Guild Wars II

[IonDragon]

Great MMO or Greatest MMO?

http://www.guildwars2.com/

I think I found my next game. I've been looking forward to this since I saw a wallpaper based on some of the art a year or two ago.

[Hunter Noventa]

I've been following the development of this game. I played the beta for GW1 and it was fun then, it's still pretty fun now.

GW2 looks amazing and I can't wait to kick some butt.

[Toastkart]

As excited as I was for this when they first started revealing professions, now that they've been giving more information since gamescom I am less enthusiastic.

Don't get me wrong, some of the changes to questing, reward systems, etc. are fantastic ideas. But some of the changes they've made are just totally out of left field and, to me at least, the game has lost something inherent to Guild Wars.

Some examples:

There is no longer an auto-attack. Instead, there is attack skill spam. Now, attack skill spam was one of the most powerful builds for melee characters in gw1, but it was also the most boring. Because there is no auto-attack, it seems that staves and wands will not have their ranged magic attacks, which I always thought was a unique take on caster weapons as I had not seen it before playing gw1.

The level cap is 80. In gw1, with the exception of prophecies which took longer, you played about 80-90% of the campaign at max level and with a fully advanced character. Now in practice the level up bonuses, mostly flat leveling curve, and level scaling for different areas it may still feel the same, but I think it loses something in translation. If I failed a mission in gw1, it's because I did something wrong, and to succeed I had to improve my skills, tighten my build, and change my strategy/tactics, not grind up a couple more levels and try again.

Long cool-downs. Energy management is now a long term resource. Instead, many skills have longer 1-2 minute cooldowns, and all of the elite skills revealed so far have 12 minute cooldowns. This is a gut reaction turn off for me. If I have limited bar space, I'm not going to want to take a skill that I can't use every time the situation comes up. especially with elite skills, people aren't going to use them every 12 minutes, they're going to 'save them up' until they really need them, which is, again, a waste of a slot.

First five attack skills are tied to weapon type. This means that if you are a warrior and you equip a sword in your main hand, your first three skills are going to be the same and stay the same throughout the 80 levels of the game. They claim variety is in switching weapons, but I just don't see it as the same kind of variety you could have. I would have preferred a small pool of skills, say 10-15 per weapon per class. At least then I could fine tune my build. It's going to get boring pretty fast spamming the same five attack skills all the time.

Group dynamics. Having a persistent world and participation scaling kind of forced this change. Don't get me wrong, the changes to grouping, loot distribution, other rewards, etc. are welcome changes over other mmos. That being said, I'm going to miss building a team that synergizes well. I'm also going to miss taking on groups of enemies that I have to decide who the biggest threat is and how to distribute the offensive and defensive power of my team to fit the situation. This entire aspect of gw1 is just gone. Yeah, the professions are going to have combo-skills, which takes some battlefield awareness, but it's just not going to be on the same level.

Number inflation. This is mostly an aesthetic complaint. If you can divide the numbers by 10 or even 100 why not just do that? I don't need big numbers to tell me something is epic/powerful.

The dumbing down of a lot of different mechanics in favor of two general categories of buffs and debuffs, relabeled boons and conditions respectfully. There are no more hexes, enchantments, shouts (there are shouts, but they merely apply a boon rather than being a unique buff type), etc. All kinds of wonderful complexity has been lost in favor of oversimplified gameplay. It's almost insulting. In a recent interview, one of the devs said something about being able to do everything you could do with hexes through conditions or other skill types, but if that's really the case, why not keep hexes?

generic attributes. This has me wary of a couple things. In addition to the possibility of stat boosting grind, game itemization is potentially going to be a problem. In the early days of WoW (I don't know how true it is today, as I stopped playing after the first year and a half) rogues, hunters, and shaman all competed for the same gear. that kind of direct competition won't happen in gw2, but is the game going to be itemized in such a way that each class will have stat boosting items that will be most beneficial to the class, or is the itemization going to favor certain classes/builds over others?

[Smight]

I was excited about this game,
until my GW1 account was stolen robed,
and my characters left naked in Korean district,
not buying any more games with company with that big of a lack in security,
cause my account name and pass was not stolen or hacked from me but from NCsoft database.

[Dogmantra]

The moment I found out they were removing the dual-profession system, I lost all interest.

I mean, seriously, that and the low level cap were the two biggest selling points of GW, at least for me, and then they removed them for GW2...

[Penguinizer]

Here's to hoping it didn't turn into a WoW clone.

[Ignition]

Here's to hoping it didn't turn into a WoW clone.

WoW's got all the market data to support it as a successful product, so odds are, if they really like making money (hint: they do :smallwink: ) they're going to make at least some nods to that market data in their design of the game. Sorry to burst the bubble, haha.

Couple of things:

1. I'm super hyped about Guild Wars 2 based on what I've seen of it thusfar. I played the hell out of the original, and it was good, even if it got annoying in a few areas (too much variety of skills - and too many 'near repeats' of skills in the expansions - made figuring out a build cumbersome; the extra classes in the expansions were either supreme wastes of time or absurdly powerful; making everything balanced against being level 20 made having a level at all pretty pointless).

2. How does the logic of this follow?


Group dynamics. Having a persistent world and participation scaling kind of forced this change. Don't get me wrong, the changes to grouping, loot distribution, other rewards, etc. are welcome changes over other mmos. That being said, I'm going to miss building a team that synergizes well. I'm also going to miss taking on groups of enemies that I have to decide who the biggest threat is and how to distribute the offensive and defensive power of my team to fit the situation. This entire aspect of gw1 is just gone. Yeah, the professions are going to have combo-skills, which takes some battlefield awareness, but it's just not going to be on the same level.

I'm not asking to be a jerk, I just don't see how a persistant world precludes me from building a well-synergized team. I do it in World of Warcraft, I'm sure people did it in Everquest. What about the world makes it 'impossible' to build a team and use tactics to take on monsters/other players?

3. As stated, I'm completely in favor of axing the golden cow whenever possible, especially in regards to the much-hated "dumbing down" of mechanics. Turning everything into Buffs and Debuffs rather than having different kinds of Buffs (Boons, Shouts, Enchantments, whatever) and Debuffs (Conditions, Hexes, etc.) will make the game more accessible (which, when you want to make money as a game developer, is a Good Thing (tm) :smallwink: ). In GW1, the system they had set up for combining spells and effects in a million different ways was largely pointless when you realize maybe 10% of those skills were ever used by anyone - not because they were the most interesting, but because they statistically scaled the best. I think the illusion of choice is a bigger detriment to a game than having less, actually meaningful choices.

Now I agree, if they've limited the choices as stringently as you say, they may have gone too far. But I'll remain optimistic until I get to play the game myself.

4. I will admit, I did like the multiclassing system. Until I found out that was a 'false choice' as well. Yeah you could combine any two classes, but Warrior/Monk and any two casting classes (Necro/Monk, Elementalist/Mesmer, etc) ended up being the only 'valid' ones. Personally I'd rather them use the multiclassing idea, but put some actual thought into what happens when you go straight Warrior as opposed to Warrior/Monk, Warrior/Elementalist, etc. rather than just having access to two sets of skills which, odds are, do not have much synergy. I love the concept, but GW1's execution was pretty poor, in my opinion.

All in all, I think they're doing the smart thing by not letting old successes/established 'branding' dictate where they go with the new game design. I like a new game to feel new, you know? I will hold out hope it is good until I buy it and am able to play it critically.

[Dogmantra]

4. I will admit, I did like the multiclassing system. Until I found out that was a 'false choice' as well. Yeah you could combine any two classes, but Warrior/Monk and any two casting classes (Necro/Monk, Elementalist/Mesmer, etc) ended up being the only 'valid' ones.

WHAT?

W/E with Shock was a very popular PvP build (not sure how that one's going now). A/E was also a popular one (popular in the sense of "Man, you're farming WITHOUT an A/E shadowform build? What the earth is WRONG with you?" and also in the sense of "A/E is pretty good otherwise"). Me/W works well with Illusionary Weaponry and Flurry. W/D is also popular. Mo/W was so popular and a bit overpowered that they actually had to nerf Tactics! R/Rt Splinter Weapon/Barrage was an excellent combo, and one that still sees a lot of use. Frig, just R/Rt in general, what with the reduction on energy in rituals from Expertise. W/Rt was the basis for the most popular Underworld farming build at one point.

Sure, it might've been harder to make a build like that, but it certainly wasn't "invalid", and in fact, most of the popular ones have been so absurdly powerful that the skills used in them had to be nerfed.

[Penguinizer]

E/A was also a ton of fun in Random Arenas. R/N was also solid. I'd rather have some choice than none.

[Toastkart]

WoW's got all the market data to support it as a successful product, so odds are, if they really like making money (hint: they do ) they're going to make at least some nods to that market data in their design of the game. Sorry to burst the bubble, haha.

If gw1 were a niche game, I could maybe see your point, but gw1 sold somewhere around 6 million units. Now, I haven't seen any data on how many of each campaign/game of the year trilogy/actual accounts there are. Also, gw1 and 2 being free to play actually makes them more likely to sell well. How many people play multiple subscription mmos at the same time? Generally not very many as the cost would get astronomical in relation to the amount of playable time. Guild Wars doesn't have that problem.


I'm not asking to be a jerk, I just don't see how a persistant world precludes me from building a well-synergized team. I do it in World of Warcraft, I'm sure people did it in Everquest. What about the world makes it 'impossible' to build a team and use tactics to take on monsters/other players?

First, I should have specified that I was referring mostly to heroes/henchmen (hopefully just heroes soon enough). But even outside of that, in gw2 there really isn't any grouping except in the personal storyline and five-man dungeons. World events like the shatterer may be big group events, but they're very chaotic. And even though for a long time the world will be populated enough to have large groups completing events, it is very likely that eventually the game population will spread out enough that you could be going through a good portion of the game all by your lonesome.



3. As stated, I'm completely in favor of axing the golden cow whenever possible, especially in regards to the much-hated "dumbing down" of mechanics. Turning everything into Buffs and Debuffs rather than having different kinds of Buffs (Boons, Shouts, Enchantments, whatever) and Debuffs (Conditions, Hexes, etc.) will make the game more accessible (which, when you want to make money as a game developer, is a Good Thing (tm) :smallwink: ).

I don't quite get the 'more accessible' argument. Turning the game into an mmo has made it more accessible, for one. Secondly, the argument would make more sense if the game were subscription based, as keeping lots of players would be a big priority, but being as it is free to play, it really doesn't matter if someone buys to try and then gives up because it doesn't suit his tastes.


In GW1, the system they had set up for combining spells and effects in a million different ways was largely pointless when you realize maybe 10% of those skills were ever used by anyone - not because they were the most interesting, but because they statistically scaled the best. I think the illusion of choice is a bigger detriment to a game than having less, actually meaningful choices.
I believe this is a matter of personal preference. I don't think I've ever run a standard build on any of my characters. I run what works for me. I also don't see why there can't be some kind of middle ground between large number of choices and fewer, more meaningful choices. Part of learning is not only figuring out what works well, but also figuring out what doesn't work well. Also, with more choices you can sometimes find successful combinations that no one would think of or use regularly, but fits a particular situation very well.




4. I will admit, I did like the multiclassing system. Until I found out that was a 'false choice' as well. Yeah you could combine any two classes, but Warrior/Monk and any two casting classes (Necro/Monk, Elementalist/Mesmer, etc) ended up being the only 'valid' ones. Personally I'd rather them use the multiclassing idea, but put some actual thought into what happens when you go straight Warrior as opposed to Warrior/Monk, Warrior/Elementalist, etc. rather than just having access to two sets of skills which, odds are, do not have much synergy. I love the concept, but GW1's execution was pretty poor, in my opinion.

I disagree here. Some class combinations could be very effective. Again, combining skills in useful and personally innovative ways made the game better, in my opinion. You don't have to utilize it secondary profession skills to be successful, but the ability to do so adds to the complexity.


All in all, I think they're doing the smart thing by not letting old successes/established 'branding' dictate where they go with the new game design. I like a new game to feel new, you know? I will hold out hope it is good until I buy it and am able to play it critically.
If this were a totally new game, I would agree. Instead, this is a sequel. From a sequel I expect that the best points of the previous game were improved and extended in innovative ways and that the unnecessary and sometimes just plain bad parts are left by the wayside in favor of new ideas.

[Ignition]

Weird, I must be remembering incorrectly then, or I had a limited referenece pool; the people I played with had nothing to do with non-caster-only combos and WarMonks. Assassins and Ritualists were right out. I remember that distinctly because I was a Ranger/Elementalist primarily, fluctuating between trap stacking farming and Quick/Needle Shot abuse, and one of maybe a handful of non-WarMonks/NecroMesmers that I hung around with at the time.

I maintain, though, if your multiclassing system leads to unintendedly powerful builds (that MonkWarrior build you mentioned that got Tactics nerfed for example), then that's a warning sign you need to redesign your system. I'd prefer multiclassing to be an option, but sometimes stripping down to square one is a valid design tactic. I'd rather have good choices than just "choices", haha.

EDIT for Evrine response:

I don't know we're going to agree here except to disagree, haha. I don't find complexity to necessarily be a selling point of a game. Generally speaking, even if given the options to customize my builds and whatever, I don't, simply because the areas I would actually care about customizing aren't mechanically possible/are mechanically unlikely (personality and background affecting the world and what I do in it, having other options to beat encounters than just "Overwhelm WIth Damage", etc.); I'd much rather have a straight-up crafted experience, either crafted by the optimizer community or crafted by the developers themselves, to consume and move on, rather than trying to experiment all day trying to keep up with the gestalt of the player base. Experimenting is plenty fun, when the outcome matters; in a game, it doesn't, at least not to me. If I want to create my own experience, I've got Word, and that does a much better job from my perspective :smallwink:

I do appreciate your viewpoint, though, and hopefully they'll find some way to appeal to your needs as a game consumer to the same degree I think they will appeal to mine :smallbiggrin:

[Dogmantra]

I maintain, though, if your multiclassing system leads to unintendedly powerful builds (that MonkWarrior build you mentioned that got Tactics nerfed for example), then that's a warning sign you need to redesign your system.

That's more a problem with the fact ANet seem to forget they have the system in the first place.

Take Shadowform, for example. It used to make you immune to damage and unable to attack, but you could still cast spells (I know they've nerfed it now, not sure what to). Of course, it being an Assassin skill, they didn't think someone could just play an Assasin/Elementalist and cast Elementalist spells. They thought Monks would take Mesmer secondary for hex removal or Elementalist for energy management, not Warrior for stances.

[V'icternus]

I don't quite get the 'more accessible' argument. Turning the game into an mmo has made it more accessible, for one. Secondly, the argument would make more sense if the game were subscription based, as keeping lots of players would be a big priority, but being as it is free to play, it really doesn't matter if someone buys to try and then gives up because it doesn't suit his tastes.

This is true, they make money either way. However, word of mouth/review is a major selling point for games these days.

Also, and I know this may not have occured to you, the developers seem to want as many people as possible to have as much fun as possible.

Strange, I know, wanting a game to do...
Er...
What games are meant to do.

I'm still quite sad that this isn't as big a concern for game developers as making money, but hey, that's the modern world.

Anyway, Guild Wars 2 is being ambitious. They want everyone to have fun, MMO lovers and haters alike. They want their current fans to enjoy themselves and to garner new support, not just for the money (the wonderful, brilliant money...) but to try and get as many people as possible to have some fun.

So, they have to make the game as accessible as possible. For the people new to the game-style, or those who dislike the complications of some MMOs.


In a less... defensive... statement, my first character shall be an Asura. I have not yet chosen a starting proffession, but I can tell you, I will look down on all of you! :smalltongue:

[Ignition]

That's more a problem with the fact ANet seem to forget they have the system in the first place.

I agree. Which is more reason for them to either make it work, or ditch it. I don't strictly speaking agree with ditching it, but as long as they give us awesome stuff in exchange for their failed (at least failed from their perspective, if they've decided to be rid of it) concept, I'll live without it.

I'd like to see them support Dual-classing and single-classing by giving more unique stuff to each combination; for example, Warrior/Elementalist gets a stronger form of the Enchant Weapon kinds of spells, Warrior/Monk gets a holy shield variant, and so on. The Warrior class, if taken solo, would get stronger weapon attacks than a Warrior/Hybrid would, but the baked-in hybrid abilities would make the hybrids just as viable. That choice, between single-class and hybrid, would be an interesting choice, and there's no right answer to that - again, if you playtest it correctly, which may or may not be a tall order :smallwink:

But yeah, whatever makes the game fun is good enough for me, whatever that may end up being.

[Dogmantra]

I agree. Which is more reason for them to either make it work, or ditch it. I don't strictly speaking agree with ditching it, but as long as they give us awesome stuff in exchange for their failed (at least failed from their perspective, if they've decided to be rid of it) concept, I'll live without it.
I had a discussion with a friend about this. I said that they should keep it and just try harder to balance skills, he said that they haven't done a very good job of it, so ditching it's easier. That's basically what it boiled down to.


I'd like to see them support Dual-classing and single-classing by giving more unique stuff to each combination; for example, Warrior/Elementalist gets a stronger form of the Enchant Weapon kinds of spells, Warrior/Monk gets a holy shield variant, and so on. The Warrior class, if taken solo, would get stronger weapon attacks than a Warrior/Hybrid would, but the baked-in hybrid abilities would make the hybrids just as viable. That choice, between single-class and hybrid, would be an interesting choice, and there's no right answer to that - again, if you playtest it correctly, which may or may not be a tall order :smallwink:
Hmm, perhaps something like that, but perhaps something like single-profession characters get to take an extra skill, or get some extra attribute points might work better.

Oh, and I just remembered another thing that I didn't like the sound of: not all the professions can wield all the weapons in GW2.

[Toastkart]

EDIT for Evrine response:

I don't know we're going to agree here except to disagree, haha. I don't find complexity to necessarily be a selling point of a game. Generally speaking, even if given the options to customize my builds and whatever, I don't, simply because the areas I would actually care about customizing aren't mechanically possible/are mechanically unlikely (personality and background affecting the world and what I do in it, having other options to beat encounters than just "Overwhelm WIth Damage", etc.); I'd much rather have a straight-up crafted experience, either crafted by the optimizer community or crafted by the developers themselves, to consume and move on, rather than trying to experiment all day trying to keep up with the gestalt of the player base. Experimenting is plenty fun, when the outcome matters; in a game, it doesn't, at least not to me. If I want to create my own experience, I've got Word, and that does a much better job from my perspective :smallwink:

I do appreciate your viewpoint, though, and hopefully they'll find some way to appeal to your needs as a game consumer to the same degree I think they will appeal to mine :smallbiggrin:

I appreciate yours as well, and I do understand that our viewpoints are very much at odds. One of my brothers and I have this kind of argument all the time. I prefer complexity in my games because it allows for fine tuning of personal play style and it is more fun for me than just taking what I'm given and going.



This is true, they make money either way. However, word of mouth/review is a major selling point for games these days.

Also, and I know this may not have occured to you, the developers seem to want as many people as possible to have as much fun as possible.

I understand this quite well. For most mmos, expressing that a game is no longer fun is as simple as canceling your subscription. For Guild Wars, the only way is by offering opinions and criticism. Whether those opinions and criticism is seen by the developers, or taken into consideration, is another matter entirely. Even for developers like Anet.



In a less... defensive... statement, my first character shall be an Asura. I have not yet chosen a starting proffession, but I can tell you, I will look down on all of you!
I really don't have much interest making a character of any race other than human or charr. I definitely am looking forward to playing a warrior, a ranger, and a necro, but whether I'll make one of them, or one of the unrevealed professions, my main remains to be seen.

[Ignition]

I'm going to make so many Charr characters. I love Proud Warrior Race Guys, haha, especially when they look like cat people.

I'm kind of curious about the Sylvari or Sylvani or whatever. The plant people. They seem a little out of left field, but hopefully they fit in nicely.

Has anyone heard about when they're going to formally announce the Necromancer? I read somewhere that implied Necro was ready/was in testing, but nothing on the site - and if it's posted now, I can't check it until I get home anyway.

[Remmirath]

I think it's looking pretty good so far. Some of the things sound as though they'll be interesting, if they pull them off right.

Things I'm happy about - higher level cap (I hate hitting the level cap basically halfway through the game. In my opinion, the level cap should only be reached at the very end of the game, and that only if you've done everything to get as much XP as possible); more species than human (humans are boring :smalltongue:).

Things I'm hoping for - better (by 'better' I mean 'more realistic', less radically different than from the armour for male characters) armour for female characters. From some screenshots this seems like a possibility. Of course, it could hardly have been any worse.

Things I'm annoyed about - longer cool-downs on skills sound pretty annoying. The whole skills/cool-down mechanic is already annoying. Why make it worse? I also like having the option to just auto-attack.

I'm honestly not terribly fond of most typical MMORPG play elements, so I don't care too much if they change slightly. I personally also never cared too much about the multiclassing, although it was occasionally nice.


Has anyone heard about when they're going to formally announce the Necromancer? I read somewhere that implied Necro was ready/was in testing, but nothing on the site - and if it's posted now, I can't check it until I get home anyway.

It is on the site as of last time I checked. I only read through it briefly, but it sounds as though it'll be pretty similar to how it was before (with the undead minions and all).


First five attack skills are tied to weapon type. This means that if you are a warrior and you equip a sword in your main hand, your first three skills are going to be the same and stay the same throughout the 80 levels of the game. They claim variety is in switching weapons, but I just don't see it as the same kind of variety you could have. I would have preferred a small pool of skills, say 10-15 per weapon per class. At least then I could fine tune my build. It's going to get boring pretty fast spamming the same five attack skills all the time.

I watched and read most of the stuff about GWII pretty late at night, so I may well've misinterpreted things, but I thought that meant that you could tie a specific number of skills to each weapon and then switch between them with the weapon?
If it is how you say, though, that'd be kind of annoying.

[Ignition]

Things I'm hoping for - better (by 'better' I mean 'more realistic', less radically different than from the armour for male characters) armour for female characters. From some screenshots this seems like a possibility. Of course, it could hardly have been any worse.

What, you didn't like the Stick And Leaves Bikini for female rangers? Or the belly dancer outfits for the Elementalists? Madness :smallwink:

Yeah, I prefer more realistic armor as well. If I really need to strip down a female PC, I can do that on my own time or in my imagination; I don't also need to objectify my avatar in the middle of playing.

I'm looking forward to getting home so I can read about the Necromancer though. Thanks for the heads up!

[Tydude]

This looks awesome, though I am upset about the longer cool down times. I was initially upset about not being able to multiclass, but (and I may be wrong) it seems like your race gets you skills also. So I suppose your race is kinda like a second class. Either way, this still sounds cool.

[Toastkart]

Things I'm happy about - higher level cap (I hate hitting the level cap basically halfway through the game. In my opinion, the level cap should only be reached at the very end of the game, and that only if you've done everything to get as much XP as possible)

See, I really liked this about gw1. It made the game stand out even more for me. I liked it because I actually got to play a fully powered character for most of the game, rather than only getting the best abilities right at the end. Also, it made the game more about skill and less about gaining levels.



Things I'm annoyed about - longer cool-downs on skills sound pretty annoying. The whole skills/cool-down mechanic is already annoying. Why make it worse? I also like having the option to just auto-attack.

Definitely agree. I don't really like that cool-downs are the new short term skill management device. And the more I think about it, the less I like that there is no auto-attack. Call it a gut reaction if you will, but it doesn't sit well that I can only attack with skills--and that only attack spam.




I watched and read most of the stuff about GWII pretty late at night, so I may well've misinterpreted things, but I thought that meant that you could tie a specific number of skills to each weapon and then switch between them with the weapon?
If it is how you say, though, that'd be kind of annoying.

It is currently the case that skills are unchangeably tied to weapon and class. What this means is that warriors get 5 1 handed sword skills. 3 main hand and 2 off-hand. Rangers get 3 1 handed sword skills, since they can't wield a sword in off-hand. Hopefully closer to release they'll change their minds and allow a small pool of skills to be selected from per weapon type per class, but as it stands, that is not the case.

Actually, what I said isn't quite true, as warriors, and possibly some other professions, can use chain skills, which is several skills that take up the same slot, but can only be used one after the other on the same target. One of the warrior's chain skills for sword is sever artery -> gash -> final thrust, which is their main spam skill (chain). This still doesn't really make up for not being able to ever select your skills for your weapon.


-edit-

This looks awesome, though I am upset about the longer cool down times. I was initially upset about not being able to multiclass, but (and I may be wrong) it seems like your race gets you skills also. So I suppose your race is kinda like a second class. Either way, this still sounds cool.

yeah, race functions kind of like a secondary profession, in that you can get some extra skills, even some elite skills, only from your race. In all other mechanical ways, there are no differences between races.
__________________

[Remmirath]

What, you didn't like the Stick And Leaves Bikini for female rangers? Or the belly dancer outfits for the Elementalists? Madness :smallwink:

Yeah, I prefer more realistic armor as well. If I really need to strip down a female PC, I can do that on my own time or in my imagination; I don't also need to objectify my avatar in the middle of playing.


Yeah, that ended up really annoying me in the first game. If I play a warrior, I want to end up with serious, massive and intimidating armour. There just... wasn't any for female characters, or at least, not as massive and intimidating as there was for male characters. I spent half the game hunting for one of two suits I considered reasonable, and settled on the Dragon Armour (the other option being the Obsidian Armour, and I never got enough of a group together to make it through the Fissure of Woe for that). The helmets never connected up without leaving the neck exposed, either, so I always just didn't show them (though if they had connected, I'd rather have shown them).

I never managed to make myself play a female of any class other than warrior, because they were even worse off with armour. Especially the casters. :smallyuk:
Come to think of it, judging by the wiki anyhow, a lot of the armour in the expansions was at least a little better, but I never got any of the expansions.

The massive armours in Dragon Age are a pretty good example of how I think differences between male and female armour should be - practically non-existant. :smallbiggrin:

Of course, I do realise that not everybody agrees with me, so I don't mind if there are a few odd suits of armour lying around that are revealing and unrealistic... but I think they should be the exception, not the rule.


See, I really liked this about gw1. It made the game stand out even more for me. I liked it because I actually got to play a fully powered character for most of the game, rather than only getting the best abilities right at the end. Also, it made the game more about skill and less about gaining levels.

I can see that, I guess. I frustrates me, though, because I like to have something that I'm working towards, and I like to feel that my character is still increasing in skill as opposed to that I am (which I assume that I will be anyhow, just from playing the game that long). Just stopping at 20th level halfway through the game feels very odd to me. Especially since in Guild Wars once you reach the end and are at full power you could always play PvP and use all your great skills anyhow.


It is currently the case that skills are unchangeably tied to weapon and class. What this means is that warriors get 5 1 handed sword skills. 3 main hand and 2 off-hand. Rangers get 3 1 handed sword skills, since they can't wield a sword in off-hand. Hopefully closer to release they'll change their minds and allow a small pool of skills to be selected from per weapon type per class, but as it stands, that is not the case.

Hopefully they will indeed change that, then. I guess that was sort of a wishful misinterpretation on my part. :smallsigh:

[Dogmantra]

I can see that, I guess. I frustrates me, though, because I like to have something that I'm working towards, and I like to feel that my character is still increasing in skill as opposed to that I am (which I assume that I will be anyhow, just from playing the game that long). Just stopping at 20th level halfway through the game feels very odd to me

The reasoning behind that was that they wanted the players who could only play for two hours a week to be able to compete with the people who could play for ten or twenty hours a week.

[CrimsonAngel]

I can't wait to play an Asura (tiny gray man) and a Charr (big fwuffy kitty).


:smalltongue:

[Remmirath]

The reasoning behind that was that they wanted the players who could only play for two hours a week to be able to compete with the people who could play for ten or twenty hours a week.

Yeah, I know that was the reasoning, and I agree with the goal to an extent (as in, I don't think you should have to grind constantly, but on the other hand if you hardly ever do something I'm not sure you should expect to be as good at it as someone who does it all the time - I certainly don't) - I just think it was implemented awkwardly. People who play for a lot less time than others are still going to be less practiced (and so probably less skilled), so I'm not sure how much it really helped.
I admit I can't think of a better way to do it, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.

You could just make 20th level characters for the PvP anyhow, which I assume was where most of the competition would be taking place, and I thought that part of it worked well.

[Dogmantra]

You could just make 20th level characters for the PvP anyhow, which I assume was where most of the competition would be taking place, and I thought that part of it worked well.

I'd not be too sure about that. It's hard enough finding a spot in the mid-high level areas as, say, a Mesmer already (insert different example for the really hard areas/tough PvP; Mesmers are considered stupidly good by the people who do them). Imagine playing through Prophecies for the first time as a Mesmer, getting to the Ice Caves of Sorrow and being rejected by every group for not being as high a level as them, and also being a Mesmer when they could take a Monk who's two levels higher.

[AlterForm]

I'm going to take the "moving from one DnD edition to the next" approach with GW2, and treat it as a completely new game.

Yes, it shares a name with my favorite MMO, Guild Wars. This only reinforces the fact that it's made by people who at least know how to break with the "WoW Clone" mold. (Whether they do so again or not is yet to be fully seen)

Yes, it shares a setting with my favorite MMO, Guild Wars. This just means it has a well-established canon that nonetheless still has plenty of room to grow due to blank space on the map and the cataclysm-level event leading into the game.

No, it won't play just like my favorite MMO, Guild Wars. Why would it? It's a completely new game.

I'll hang on to my GW account, for sure. I love the reachable level cap, low equipment dependency/complexity, and emphasis on low-strategy high-tactics combat. But this new game, this "Guild Wars II," is made by a company whose products I have liked before, and thus, I will give it a try at least. And if I don't like it, well, there's no subscription fee so I don't feel bad about just stopping playing; maybe I'll come back in a year and see if the game has matured enough for me to like it.

(For reference, I never got into PvP much. I mostly treated the game as a kinda-MMO-but-mainly-multiplayer-RPG, which I really enjoyed.)

[V'icternus]

I can't wait to play an Asura (tiny gray man) and a Charr (big fwuffy kitty).


:smalltongue:

Asura are like a mix between an Asgard (Stargate SG-1) and Yoda (Star Wars, you dolts).

Though the fact that the main Asura from the last game was voice by Brain from Pinky and the Brain may entitle you to believe they evolved from super-intelligent mice.

...It could happen.



I'm going to take the "moving from one DnD edition to the next" approach with GW2, and treat it as a completely new game.

This is definitely the option you should take. They've revamped things, changed things, and they themselves are treating it as a new game. Which it is, remember. A sequel doesn't have to be X+1 or X + graphics. This seems to be a whole new idea for a game on the part of the developers.
So, don't go in expecting to play Guild Wars. You wont. You'll be playing Guild Wars 2.
I just hope it lives up to my girlish squeals of delight.
...Er, very manly girlish squeals, naturally...

[Dogmantra]

I'm going to take the "moving from one DnD edition to the next" approach with GW2, and treat it as a completely new game.
In which case I have even less of a reason to play it. It's not even part of a series I enjoy that way! :smalltongue:

For the reference, I'd not be interested if it wasn't called Guild Wars II. The dual professions, reachable level cap and no monthly fees were what enticed me to play the first one. I don't really do MMOs otherwise.

[V'icternus]

In which case I have even less of a reason to play it. It's not even part of a series I enjoy that way! :smalltongue:

For the reference, I'd not be interested if it wasn't called Guild Wars II. The dual professions, reachable level cap and no monthly fees were what enticed me to play the first one. I don't really do MMOs otherwise.

Aww. :smallfrown:

But it looks like it could be really good!

And, no monthly fees is still in place.
I was surprised that they removed dual professions, but I think it's because there will always be some combinations that are better than others. And they're certainly trying to remove any chance of one choice being "better" than any others. I think that might be why they removed the oh-so-interesting dual-classing from the previous game.

[J.Gellert]

I haven't played GW, but I've heard good things. Plus, awesome graphics, a good-looking necromancer class, and no monthly fees? I'll bite.

[Toastkart]

Yeah, that ended up really annoying me in the first game. If I play a warrior, I want to end up with serious, massive and intimidating armour. There just... wasn't any for female characters, or at least, not as massive and intimidating as there was for male characters. I spent half the game hunting for one of two suits I considered reasonable, and settled on the Dragon Armour (the other option being the Obsidian Armour, and I never got enough of a group together to make it through the Fissure of Woe for that). The helmets never connected up without leaving the neck exposed, either, so I always just didn't show them (though if they had connected, I'd rather have shown them).

My female warrior wears vabbian armor, which looks really good. You might enjoy primeval, although it's too spiky for me. As for other caster armor, some appeal to me and some don't.



I can see that, I guess. I frustrates me, though, because I like to have something that I'm working towards, and I like to feel that my character is still increasing in skill as opposed to that I am (which I assume that I will be anyhow, just from playing the game that long). Just stopping at 20th level halfway through the game feels very odd to me. Especially since in Guild Wars once you reach the end and are at full power you could always play PvP and use all your great skills anyhow.
pvp has never really held much interest for me. Story is much more engaging, another reason why gw appeals to me so much.



Hopefully they will indeed change that, then. I guess that was sort of a wishful misinterpretation on my part. :smallsigh:
yeah, here's hoping.




:
Originally Posted by AlterForm I'm going to take the "moving from one DnD edition to the next" approach with GW2, and treat it as a completely new game.
This is definitely the option you should take. They've revamped things, changed things, and they themselves are treating it as a new game. Which it is, remember. A sequel doesn't have to be X+1 or X + graphics. This seems to be a whole new idea for a game on the part of the developers.
So, don't go in expecting to play Guild Wars. You wont. You'll be playing Guild Wars 2.
I just hope it lives up to my girlish squeals of delight.
...Er, very manly girlish squeals, naturally...
Don't get me wrong, despite my complaints and misgivings, I am still very interested in the game. It would take a pretty drastic change for me to not buy it.

[Remmirath]

I'd not be too sure about that. It's hard enough finding a spot in the mid-high level areas as, say, a Mesmer already (insert different example for the really hard areas/tough PvP; Mesmers are considered stupidly good by the people who do them). Imagine playing through Prophecies for the first time as a Mesmer, getting to the Ice Caves of Sorrow and being rejected by every group for not being as high a level as them, and also being a Mesmer when they could take a Monk who's two levels higher.

I was frequently rejected for being a sword-using Warrior/Ranger, so I do have some idea of how that is. It's annoying, certainly, but you could always just wait until there are some more reasonable people (though sometimes that takes a while).

I do recall having people as low level as 16th in some groups pretty late into the game, when I was already 20th, so I don't think that part of it's actually too much of a problem.

I personally would find it significantly less annoying to have to get a few more levels before doing something than to hit the level cap halfway through the game.


My female warrior wears vabbian armor, which looks really good. You might enjoy primeval, although it's too spiky for me. As for other caster armor, some appeal to me and some don't.


The Primeval armour is actually something I'd like quite a bit (though it is kind of excessively spiky), but I don't have Nightfall. I don't actually have any of the expansions. Factions didn't interest me, and then I was too busy with school when the others came out. I've considered trying to track them down and play them now, but I'm not sure if I'll get around to it.

Call me crazy, but I tend to prefer armour that actually covers vital areas. That goes for the casters, too, even though I realise they shouldn't really be getting hit very much.


pvp has never really held much interest for me. Story is much more engaging, another reason why gw appeals to me so much.

I'm not really much for the PvP either, honestly (though I do think it's fun from time to time), so I can see that. I don't like my character achieving the full power they can until the end of the game, though, or at least very close to the end of the game.

Honestly, the whole level cap thing is probably very much a matter of personal preference.


I'm going to take the "moving from one DnD edition to the next" approach with GW2, and treat it as a completely new game.

I'd have to be a lot more bitter and probably not play the new game if I were to do that. :smalltongue:

The difference is that a game like Guild Wars has one (or several) campaigns that end, and though you can play them with a whole bunch of different characters, that's it. D&D is basically a framework, so if you like the old framework it's not like you need the new one to get more campaigns.

[Vitruviansquid]

I've never played Guild Wars 1 or looked that hard into it, but I was under the impression it was mostly a pvp-centric game. Truth/lies? If true, will Guild Wars 2 also be very PvP-centric, or more PvE-centric?

Where are you guys going to find all the info on this game? D:

[Toastkart]

I've never played Guild Wars 1 or looked that hard into it, but I was under the impression it was mostly a pvp-centric game. Truth/lies? If true, will Guild Wars 2 also be very PvP-centric, or more PvE-centric?

Where are you guys going to find all the info on this game? D:

Whether pve or pvp was the focus of gw1 largely depends on who you ask. For me, pve was the greater focus because each campaign had an involved and compelling (for the most part) storyline. On the other hand, it could be argued that pvp was the focus, what with max level pvp characters being creatable from the get-go, as well as your ability being based on skill rather than gear made it among the most complex and balanced pvp games out there.

As for where the information is, check the gw2 main site, which has a lot of info. the guild wars 2 guru forums also has collected a lot of the interviews, blogs, twitters, etc. and the devs and other anet folks regularly post there.

Whether gw2 will be more pve or pvp centric remains to be seen since we have so little information on the specifics of pvp. My guess is it will be about the same as gw1 in this regard.



The Primeval armour is actually something I'd like quite a bit (though it is kind of excessively spiky), but I don't have Nightfall. I don't actually have any of the expansions. Factions didn't interest me, and then I was too busy with school when the others came out. I've considered trying to track them down and play them now, but I'm not sure if I'll get around to it.
If you have the time and inclination to keep playing, I would definitely recommend the other campaigns and the expansion. All three add some really good (some would argue power creeped) skills, and nightfall and eye of the north offer heroes, which are customizable henchmen. So far, you can only bring 3 heroes with you, but anet is taking a second look at allowing you to bring a full party of heroes.

The factions story is fairly short, but it can get pretty annoying having to escort Mhenlo and Togo all over the darn place. Nightfall's story is more intriguing to me, although it does start off a bit slower. Eye of the north does introduce a bit of faction grinding, but after a certain point it's really optional how far you take it.

[hobbitkniver]

There's so many games I'm already waiting for, that I probably won't try this even after having played and enjoyed the first game.

[V'icternus]

That's a shame. This is one of a few games coming out in the future that seems really worth it.
Oh well.

I still need a new Video Card to play anything. Current one's busted.
Can't even play Mass Effect.


In other (Original Topic) news, 4/8 professions revealed. Still waiting on one I want to play first.
Something with awesome, I think.

[Dogmantra]

In other (Original Topic) news, 4/8 professions revealed. Still waiting on one I want to play first.
Something with awesome, I think.

I've not been following it for obvious reasons, but is Mesmer one of the revealed professions?

If it gets cut I am going to cry. On principle.

[Penguinizer]

So, how many of the things that made GW1 are they removing in GW2?

No multiclassing, no low level cap, etc.

[Ignition]

I've not been following it for obvious reasons, but is Mesmer one of the revealed professions?

If it gets cut I am going to cry. On principle.

They just revealed the Necromancer, which looks pretty sweet. I'm not sure how far different from Elementalist it is just yet, but it still has bone soldiers and life drain. They haven't announced Mesmer yet, but if they know what's good for them, they will :smallwink:


So, how many of the things that made GW1 are they removing in GW2?

No multiclassing, no low level cap, etc.

No instanced areas that you can pay someone to 'run' you through, no billions of skills, no "skill tree stats" (as in, the first game's stats were just the families of skills, rather than Strength, Dexterity, Charisma, etc.), no henchmen (yet at any rate). Probably some other stuff.

But then again, I gleefully encourage the killing of the sacred cow just to see what happens, so I'm something of a bad example :smallwink:

[V'icternus]

The Necromancer seems pretty different than an Elementalist to play, really. To me. :smalltongue:

I'm definitely hoping for Mesmer. Might even pick that as my first ever MMO class!
...If they have it and don't screw it up/bring out something that I like more.

[Myshlaevsky]

I am kind of looking forward to it. I don't play MMO games much (or even at all, nowadays) but I really dug the first Guild Wars and I'm pretty sure I'll be buying this one. Some of the art just looks so damn cool and it makes me feel like I can't wait to try playing as a Charr or Norn, as well as hopefully return to the ridiculously emo-looking Necromancer type that was a staple character for me in the first game.

[Spiryt]

No instanced areas that you can pay someone to 'run' you through,

Nuuu, what I will eat for now? :smalleek::smalleek:
:smallwink:



no billions of skills, no "skill tree stats" (as in, the first game's stats were just the families of skills, rather than Strength, Dexterity, Charisma, etc.), no henchmen (yet at any rate). Probably some other stuff.

Hm, why no billions of skills?

It was actually fun to build your set from very many options.

Problems is, as always, with the situation when something is superficial, or works only with some other bizzare connection players don't really care about, but that's the reason to try harder, not to cut down everything. :smallwink:

[Remmirath]

I've never played Guild Wars 1 or looked that hard into it, but I was under the impression it was mostly a pvp-centric game. Truth/lies? If true, will Guild Wars 2 also be very PvP-centric, or more PvE-centric?

It was advertised that way, as I recall, but I think the main strength of it was actually the PvE storyline. The PvP was fun, but I don't think it was the best part or even most of it.


If you have the time and inclination to keep playing, I would definitely recommend the other campaigns and the expansion. All three add some really good (some would argue power creeped) skills, and nightfall and eye of the north offer heroes, which are customizable henchmen. So far, you can only bring 3 heroes with you, but anet is taking a second look at allowing you to bring a full party of heroes.

The factions story is fairly short, but it can get pretty annoying having to escort Mhenlo and Togo all over the darn place. Nightfall's story is more intriguing to me, although it does start off a bit slower. Eye of the north does introduce a bit of faction grinding, but after a certain point it's really optional how far you take it.

I technically have both the time and the inclination, but the problem is that during that time I got really busy with school I ended up accumulating a large stack of 'games to play', which I've just barely gotten more than halfway through recently. I do want to actually get all the way through the stack at some point.

I'll definitely consider Nightfall and Eye of the North, though, and maybe Factions if I get bored at some point. I had looked into Factions somewhat, and everything I saw led me to believe that it wasn't going to be my kind of thing. I wasn't particularly interested in either of the new classes for Nightfall during the 'try the new classes' event thing, but it's not as if I'd have to play a new class. The setting appeals to me a lot more, though.

Eye of the North is basically a continuation of the original campaign and is supposed to have some ties to Guild Wars II, right? It sounds like that would be the one to go for if I was to only do one, if so.

(Back more to the original topic) I'm probably going to go for Warrior again to begin with, I think. Unless I decide something else looks like more fun between now and then.

[Ignition]

Which is the ongoing argument, Spiryt :smallwink:

I imagine once they get the 'skeletal' intro experience together, they'll introduce more and more skills and functionality to add variety and tactical experimentation to the game, but they've only announced very minimal skills thusfar, and their proposed plans seem to be in favor of a lower quantity of choices with supposedly more quality choices, if the difference makes sense.

It remains to be seen how well they've succeeded.

[Toastkart]

Eye of the North is basically a continuation of the original campaign and is supposed to have some ties to Guild Wars II, right? It sounds like that would be the one to go for if I was to only do one, if so.
Eye of the North does have a lot of events that lead up to gw2. Also, you need to have eotn in order to access the war in kryta content, which was released as part of gw1's fifth anniversary. The war in kryta, and anything that will come after, extends those events even more.



I imagine once they get the 'skeletal' intro experience together, they'll introduce more and more skills and functionality to add variety and tactical experimentation to the game, but they've only announced very minimal skills thusfar, and their proposed plans seem to be in favor of a lower quantity of choices with supposedly more quality choices, if the difference makes sense.
While there may be a large number of other skills, it's looking more and more like they're not even open to the idea of having a variety of weapon skills to choose from. Now that we know you have to buy skill tiers as you level up there's even less incentive to offer more diverse skills than there would be otherwise.



I've not been following it for obvious reasons, but is Mesmer one of the revealed professions?
The speculation is that Mesmer will be next. I'm actually looking forward to what the other soldier class will be like. I'm hoping it'll play similar to the dervish, since that's my main in gw1.




So, how many of the things that made GW1 are they removing in GW2?

No multiclassing, no low level cap, etc.
Check out my first post in this thread for a list of things that I think are missing.

[Ignition]

I somehow doubt they would let a product like this - which they are going out of their way to constantly bludgeon us with how open and dynamic it is - go un-modified, though. If nothing else, having more weapon skills would be a feature for a Big Patch (on the order of opening up a new dungeon/raid in WoW, or opening up a world event, or whatever), or at the very least, a paid expansion. That was the point of the original Guild Wars, right, that you wouldn't pay per-month, you'd just get new content by buying new campaigns? Why would they go against that now, if they're also not tacking on a monthly expense to the game?

I'm not being a fanboy or apologist, haha, just trying to understand the position here. If it really turns out once the game is released that weapon skills have no options or customization, and the developers have no intention of changing that, ever, then I will be on the "Sky Is Falling" bandwagon faster than you can spit. But I don't see this being a problem when they get some legitimate playtesting data back stating what you are stating, which is the choices they're offering are not sufficient, and then they, being the sane rational people they are, adjust their design decisions. We're still speculating, at least to some degree, unless we've got a mole inside their closed beta or dev team :smallwink: