Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ...
2
3
4
5
6
LastLast
  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Lannden View Post
    To have fun I need a goal its just how I am. That's my personality, I know there are people who have fun just fooling around, that is not me. For example when I play GTA or Read Dead, or Fallout I finish the missions. I find no fun in just running around doing random things in those games. GW2 is not for me, at least not as my main MMO. I don't think any amount of you telling me what is or is not fun will change that just like I know I can't change your tastes.
    Take wow and get rid of the stats voila GW2 (with smaller "raids"). Still a sense of accomplishment, achievement, and new gear which you might like the look of or might now. The only real difference is it will be 5(or 4 can't remember) player dungeons with normalized gear.

  2. #62
    The Patient Lannden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Boston, Mass
    Posts
    315
    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    Best approach is treat GW2 as a single player game and keep your WOW subscription. The beauty of GW2 is it requires no sub. So risk factor is at most 50-60$ at launch.
    Yeah that's how I'm going to play, it should get at least as much as I got out of New Vegas if not more out of it. (I played New Vegas for 150 hours.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kutra View Post
    Take wow and get rid of the stats voila GW2 (with smaller "raids"). Still a sense of accomplishment, achievement, and new gear which you might like the look of or might now. The only real difference is it will be 5(or 4 can't remember) player dungeons with normalized gear.
    The problem is that if I burn through that in six months I'll be left with nothing in the game. So I'm just going to play it casually and keep my main MMO as WoW.
    Last edited by Lannden; 2011-11-09 at 11:53 PM.

  3. #63
    For me, buying GW2 would be a lot like buying a CoD game. It costs you 60 dollars/euros and you get a cool campaign/story mode. And after that I can PvP the shit out of the game! Seems perfect to me! :P

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    Team size doesn't have a thing to do with that.
    i might be too optimistic, but i think it may be easier to create&release content if you have more people working than less. (unless the new ones are sleeping all day long at the office)

    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    What leads you to believe based on what we know of the GW2's design PVE endgame focus would not be on those elements? Name them.
    devs already told they had a team working on content to be released after GW2 was released. while they didn't tell if this was going to be dungeons or only DEs (as we know they're going to add more DEs), it's pretty stupid on your side to assume that it'd only be outside world elements.

    the more i read your posts the more it looks like you're thinking GW2 will just turn out as some sort of "improved" minesweeper game, on a level barely good enough to keep your eyes on the screen while you're watching some soap on tv.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    $60 for Guild Wars 2 and 40-70 hours of gameplay? Not too bad at all. I paid more for Dead Island, Rage and Assassin's Creed. Played them for less than 20 hours combined.
    that alone just speaks for itself.

    ---------- Post added 2011-11-10 at 12:41 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    Best approach is treat GW2 as a single player game and keep your WOW subscription. The beauty of GW2 is it requires no sub. So risk factor is at most 50-60$ at launch.
    stupidest thing i've ever read for months.

  5. #65
    LOL, are you trolling me? I honestly can't tell if you are trolling for a laff or if you are a genuine idiot.

    Quote Originally Posted by sacrypheyes View Post
    i might be too optimistic, but i think it may be easier to create&release content if you have more people working than less. (unless the new ones are sleeping all day long at the office)
    Still not sure what this has to do with the focus of the PVE content being on story, collection, achievements and exploration vs. a raid-centric/infinity ladder endgame such as the OP was talking about.

    devs already told they had a team working on content to be released after GW2 was released. while they didn't tell if this was going to be dungeons or only DEs (as we know they're going to add more DEs), it's pretty stupid on your side to assume that it'd only be outside world elements.
    Um, are you being purposefully dense?

    I said: "Without a subscription fee, the game's design indicates PVE will be similar to the first GW- PVE endgame content focused on adventure elements such as exploration, collection, story, etc."

    "Only outside world elements", where did I suggest that would be the case above?

