Obtena.7952

It's hard to agree with that ... did anyone here think the latest LS epsiode didn't create the powerful moments that he is referring to? I think it did. I think it's easy to lose sight of what really is delivered with an expansion; I could care less about how many ways I can kill Champions to earn HP's or grinding meta's ... fundamentally, the expansions are more about good storys and gameplay than mechanics. In my opinion it depends on the player. For example I think the whole LS didn't create a powerful but stereotyped/zeitgeisty moment. I am more into the mmo part of this game which means at some point the grinding you are speaking of. But i get it if people like the LS; just a different type of taste.This a cart before the horse thing ... Anet creates a game that attracts part of the market. Obviously, that market responds by patronizing Anet and playing GW2. Anet believes that they have done this by creating good story and 'powerful moments', so they will continue to do so they don't lose their market share. Frankly, I think LS is a BETTER vehicle for them to do that than expansions approach to the game, because of the nature of the people that play the game, demonstrated by the continued success of the game. Sure, expansions make money, but the question is if expansions is the best way Anet can deliver content to it's players. I don't think it is. Throttling players with LS maps seems to me, the best way for them to proceed. Expansions are a flawed approach and a relic of the days when you had to go buy it from a store ... like you know, using your legs to walk somewhere and handing someone some cash for a box with a computer disk/CD in it. That's almost unheard of anymore. The tech is in place to deliver small parts more frequently. I think the benefits of that approach outweight the negative parts of losing the expansion model.

It's hard to agree with that ... did anyone here think the latest LS epsiode didn't create the powerful moments that he is referring to? I think it did. I think it's easy to lose sight of what really is delivered with an expansion; I could care less about how many ways I can kill Champions to earn HP's or grinding meta's ... fundamentally, the expansions are more about good storys and gameplay than mechanics.

I agree ... we already get rewards for things we do. If we get another level of rewards system, it doesn't make sense to base it on something that we already got rewarded from doing.

I have no idea why this is a valid complaint. You can BUY the item you need to get access to the jewels, and you get at least 10 rares doing the collecting as well. The jewels aren't even the problem, it's the volume of branded masses needed; it's way more busy work to collect the amount you need to make anything than it is the jewels. People will continue to do the meta events knowing they can sell the plates.

Why are you always defending the kitten out of gw2? Your always here doing the same thing everytime, its very very odd. Every mmo has clear flaws let people express their opinions, they are being far more objective then you, your opinions no longer holds value when your always blindly defending the flaws and I am talking about from class to general posts here. That post you quoted isn't a defense of Anet at all so ... ?

... and there isn't any reason to think they didn't do that, considering that GW2 is successful. I mean, it IS similar to GW1 in lots of ways, just not the ways that everyone wants it to be. It's simply unfair to claim Anet changed their direction at the expense of it's GW1 players because some GW1 players don't think GW2 is similar enough to GW1. That's ridiculous. Yeah in what way? Is it the locked weapon skill bars or the complete lack of enemy ai that makes them similar?In lots of ways that you don't want to admit. /shrug That statement is just being disingenuous.

that much is apparent. And as I said, completely irrelevant as well. The fact was that GW1 was lacking, even if parts of it were amazing. It was at the end of its life as a business line, so development stopped. That's pretty normal for games like this actually. I've yet to play a game that didn't suffer from being old in the tooth. It's expensive to maintain a game to keep up with using new available technology, features, hardware ... etc... It's better business just to make a new game and makes more sense as well, otherwise companies wouldn't do it. Pretty sure I did not say GW2 shouldn't have been made. So presumably you are anticipating the next campaign in approximately a year. ... Stop you right there ... I don't anticipate ANY online game will be around in a year and if I didn't like a game if was playing, I wouldn't play it for 5 more years waiting for it to become something I think it should be. If I did, I wouldn't complain about it because it's my own fault or I was lying to myself enjoying the game for what it was, not for what I thought it should be. That's why I think this whole thread isn't really honest ... if you didn't like GW2 you wouldn't play it, PERIOD. ?They told us GW2 would be everything that they had learned from their development time on GW1 and more. And I am not waiting for GW2 to become something different. I play both GW1 and GW2 actively. Sure ... that doesn't mean GW2 was going to be anything like GW1 though ... ? lolwhat? IKNOWRIGHT!!! It's blows your mind that Anet learned what NOT to do or what they DIDN'T do in GW1 that they needed to do in GW2. #mindblown Yeah they "learned" to take their success in GW1 and throw it out the window alienating their supporters. You do realize there are companies getting financially rekt right now because of that mentality? Yeah, Anet is getting financially rekt for the last 6+ years because of their decision to make GW2 and abandon their GW1 customers ... Seems to me who ever is running that business should be getting a bonus ... Today's gaming climate has changed. Pretty obvious when you look at whats been happening in the gaming industry for the last 1-2 years.Right ... so how does that even relate to 6-8 years ago when Anet even thought about starting GW2? The fact that they have continued developing this game and making a business of it even IN the turbulent climate of the last 1-2 years suggests ... good business.

