When I look back at the manifesto, lol
This topic is now read-only on GameSpot.
To post new messages, please visit GameFAQs and log in using the same email and password that you use on GameSpot.
May 23, 2012 9:50 am GMT
DraconisRex posted...
Yeah, because in every war territory once gained is never lost or retaken... Which is why everyone in Russia speaks German today... Oh, wait, they don't? Oh snap... So much for THAT truism...
We're going to take a moment away from this dashing discussion to enhance reading comprehension. The issue is not whether or not a village should or should not be retaken, it's the fact that they stated it would "stay saved" and it does not. An inaccuracy in a statement can exist whether or not you agree with the logic of the statement.
I would agree that the game would be awful if everybody saved all the villages before you got there. That said, it doesn't change their statement of "player impact".
Also, it is unbecoming of a forum poster to use the phrase "Oh snap". It's never OK to say that.
---
Or you realize other MMO's are like a horse chasing a carrot on a stick up a ever steeper hill and GW2 is like a dog chasing it's tail.-Hi C
May 23, 2012 9:55 am GMT
<p>From: Nofoundation | #021
DraconisRex posted...
Yeah, because in every war territory once gained is never lost or retaken... Which is why everyone in Russia speaks German today... Oh, wait, they don't? Oh snap... So much for THAT truism...
We're going to take a moment away from this dashing discussion to enhance reading comprehension. The issue is not whether or not a village should or should not be retaken, it's the fact that they stated it would "stay saved" and it does not. An inaccuracy in a statement can exist whether or not you agree with the logic of the statement.
I would agree that the game would be awful if everybody saved all the villages before you got there. That said, it doesn't change their statement of "player impact".
Also, it is unbecoming of a forum poster to use the phrase "Oh snap". It's never OK to say that.</p>
you realise that DEs are controlled by population in the zone at the moment right? go to the second norn zone to see how it actually plays, i was one of the only people there and i saved a village from the sons of slavnir(SP?) the village stayed saved and wasn't attacked again for about 5 hours.
---
From: CJayC | Posted: 6/3/2003
GameFAQs isn't going to be merged in with GameSpot or any other site. We're not going to strip out the soul of the site.
May 23, 2012 9:55 am GMT
Nofoundation posted...DraconisRex posted...
Yeah, because in every war territory once gained is never lost or retaken... Which is why everyone in Russia speaks German today... Oh, wait, they don't? Oh snap... So much for THAT truism...
We're going to take a moment away from this dashing discussion to enhance reading comprehension. The issue is not whether or not a village should or should not be retaken, it's the fact that they stated it would "stay saved" and it does not. An inaccuracy in a statement can exist whether or not you agree with the logic of the statement.
I would agree that the game would be awful if everybody saved all the villages before you got there. That said, it doesn't change their statement of "player impact".
Also, it is unbecoming of a forum poster to use the phrase "Oh snap". It's never OK to say that.
They created dynamic events for NPCs to try and recapture the village.
A village just doesn't automatically go back to being captured.
Honestly, I don;t think you understand what you are arguing.
May 23, 2012 10:07 am GMT
Also remember "beta is beta" and they ramped up the DE occurrence rate.
May 23, 2012 10:14 am GMT
ITT: TC believes every commercial and advertisement put out by a company's marketing department has to come true, otherwise a company's product sucks.
May 23, 2012 10:31 am GMT
May 23, 2012 10:47 am GMT
Nofoundation posted...
We're going to take a moment away from this dashing discussion to enhance reading comprehension. The issue is not whether or not a village should or should not be retaken, it's the fact that they stated it would "stay saved" and it does not. An inaccuracy in a statement can exist whether or not you agree with the logic of the statement.
I would agree that the game would be awful if everybody saved all the villages before you got there. That said, it doesn't change their statement of "player impact".
...
Again, the problem is with your interpretation of the statement. Once you save a village, it does stay saved. Meaning, that enemies stop attacking and the village goes about its business as usual. It doesn't mean the village will be safe forever, because the enemy will try to capture it again.
Basically, it stays "saved" until the enemy attacks again. having multiple attacks spaced out to allow others to enjoy the content in no way invalidates the claim. They are making a comparison to other MMOs where everyone does the same quest to defend the town but there are no consequences to it. The town will always need players to defend it, and the enemy will always be nearby even if you "succeed" on the quest.
The way ANet does it does make the town safe (removing the quest for everyone unless the enemy attacks again) and the enemy retreats from the surroundings. Even better, if you, and the other players, fail to defend the village it also has consequences with the enemy actually taking over the place and needing to be cleared out. That is why their statement can't be taken as an absolute.
---
http://www.xboxgamertag.com/gamercard/xXDelta%20ZeroXx/tempo/card.png May 23, 2012 11:10 am GMT
ITT: I interpret what the devs said in the way I please (and by the way would be terrible game design), then complain when the game doesn't conform to it.
You really though "the village stays saved" meant, like, forever? There are lots of accounts of how at higher levels, villages not defended are taken by the enemy and you're screwed, or how they kidnap NPCs and you have to rescue them. Obviously it's nothing "permanent" in the literal sense of the world, it is "persistent". Learn the difference then come back. You have to be a troll not to realize how WoW does not have persistence of any kind and how this makes GW2 different.
As for the "I swing a sword", it's a jab at the Final Fantasy-like combat of many MMOs, including WoW, where you just stand there and trade attacks with the enemy. Sure, you occasionally trade other attacks (abilities). It's still looks exceedingly stupid how you don't move at all, and this is not how any kind of combat would be if remotely realistic. Again, if you don't realize how dynamic GW2 combat is compared to WoW, you either have not played or are trolling.
By the way, I remember having seen more trollish posts by you, so I'm not giving you the benefit of the doubt. To the ignore list you go.
---
Complexity is not depth.
May 23, 2012 11:17 am GMT
Nofoundation posted...
I think you are being overly critical here. GW2 has the best fire-putting out, cow feeding and apple collecting quests I have ever seen in a game. Its revolutionary stuff that has never been done before.
As for endgame, GW2 is so awesome that the whole thing is endgame and then you have specific activities that you can do at level cap that you have been doing the whole time in the endgame. So really this game's endgame has an endgame.
The village example is also not very good. GW2 accurately simulates peoples' forgetfulness and complacency as well as the well-established determination of centaurs. It's highly accurate for a village to be rescued and then reattacked by centaurs every 10 minutes.
10/10, more please
May 23, 2012 11:23 am GMT
That fine post was from WarBeagle. I can't take credit for it, unless he's another one of my alts and I don't know about it.
You're not just swinging a sword. You're swinging a sword at centaurs, nature's most determined hybrid.
---
Or you realize other MMO's are like a horse chasing a carrot on a stick up a ever steeper hill and GW2 is like a dog chasing it's tail.-Hi C
May 23, 2012 11:34 am GMT
1/5
Try harder.
---
If someone buys a book, then sells that book to another. The publisher gets nothing. The used video game market should work the exact same way.
May 23, 2012 11:55 am GMT
Nofoundation posted...“A single decision, made by a player, cascades out in a chain of events”
-Didn't see this in two betas. Maybe it happens in end-game. Wait, what end-game? Ok, maybe it happens later in the game? Either way, I don't see how this concept can work in a game like this
“You’re rescuing a village that will stay rescued”
-Except every 10 minutes centaurs attack in the same way. It doesn't stay rescued. This idea is absurd for a persistent world and is laughable.
"Help, I'm contradicting myself!"
---
http://diogo-als.blogspot.com/^^ My blog (em Portugues)
May 23, 2012 11:56 am GMT
Nofoundation posted...DraconisRex posted...
Yeah, because in every war territory once gained is never lost or retaken... Which is why everyone in Russia speaks German today... Oh, wait, they don't? Oh snap... So much for THAT truism...
We're going to take a moment away from this dashing discussion to enhance reading comprehension. The issue is not whether or not a village should or should not be retaken, it's the fact that they stated it would "stay saved" and it does not. An inaccuracy in a statement can exist whether or not you agree with the logic of the statement.
I would agree that the game would be awful if everybody saved all the villages before you got there. That said, it doesn't change their statement of "player impact".
Also, it is unbecoming of a forum poster to use the phrase "Oh snap". It's never OK to say that.
They were referring to cities you save in your personal story, so maybe you need to work on comprehension before telling others to?
---
Resistance is TASTY!
May 23, 2012 12:24 pm GMT
Seems like a lotta drones making excuses. Almost sad.
---
Or you realize other MMO's are like a horse chasing a carrot on a stick up a ever steeper hill and GW2 is like a dog chasing it's tail.-Hi C
May 23, 2012 12:29 pm GMT
So, basically, you have no legitimate rebuttal and are now admitting defeat by resorting to personal attacks.
Good to know.
*ignored.*
May 23, 2012 12:38 pm GMT
Clearly a troll thread. Nothing to see here.
---
If someone buys a book, then sells that book to another. The publisher gets nothing. The used video game market should work the exact same way.
May 23, 2012 12:49 pm GMT
May 23, 2012 12:52 pm GMT
Nofoundation posted...Seems like a lotta drones making excuses. Almost sad.
Making excuses for your lack of comprehension in the English language? Again, they were referring to your personal story about the city being saved.
---
Resistance is TASTY!
May 23, 2012 1:50 pm GMT
Nofoundation posted...DraconisRex posted...
Also, it is unbecoming of a forum poster to use the phrase "Oh snap". It's never OK to say that.
Using "oh snap" on GameFAQs should result in automatic placement into "purgatory" status.
By the way, I am one of Nofoundation's alts. He just doesn't know it yet.
---
Hatefact: non-PC statement that happens to be true. ---
Diablo 3: Floyd#1575
May 23, 2012 3:14 pm GMT
If anybody made a good point i'd happily debate it but so far it's just been me using factual statements made in the manifesto and people telling me I'm interpreting them wrong. I guess when they say they are changing the mmo genre, they don't mean literally, they are just trying to sell copies. Which was sorta my point. Oh snap. Straight cash homie
---
Or you realize other MMO's are like a horse chasing a carrot on a stick up a ever steeper hill and GW2 is like a dog chasing it's tail.-Hi C
Dark Age of Camelot (PC)
Torchlight II (PC)
Neverwinter (PC)
Dishonored (PC)
XCOM: Enemy Unknown (PC)
