| 245 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
2/08/13 9:43:21 AM#161
Played it for 2 months - full dungeon gear on 4 characters, exotics out the wazoo, 120g cash, commander's license and high ranked in structured. Basically had nothing left to do at the end of that 3 months so haven't played since. I've patched and loaded it a few times, honestly it seems as if they've done next to nothing with the game since I stopped playing months ago. To achieve all of the above I clocked in about 380 hours, so I averaged 200 hours per month almost. Some might say this is hardcore but actually it's 7 hours a day roughly, so people who averaged more like 10-12 probably ran the content even faster than me. I think GW2 is a fantastic game for people who play MMOs 3 hours or less a day, for me it really had no sustainability. I figure I got 400 hours out of it but not a lot more, for that I was happy - the strength was always going to be in the WvW and dungeon system, both of which are incredibly lacking in the game. One could argue I could have farmed towards a legendary but the requirements of that were an unbelievable grind, for what is a cosmetic item only. They released 6 months too early in my opinion due to their huge lawsuit costs and it cost them decent endgame content. Two endgame zones, both of which were crap. A broken dungeon system that was more frustrating then enjoyable and a WvW system that was dull after a very short order. I don't know how player numbers are in game now but last time I logged in it was pretty dead. |
|
|
2/08/13 9:57:09 AM#162
I would ask the question of how many normal people, with a family, a job, having to to earn money to live, can afford playing video games 7+ hours a day every day for two consecutive months, but I guess I'd waste my time since I'd get all kinds of more or less credible excuses (more less than more... =P) of why it's very possible while still having a sane and balanced life. So whatever... Point being, people who can do that are a minority. The vast majority are those who can NOT afford that kind of "lifestyle". There's only one truth. And it's not yours. |
|
|
2/08/13 10:11:09 AM#163
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard How so? Finish work at 4, bit of dinner and/or shower, play until midnight or 1am, bed then work again. Obviously weekends and days off were more playtime, thus balancing numbers for days where I didn't play at all (maybe go out with the girlfriend, see a movie, grab dinner, had late meetings, whatever). How is that an 'unrealistic lifestyle' and even a minority? Of the dozen people I know, almost all accomodate that lifestyle just fine. I'm glad you can speak for an entire majority of people based purely on your own limitations. I was merely citing how fast I ran through the content. People who played more than me would've ran it even faster (est 1 month), people who played slightly less at 4-5 hours a day would've maybe taken another month and your casuals playing 2-3 hours a day would generally of run through it in 6 months; so right about now in the timeframe. Of course that's speculation, I know people who play for 5 hours a day and do nothing but craft and talk with buddies so therefore they're not even doing the content. Not everyone lives a life of 12 hour work days, commuting and/or a job where you commit 40-50+ hours a week of your life. Infact in the UK our standard work week is 37 hours, and for me it's often a bit less. Frankly it's sad your only response to my "this game could do with more content and I think it's why people are abandoning the game" post was you griping on how I enjoy more free time than you seemingly. |
|
|
2/08/13 10:19:56 AM#164
Originally posted by SuperNick UH, that is hardcore - 7 hours a day is, to me , hardcore. No game has that much content to play that much unless you grind high level instances, for armor - think Rift. Rift had so little content - my character was max level in under 100 hours. In GW2, my ranger has about 125 hours to max level. The onl reason sandbox games have so much to do is, you need to grind to build a house, need to grind for this, need to grind for that.
GW2 has as much content as the other games out there, but people are thinking about instances, etc as the grind aspect, from other games.
I have a life outside work and gaming and I will not play 7 hours a day - that is just insane. I did it in the past and there is too much in the RW to occupy and enjoy. |
|
|
2/08/13 10:23:28 AM#165
Originally posted by SuperNick You didnt ran the content because you didnt get your legendary, and its exactly "old school" type of content, or "deep" by definition of "deep" that runs on these forums. Of course noone sane would call that "content" or "deep" but, well, thats how it is by some people ;P Anyway, you got 400 hours out of it, maybe you come back for a while when some new content is released, and theres expansion coming, at least you arent like the guy who claimed he played 900 hours in 3 months and said game is "trash" and "not worth playing" ;P |
|
|
2/08/13 10:25:17 AM#166
I speak for the majority of grown up adults who can't afford to play video games for 50 hours per week, no matter how those hours are distributed. And yes, no matter what you think, it is a majority, a very vast one. 7+ hours a day on average IS hardcore. It's in no way even remotely close to the amount of time the majority of players play. Let's get this straight... 8 hours a day work, then 7 hours of gaming, and we consider a grown up adults optimally need 7 hours of sleep per night to remain top healthy... that leaves 2 hours for your family and all the domestic shores during the week. If you think that's what most people can afford to do while still having a normal family life and a healthy personal life, then you live in a wonderland, and I hope the reality check won't hit you too hard. And I know what I'm talking about. I have been there, done that. But at that time, I had no family (I was temporarily living away from them because of work), and even then I still think it's definitely not a healthy way of living and I would not do it again. So much time wasted for virtual stuff in a video game... it's definitely not worth it. A game should not be a second job you spend actually more hours in than in your main, real, money bringing job. There's only one truth. And it's not yours. |
|
|
2/08/13 10:58:39 AM#167
Super - i'm glad you enjoy justifying your lack of time in real life, maybe you should reality check and figure out where you lost all of it. I don't have a family, i'm a 27 year old man with a job that's actually 6-7 hours a day and a girlfriend I see 3-4 times a week. Frankly I find working a job that sucks 10-12 hours a day out of you and having 3-4 kids and a wife to come home to a borderline insanity life but hey I don't sit around and cast judgement and each to their own. I think it's pathetic that your sole intention for replying to this thread was to criticize someone else's life and how they like to spend their free time. Also, you don't speak for "the vast majority of adults" - you speak for yourself, and maybe one or two guys you'll get to agree with you on the subject. It's ignorant to even claim you, an average citizen who seemingly works too much and made life choices that cost him more free time than he wanted to, an advocate for how adults run their life or should be running their life. It's about as far off topic as i'm willing to go, so this will be my last post. Good day. |
|
|
2/08/13 10:59:43 AM#168
Originally posted by mikahr That's why I was quite pleased with it. Farcry 3, while a great game, was what.. 20-30 hours maybe? I finished it in less. Any time that gives you more than 100 hours was a worthwhile buy. |
|
|
2/08/13 11:55:38 AM#169
I didn't cast judgement. Hell, I even admitted I've been there too. I just told you what the majority is - without any possible doubt. As I said, I've been there done that - I know it's possible - I have my own opinion on that based on my experience, but that's not the point. The point is, you, the guy who plays 7+ hours a day, is part of a hardcore minority. That's a fact. The vast majority of pplayers don't play even remotely close to 50 hours a week in a MMORPG. So who to create content for? For the forever hungry minority you represent (and I represented too) and which will never be satisfied? Or for the vast majority, the people who play at max 3 to 4 hours a day when lucky, and who don't consume content at faster than light speed? There's only one truth. And it's not yours. |
|
|
2/08/13 1:02:03 PM#170
Originally posted by Volkon +1 And my question is what Dev would make a MMORPG to want it to be #2, the fuckery in that would be almost sickining, I remember when he said that and people where like "OMG HE WANTS IT TO BE A WOW KILLER BECAUSE IT MUST KILL WOW TO BE NUMBER 1!!!!!!" The fuckery squared, the fuckery cubed, I guess we shouldn't try to make the number 1 MMORPG and always settle for second, but you know what? Maybe that's the fucking problem with most of these developers, they like "Only WoW can kill WoW, so by that logic we just going to make a MMORPG that can atleast be #2." And there you go a CLONE! Rather than "Hey let's do our own thing and see if this can be innovative, I mean we know WoW can only beat WoW, but let's make an MMO in our minds that can still be considered the #1 MMO as of today." I'm bettin Funcom thought that as well, hence you got TSW, which is not a WoW clone like GW2. I mean my mindset is to try to be number 1 despite the odds, that doesn't mean I have to kill who's ben considered number 1, that doesn't even mean I need more fans, but maybe I just want it to be like "Okay clearly you have much better quality and potential than the former #1, so right now you are #1, you may not have all the fans like former #1 have but in terms of quality and potential you pretty much got it." I'm also glad A-NET devs aren't being a bunch of punk asses and keeping it 100 with everybody, most devs would be to scared, I mean first off the some developers don't say that because they already got most their concepts from WoW, unlike A-Net, Trion, Funcom, an a few others. To me we need more mindsets like that, but I could be worng and that's goin to destroy MMORPG genre because people figured by changing it up to their style and just making a great game that it may just be number 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns-IIn-DG-c Try to argue this please. Oh also if you quote me and it's to argue my point, if I don't respond it means I haven't been corrected by you and/or I haven't seen it. Remember I don't mind admitting I am in the wrong. Take care :D |
|
|
2/08/13 1:11:37 PM#171
Originally posted by Eir_S Same here I also can't really get into WoW type MMORPGs. Though that's just my play style and me as a person which is why I haven't really gotten into MMORPG's since August 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns-IIn-DG-c Try to argue this please. Oh also if you quote me and it's to argue my point, if I don't respond it means I haven't been corrected by you and/or I haven't seen it. Remember I don't mind admitting I am in the wrong. Take care :D |
|
|
2/08/13 1:23:04 PM#172
Originally posted by iamthekiller I thought they sold 2.7 million copies (to 10 million subscribers)
Back on topic: GW2 exceeded the hype. Solid game. Some things I personally don't like, but I can live with it. I'm keeping my eye on ESO though. Not sure how I will be able to split my time between the two games.
|
|
|
2/09/13 11:32:13 PM#173
The simply awful WvW design upset me so..... I've stopped playing mmog's completly.
|
|
|
2/10/13 12:03:04 AM#174
Originally posted by akiira69 Nope, growth is predominantely defined as percentwise increase of a population. Given that GW2 is not a P2P, we do not know by how many % the active population increased from start; it is not even necessary that there was a growth, SWTOR shrinked in playerbase. EVE and early WoW are one of the few exceptions where there was an actual growth. |
|
|
2/10/13 12:08:44 AM#175
Originally posted by Celcius That is a rather useless property in itself. What is relevant is: which is the most profitable, which has the highest marketshare, which has the highest retention, which has the highest activity, etc. However, while "being fastest selling MMO to date" is connected to actual relevant milestones, it is not a such in itsef. |
|
|
2/10/13 12:15:58 AM#176
Originally posted by Schoeneck93 Given that "KIll WOW" is just a metaphor for "beating WOW", I hereby refer you to the dev and his claim that you said didn't exist: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/04/23/arenanet-founder-mike-obrien-will-be-satisfied-when-guild-wars-2-is-the-most-successful-mmo-period/. |
|
|
2/10/13 12:48:22 AM#177
Originally posted by TwoThreeFour No it isn't. If GW2 were to become #1 and WoW #2 (in active players) WoW would still be far from dead. I may want to beat the competition in a race, but I don't want them dead. |
|
|
2/10/13 3:08:14 AM#178
Originally posted by Celcius Actually Mike O'Brien (ArenaNet Founder) sorta said he believed GW2 was a WoW killer. “We’re in it to win it this time,” said O’Brien. “We were number two to World of Warcraft with Guild Wars, now we want to beat them. We’ll be satisfied when the Guild Wars 2 is the most successful MMO." http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/04/23/arenanet-founder-mike-obrien-will-be-satisfied-when-guild-wars-2-is-the-most-successful-mmo-period/
Also GW2 might be the fastest selling MMO to date, when not including WoW and any of its expansions.
I love GW2, but please, lets get our information right. In my world exclamation marks = looooove |
|
|
2/10/13 5:09:06 AM#179
Originally posted by Volkon So we disagree about what the metaphor "Kill WoW" stands for. |
|
|
2/10/13 5:22:42 AM#180
Originally posted by TwoThreeFour Kill WoW would stand for making a game to which most of WoW players would go to leving WoW dead. Hence "kill". Beat WoW would just mean you beat him in whatever benchmark you decided, for example "sell more copies than WoW" which he actually mentioned as exmaple for GW1. |
|