... and there isn't any reason to think they didn't do that, considering that GW2 is successful. I mean, it IS similar to GW1 in lots of ways, just not the ways that everyone wants it to be. It's simply unfair to claim Anet changed their direction at the expense of it's GW1 players because some GW1 players don't think GW2 is similar enough to GW1. That's ridiculous.

that much is apparent. And as I said, completely irrelevant as well. The fact was that GW1 was lacking, even if parts of it were amazing. It was at the end of its life as a business line, so development stopped. That's pretty normal for games like this actually. I've yet to play a game that didn't suffer from being old in the tooth. It's expensive to maintain a game to keep up with using new available technology, features, hardware ... etc... It's better business just to make a new game and makes more sense as well, otherwise companies wouldn't do it. Pretty sure I did not say GW2 shouldn't have been made. So presumably you are anticipating the next campaign in approximately a year. ... Stop you right there ... I don't anticipate ANY online game will be around in a year and if I didn't like a game if was playing, I wouldn't play it for 5 more years waiting for it to become something I think it should be. If I did, I wouldn't complain about it because it's my own fault or I was lying to myself enjoying the game for what it was, not for what I thought it should be. That's why I think this whole thread isn't really honest ... if you didn't like GW2 you wouldn't play it, PERIOD. ?They told us GW2 would be everything that they had learned from their development time on GW1 and more. And I am not waiting for GW2 to become something different. I play both GW1 and GW2 actively. Sure ... that doesn't mean GW2 was going to be anything like GW1 though ... In fact, that sort of goes into my theory that GW1 was a mistake. What Anet learned was that people value interacting with each other significantly, so they added it to GW2. You do realize there was hubs in GW1 right? Where you form a party with people you choose and then go have fun together without interference? Yes, that doesn't change what I said though ... that's still nothing like the real MMO experience that clearly Anet knew was missing that they added to GW2. Seems to me it's the interference that was missing that people want ... or at least that's what the success of GW2 would suggest. Just suggested GW1 wasn't successful, yet plays GW2 today because of GW1's success. Brilliance.What I said in no way suggests GW1 wasn't successful, I'm simply saying Anet did learn from GW1 by seeing the mistakes they made in it to develop GW2 and that's why we have a significantly more expanded MMO experience in GW2 ... but whatever, you have an axe to grind, so just keep'em coming.

that much is apparent. And as I said, completely irrelevant as well. The fact was that GW1 was lacking, even if parts of it were amazing. It was at the end of its life as a business line, so development stopped. That's pretty normal for games like this actually. I've yet to play a game that didn't suffer from being old in the tooth. It's expensive to maintain a game to keep up with using new available technology, features, hardware ... etc... It's better business just to make a new game and makes more sense as well, otherwise companies wouldn't do it. Pretty sure I did not say GW2 shouldn't have been made. So presumably you are anticipating the next campaign in approximately a year. ... Stop you right there ... I don't anticipate ANY online game will be around in a year and if I didn't like a game if was playing, I wouldn't play it for 5 more years waiting for it to become something I think it should be. If I did, I wouldn't complain about it because it's my own fault or I was lying to myself enjoying the game for what it was, not for what I thought it should be. That's why I think this whole thread isn't really honest ... if you didn't like GW2 you wouldn't play it, PERIOD. ?They told us GW2 would be everything that they had learned from their development time on GW1 and more. And I am not waiting for GW2 to become something different. I play both GW1 and GW2 actively. Sure ... that doesn't mean GW2 was going to be anything like GW1 though ... ? lolwhat? IKNOWRIGHT!!! It's blows your mind that Anet learned what NOT to do or what they DIDN'T do in GW1 that they needed to do in GW2. #mindblown Yeah they "learned" to take their success in GW1 and throw it out the window alienating their supporters. You do realize there are companies getting financially rekt right now because of that mentality?Yeah, Anet is getting financially rekt for the last 6+ years because of their decision to make GW2 and abandon their GW1 customers ... Seems to me who ever is running that business should be getting a bonus ...

