Are you enjoying the endgame?

[Deleted]

I think I voted no, but I'm not sure what I'm voting for.

I don't really like the PvE in dungeons. Atm it's pretty lackluster. Might just be because we haven't found a good play style yet but it seems too 'MOAR NUMBERS' and not enough tactics. I don't really count PvP endgame but I'm enjoying that quite a bit.

Think this will be my 'Call of Duty' - just to log on and play a few spvp games for fun, maybe if I'm playing longer some WvWvW, but other than that I'm not really bothered about PvE until it gets a little more coordinated. Been playing a lot of FTL and I'll be playing TL2 a lot tomorrow and I'm still looking for a long-term MMO with the trinity that isn't stale. I guess I just prefer roles, though I really like to switch between them.

[Deleted]

What word? They never said there was no grind.

They said the grind was optional which is not the case.
They said you could adquire the best gear easily which is not true, you can adquire Rare gear easily but Rare<Exotic stat wise and for exotic you have to grind a huge amount of mats or gold or tokens or karma.

[Granyala]

Not really. That's not universally true at all.

There is no such thing as "universal truth".

Fact is, you do all the dungeons once, and do a hand full of the events once -> you have seen everything there is to see PvE gameplay wise.
Stats are irrelevant, and the hardcore PvE crowd doesn't really care about looks. (I'm not talking about me, I'm by no means a hardcore player)

many P2P MMORPG's which used the "raid" model soon lost most of their subscribers after launch anyway.

Because the sub fee forced everyone to compare it to the top dogs of the genre. Game couldn't keep up? Not worth p(l)aying.

but other than that I'm not really bothered about PvE until it gets a little more coordinated

Not going to happen. Coordinated, structured PvE would require the holy trinity. There cannot be any coordination when every man has to fend for himself.

What word? They never said there was no grind.

"We just don't want players to grind in Guild Wars 2. No one enjoys that, no one finds that fun."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU1JUwPqzQY @ 1:35

Even if it's only meant for combat, how is the combat in GW2 not a mind numbingly boring grind?!

[DrakeWurrum]

you have seen everything there is to see PvE gameplay wise.

Point? I can say the same thing about most single-player games, and I can also say the same thing about MOBA and FPS games.

I can also say the same thing about PvP period, and yet people keep playing it.

[Deleted]

Point? I can say the same thing about most single-player games, and I can also say the same thing about MOBA and FPS games.

I can also say the same thing about PvP period, and yet people keep playing it.

I think the problem with PvE repetitive content is that there's no replay-ability in it. If you look at all of the successful single player games, they're either open-world, mod-able, or procedurally generated.

I'll list a few popular ones from multiple genres: Minecraft (FP construction + survival), Borderlands (FPS), Binding of Isaac (Roguelike), Dwarf Fortress (Town building), Elder Scrolls + Fallout series (Open world RPG), Audiosurf (Arcade) etc. I know at least two on that list are mod-able, minecraft is procedurally generated, borderlands has randomised items and replayability with scaling difficulty, Binding of Isaac is procedural, Dwarf Fortress allows personal customisation, Elder Scrolls + Fallout are both open world and Audiosurf lets you choose from a practically infinite pool of levels.

I don't really hear of people replaying Call of Duty in single player, yet it's popular, but for its competitive multiplayer. What I feel is non-competitive single player that is essentially the same stuff over and over is quite boring, whereas competitive multiplayer that's the same stuff is quite fun.

Point I'm getting at really is MOBAs and Online FPS games are popular because of their replayability, yet there's only so many times you can replay a decent game without the competitive edge. As for fantastic games, you can play them tonnes of times, but I find that GW2 isn't really a fantastic game.

[DrakeWurrum]

I think the problem with PvE repetitive content is that there's no replay-ability in it.

I have to ask what defines that, though. All these successful "open-world" games are the ones I got the most bored with.

[Deleted]

I have to ask what defines that, though. All these successful "open-world" games are the ones I got the most bored with.

I agree, I also found Fallout and Elder Scrolls to be a bore. The open world games draw their success from the fact that it's not a scripted, on-rails video game. The replayability comes in the choice of movement and freedom of the open world. It means you don't have to play the game the same every time.

Open world RPGs aren't my cup of tea, I'm partial to Roguelikes myself, but I can definitely see where the replayability in a large, open world comes in.

Edit: Talk like a pirate day.

Aye, I agree me heartieoh fuck this I give up.

[Granyala]

I can also say the same thing about PvP period, and yet people keep playing it.

Now it really gets evident that you just want to defend your puppy at all costs regardless of logic. PvP by it's very nature cannot get stale because every human being thus every opponent is different. (Unless you're thinking that Alterac Valley NPC rush tactic Battlegrounds counts as PvP)

I think the problem with PvE repetitive content is that there's no replay-ability in it. If you look at all of the successful single player games, they're either open-world, mod-able, or procedurally generated.

Thank you for understanding my point.

Fact is: If you want a PvE player to do the same stuff over an over you have to dangle some big fat carrot in front of his nose. If you don't do that, the player will do your content once, maybe twice if it was really fun and after that he will go like "Why? been there, done that, waste of my time".

Again PvP doesn't have this problem because, the carrot is the other player, to be more precise the desire to be BETTER than the other player and "pwn" him.

[Beefsquatch]

Point? I can say the same thing about most single-player games, and I can also say the same thing about MOBA and FPS games.

I can also say the same thing about PvP period, and yet people keep playing it.

So since when does an FPS (or single player in general) game with online capabilities get compared to an mmorpg? That's a first. Very different genres and games.

The point in PvP is beating other players and or being better than them, that will never get old. Competition at it's best.

[DrakeWurrum]

So since when does an FPS (or single player in general) game with online capabilities get compared to an mmorpg? That's a first. Very different genres and games.

I'm sorry that this went over your head so quickly.

---------- Post added 2012-09-19 at 03:31 PM ----------

PvP by it's very nature cannot get stale because every human being thus every opponent is different.

I really can't agree with this. PvP gets stale after the first battle. Most opponents are not that different at all, even when they build differently. One match of LoL is not really so dramatically different from another, any more than events with different NPC enemies using different tactics and skills are different from each other.

[Granyala]

I really can't agree with this. PvP gets stale after the first battle. Most opponents are not that different at all, even when they build differently.

Can't speak for GW2s PvP. But try going into WoWs Arena with that kind of attitude and you won't get very far.
In FPS it mostly boils down to reaction times, because there are only a few weapons that need to be learned.

[SirRobin]

Because the sub fee forced everyone to compare it to the top dogs of the genre. Game couldn't keep up? Not worth p(l)aying.

Exactly. So why try to copy a stale feature that often isn't enough to begin with? Try something different. Don't step into the trap. Don't expect us to keep paying to keep playing. Build your game around people buying it, playing it, and moving on. Not spending weeks, months, or even years, grinding out raids. Its worked for Arena Net before, to the tune of six or seven million in sales. So why expect them to make that mistake this time?

[Beefsquatch]

I'm sorry that this went over your head so quickly.

Were you not comparing the level of enjoyment or re playability with single player games and fps games when you've seen/obtained the pve has to offer to GW2? Saying that people continue to play those games even after there is no more rewards or "carrot on a stick" to aim for so GW2 should be no different. No?

[Granyala]

I didn't play GW1, but what you're implying is:

Basically this game is a ghost town unless you're in a what 1-3 month period after the release of an addon where peeps ave lots of stuff to do?

[Deleted]

I didn't play GW1, but what you're implying is:

Basically this game is a ghost town unless you're in a what 1-3 month period after the release of an addon where peeps ave lots of stuff to do?

GW1 ended up developing a rather tight community of dedicated gamers after people started to leave. Back in GW1's Vanilla and close expansion release dates, it was quite bustling. Now, yeah, it's pretty much a ghost town.

It's definitely successful, but it's nowhere near as full as it used to be. We used to be automatically placed into the 40th district of Lion's Arch, now District 1 is barely full. I wouldn't really want to see this happen to GW2 but it probably will go down that route. It will bleed players and the remaining players will be made up of 2 groups: People just dropping by for a bit of casual play and the tighter dedicated community who will grind everything.

I do, however, think it will be quite a while before this starts happening. Many people only played GW1 for the PvP, so I think the PvP of GW2 will last a lot longer than the PvE will.

[Fencers]

I think the problem with PvE repetitive content is that there's no replay-ability in it.

I am very doubtful this is true. Several highly successful franchises disprove it so. Even in games which are singular; the Final Fantasy series, Zelda series, Castlevania series, Half-Life, Portal, Fallout [originals, do not recognize Bethesda garbage] and so on.

Point I'm getting at really is MOBAs and Online FPS games are popular because of their replayability, yet there's only so many times you can replay a decent game without the competitive edge. As for fantastic games, you can play them tonnes of times, but I find that GW2 isn't really a fantastic game.

However I agree with the genral point you are making here. In so far that the popularity of competitive games such as MOBAs or FPS are in part due to high replayability. Though I would also point out the ease of access [casual play] offered in those genres is the other side of the popularity coin.

Edit: And yes, I am aware I just made up this "popularity coin" phrase. Go with it.

[Beefsquatch]

To be totally blunt, where MMO's generally fail on this front is the simple fact that the gameplay is rarely fun, deep, or challenging enough for me to want to repeat content. I enjoy experiencing an area or the storyline of an area the first time, but that's about it.

As an example, I've lost count of how many times I've played through that ball-buster, "I Wanna be the Guy" (and similar games, Hi Boshy). Why? Because it still poses a challenge. The gameplay is tough enough that even though I can now go through large chunks of it without a single death, it still requires a lot of really good timing, reaction time, simple dexterity, etc.

MMO's are generally just...smash keys until things fall over. Yeah, they require some of the same things that IWBTG does, but on a level that's several orders of magnitude below. It doesn't HAVE to be that way. Sometimes MMO developers do put out content that genuinely keeps me interested and is enough of a trial that I want to go through it multiple times to keep trying to defeat it, or keep improving once I have defeated it. But those times are pretty darn rare.

I agree with you 100%.

[SirRobin]

I didn't play GW1, but what you're implying is:

Basically this game is a ghost town unless you're in a what 1-3 month period after the release of an addon where peeps ave lots of stuff to do?

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.

[Deleted]

the Final Fantasy series, Zelda series, Castlevania series, Half-Life, Portal, Fallout

These fall under my 'Fantastic Games' list.

I would not play Call of Duty again and again. I would, however, play most of the above again and again. These are all games widely renowned as some of the best games released. I'm firm in my belief you'd find very few games that don't have a cult following.

More I'd add to this list are Sonic the Hedgehog, Super Mario, Crash Bandicoot, Spyro the Dragon and other, what I would call 'cult classics' that were really a milestone for their time and great games that were fun to play.

I feel in modern gaming it's harder to find these games. Not because gaming is getting worse, but because there are so many more games that it's hard to find the good ones, the diamonds in the rough, as it were.

[DrakeWurrum]

I am very doubtful this is true. Several highly successful franchises disprove it so. Even in games which are singular; the Final Fantasy series, Zelda series, Castlevania series, Half-Life, Portal, Fallout [originals, do not recognize Bethesda garbage] and so on.

However I agree with the genral point you are making here. In so far that the popularity of competitive games such as MOBAs or FPS are in part due to high replayability. Though I would also point out the ease of access [casual play] offered in those genres is the other side of the popularity coin.

Edit: And yes, I am aware I just made up this "popularity coin" phrase. Go with it.

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.