My BIG LIST of things that SUCK about Guild Wars

[Saint_Proverbius]

To continue:

• Monsters that give 0XP. Sure, you're over five levels higher than they are, but they can still pose a decent threat to you in numbers. On top of that, they still ATTACK you, which pretty much forces you to fight them. At least give me 1XP for them, and don't make them hostile towards a player that much higher than you. It's lame having to fight through 0XP areas to do some quests.
• Starter items suck ass. Why? Because you can't salvage them or sell them, and every tom dick and harry trainer in pre-searing gives you one. Because you can't salvage or sell them, you pretty much have to go to a combat area and toss out all your starter items just to get rid of them. It's a pain in the ass considering the amount of materials and collectible items in the game combined with the tiny as hell starting inventory.
• Can't complete quests if your inventory is full. Look, I don't want another damned Protective Icon. I sold the last 200 Protective Items I got in quests because I don't want them. Offer me the money instead, or have an inventory overflow like AO has, or whatever. I'm just doing your shit for the XP anyway and don't want to run to the merchant every time my puny inventory is full!

Honestly, the only reason people play this is because it's online. If this game were single player, it would have bombed bigtime because it's so damned flawed. Can you imagine playing this game without people and still have fun with it? I can't due to all the problems with it. If it wouldn't be fun in single player, it's not going to be fun for long in multiplayer once the novelty wears off.

 

[Sarvis]

If it wouldn't be fun in single player, it's not going to be fun for long in multiplayer once the novelty wears off.

Wow. That's the kind of statement that earns people a Dumbfuck` tag!

Seriously, a TON of games depend on multiplayer to keep players interested. How long would Diablo, Starcraft, Quake, Doom, any fighting game or MUDs last if they were single player? They wouldn't. You'd play through diablo once, maybe twice... I never even finished StarCraft's single player campaign, and they don't even need to release single player levels for most FPS games these days! I don't think there even was one for UnrealTournament.

Do you think people would play World of Warcraft or Everquest without multiplayer? No. Not a chance. Those games are just long grinds to the top, without even PvP to keep people interested (until recently for WoW.)


That was just retarded man. I usually expect better from you.

Oh, lastly, lots of us DO play Guild Wars as if it were single player. That's what all those henchmen are for. Due to time constraints I've done nothing but quest so far and only partied up once since the Searing when PennyAnte helped me get to Piken Square. The online factor isn't really what's kept me playing so far!

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Seriously, a TON of games depend on multiplayer to keep players interested. How long would Diablo, Starcraft, Quake, Doom, any fighting game or MUDs last if they were single player?

With the exception of MUDs, those games had longevity because they were fun in single player. Diablo and Diablo 2 had excellent single player with the bonus of being able to play your character in both multiplayer and single player unless you stuck to closed battle.net. Starcraft and Quake were the same way. They established the ground rules for single player and added a multiplayer component as well.

they don't even need to release single player levels for most FPS games these days!

Oh yeah, id Software and Valve certainly fucked up with Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 by releasing both games with hindered multiplayer. HL2 didn't even get deathmatch until a few weeks after release.

I don't think there even was one for UnrealTournament.

Uh, yeah there is. You can play UT single player with bots. The AI was pretty decent, and there was a single player tournament ladder mode as well.

By the way, haven't the sales been declining for the UT games ever since the first one?

Do you think people would play World of Warcraft or Everquest without multiplayer? No. Not a chance. Those games are just long grinds to the top, without even PvP to keep people interested (until recently for WoW.)

They have decent character systems with gobs of skills, actual item crafting as opposed to shopping with twenty types of currency like Guild Wars has, and so forth.

That was just retarded man. I usually expect better from you.

That's nice. I expect mindless drivel from you, and gosh! I'm not the least bit surprised by your reply.

Oh, lastly, lots of us DO play Guild Wars as if it were single player. That's what all those henchmen are for. Due to time constraints I've done nothing but quest so far and only partied up once since the Searing when PennyAnte helped me get to Piken Square. The online factor isn't really what's kept me playing so far!

That brings up another thing that sucks about Guild Wars!

• You have to do the damned missions! Why the bloody hell am I allowed to walk to all these towns, for the most part, but I absolutely HAVE to do missions to enter them? If I enter certain locations before doing the mission for that particular town, it teleports me to the nearest town I've done a mission for. What the fuck is that?

 

[Astromarine]

A small quibble, Saint: on the right side of all your bag slots, is a Trashcan. You can drop unwanted items there if you like, you don't have to go to an explorable area and drop the items.

 

[Sarvis]

With the exception of MUDs, those games had longevity because they were fun in single player. Diablo and Diablo 2 had excellent single player with the bonus of being able to play your character in both multiplayer and single player unless you stuck to closed battle.net. Starcraft and Quake were the same way. They established the ground rules for single player and added a multiplayer component as well.

And in all those games you maybe play through single player once, then spend years playing online multiplayer.

I played through the single player Diablo campaign once, but I played through the same campaign like 4 times in battle.net.

This does nothing to help you saint, because you claimed that <i>once the novelty wore off</i> the game would get boring. Well that's no different than the single player campaigns getting boring after you go through them once.

Uh, yeah there is. You can play UT single player with bots. The AI was pretty decent, and there was a single player tournament ladder mode as well.

By the way, haven't the sales been declining for the UT games ever since the first one?

That's not a single player campaign, that's just letting people practice. I played a couple of the maps with bots a couple times to get used to it, then just started with multiplayer. That was the only use the game really had.

No idea if sales are declining...

They have decent character systems with gobs of skills, actual item crafting as opposed to shopping with twenty types of currency like Guild Wars has, and so forth.

Yeah, but none of that is really worth spending hundreds of hours alone just leveling up and practicing those skills.

You just claimed MUDs were an exception to your rule... but Everquest IS a MUD. It was developed by MUDders, and bears several striking resemblences (from what I heard) to the MUD those guys used to play (the same one I used to play incidentally!)

That's nice. I expect mindless drivel from you, and gosh! I'm not the least bit surprised by your reply.

*yawn*

That brings up another thing that sucks about Guild Wars!

• You have to do the damned missions! Why the bloody hell am I allowed to walk to all these towns, for the most part, but I absolutely HAVE to do missions to enter them? If I enter certain locations before doing the mission for that particular town, it teleports me to the nearest town I've done a mission for. What the fuck is that?

Balance issue.

Anyway, you ignored the part where a lot of people are playing the game as if it were single player. I just did another mission last night, just me and the NPC party. No real different than the NWN OC except more fun!

 

[Claw]

This does nothing to help you saint, because you claimed that <i>once the novelty wore off</i> the game would get boring. Well that's no different than the single player campaigns getting boring after you go through them once.

That's bullshit. A story being over isn't novetly wearing off. I don't generally replay games until much later, even those that supposedly possess alot of replay value, because once the story is over, it's over. A case of novelty wearing off would be a game that I don't finish because I get bored halfway through.
I don't see the point of mentioning Unreal Tournament. Does the existence of a dedicated multiplayer game invalidate singleplayer games? That's stupid.
And the reason UT was incredibly successful is because the novelty didn't wear off.
The only sensible criticism of Saint's complaint is that he is criticising a game designed for multiplayer for lack of singleplayer quality. Well, duh.

Anyway, you ignored the part where a lot of people are playing the game as if it were single player. I just did another mission last night, just me and the NPC party. No real different than the NWN OC except more fun!

And you had the game for how long? I spent more time playing UT against bots in DM-Morbias, and that still doesn't make it a great map, or UT a good SP game.

 

[Jinxed]

On the topic of MMO games... Listen to this

 

[Haris]

After playing Anarchy online i realised that all mmprgs pretty much suck compared to old style Ultima online. So i wont be trying any of them out anymore. Fancy graphics really dont add to the game enough to justify crapy crafting system, pointless leveling and all the freaking safezones. If i play a mmorpg i want the adrenaline rush and fear of loosing allmost everything i carry on me. I want enforced pvp on helpless crafters wich is equally fun no mather what side your on. One that is runing with a bag full of ore and no way to protect your self or the one that is chasing the helpless miner to take all his ore that he mined for last 2 hours.

 

[Sarvis]

That's bullshit. A story being over isn't novetly wearing off. I don't generally replay games until much later, even those that supposedly possess alot of replay value, because once the story is over, it's over.

Yes, you are correct... but you managed to COMPLETELY MISS THE POINT. Saint is trying to claim that games cannot survive on multiplayer alone, which is a ridiculous claim. I'm pointing out games that survive based on multiplayer for years after their single player campaigns become boring. Sure it's boredome caused by something else, but for the purpose of this argument it doesn't matter.

I don't see the point of mentioning Unreal Tournament. Does the existence of a dedicated multiplayer game invalidate singleplayer games? That's stupid.
And the reason UT was incredibly successful is because the novelty didn't wear off.

I'm not TRYING to invalidate single player games, I am pointing out to Saint that it's ridiculous to state a game cannot survive based solely on fun multiplayer gameplay.

The only sensible criticism of Saint's complaint is that he is criticising a game designed for multiplayer for lack of singleplayer quality. Well, duh.

Which is pretty much exactly what I am saying.

And you had the game for how long? I spent more time playing UT against bots in DM-Morbias, and that still doesn't make it a great map, or UT a good SP game.

Huh? You quote me talking about Guild Wars then respond by talking about a UT map?

What's your point with this? I agree that UT isn't a good single player game, it's a GREAT multiplayer game. That's pretty much all it offers, and even the "single player" game basically consists of a bunch of bots meant to mimic real players! Essentially it's single player is a simulation of multiplayer. Similar to how I usually end up playing the "multiplayer" guild wars with just myself and a party of NPCs.

 

[LlamaGod]

what happned to Sarvis' dumbfuck title, by the way

 

[Sarvis]

Hajo succesfully petitioned to ha ve it removed for me (http://www.rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=6484).

I was left as an illiterate though... until I pwned volourn in some other argument, at which point Ex set me to normal.

 

[Human Shield]

• You have to do the damned missions! Why the bloody hell am I allowed to walk to all these towns, for the most part, but I absolutely HAVE to do missions to enter them? If I enter certain locations before doing the mission for that particular town, it teleports me to the nearest town I've done a mission for. What the fuck is that?

No you don't. You can go through the exploration areas straight to Lion's Arch or many other towns.

 

[Shagnak]

To continue:

Agreed on all those points. (Fuck I'm boring today )
Though, I don't find them to be a major as much as you do.

As for the "having to do" missions...well, as far as I can tell so far, there is a central story that the missions are meant to convey. Not doing them would remove a lot of the purpose of the back story.
I have no problem with "having to do" them; but the structure of some of them could be improved. Still, I'm enjoying the game.

 

[Claw]

Yes, you are correct... but you managed to COMPLETELY MISS THE POINT. Saint is trying to claim that games cannot survive on multiplayer alone, which is a ridiculous claim. I'm pointing out games that survive based on multiplayer for years after their single player campaigns become boring.

Ah well. I admit my arguments weren't well though through. Anyway, I understood Saint's post differently; that GW relies on being unique more than on being good at what it does, and people only enjoy the novetly at the moment.
Pretty much like how I enjoyed my first MMORPG for a short time until I couldn't help noticing the huge flaws. I also enjoyed C&C Renegade, which was the first game of the style I played, while everyone who already knew BF1942 agreed it sucked.

I'm not TRYING to invalidate single player games, I am pointing out to Saint that it's ridiculous to state a game cannot survive based solely on fun multiplayer gameplay.

Oh, you are right. I overreached or something.
Yet I believe Saint really meant that for a short while the multiplayer aspect makes people overlook gameplay flaws.

Huh? You quote me talking about Guild Wars then respond by talking about a UT map? (...)
Similar to how I usually end up playing the "multiplayer" guild wars with just myself and a party of NPCs.

My argument was badly chosen. I think I got confused somewhere between originally thinking of and writing it down, and forgot what the point was.
The real point is, DM-Morbias sucks. Virtually every player I know agrees on that, yet I managed to enjoy myself with it for a while.
So.. your argument that people actually DO play GW "as if it were single player" doesn't say much. If it did, I could claim that DM-Morbias was a great map just because I played it.
That's not saying it isn't good, but saying "people play it" isn't an argument.

But as I didn't really try GW since the very first E3 event, I better leave the debate alone now.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Gameplay flaws? Novelty? Oh my god, Guild Wars sucks because Saint says so.

 

[POOPERSCOOPER]

Gameplay flaws? Novelty? Oh my god, Guild Wars sucks because Saint says so.

lolol You seemed to care most when Saint added stuff to the Expedia. flip flop lollerz

 

[almondblight]

what happned to Sarvis' dumbfuck title, by the way

Well, in an argument like this where he seems to be the only one who wasn't deprived of oxygen as a baby you'd have to find title's below dumbfuck for the others.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Saint is trying to claim that games cannot survive on multiplayer alone, which is a ridiculous claim. I'm pointing out games that survive based on multiplayer for years after their single player campaigns become boring. Sure it's boredome caused by something else, but for the purpose of this argument it doesn't matter.

Oh, is that what I was saying? Really, I thought my point was that the only thing this game has going for it is that it's multiplayer because there's just not enough of anything else there to make it fun and that once the novelty of playing around on a server full of people wore off, the crappy mechanics will shine through.

Anyway, you ignored the part where a lot of people are playing the game as if it were single player. I just did another mission last night, just me and the NPC party. No real different than the NWN OC except more fun!

Yes, I completely forgot you liked the NWN OC. So, basically, I'm in the analogous situation of arguing with a scat fetishist about how bad a casserole tastes. Gotcha.

 

[Ibbz]

I want enforced pvp on helpless crafters wich is equally fun no mather what side your on.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
haha.

At any rate, try the PVP if you haven't already Saint - although make sure you get a good group.

 

[Sarvis]

Oh, is that what I was saying? Really, I thought my point was that the only thing this game has going for it is that it's multiplayer because there's just not enough of anything else there to make it fun and that once the novelty of playing around on a server full of people wore off, the crappy mechanics will shine through.

Right, exactly. You are claiming the only good thing about this game is multiplayer and that multiplayer alone will not sustain this game. You are wrong, no matter how you phrase it.

Multiplayer is not a novelty, it is in fact a staple of many games.

Yes, I completely forgot you liked the NWN OC. So, basically, I'm in the analogous situation of arguing with a scat fetishist about how bad a casserole tastes. Gotcha.

I said I liked the OC? Maybe you should take some reading lessons...

 

[Sol Invictus]

I managed to get into the Hall of Heroes today, earning 45 fame in the process - but we lost because our team, while absolutely powerful, suffered from a severe lack of direct damage dealers and counter-casters (air elementalists, domination mesmers, smiting monks).

We could have probably won if we had a mesmer to disrupt and deplete the enemy casters, an air elementalist with direct damage (air) to use on the enemy Ghostly Hero, and smiting monks with Scourge Healing. What's worse, none of us had Hamstring or other slowing abilities so the enemy monks kept running at the end till the time ran out.

 

[Shevek]

If it wouldn't be fun in single player, it's not going to be fun for long in multiplayer once the novelty wears off.

I do not 100% agree with this. Lots of games succeed even though they would not succeed as single player games. This includes not only MMOs but several shooters and other titles.


I tend to agree that the game has its faults.

At later levels, there is even one optional quest which you are virtually forced to do 5 times.

You have to get REAL lucky with the drops or spend an inordinant amount of time trading in Lion's Arch to get a decent weapon.

Getting Elite Skills off of Boss mobs can be a real pain in the ass. I seriously hope they change this.

The perspective/control really blows. The game would have really benefitted from a real pealed back top down persective and a skillset geared towards that. Related to this are the frequent pathing issues. My W/R has a pet and he often gets stuck near it when closing on a target/switching targets and I have to manually move him around.

The game has many more issues as well but it has its strngths as well. One I would comment on are the missions. I tend to think of the mission design more positively than Saint. The game rewards working well with others and having a healthy amount of communication. If you try to power through the thing with henchmen, it wont work. Henchmen are just there to fill in spots but you need some people to work with in order to pass the bulk of these missions. I like that the game rewards meaningful cooperative group play. This is something Diablo failed miserably at. In D1&2, people often soloed not necessarily because grouping seemed so unfun but rather because group members competed for loot and, in large part, because the game was so easy group memebers were rarely needed. This game and its missions are an improvement on that.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Half Life's singleplayer novelty definitely wore off after a week, but multiplayer (e.g. counterstrike) kept it alive for years and years.

 

[Sarvis]

If it wouldn't be fun in single player, it's not going to be fun for long in multiplayer once the novelty wears off.

I do not 100% agree with this. Lots of games succeed even though they would not succeed as single player games. This includes not only MMOs but several shooters and other titles.

Like scorched earth, Worms...

There are entire genres of games based solely on the concept of multiplayer...

I tend to agree that the game has its faults.

I do to. In fact, if I haven't made that clear I actually agree with MOST of Saint's complaints. It's just the one statement that was so asinine.

I just don't think even the total list of complaints he has is anything major. Most of them are small issues that could even be tweaked in patches and such.

 

[Volourn]

"No real different than the NWN OC except more fun!"

Don't use bullshit.

Oh, I found another reason why Guild Wars will suck: I'll be buying it later today unless EB turns down my old shitty games.

P.S. And, no, NWN is *never* gonna be amongst the games I rid myself. Ever.

From what I gather, GW is like any other MMORPG but with better graphics, no fees, and some problems - major and minor - like every other game. It sounds like it's worth a monetary risk.


:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: