Agreed, Fencers. But, as you said, most are, and most if not all mainstream ones are, the ones that aren't end up being niche games (which there's absolutely nothing wrong with).
Objectively spoken it's basically all about how ANet is treating the criticism and complaints brought forwards. It seems they are fairly candid in some matters but they do take their time to respond. Some issues will most likely linger around for a bit longer. I am surprised they took the FOV issue serious after their hardline announcement.
However I would not count on things like raids, classical gear treadmills or even designated roles becoming part of the game - I know there have been a few players *pushing* towards it but it seems their influence is waning and been replaced by criticisms respecting some core design choices.
Subjectively spoken I can't really think of *beating* the game soon. I will be playing this game for a long while. I am very happy there are no raids in this game but I wouldn't mind their world encounters being actually challenging - can't be that a raging abomination is 100 times more dangerous to a group than a giant dragon.
Yea, I just don't like style choices being lumped under the same banner because a few games might share a business model. About the only thing sub based MMO share is the need to create compulsory systems &/or delays.
They could do that in both linear and nonlinear styles of play.
Just trying to be fair here.
The fact that's it's a non-sub game and thus can go back once in a while to play...yes, it will have some longevity.
But of course numbers will drop over time as other games fill in people's wish to play sword and sorcery kinds of games.
The only reason I played WoW so much was because of the grind for gear that you needed for end game. I like GW2's style of not having to do that, but I also miss having big raids providing fun challenges. With WoW, you could really feel it was designed around the monthly fee, by capping out the amount of raids, daily quests and stuff you could do per day/week so you'd have to pay more, while GW2 moreover delivers a lot of content as soon as you start out.
Definetly, I'm having tons of fun every single time I log in and while I agree that it's probably a very good game to play casually alongside another games for many I don't think it holds true for myself as I don't quite like any other games since I've played GW2, but yes I would keep playing it for a very long time in it's current form alone not even taking any additions into consideration.
When in doubt, mumble...
*~To change one's life: Start immediately. Do it flamboyantly.~*
I dunno, I've played several games where my wife and I both woke up in the morning and said, "WOOO WE'RE AWAKE LETS PLAY"Seems a limited view. By your definition, I have never played a good game.
SWTOR comes to mind here, for sure.
Of course, that wears off at some point, but it's inevitable. It wore off in GW2 after the second beta weekend.
be it WvW (small squad or striker/scout, refuse to zerg)
I wish I could see this actually happen. I've never - except when the game was a blowout anyway - actually see this whole "solo roamer" or "small strike group" thing work. Maybe it's due to being on the Tier 1 group, where each server isn't exactly fooled by such shenanigans.
Last edited by Bovinity Divinity; 2012-11-09 at 11:56 PM.
Players deliberately deciding to play 40+ hrs. a week over a very long time most likely also have social reasons for that but if you want an 6 hrs. - open-ended a day of pure and uninterrupted in-game activity then I am afraid *any* game will burn you out sooner or later.
The only thing that makes a game objectively good, or well made- is execution of concept and non conflicting rules. Games are essentially play systems governed by precise rules.
How well are those rules implemented and communicated? Are there loopholes? Contingencies? Are the rules accurate &/or consistent? Et cetera.
Anything beyond that is personal feeling. May as well be telling the world what toppings you like on pizza as well as how you feel about a $60 video game.
True, the addictive pull of the final product is ultimately not a sign for quality. On subjective level anyway. But I would still say it's not good design at all to enforce an addiction factor and thus make players feel they have to play each day - which they may voluntarily first but then turn it into an obligation.
I've yet to see a game that turns into an obligation.But I would still say it's not good design at all to enforce an addiction factor and thus make players feel they have to play each day - which they may voluntarily first but then turn it into an obligation.
If Anet is sincere about their monthly patches, then yes certainly. Constant new content would certainly have an impact on retainability, and if Anet would just adjust a few quirks from WvW and make it more like DAoC then it would keep me playing for years to come!
Note that even the "one more turn" phenomenon of Civ, HoMM or Xcom is in line with the internal gameplay systems of those games. Thus why they are good or well made games. Where as an example of bad design using the same turn/strat game would be FFT:A.
This also the part where I remind people that game design is an objective thing. Enjoyment is subjective, however. The two are not always bedfellows.
When taking towers, my team keeps Caravans dead, letting the zerg do its thing from the other end. We're also the ones cutting the reinforcements down before they even get to the door.
I don't probe/feint other towers/keeps (Is that what you're thinking?), because yes, that "fooling shenanigans" wouldn't work on anyone and just be a waste of time, but because I'm away from the zerg, I'm another set of eyes open to see where the other guys are moving and what sort of seige is going up, so I can report it back to respond appropriately. Surely your "Tier-1" server actually has scouts and open lines of communication over shared mumble/vent servers?
~Former Priest/Guild Wars 2 Moderator~
Now TESTING: ArcheAge (Alpha)
Now PLAYING: MonoRed Burn (MtG Standard)
Twitter: @KelestiMMO come say hi!
~When you speak, I hear silence. Every word a defiance~
You're asking my opinion?
No, it doesn't. I fawned over GW2 for years until its release and barely played a month before I couldn't tolerate logging in anymore. I'm goal/reward oriented and Anet didn't do a good enough job making GW2 feel rewarding for me. I made it to 80, got 100% map completion, got full Exotic gear, played some PvP/WvW, did most of the jumping puzzles and the like, and ran out of stuff to do. The Legendaries (which I think they were counting on artificially extending the longevity of the game) take way too much effort and provide very little reward (half of them look like shit, IMO, and even the few good looking ones just don't feel worth it to me).
There's not enough solo content and the game is poorly designed socially/multiplayer wise. The entire reason multiplayer games have so much replayability is because they're fun to play with friends and most give you rewards for playing now-a-days like LoL giving IP to spend on champions which gives you something new to do every couple weeks.
From a primarily PvE perspective, it does lack longevity for me. Your PvE bucket list items include 100% map completion, personnel story, and dungeons. You can do all of that content in blue/green gear without ever needing an exotic. As for pacing yourself to extend the game, your mileage will vary. It takes XX hours to finish, either spaced over 3 weeks or 3 months.
I'll be first in line to get an expansion for more of the content, but right now, everything I could do does nothing to improve my character, just changes aesthetics.
You can't get 100% world as PVE exclusive player. Have to go in WvW.Your PvE bucket list items include 100% map completion, personnel story, and dungeons.
A PVE exclusive player would have dungeons, personal story and jump puzzles on their "bucket" list.
Just thought that was worth pointing out here.