People who complain "There's so many bugs" probably never had to debug anything. I hate seeing those complaints. They get under my skin.
I still think the main problem is that many would have expected GW2 to be a rather direct continuation of GW1. (Same name and a number and that.)
But GW2 is radically different from GW1.
In any case, GW2 certainly lacks lots of features one would expect to be there from the start. I'm reminded of strategy games where you have to restart every time you get to a new level - it seems they didn't build on GW1, but started from scratch.
I suppose they'll have first to invent and research stuff like customization of interface and post-creation body changes.
BTW, @shawn: Considering the hype built up by ANet (GW2 being so innovative and different to all games and such), I guess people were expective more innovative stuff, and not that much "regular old stuff we don't like" again. (Like for example split servers. Where is the innovation in that? Where is the reason in it?)
2) Rate the pros & cons of each game regarding those features
3) See if there's a clear winner
You know, actually review the game.
For me, combat gameplay was really important, as well as having incentives to play together with random people. Well, I think ANet really nailed those two components. They've improved on many others too, but I already wrote articles on this...
I'd recommend you read reviews too, not just take my opinion on this. Go see Angry Joe's review, see if you agree with it.
And the server split, really? You're serious? Remember how packed the zones were at the start? And you want a persistent world without servers, which would mean fifty times as many people crammed into the same place? The district mechanic is an archaic and unimmersive solution, compared to the seamless server system with queueless overflows and the ability to guest to servers in the future.
Thats always the problem though , whether its the developers or the marketing teams they will always try to over promise which effectively means they under deliver as opposed to under promising and then over delivering ... Now that would be a novel concept
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Lady Rhonwyn (sister of Danea, Katlinel, Gwendydd, and the rest)
Officer of GWOnline [GWO]
"Kind of a big mouth", "People Know Me, whether they like it or not", "I'm very vocal", "I wrote many leather bound books", "My Guild Hall is the forum", "Goddess posting amongst mere mortals" (courtesy of Cardinal Cyn)
In other words, when games had to have as little as possible bugs because you were forced to live with them for months. Game stopper bugs would kill such a game...
I am well aware that MMO's are so complex that it is impossible to have no issues at all.
However, I am also aware that it is possible to release a game with all parts working. Unlike GW2, that started with a non working TP eg.
It is also possible to include fall back mechanisms for scripted events that get stuck. Usually games have a timer for that, pretty much like the idle timer that kicks me from server if I don't play for some time.
And last but not least, it is possible to do a fullscale beta, which might have eliminated some of these issues before release.
Thus I am not complaining about GW2 having issues, I am complaining about GW2 having issues that could have been eliminated before release.
I want to be able to post links to cat videos from youtube into guild chat like I could in GW1.
edit: games in the 70-90s were insanely simple compared to what we're playing right now.
he gives it a 9/10, but he also includes this, which hits the nail right on the spot:
Guild Wars 2 doesnít really get many steps of the MMO dance wrong, and even when it does fluff something, the lack of a monthly fee makes it a bit easier to forgive. I canít honestly say itís entirely clicked with me, though, and Iíve spent the past week trying to work out why without any real success.
Part of it, I think, is that many of its individual elements have been done better elsewhere.
Last edited by Ora; 10-09-2012 at 12:50.