that much is apparent. And as I said, completely irrelevant as well. The fact was that GW1 was lacking, even if parts of it were amazing. It was at the end of its life as a business line, so development stopped. That's pretty normal for games like this actually. I've yet to play a game that didn't suffer from being old in the tooth. It's expensive to maintain a game to keep up with using new available technology, features, hardware ... etc... It's better business just to make a new game and makes more sense as well, otherwise companies wouldn't do it. Pretty sure I did not say GW2 shouldn't have been made. So presumably you are anticipating the next campaign in approximately a year. ... Stop you right there ... I don't anticipate ANY online game will be around in a year and if I didn't like a game if was playing, I wouldn't play it for 5 more years waiting for it to become something I think it should be. If I did, I wouldn't complain about it because it's my own fault or I was lying to myself enjoying the game for what it was, not for what I thought it should be. That's why I think this whole thread isn't really honest ... if you didn't like GW2 you wouldn't play it, PERIOD. ?They told us GW2 would be everything that they had learned from their development time on GW1 and more. And I am not waiting for GW2 to become something different. I play both GW1 and GW2 actively. Sure ... that doesn't mean GW2 was going to be anything like GW1 though ... In fact, that sort of goes into my theory that GW1 was a mistake. What Anet learned was that people value interacting with each other significantly, so they added it to GW2. You do realize there was hubs in GW1 right? Where you form a party with people you choose and then go have fun together without interference?Yes, that doesn't change what I said though ... that's still nothing like the real MMO experience that clearly Anet knew was missing that they added to GW2. Seems to me it's the interference that was missing that people want ... or at least that's what the success of GW2 would suggest.

that much is apparent. And as I said, completely irrelevant as well. The fact was that GW1 was lacking, even if parts of it were amazing. It was at the end of its life as a business line, so development stopped. That's pretty normal for games like this actually. I've yet to play a game that didn't suffer from being old in the tooth. It's expensive to maintain a game to keep up with using new available technology, features, hardware ... etc... It's better business just to make a new game and makes more sense as well, otherwise companies wouldn't do it. Pretty sure I did not say GW2 shouldn't have been made. So presumably you are anticipating the next campaign in approximately a year. ... Stop you right there ... I don't anticipate ANY online game will be around in a year and if I didn't like a game if was playing, I wouldn't play it for 5 more years waiting for it to become something I think it should be. If I did, I wouldn't complain about it because it's my own fault or I was lying to myself enjoying the game for what it was, not for what I thought it should be. That's why I think this whole thread isn't really honest ... if you didn't like GW2 you wouldn't play it, PERIOD. ?They told us GW2 would be everything that they had learned from their development time on GW1 and more. And I am not waiting for GW2 to become something different. I play both GW1 and GW2 actively. Sure ... that doesn't mean GW2 was going to be anything like GW1 though ... ? lolwhat?IKNOWRIGHT!!! It's blows your mind that Anet learned what NOT to do or what they DIDN'T do in GW1 that they needed to do in GW2. #mindblown

that much is apparent. And as I said, completely irrelevant as well. The fact was that GW1 was lacking, even if parts of it were amazing. It was at the end of its life as a business line, so development stopped. That's pretty normal for games like this actually. I've yet to play a game that didn't suffer from being old in the tooth. It's expensive to maintain a game to keep up with using new available technology, features, hardware ... etc... It's better business just to make a new game and makes more sense as well, otherwise companies wouldn't do it. Pretty sure I did not say GW2 shouldn't have been made. So presumably you are anticipating the next campaign in approximately a year. ... Stop you right there ... I don't anticipate ANY online game will be around in a year and if I didn't like a game if was playing, I wouldn't play it for 5 more years waiting for it to become something I think it should be. If I did, I wouldn't complain about it because it's my own fault or I was lying to myself enjoying the game for what it was, not for what I thought it should be. That's why I think this whole thread isn't really honest ... if you didn't like GW2 you wouldn't play it, PERIOD. ?They told us GW2 would be everything that they had learned from their development time on GW1 and more. And I am not waiting for GW2 to become something different. I play both GW1 and GW2 actively.Sure ... that doesn't mean GW2 was going to be anything like GW1 though ... In fact, that sort of goes into my theory that GW1 was a mistake. What Anet learned was that people value interacting with each other significantly, so they added it to GW2.

that much is apparent. And as I said, completely irrelevant as well. The fact was that GW1 was lacking, even if parts of it were amazing. It was at the end of its life as a business line, so development stopped. That's pretty normal for games like this actually. I've yet to play a game that didn't suffer from being old in the tooth. It's expensive to maintain a game to keep up with using new available technology, features, hardware ... etc... It's better business just to make a new game and makes more sense as well, otherwise companies wouldn't do it. Pretty sure I did not say GW2 shouldn't have been made. So presumably you are anticipating the next campaign in approximately a year. ...Stop you right there ... I don't anticipate ANY online game will be around in a year and if I didn't like a game if was playing, I wouldn't play it for 5 more years waiting for it to become something I think it should be. If I did, I wouldn't complain about it because it's my own fault or I was lying to myself enjoying the game for what it was, not for what I thought it should be. That's why I think this whole thread isn't really honest ... if GW1 people didn't like GW2 they wouldn't be play it now, PERIOD.

that much is apparent. And as I said, completely irrelevant as well. The fact was that GW1 was lacking, even if parts of it were amazing. It was at the end of its life as a business line, so development stopped. That's pretty normal for games like this actually. I've yet to play a game that didn't suffer from being old in the tooth. It's expensive to maintain a game to keep up with using new available technology, features, hardware ... etc... It's better business just to make a new game and makes more sense as well, otherwise companies wouldn't do it. Personally, I think GW1 was a mistake; when all these game companies were releasing games where you could interact on a massive scale with other players ... GW1 was severely limited in that area. Seems to me that Anet under-estimated how much value players put interacting with each other in open world, instanced group, etc... and realized what a missed opportunity that was. I'm sure if the information they had said otherwise, GW2 would have been GW1 part 2.

What people here are trying to say is that they are missing things that didn't get carried over from GW1. Here is the problem. Those things aren't 'missing' unless you have some insider knowledge that Anet intended to carry them over and didn't. Unless you got a list of things from Anet that explicitely state they are porting from GW1 to GW2 ... then I'm going to conclude you don't have that knowledge. As I said; people came here from GW1 because of what GW1 was, not what GW2 is or might be. That's not Anet's fault that people had their own misconceptions. Here is the other problem; why did all those people stay once they realized GW2 wasn't GW1? More unreasonable expectations that GW2 would somehow morph into GW1 part 2? I don't think there is full truth being stated here. For real? People supported GW1 development for 7 years so yeah they sort of expected anet to keep on the path for GW2 that their customers supported for years. GW2 was pitched as a solution to the problem of not being able to develope further into GW1 due to limitations in tech and also the bloat of each new starter area with new professions. Why didn't the players "go back"(some did) to GW1? Idk might have something to do with ENDING DEVELOPMENT on GW1. Tl;drI get it, GW1 and GW2 are different games. That is NOT how GW2 was sold to the GW1 customers. So yeah some still harbor some dark feelings about the whole matter.Yeah for real ... why would anyone with a sense of MMO gaming expect Anet to make GW2 simply GW1 part 2? Support GW1 doesn't make a debt that Anet needs to repay those GW1 players; GW1 players got entertainment value for playing GW1 ... setting expectations that GW2 would just be more GW1 makes little sense. Regardless, I don't know how GW2 was sold to GW1 customers and I don't think that matters either; anyone starting a new game should examine a game based on what it delivers to you as a customer, not based on your experience with another product. I know as a new player to GW2, I got what I was sold ... an MMO that had features of other mainstream MMOs that did it different, with no sub. If your still bitter about all this, you should get over it. Certainly no reason to voice that continuously here, even over 6 years after GW2 release. Really, I get people have issues with GW2 ... that's natural. But to push those issues with the idea that you didn't get what you were expecting because you played and loved GW1 when it was active is just sour grapes.

