No one knows that there won't be mounts until they specifically state it, which I haven't read yet. Could be wrong though.
@MMODoubter- You sound like you don't like this game, and it's not even released yet. If that's the case, no one here is telling you that you HAVE to play it, just saying.
I haven't decided yet. Some of what I have heard is good. Some of it is bad.
Not having mounts would be a negative.
Lol... seriously thats you negative reason.
Really what is a mount?
It's simply faster movement, which can be be achieved through other methods
So special about a mount then? Riding a "cool" looking animal. So essentially it's just another thing to flash your epeen with like nice looking armour.
Don't get me wrong I like mounts it's not in the slightest bit important as it actually doesn't affect you gameplay in the slightest. it's a nice thing to have but their are far more important things to worry about in a game.
If you seriously consider no mounts as a major bad thing then you must trully care about vain items rather than actual gameplay.
Seriously I really do wonder if you think about what you post.
Originally posted by MMO_Doubter
Originally posted by Warband
The point remains the "I haven't backed down from anything that I have written." is essentially the same thing.
Not even close.
Actually I'm pretty sure thats how come off to most people and I wouldn't be surprised if thats how you actually are since your posts hint at that way.
Anyway again you don't have an actual arguement. Learn to back things up for goodness sake.
You can't win this arguement if there's proof of you saying these things in previous posts.
Think before you post.
I always do.
I haven't backed down from anything that I have written.
The new game is substancially different from Guild Wars. From what I have read - it has more aspects that have been changed than those which have stayed the same. That says a new game to me.
Why did they not give it a new name?
Purposeful or not, your being obtuse.
Arenanet has one title. Smart companies build upon their successes. Guild Wars 2 is a continuation of the story and another game using the same IP as their first and only product. These are reasons why you don't give it a new name. You can disagree with this, but at least give a reason and don't ignroe the point.
Of course it's a new game, because it's a NEW GAME. If they wanted to make it more of the same, they would have released another expansion or campaign for Guild Wars. Comments like that give the appearance that you aren't arguing in good faith or your a bit dull. Essentially your argument boils down to: Guild Wars 1 and 2 will have differences which means Guild Wars 2 will be a new game. No kidding. By using your logic, any sequel should not use the same name if there are differences.
No one knows that there won't be mounts until they specifically state it, which I haven't read yet. Could be wrong though.
@MMODoubter- You sound like you don't like this game, and it's not even released yet. If that's the case, no one here is telling you that you HAVE to play it, just saying.
I haven't decided yet. Some of what I have heard is good. Some of it is bad.
Not having mounts would be a negative.
Lol... seriously thats you negative reason.
Really what is a mount?
It's simply faster movement, which can be be achieved through other methods
So special about a mount then? Riding a "cool" looking animal. So essentially it's just another thing to flash your epeen with like nice looking armour.
Don't get me wrong I like mounts it's not in the slightest bit important as it actually doesn't affect you gameplay in the slightest. it's a nice thing to have but their are far more important things to worry about in a game.
If you seriously consider no mounts as a major bad thing then you must trully care about vain items rather than actual gameplay.
Seriously I really do wonder if you think about what you post.
Originally posted by MMO_Doubter
Originally posted by Warband
The point remains the "I haven't backed down from anything that I have written." is essentially the same thing.
Not even close.
Actually I'm pretty sure thats how come off to most people and I wouldn't be surprised if thats how you actually are since your posts hint at that way.
Anyway again you don't have an actual arguement. Learn to back things up for goodness sake.
And if they had mounts, we would hear the same people bitching that the game was just like WoW.
sorry but I could not look past your fallacy that dual classes = more customization. Skill customization is relative, It has nothing to do with dual classes. they said they tried the dual class system, but it watered down the classes and didn't make them iconic or play differently. They want each class to play differently. More Variation between game play across classes is a good thing. This means they can add more abilities for each class to help round them out. how does cutting out dual classes = they have half the abilities available to them? They could add as many abilities they wanted. They said they wanted to balance the skill system better. Arena net is just trying to get rid of the clutter in the skill system. While you spout your huge customization how many real viable builds were there?
You should actually like the system because you can carry more skill than on your bar and switch them out on situational fights, how is that destroying depth? Hell I could even use your terribly inaccurate example, ranger that doesn't have any bow skills well shoot than you swap to your melee weapons and gasp get abilities for you melee weapons and than if you feel like it while in combat you could switch to your bow and gain all your bow skills.
Not to mention you have combo's between two or more classes while in combat ,creating even more variations with your abilities. positioning and timing are going to be far more important in this game.
Seriously apply some brain power to your argument instead of generalizing details.
No one knows that there won't be mounts until they specifically state it, which I haven't read yet. Could be wrong though.
@MMODoubter- You sound like you don't like this game, and it's not even released yet. If that's the case, no one here is telling you that you HAVE to play it, just saying.
I haven't decided yet. Some of what I have heard is good. Some of it is bad.
Not having mounts would be a negative.
Lol... seriously thats you negative reason.
Really what is a mount?
It's simply faster movement, which can be be achieved through other methods
So special about a mount then? Riding a "cool" looking animal. So essentially it's just another thing to flash your epeen with like nice looking armour.
I like to play RPGs in part, because it lets me do cool things I can't do in real life. Fighting dragons, casting spells, and riding exotic animals. You know - 'fun stuff'.
Don't get me wrong I like mounts it's not in the slightest bit important as it actually doesn't affect you gameplay in the slightest.
It lets you move faster than running. That affects gameplay.
if you like mounts, then they are important.
it's a nice thing to have but their are far more important things to worry about in a game.
If you seriously consider no mounts as a major bad thing then you must trully care about vain item.s rather than actual gameplay.
I said it was a negative, not a deal-breaker. There is a difference
Seriously I really do wonder if you think about what you post.
Try not to end every post with an insult, okay?
Originally posted by MMO_Doubter
Originally posted by Warband
The point remains the "I haven't backed down from anything that I have written." is essentially the same thing.
Not even close.
Actually I'm pretty sure thats how come off to most people and I wouldn't be surprised if thats how you actually are since your posts hint at that way.
Anyway again you don't have an actual arguement. Learn to back things up for goodness sake.
I can end my posts without using insults. How about you?
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Arenanet has one title. Smart companies build upon their successes.
Oh, I never said they weren't being smart.
Guild Wars 2 is a continuation of the story and another game using the same IP as their first and only product. These are reasons why you don't give it a new name. You can disagree with this, but at least give a reason and don't ignroe the point.
Okay. If you are making a very different game (which GW2 appears to be), then it is fair and honest to give it a different name, so that GW players don't buy it thinking it is a very similar game.
Of course it's a new game, because it's a NEW GAME. If they wanted to make it more of the same, they would have released another expansion or campaign for Guild Wars. Comments like that give the appearance that you aren't arguing in good faith or your a bit dull. Essentially your argument boils down to: Guild Wars 1 and 2 will have differences which means Guild Wars 2 will be a new game. No kidding. By using your logic, any sequel should not use the same name if there are differences.
Some differences are one thing. Preferably, the game would add gameplay and improve the systems already in the original.
A re-design is a different matter. The new game is sufficiently different that a lot of GW fans might not like the changes. Giving it a different name warns them not to assume that it's just an update of the original.
New name = benefit to the players
Old name = beneift to the company.
I'm not sure why players wouldn't want the company to be up front about the changes.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
No one knows that there won't be mounts until they specifically state it, which I haven't read yet. Could be wrong though.
@MMODoubter- You sound like you don't like this game, and it's not even released yet. If that's the case, no one here is telling you that you HAVE to play it, just saying.
I haven't decided yet. Some of what I have heard is good. Some of it is bad.
Not having mounts would be a negative.
Lol... seriously thats you negative reason.
Really what is a mount?
It's simply faster movement, which can be be achieved through other methods
So special about a mount then? Riding a "cool" looking animal. So essentially it's just another thing to flash your epeen with like nice looking armour.
I like to play RPGs in part, because it lets me do cool things I can't do in real life. Fighting dragons, casting spells, and riding exotic animals. You know - 'fun stuff'.
Fun is relative if that same dragon took 10 hours of doing the exact same attack with no variation would it still be considered fun to you? Mounts are nice but they are not necessary in anyway for a game to be consider fun. It's just a different skin for fast walking. Nothing more nothing less.
Don't get me wrong I like mounts it's not in the slightest bit important as it actually doesn't affect you gameplay in the slightest.
It lets you move faster than running. That affects gameplay.
Wouldn't not a permanent speed increase buff like a "running" mode do the same thing. Or merely making walking the same speed as a mount. It doesn't at all specifically affect gameplay at all. Seriously?
it's a nice thing to have but their are far more important things to worry about in a game.
If you seriously consider no mounts as a major bad thing then you must trully care about vain item.s rather than actual gameplay.
I said it was a negative, not a deal-breaker. There is a difference
No it's more the fact you even consider it important rather than a nicity.
Seriously I really do wonder if you think about what you post.
Try not to end every post with an insult, okay?
Originally posted by MMO_Doubter
Originally posted by Warband
The point remains the "I haven't backed down from anything that I have written." is essentially the same thing.
Not even close.
Actually I'm pretty sure thats how come off to most people and I wouldn't be surprised if thats how you actually are since your posts hint at that way.
Anyway again you don't have an actual arguement. Learn to back things up for goodness sake.
I can end my posts without using insults. How about you?
It's called teaching someone the basics of arguing. You make a point you back it up otherwise it's a usless opinion. I can't have a seriously arguement with someone if they can't even back up their points. Is it a crime to want to have a proper arguement with someone?
Besides it's pure all annoyance don't take it to heart. I'm sorry for insulting you I just really don't like it when people don't back up their points.
Why are we even having a discussion about whether Anet should use a different name for GW2? This is such a trivial topic I don't even know where to start dismissing it. Any informed consumer, especially of MMOs (with their hit-or-miss success rate), will do some research about a game before buying it. The mere fact that you're able to cite singificant differences between GW1 and GW2 shows that the developers are being up-front about their design changes.
Dont get me wrong. I want this game to be great but the more they reveal the more I realize that they have been more influenced by WoW than by GW.
Hey OP, you *do* realize that WoW was primarily developped by the people who now form Arena.Net? The lead programmer, the lead designer, and the VP of R&D for for the Warcraft RTS, Starcraft, and WoW (well hot damn, that's about the entirety of Blizzard's lineup- and all the key, meaningful positions)?
Blizzard owns the titles, but the talent that created the soul of those games... is at A.Net.
They haven't been influenced by WoW or by GW. The titles have been influenced by them.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
Arenanet has one title. Smart companies build upon their successes.
Oh, I never said they weren't being smart.
Guild Wars 2 is a continuation of the story and another game using the same IP as their first and only product. These are reasons why you don't give it a new name. You can disagree with this, but at least give a reason and don't ignroe the point.
Okay. If you are making a very different game (which GW2 appears to be), then it is fair and honest to give it a different name, so that GW players don't buy it thinking it is a very similar game.
Of course it's a new game, because it's a NEW GAME. If they wanted to make it more of the same, they would have released another expansion or campaign for Guild Wars. Comments like that give the appearance that you aren't arguing in good faith or your a bit dull. Essentially your argument boils down to: Guild Wars 1 and 2 will have differences which means Guild Wars 2 will be a new game. No kidding. By using your logic, any sequel should not use the same name if there are differences.
Some differences are one thing. Preferably, the game would add gameplay and improve the systems already in the original.
A re-design is a different matter. The new game is sufficiently different that a lot of GW fans might not like the changes. Giving it a different name warns them not to assume that it's just an update of the original.
New name = benefit to the players
Old name = beneift to the company.
I'm not sure why players wouldn't want the company to be up front about the changes.
My intention wasn't to insult, but at least now I know you were ignoring points purposely.
I'm glad you finally laid out an explanation. I respectfully disagree with everything you said. I don't think you make a very persuasive argument but it's as valid as any other opionion.
Since Arenanet has been pretty open about revealing info, explaining, and following up on it by answering questions, I think most Guild Wars fans will know exactly what they will be getting with Guild Wars 2 prior to purchasing the game. Considering the amount of time between now and whenever they decide to release the game, there may be test weekends like the first game. People may get to try the game out before even buying. Where you are completely wrong is the claim that they are being dishonest and not upfront with their customers based solely on using the name Guild Wars. Other than using the name Guild Wars, explain how they are being dishonest.
I think only people who didn't like the original will be have some confusion with using the same name. Most of the time when you don't like something, you don't follow it or it's sequels. They are more likely to think that Guild Wars 2 will be more of the same and may pass on the original. For that fact alone, Arenanet will be very clear in their marketing of the game about the differences between the two games.
Since Arenanet has been pretty open about revealing info, explaining, and following up on it by answering questions, I think most Guild Wars fans will know exactly what they will be getting with Guild Wars 2 prior to purchasing the game.
Many? Yes.
Most? Maybe.
All? Certainly not.
Considering the amount of time between now and whenever they decide to release the game, there may be test weekends like the first game. People may get to try the game out before even buying. Where you are completely wrong is the claim that they are being dishonest and not upfront with their customers based solely on using the name Guild Wars. Other than using the name Guild Wars, explain how they are being dishonest.
Other than their choice of name for the game, I have no current issue with their honesty.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
On the contrary, MMO_Doubter, if ANet had used a different name for Guild Wars 2, it is I would would feel misled because I would think they had abandoned the story and lore they established for Guild Wars. I would then be surprised to find that they were continuing that story, and ask why they didn't just call it Guild Wars 2.
I don't see why fans of Guild Wars (which is known for its story as much as its innovation) would not assume that a sequel to the game is a contiuation of the story and not the game features.
On the contrary, MMO_Doubter, if ANet had used a different name for Guild Wars 2, it is I would would feel misled because I would think they had abandoned the story and lore they established for Guild Wars. I would then be surprised to find that they were continuing that story, and ask why they didn't just call it Guild Wars 2.
I don't see why fans of Guild Wars (which is known for its story as much as its innovation) would not assume that a sequel to the game is a contiuation of the story and not the game features.
good point.
And there is also another way to look at it. If guild wars 2 did not have a lot of innovation, and did some really new thing , i actual think that alot more people would be worried and complain.
This game is like what ? 1 1/2 or 2 years away from launch. Lots of things change in that amount of time.
Velika: City of Wheels: Among the mortal races, the humans were the only one that never built cities or great empires; a curse laid upon them by their creator, Gidd, forced them to wander as nomads for twenty centuries...
The majority of opinions forming in this thread seems to be entirely based on speculation. Accusing someone of lying or being dishonest because you have a strong hunch the game won't be how 'you want it' is completely absurd.
Anet has already given us enough info to inform us that the game will be significantly different from the first. How do we know this? Because they have stated that the changes they wanted to incorperate into the 2nd guild wars were big enough that they would require a redesign of the game. This is why they did not release another expansion, instead they decided to go along with a sequel.
I also hate to say it, but even the first game had some WoW influence in it. This isn't necessarily a bad thing either. After all, the founders are former blizzard employees. This game will probably also have some WoW influence in it, but I think it is too early and far too much of a leap to accuse it of being so much like WoW to the point of being dishonest.
Anet has, and still is being very forthright on their information regarding the game. People who are fans of the first will know what to expect, a brand new version of GW with significant changes. Why will they know this? Because they have been told this years ago, and a lot of the fans of the GW series are hungry for info on GW2. The people who are merely interested in GW2, but not really fans of the genre, won't be following the info closely until the game is closer to release. These people may feel misled, but this is a trend with every current MMO ever made. People develope too many expectations without really thinking about the reality of how a game needs to be made. This is no big shocker.
To sum things up. Anet hasn't released any info that I can find that is a blatant lie. They have never promised the sequel to be identical to the first, instead they have said the opposite. So instead of trying to start a witch hunt on a game / company that has been nothing but forward with us, let them make their game. Let them make the game like they did the first (without a flood of press hype), so we can play it with fresh expectations. Then we can decide if the game is what 'we thought' it should be. With the popularity of the modern MMO, we've already seen game after game what too many expectations can do to a player after they play the finished product. After all, they do have to make an actual product. It probably won't be perfect, but let them make the mistakes before you start accusing them of it.
No one knows that there won't be mounts until they specifically state it, which I haven't read yet. Could be wrong though.
@MMODoubter- You sound like you don't like this game, and it's not even released yet. If that's the case, no one here is telling you that you HAVE to play it, just saying.
I haven't decided yet. Some of what I have heard is good. Some of it is bad.
Not having mounts would be a negative.
Lol... seriously thats you negative reason.
Really what is a mount?
It's simply faster movement, which can be be achieved through other methods
So special about a mount then? Riding a "cool" looking animal. So essentially it's just another thing to flash your epeen with like nice looking armour.
I like to play RPGs in part, because it lets me do cool things I can't do in real life. Fighting dragons, casting spells, and riding exotic animals. You know - 'fun stuff'.
Fun is relative if that same dragon took 10 hours of doing the exact same attack with no variation would it still be considered fun to you? Mounts are nice but they are not necessary in anyway for a game to be consider fun. It's just a different skin for fast walking. Nothing more nothing less.
At first you say fun is relative and then you say that mounts "are not necessary in anyway for a game to be consider[ed] fun". Er.. you said yourself that fun is relative. Plus when did we talk about variation in gameplay? We are talking about mounts.
Don't get me wrong I like mounts it's not in the slightest bit important as it actually doesn't affect you gameplay in the slightest.
It lets you move faster than running. That affects gameplay.
Wouldn't not a permanent speed increase buff like a "running" mode do the same thing. Or merely making walking the same speed as a mount. It doesn't at all specifically affect gameplay at all. Seriously?
Gameplay-wise it would be the same. But for people like me it reduces immersion and atmosphere. I just like hearing the sound of hoofs and someone coming by on a horse.
it's a nice thing to have but their are far more important things to worry about in a game.
If you seriously consider no mounts as a major bad thing then you must trully care about vain item.s rather than actual gameplay.
I said it was a negative, not a deal-breaker. There is a difference
No it's more the fact you even consider it important rather than a nicity.
What is nicity? I am german and no online dictionary I checked knows that word. And why is it wrong to find horses important? And how do you know what he actually means? He tells you that he finds it negative but not a deal breaker and you say that "[he] even consider it important". First of all SURELY something is important to someone who finds it negative if said thing is not implemented. If you consider that your answer does not make sense. He says 'I find it important' indirectly and you say 'No, you find it important!'
Seriously I really do wonder if you think about what you post.
Try not to end every post with an insult, okay?
Originally posted by MMO_Doubter
Originally posted by Warband
The point remains the "I haven't backed down from anything that I have written." is essentially the same thing.
Not even close.
Actually I'm pretty sure thats how come off to most people and I wouldn't be surprised if thats how you actually are since your posts hint at that way.
Anyway again you don't have an actual arguement. Learn to back things up for goodness sake.
I can end my posts without using insults. How about you?
It's called teaching someone the basics of arguing. You make a point you back it up otherwise it's a usless opinion. I can't have a seriously arguement with someone if they can't even back up their points. Is it a crime to want to have a proper arguement with someone?
Besides it's pure all annoyance don't take it to heart. I'm sorry for insulting you I just really don't like it when people don't back up their points.
Could you please tell me how implying that someone is not capable of arguing by using impertinent language does teach him the basics of arguing?And I just do not get where you are backing up your arguments more than he does. He says that horses areimportant to him but not gamebreaking and you repeat that you find them dispensible.
Stop bullshitting. The new system were you get 5 skills by weapon was in GW1 aswell,you just had more choice of them but you really didnt use that many different weapon skills anyway.In GW2 if you want knockdown and play a warrior you just go with a hammer and you get those skills,the weapons is meant for different things just like in GW1..its almost no different.
That is where you're wrong. I could got curse necro with secondary warrior with "Corrupt Enchantment" elite and "grapple" skill for KD. Now I can remove those heal-over-time skill of those assasins and replace it with massive degen and KD them before they could react.
GW1 created ton of fun for the thinking player, and I'm afraid GW2 will remove all this, in order to attract the masses.
Note that GW is my favorite game by far and I will buy GW2 on release day no matter what. I'm just concerned, and that concern is growing as more and more is revealed.
Stop bullshitting. The new system were you get 5 skills by weapon was in GW1 aswell,you just had more choice of them but you really didnt use that many different weapon skills anyway.In GW2 if you want knockdown and play a warrior you just go with a hammer and you get those skills,the weapons is meant for different things just like in GW1..its almost no different.
That is where you're wrong. I could got curse necro with secondary warrior with "Corrupt Enchantment" elite and "grapple" skill for KD. Now I can remove those heal-over-time skill of those assasins and replace it with massive degen and KD them before they could react.
GW1 created ton of fun for the thinking player, and I'm afraid GW2 will remove all this, in order to attract the masses.
Note that GW is my favorite game by far and I will buy GW2 on release day no matter what. I'm just concerned, and that concern is growing as more and more is revealed.
You still have 5 another skill slots for fully free combinations (actualy 3, there is a limitation to have an elite and a heal slot anytime). I am not very against it, but sure 3 more free slots would also be nice:)
I think I actually spent way more time reading and theorycrafting about MMOs than playing them
Stop bullshitting. The new system were you get 5 skills by weapon was in GW1 aswell,you just had more choice of them but you really didnt use that many different weapon skills anyway.In GW2 if you want knockdown and play a warrior you just go with a hammer and you get those skills,the weapons is meant for different things just like in GW1..its almost no different.
That is where you're wrong. I could got curse necro with secondary warrior with "Corrupt Enchantment" elite and "grapple" skill for KD. Now I can remove those heal-over-time skill of those assasins and replace it with massive degen and KD them before they could react.
GW1 created ton of fun for the thinking player, and I'm afraid GW2 will remove all this, in order to attract the masses.
Note that GW is my favorite game by far and I will buy GW2 on release day no matter what. I'm just concerned, and that concern is growing as more and more is revealed.
You still have 5 another skill slots for fully free combinations (actualy 3, there is a limitation to have an elite and a heal slot anytime). I am not very against it, but sure 3 more free slots would also be nice:)
You missed some very important points... Every wepon has 5 skills to, and you change weapons mid combat. Also the only class we right know is the elementalist and that class has 4 stances. It would not surprise if switching stand midcombat would change the 5 skilss and even some of your weapons skills. This would let you change role and function mid combat.
So you could set up 5 skills for every stance.
Add 2 weapons with 5 skills each, and even thise skills change when you switch stance.
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
And I just do not get where you are backing up your arguments more than he does. He says that horses are important to him but not gamebreaking and you repeat that you find them dispensible.
The dispensible bit was purely my opinion.
The reason I ranted at him about backing up his arguements is that he rarely backs them up. By that I mean he never says how or why he believes what he's saying with some sort of proof or simply states that it's his opinion.
He states damaging things about companies without backing it up. He heavily hints A-net is trying to "trick people" by making a sequel instead of a separate game. Yet he doesn't back up his damaging statements with any proof hint of proof or openly states their opinions. It may be true it may not but you can't say those things as if they're facts without backing it up.
That is actually against the law and he does it countless times with multiple companies. In real life you can sued for half the crap he says.
I admit i was rude and insulting and should not have said those things.
He still however refuses to learn to back up his arguements or openly state that he has no proof and that his arguements may be wrong. He breeds misconception and needs to learn the difference between stating an opinion and stating those opinions as a fact.
He still however refuses to learn to back up his arguements or openly state that he has no proof and that his arguements may be wrong. He breeds misconception and needs to learn the difference between stating an opinion and stating those opinions as a fact.
I am not responsible for you misinterpreting my opinions and speculations as statments of fact. That is your own error.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
He states damaging things about companies without backing it up. He heavily hints A-net is trying to "trick people" by making a sequel instead of a separate game.
'Heavily hinting' something is not "stating as fact".
Yet he doesn't back up his damaging statements with any proof hint of proof or openly states their opinions.
This is a gaming forum. Unless stated as fact, you should assume everything is just an opinion.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
He states damaging things about companies without backing it up. He heavily hints A-net is trying to "trick people" by making a sequel instead of a separate game.
'Heavily hinting' something is not "stating as fact".
Yet he doesn't back up his damaging statements with any proof hint of proof or openly states their opinions.
This is a gaming forum. Unless stated as fact, you should assume everything is just an opinion.
Yes people should but many people don't. It's the exact same arguement as A-net "tricking" people into buying their games not everyone realises that that what your saying is an opinion or that sequels are "different" from the original. You of all people should be aware of that fact.
"Heavily implied" example is merely the most recent one I can find many others where you just plain out right stated it as if it was a fact. Oh yah heavily implied is just as damaging in legal terms.
Comments
Lol... seriously thats you negative reason.
Really what is a mount?
It's simply faster movement, which can be be achieved through other methods
So special about a mount then? Riding a "cool" looking animal. So essentially it's just another thing to flash your epeen with like nice looking armour.
Don't get me wrong I like mounts it's not in the slightest bit important as it actually doesn't affect you gameplay in the slightest. it's a nice thing to have but their are far more important things to worry about in a game.
If you seriously consider no mounts as a major bad thing then you must trully care about vain items rather than actual gameplay.
Seriously I really do wonder if you think about what you post.
Actually I'm pretty sure thats how come off to most people and I wouldn't be surprised if thats how you actually are since your posts hint at that way.
Anyway again you don't have an actual arguement. Learn to back things up for goodness sake.
Purposeful or not, your being obtuse.
Arenanet has one title. Smart companies build upon their successes. Guild Wars 2 is a continuation of the story and another game using the same IP as their first and only product. These are reasons why you don't give it a new name. You can disagree with this, but at least give a reason and don't ignroe the point.
Of course it's a new game, because it's a NEW GAME. If they wanted to make it more of the same, they would have released another expansion or campaign for Guild Wars. Comments like that give the appearance that you aren't arguing in good faith or your a bit dull. Essentially your argument boils down to: Guild Wars 1 and 2 will have differences which means Guild Wars 2 will be a new game. No kidding. By using your logic, any sequel should not use the same name if there are differences.
And if they had mounts, we would hear the same people bitching that the game was just like WoW.
sorry but I could not look past your fallacy that dual classes = more customization. Skill customization is relative, It has nothing to do with dual classes. they said they tried the dual class system, but it watered down the classes and didn't make them iconic or play differently. They want each class to play differently. More Variation between game play across classes is a good thing. This means they can add more abilities for each class to help round them out. how does cutting out dual classes = they have half the abilities available to them? They could add as many abilities they wanted. They said they wanted to balance the skill system better. Arena net is just trying to get rid of the clutter in the skill system. While you spout your huge customization how many real viable builds were there?
You should actually like the system because you can carry more skill than on your bar and switch them out on situational fights, how is that destroying depth? Hell I could even use your terribly inaccurate example, ranger that doesn't have any bow skills well shoot than you swap to your melee weapons and gasp get abilities for you melee weapons and than if you feel like it while in combat you could switch to your bow and gain all your bow skills.
Not to mention you have combo's between two or more classes while in combat ,creating even more variations with your abilities. positioning and timing are going to be far more important in this game.
Seriously apply some brain power to your argument instead of generalizing details.
I can end my posts without using insults. How about you?
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Some differences are one thing. Preferably, the game would add gameplay and improve the systems already in the original.
A re-design is a different matter. The new game is sufficiently different that a lot of GW fans might not like the changes. Giving it a different name warns them not to assume that it's just an update of the original.
New name = benefit to the players
Old name = beneift to the company.
I'm not sure why players wouldn't want the company to be up front about the changes.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
It's called teaching someone the basics of arguing. You make a point you back it up otherwise it's a usless opinion. I can't have a seriously arguement with someone if they can't even back up their points. Is it a crime to want to have a proper arguement with someone?
Besides it's pure all annoyance don't take it to heart. I'm sorry for insulting you I just really don't like it when people don't back up their points.
Why are we even having a discussion about whether Anet should use a different name for GW2? This is such a trivial topic I don't even know where to start dismissing it. Any informed consumer, especially of MMOs (with their hit-or-miss success rate), will do some research about a game before buying it. The mere fact that you're able to cite singificant differences between GW1 and GW2 shows that the developers are being up-front about their design changes.
Hey OP, you *do* realize that WoW was primarily developped by the people who now form Arena.Net? The lead programmer, the lead designer, and the VP of R&D for for the Warcraft RTS, Starcraft, and WoW (well hot damn, that's about the entirety of Blizzard's lineup- and all the key, meaningful positions)?
Blizzard owns the titles, but the talent that created the soul of those games... is at A.Net.
They haven't been influenced by WoW or by GW. The titles have been influenced by them.
Information, it's a crazy world.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
My intention wasn't to insult, but at least now I know you were ignoring points purposely.
I'm glad you finally laid out an explanation. I respectfully disagree with everything you said. I don't think you make a very persuasive argument but it's as valid as any other opionion.
Since Arenanet has been pretty open about revealing info, explaining, and following up on it by answering questions, I think most Guild Wars fans will know exactly what they will be getting with Guild Wars 2 prior to purchasing the game. Considering the amount of time between now and whenever they decide to release the game, there may be test weekends like the first game. People may get to try the game out before even buying. Where you are completely wrong is the claim that they are being dishonest and not upfront with their customers based solely on using the name Guild Wars. Other than using the name Guild Wars, explain how they are being dishonest.
I think only people who didn't like the original will be have some confusion with using the same name. Most of the time when you don't like something, you don't follow it or it's sequels. They are more likely to think that Guild Wars 2 will be more of the same and may pass on the original. For that fact alone, Arenanet will be very clear in their marketing of the game about the differences between the two games.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
On the contrary, MMO_Doubter, if ANet had used a different name for Guild Wars 2, it is I would would feel misled because I would think they had abandoned the story and lore they established for Guild Wars. I would then be surprised to find that they were continuing that story, and ask why they didn't just call it Guild Wars 2.
I don't see why fans of Guild Wars (which is known for its story as much as its innovation) would not assume that a sequel to the game is a contiuation of the story and not the game features.
good point.
And there is also another way to look at it. If guild wars 2 did not have a lot of innovation, and did some really new thing , i actual think that alot more people would be worried and complain.
If Guild Wars 2's biggest problem is due to it's name recognition startling some older players because of the changed gameplay, it will be golden.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
tricking would be if theyd primise us all these new features and than bang wed have gw1 with old featerus and new skin now that wuld be tricking
mmo_doubter i usually like your arguments and comments in general but tis is just you being wrong on so many levels its not even funny
This game is like what ? 1 1/2 or 2 years away from launch. Lots of things change in that amount of time.
Velika: City of Wheels: Among the mortal races, the humans were the only one that never built cities or great empires; a curse laid upon them by their creator, Gidd, forced them to wander as nomads for twenty centuries...
The majority of opinions forming in this thread seems to be entirely based on speculation. Accusing someone of lying or being dishonest because you have a strong hunch the game won't be how 'you want it' is completely absurd.
Anet has already given us enough info to inform us that the game will be significantly different from the first. How do we know this? Because they have stated that the changes they wanted to incorperate into the 2nd guild wars were big enough that they would require a redesign of the game. This is why they did not release another expansion, instead they decided to go along with a sequel.
I also hate to say it, but even the first game had some WoW influence in it. This isn't necessarily a bad thing either. After all, the founders are former blizzard employees. This game will probably also have some WoW influence in it, but I think it is too early and far too much of a leap to accuse it of being so much like WoW to the point of being dishonest.
Anet has, and still is being very forthright on their information regarding the game. People who are fans of the first will know what to expect, a brand new version of GW with significant changes. Why will they know this? Because they have been told this years ago, and a lot of the fans of the GW series are hungry for info on GW2. The people who are merely interested in GW2, but not really fans of the genre, won't be following the info closely until the game is closer to release. These people may feel misled, but this is a trend with every current MMO ever made. People develope too many expectations without really thinking about the reality of how a game needs to be made. This is no big shocker.
To sum things up. Anet hasn't released any info that I can find that is a blatant lie. They have never promised the sequel to be identical to the first, instead they have said the opposite. So instead of trying to start a witch hunt on a game / company that has been nothing but forward with us, let them make their game. Let them make the game like they did the first (without a flood of press hype), so we can play it with fresh expectations. Then we can decide if the game is what 'we thought' it should be. With the popularity of the modern MMO, we've already seen game after game what too many expectations can do to a player after they play the finished product. After all, they do have to make an actual product. It probably won't be perfect, but let them make the mistakes before you start accusing them of it.
That is where you're wrong. I could got curse necro with secondary warrior with "Corrupt Enchantment" elite and "grapple" skill for KD. Now I can remove those heal-over-time skill of those assasins and replace it with massive degen and KD them before they could react.
GW1 created ton of fun for the thinking player, and I'm afraid GW2 will remove all this, in order to attract the masses.
Note that GW is my favorite game by far and I will buy GW2 on release day no matter what. I'm just concerned, and that concern is growing as more and more is revealed.
You still have 5 another skill slots for fully free combinations (actualy 3, there is a limitation to have an elite and a heal slot anytime). I am not very against it, but sure 3 more free slots would also be nice:)
I think I actually spent way more time reading and theorycrafting about MMOs than playing them
You missed some very important points... Every wepon has 5 skills to, and you change weapons mid combat. Also the only class we right know is the elementalist and that class has 4 stances. It would not surprise if switching stand midcombat would change the 5 skilss and even some of your weapons skills. This would let you change role and function mid combat.
So you could set up 5 skills for every stance.
Add 2 weapons with 5 skills each, and even thise skills change when you switch stance.
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
The dispensible bit was purely my opinion.
The reason I ranted at him about backing up his arguements is that he rarely backs them up. By that I mean he never says how or why he believes what he's saying with some sort of proof or simply states that it's his opinion.
He states damaging things about companies without backing it up. He heavily hints A-net is trying to "trick people" by making a sequel instead of a separate game. Yet he doesn't back up his damaging statements with any proof hint of proof or openly states their opinions. It may be true it may not but you can't say those things as if they're facts without backing it up.
That is actually against the law and he does it countless times with multiple companies. In real life you can sued for half the crap he says.
I admit i was rude and insulting and should not have said those things.
He still however refuses to learn to back up his arguements or openly state that he has no proof and that his arguements may be wrong. He breeds misconception and needs to learn the difference between stating an opinion and stating those opinions as a fact.
I am not responsible for you misinterpreting my opinions and speculations as statments of fact. That is your own error.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Yes people should but many people don't. It's the exact same arguement as A-net "tricking" people into buying their games not everyone realises that that what your saying is an opinion or that sequels are "different" from the original. You of all people should be aware of that fact.
"Heavily implied" example is merely the most recent one I can find many others where you just plain out right stated it as if it was a fact. Oh yah heavily implied is just as damaging in legal terms.