Guild Wars, MMORPG or just a RPG with online abilities?

[LocutusX]

I am a big fan of the BioWare RPGs including both NWN and the BG series. I also liked troika's ToEE and Black Isle's IWD series, as well as the german RPG "Gothic".

I guess Guild Wars isn't really made for my sort of tastes? Got kinda bored of Diablo 1... never tried Diablo 2. Don't play any MMORPGs.

Trying to decide if I should get GW or not... the reviews aren't out yet, but there are some good time-limited deals I would want to take advantage of, if it's my kind of game.

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: torpid
It's too bad that NWN was a horribly flawed and often unenjoyable game. I'll take simple mechanics executed in a consistent and fun manner over complex mechanics muddled with problems, tedium, etc. It only took me about 5 minutes of playing NWN to discover major pathing exploits.

The problem being that simple mechanics executed in a consistent manner are not fun - they are the very definition of tedium. The only inherent difference is how long a given person takes to get bored with them.

Again, whether or not NWN was good is a matter of personal opinion like everything else, but it's safe to say that the gaming community has come to a sort of consensus on the issue, and folks who don't care for it are in the minority. Either that, or eschew RPGs altogether.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Insomniak

Originally posted by: torpid
It's too bad that NWN was a horribly flawed and often unenjoyable game. I'll take simple mechanics executed in a consistent and fun manner over complex mechanics muddled with problems, tedium, etc. It only took me about 5 minutes of playing NWN to discover major pathing exploits.

The problem being that simple mechanics executed in a consistent manner are not fun - they are the very definition of tedium. The only inherent difference is how long a given person takes to get bored with them.

Again, whether or not NWN was good is a matter of personal opinion like everything else, but it's safe to say that the gaming community has come to a sort of consensus on the issue, and folks who don't care for it are in the minority. Either that, or eschew RPGs altogether.

Funny you should mention reviews... pc gamer gave d2 a 1% lower review and rotten tomatoes has significantly higher. Not sure what you were trying to prove there, but whatever it was, you failed miserably.

If simplistic gameplay motions repeated over and over again weren't fun, no platform games would ever have existed. Take viewtiful joe as an example of the fact.

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Insomniak

Originally posted by: torpid
It's too bad that NWN was a horribly flawed and often unenjoyable game. I'll take simple mechanics executed in a consistent and fun manner over complex mechanics muddled with problems, tedium, etc. It only took me about 5 minutes of playing NWN to discover major pathing exploits.

The problem being that simple mechanics executed in a consistent manner are not fun - they are the very definition of tedium. The only inherent difference is how long a given person takes to get bored with them.

Again, whether or not NWN was good is a matter of personal opinion like everything else, but it's safe to say that the gaming community has come to a sort of consensus on the issue, and folks who don't care for it are in the minority. Either that, or eschew RPGs altogether.

Funny you should mention reviews... pc gamer gave d2 a 1% lower review and rotten tomatoes has significantly higher. Not sure what you were trying to prove there, but whatever it was, you failed miserably.

If simplistic gameplay motions repeated over and over again weren't fun, no platform games would ever have existed. Take viewtiful joe as an example of the fact.

I'm just pointing out that what is liked vs. disliked is a matter mostly of opinion, but that a general view of good vs bad forms on pretty much every game. The general view would be that NWN is good - the general view would also be that Diablo 2, and pretty much every other Blizzard game is good. One of these I agree with, the other I don't.


This I found hilarious:

Originally posted by: torpid
Not sure what you were trying to prove there, but whatever it was, you failed miserably.

If you don't know what I'm trying to prove, how could you possibly know if I've failed at it or not?

Jesus people, I thought we had all agreed on a single language and we knew how to use it. Let's try just a wee bit of reading comprehension here.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Insomniak

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Insomniak

Originally posted by: torpid
It's too bad that NWN was a horribly flawed and often unenjoyable game. I'll take simple mechanics executed in a consistent and fun manner over complex mechanics muddled with problems, tedium, etc. It only took me about 5 minutes of playing NWN to discover major pathing exploits.

The problem being that simple mechanics executed in a consistent manner are not fun - they are the very definition of tedium. The only inherent difference is how long a given person takes to get bored with them.

Again, whether or not NWN was good is a matter of personal opinion like everything else, but it's safe to say that the gaming community has come to a sort of consensus on the issue, and folks who don't care for it are in the minority. Either that, or eschew RPGs altogether.

Funny you should mention reviews... pc gamer gave d2 a 1% lower review and rotten tomatoes has significantly higher. Not sure what you were trying to prove there, but whatever it was, you failed miserably.

If simplistic gameplay motions repeated over and over again weren't fun, no platform games would ever have existed. Take viewtiful joe as an example of the fact.

I'm just pointing out that what is liked vs. disliked is a matter mostly of opinion, but that a general view forms on pretty much everything. The general view would be that NWN is good - the general view would also be that Diablo 2, and pretty much every other Blizzard game is good. One of these I agree with, the other I don't.


This I found hilarious:

Originally posted by: torpid
Not sure what you were trying to prove there, but whatever it was, you failed miserably.

If you don't know what I'm trying to prove, how could you possibly know if I've failed at it or not?

Jesus people, I thought we had all agreed on a single language and we knew how to use it. Let's try just a wee bit of reading comprehension here.

So we are in agreement that both opinions are valid, including mine which is that NWN was not fun due to major flaws and imbalances.

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: torpid
So we are in agreement that both opinions are valid, including mine which is that NWN was not fun due to major flaws and imbalances.

I will agree that I think you are horribly, terribly wrong

 

[Malak]

Well personally, I had more fun with Diablo 1 and 2 than NWN, I have the gold edition of NWN myself. There were some interesting things, but overall I've never enjoyed any D&D game yet.

 

[Litchfield285]

does anyone actually have any guild wars impressions? or are you all just posting here to argue about blizzard games...

 

[Triforceofcourage]

I know gamespot has some impressions from actual users not "expert" reviewers

 

[EpsiIon]

It's a hybrid. Trying to classify it as one or the other is fruitless.

 

[Nocturnal]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
Just what we need, another Diablo clone.

Give it a rest already people. Diablo 1 was good for the RPG market because it distilled the genre down to the bare essentials. Diablo 2 was bad for the RPG genre because it pretty much sucked. No dialogue, no story, lousy visuals(D1 looked better), took 3 patches for online play to be feasible, God, I hate that game! You can't even call D2 an RPG. It bears more in common with Quake than an RPG.

I want more BG2s, more PS:Ts, more Fallouts! If you must make an action RPG, then make it like the IWD series. Both games actually had dialogue and story telling. And with a 6 person party, the battles were awesome, unlike the click fests of D1 and 2.

/rant

The makers of Diablo are the same makers of Guild Wars.

 

[Insomniak]

I really don't see how it is not an MMORPG.

Thousands of players per server? Yes. MM.
Online? Yes. O.
Character creation and growth? Yes. RPG.

MMORPG?

 

[manko]

I've been debating whether to pick it up (actually, I went to Best Buy and checked out the boxes today). I played a couple of the previews and it really didn't have a true MMORPG feel to me (less developed crafting/trade/economy).

Another thing that bothers me, considering the actual functionality of the game, is that there is no offline mode. I've heard you can hire henchmen and go off and do solo instances. I'd love to be able to play part of the game offline when I don't have net access or just when I'm in a solo mood. I probably would've bought it today if had an offline mode.

I'm still on the fence and sort of waiting to hear the verdict on Battlegrounds.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Insomniak
I really don't see how it is not an MMORPG.

Thousands of players per server? Yes. MM.
Online? Yes. O.
Character creation and growth? Yes. RPG.

MMORPG?

The world isn't persistent. EVERYTHING is instanced... as soon as you leave the zone, it's gone. If you re-enter it, it's a completely reset zone.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Litchfield285
does anyone actually have any guild wars impressions? or are you all just posting here to argue about blizzard games...

I do. I've only had about 3 hours in today, but it seems to be fun for now. I'm still doing the RPG part, and leveling is fast... and equipment and money comes very easy. Infact, you run into treasure chests on the ground all the time... with nothing guarding it! Just open the chest, and free loot!

The 'world' can seem alive... you'll see a huge battle in the distance, with fireworks being thrown and dozens of creatures clashing... at times i thought they were actual players combating another... but as you get closer, you realize it's just NPC. As somebody who plays MMORPG about 90% of the time, i keep falling for this. If this was only a true MMORPG, it would have rocked... the graphics are fantastic, much better than WoW imo.

Quests... well, quests are like any other game quests... a lot talking to this person, getting this item, guarding this NPC while they deliver that msg, etc. My journal log is so full of quest that at times it's just random luck that i finish them because i run into the right NPC.

I'm just playing this for the story atm... not too sure how i'll like PvP, i'm usually not a big fan of them, but it does sound very interesting, so who knows. But for character development, it's very anticlimatic. Getting new skills and equipment just isn't as rewarding as a true MMORPG... because everything is so damn easy and common here.

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Insomniak
I really don't see how it is not an MMORPG.

Thousands of players per server? Yes. MM.
Online? Yes. O.
Character creation and growth? Yes. RPG.

MMORPG?

The world isn't persistent. EVERYTHING is instanced... as soon as you leave the zone, it's gone. If you re-enter it, it's a completely reset zone.

So it's not persistent. I don't see what persistence has to do with MMORPGs.

I understand most of them are, but it's not a requirement. Let's look at the name one more time:

Massively Multiplayer: Massive amounts of players (thousands) in the same server.
Online: On the intertron.
Role Playing Game: Players create characters and play vicariously through them.


As far as I'm concerned, those are the only three elements you need to be an MMORPG, because those are precisely the three things described in the phrase Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. Is Guild Wars missing any of them?

Other factors are immaterial.

 

[dighn]

.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: Insomniak
Thousands of players per server? Yes. MM.

No. Unless you want to start saying battle.net is massively multiplayer. You only play up to 8 people in Guildwars, except in the case of pvp. The parts where everyone is together is only different from battle.net in that it's graphical, not a chat room. It's just a lobby.

That's why it isn't an MMO. That's why the devs don't call it an MMO. The entire experience in gameplay is nothing like an MMO. There is no persistent world, there is no massively multiplayer gameplay.

 

[Looney]

As far as I'm concerned, those are the only three elements you need to be an MMORPG, because those are precisely the three things described in the phrase Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. Is Guild Wars missing any of them?

Other factors are immaterial.

Well there's another fvcked up definition of yours. Just because your definition doesn't include persistent, ALL others do. A persistent world means when you leave the world, it continues to go on. If persistent isn't a requirement, then Diablo is an MMORPG, hell, even UT2k4 is an MMOG then.

 

[racolvin]

I bought GW yesterday at CompUSA and installed it last nite. Got my ranger/monk up to lvl 6 before I logged off for bed, so here's the impression of someone who played it

Frankly, it felt so much like Dungeon Siege it wasn't funny. But that's a good thing, since I liked Dungeon Siege The fact that when you leave the town/city area where all the players can congregate ( the multi-player/massive part of the game) you immediately go to an instanced zone all to your self was actually kinda cool. It certainly does cut down on the player-to-player interaction that is the hallmark of EQ2 (which I also play), WoW, and other MMORPGs, but I don't mind that so much. Frankly, I hate some aspects of sharing the zone with others when it comes to kill-stealing, camping spawns, harvest botters, etc. - which exactly what GW gets rid of. It does sort of kill the idea of a "pickup group" but whether that is a high price to pay or not is up to you.

The lack of any kind of organized system for player-to-player trading or economics is a bit of a bother - its like the old EQ1 days where you stand in the middle of the square and shout what you have for sale, which sucks. There is no player-based crafting or tradeskill capability either, which will turn some people off. As you adventure you can find items that are used for crafting new items, modifying items, etc but the actual crafting of said item is done by an NPC - you pay them a commission to make somethig for you and provide the raw materials, out pops the item you wanted. This is great for me, since I never liked the tradeskilling aspect of EQ but I know there are some folks out there that really like that kind of thing.

The user interface so far is nice and clean. Of course I haven't memorized all the keyboard equivalents yet but if you get the collectors edition there is a handy reference card

The graphics vary widely depending on how current and powerful your system is - the more tricked out your rig, the better things will look. I have the good fortune to have a pretty good setup (see sig), and with all the graphics turned up to max, it looks gorgeous. Personally I like the graphics in GW better than I do in EQ2 and I thought the graphics in EQ2 rocked. Obviously the more you crank the graphics options up, the more you will sacrifice in framerate, but so far it hasn't been a problem for me.

There's plenty I don't know about the game yet, particularly when it comes to the skills/spells you get as part of your class. It appears there is only one "hotbar" for putting these things and you can only change the hotbar if you're in a city/town - if you're out in the world and want to use a different skill that isn't on your hotbar all of a sudden, you're screwed.

So far, I like it alot. It suits my personal playing style more than EQ2 does but it remains to be seen. I'll play it most of this weekend to get a better impression before I decide. I really do like the fact that I don't pay a subscription fee for this one tho. I have two EQ2 accounts and if it turns out I like GW better, Sony will be losing my money

R

P.S. - Just so you know, I've never played Diablo, Starcraft, or Warcraft, so I can't compare those

 

[Litchfield285]

I picked it up yesterday on a whim and only played for like an hour. So far everything seems ok, but it just has an empty feeling to me. It definetly feels like dungeon siege or an updated version of diablo II - the fun...

I don't know, hopefully it'll grow on me... the good part about it is since its easy to get to the cap and there are no monthly fees I can play it super casually while I still spend most of my free time with WoW... I'm still indifferent about it though, I'm going to give it about 10-15 hours of total playtime, and if I dont like it at that point I'm going to give it to a buddy of mine...

 

[Looney]

I'm having fun... i play at work, so at times it's a little ackward... like the time i was thrown right into a PvP group. I was on a call with somebody at the time, and had to juggle the call and killing others at the same time.

Since there's no monthly fee, i'm hoping to play this when i get bored of EQ2... or when i have a craving to go do some PvPing.

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: malak

Originally posted by: Insomniak
Thousands of players per server? Yes. MM.

No. Unless you want to start saying battle.net is massively multiplayer. You only play up to 8 people in Guildwars, except in the case of pvp. The parts where everyone is together is only different from battle.net in that it's graphical, not a chat room. It's just a lobby.

That's why it isn't an MMO. That's why the devs don't call it an MMO. The entire experience in gameplay is nothing like an MMO. There is no persistent world, there is no massively multiplayer gameplay.

Fair Enough. I stand corrected.

Originally posted by: Looney
Well there's another fvcked up definition of yours. Just because your definition doesn't include persistent, ALL others do. A persistent world means when you leave the world, it continues to go on. If persistent isn't a requirement, then Diablo is an MMORPG, hell, even UT2k4 is an MMOG then.

Incorrect. Diablo and UT2k4 do not have thousands of players in the same game. As Malak has pointed out, neither does Guild Wars.

Thus, it is not an MMORPG. However, the reasons have nothing to do with persistence.

 

[Looney]

Incorrect. Diablo and UT2k4 do not have thousands of players in the same game. As Malak has pointed out, neither does Guild Wars.

Thus, it is not an MMORPG. However, the reasons have nothing to do with persistence.

You're a moron. Why is there not thousands of people playing simultaneously? Because there is no persistent world.

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: Looney

Incorrect. Diablo and UT2k4 do not have thousands of players in the same game. As Malak has pointed out, neither does Guild Wars.

Thus, it is not an MMORPG. However, the reasons have nothing to do with persistence.

You're a moron. Why is there not thousands of people playing simultaneously? Because there is no persistent world.

True in this instance, but if a game had a mechanic where thousands could play simultaneously in a non-persistant world, it would still qualify as massively multiplayer.