Guild Wars 2

for thos that never played the first Guild Wars .or the Guild Wars Vets that might have forgotten about this fact . and are sour about the new mounts coming to the game .
claiming mounts are game immersion breaking is very wrong .

in guild wars we had something called missions to get to the next story line point of the game . the first mount we found was called the worm named Queen Aijundu that after the mission was done and over . we could go back and ride as many times as we wanted and do some really good gold farming too .
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Queen_Aijundu

next was eye of the north came out with the char homelands where we found this big Siege devourers that was part of a quest story line . after the quest was done we could go back and get the Siege devourer hop on it . and go kill char and the boss Siege devourers in the char homelands .and do really good gold farming with them as well .
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Against_the_Charr

also too you watch wooden potatoes video here it shows the Queen Aijundu mount being rode

at 3:36 in his video you can see wooden potatoes riding the mounts in Guild Wars

Actually, one did not ride Queen Aijundu but ‘rode’ in other Jujundu worms.

Same with Siege Devourers, one rode in them. One’s skill bar completely changed, and you would no longer see your character.

It’s a bit different than riding on the new Mounts. Also, but for the initial ‘engage combat’ skill, one can not fight on Mounts.

The players acted more like internal parasites in that game. They get inside the creature and then take over the controls and become the creature.

That’s not mounts.

Yes, you were literally transformed into the beast (worm, devourer), you never rode it. That’s a huge difference, although the functionality was basically the same (you used the worm form to get across poisonous areas).

alas they still miss the points and make the same claims . oh well

WARIORSCHARGEING.2637:

alas they still miss the points and make the same claims . oh well

Idk. It’s like saying a transformation tonic is the same as a race change. Both change your appearance but the two are not the same.

A mount is something you ride. The Wurm and Siege Devourers are transformations where your char becomes another creature and it gains that other creature’s skills.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

The players acted more like internal parasites in that game. They get inside the creature and then take over the controls and become the creature.

That’s not mounts.

Thats a pretty weird hair to split. Mounts in WoW is technically a Transform, where your rig turns into the mount, and theres a rigid copy of your avatar put on its back (at a fixed height that never bounces).

But something I notice was the Riders are animated in PoF. The trailer doesn’t show it well, but the WP interview has some footage of the training level with the Raptor. In it you can see the rider leaning in response to the mount’s movements, playing with the reigns, their body will swivel to match your camera’s look direction, and the models are IK’d correctly (which is not nearly as common a thing as it should be).

But just because I’m on this rant already….. I wanna point out something that kind of caught me by surprise. The mounts have surprisingly good “horse physics” on the body. They actually move, lean and balance like creature of their body shape would. They still cheat in the animation for a few places (like the feet), but its passable. I did a long google search, and was shocked how bad the mounts animate in a lot of modern games.

Of best example I’ve been able to find, 2 were single player game (Red Dead and Witcher), one was a Korean game from nearly a decade ago. (Alicia Online) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W7RzDYLmjc , and FF15 (mounts in 14 are just…… not good) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KF5mmdcO5I || These are good examples of animation with real effort put into them, but they are depressingly rare.

And to get perspective….. I comparing it to Argo from Shadow of the Colossus, using full body IK. While not that impressive looking by todays standards, not many games seem to be able to clear that bar. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTyn_bRppGs

Honorable mentions goes to Mount and Blade II. Its most of the way there… but something still seems a bit off.

If anyone know of games with good mount or riding animations, I’d really like to see them. The comparisons make for good discussion, if not insightful.

starlinvf.1358:

But something I notice was the Riders are animated in PoF. The trailer doesn’t show it well, but the WP interview has some footage of the training level with the Raptor. In it you can see the rider leaning in response to the mount’s movements, playing with the reigns, their body will swivel to match your camera’s look direction, and the models are IK’d correctly (which is not nearly as common a thing as it should be).

I was pretty on the fence about mounts when I first heard they were adding them, but the functionality of them and seeing how well animated they are completely changed my mind.
I’m excited just to be able to see that in person!

starlinvf.1358:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

The players acted more like internal parasites in that game. They get inside the creature and then take over the controls and become the creature.

That’s not mounts.

Thats a pretty weird hair to split. Mounts in WoW is technically a Transform, where your rig turns into the mount, and theres a rigid copy of your avatar put on its back (at a fixed height that never bounces).

What exactly makes a mount then? Are tanks and planes in a war game mounts? In a game like Eve, are the ships you fly around in mounts? If you can grow wings and fly, are the wings mounts?

In an MMO I consider a mount something that has the player character and the mount both visible and the player character is outside the body of the mount and riding on it. I don’t consider wings you can grow or items you become/transform into to be mounts, although that might be the technical name for them.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

starlinvf.1358:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

The players acted more like internal parasites in that game. They get inside the creature and then take over the controls and become the creature.

That’s not mounts.

Thats a pretty weird hair to split. Mounts in WoW is technically a Transform, where your rig turns into the mount, and theres a rigid copy of your avatar put on its back (at a fixed height that never bounces).

What exactly makes a mount then? Are tanks and planes in a war game mounts? In a game like Eve, are the ships you fly around in mounts? If you can grow wings and fly, are the wings mounts?

In an MMO I consider a mount something that has the player character and the mount both visible and the player character is outside the body of the mount and riding on it. I don’t consider wings you can grow or items you become/transform into to be mounts, although that might be the technical name for them.

In most games, mounts are almost indistinguishable from vehicles, as rider and “thing they ride on” are not treated as separate entities. Yet this passes the “is this the thing” test in eyes of most gamers, because its A. Not the Character. and B. The character is in control. By your definition, the Scorpion tank and Mongoose from HALO are “Mounts” even though their vehicles, because people ride on the outside of it. Or how a Motorcycle in GTA is a mount, but a Car in GTA is not. But a mount in WoW is a Mount, despite it functionally being a vehicle in its mechanics.

Thats why I consider it a stupid hair to split, because its trying to be specific for superficial reasoning, yet completely missing the point of the larger argument.

starlinvf.1358:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

starlinvf.1358:

Just a flesh wound.3589:

The players acted more like internal parasites in that game. They get inside the creature and then take over the controls and become the creature.

That’s not mounts.

Thats a pretty weird hair to split. Mounts in WoW is technically a Transform, where your rig turns into the mount, and theres a rigid copy of your avatar put on its back (at a fixed height that never bounces).

What exactly makes a mount then? Are tanks and planes in a war game mounts? In a game like Eve, are the ships you fly around in mounts? If you can grow wings and fly, are the wings mounts?

In an MMO I consider a mount something that has the player character and the mount both visible and the player character is outside the body of the mount and riding on it. I don’t consider wings you can grow or items you become/transform into to be mounts, although that might be the technical name for them.

In most games, mounts are almost indistinguishable from vehicles, as rider and “thing they ride on” are not treated as separate entities. Yet this passes the “is this the thing” test in eyes of most gamers, because its A. Not the Character. and B. The character is in control. By your definition, the Scorpion tank and Mongoose from HALO are “Mounts” even though their vehicles, because people ride on the outside of it. Or how a Motorcycle in GTA is a mount, but a Car in GTA is not. But a mount in WoW is a Mount, despite it functionally being a vehicle in its mechanics.

Thats why I consider it a stupid hair to split, because its trying to be specific for superficial reasoning, yet completely missing the point of the larger argument.

/shrug

I played Guild Wars 1 and never considered the Wurm or the Siege Devourer to be true mounts. They were map specific mechanics used to do something or to overcome game imposed map rules (poisonous sand). They weren’t something you got in or on to ride around on all the maps and inside cities for the fun of riding on a mount, such as the mounts in WoW. They might be mounts, technically speaking, but if someone has to make a thread to argue that they are mounts then they didn’t capture the true spirit of MMO mounts.

Players did not ride inside the siege devourer’s mouth… they got into that hut on its back. So yes, that was a mount.

The thing that separates mounts in GW1 from mounts in GW2 and other MMOs is location ability, and perhaps more importantly, purpose. Mounts in GW1 was just an “alternative build” while mounts in GW2 are largely a boost to mobility (or so it seems to me?), and mounts in other MMOs are largely just speed boosts. But both mounts in GW2 and MMOs are also unlimited in where they can show (for the most part), will show the player’s character, and is ultimately just another way to customize character appearance and show off. None of which applied to junundu or siege devourers.

GW1 mounts are akin to the WvW siege golems rather than most mounts.

Mounts are Riding animals, so any animal you are riding is a mount.

Also, we know there’s Mount skills for gw2 mounts, so that also “changes your build”. So I think they are very similar to Junundu and siege devourers in that regard. Not to mention siege golems, mechanical devourers, golem suits, other transforms. That also all change your skillbar significantly.

I guess GW2 mounts is something between a speedboost and a utility transformation. Mechanically speaking anyway. I pretty much feel like any complaint is more because it uses the word mount. And other games have mounts, thus GW2 is less unique. Regardless of how mounts in gw2 are different from other games’ mounts

Konig Des Todes.2086:

Players did not ride inside the siege devourer’s mouth… they got into that hut on its back. So yes, that was a mount.

The thing that separates mounts in GW1 from mounts in GW2 and other MMOs is location ability, and perhaps more importantly, purpose. Mounts in GW1 was just an “alternative build” while mounts in GW2 are largely a boost to mobility (or so it seems to me?), and mounts in other MMOs are largely just speed boosts. But both mounts in GW2 and MMOs are also unlimited in where they can show (for the most part), will show the player’s character, and is ultimately just another way to customize character appearance and show off. None of which applied to junundu or siege devourers.

GW1 mounts are akin to the WvW siege golems rather than most mounts.

^

And there you go. Gw2 has mounts in the same way that gw1 has mounts.

But I bet if you (generic you) made a thread saying that gw2 already has mounts in response to people saying “Mounts are coming to gw2!” and pointed out WvW Siege golems, those people will look at you funny because that’s not the type of mounts that they mean.

those were most certainly mechanics of the game, same as WvW Siege, in neither way were they mounts.
If you wanted to do a better job at pointing out mounts, you would have directed your "dig’? " “chip”? what ever form of you win child play, you would have said the Stone Summit Dwarves whom ONLY and let me emphasize ONLY had mounts out of force and I quote-

The Stone Summit have a penchant for slavery. They can often be found riding giants and other beasts bound with all manner of manacles and restraining devices. They don’t bother to tame their mounts, rather preferring to simply chain the beasts and overpower them, making them bend to their will rather than becoming accustomed to their new role. If given the opportunity, they would enslave humans and other, “non-pure” dwarves as well.

Mounts in Gw1 were used as slaves. The Mounts in Gw2(ironic this is quoted too) are used as slaves. The only reasons anyone argues for mounts are those two.

Are we (Pact Commander, Savior of Humanity, Leader of the People) going to resort to slavery? and break 12 years of lore for the sake of a niche crowd? yes, yes we are.

Mounts are the Generic WoW game. Now Guild Wars 2 has them too. To satisfy the short term players who should be happy with what they have, rather than what they had.

I think we as Pact commander have done much worse things than domesticating animals to ride. Which is even debatable how that is slavery to begin with.

Ofcourse ignoring already domesticated animals currently in the game, like cows, chickens, bunnies, dolyaks, and the like.

The stone summit really were ahead of their time ;-)

Giddy up!

Let’s see, in real life you don’t mount your car, you get inside to drive, but you can mount astride a motorcycle.

Although, I do remember a scene where “Mr. Bean” did mount his car, it’s not normal.

Infantry could mount a tank and go for a ride, but they wouldn’t be able to drive or operate weapon systems.

So, saying Guild Wars had mounts for players is actually incorrect.

The introduction of mounts to GW2 is commercially understandable, what a great way to bring new players into our community.

FrizzFreston.5290:

I think we as Pact commander have done much worse things than domesticating animals to ride. Which is even debatable how that is slavery to begin with.

Ofcourse ignoring already domesticated animals currently in the game, like cows, chickens, bunnies, dolyaks, and the like.

Let’s reword slaves then. Since you missed the point. They were not domesticated properly, they were forced to be mounts by being abused, mentally tormented. The domesticated animals in gw2 are always taken care of or loved deeply by their owner.

The argument for mounts have always been what op had said. But they were always mechanics of the game or abused and forced to be mounts. Neither can work as a OMG THERE WERE ALREADY MOUNTS OMGWEDESERVETHEMZZ.

Doesn’t really matter to me if I’m riding inside a car or riding on top of a horse. Cars were created to replace horses, to deal with the problem of too much crap on the sidewalks. They were created to solve a pollution problem (irony in and of itself).

To that end they’re both tools to get from what place to another, whether you’re riding inside one or not.

People used to ride horses to get to the next town, now they ride cars. I’m not sure I see any real difference at all. Hell you have to feed both of them too.