anet doesn't make maps like it used to

[Vayne.8563]

10 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

On the other hand, the hardest monster in the game was still Rotscale, from Prophecies.

Which I used to solo. lol

[Astralporing.1957]

2 minutes ago, Vayne.8563 said:

Which I used to solo. lol

You can solo prtty much everything in GW1 except for maybe few instances (and i'm sure there are people that could solo them as well), so that's hardly an argument.

[Vayne.8563]

35 minutes ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

You can solo prtty much everything in GW1 except for maybe few instances (and i'm sure there are people that could solo them as well), so that's hardly an argument.

I wasn't arguing. I was making a point though.  Yes, they put one single hard encounter, in the middle of an area where no one has to go, that was associated with one specific hard quest, in a game that wasn't even an MMO and didn't have an open world. Guild Wars 2 was a coop game with instance areas. There were no respawns.  It was also pathed. You were led from place to place in a very linear fashion. Most of the time you couldn't even go off road. If you came to a log in the path, you couldn't step over it, you had to turn around. It's a very different game, but yes, it did put one hard encounter in the middle of nowhere.

The vast majority of the Guild Wars 1 content, probably 99% of it was suited to level, but when they introduced higher level areas the content got harder. There were three games and only one true expansion. The content in the expansion in the "open world", for lack of a better term, was significantly harder than the previous open world, even having creatures up to level 28, when the level cap in the game was level 20.

Edited June 25 by Vayne.8563

[Fipmip.7219]

1 hour ago, Vayne.8563 said:

The world being ugly and barren is an opinion. Many people have raved about how PoF looks.  But you know, it's okay that you have an opinion, but that's just what it is, your opinion. And yes, the aggro is longer and some things can dismount you, but there are always ways to avoid things, if you pay attention.  At any rate, thank you for sharing your opinion. Mine is different.

so all that just to say "well that's your opinion man." Like yes? you finally got it? I'm pointing out what makes the maps different. I'm pointing out what i don't like, giving examples and explaining why. you ignored the majority of my points. if you like it, then power to you. im just offering my perspective on a sentiment shared by many in the community, case in point, this thread and all the others that have popped up over the years.

[Fipmip.7219]

.

Edited June 25 by Fipmip.7219

[Perisemiotics.4579]

On 6/22/2024 at 3:45 AM, Vayne.8563 said:

Yes, the place where they make and design fractals, and the magical wizard city in the sky, and the realm of dreams doesn't feel like the natural world. I can't imagine why....oh wait...

probably because... they are not "the natural world."
To me they were alright, certainly not as detailed as older maps but still with some charm, with Nayos being the more interesting one in terms of concept and design. What I do miss are the one-out stories, NPCs, objects, and locations. It seems the current maps are coming out of a production line where a few ideas are plopped all over again and again in a dully schematic manner, hence the impression they don't feel "natural" because natural would mean surprising and full of hidden and unexpected things.

[Astralporing.1957]

7 hours ago, Vayne.8563 said:

I wasn't arguing. I was making a point though.  Yes, they put one single hard encounter, in the middle of an area where no one has to go, that was associated with one specific hard quest, in a game that wasn't even an MMO and didn't have an open world. Guild Wars 2 was a coop game with instance areas. There were no respawns.  It was also pathed. You were led from place to place in a very linear fashion. Most of the time you couldn't even go off road. If you came to a log in the path, you couldn't step over it, you had to turn around. It's a very different game, but yes, it did put one hard encounter in the middle of nowhere.

The vast majority of the Guild Wars 1 content, probably 99% of it was suited to level, but when they introduced higher level areas the content got harder. There were three games and only one true expansion. The content in the expansion in the "open world", for lack of a better term, was significantly harder than the previous open world, even having creatures up to level 28, when the level cap in the game was level 20.

Yes, when you compare the level 20 areas with lower level ones, they do end up being harder. That's equally true when you compare areas within the same campaigns or those from those campaigns with EotN. If you were comparing level 20 areas with other level 20 areas however, that's no longer the case.

If you have to make such biased picks to make your point, it probably means you've had no point from the very beginning.

[Weindrasi.3805]

I had this exact thought just yesterday, and it made me really sad. I was going through the Heart of Thorns maps and was thinking "wow... expansion maps used to be like THIS? So pretty, so complex, so carefully thought out...

Going back to HoT after playing through SoTo... wow. You can REALLY, REALLY tell how far quality has dropped.

[Gehenna.3625]

9 hours ago, Vayne.8563 said:

I wasn't arguing. I was making a point though. 

He was talking about you using something as an argument. Even though they share the same root, using an argument and arguing are not the same. Using an argument is just supporting a point and arguing is fighting verbally. 

[Vayne.8563]

6 hours ago, Astralporing.1957 said:

Yes, when you compare the level 20 areas with lower level ones, they do end up being harder. That's equally true when you compare areas within the same campaigns or those from those campaigns with EotN. If you were comparing level 20 areas with other level 20 areas however, that's no longer the case.

If you have to make such biased picks to make your point, it probably means you've had no point from the very beginning.

It's not a biased pic. Someone is pointing out expansion content maps are different from normal maps and one of those complaints was more annoying enemies. Enemies we should know how to deal with easily enough. Do I get annoyed occassionally by something in PoF.  Sure. It happens. But then, I remember gettting annoyed by stuff in the core maps when I knew less and had no elite specs. There were times in the core maps where the creatures were too hard, or spawned to fast, and people complained about them.  Also the core game was under developement for a lot longer then any expansion, when Anet believes those dynamic events would hold people's attention. Every detail they put in took time and energy.

Now, we have expansions that they have to make in a couple of years, but they've learned the basic normal events, and a lot of those details don't get seen by a lot of people, and don't keep most people in the game. They moved to the style even event chains like they did in Silverwastes and HoT, with bigger metas.  They tried to change it up even in Dry Top. Because what they were doing wasn't keeping players playing. Not the bulk of them. 

They game has grown and evolved based on two things, what they could do within time and budget and what they saw that worked. I loved some things about the core game too, but I have to acknowledge, a lot of people raced through that stuff and didn't notice it at all. I'm not sure that I'm in some kind of majority. Sure the game changed. ALL games change. HoT was reviled as an expansion when it came out, but players grew into it. 

As for biased pics, that's crap. I said in most games, things get harder as you level and I picked one example. I could have picked a lot MORE examples, but the truth is,  the level 20 area in the ONLY expansion that Guild Wars 1 has, was harder than the level 20 areas in the NON-expansion stand alone games. That's not a biased pic. That's an observation I believe most would agree with.

[Vayne.8563]

4 hours ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

He was talking about you using something as an argument. Even though they share the same root, using an argument and arguing are not the same. Using an argument is just supporting a point and arguing is fighting verbally. 

Thanks for interpreting. That little lol at the end of my sentence would have shown a lot of people that I was making a joke, because I thought it was a funny line. If I were trying to actually have an argument about it (because I thought the point wasn't important enough TO argue), I would have included more context. 

[Fipmip.7219]

31 minutes ago, Vayne.8563 said:

It's not a biased pic. Someone is pointing out expansion content maps are different from normal maps and one of those complaints was more annoying enemies. Enemies we should know how to deal with easily enough. Do I get annoyed occassionally by something in PoF.  Sure. It happens. But then, I remember gettting annoyed by stuff in the core maps when I knew less and had no elite specs. There were times in the core maps where the creatures were too hard, or spawned to fast, and people complained about them.  Also the core game was under developement for a lot longer then any expansion, when Anet believes those dynamic events would hold people's attention. Every detail they put in took time and energy.

Now, we have expansions that they have to make in a couple of years, but they've learned the basic normal events, and a lot of those details don't get seen by a lot of people, and don't keep most people in the game. They moved to the style even event chains like they did in Silverwastes and HoT, with bigger metas.  They tried to change it up even in Dry Top. Because what they were doing wasn't keeping players playing. Not the bulk of them. 

They game has grown and evolved based on two things, what they could do within time and budget and what they saw that worked. I loved some things about the core game too, but I have to acknowledge, a lot of people raced through that stuff and didn't notice it at all. I'm not sure that I'm in some kind of majority. Sure the game changed. ALL games change. HoT was reviled as an expansion when it came out, but players grew into it. 

As for biased pics, that's crap. I said in most games, things get harder as you level and I picked one example. I could have picked a lot MORE examples, but the truth is,  the level 20 area in the ONLY expansion that Guild Wars 1 has, was harder than the level 20 areas in the NON-expansion stand alone games. That's not a biased pic. That's an observation I believe most would agree with.

I mean you're basically saying you agree the maps have changed but you like it as opposed to the people that prefer the core design philosophy. which is fine, but what makes you think you know anything about the development pipeline at anet for making new maps? you cant really determine that from surface level observations. How many people ran past all the small metas and hidden quests? how many people just rush the story? do you have the stats on that? I for one go looking for that stuff every time i get a new expansion. I want my money's worth after all. GW2 is a horizontal progression game anyway, so rushing is a lot less incentivized.

In any case, I highly doubt the current map design keeps players playing any more than the old ones did.

[Zzik.5873]

On 6/20/2024 at 9:24 AM, Nash.2681 said:

I somewhat tend to agree. I did some world exploring lately to get two more GoE and thus had to visit all core maps again. And I found myself thinking more than once "wow, those old maps somehow feel more beautifull / detailed than the newer ones". It's weird because I can't determine why exactly I had that impression, but it is what it is.

I can, its easy, the old map were design for foot travel, while the new map are design for mount. Gw2 is having its own sort of crisis of car centric(mount) map vs walkable map. In other word, the new map are on the mount scale, while the old map are on character scale.

[Obfuscate.6430]

I never really thought about the maps visually until recently, when I was scouting aesthetic vistas to take screenshots of my characters.
I went back to Path of Fire and Auric Basin, To Arborstone and to the Far Shiverpeaks and was really taken aback by the detail in the textures of even the smallest corners; outposts, mountain tops, moss infested stone and mushrooms growing in the bark of the trees. 

Then you go to Inner Nayos and it's desaturated and devoid of variety of detail - except in Eparch's castle which is very red and wet but the textures seem copy-pasted throughout. 
I am not sure if it's by design, or due to budget/time constraints. 

The Archipelago was breathtaking to me. I could get novel cover worthy screenshots from almost any prominent point.
The Wizard  Tower and Amnytas feel very much like purchased  game assets from outside of the franchise  though.- It was very beautiful, but so different from the weathered stone we've been used to seeing. I mean they are magic structures maintained by magic people so it makes sense in the continuity but not for the art direction of the game as a whole. 

The whole Nayos though, idk. It felt like something was missing.