Guild Wars 2

Evilsod said:
So what you're saying is, your idea of 'non consensual PvP' is a form of PvP basically limited to a certain number of zones that have nothing to do with PvE, so the only reason to go there is because you want to do PvP?

Call me crazy but that sounds like consensual PvP to me.
Click to expand...

If you want to call that consensual PvP so be it, if GW2 has 'non-consensual' according to your definition, I WANT NO PART OF IT... I want to PvE, I don't need some jerk coming up and repeatedly trying to grief me, just so he can feel better about himself.

That why I liked GW1 so much because to do PvP you had to goto specific areas where PvP took place. And PvE'rs NEVER NEEDED to go there, everyone was happy. Hopefully GW2 will be the same way.
 
stoofa said:
snip.
Click to expand...

Let me break it down for you.

More players = more money.

Most players do not want death to have a big impact on them, or they will stop playing or not play in the first place = less money.

That aside, I don't understand why some of you find it so hard to grasp that many people prefer co-op PVE to PVP.

Single players, story-driven games are my favourite kinds, so being able to play them, but with my friends at the same time is a win-win for me.
 
krooton said:
Let me break it down for you.

More players = more money.

Most players do not want death to have a big impact on them, or they will stop playing or not play in the first place = less money.

That aside, I don't understand why some of you find it so hard to grasp that many people prefer co-op PVE to PVP.
Click to expand...

You are definitely correct there that more players = more money and thats what most game devs want, more money.

Dont know if its that people find it hard to grasp that many people prefer PvE over PvP, I for one certainly dont find it hard to grasp, its plainly obvious to me that many people prefer PvE over PvP, just got to look at server populations for the last 15 years to see that. Like water, people generally like the path of least resistance.

I think that its probably more that many people who were at the birth of MMOs and experienced UO have hankered for something on a par with it and so far, a decade and a half later , still havent got it. I think it makes them a bit antsy and want more devs to try variety in the genre (more variety has got to be better than less after all) than essentially similar formats. I actually think for example, that an updated Daoc, (Daoc 2 if you so wish) would be an enormous success.

GW2 looks interesting to me, sounds promising and looks nice, I never liked the heavy instancing in GW1 but GW2 seems to have addressed that. I like PvE (as attested to by my like of LoTRO, though thats also largely down to the mature community), I also like PvP. I hear GW2 is having both to some degree, so that may suit me fine.

krooton said:
Single players, story-driven games are my favourite kinds, so being able to play them, but with my friends at the same time is a win-win for me.
Click to expand...

I like them too, its why I REALLY wish that more titles would include a co-op option, stuff like Mass Effect and Dragon Age etc could be brilliant with co-op.
 
Last edited:
krooton said:
Let me break it down for you.

More players = more money.

Most players do not want death to have a big impact on them, or they will stop playing or not play in the first place = less money.

That aside, I don't understand why some of you find it so hard to grasp that many people prefer co-op PVE to PVP.

Single players, story-driven games are my favourite kinds, so being able to play them, but with my friends at the same time is a win-win for me.
Click to expand...

Let me break it down :)
UO's subscription based first halved over a 2 year period and is now at approx. 5% of it's original and all of that was due to the addition of a land called "Trammel".
An area of the game that allowed NO PvP.

Adding a non-PvP area to UO totally killed the game.

No modern game has risked anything like UO so people don't know what they are missing.
They are spoon fed "lardy lar" lands like WOW.
Give the players a game that actually challenges them and they will come.
UO's subscription base during it's hayday shows this.
 
This is why UO will forever have been the best MMO game to date.

Those who haven't/didn't play it will never know why, and there's no point in trying to explain it. 2 things ruined UO - Trammel, although it still wasn't that bad and Age of Shadows which made the game item based.


In my opinion online games including MMOs should be about the PvP. Not some carebear PvE that single player is for.
 
stoofa said:
Let me break it down :)
UO's subscription based first halved over a 2 year period and is now at approx. 5% of it's original and all of that was due to the addition of a land called "Trammel".
An area of the game that allowed NO PvP.

Adding a non-PvP area to UO totally killed the game.

No modern game has risked anything like UO so people don't know what they are missing.
They are spoon fed "lardy lar" lands like WOW.
Give the players a game that actually challenges them and they will come.
UO's subscription base during it's hayday shows this.
Click to expand...

Using UO as a yarding post is fine and dandy but it was a genre defining game and hadn't been done successfully before hand, to implement something like that using todays technology would take far too much investment and money for a serious stab at it.

Some are getting there but Darkfall took 10 years or something and was released lacking, imo.

Mortal Online too, I think devs have even found it too difficult to make UO depth game.
 
mrbios said:
PvE is what the casual gamer wants, and in todays market the casual gamer is where the monies at. Doesn't matter what it used to be like, times change.
Click to expand...

How are we defining casual gamer? I mean I am a casual gamer but I like pvp. (defining casual gamer as someone who doesn't invest many hours in a game and doesn't take them very seriously). I keep seeing the phrase casual gamer touted but I am never sure exactly what someone means by casual gamer or what gamer a person is who doesn't fit whatever the definition of casual gamer is.
 
Tombstone said:
How are we defining casual gamer? I mean I am a casual gamer but I like pvp. (defining casual gamer as someone who doesn't invest many hours in a game and doesn't take them very seriously). I keep seeing the phrase casual gamer touted but I am never sure exactly what someone means by casual gamer or what gamer a person is who doesn't fit whatever the definition of casual gamer is.
Click to expand...

good question, not sure how i would define casual gamer personally...i've never been one :p

This is the wikipedia way of putting it:
"Casual gamer" is a loosely defined term used to describe a type of video game player whose time or interest in playing games is limited compared with a hardcore gamer. Casual gamers can conceivably consist of any people who show more than a passing interest in video games, therefore it is difficult to categorize them as a group. For this reason, games which attempt to appeal to the casual player tend to strive for simple rules and ease of game play, the goal being to present a pick-up-and-play experience that people from almost any age group or skill level could enjoy.[6][13][14][15][16] Casual gaming demographics also vary greatly from those of traditional computer games, as the typical casual gamer is older and more predominantly female,[17][18] with over 74% of those purchasing casual games being women.[19]
Click to expand...

Which i guess is kind of how i'd look at it? I see MMOs in general as not very casual games with the exception of GW1 as people seem to dedicate so many hours to them in order to make the most of their monthly sub.
Swifty55 said:
Well some people just simply don't understand the meaning of 'opinions'. ;)
Click to expand...

irony
 
Yep I figured that casual gamer was related to time spent, in that case I am definitely a casual gamer who enjoys pvp :)

I think with mmos its not always the sub that's the reason people spend so much time playing them, I think its also down to the fruit machine bait and reward type of play that psychologically hooks people into playing them. Even free mmos seem to cause people to pile hour upon hour into them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom