Guild Wars 2: The One Thread

[Smitzelplix]

Dire in that every Tom, Dick and Harry is producing third rate MMOs maybe?
Best MMO on the market? No, I don't think it is, not by a long shot.

I think GW2 is the best buy to play/free to play MMO on the market right now, mainly because they were designed that way from the beginning, instead of being an MMO to start out as a subscription, only to flounder and switch to the f2p/b2p model. Also having the first game have the same payment model really helped in the experience department.

[1001]

I think GW2 is the best buy to play/free to play MMO on the market right now, mainly because they were designed that way from the beginning, instead of being an MMO to start out as a subscription, only to flounder and switch to the f2p/b2p model. Also having the first game have the same payment model really helped in the experience department.

I think..

That's the important bit of your reply.

Flat out stating that X is the best (not aimed at you) on what can only be a subjective opinion is just asking for a bite.
Personally I think that TSW is the best B2P MMO and I wish GW2 had episodic content that was permanent.

[Fencers]

When I got the remake it didn't play a thing like the first one. However, if I take an MMO from 10 years ago and play it next to one that came out last week it's the exact same experience, just prettier.

Some genres don't change very much. Mainly because the gameplay mechanics would be fundamentally altered by too drastic a change.

Such as side scrolling platformers, tournament fighting games, MOBAs, ARPGs, point & click adventure, flight & driving sims, turn based tactics or even FPS. These type of genres are essentially the same year after year, taking their progress in the form of reiteration of mechanical operation rather than alteration of gameplay itself.

Like for example, if you move SF4 into a total 3D space it would completely change not only the gameplay but the type of game SF4 is to such a degree one is no longer playing within the genre.

It is very likely, though I understand you might be miffed at hearing this often, that some players actually don't like the MMORPG genre. Even if they enjoy a few concepts like the character progression and passive socialization that comes with sharing a game space inherently. The gameplay of the genre is probably not what they enjoy.

As I said in the main forum, this is an issue of lowly desires and expectations.

[Meledelion]

I think you're focusing on the wrong part of Lane's post to determine whether or not the MMO-genre is for her. For instance I too am disappointed with the steps a-net have taken (imo they're backwards) in that they're going more and more to the "traditional" mmo scene.

Gear progression, time gated content no PvP support,...

I don't think that core things like quests will change in any game though, everything is basically a fetch or kill quest so I understand that won't be changed soon. Gear progression can be left out easily. Locking in skills the way GW2 does it is very similar to "traditional" mmo's and further from GW so that's stuff where I expected "change" towards more of a GW style.

[Fencers]

I think you're focusing on the wrong part of Lane's post to determine whether or not the MMO-genre is for her.

I am not concerned about Lane specifically. I am speaking more generally where it is a common incidence lowly desires & expectations within the genre lead to a faulty sense of the genre operation. There are whole threads in general that bear this out on MMO-C alone not to mention reddit, official forums and comments below.

This is rarely seen cross genre however. Where the focus is more narrow in those desperate genres than post 2nd wave MMO popularity and vulgarity allowed.

[Meledelion]

I disagree, within a genre everything stays the same regardless of it being an rts or an rpg or an fps or w/e else.

I seriously don't see a big difference aside from graphix between cs1.6 and cs go for instance. They still play the same. Same for pokemon.

What does happen is that more and more titles start in one genre and transform to the popular one (mainly RPG-elements atm) which is why deus ex plays different than the last one. Or why FF is different from now and so on.

Personally I think what happens is that people jump in when a big game transformed to a genre that they like but the next game in the series is like the one before the one they liked.

[Fencers]

I disagree, within a genre everything stays the same regardless of it being an rts or an rpg or an fps or w/e else.

Wait, a second. You disagree than go on to essentially agree with my posts?

Are you sure you are grasping what I am speaking toward?

[Svifnymr]

I'm looking for something that doesn't feel like a complete throwback to 2004 just with better graphics. GW2's the first MMO I felt made any actual progress in the genre as a whole, so I get frustrated when they start making decisions that feel like they're trying to backpedal into being a more traditional MMO.

Then I get people saying if I don't like traditional MMOs then I simply don't like MMOs as a genre, even though most use what I consider a completely dated formula that few developers seem to want to risk changing or at least improving upon. I mean, I loved the original Tomb Raider. When I got the remake it didn't play a thing like the first one. However, if I take an MMO from 10 years ago and play it next to one that came out last week it's the exact same experience, just prettier.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't care how "healthy" the genre is, it still feels stagnant to me in terms of development outside of graphics.

I think the breakdown would be to compare it to the RPG Genre. There is a certain basic "framework" to rpg's: character advancement, story progression, but the games have surely evolved since the Ancient Days Of Yore. Yes they've gotten prettier, but they've also changed in other ways too. Comparing just the Elder Scrolls, Daggerfall was a big jump from Arena, but Daggerfall/Morrowing/Oblivion were more of an evolution of design, IMO, while still sticking to the fundemental feel of the series.

Adding the MMO to the RPG, you find the technical limitations from the start leading to certain things that have become the foundation of the style. Now that the tech has come along, people want "different, but the same" and are trying to class the genre based on the specifics of certain games rather than as a whole.

I think some MMO's have gotten better at story, and I think GW2's strength is creating a world, but they still have a hurdle in making a living world where the players actually affect things. In a single player game you can change the world if the world allows it, but in an MMO, there's 3million of you and you can't ALL be the savior of the world.

[Meledelion]

Maybe I'm not so let's figure this out (English isn't my first language after all).

"I am speaking more generally where it is a common incidence lowly desires & expectations within the genre lead to a faulty sense of the genre operation."

I understood that as:
I am speaking in broader terms, where it happens a lot that low desires and expectations within the genre lead to a faulty sense of what the genre is about.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mX_Wp8SB_Co funny that Woodenpotatoes does a video about what we were talking about

[Razael]

Interesting video for sure. Woodenpotatoes does some really nice stuff on GW in general.

[Larynx]

Maybe I'm not so let's figure this out (English isn't my first language after all).

"I am speaking more generally where it is a common incidence lowly desires & expectations within the genre lead to a faulty sense of the genre operation."

I understood that as:
I am speaking in broader terms, where it happens a lot that low desires and expectations within the genre lead to a faulty sense of what the genre is about.

The majority of people can not understand Fencers, regardless of first language.

[Lane]

*snip*

One of the main points of contention in a thread debating this in the Video Games Discussion forum is that apparently if you don't like dungeons or raiding then you do not like the MMO genre. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts about that. MMORPG at its core essence is seemingly entirely predicated around gear progression through group content. Even though for the past 10 years games have been adding alternative methods of gear/character progression (and end game) although typically raiding tends to remain the single best way to do it. Depending on who you ask, those games are undermining the foundation of what is an MMO in order to appeal to a wider audience.

Personally, I don't see it that way at all, but supposedly I'm in the wrong. I can clearly see how "MMOs" could evolve beyond that and if that means they're suddenly no longer an MMO and some other entity entirely then so be it. It'd still be an RPG, it'd still be online, it'd still have thousands of people, but for whatever reason by definition wouldn't still be an "MMORPG". It doesn't make any logical sense to me, but whatever. :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mX_Wp8SB_Co funny that Woodenpotatoes does a video about what we were talking about

Not sure how this pertains to the subject, but I impressed myself being able to identify the exact location of everything shown in the trailer before WP showed where it is in the live game. :P

[Meledelion]

Not sure how this pertains to the subject, but I impressed myself being able to identify the exact location of everything shown in the trailer before WP showed where it is in the live game. :P

We started talking about how GW2 differs from what was promised. WP points this out by using the trailers and comparing them to what we got. The important part is the dragon at the end of the video the rest is sort of stylistic differences which are normal.

If he does more trailers I wonder if he'll keep focusing on the visual aspect or if he'll go a bit deeper and for instance go over the manifesto.

[Lane]

In fairness, the reason people say you don't like MMOs isn't just because of the raiding thing, it's because you've said you don't like almost every aspect of every one of them you've commented on. =D

The only person I consistently see saying that is you.

It's not so much an attack on you as it is a simple observation. You don't seem to like the multi-player aspects, you don't seem to like grouping, you don't seem to like PvE content in general, you don't seem to like PvP, you don't seem to like anything that is typically featured in MMOs. And again, that's not an attack (you seem to take it that way whenever the topic comes up) it's just what you've said. The only thing I've seen you comment positively on in an MMO is exploring.

*sigh* So much of that is incorrect I don't even know where to start. At the beginning, I suppose.

Multi-player: When is this ever addressed outside of grouping?
Grouping: This is my single biggest complaint, obviously.
PvE: I enjoy every aspect of PvE outside of required grouping, so I can only assume you mean dungeons and raiding, which as far as I'm concerned falls under the banner of "grouping".
PvP: I don't like being 'forced' to PvP, that is and has always been an irritant. Lately I've started doing WvW because I want to, but there have been many LS meta events that were 99% PvE and then had one final achievement that required you to go into WvW (which as you well know is an invitation to PvPers to camp the influx of carebears). I had similar complaints about Children's Week in WoW, which was a huge hindrance to a lot of non-PvPers in getting the What a Long, Strange Trip It's Been achievement. (Not to mention that the typical response to this is "find others to group with to get it done".)

I've commented positively on quite a few things in MMOs, but apparently my criticisms are more memorable. Sometimes, yeah, certain aspects of MMOs aren't incorporated as well as they could have been. Using questing as an example, it's another area few MMOs seem to have improved upon (post-Cataclysm and GW2 seem to have made the most strides there so far). However, you appear to be confusing whenever I post how something could be improved with flat out disliking it as a whole, which isn't the case at all.

I'm not sure why I wouldn't get defensive when I'm essentially being told I say things I haven't said or at the very least what I do say is obviously grossly misconstrued if not completely ignored.

[Meledelion]

I guess the "forced grouping" part is the most confusing thing to me.

Playing an MMO and complaining about "forced grouping" is like playing Super Mario and complaining about "forced jumping" or playing Street Fighter and complaining about "forced fighting" or playing Gradius and complaining about "forced shooting".

Multiplayer doesn't mean in group though. It just means many players. A simple example would be a 2player game (multiplayer) one where you play co-op (in group) and the other you 1v1.

[Meledelion]

It's the difference between "a game with a multiplayer feature" and "a game almost entirely predicated on the idea of playing with other people", which is really what an MMO is.

This entire thing about "single player MMO" is really a bastardization of the genre. Granted, in some ways it's a necessary evil because you can't expect people to do EVERYTHING in a group at all times. But the concept of group-play/teamplay/etc is as integral to the MMO genre as jumping is to a platformer.

Well your first paragraph only deals with "playing WITH" other people. It's entirely possible to do that without grouping or having to be in a group. You can look at the other players like NPC's they wander in to help you and wander off again after w/e had to be done was done.

I don't get why not being forced to play in a group is a bastardization of the genre. I agree that GW wasn't a real MMO (I basically played it as a PvP game with a PvE market) but that game didn't lose forced grouping at all, instead they gave you means to make your own group through the henchmen system.

I can see a game that's based entirely around events work though, where the only form of grouping would all happen in a volatile state where it never is needed to group. Grouping ofcourse would still hold it's merits but people like Lane who don't like to have to be in groups can just do w/e they want. Or people like me who can't stand watching people in his party pop useless and bad skills like endure pain don't get forced to see that either.

If you saw the anime: sword art online, that's still an MMO.

[Dezerte]

It's about choice to me, I have the choice to play solo but I can also choose to play within a group. There's more to MMO's than just grouping, the persistent world & character is very valuable to a solo player, and the fact that the world you are playing in are inhabited by real players makes the world feel more interesting even if you're not grouping.

[SinR]

GW2 has some really cool systems that I think WoW should adopt. the "quest" system is still "go kill XYZ and X number of ABC", but its presented differently, and with more variety than just "go kill boars". The world event system is also very cool and well done, and also adds a very nice variety to leveling. Also, the new content every 2 weeks helps deal with MMO burn out better than WoW has.

Granted, GW2 has some work to do. It *NEEDS* proper end game (Raids, high-end group dungeons, etc), among other things. But, I still manage to log in at least a few times a day and mess around.

[Deleted]

Hadn't played GW2 for a while after I hit 80, but yesterday I did a lot of activities with the guild, and I must say I was very impressed. Had tons of fun! Even something stupid like the guild trek, which I didn't even know existed, was fun!
Also the new TA path (haven't done many dungeons yet) was great! The bosses are fun and diverse, but I could see how they would totally break a pug.

Sparky and Slick could be a full fledged raid-boss in WoW!

Yesterday kind of reignited my GW2-spark

[Lane]

GW2 has some really cool systems that I think WoW should adopt. the "quest" system is still "go kill XYZ and X number of ABC", but its presented differently, and with more variety than just "go kill boars".

I haven't played WoW since Cataclysm, but as I recall their quest system for 1-60 and 85+ was significantly improved. You can auto-complete quests much in the same way as hearts in GW2.

It *NEEDS* proper end game (Raids, high-end group dungeons, etc), among other things.

I don't agree. I'm not saying GW2 couldn't use some improvement for what it does offer end game, but I really don't want to see it follow the same route as every other MMO incorporating raids and hard mode dungeons because they (and players alike) lack the creativity to come up with anything else.