This game is no where near as good as the Original GW.

[sorudo]

I don't understand this. What is missing that GW1 had, heroes?!?

I think every other detail has been met, when comparing games, GW2 is so completely different to GW1. Looking back it, GW1 was the most simple basic game one could make, and is outshined in new current games, GW2.

actually GW1 and GW2 can't really be compared, one is a fully instance but dynamic based game while two is a persistent zerg fest.
at least GW1 has a kind of consistency so everyone could play on a stable but fun way, GW2 is good in it's own way but it encourages grind and farming allot more and allot of things are out of control.
i have had more crashes with GW2 in one month then i had with GW1 in 4 years, the game is simply not stable enough and it misses something that made GW1 so good.

to answer your question, GW1 had the flexibility to go from one place to the other, follow the story line you want to follow and have no restrictions on replaying a part of a story.
GW2 forces you to pay just to get somewhere which is getting more and more expensive, the story lines are locked behind your personal story and you can never ever play a different path ones you choose one.

it is missing some more things but that just takes to long to go in to, the point is just that GW2 can use some GW1 spirit in it.
let us play a mission in an instance just like in GW1, let us choose a different path ones you completed the story to a part and let us get what we want even if it's not part of the story you chose.

[CHIPS]

This game is no where near as good as the Original.It doesn't feel like guild wars reminds me more of Lotr although even that is better.The learning curve is no where to be seen as GW was.

I am playing Warrior and Ranger ,Warrior with a shotgun as I encouter lots of geers with firearams.When I ma playing Ranger I ma using axes instead of a bow as well as a bear.I never liked the beast mastery in GW as it was only good up till level 10.When I started my Archer in PWI I got bow as my first weapon and the same for Lotr and they play better than Ranger in this game.

I much prefer to have sense of direction much like in GW as you know where you are going with quests and missions.

I don't like the fact when I do go down I have to pay to go back to a waypoint.The game doesn't look anything as good as GW does even in PWI I don't have to pay.It would be nice to have healer around.

I would say with all the time it took to make this you figure would be quality product but it no where near good a GW is and will never be.Gw2 will never be the game GW was and still is.I would of rather of paid for rebuilt GW instead of this.

The pvp is not a good a GW is as well I gues that is why they flocked back to GW.

What I found lacking is not the sense of direction in the story. The story on GW2 is actually better than GW1. The problem is that all these quests are soloed. Isn't the point of removing monks from the game to encourage partying? If so why doesn't story quests involve more people?

Another thing is the lack of polish and details in some of those quests. For example GW1 Thunderhead Keep. It took many failures for many of us to finally get the quest and complete it. There are actually some thinking and planning involved, like keeping the king alive while holding the gates. Another example was Elona Reach. I lost count how many times I failed that quest during my noob days. But that was part of the challenge. In GW2, on the other hand, you literally cannot fail any of the story quests. I mean you come right back when you die, so how can you fail? And there are rarely any thinking and planning involved. I played though pretty much the whole story campaign and not even once was I challenged to think. Well of course, I can't fail.

Its the classic argument of how old games were much harder and hardcore than newer games. How Doom was a much better game than Modern Warfare, etc. A player only feel achievement when there were failures.

The same theory carries forward to events like the Lost Shore. From what I heard, the players had almost no chance of failing those quests. The mobs (Karka) had a ton of hp but they rarely threatens the players enough to actually win. Sure a player does down here and there but as a group the players had no chance of failing.

As for map travelling, I had been saying it should be free since forever. After that I suggested a cheap flat rate based on level, instead of base on location. My necro runs around with swiftness on all the time, so I just run her from place to place to save money. But honestly 4 silver coins to travel from one place to another is very expensive.

Now, I loved everything about GW1.
Missions, AB, quests & hero quests especially made me feel like my actions were making a real difference to the world (if I rescued a girl in Shenzun tunnels she stayed rescued, rescue that girl from the destroyer hole & she's back again in a few minutes! Dizzy little bimbo, leave her to die).
It's a really good game. It is now utterly empty however.
It's not that GW2 is beyond redemption, there is so much great stuff in there from the beautiful world to little lore touches (Sylvari are Welsh!).
My main gripe is that it is the lore though. Anet betrayed us there.

Well that can't be helped. You can only make a difference in the world for 20 minutes. Else the player that comes after you cannot enjoy the same content.

But I do understand what you mean. When I saw the trailer of the movie Taken 2 I LOLed. I mean seriously? :P

Change yes, but similar one? I'm not sure about that part.

GW1 moved a lot towards casual/solo friendly past EOTN, like reducing the PvE-only skill scaling, reducing title-grind in general, or adding 7 heroes, something they initially said will never happen. I think what we remember GW1 for is Anet's way of making it as easily available as possible, to attract old and new players in preparation for GW2.

GW2 is quite a different game with a different crowd. With the recent introduction of Ascended gear Anet has shown that they will keep adding additional character/gear progression to keep their MMO-oriented playerbase happy. I don't think we will see anything like GW1's way to solo/instances happen anytime soon. And when we will, it will likely mean that the game wasn't that successful

The OP should be more like "GW1 is nowhere near GW2"

GW1 eventually had to be solo friendly because it became harder and harder to find people to play with. It doesn't mean GW1's design was bad. Its just GW1 eventually became an old game and people tend to leave old games.

What drew many of us GW1 players in was from partying with other people. Back in the hay days of GW1 you can easily find people to do all sort of quests. And that was awesome.

As the game ages, it becomes harder to find party. And worst of all, it became very hard to draw new players in. I invited a few friends to join GW1. But they eventually quit because they felt that GW1 is a single player game. Many never got to the point of those end game contents and serious skill bar design.

I must say, I am disappointed ANet didn't really make use of their "new" z-axis. Why have the ability to jump on a rock and attack from a height, when the foe will become invulnerable anyway? You can't really fight tactically as long as that is the case.

I see a huge group of people, and a big rock above them so they can't reach me (without ranged attacks), I will
a) jump in the middle of them with my bow and start shooting them
b) climb that rock and pepper them with arrows from above

The same with a warrior. Same situation. That warrior will
a) jump in the middle of them and start slashing with his sword
b) climb that rock and jump down on the group and then will start slashing with his sword

The second one is possible, but doesn't have a tactical advantage: your foe won't get damaged. And in case of the ranged attacks, even become invulnerable!

I also hate the invulnerability, but I understand their reasoning. They wanted to prevent abuse and free exp from certain locations. But where do they draw the line. Sure some people (minority) will abuse, but a majority of the people only wants to take advantage of the terrain. Anet will need to figure this out.

The worst are those underwater invulnerability. Hate those very much.

[Cyberman]

In GW2, on the other hand, you literally cannot fail any of the story quests. I mean you come right back when you die, so how can you fail?

Aren't you weakened each time and losing armor? While your enemies are rapidly healed? Or is that only in the regular quests/events/whatever?

I agree that quests/events seem to be lacking, but I don't think forcing the player to die repeatedly is what they need.

[Alaris]

Isn't the point of removing monks from the game to encourage partying? If so why doesn't story quests involve more people?

Actually, stories are rarely soloed. You usually have some NPC helping out, in many cases you have a whole lot of NPCs zerging with you. If you choose to builds more healish, you'll usually find a use for your healing skills other than on yourself.

I mean you come right back when you die, so how can you fail?

I think they should add the option to fail and have to start over, or at least the reward for doing it in one try (and ability to replay story missions). I agree that they failed at that. But as a player, you can challenge yourself to not mindlessly zerg, and actually play as if death was meaningful. When I do that, I get a better sense of challenge from my gameplay. The level design is less at fault than the lack of strong penalty for dying...

Penalizing people for dying by preventing progress... damned if you don't, damned if you do.

[CHIPS]

Aren't you weakened each time and losing armor? While your enemies are rapidly healed? Or is that only in the regular quests/events/whatever?

I agree that quests/events seem to be lacking, but I don't think forcing the player to die repeatedly is what they need.

You don't get weakened I don't think. You do lose armor pieces, but that's only after many many deaths. Enemies heals up once they are out of combat. But honestly you have to be super low level and super weak to not being able to kill them.

All in all, as long as you get to the required level before attempting a storyline quest, there is almost no way you can fail them.

As for dying over and over again, I will just talk about Elona Reach. When I finally completed it, after many many failures, it was one of the greatest feeling ever. It was my first time bringing my Chipsy though GW1. Good times. That said I might not be the average crowd. Not many people had to determination to finish Winds of Change in hard mode like I did. My personal deaths would shed enough blood to float a log. :P

Actually, stories are rarely soloed. You usually have some NPC helping out, in many cases you have a whole lot of NPCs zerging with you. If you choose to builds more healish, you'll usually find a use for your healing skills other than on yourself.



I think they should add the option to fail and have to start over, or at least the reward for doing it in one try (and ability to replay story missions). I agree that they failed at that. But as a player, you can challenge yourself to not mindlessly zerg, and actually play as if death was meaningful. When I do that, I get a better sense of challenge from my gameplay. The level design is less at fault than the lack of strong penalty for dying...

Penalizing people for dying by preventing progress... damned if you don't, damned if you do.

I meant solo in the sense that the only human player in it was you. Yes you do play with NPCs. But I was surprised to see less partying with humans in GW2 than in GW1. Like I said, wasn't the point of removing monks to encourage partying with other players?

As for failing the missions, I think it is difficult to appease all the crowd. Some players really love challenge. Some players will rage quit on the slightest failure. So as a game designer who want to cater to as many people as possible, it is a huge challenge.

[Xycury]

only if you think the dev's are idiots would that argument be true, it has been thoroughly debunked in other threads already.

Thread please?

I'd love to learn more.

Just for example if you pull part the Ele weapons, you would totally break what that character is, and also what the Engineer is. It's a design of the game on what skills you want. if you want to hold a bow, are you able to do a whirling axe attach as a char? or are you thinking that the warrior should have all the skills of bows as Rangers and thieves too? Like shadow stepping attacks?

they only offer nothing because they aren't there. If they were there, then there's a lot to offer.

Didn't take long to get back to the 'GW1 was 7 years old' did it? Also completely fails to address the point in my original post.

GW1 was released in 4/05, and Factions a year later. With Factions came Alliances, because Alliances towards Luxon and Kurzick.

In GW2, there isn't a setting for that, so having alliances technically don't fit. There isn't a mechanic to fit that tool of having Alliances.

I think if they open up Cantha in an expansion, because you know they would, they would probably bring something to this effect also.

Please tell me how they would fit besides what Alaris stated? I think the only thing that goes against it is that one person can only join 5 guilds, and there is a limit on player members per guild, which is driven by gold for player expansion. (Complete Gold sink here).

they would provide exactly what they provided in GW1.
A place to train together, handy storage, access to merchants & banks, a place to meet group for dungeons or events, hell even just a place to hang out.

Did you even play GW1? Or fo you just not have any friends?

Guild halls were used for training? I think only when two Guilds offered to fight right? because I couldn't do anything but change skills. Storage for guild are right next to every Bank, in every major town, and maybe some explorables? No need to go back home. Same with merchants and banks, there other other features available that replace them. In an open world, nothing is preventing you from meeting up somewhere. Travel everywhere, even meet up with random guildies. There isn't a place you couldn't make "home". And you can hang out at every place you want to, just pick it.... you're only restricted on how far a character has gone.

(They did hint that personal place might be built in the game, so you have a Home to go back to.)

I can far to readily believe you'd prefer the dumbed down version over the real thing, you don't need to convince me.

Mesmer is different, not dumbed down. What mesmer did in GW1 had to change for GW2. Just as GW1 is a different game than is GW2.

Every class plays differently because of this change.

Haven't read the books, shouldn't need to.

You're missing out, the first one is good, real good. I heard the second one is not as good but plays into more of the story line for GW2.

Honestly would be bored to ends if GW2 required me to read a book for everything. I was thinking games like Skyrim or Morrowind have this much in books and you can read alot but is it required? maybe, maybe not.

This game bases what you know in GW1, are they suppose to repeat it ? Lore is happening as you live it. History is being made by Halloween, and telling of the Mad king's tale... that was full of lore. The one time event and the Kraka introduce a major part of what will be the future and the Consortium.

Lore is out there, if you're not reading it or can't see it, it can't be helped.

GW1 I could use any weapon on any profession.

But effectively?

