are you talking about? People are constantly chatting in both the beginner areas (Queensdale and the like) and the 70+ areas where many people are hanging out these days. High level areas are especially hectic between map chat and dungeon party spam (so want an LFG tool if only to get rid of that). Could also be your server, too. My guild switched to Stormbluff after a pvp alliance left out server and took most people with them, had trouble getting teams together since the people left behind were all very casual and mostly 20-40ish. Map chat was pretty empty there, too. This was frostpeak, btw.

We're not talking about bored people spamming global chat. We're talking about people actually socializing with eachother in the world. No one EVER responds to local chat ANYWHERE.

I like how you took what I said and claimed it meant the exact opposite of what it meant. People socialize plenty. So much that I made a tab that only have guild, party and whisper chat enabled so I can avoid it whenever I get tired of it. That's usually the tab I'm in. But no, I don't see much socializing in the mid-level range maps, they're more quiet. Like I said, nub areas, and 70+, plenty people talking. That they don't use local chat to do it means little, it's not necessary. Most obviously prefer to communicate with the whole map rather than just those in immediate range (as this, obviously, gives them MORE options for socializing) not to mention people are generally only in immediate range while in the middle of a fight. Sorry if I don't want to stop to shoot the shit with you while I'm trying not to die, but that's what whisper/guild/party chat/mail is for.

What level areas are you talking about? People are constantly chatting in both the beginner areas (Queensdale and the like) and the 70+ areas where many people are hanging out these days. High level areas are especially hectic between map chat and dungeon party spam (so want an LFG tool if only to get rid of that). Could also be your server, too. My guild switched to Stormbluff after a pvp alliance left out server and took most people with them, had trouble getting teams together since the people left behind were all very casual and mostly 20-40ish. Map chat was pretty empty there, too. This was frostpeak, btw.

Edit - btw, as someone else pointed out, WvWvW is ALWAYS alive in map chat. If you want a reason to depend on others and coordinate outside of dungeons or OOC chat, go there.

Originally posted by Ramonski7

Originally posted by gaeanprayer

That's great for you, but the majority of gamers don't role play or at the very least, the role play potential isn't the deciding factor in whether or not a game is an enjoyable experience. That doesn't take into account how often people role play, or 'act', as pre-established characters in the first place. So while your argument is sound for you, it doesn't apply to the rest of the world, and yet the complaint that you're not making your own character is the one most seen. That's the discrepancy that makes about as much sense as the complaint.

As for an online-only diablo vs. and online-only ARPG, there's a huge difference between requiring a single-player game with multi-player options be online 24/7 and an actual MMO requiring it. Granted it has 'zones' but so do most MMOs these days, so that's nothing new. It's still more of an MMO than Diablo ever was and will be. The inverse would be like suggesting Kingdoms of Amalur should have been Online-only since an MMO version would have been released, it doesn't make much sense.

Then why are the developers and others constantly referring to David Brevik's expereince with Diablo and stating that the gameplay is so similar to Diablo? An excerpt from a IGN inverview below you can see what people are saying (full interview is  here:)

As Charles Onyett pointed out in his first look at the free-to-play Marvel Heroes, it really is hard to talk about this game without bringing up Diablo. Marvel Heroes' enemies erupt into loot upon death, the camera is in an isometric perspective, you level up and customize your character to suit your play style -- all of it operating exactly like Diablo.

And with no mentions of persistant worlds, cities or leveling zones yet. So as of now, all we can go on is that it's just like a single player ARPG that requires a online connection. But if they don't want it compared to Diablo, then maybe they should compare it to Guild Wars. Which is another argument all together. Either way I'll be playing it as I do all online and offline games that interest me. But to criticize one company about online only and brush aside another for doing the exact same thing is beyond bias.

 

Everything you said there is a strawman, it has nothing to do with anything. Mythos Global is an ARPG, the "kid" version of this game is an ARPG, Lineage Eternal (when it finally exists) will be an ARPG, and so on. They're all also MMOs. They're not single-player games with multi-player option forcing people to be online anyway for the single-player gameplay. That they share similar gameplay styles is irrelevant.

EDIT - By the way, if you're only getting your information from this site, that would explain why you're in the dark. "All we can go on" is a lot more than in the article you quoted. Do some research on the game (don't take that as sounding cocky, I don't mean it to) and you might be surprised. Originally I expected it to be like an adult version of Super Hero Squad, but they're going for the Mythos approach instead; open world, but with dungeons that are instanced. Pretty much what every other MMO does these days.

Originally posted by WhiteLantern

Originally posted by gaeanprayer

*snip that crap

That's great for you, but the majority of gamers don't role play or at the very least, the role play potential isn't the deciding factor in whether or not a game is an enjoyable experience. That doesn't take into account how often people role play, or 'act', as pre-established characters in the first place. So while your argument is sound for you, it doesn't apply to the rest of the world, and yet the complaint that you're not making your own character is the one most seen. That's the discrepancy that makes about as much sense as the complaint.

As for an online-only diablo vs. and online-only ARPG, there's a huge difference between requiring a single-player game with multi-player options be online 24/7 and an actual MMO requiring it. Granted it has 'zones' but so do most MMOs these days, so that's nothing new. It's still more of an MMO than Diablo ever was and will be. The inverse would be like suggesting Kingdoms of Amalur should have been Online-only since an MMO version would have been released, it doesn't make much sense.

Honestly, I don't know what half of your post is about.

I don't care how anyone else plays their game (there is a wrong way, I hear). What matters to me is how I play the game. If you are going to give me a ROLE PLAYING GAME, I prefer to make my own character. Prefer is the keyword. If I can only play pre-established, lore-heavy characters, I'll likely pass. It is totally different than playing "just another warriror with the same look as everyone else".

 

I can tell you don't know what it's about, because it's obvious you weren't actually reading it. Both my reply to you and my original post were in reference to the general argument, not about how you specifically want to play the game. Believe it or not, I really don't care about that. Also your definitely of Role Playing is incorrect, "role playing" means specifically to play a role. There's really nothing difficult to understand about that. A role can be anything, including a specific person. That is after all what acting is all about.

Originally posted by WhiteLantern

Originally posted by gaeanprayer

The "create your own character" thing is a silly argument, I can't believe people are still holding onto it. It's an ARPG, what game of this style do you know has huge amounts of character customization? You're at a 3d isometric angle, those details are never seen in the first place. As for playing an established character instead of making one, it's no different than an MMO with classes. In some games you play a warrior class, here your class will be 'Deadpool'. Sounds pretty friggin' awesome to me.

 

I'm looking forward to it. I've wanted another Ultimate Alliance game for a long time, something new, and an MMO version means they'll keep adding new content without me having to spend another $60 and 4+ years waiting between sequels. Works for me.

I don't always Roleplay, but when I do I prefer to roleplay my own creations.

 

 

I can roleplay pretty much anywhere (without having to climb trees, even). I could roleplay that I'm deadpool. I understand the character and I could pull it off. However, as with DCUO, I didn't want to roleplay The Batman, I wanted to roleplay The Boilerman. Given the ability to burn with the power and wavelength of a red sun by the exobites, I soon discovered that I had to encase my body in a suit of armor designed by John Henry so that I could be around my mentor, Superman, without causing him harm. Nearly one-hundred years old at the time of Braniac's attack, I found my body rejuvenated and strengthened. With a sense of justice seemingly lost on the current generation, I took my fight to evil wherever I could find it; eventually earning a spot in the JLA. Using large hammers that I learned to wield on my time working the railroads, I patrol the suicide slums: my old home, now lost to decay.

 

I could go on with my backstory, but you get my point. This game may not be an RPG, so maybe I'm off the mark. And that is ok too. But I don't need and online-only Ultimate Alliance anymore than I needed an online-only Diablo.

That's great for you, but the majority of gamers don't role play or at the very least, the role play potential isn't the deciding factor in whether or not a game is an enjoyable experience. That doesn't take into account how often people role play, or 'act', as pre-established characters in the first place. So while your argument is sound for you, it doesn't apply to the rest of the world, and yet the complaint that you're not making your own character is the one most seen. That's the discrepancy that makes about as much sense as the complaint.

As for an online-only diablo vs. and online-only ARPG, there's a huge difference between requiring a single-player game with multi-player options be online 24/7 and an actual MMO requiring it. Granted it has 'zones' but so do most MMOs these days, so that's nothing new. It's still more of an MMO than Diablo ever was and will be. The inverse would be like suggesting Kingdoms of Amalur should have been Online-only since an MMO version would have been released, it doesn't make much sense.

I don't think they're closing down the studio purely to get rid of CoH. The suddenness of it, plus the fact that it was still loved and profitable (not as much as they'd have liked I'm sure, but several servers were steadily reading "full" which is more than many games can say) leads me to believe there's more to the story. It may be some internal politic-ing going on; maybe PS and NC weren't in agreement anymore, maybe certain people at PS were leaving and that shook NC's confidence in the company, etc. There's also the chance that NC wanted to close the studio to essentially freeze the assets and pull an "APB" where the game will be sold to another company (I would LOVE this).

Then of course, the possibility that this was closed and the IP transferred to a new subsidiary for redevelopment, as CoH2, something they've been teasing about for a long time now. Just because it's the same IP doesn't mean they want the PS team working on it. IMO, the sudden shut down could meaan anything really....except that profits were low. I find it hard to believe that's the only reason for this.

The "create your own character" thing is a silly argument, I can't believe people are still holding onto it. It's an ARPG, what game of this style do you know has huge amounts of character customization? You're at a 3d isometric angle, those details are never seen in the first place. As for playing an established character instead of making one, it's no different than an MMO with classes. In some games you play a warrior class, here your class will be 'Deadpool'. Sounds pretty friggin' awesome to me.

I'm looking forward to it. I've wanted another Ultimate Alliance game for a long time, something new, and an MMO version means they'll keep adding new content without me having to spend another $60 and 4+ years waiting between sequels. Works for me.

Game is not a TERA clone. B&S is easily playable by anyone with just a quick google search. Unfortunately, I can't tell you what to look for, as it's not technically "legal". If you've been around long enough, that should be enough of a clue about what to look for.

The gameplay is more like Aion, with attacks that combo into each other. Your shortcut bar is very small, but it's deceptively so as just one skill can eventually lead to 3+ other skills, which can link into your other skills, which form more combos. So it's like what Aion wanted to be but didn't quite manage. It is however, very quest-hub based gameplay, which is unfortunate. I've only played one class so far, but I enjoyed it. The classes by the way, are race-restricted, and there's a couple of gender restricted races as well. The mobility in the game far surpasses TERA, as do the graphics IMO, but aesthetically speaking it's a bit wierd. I actually like HTK's artwork, but I don't think it translates well into 3d, everything looks disproportionate, like you're playing through a fun-house mirror. The environments are absolutely phenomenal though, best I've seen in any game so far. The game is not instanced 100%, you have "zones" just like nearly every other MMO these days. There are caves and such that are instanced, you go in and do whatever quest you need to then back to the public areas. 

Combat is very flashy and fun, but you can't use most skills while on the run like some of the more action-oriented skills are doing. It's up to personal taste whether that's a good thing or not. 

Originally posted by IrishChai

Originally posted by heartless

Originally posted by IrishChai

Originally posted by heartless

Originally posted by MMOExposed

this is my opinion, but whats boring about getting to level 80, is that most likely you seen most of the game world.

rolling alts feels like a even larger grind now going through stuff you already did.

 

WvW feels boring because usually you have to wait in a 6 hour queue just to start playing it, which by the time you get in, you are tired from the Dynamic Event zerg grinding.

I havnt played SPvP at all, since I didnt like it back in beta. hate that kind of PvP.

 

the game at 80 just doesnt seem very interesting. I suggest Anet add more WvW maps so queue can go down.

That's wrong. I'm level 60 and I know for a fact that I missed a whole bunch of zones as I was leveling up. As you can see in the link I provided, each level range has multiple zones (about 3-4 per) and each zone can get you out of the level range, so you can potentially level around 2-3 characters and experience mostly new content.

In other words, you're severely misinformed.

 

A level 80 is severely misinformed about content at level 80? .. and you're only 60 saying he's severely misinformed? 

 

Don't get me wrong. I've found everything about GW2 very entertaining, but I wouldn't try and tell a level 80 how the gameplay at level 80 is when I'm not even there yet.

Yes, he is misinformed because while getting to level 60, I completely missed a whole lot of zones.

Here are the zones I have leveled in.

1-15 Metrica Province (which still leaves Plains of Ashford, Qeensdale, Caledon Forest and Wayfarer Foothills)

15-25 Brisban Wildlands (still leaves Diessa Plateau, Snowden Drifts)

15-25 Kessex Hills. (still leaves Diessa Plateau, Snowden Drifts)

25-35 Gendarran Fields (still leaves Fields of Ruin Lornar's Pass)

35-45 Harathi Hinterlands (Blazeridge Steppes, Iron Marches, Timberline Falls)

40-50 Dredgehaunt Cliffs (Blazeridge Steppes, Iron Marches, Timberline Falls)

45-55 Bloodtide Coast finishing it now.

There is some overlap in the level ranges but I'm sure that you can see how I still have a whole bunch of zones per each level range to level up alts in and experience different content.

 

 

I do actually play GW2 also, and I am seeking out and exploring every zone on one character, and I'm not doing it for 100% completion either. Just doing it for the hell of it because I find it fun, but after I do all that I have no idea if I will be totally bored when I hit 80. So I give someone the benefit of the doubt if they find it boring and don't specify exactly what they finished so far.

He never said someone might not do it for fun, the context of his argument was in regards to the necessity of the zones, i.e., it's fully possible to hit 80 before seeing everything. Further, the original poster claimed to see everything by 80, so there's no benefit of the doubt to give. Was this really an argument worth having?

Originally posted by Atlan99

Originally posted by heartless

No that's not wrong.

I have already been to every zone. Just on one character.

In other words you are misinformed on your opinion of what people have done. Not all of us have skipped or missed zones.

The only reason to go to and explore every zone is if you're going for the 100% map exploration, which is not required to reach level 80.

Most eighties have already seen most of the content by the time they hit 80. Nothing you have said changes that or the fact that rerolling is going to have you replaying most of the content you level with.

Funny, I'm level 80. I hit level 80 before I even visited the 75+ zones (there's at least 2) and I have several whole maps I've yet to step foot in. I've yet to max a craft, I only just tonight started PvP, I haven't played with the mystic forge, the only dungeon I've done is AC, and the only storyline I've completed is the human one (I chose Priory, there's 2 other factions and several ways to end the storyline I'll be exploring on alts as well). Not a single person in my guild who's 80, and there are many, has "seen most of the content by the time they hit 80", not that that's necessary to point out since you have nothing to base that on when you say "most eighties". Want to pull anything else from your tush?

lol @ the satire. To the person who wrote this article (and MMORPG.com in general), come down to the level of the average gamer. The average person who goes to PAX doesn't get to experience 90% of the crap you listed there. They don't have access to the devs like you do, the devs aren't interested in talking to them and getting to know them and on the rare occasion you get to rub elbows with anyone there's a ~really~ good chance they're pretty low on the totem pole. Contests are like winning the lottery and exclusive information? Not even GW2 info was worth the price I paid on airfare and food while out there, and it would have been more if I didn't get to stay with a friend. But yes, the swag was nice. The shirt materials are cheap as hell but everyone and their mother was giving them out, so I'm still going through them.

I went to PAX, I stayed for my friend; I had a better time hanging out with him than either of us did with anything we did at PAX. Sure, the first day was pretty awe-inspiring, but we were new to the whole convention thing. By day 2 we realized we spent more time walking around and waiting in lines than actually doing anything and the only time we got to talk to anyone, it was because we were getting pitched a product. Not including the Turbine folks trying to get people to care about DDO in their little corner while GW2 was going on 2 feet away (wasn't the best idea on Turbine's part. It was so empty not even the employees stuck around). We ended up giving our weekend passes away and went shopping in Chinatown instead.

I'm coming off as a bit of a party pooper, I know, but the sarcasm dripping from the article does so with drool over an experience those without the backstage passes are very unlikely to have. I'm sure it also does so because conventions in general are shrinking, which means lost revenue, so of course, time to advertise! But in any case, like someone else said, these conventions are a waste of time and money unless you already live near them. Even then, it's debateable. You'd be better off just looking at the cosplayers on Kotaku when the pictures get posted. Those of us who've gotten close enough to get bowled over by the BO know it's the better option (not that you can blame them, the convention center really is hot as balls).

Originally posted by thark

 

sure you may set yourself in the cathegorie that doesnt buy anything at all from the cash shop, but when you do there is atleast one guy that pays 40$ in the store.

 

And this is your concern, why?