traditional dungeons should have never been put into the game, that is where ArenaNet went wrong in my opinion.
traditional dungeons should have never been put into the game, that is where ArenaNet went wrong in my opinion.
I seriously fear that PvE will be the downfall of this game ;_;, the wowbots are going to have the last laugh on this one. The solo content can only last for so long before people feel the need for dungeons that actually work.
What the hell were they thinking??!
Last edited by ControlBlue; 2012-10-27 at 08:04 PM.
Check my blog for game design tips and analyses --> http://alpha-absolute.blogspot.com/ <--
I see a lot of people who come to Guild Wars 2 without any real knowledge of Guild Wars 1. Or at best, a cursory knowledge of Guild Wars 1.
PVE content in Guild Wars 1 was finite; all character progression ended at a certain point. The level cap was 20 for 5+ years. To put that into even greater perspective, level 20 was about the mid way point in the original campaign.
Almost all of Guild Wars 1's PVE content could be solo'd. Esp. after the introduction of hero companions- where it was now possible to solo the game's large group hard mode dungeons. All intentional design by the way.
The longevity and [to some degree] the main hook of the Guild Wars series of games was & still is; non-gear based PVP.
There are a lot of bandwagoners with Guild Wars 2 that are or were simply oblivious to the style of game the franchise intends to be. And to that end, the type of games and design focus Arena.net adhere to.
To go back to what I said a page ago; More so than other MMOs, the Guild Wars series is rather esoteric.
When people say, "this isn't the type of game for you then." it is often a very accurate statement w/r/t Guild Wars 1 & 2. They are very particular kind of games not always copacetic to the PVE player of mainstream World of Warcraft/Evequest/TOR et cetera.
Well remember that it's strictly opinions. Other people seem to be OK with them so trying to present things as facts for everyone isn't justified either. As the poster above you said the dungeons should have been done different or not put in the game. I've lost faith in GW2 organized PVE (5man) solo or world events are passable....I guess. Once again just my opinion others may think they knock the ball out of the park. I guess it's what makes us unique just by the varied amount of like or dislike of the PVE. Well I typically end my statements if you like the game you're playing run with it and that's what it boils down to.
I've put GW2 on my digital shelf and it will remain there until the design of the PVE matches the design of the game if and when that happens. Other aspects of the game are fine or really good though so my review is not part and parcel for the whole game. The puzzles are very challenging and well designed but that's just a small percentage of stuff I enjoy.
You're right about most of the things fencers, but you also have to consider what Anet said they wanted to do with GW2 - which is broadening the playerbase. They stated only a short while ago that they hope to grow the active playerbase continously over the next years or so. But: if their targeted demographic is again GW1 players it can only shrink going from sales. And I don't think they believe that the rather narrow appeal of GW1 will be able to hold the new playerbase.
It will have a bigger playerbase than GW1. It won't have wow numbers of course but those folks who believed that it would probably believe the moon is made of cheese as well.
I find the dungeons to very fun and to a point very skilled base depending on the run. The group I play with never wipe or find the need to graveyard rush encounters. Once you learn how to play your class and know how to play with different classes the game opens up far more then other mainstream MMOs that follow WoW style of game, which I find to be far easier then this game. Tho I have not played WoW for three years I do not see how it could change that much. (this is not a hate on wow comment) But any one who is having trouble with runs or events just need to learn there class better.
I agree with everythin Op said. PvE design in this game is bad, so bad it turned me off the game after hitting max level and trying dungeons for few days.
Esp. apparent in the overt way means of... hard capped power ceilings or encounter design. Also in subtler ways such as the speed of camera rotation, the perceived weight of characters, story progression & methodology, UI, interface, game client, etc. Even like sword swing animations are done in the style Anet has demonstrated since the literal alpha of GW1.
I can look at alpha footage and call out the those attack parameters from alpha to GW1 to GW2. In the same way I know the particular feel of a Sorceress firing off orb in D2 across WoW and D3. That action is particular to the developer's style of gameplay.
Also, it does seem to be Anet are attracting a broader crowd than most other MMOs. Action orientated gameplay is more in line with the majority of video game combat systems than stat driven gameplay of traditional MMOs. In the big picture of things, MMOs in the style of Everquest are pretty darn niche. Some pretty strong trends in up coming MMOs to action orientated gameplay as well; Elder Scrolls [huge franchise], Wildstar, TSW seems to be headed half way there, Neverwinter, Phantasy Star Online, etc.
Natch, the well received critical response to the combat style of Tera, Vindictus and the upcoming Raiderz as well. Which GW2 is really in line with from a mechanical POV-- aside from active and persistent block. There is also the move toward fewer sub based games for PC.
So I think it's pretty fair to say Anet have a broad minded plan. Def. have the core elements in place for the next gen of MMOs we are seeing from Planetside 2 to Elder Scroll, Archage and Everquest Next. Also alongside the greater market fragmentation of niche MMOs in the traditional style [Rift, SWTOR, WOW] and the rise of causal pick-up & play MOBAs.
What GW2 might not reach are the players perfectly happy with the style of gameplay of Everquest.
Could be an issue of perception too.
Maybe having "dungeons" was a bad move as Doozerjun said above. Maybe if they had called GW2's dungeons missions it would have gone a long way to erasing the idea the game's dungeons have the same intent as Old Republic's flashpoints or Warcraft's 5 man dungeons. To be honest, the dungeons in GW2 are halfway between GW1 missions and traditional dungeons already.
Don't know. Merely speculation on my part here.
Last edited by Fencers; 2012-10-28 at 01:43 AM.
What you CAN discuss is if you think what they are for the majority, and that#s the core issue in all these discussions. Think WoW and the discussion about wether heroic 5er are too easy/hard, if normal/heroic raids are too easy/hard etc. It all comes down to estimating tresholds for certain percentages of your targeted demographic. So you have to try and find this sweet spot where a majority of the people you want to play the game (normally as many people as possible) finds the challenge just about right.
And regarding to this perception, I think Anet isn't near this spot at the moment.
The next thing is, there are different ways to tweak difficulty. What I would do is cutting some of the randomness out of encounters (the kind that kills you regardless of your efforts) and/or adjusting visual and audio feedback. For example: you have a boss which lays down a lot of red circles. But he also has a one-shot-kill ability which you CAN dodge if you can react fast enough. Now let this Boss roar something like "I will splatter your tiny brain all over the wall!". I have a clear clue the boss is going to use his ability soon, can change my focus to him ( while further dodging circles) and have a better chance ad dodging.
It's six in the morning here, so sorry if something doesn't makes sense. And english isn't even my native language so..
I should really go to bed.
I know it's trendy around here to turn every thread into a, "Oh yeah? Well, WoW is even worse!" distraction, but it really doesn't help the image of THIS game any.Yeah, because WoW's PvE is so difficult and interesting...oh wait...
Besides, Blizzard might have their issues, but it's really hard to knock (most of) their PvE encounter design.
Just depends on what you want really. I got bored of playing wow after 2 days recently with the pve but I'm still playing GW2's pve, so *shrug*
People dying to much in dungeons i will never understand, i did AC, CAudacaus and Twilight so far on my thief, i might have died 2-3 timers per dungeon only, as melee, and mostly because i fucked up.
You all complaining about PvE should actually get better instead of whining, this is not WoW where everything gets nerfed just because you can't clear an area.
Last edited by Salech; 2012-10-28 at 07:39 AM.
The only single significant and obvious issue with gw 2 PVE is the amount of exploits in PVE that breaks the dungeons badly. Magg defend event in CoF becomes a die and walk back strategy for virtually every group that is able to do it (even like that it is still hard), organized or not. If you look for guides about that dungeon, they are going to say that you are supposed to die and run back. If dying/ walking back multiple times seems like a legitimate strategy to anyone, then meh.
Some specific explorable were made to be tough, you can tell from using common sense. But instead of blocking people from doing them untill they get better at the game, they simply let players finish them before then, removing incentives to get better at the game to be able to experience more content. Thus everyone gets trapped into doing some explorable modes (and probably story mode too) in an unenjoyable way.
Judge for yourself what I consider exploits that detract from the gaming experience (and I will omit a lot of minor ones here):
- TA vine boss allows people to let a single person kill the boss from a distance. Pugs and guild groups all too often prefer to kill the boss this way despite the fact that killing tentacles then boss is a perfectly viable strategy that allows for melle players to melle and more people to actively get involved in the combat.
- Protect Magg event in CoF: Kite, dye and run back doesn't seem a legitimate strat to me, that fight was probably meant for an organized group to kill specific adds quickly and kite some others. Can't tell since my guild had 0 interest in trying to kill some ranged mobs, they were happy with dying and running back.
- Grenadier path in SE: keeping an grenadier alive while the rest destroy some doors that apparently servers no purpose seems like an exploit to me. And so does waiting 15 minutes for them to stop respawning. To me it's reasonable that a group should be able to kill the grenadier packs consistently to make it past that part. In fact, that whole explorable seems to be a lot harder than the average explorable mode, hinting that it was made for more experienced players that could to kill the grenadiers packs consistently without too much trouble.
Trash skipping: this is aggravating because it seriously unbalances the time taken to complete some paths, making some paths extremely undesirable.
And much more. (but less influential)
Also worth noting: there should be some sort of bonus for completing harders paths, in order to keep them relevant.
The dungeons themselves would be fine were it not for those problems and I enjoy most of them anyway.
It seems that the downed state and cheesy waypoints substitute the trinity to a great degree, along with kiting. Thing is no one enjoys dying or reviving. No one. Honestly I would prefer bigger health pools and significantly less one shot mechanics. If something is going to one shot me, I want it to feel like it was because me or my friends made a mistake, not because my screen was drowning in random particles. As it is now it is pretty much impossible for Anet to tune the difficulty of anything at all, randomness and mediocre at best testing reign supreme.
1. pve is only a bonus in gw2
2. pve is for girls
Last edited by Fencers; 2012-10-28 at 11:11 AM.