So many logical fallacies and half ass assumptions I am simply shocked. Good write up OP, but still has not changed my opinion that free to play is trash. Hopefully I will be proven wrong, but over time these free to play games have been known to be trash and aimed at pleasing only players with the most money.
I don't play TERA but I disagree, its not a terrible game, it just has unnecessary aspects and the combat is much more rigid. If I compared it to GW2, GW2 flows much more smoothly and you have more control(for most classes) over your positioning.
Active combat isn't for everyone but it doesn't make a game terrible by any means.
Hello,
please explain how are the servers going to be? the usual wow type? some PvE some PvP some RP? or some other system?
The game is not "PvP focused", no. And that has nothing to do with server reasoning. You can guest to any server, so you can do anything you want from any server you want except WvW (for obvious reasons, guesting to the winning team would be silly and imbalanced)
There will not be official RP servers at any point, from what Anet has said. Or any other server 'types'. There will be an unofficial RP server located on Tarnished Coast, but that's about it.
Thx, ok.
So on the 25, when I will start, I will have to make sure I start on the same server as my friends. Only this concern, correct?
Are you some kind of developer for Anet or something? I like the game but it clearly sacrifices some of the most usual PvE options for PvP accessibility. You are not even required to level to a specific level to participate in both of the PvP activities, and you dont even benefit from the PvE part in any way if you just do sPvP. I'm not saying that PvE is nonexistant in GW2, but the options are limited compared to most of the other MMOs on the market, PvP options on the other hand are a lot more developed.
It doesnt have raids, doesnt have gear progression, doesnt have anything to do at max level. I'm fine with that. I'm playing it for PvP and I'm glad that I dont have to play two different games really since I like them both. Kind of reminds me of SWTOR which had amazing story until maxlevel but then - nothing.
---------- Post added 2012-08-23 at 12:21 AM ----------
I agree. Basically two different games, but PvE one mostly has a single player feel with coop mode.
Gear progression != content, PvE or otherwise. It does have stuff to do at max level, the same stuff you were doing before. Specifically for 80, you have: Orr, dungeons (3 specific to level 80 + their exp modes), crafting (particularly, legendaries) -> legendaries take 200 skill points, which is a lofty goal. So the only thing it doesn't have, content-wise, is raids. Plus, there is still gear progression - at 85, first there's progression until you get exotic (orange) gear, and then there's horizontal progression to get the look you want, as well as the exact set that has the stat combination you want.
Dude, this is your opinion, this is how you see it. I respect that. But it's at least unfair to tell such things to people who are only famillar with WoW (or didnt play anything like that before) and wont get it the way it actually is. You dont need to tell people that something they are looking for is not there because otherwise they wont buy the game. It's fine if they dont buy. At least they wont be crying all over the forums about how much GW2 is hyped up and how it didnt meet their expectations.
Dude (I feel like this is a '90's sitcom), I'm just trying to explain that while in your opinion there may not be content, but a) gear != content, and b) there's plenty of content in GW2. If you don't want to be told what content there is, then that's your prerogative, but saying there is none when what there is has been explained (to the extend we know of at this point) is just wrong.
Oh for crying out loud.
PVE = Player Vs Enviroment
PVE =/= instanced 25 player scripted boss fight
The entire world is PVE content.