What people here are trying to say is that they are missing things that didn't get carried over from GW1. Here is the problem. Those things aren't 'missing' unless you have some insider knowledge that Anet intended to carry them over and didn't. Unless you got a list of things from Anet that explicitely state they are porting from GW1 to GW2 ... then I'm going to conclude you don't have that knowledge. As I said; people came here from GW1 because of what GW1 was, not what GW2 is or might be. That's not Anet's fault that people had their own misconceptions. Here is the other problem; why did all those people stay once they realized GW2 wasn't GW1? More unreasonable expectations that GW2 would somehow morph into GW1 part 2? I don't think there is full truth being stated here.

I think the problem with this kind of thread is a few things: Lamenting GW1 just to do so has little value to the players of this game. It might come as a surprise, but some of us didn't play GW1. Even if you did, what did you come away with from this thread? Some renewed sense of what you will never experience again? To what purpose does that bring for you?Regardless of the size of the game or what it offered, they all eventually get to a point of 'maintenance' mode; so accept it. The same will happen to GW2 and I suspect that it's closer than we think it is due to the upcoming popularity of mobile gaming. Those of you that stopped playing GW1 did so for a reason, which likely led you here. If you came here because of what GW1 was, and not for what GW2 is or might be in anticipation, then you have only fooled yourself into leaving something you really enjoyed. The remedy for that is not threads like this one. The thing that is particularly weird about this thread is that even after speaking to the OP privately, it seems that there isn't a purpose to this thread other than to provide a eulogy to what GW1 was. Don't live in the past and definitely don't lament what GW2 isn't because of it.

Maybe, but how does people not playing GW1 anymore have anything to do with people being disappointed in GW2? They aren't the same game, as much as people want them to be. It's funny you ask me to think ... I did, and I still don't see what nostalgia over what GW1 was has anything to do with what GW2 is ... Sorry I'm crashing the cry party but ... this thread is about what again? GW2 isn't GW1? No kidding ... I could have told you that the day it was released. No amount of "OMG I miss GW1" is going to make GW2 like GW1.

not a single update for 10 years, go figure it out, and who says I don't play it? What I miss is the active community, active PvP scene, real vibrant life in that game. Right, so you don't miss the game itself, you miss the experience you got from it when it was new. I don't see how GW2 doesn't have those things. I mean, it doesn't make sense to say you missed things from the game, you play it and those things you miss are from the game itself. Those things would still be there. If it's the 'active, vibrant' gaming experience you are after, there are games that have that ... go play them. lamenting you want that in GW1 here doesn't make any sense; not sure what you would expect anyone to do about it.

Still trying to figure out why someone misses something they can play. If you miss it, go play it. I'm willing to bet you will quickly remember why you stopped playing it too.

I don't get how you miss it ... you can still play it.

While I don't like the idea the OP has, it's certainly not stupid because of the limitations YOU impose on what you think the warrior should be. I don't support changing any current weapons, but the espec is a reasonable way to petition for a ranged weapon. A ranged weapon is not a bad idea (even if we actually already have 2, we just need a correct rifle) but the idea of a warrior using magic is just stupid. If I want a mage knight I'll pick a guard. A war is a master of martial arts, that's all. We just need to respect the archetype.Maybe, but who's to say it doesn't already use magic? That's Anet's call and I think if you look a little harder, you see there are elements of magic in what warriors do ... even if you think it's stupid.

While I don't like the idea the OP has, it's certainly not stupid because of the limitations YOU impose on what you think the warrior should be. I don't support changing any current weapons, but the espec is a reasonable way to petition for a ranged weapon.

I found out after some investigation you can buy the plates to do the content. Smart Anet. Anet still wants you to do the content to get the jewels. If you are willing to buy the jewels on the TP ... the plates are just as good. IMO, the plates are better option than buying the jewel.