    What does adding more content post launch change about the fundamental design of the game; A. not being tied to subscriptions, B. not being raid-centric/infinity upgrade focused?

    the more i read your posts the more it looks like you're thinking GW2 will just turn out as some sort of "improved" minesweeper game, on a level barely good enough to keep your eyes on the screen while you're watching some soap on tv.
    Inaccurate. But if any commentator expressed this POV- what's it to you?

    stupidest thing i've ever read for months.
    Must not read your own posts.

    Considering others have said they are approaching the game as they would a Call of Duty or similar game with no sub fee- you are calling those posts stupid as well?

    Yea, I am leaning toward you being an idiot seeking an imaginary argument.
    Last edited by Fencers; 2011-11-10 at 02:47 AM. Reason: broken quote text

  6. #66
    can this thread be closed its just gonna turn into another fencers vs everyone thread. side guild wars makes a point side non guild wars makes a anti point the argument goes on for 3 pages. And everyone hates each other more after all is said and done (but its never fucking done.).

  7. #67
    not sure how any thing i said was controversial or anti-guild wars.

    way too many white knights on the GW2 boards. screw that type of bullying.

  8. #68
    If you guys can't have a civil discussion, I'm going to start handing out infractions and close the thread. Keep it civil, don't try and troll, and lay off the personal attacks.

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Lannden View Post
    The problem is that if I burn through that in six months I'll be left with nothing in the game. So I'm just going to play it casually and keep my main MMO as WoW.
    And in WoW you will find that everything else is outdated except very small instanced part of game (current tier raid). Sure wow give you gear progression, but it also come at cost of that previous content devs have added become outdated and trivialized, where in GW2 when devs add new content you get more and more stuff to do in game. There will be stuff you can try complete after you "finish" GW2 like collect rare armors/weapon looks and titles (same way it worked in GW1).

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    I said: "Without a subscription fee, the game's design indicates PVE will be similar to the first GW- PVE endgame content focused on adventure elements such as exploration, collection, story, etc."

    "Only outside world elements", where did I suggest that would be the case above?
    if that wasn't the case, i'm okay with that. i was indeed thinking the points you were listing were more about the "outside world", putting dungeons and (who knows) elite dungeons aside.

    though i don't really get how you jump from "no month fee" to "endgame focused on {blabla except raids}". just because Anet didn't design GW2 with raids in minds (well for as far as we know) doesn't mean it was because they knew there'd be no monthly fee. actually, i just don't see any link between the two.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    Considering others have said they are approaching the game as they would a Call of Duty or similar game with no sub fee- you are calling those posts stupid as well?
    comparing GW2 to CoD could be considered fine as one (the main?) of the focus of CoD is obviously the online multiplayer pvp games.
    just that the "treating GW2 as a single player game" doesn't sound right here.

    ---------- Post added 2011-11-10 at 03:45 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Lannden View Post
    The problem is that if I burn through that in six months I'll be left with nothing in the game. So I'm just going to play it casually and keep my main MMO as WoW.
    they'll keep adding DEs and stuff so i doubt you'll make it through the whole game that fast unless you're taking a few weeks off or play 24/7 on holidays.
    and wow isn't that much better since months, too few new dungeons & raids since cata has been released. and people just keep afk-ing in capitals waiting for LFD to proc.

    if it wasn't for the raids (and even raids can only be completed once a week, with only a few being decently challenging as the previous usually got nerfed to the ground), wow would look like the one you should be playing casually.

  11. #71
    Scarab Lord Blznsmri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    4,055
    Quote Originally Posted by Lannden View Post
    The problem is that if I burn through that in six months I'll be left with nothing in the game. So I'm just going to play it casually and keep my main MMO as WoW.
    Except that you won't really be able to do "everything" in six months with content patches being added in... (I'd really like to say it would be a monthly thing but I really wont know until release)
    Quote Originally Posted by SW:TOR
    Jokerseven - Kinetic Combat Shadow - Praxeum - Canderous Ordo
    Ce'lia - Combat Sentinel - Praxeum - Canderous Ordo
    Sentinel PVE Basics for the two Specs that matter

  12. #72
    they'll add monthly things (usually new DE's mostly) which is a good thing they've done quite a bit of that in GW1

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Lannden View Post
    Yeah that's how I'm going to play, it should get at least as much as I got out of New Vegas if not more out of it. (I played New Vegas for 150 hours.)

    The problem is that if I burn through that in six months I'll be left with nothing in the game. So I'm just going to play it casually and keep my main MMO as WoW.
    Not trolling, but how is what you've described any different from WoW? WoW has a content cap in terms of progression which has to be increased through patches, you could burn through the content in 6 months (with some serious dedication) and then you're stuck with nothing to do as well.

    The major difference (in the context of this discussion) I can see is that once you hit max level and doing the end game content, instead of sitting around in org waiting to raid you can go out and explore taking part in dynamic events

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by sacrypheyes View Post
    if that wasn't the case, i'm okay with that. i was indeed thinking the points you were listing were more about the "outside world", putting dungeons and (who knows) elite dungeons aside.
    Not at all.

    though i don't really get how you jump from "no month fee" to "endgame focused on {blabla except raids}". just because Anet didn't design GW2 with raids in minds (well for as far as we know) doesn't mean it was because they knew there'd be no monthly fee. actually, i just don't see any link between the two.
    The person I was replying to was coming at the game from a WOW point of view. And the OP specifically asked what was there to keep us interested post L-cap.

    Gear treadmills and the type of endgame of WOW/EQ are sort of gimmicks to keep us subbed. GW2 not having a sub fee frees Anet from a lot of design baggage a game such as WOW has as a progression structure for endgame(s).

    comparing GW2 to CoD could be considered fine as one (the main?) of the focus of CoD is obviously the online multiplayer pvp games.
    just that the "treating GW2 as a single player game" doesn't sound right here.
    Thread is about PVE progression.

    For myself, approaching the game as a SP game with low risk is very sensible. This is how I played the first GW and will do so again for GW2. PVP has no interest for me. So it's more like a Zelda or Skyrim, I suppose. Numerous posts in this thread (and other threads) also make mention of approaching GW2 as a sub-less game with a campaign- BF3, COD, Gears, etc.

    So your comment was just pure trolling or spite. Although I do apologize for calling you a couple of silly names up above. Totally unneeded on my part, so I'm no better for it.

    Sorry about that.
    Last edited by Fencers; 2011-11-10 at 04:22 AM.

  15. #75
    Scarab Lord Blznsmri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    4,055
    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    So your comment was just pure trolling or spite. Although I do apologize for calling you a couple of silly names up above. Totally unneeded on my part, so I'm no better for it.

    Sorry about that.
    You don't know how much respect that warrants...

    /respect
    Quote Originally Posted by SW:TOR
    Jokerseven - Kinetic Combat Shadow - Praxeum - Canderous Ordo
    Ce'lia - Combat Sentinel - Praxeum - Canderous Ordo
    Sentinel PVE Basics for the two Specs that matter

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    The person I was replying to was coming at the game from a WOW point of view. And the OP specifically asked what was there to keep us interested post L-cap.

    Gear treadmills and the type of endgame of WOW/EQ are sort of gimmicks to keep us subbed. GW2 not having a sub fee frees Anet from a lot of design baggage a game such as WOW has as a progression structure for endgame(s).
    all that i'm already aware of, but that still doesn't really give me any answer but oh well. let's drop that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    Thread is about PVE progression.

    For myself, approaching the game as a SP game with low risk is very sensible. This is how I played the first GW and will do so again for GW2. PVP has no interest for me. So it's more like a Zelda or Skyrim, I suppose. Numerous posts in this thread (and other threads) also make mention of approaching GW2 as a sub-less game with a campaign- BF3, COD, Gears, etc.

    So your comment was just pure trolling or spite. Although I do apologize for calling you a couple of silly names up above. Totally unneeded on my part, so I'm no better for it.
    while i do agree GW1 PvE feel a lot like a single player game (better/worse since nightfall depending on which side you're on) due to henchmen & heroes + instanced explorable zones,etc. , i just can't imagine this happening in GW2 unless you're playing on a deserted server at god knows what hour of the day (or night?).

    i give you that i kinda replied on impulse when i saw the "single player" words next to GW2.
    was i trolling you? hmmm... certainly a bit though i felt your sentence was a bit of a troll too at that time.

    no offense taken though i really have a hard time getting you on some posts, particularly when it comes to the GW2 "endgame" i guess.

  17. #77
    LOL still this thread?

    The matter is simple... if any of you want a "wow-like progression" simply continue playing wow or any of the other mmo there are... GW2 will not be "wow-like" and I think that is what most people like GW2 for... GW2 will be a mmo where you can play with lots of people but without the endless weekly grind circle

    What you see is what you get... if you don't like that, GW2 is not for you, plain and simple.-

  18. #78
    all that i'm already aware of, but that still doesn't really give me any answer but oh well. let's drop that.
    I dunno. Maybe I worded it poorly.

    Lannden-- > Don't get me wrong I am not elitist or a no-lifer, I just enjoy the loot-treadmill style of endgame.
    Me--> Without a subscription fee, the game's design indicates PVE will be similar to the first GW- PVE endgame content focused on adventure elements such as exploration, collection, story, etc.

    He was defining endgame in the outline of WOW/EQ style MMOs. Heavy time investment in a gear infinity loop. Those models are the byproduct of a subscription system. As was the case with GW1, GW2 has nonesuch. Anet can offer endgame pursuits which are not drawn out by $/monthly.

    What team size has to do with that, you haven't actually answered either. But, shrug.

    while i do agree GW1 PvE feel a lot like a single player game (better/worse since nightfall depending on which side you're on) due to henchmen & heroes + instanced explorable zones,etc. , i just can't imagine this happening in GW2 unless you're playing on a deserted server at god knows what hour of the day (or night?).
    Yea, I kinda see what you are saying here. But consider where he is coming from POV wise. He [Lannden] enjoys the treadmill system of other MMOs. Lots of other folks as well, natch.

    Yet one can still play GW2 without necessarily worrying or getting too involved with it's endgame or other players and progress. Pushing your own exploitation, story or whatever catches your fancy. There is really no need to be guilded up and farming heroics to maintain a baseline gear level, AA level or whatever in GW2 as in Warcraft. Of course, if you want to ignore that group killing mobs in the field you can do something else too.

    Guild Wars as a franchise just isn't bound to that same post L-cap gameplay. Thus it is (IMO) best to not stress much over GW2 offering a different endgame model then sub MMOs. Because one can play GW2 as a side game (solo, grouped, PVP), progress within GW2 and be no worse for wear hitting up Deathwing 3 nights weekly.

    Which is what I [and seems the OP] will be doing as well- keeping WOW/SWTOR/Rift subs and playing GW2 as a side game. Without feeling you are not getting your month's worth of $14.99 for playing another game, apprehension of falling behind teammates, etc.
    Last edited by Fencers; 2011-11-10 at 08:35 AM.

  19. #79
    What got me thinking, is that people got so into the WoW-style game progression that they consider it the ONLY criteria of a game being an MMO. If it endlessly provides you with little insignificant and artificial goals then it's an MMO, if it's not then it's a single player game!
    What's funny is that, this type of progression is not even a principle of MMOs, it's just a way to keep subs active.
    Boy the future of MMOs is going to suck!

  20. #80
    Oh I don't know about that. There seems to be a lot of variation in the mmos coming out. It's about time we had some alternative to the WoW/EQ model of mmos.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •