Some people do not have the time in GW to go in-depth. On what principle would you ban design decisions that allows them to go there? (or rather: design decisions whose consequences are to allow them, i.e. uber modes).
Quote:
| In WoW players can see the latest content in a much more toned down fashion, while those who want increased rewards for harder work can play on the harder difficulties. |
You can argue on principles, but we're way beyond that. GW is trying to be a fantastic/awesome game despite a community that has changed so much that it's difficult to argue that "skill over time" should be the dominant model for the whole game, and not only for PvP. I'm NOT arguing in favor of that (I'm a PvEr who wants to PvP, so I'm working on getting better, baby steps after baby steps), but I tend to look at their decision from a very practical angle, i.e. given their limited resources and the existing constraints (updated game code, history of their updates, state of the community).
Quote:
| With the widespread use of an achievement-like system, developers are now able to properly acknowledge those who invest a lot of time and effort into their game. Both Rock Bands have modes that unlock every song for you or allow you to play through the whole song even if you're always in the red, but doing so locks you from achievements. This is *good*. The devs want to give a "pat on the back" for players being good at their game while also giving everyone the chance to get that "free ride". |
Quote:
| Straight up? They'd quit. They'd be pissed. They'd feel just like the previous quality players that came before them, and we'd have twice as many people upset with the game than we do now. |
Quote:
| In my posts I've used "should have" and "could have" here and there, and that's the main thing with Guild Wars: It could have been a much more different - perhaps better - game. While it would be cool to see ANet attempt to go back to maintaining an admirable skill curve, the game has catered far too much to the "racers". |
I'm with you, bro, hoping that GW2 will be this game!
Quote:
| To change it right now, as is, would be suicide. It would be like ANet going from a shooter to a racer - and back to a shooter. They would've successfully backstabbed two groups of players instead of one. While yes, I would love a more properly maintained GW, ANet does not need more people pissed off at them. All we can do right now is high-light what went wrong with GW1 in the hopes that they nail it for GW2. |
There's a host of aboslutely brilliant GW players here on Guru, who've mastered so many aspects of the game that it almost becomes funny. But I think there's an ingredient of genius missing here: that knowledge is in their hands and their head, they sprinkle it here from time to time by answering questions or sharing an opinion, very often insightful into game design and play. But it stops here, this knowledge doesn't flow. You want SF to "naturally" disappear? Show people how a coordinated group (I love the idea of "GvE" I discovered on TGH) can consistently kill anything in GW (apart from the gimmicky part) and how much fun you can get from that. So many players haven't had the chance to experience a great PUG. I know I did and after that day you never see the word "balance" the same!

