Are you enjoying the endgame?

[Granyala]

I pretty much agree with SirRobin that the subscription model is dead. I think if WoW was released with a sub fee in this day and age it would fail too. It'll be interesting to see how GW2 evolves.

Personally, my character is 80 and decked in greens, so i am pretty much done with her. Grinding out exotics is not fun enough to do, I'll just see what my friend does when he's on and play with him.

@Drake: LoL is a terrible game and it's not really competitive PvP. I played LoL for a while and yup, it got boring REALLY fast.

[Deleted]

That replayability though, why is it so? One LoL match, to me, doesn't feel exceedingly different from another, just because it's different humans using different champions. You're on the same map. The same lanes. The exact same things happen again and again... ganking, minion farming, jungling, team fights, pushing and defending and warding.

The differences between any one LoL match are much the same as the differences between different dynamic events in different parts of the map using different enemies.

The difference is the competitive feeling. Being better than someone. Playing LoL is constantly a mix and match of win or lose depending on your play and your team's play. It's the same thing, but a constantly different opposition and team. You might run into an absolutely BRUTAL support/carry in bottom and get decimated. You might run into the two derpiest tards this side of the atlantic.

It's the randomisation and ego that keep these games going. Put up against random people you can show how good you are against. People eat that shit up.

[Beefsquatch]

For me?

How long that "period" lasts depends on how long you feel like playing. Which, I suspect, will vary significantly. New MMORPG's, for years now, saw severe reductions in subscriptions in the first few months after launch. Even the first GW, if I recall correctly. Is it better to fight that almost inherently transient nature of most of your potential customers by copying features that most won't be satisfied with anyway, or is it better to harness it? B2P lets you get a nice chunk of change from them and not shove the "is it worth it" subscription dilemma in their faces.

They can play as long as they want to, get bored whenever and leave with less potential ill will than "when is my subscription up?" Improving the chance of them returning later for cheaper B2P xpacs and seeing all the other content additions and tweaks you've added in the meantime. Knowing full well that they can leave whenever they feel like it again.

I don't think that Anet wanted their game to be empty until a new expansion or content patch came out. The game get's pretty boring quick because of the level of grind it has. PvE in general is lackluster at 80 after a while. So it wouldn't be too far from now that others get bored after getting their desired skins. Hell I've heard the same for the pvp. People would be weary of buying future expansions/cash store content because that. Even though they are a B2P, they need a healthy amount of players to keep playing to fund their company to make profit, keep the game running, and to release future content.

They may say, you can play then just leave for a while if you want. But, no company wants their mmo to be near empty.

[DrakeWurrum]

Whenever I'm highly inexperienced at a game and I watch it...by simply observing what's going on at the surface I think, "Well, every fight seems the same. Every move does the same thing each time."

Then I'll proceed to ask myself, "Well, if that's the case, how come some people are extremely dominating, winning players and others - like myself - are not? Must be a reason for that, and it must be some underlying depth that my eyes - being so inexperienced - cannot fathom yet."

I'm really not that inexperienced in LoL, let alone in MOBA games in general. It's not hard to see the differences in why some people dominate and win, and why others easily lose, and why some teams just can't get it together.

Those difference don't change the fact that most matches are all the same "thing" just as one event of centaurs attacking a camp isn't that exceedingly different from an event of undead attacking a town. Oh, there's differences - what abilities the enemies have. How they move and attack. What NPCs or other objectives you're defending. etc etc.

I think people are just fooling themselves. The competitive nature of the games are simply masking what they would otherwise get bored with, simply because not all people are very good at seeing patterns in human behavior. In much the same way that, for some people, the dynamic nature of these events are masking tasks that they would otherwise be bored with.

[Deleted]

I think people are just fooling themselves. The competitive nature of the games are simply masking what they would otherwise get bored with, simply because not all people are very good at seeing patterns in human behavior. In much the same way that, for some people, the dynamic nature of these events are masking tasks that they would otherwise be bored with.

Fact of the matter is, this is all that's important, sadly. Very few competitive games need depth, because it's fun to play them. Look at Altitude - Very fun game, it's a 2D game that has flash-game graphics, you use about 4 buttons and 2 of them are fire and alt fire, and it costs £7. I bought it, I play it, I have fun. It's not very deep at all, it's a very shallow game, but it's also very fun

What's Call of Duty when you strip away the progression system, the 'lore,' the voice acting, the fancy ribbons and medals? It's a straight up sub-par quality shooter. But it's popular because it's hidden behind a veil of flare, glitter and brand success.

[SirRobin]

I don't think that Anet wanted their game to be empty until a new expansion or content patch came out. The game get's pretty boring quick because of the level of grind it has. PvE in general is lackluster at 80 after a while. So it wouldn't be too far from now that others get bored after getting their desired skins. Hell I've heard the same for the pvp. People would be weary of buying future expansions/cash store content because that. Even though they are a B2P, they need a healthy amount of players to keep playing to fund their company to make profit, keep the game running, and to release future content.

They may say, you can play then just leave for a while if you want. But, no company wants their mmo to be near empty.

Now I'm not saying that Arena Net expects or wants their game to be "empty." I am saying that I would not be at all surprised if they know that most of that two million are not going to keep playing. They keep a couple hundred thousand who like the game for what it offers and keep playing. If they honestly thought that they could keep millions playing, then why not use P2P? They probably know most are not going to stay, so why waste time and effort copying features that most wouldn't be happy with anyway? Play to your strengths and keep a steady stream of extra B2P content rolling in.

They've done it before so why can't they do it again?

[DrakeWurrum]

Fact of the matter is, this is all that's important, sadly. Very few competitive games need depth, because it's fun to play them. Look at Altitude - Very fun game, it's a 2D game that has flash-game graphics, you use about 4 buttons and 2 of them are fire and alt fire, and it costs £7. I bought it, I play it, I have fun. It's not very deep at all, it's a very shallow game, but it's also very fun

What's Call of Duty when you strip away the progression system, the 'lore,' the voice acting, the fancy ribbons and medals? It's a straight up sub-par quality shooter. But it's popular because it's hidden behind a veil of flare, glitter and brand success.

But why do PvE games need to be "deep"?

I don't feel that Skyrim was all that deep. Or Final Fantasy. Or World of Warcraft raiding, for that matter.

Sure, the story was deep, but the gameplay? Not so much. Especially Skyrim. That game's combat was ridiculously simple, and yet people love it, to the point that some people have endeavored to make an "MMO" mod for the game.

[Beefsquatch]

But why do PvE games need to be "deep"?

I don't feel that Skyrim was all that deep. Or Final Fantasy. Or World of Warcraft raiding, for that matter.

Sure, the story was deep, but the gameplay? Not so much. Especially Skyrim. That game's combat was ridiculously simple, and yet people love it, to the point that some people have endeavored to make an "MMO" mod for the game.

Story is what catches the attention of most RPG gamers in single player rpg. Since they aren't mmo's or rarely if ever have online capabilities, they mainly focus on the story. The actual combat comes second. Even though it comes second, they do a great job in making it challenging, fun, and flexible nowadays. For the most part that is. But the sense of character progression and challenging content, its still there. You get nice things for beating the difficult stuff, better equipment, gold etc. It's what makes RPGs fun. They are challenging yet simple, that's why people love them. It doesn't need to be crazy hard or "deep" as you say.


WoW raiding is another discussion altogether.

[Deleted]

ANet shoot themselves in the foot by removing holy tinity with applause of some clueless people. Without it there is just no way for interesting and hard tactic wise gameplay in PvE. Dungeons in GW2 aren't hard, they are just stupidly overtuned, but with all that grave zerging you will finish it anyway. In WoW or any other game with holy tinity when you die - you have to start from begining. You have to be better, you need to push more dps or heal, you need to coordinate better and this is great, this makes PvE fantasitc, not even so much gear but challenges you can overcome. I never had that feeling in GW2.

[DrakeWurrum]

ANet shoot themselves in the foot by removing holy tinity with applause of some clueless people. Without it there is just no way for interesting and hard tactic wise gameplay in PvE. Dungeons in GW2 aren't hard, they are just stupidly overtuned, but with all that grave zerging you will finish it anyway. In WoW or any other game with holy tinity when you die - you have to start from begining. You have to be better, you need to push more dps or heal, you need to coordinate better and this is great, this makes PvE fantasitc, not even so much gear but challenges you can overcome. I never had that feeling in GW2.

Fully disagree with that statement.

[SirRobin]

Story is what catches the attention of most RPG gamers in single player rpg. Since they aren't mmo's or rarely if ever have online capabilities, they mainly focus on the story. The actual combat comes second. Even though it comes second, they do a great job in making it challenging, fun, and flexible nowadays. For the most part that is. But the sense of character progression and challenging content, its still there. You get nice things for beating the difficult stuff, better equipment, gold etc. It's what makes RPGs fun. They are challenging yet simple, that's why people love them. It doesn't need to be crazy hard or "deep" as you say.


WoW raiding is another discussion altogether.

Whether they choose to call it an RPG or not. For me the gameplay is always the thing. If I don't enjoy the gameplay, I'm looking at you DA2, then it doesn't matter if the story is deep or good or not.

[Beefsquatch]

Whether they choose to call it an RPG or not. For me the gameplay is always the thing. If I don't enjoy the gameplay, I'm looking at you DA2, then it doesn't matter if the story is deep or good or not.

Ahahaha, that game wasn't really that good altogether though. It ended the same way no matter what your choices were. But my point stands in most cases. Good or decent gameplay mechanics is usually expected in any good or decent rpg titles.

[SirRobin]

Ahahaha, that game wasn't really that good altogether though. It ended the same way no matter what your choices were. But my point stands in most cases. Good or decent gameplay mechanics is usually expected in any good or decent rpg titles.

Expected but hardly always delivered. I didn't buy Skyrim for the story, was never a fan of the earlier Elder Scrolls games. I bought it for the gameplay. Same thing with FO3 and FNV. I didn't buy either of them for the story. Nor DAO. "Story" became the new buzzword with Cataclysm and TOR, but their results showed, in my opinion, that its not nearly as big a deal as some folks thought it would be.

[Heptium]

DrakeWurrum, I dub thee a fan boy of epic proportions at this point. It's very rare that I see someone argue as much as you over this one game because you believe so firmly it's the best MMO going. I'm often quiet on the forums, and just read what there is to be said.. But there's been a few things you've said that make me want to just tell you that you hold such an extreme bias for this game it's not even funny.

Personal attacks aren't welcome in these forums. Infracted. -Edge

[SirRobin]

DrakeWurrum, I dub thee a fan boy of epic proportions at this point. It's very rare that I see someone argue as much as you over this one game because you believe so firmly it's the best MMO going. I'm often quiet on the forums, and just read what there is to be said.. But there's been a few things you've said that make me want to just tell you that you hold such an extreme bias for this game it's not even funny.

What about me? Can't I be biased too?

[Fencers]

ANet shoot themselves in the foot by removing holy tinity with applause of some clueless people. Without it there is just no way for interesting and hard tactic wise gameplay in PvE.

Erm, Guild Wars 1 did not have a holy trinity either. Missions and dungeons were a good deal harder and more tactical than in GW2. If there is error in the dungeon design of Guild Wars 2 it is not with a lack of singular tanks, DPS & healers.

[Heptium]

What about me? Can't I be biased too?

We're all bais, but Drake needs to relax. I've seen him on the forums so much for Guild Wars 2, I could almost say he works for them by now.

---------- Post added 2012-09-19 at 06:20 PM ----------

Here; I'll better explain myself. Because it does sound like a personal attack. Which isn't what I'm really getting at here. Bias is something we all hold, but at a certain point, someone looses value on their opinions because you practically know what they are going to say. It's just a giant circle. From reading this forum, there's been a few people here, who honestly have one sided opinions so strongly they don't consider the other view enough to have their opinion valued enough for the sake of a discussion. Discussion is to take in what the other said, understand it, and comply. Not read what they said, think about it for five seconds and tell them in a nut shell, they're wrong.

To go back on topic. I believe that Guild Wars 2 is solidly a PvP game. I think it gives the feeling of a "In between game" like Diablo 3 wanted to be. Skyrim is that type of game. PvP can't get old nearly as fast as PvE, and that's what GW2 gives me. Which is why a lot of people aren't going to enjoy the end game, because it's meant for something that is dynamic and can't die instead of new pretty images and new boss fights.

[Beefsquatch]

Erm, Guild Wars 1 did not have a holy trinity either. Missions and dungeons were a good deal harder and more tactical than in GW2. If there is error in the dungeon design of Guild Wars 2 it is not with a lack of singular tanks, DPS & healers.

Uhh, yes it did. It had tanks and healers to a certain extent. Not in the sense of your every other mmo but it certainly had specific tanking and healing roles. You couldn't do the harder missions and dungeons without them.

Expected but hardly always delivered. I didn't buy Skyrim for the story, was never a fan of the earlier Elder Scrolls games. I bought it for the gameplay. Same thing with FO3 and FNV. I didn't buy either of them for the story. Nor DAO. "Story" became the new buzzword with Cataclysm and TOR, but their results showed, in my opinion, that its not nearly as big a deal as some folks thought it would be.

Elder scrolls games had pretty good stories, and they were really long in terms of story/quests. The gameplay itself was pretty buggy and weird, I never liked the gameplay too much but I liked the story. Dragon Age origins had an amazing story and that's what everyone mainly liked about it honestly. But a good rpg game will have good gameplay and story, it comes hand in hand. My point was that because they are single player games with little to no online capabilities they can focus on these so it's easier to make a decent game than it would for an mmo.
Final fantasy for example, decent gameplay with usually a really good story.

[DrakeWurrum]

Here; I'll better explain myself. Because it does sound like a personal attack. Which isn't what I'm really getting at here. Bias is something we all hold, but at a certain point, someone looses value on their opinions because you practically know what they are going to say. It's just a giant circle. From reading this forum, there's been a few people here, who honestly have one sided opinions so strongly they don't consider the other view enough to have their opinion valued enough for the sake of a discussion. Discussion is to take in what the other said, understand it, and comply. Not read what they said, think about it for five seconds and tell them in a nut shell, they're wrong.

Big mistake to think that I don't consider other people's views and perspectives.

People can come to different conclusions and opinions when having the same information. Just because I'm one-sided, doesn't mean I'm a mindless fanboy who will defend this game against any and all negative opinions, when I already very much loathe the story writing. If you stalked this forums as well as you claim to, you'd know what specific things in this game I hate. But you don't.
Don't go around claiming you know people just because you see them regularly disagreeing with your opinion.

[Deleted]

Erm, Guild Wars 1 did not have a holy trinity either. Missions and dungeons were a good deal harder and more tactical than in GW2. If there is error in the dungeon design of Guild Wars 2 it is not with a lack of singular tanks, DPS & healers.

what are you talking about, there were healer monks and tanking specs in Gw1.
Btw, why everyone who even remotly says something bad (well it wasnt even calling a name or wahtever, just truth) about DrakeWurrum keeps getting infracted at the spot? I called him fanboy 2 times on this forum and 2 times i got infracted. Meanwhile he's roaming on forum and check every thread for anything bad about his precious game and type his one liners such as "some people would argue" or " Oo I don't agree".
Looks like he got friends at high places. This subforum starting to look more and more bias everyday.