They matched weapon to skills and balanced them. I don't see how auto-attacking could match up with skills you want then. How would you want to do melee attacks while you use a bow? Try a hammer knockdown? not going to work with a bow.

And??? Or do you believe that a few crazy ideas negates a whole thread? If so I'll just set you to ignore because in your previous post alone you've negated anything else you may have to contribute.

Not a whole thread, which one is it again?

I'm just saying there are alot of people that want to make this game into something else. And that's the crazy part. GW2 will be GW2, not WoW, not GW1.

[Xycury]

actually GW1 and GW2 can't really be compared, one is a fully instance but dynamic based game while two is a persistent zerg fest.
at least GW1 has a kind of consistency so everyone could play on a stable but fun way, GW2 is good in it's own way but it encourages grind and farming allot more and allot of things are out of control.
i have had more crashes with GW2 in one month then i had with GW1 in 4 years, the game is simply not stable enough and it misses something that made GW1 so good.

to answer your question, GW1 had the flexibility to go from one place to the other, follow the story line you want to follow and have no restrictions on replaying a part of a story.
GW2 forces you to pay just to get somewhere which is getting more and more expensive, the story lines are locked behind your personal story and you can never ever play a different path ones you choose one.

it is missing some more things but that just takes to long to go in to, the point is just that GW2 can use some GW1 spirit in it.
let us play a mission in an instance just like in GW1, let us choose a different path ones you completed the story to a part and let us get what we want even if it's not part of the story you chose.

I agree on the first part, GW1 and GW2 are completely different games, mechanics, story, everything, and it's only sharing a name.

Same effect to Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander, they may not share a name but everything about them is the same.

I think most RPGs aren't a choose-your-own adventure book. Final fantasies usually are one set story, most other RPGs require you to replay from the begining to live another story line. I think this is "normal".... you can always run a new alt if you want a different story. There's been a thread here that has beaten that to death.

I think what would be nice, and what Chips and Alaris are talking about is the "What If" or Fail types... similar to DE's. I haven't been far into my stories but I think if you fail something that should give you a twist... that by replaying it you can get a better part or failing will give you what happened and you have to try harder or different to get back to the story you're following.

This could be improved and would have enjoyed it better.

[sorudo]

I think most RPGs aren't a choose-your-own adventure book. Final fantasies usually are one set story, most other RPGs require you to replay from the begining to live another story line. I think this is "normal".... you can always run a new alt if you want a different story. There's been a thread here that has beaten that to death.

to be fair, final fantasy is pretty much a series of single player games, the MMO's fail horribly and you can see that by looking at all the previews, reviews and community talk.

GW1 gave us the flexibility to play the game however we want, that's why GW1 has some superiority over GW2.
may it be story, traveling or playing fur fun, it's allot more flexible them you think.

[Nemeon Lion]

Guys, guys, GUYS!!!

We're missing the most important factor of all.

Age bought GW2.

We should be thanking him for supporting the series once again. I call for a "clap post train"!

I'll start.


*clap*

[Giggles]

Nice one Nem

The only thing that I find I'm really missing from GW1 that isn't in GW2 is structure. I like the free form nature of GW2 but I think in some ways they went too far. What I mean is that combat becomes largely a big mess once you get past a few people in a team. In small groups it can be pretty cool. Once it gets past a certain size it kinds turns ****ty imo. The enemies you fight also have no structure to them really. Where's the frontline, backline tactics? Why don't they do simple flanking maneauvers when the people in the event get to a certain size, or mix up things when the group gets big instead of just increasing the bad guy numbers? A lot of the boss fights I've done end up with you just spamming skills and dodging red circles.

Most quests are too focused in one area. I'd love to see things move around more and I'm not talking about escort quests. It makes the quests feel static and not very dynamic (sorry for the pun) to me when most of them all happen in the same place. Where's the journey and adventure? Even the personal story quests take place in small areas. In GW1, most of them took place over large areas with quests where you you had to trampling across maps to complete them. The quests feel very small in GW2 in this sense.

The game has a hell of a lot going for it imo but, it needs time to settle in and get tweaked big time. I don't know what the weekend content was like, I didn't have time to see it, so I don't know if they're making some positive steps or not.