Current GW2 Players - Do you think this game has longevity?

[Ravenblade]

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part of the game - I know there have been a few players *pushing* towards it but it seems their influence is waning and been replaced by criticisms respecting some core design choices.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.

[Fencers]

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.

[ptwonline]

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.

[ara]

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.

[Deleted]

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.

[ShimmerSwirl]

Does it have longevity? Yes. But only if you don't burn yourself out on it first.

Realistically, Guild Wars 2, much like its predecessor, isn't built to withstand 40+ hours a week, every week, that current MMO players are looking to put into it. It's not. And when you start to pour that much in, week after week, you burn yourself out, you get tired of it, and look for something new.

It was never meant to replace your current favorite game of choice, and is an excellent game to play alongside something else. I've personally been spending a lot of my time lately playing Donkey Kong Country Returns (11/10, solid recommendations) and whatever's on my 3DS or PSP (can't afford a Vita, shoot me), thus when I log into Guild Wars 2 it's because it's something I want to do. Not something I push myself to do.

And because I take that step of wanting to, I enjoy the content I'm faced with, be it WvW (small squad or striker/scout, refuse to zerg) based PvP, the standardized PvP, or whatever zones I feel like playing through in PvE. And the updates? The updates keep it fresh. And I like that.

So if you ask me? Yes, this game has longevity, as long as you take the time to enjoy it. You can't microwave a frozen roast beef, trying to devour as much of it as fast as you can, and expect it to actually be edible, let alone enjoyable.

This is a pretty damning view of the game. You're essentially saying that GW2 must be played in small doses to be enjoyable. As a game designer I would view this as an sign of absolute failure with my product. A good game is the one that draws you in constantly, something you want​ to play everyday.

[Valeron]

. A good game is the one that draws you in constantly, something you want​ to play everyday.

Seems a limited view. By your definition, I have never played a good game.

[Ravenblade]

This is a pretty damning view of the game. You're essentially saying that GW2 must be played in small doses to be enjoyable. As a game designer I would view this as an sign of absolute failure with my product. A good game is the one that draws you in constantly, something you want​ to play everyday.

I don't think that's actually what makes a good game. A good game is when you can say 'no' for a day and come back at a later point of time and still have fun playing it while not having a feeling of missing out or being behind. The point is that even if you want to play it every day then like any other game you should play it in moderation. Something which seems to be a strange concept to some people but aside from the issue of burning through content like a swarm of locusts there's also the issue of sensory overload which eventually causes fatigue and then premature burnout. I am referring to players playing it really excessively from the beginning.
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.

[Fencers]

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.

[Ravenblade]

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.

[Razeo]

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!

[Fencers]

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.

True addiction [i.e. a feeling of obligation] is also a personal issue. Addictiveness in the way of say, Civilization's fabled "one more turn" syndrome can be a boon to a game. And indeed, a positive quality.

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.

[Ravenblade]

I've yet to see a game that turns into an obligation.

I wasn't referring to the game itself being an obligation but connected activities giving you the feeling of an obligation. But there were actually games back then which could turn into full-time obligations if you actually wanted to succeed in them. Old browser strategy MMOs coming to my or games like MPBT 3025 which prematurely died.

True addiction [i.e. a feeling of obligation] is also a personal issue. Addictiveness in the way of say, Civilization's fabled "one more turn" syndrome can be a boon to a game. And indeed, a positive quality.

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.

Yes, I agree, when it comes as a passive or natural factor of that design still leaving you the choice without serious repercussions - i.e. come back later and continue your progress - but if it's nothing like that and you must feel like logging on every day then I don't find it good. That is as you emphasized so nicely a subjective thing as I don't enjoy it

[Kelesti]

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.

Not sure what you mean by "fool"? I fight away from the zergs. I run into lose-lose situations to keep a point from turning until my zerg can reclaim. I'm the one that scouts to see if the trebs are hitting, and if not then how they should be adjusting. I take out caravans, I cap half-upgraded supply camps by myself.

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?

[Maconi]

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).

tl;dr
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.

[Lugor]

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.

[Fencers]

Your PvE bucket list items include 100% map completion, personnel story, and dungeons.

You can't get 100% world as PVE exclusive player. Have to go in WvW.

A PVE exclusive player would have dungeons, personal story and jump puzzles on their "bucket" list.


Just thought that was worth pointing out here.

[Anaralah]

only thing that is keeping me away from the game (after around 250 hours of gameplay) is that gold is hard to farm for my standarts , my main way of income has been questing in both wow and rift and selling the stuff i gathered while questing.I hate playing with the ah and i hate farming specific stuff.If pvp would earn you money i wouldnt have any problem i guess as i am able to glory farm like a bitch.Dynamic events should give around five times more money than they do now for me to feel that i am actually getting something from them and i wouldnt have to spam aoe to try tagging mobs.That is it really i want to do lots of stuff in this game but being broke all the time keeps me away from it.

[Lane]

Personally, I've been surprised at how perfect GW2 is for me. I mean, this is a game I had no interest in whatsoever while it was in development or even in beta. It's a game I refused to buy before I tried because I was so skeptical about it. Now, I play it more than any other MMO I've played since WoW Wrath.

[melodramocracy]

As long as they continue adding stuff, sure.