Anything I post is just the opinion of a very vocal minority of 1.
(edited by TooBz.3065)
Manifesto Clarification
This thread is like watching a long rally during a tennis match. Back and forth, back and forth, with occasional color commentary.
We are heroes. This is what we do!
RIP City of Heroes
RIP City of Heroes
I think the problem is that people viewed the manifesto as a “mission statement” as opposed to a marketing document. In fact it was only a marketing document. And as such, it’s misleading.
Saying that bosses shouldn’t reappear every 10 minutes and then saying that only applies to story missions is like a store saying that it doesn’t price gouge because 10% of the goods are reasonably priced.
I’m not saying that bosses can or should have a long timer, because this is an MMO and frankly I don’t think that would work. But the simple fact remains that the statement, on it’s face, is misleading.
And there will be forum posts about it forever because of this.
Actually no, they never said the bosses wouldn’t appear every ten minutes in the open world. Giving people stuff to do > than being “realistic”.
I didn’t say they did. (One more try)
But they did say MMO’s had lost their ability to tell a story becaue “everyone around you is doing the same thing your doing, the boss you just killed respawns 10 minutes later, it doesn’t care that I’m there.”
Of course they “meant” the personal story, however, the statement, on it’s face is misleading. It requires clarification. As long as ArenaNet puts forth misleading statements they will have people complain on the forums about it.
Also, if you read my post I did say that living up to that statement probably wouldn’t work in an MMO.
You said above that you would rather discuss opinion, but you didn’t listen to what I said at all or pay attention to the point I was trying to make. Instead you jumped on the first thing that you felt like addressing.
I listened. Anet posted that clarification VERY soon after the manifesto. And it was common knowledge at that time. Subsequent to that, they put out very specific stuff about what was and wasn’t in the game.
And that manifesto, it was up in that blog for a very very long time. Well over a year and a half before they migrated to the new blog.
So that manifesto clarification was there to see for a very long time.
Sure people will complain…I get that.
But when someone points out to them that it’s one document, one video out of dozens, and it’s old and it was clarified, what do they say?
Well some people all but accused me of making it up in the first place. New information always supercedes old information about any game. Everyone knows that.
Try buying WoW now and reading the first manual.
I think what I expected more of was ‘everyday’ changes to maps in terms of rotating out old events, putting new ones in, developing old event chains into something new, etc. When I say ‘everyday’ changes I mean stuff based on existing world conflicts and problems, rather than big releases under a huge fanfare like the Living World has evolved into.
It would be nice, when I’m replaying Map X on character number 4, to stumble across new events I hadn’t seen before, or to see that situation Y that was here when I came through last had become something else. But all the living world stuff focuses on big, temporary themed changes driven by achievement grind and reward-hunting rather that minor changes to the everyday content that would really make the world feel subtly alive.
I think what I expected more of was ‘everyday’ changes to maps in terms of rotating out old events, putting new ones in, developing old event chains into something new, etc. When I say ‘everyday’ changes I mean stuff based on existing world conflicts and problems, rather than big releases under a huge fanfare like the Living World has evolved into.
It would be nice, when I’m replaying Map X on character number 4, to stumble across new events I hadn’t seen before, or to see that situation Y that was here when I came through last had become something else. But all the living world stuff focuses on big, temporary themed changes driven by achievement grind and reward-hunting rather that minor changes to the everyday content that would really make the world feel subtly alive.
I agree this would be nice. But eventually, over a longer time, every event would be known and you’d be back to square one. People will know stuff and farm stuff. They’ll recognize patterns. As humans it’s one of the things we’re particularly suited for.
That’s why the Living Story is, in some ways, better. Because it has no real pattern. You can’t go back and farm it. Once it’s gone we’re onto the next thing. It’s living, but in a different way.
passes around the popcorn
lol…
+1 for love, heh
I listened. Anet posted that clarification VERY soon after the manifesto. And it was common knowledge at that time. Subsequent to that, they put out very specific stuff about what was and wasn’t in the game.
And that manifesto, it was up in that blog for a very very long time. Well over a year and a half before they migrated to the new blog.
So that manifesto clarification was there to see for a very long time.
Sure people will complain…I get that.
But when someone points out to them that it’s one document, one video out of dozens, and it’s old and it was clarified, what do they say?
Well some people all but accused me of making it up in the first place. New information always supercedes old information about any game. Everyone knows that.
Try buying WoW now and reading the first manual.
Yeah, ok. I know nothing about the history. I do know that I heard about the manifesto but not the clarification, which I see as a (the??) problem.
I will never buy WOW.
Anything I post is just the opinion of a very vocal minority of 1.
If your arguments are strong, you shouldn’t need to try to cast aspersions to try to make yourself look right. Doing so actually weakens your argument, rather than strengthening it.
If you have a strong argument, you shouldn’t use comments like “most people” or “everybody knows” either. You also shouldn’t criticise behaviour that you partake in yourself.
I mention that because I’ve seen a particular person do that on more than one occasion.
But hey you managed to get this clarification on the books thanks to one of the posters. Now what? Or is it time to close this thread?
It’s a game forum. The truth is not to be found here.
I hope this gives you a bit of insight, from my perspective at least, of some of the challenges Anet has had to appeal to two completely different sets of players.
Anet didn’t “have to” appeal to two completely different sets of players. That was a corporate decision, obviously by people that don’t understand it made as much sense as trying to grab the audiences of both Dark Souls and Yoshi’s Playland. You can broaden the appeal of a pro football game by making you accessorize cheerleader outfits during play. When you broaden the appeal too much, the appeal just suffers. But next to short-term profits, who cares?
LF2M Max Ascended Only!
Oh, I’m well aware people are “winding me up” as we say downunder.
Vayne are… Are you Australian, after all this time?
I listened. Anet posted that clarification VERY soon after the manifesto. And it was common knowledge at that time. Subsequent to that, they put out very specific stuff about what was and wasn’t in the game.
And that manifesto, it was up in that blog for a very very long time. Well over a year and a half before they migrated to the new blog.
So that manifesto clarification was there to see for a very long time.
Sure people will complain…I get that.
But when someone points out to them that it’s one document, one video out of dozens, and it’s old and it was clarified, what do they say?
Well some people all but accused me of making it up in the first place. New information always supercedes old information about any game. Everyone knows that.
Try buying WoW now and reading the first manual.
Yeah, ok. I know nothing about the history. I do know that I heard about the manifesto but not the clarification, which I see as a (the??) problem.
I will never buy WOW.
Right but the other problem is this.
Any game,, particularly an MMO, is going to go through changes in development as it develops. It’s just natural for this to happen. Old information gets supplanted to new.
In the first beta, which was long after the manifesto, this is how you got dyes. Dye seeds would drop in the open world. You’d get them just slaying mobs. But you didn’t know what color it was.
You’d go to an NPC in your home instance, and you’d give them the seed and they’d grow it for you. In 24 hours you would come back and find out what color you had. These dyes were account bound. You couldn’t sell them. You couldn’t do anything with a double but delete it.
If you wanted to get more than one dye a day,, you’d have to buy plant food in the cash shop. If you buy the Guild Wars 2 Official Strategy Guide, that information is still in it. That’s how recently it was changed…but it was changed, and for the better.
Since the manifesto was released, there have been thousands of changes. This should be expected in any MMO, much less from a company that’s trying to innovate.
Did your read the newer blogs about how Anet was an Iterative company and how they change things up all the time, even throwing out entire systems to be replaced by newer and better ones?
It’s how they work. Which means that their game (and in fact all MMOs) are merely a work in progress.
Oh, I’m well aware people are “winding me up” as we say downunder.
Vayne are… Are you Australian, after all this time?
I’m a transplanted American. I moved here about ten years ago, but yes, I’m a citizen of Australia now.
Oh, I’m well aware people are “winding me up” as we say downunder.
Vayne are… Are you Australian, after all this time?
I’m a transplanted American. I moved here about ten years ago, but yes, I’m a citizen of Australia now.
Ah, well I’ve already started reading your posts in an Australian accent, there’s no turning back. <3
Oh, I’m well aware people are “winding me up” as we say downunder.
Vayne are… Are you Australian, after all this time?
I’m a transplanted American. I moved here about ten years ago, but yes, I’m a citizen of Australia now.
Ah, well I’ve already started reading your posts in an Australian accent, there’s no turning back. <3
LMAO! A NY accent would be closer…but it has dulled a bit. When I got here, everyone knew I was from NY. Now…not so much.
If you wanted to get more than one dye a day,, you’d have to buy plant food in the cash shop. If you buy the Guild Wars 2 Official Strategy Guide, that information is still in it. That’s how recently it was changed…but it was changed, and for the better.
The only thing that underscores is how “Official Strategy Guides” are a complete waste of money. Oh and if that is still being sold in that state, for shame.
Since the manifesto was released, there have been thousands of changes. This should be expected in any MMO, much less from a company that’s trying to innovate.
The point of a manifesto is to declare intentions that will remain consistent over a long period of time, even though the details of how to accomplish those intentions are not known with certainty. Of course the details will evolve. But when the details display a serious disregard for the intentions declared in the manifesto, then the manifesto is betrayed. The change from “all animals are equal” to “some animals are more equal than others” is not the same as changing the meal times.
LF2M Max Ascended Only!
If you wanted to get more than one dye a day,, you’d have to buy plant food in the cash shop. If you buy the Guild Wars 2 Official Strategy Guide, that information is still in it. That’s how recently it was changed…but it was changed, and for the better.
The only thing that underscores is how “Official Strategy Guides” are a complete waste of money. Oh and if that is still being sold in that state, for shame.
Since the manifesto was released, there have been thousands of changes. This should be expected in any MMO, much less from a company that’s trying to innovate.
The point of a manifesto is to declare intentions that will remain consistent over a long period of time, even though the details of how to accomplish those intentions are not known with certainty. Of course the details will evolve. But when the details display a serious disregard for the intentions declared in the manifesto, then the manifesto is betrayed. The change from “all animals are equal” to “some animals are more equal than others” is not the same as changing the meal times.
Now you get to the nitty gritty of the problem.
There are a whole lot of people who really believe that they can take a single line out of the manifesto and turn that line to mean what they want it to mean, without taking the rest of the words around it into account, and all the stuff said about it afterwards.
The line “we don’t want people to grind in Guild Wars 2” is followed by “no one likes it, no one finds it fun, we want to change the way people view COMBAT”.
The paragraph starts with the line, “In other games there’s this boring grind to get to the fun stuff…”
What is Colin talking about…boring grind to get to the fun stuff. Not gear grind. Gear isn’t mentioned anywhere in the manifesto. Even the article referring to the manifesto written after doesn’t use the word gear, though it does use the words “fun reward”. Can you maybe perhaps interpret that as meaning gear. Maybe. But it’s not a sure thing. At the very least it would be something you’d have to think about. What did Colin mean when he said grind.
If you take the words out of context, the manifesto was betrayed. If you look at the context, backed up by months of commentary after the fact, then the manifesto wasn’t betrayed.
Whether you like the game or not, whether you like what was done or not, the manifesto itself didn’t change. The intentions of the devs didn’t change.
The one thing that DID change, was the slight vertical progression added to the game, which wasn’t mentioned at all in the manifesto.
Now you get to the nitty gritty of the problem.
There are a whole lot of people who really believe that they can take a single line out of the manifesto and turn that line to mean what they want it to mean, without taking the rest of the words around it into account, and all the stuff said about it afterwards.
The line “we don’t want people to grind in Guild Wars 2” is followed by “no one likes it, no one finds it fun, we want to change the way people view COMBAT”.
The paragraph starts with the line, “In other games there’s this boring grind to get to the fun stuff…”
What is Colin talking about…boring grind to get to the fun stuff. Not gear grind. Gear isn’t mentioned anywhere in the manifesto. Even the article referring to the manifesto written after doesn’t use the word gear, though it does use the words “fun reward”. Can you maybe perhaps interpret that as meaning gear. Maybe. But it’s not a sure thing. At the very least it would be something you’d have to think about. What did Colin mean when he said grind.
If you take the words out of context, the manifesto was betrayed. If you look at the context, backed up by months of commentary after the fact, then the manifesto wasn’t betrayed.
Whether you like the game or not, whether you like what was done or not, the manifesto itself didn’t change. The intentions of the devs didn’t change.
The one thing that DID change, was the slight vertical progression added to the game, which wasn’t mentioned at all in the manifesto.
If that’s the point, how much does this really matter?
For example, would it be fine to say that ascended gear terrible, time gated content is boring, and grinding for a legendary is insufferable., as long as recognize that ANet never said they wouldn’t make it terrible, boring, and insufferable?
Anything I post is just the opinion of a very vocal minority of 1.
If your arguments are strong, you shouldn’t need to try to cast aspersions to try to make yourself look right. Doing so actually weakens your argument, rather than strengthening it.
If you have a strong argument, you shouldn’t use comments like “most people” or “everybody knows” either. You also shouldn’t criticise behaviour that you partake in yourself.
I mention that because I’ve seen a particular person do that on more than one occasion.
But hey you managed to get this clarification on the books thanks to one of the posters. Now what? Or is it time to close this thread?
We’re still discussing the manifesto, it’s not really breaking any rules I can see. Why so anxious to close this thread? At least some progress was made here (as compared to other threads on the manifesto).
Edit: I actually can say most people or it’s commonly known if those things are true. I’ve been on forums long enough to know certain things are commonly known. You may not agree and that’s fine, but it doesn’t make it less true.
Stuff that’s been talked about again and again over and over on forums, such as the percentage of people who actually participate out of the player base is pretty well documented. It’s not just forums either. All sorts of online groups.
Most people lurk. Anyone who disagrees with it hasn’t looked into it.
(edited by Vayne.8563)
Now you get to the nitty gritty of the problem.
There are a whole lot of people who really believe that they can take a single line out of the manifesto and turn that line to mean what they want it to mean, without taking the rest of the words around it into account, and all the stuff said about it afterwards.
The line “we don’t want people to grind in Guild Wars 2” is followed by “no one likes it, no one finds it fun, we want to change the way people view COMBAT”.
The paragraph starts with the line, “In other games there’s this boring grind to get to the fun stuff…”
What is Colin talking about…boring grind to get to the fun stuff. Not gear grind. Gear isn’t mentioned anywhere in the manifesto. Even the article referring to the manifesto written after doesn’t use the word gear, though it does use the words “fun reward”. Can you maybe perhaps interpret that as meaning gear. Maybe. But it’s not a sure thing. At the very least it would be something you’d have to think about. What did Colin mean when he said grind.
If you take the words out of context, the manifesto was betrayed. If you look at the context, backed up by months of commentary after the fact, then the manifesto wasn’t betrayed.
Whether you like the game or not, whether you like what was done or not, the manifesto itself didn’t change. The intentions of the devs didn’t change.
The one thing that DID change, was the slight vertical progression added to the game, which wasn’t mentioned at all in the manifesto.
If that’s the point, how much does this really matter?
For example, would it be fine to say that ascended gear terrible, time gated content is boring, and grinding for a legendary is insufferable., as long as recognize that ANet never said they wouldn’t make it terrible, boring, and insufferable?
It’s one thing to say a company lied or betrayed people, its’ another to say the company made something I don’t like. These are completely different statements.
Sure you can not like it. It can be not fun for you. But since fun is subjective, you just think, okay I don’t find this fun and you move on. Or you talk about what will make it fun for you. What you don’t do is bring up something like the manifesto three years after it was made in an attempt to prove what? That it wasn’t true?
It’s true to some people, not just me. There are many who don’t have a problem with it. But I do think people do need to take responsibility for researching the game beyond one 5 minute statement of intent. And if they can’t take that responsibility, there’s nothing that I can say to change their mind. But really there was so much information out there. Very very little surprised me about what has happened.
Cool. Just rounding out what the point of the discussion was.
Frankly I think we’d all be better off if we dropped the manifesto nonsense and focused on what makes this game great and what could be improved. So I agree (just this once).
Anything I post is just the opinion of a very vocal minority of 1.
Cool. Just rounding out what the point of the discussion was.
Frankly I think we’d all be better off if we dropped the manifesto nonsense and focused on what makes this game great and what could be improved. So I agree (just this once).
Yep, it’s time to put it to rest. But since so many people keep bringing it up, I want to point out that some stuff being said is not accurate.
I don’t think Anet were really taking the title of their video that seriously. I mean a manifesto is more along the lines of a long document someone writes down on paper to describe whatever crazy things they are thinking. Typically we hear of crazed serial killers or suicidal people writing manifestos. When I think “manifesto” I think Mein Kampf not youtube… Realistically, I think Anet’s choice of video title was just an attention-grabber, nothing more. Yes they wanted to talk about their vision, but if they were making a true manifesto, it would be posted on the official wiki as an itemized list of objectives with philosophical commentary on design.
Now you get to the nitty gritty of the problem.
There are a whole lot of people who really believe that they can take a single line out of the manifesto and turn that line to mean what they want it to mean, without taking the rest of the words around it into account, and all the stuff said about it afterwards.
The line “we don’t want people to grind in Guild Wars 2” is followed by “no one likes it, no one finds it fun, we want to change the way people view COMBAT”.
The paragraph starts with the line, “In other games there’s this boring grind to get to the fun stuff…”
What is Colin talking about…boring grind to get to the fun stuff. Not gear grind. Gear isn’t mentioned anywhere in the manifesto. Even the article referring to the manifesto written after doesn’t use the word gear, though it does use the words “fun reward”. Can you maybe perhaps interpret that as meaning gear. Maybe. But it’s not a sure thing. At the very least it would be something you’d have to think about. What did Colin mean when he said grind.
If you take the words out of context, the manifesto was betrayed. If you look at the context, backed up by months of commentary after the fact, then the manifesto wasn’t betrayed.
Whether you like the game or not, whether you like what was done or not, the manifesto itself didn’t change. The intentions of the devs didn’t change.
The one thing that DID change, was the slight vertical progression added to the game, which wasn’t mentioned at all in the manifesto.
In other words… it depends on what the definition of the word “is” is.
I am not interested in your legalese. The manifesto says nobody finds grinding fun. I don’t expect to find the resulting game centered on grinding. I don’t care why or how it devolves to grinding. It isn’t fun.
If anyone is taking a few words out of the manifesto and overly emphasizing them, it is you. Imagine describing the system for getting laurels in the manifesto. Does it seem just a little out of place? Does it make you feel like a hero in a dynamic world where what you do matters? Is it “the fun stuff”? Maybe its running CoF1 1000 times. The spirit of the manifesto is not alive and well in the game, and it shows.
LF2M Max Ascended Only!
I don’t think Anet were really taking the title of their video that seriously. I mean a manifesto is more along the lines of a long document someone writes down on paper to describe whatever crazy things they are thinking. Typically we hear of crazed serial killers or suicidal people writing manifestos. When I think “manifesto” I think Mein Kampf not youtube… Realistically, I think Anet’s choice of video title was just an attention-grabber, nothing more. Yes they wanted to talk about their vision, but if they were making a true manifesto, it would be posted on the official wiki as an itemized list of objectives with philosophical commentary on design.
Yes, of course it was a trivial thing. Didn’t really mean anything. I mean, if it were for real, it wouldn’t have just been promoted front and center on their website. It would have been written in blood in triplicate, and sent to the major religious institutions of the world to be enshrined so that no developer could shirk their duty without eternal kitten ation. I mean they might say “manifesto” or “promise” or the like… but really lots of complete wackos made manifestos in the history of the world. Why should ANET’s be any different?
LF2M Max Ascended Only!
Now you get to the nitty gritty of the problem.
There are a whole lot of people who really believe that they can take a single line out of the manifesto and turn that line to mean what they want it to mean, without taking the rest of the words around it into account, and all the stuff said about it afterwards.
The line “we don’t want people to grind in Guild Wars 2” is followed by “no one likes it, no one finds it fun, we want to change the way people view COMBAT”.
The paragraph starts with the line, “In other games there’s this boring grind to get to the fun stuff…”
What is Colin talking about…boring grind to get to the fun stuff. Not gear grind. Gear isn’t mentioned anywhere in the manifesto. Even the article referring to the manifesto written after doesn’t use the word gear, though it does use the words “fun reward”. Can you maybe perhaps interpret that as meaning gear. Maybe. But it’s not a sure thing. At the very least it would be something you’d have to think about. What did Colin mean when he said grind.
If you take the words out of context, the manifesto was betrayed. If you look at the context, backed up by months of commentary after the fact, then the manifesto wasn’t betrayed.
Whether you like the game or not, whether you like what was done or not, the manifesto itself didn’t change. The intentions of the devs didn’t change.
The one thing that DID change, was the slight vertical progression added to the game, which wasn’t mentioned at all in the manifesto.
In other words… it depends on what the definition of the word “is” is.
I am not interested in your legalese. The manifesto says nobody finds grinding fun. I don’t expect to find the resulting game centered on grinding. I don’t care why or how it devolves to grinding. It isn’t fun.
If anyone is taking a few words out of the manifesto and overly emphasizing them, it is you. Imagine describing the system for getting laurels in the manifesto. Does it seem just a little out of place? Does it make you feel like a hero in a dynamic world where what you do matters? Is it “the fun stuff”? Maybe its running CoF1 1000 times. The spirit of the manifesto is not alive and well in the game, and it shows.
The only grind is for cosmetics, hence it isn’t required to experience any content in the game, hence you don’t have to do it to “get to the fun stuff.” Oh look, that’s a line from the manifesto. You don’t need laurels to get to the fun. You don’t need to farm CoF to get to the fun.
The only grind is for cosmetics, hence it isn’t required to experience any content in the game, hence you don’t have to do it to “get to the fun stuff.” Oh look, that’s a line from the manifesto. You don’t need laurels to get to the fun. You don’t need to farm CoF to get to the fun.
The grind is NOT just for cosmetics, thanks to Ascended gear, which they just threw into the game because of someone who panicked.
Also, with the grind-tastic mentality of the developers and the resulting base of players that are drowning in a long list of soul-sapping chores they are compelled to do, there is precious little left of “the fun stuff.” That’s what happens when all energy goes to the grindstones.
LF2M Max Ascended Only!
The only grind is for cosmetics, hence it isn’t required to experience any content in the game, hence you don’t have to do it to “get to the fun stuff.” Oh look, that’s a line from the manifesto. You don’t need laurels to get to the fun. You don’t need to farm CoF to get to the fun.
The grind is NOT just for cosmetics, thanks to Ascended gear, which they just threw into the game because of someone who panicked.
Also, with the grind-tastic mentality of the developers and the resulting base of players that are drowning in a long list of soul-sapping chores they are compelled to do, there is precious little left of “the fun stuff.” That’s what happens when all energy goes to the grindstones.
Thing is, I find some of the grind fun! In fact, I always wanted Anet to bring back old Orr where I can grind: events, loots, coins, and karma.
However, I don’t like gear progression grind: i.e. do stuff to get gear to do zone A. Then do zone A to death, to get gear to move to zone B.
I love some living story grind too…i.e. killing holos and getting lots of coffers. But I do hate some of them i.e. doing dragonball arena.
I like Anet’s stance right now, I love some things they do, I don’t like some of it. In the end, Anet still gives me fun stuff to do and I can ignore some that I don’t like. It’s win/win for me…
Lv80 Thief |Mesmer |Necromancer|Ranger|Guardian|Warrior|Elementalist|Engineer
[Aeon of Wonder]
Maguuma Server
[Aeon of Wonder]
Maguuma Server
I read a few of the posts in this thread. Is this entire thread all about the manifesto + personal story? Or about the manifesto as a whole?
Karma is as abundant as air, and as useless as the Kardashians.
Wheres the kitten butter for my corn?
Now you get to the nitty gritty of the problem.
There are a whole lot of people who really believe that they can take a single line out of the manifesto and turn that line to mean what they want it to mean, without taking the rest of the words around it into account, and all the stuff said about it afterwards.
The line “we don’t want people to grind in Guild Wars 2” is followed by “no one likes it, no one finds it fun, we want to change the way people view COMBAT”.
The paragraph starts with the line, “In other games there’s this boring grind to get to the fun stuff…”
What is Colin talking about…boring grind to get to the fun stuff. Not gear grind. Gear isn’t mentioned anywhere in the manifesto. Even the article referring to the manifesto written after doesn’t use the word gear, though it does use the words “fun reward”. Can you maybe perhaps interpret that as meaning gear. Maybe. But it’s not a sure thing. At the very least it would be something you’d have to think about. What did Colin mean when he said grind.
If you take the words out of context, the manifesto was betrayed. If you look at the context, backed up by months of commentary after the fact, then the manifesto wasn’t betrayed.
Whether you like the game or not, whether you like what was done or not, the manifesto itself didn’t change. The intentions of the devs didn’t change.
The one thing that DID change, was the slight vertical progression added to the game, which wasn’t mentioned at all in the manifesto.
In other words… it depends on what the definition of the word “is” is.
I am not interested in your legalese. The manifesto says nobody finds grinding fun. I don’t expect to find the resulting game centered on grinding. I don’t care why or how it devolves to grinding. It isn’t fun.
If anyone is taking a few words out of the manifesto and overly emphasizing them, it is you. Imagine describing the system for getting laurels in the manifesto. Does it seem just a little out of place? Does it make you feel like a hero in a dynamic world where what you do matters? Is it “the fun stuff”? Maybe its running CoF1 1000 times. The spirit of the manifesto is not alive and well in the game, and it shows.
No, it doesn’t depend on that. It depends on people not substituting definitions for something ALREADY DEFINED IN A DOCUMENT. Colin DEFINED what grind was fort he purposes of what he was saying. He said it straight out. It’s not some hidden code. Then two lines later, he referred to grind AGAIN, in which case in any common usage of English as a language, it would use the same definition.
When you take a line from a paragraph and use it to mean something that it was never intended to mean, it’s called taking it out of context. Because without the first defining usage of the word, it MIGHT mean something else…but in context, it can only mean one thing. Or at very least can’t mean gear grind.
The fact that some people won’t acknowledge this doesn’t make it less true.
I read a few of the posts in this thread. Is this entire thread all about the manifesto + personal story? Or about the manifesto as a whole?
It’s a conversation. I created the thread because someone basically said that I keep talking about this manifesto clarification but I’ve never produced it. Because of the expressed skepticism I produced the thread. But the conversation has moved on to include more of the manifesto as it does.
The only grind is for cosmetics, hence it isn’t required to experience any content in the game, hence you don’t have to do it to “get to the fun stuff.” Oh look, that’s a line from the manifesto. You don’t need laurels to get to the fun. You don’t need to farm CoF to get to the fun.
The grind is NOT just for cosmetics, thanks to Ascended gear, which they just threw into the game because of someone who panicked.
Also, with the grind-tastic mentality of the developers and the resulting base of players that are drowning in a long list of soul-sapping chores they are compelled to do, there is precious little left of “the fun stuff.” That’s what happens when all energy goes to the grindstones.
Except that in other games you need to grind to do content and in Guild Wars 2, you can happily due all the content without grind, except the highest level fractals. The fractals were designed specifically for those people who want to grind to “play the way they want”. But you can still go in and do the first 19 levels of fractals without any ascended gear at all….so you’re not locked out of seeing the fractals.
In most games you would be. It’s not required grind.
I strongly disagree with the argument that people are taking the manifesto out of context. I believe what we have is people like me who saw the manifesto and its language and realized it happened to be consistent with our current understanding of what kind of gaming company ANet was. They were a players company, in my eye, that catered towards a crowd who didn’t want vertical power progression, preferred horizontal progression, and didn’t even know what time gated rewards were other than BDay gifts.
The change from those positions is drastic, and there don’t seem to be any modern games on the market like the original Guild Wars, not that everyone necessarily would switch due to lore, loyalty, and other reasons. That said, ANet made a one of a kind game for an audience that is no longer catered specifically to, therefore they are upset. The manifesto is what made many believe Guild Wars 2 would cater just as much to ANet’s original audience, therefore the manifesto gets a lot of heat.
How widespread this actually is remains to be seen, but I know applies to me and at least a dozen people I play with. Not that I view GW2 as a bad game, but it’s not on the same level as Guild Wars. I hope as time goes on ANet phases out the gating of vertical progression and makes obtaining max stat gear more trivial, and I would also hope they do a better job at making the game feel less punishing when it comes to character build and playstyle flexibility. They should also strike a better balance with timegated rewards. I believe these are the three biggest issues people have with ANet’s designs.
Sylvari Elementalist – Mystree Duskbloom (Lv 80)
Norn Guardian – Aurora Lustyr (Lv 80)
Mia A Shadows Glow – Human Thief (Lv 80)
Norn Guardian – Aurora Lustyr (Lv 80)
Mia A Shadows Glow – Human Thief (Lv 80)
I strongly disagree with the argument that people are taking the manifesto out of context. I believe what we have is people like me who saw the manifesto and its language and realized it happened to be consistent with our current understanding of what kind of gaming company ANet was. They were a players company, in my eye, that catered towards a crowd who didn’t want vertical power progression, preferred horizontal progression, and didn’t even know what time gated rewards were other than BDay gifts.
The change from those positions is drastic, and there don’t seem to be any modern games on the market like the original Guild Wars, not that everyone necessarily would switch due to lore, loyalty, and other reasons. That said, ANet made a one of a kind game for an audience that is no longer catered specifically to, therefore they are upset. The manifesto is what made many believe Guild Wars 2 would cater just as much to ANet’s original audience, therefore the manifesto gets a lot of heat.
How widespread this actually is remains to be seen, but I know applies to me and at least a dozen people I play with. Not that I view GW2 as a bad game, but it’s not on the same level as Guild Wars. I hope as time goes on ANet phases out the gating of vertical progression and makes obtaining max stat gear more trivial, and I would also hope they do a better job at making the game feel less punishing when it comes to character build and playstyle flexibility. They should also strike a better balance with timegated rewards. I believe these are the three biggest issues people have with ANet’s designs.
Except that the manifesto didn’t mention progression at all. It’s incorrect to suggest that it did. Nor did it mention vertical or horizontal progression.
It’s one thing to say that I know Anet and they changed, but quite another to say Anet put out a manifesto that said it.
I don’t think the company has changed as much as you did, but it has certainly evolved, that much I do know. But I don’t think adding in one tier of gear that’s not even completely in the game in 6 months, a tier of gear they said was planned for release but didn’t make it no less, makes them a game that centers on vertical progression.
I think people are making a mountain out of a molehill with ascended gear, and I know I’m not alone in this.
But none of this has ANYTHING to do with the manifesto. Not one thing.
I strongly disagree with the argument that people are taking the manifesto out of context. I believe what we have is people like me who saw the manifesto and its language and realized it happened to be consistent with our current understanding of what kind of gaming company ANet was. They were a players company, in my eye, that catered towards a crowd who didn’t want vertical power progression, preferred horizontal progression, and didn’t even know what time gated rewards were other than BDay gifts.
That’s called reading into it. You attributed what you believed to be motivation in a video version of a marketing 4 color glossy.
We are heroes. This is what we do!
RIP City of Heroes
RIP City of Heroes
We’re still discussing the manifesto, it’s not really breaking any rules I can see. Why so anxious to close this thread? At least some progress was made here (as compared to other threads on the manifesto).
This has nothing to do with rules. You just keep changing your mind about what this thread is about. You said you wanted to clear up a couple of points that were in the blog…then it was about the entire manifesto. Then I said ok then let’s talk about the entire thing…then you basically correct me it isn’t and now it is…..
I am not anxious to close this thread I am just anxious to find what exactly your point is here because you keep jumping from one thing to another. I thought you had a specific point to make….now it’s turned into another discussion about the manifesto.
I told you you created another thread about the same subject.You said it wasn’t. Now it is…
Edit: I actually can say most people or it’s commonly known if those things are true. I’ve been on forums long enough to know certain things are commonly known. You may not agree and that’s fine, but it doesn’t make it less true.
Commonly assumed. Not known. Just because a lot of people have the same idea is not proof.
As Bertrand Russell put it: " If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
Anyone who disagrees with it hasn’t looked into it.
A phrase like this is arrogant and condescending and a falsehood. Just because you think you’re right, doesn’t mean people can’t come to a different conclusion. Your biggest assumption is that because you think something is true, it must be true for everyone. Having said that, I don’t know how many people lurk on the forums. I think people do, but I don’t KNOW it because I have no actual data to back this up.
It’s a game forum. The truth is not to be found here.
That’s called reading into it. You attributed what you believed to be motivation in a video version of a marketing 4 color glossy.
This is the real essence of the problem with the manifesto. They imply a lot of things and they know that a certain number of people will interpret things a certain way, but they never actually said it.
It’s true that people read things into because that’s what people do. They try to figure out what it means to them. A lot of people had GW1 as a frame of reference and from that point of view it created certain expectations.
My point is that Anet willfully and knowingly did so. This is marketing akittens best. You imply lots of things that you know will trigger people but when they call you on it, they can easily tell you they never actually said it meant something else. Perfect spin and deniability.
Anet never flat out lied. But they were deceptive and to a lot of people that comes down to the same thing.
Of course you could never prove that, so it still remains in the realm of opinion.
It’s a game forum. The truth is not to be found here.
One of my favorite lines from Manifesto..
“I swung a sword, I swung a sword again, Hey! I swung a sword AGAIN!…….We just don’t want players to grind”
Even after such a long time it still cracks me up. Now people like OP can try and clarify what devs actually meant by things they said in manifesto but one can not change the fact that it was pure exaggeration and nothing but a tool to create hype to the point where it was completely dishonest.
Between two evils, I always pick the one I never tried before.
They may not have been deceptive at all. They may have believed most interested players thought the same way they did, spoke the same lingo. Of course with the limited length of the video prevented any detailed explanation.
Or they may have had a much more informative presentation that was edited down to a series of sound bites that were vague and could be open for interpretation. That’s why it was clarified a few days later. Sadly not a lot of people saw that and the echo chamber of the Internet eventually reinforced one series of interpretations over all others.
We are heroes. This is what we do!
RIP City of Heroes
RIP City of Heroes
Now you get to the nitty gritty of the problem.
There are a whole lot of people who really believe that they can take a single line out of the manifesto and turn that line to mean what they want it to mean, without taking the rest of the words around it into account, and all the stuff said about it afterwards.
The line “we don’t want people to grind in Guild Wars 2” is followed by “no one likes it, no one finds it fun, we want to change the way people view COMBAT”.
The paragraph starts with the line, “In other games there’s this boring grind to get to the fun stuff…”
What is Colin talking about…boring grind to get to the fun stuff. Not gear grind. Gear isn’t mentioned anywhere in the manifesto. Even the article referring to the manifesto written after doesn’t use the word gear, though it does use the words “fun reward”. Can you maybe perhaps interpret that as meaning gear. Maybe. But it’s not a sure thing. At the very least it would be something you’d have to think about. What did Colin mean when he said grind.
If you take the words out of context, the manifesto was betrayed. If you look at the context, backed up by months of commentary after the fact, then the manifesto wasn’t betrayed.
Whether you like the game or not, whether you like what was done or not, the manifesto itself didn’t change. The intentions of the devs didn’t change.
The one thing that DID change, was the slight vertical progression added to the game, which wasn’t mentioned at all in the manifesto.
In other words… it depends on what the definition of the word “is” is.
I am not interested in your legalese. The manifesto says nobody finds grinding fun. I don’t expect to find the resulting game centered on grinding. I don’t care why or how it devolves to grinding. It isn’t fun.
If anyone is taking a few words out of the manifesto and overly emphasizing them, it is you. Imagine describing the system for getting laurels in the manifesto. Does it seem just a little out of place? Does it make you feel like a hero in a dynamic world where what you do matters? Is it “the fun stuff”? Maybe its running CoF1 1000 times. The spirit of the manifesto is not alive and well in the game, and it shows.
No, it doesn’t depend on that. It depends on people not substituting definitions for something ALREADY DEFINED IN A DOCUMENT. Colin DEFINED what grind was fort he purposes of what he was saying. He said it straight out. It’s not some hidden code. Then two lines later, he referred to grind AGAIN, in which case in any common usage of English as a language, it would use the same definition.
When you take a line from a paragraph and use it to mean something that it was never intended to mean, it’s called taking it out of context. Because without the first defining usage of the word, it MIGHT mean something else…but in context, it can only mean one thing. Or at very least can’t mean gear grind.
The fact that some people won’t acknowledge this doesn’t make it less true.
If combat was cake…
“When you look at the art on our menu, you say ‘Wow, that’s visually stunning. I’ve never seen anything like that before,’ and then when you taste the cake on our menu, you say ‘Wow, that’s incredible. I’ve never seen anything like that.’ On most menus, you look it over, and you have really fun foods, occasionally, that you get to order, and the rest of the menu is boring appetizers to get to the fun stuff. ‘I ate a cheesy potato skin. I ate another cheesy potato skin. Hey! I ate another one.’ That’s great. We just don’t want players to snack in Diner Wars 2. No one enjoys that. No one finds it fun. We want to change the way that people view cake.”
…would the cake be true?
edit: oops
The table is a fable.
(edited by Tachenon.5270)
One of my favorite lines from Manifesto..
“I swung a sword, I swung a sword again, Hey! I swung a sword AGAIN!…….We just don’t want players to grind”Even after such a long time it still cracks me up. Now people like OP can try and clarify what devs actually meant by things they said in manifesto but one can not change the fact that it was pure exaggeration and nothing but a tool to create hype to the point where it was completely dishonest.
Ok, yes it was a tool to create hype, you’re absolutely right about that, but backhanding it by saying it’s dishonest is just silly. Point me to any advertizement that is 100% honest. I think the problem is people approaching the manifesto with the same attitude as approaching a dictionary or encyclopedia. This was just a video of some human beings trying to hype up their product that they were very excited about, not scientific documentation to be analyzed. People take the manifesto way too seriously, and take this perceived “betrayal” way too personally.
This has nothing to do with rules. You just keep changing your mind about what this thread is about. You said you wanted to clear up a couple of points that were in the blog…then it was about the entire manifesto. Then I said ok then let’s talk about the entire thing…then you basically correct me it isn’t and now it is…..
I am not anxious to close this thread I am just anxious to find what exactly your point is here because you keep jumping from one thing to another. I thought you had a specific point to make….now it’s turned into another discussion about the manifesto.
I told you you created another thread about the same subject.You said it wasn’t. Now it is…
Edit: I actually can say most people or it’s commonly known if those things are true. I’ve been on forums long enough to know certain things are commonly known. You may not agree and that’s fine, but it doesn’t make it less true.
Commonly assumed. Not known. Just because a lot of people have the same idea is not proof.
As Bertrand Russell put it: " If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
A fact is a fact. Me saying anyone who’s looked into would know the fact isn’t condescending, in spite of the fact you want to paint me that way. It’s just not true.
It would be like me saying anyone who looked into fast food restaurants would find out that McDonalds is a big one.
I have very specific stats from multiple forums over the years, not one or two. Most recently was guildwars2forum.com when it was up. I know EXACTLY how many people looked at pages every day and exactly how many people posted. Not a guess. Real experience.
I’ve experienced the same thing in the dozen or so yahoo groups I’ve run over the years. And on other forums.
Unless you’re in a business where you literally have to post, the biggest percentage of people on forums will be lurkers. You don’t have to accept this as true, but it doesn’t make it less true.
As for forums, very often forum conversations evolve in threads. Yes, I started talking about one aspect of the manifesto and other things were brought up. I suppose we could close this thread and open another thread to continue those conversations, but I’m pretty sure that’s not all that efficient.
(edited by Moderator)
One of my favorite lines from Manifesto..
“I swung a sword, I swung a sword again, Hey! I swung a sword AGAIN!…….We just don’t want players to grind”Even after such a long time it still cracks me up. Now people like OP can try and clarify what devs actually meant by things they said in manifesto but one can not change the fact that it was pure exaggeration and nothing but a tool to create hype to the point where it was completely dishonest.
Nope, I don’t have to clarify this because Anet already has.
You don’t just swing a sword, even if you have a sword. They’re talking about other stuff like enviromental weapons (which they show as a catapult in the video when saying that). They’re talking about the quests where you change form to other forms. They’re talking about transformation skills, where you get five new skills.
You don’t have to like it, but that’s what they’re talking about. And those things are all in the game.
Jeez, how about you actually play this game you keep defending like the proverbial damsel in distress, instead of constantly fighting ever imagined slight against it?
Polish > hype
Jeez, how about you actually play this game you keep defending like the proverbial damsel in distress, instead of constantly fighting ever imagined slight against it?
One, I’m not defending the game against imagined slights. I’m defending the game against misinformation, which I’ve always disliked in any form about anything.
I strongly disagree with the argument that people are taking the manifesto out of context. I believe what we have is people like me who saw the manifesto and its language and realized it happened to be consistent with our current understanding of what kind of gaming company ANet was. They were a players company, in my eye, that catered towards a crowd who didn’t want vertical power progression, preferred horizontal progression, and didn’t even know what time gated rewards were other than BDay gifts.
The change from those positions is drastic, and there don’t seem to be any modern games on the market like the original Guild Wars, not that everyone necessarily would switch due to lore, loyalty, and other reasons. That said, ANet made a one of a kind game for an audience that is no longer catered specifically to, therefore they are upset. The manifesto is what made many believe Guild Wars 2 would cater just as much to ANet’s original audience, therefore the manifesto gets a lot of heat.
How widespread this actually is remains to be seen, but I know applies to me and at least a dozen people I play with. Not that I view GW2 as a bad game, but it’s not on the same level as Guild Wars. I hope as time goes on ANet phases out the gating of vertical progression and makes obtaining max stat gear more trivial, and I would also hope they do a better job at making the game feel less punishing when it comes to character build and playstyle flexibility. They should also strike a better balance with timegated rewards. I believe these are the three biggest issues people have with ANet’s designs.
Except that the manifesto didn’t mention progression at all. It’s incorrect to suggest that it did. Nor did it mention vertical or horizontal progression.
It’s one thing to say that I know Anet and they changed, but quite another to say Anet put out a manifesto that said it.
I don’t think the company has changed as much as you did, but it has certainly evolved, that much I do know. But I don’t think adding in one tier of gear that’s not even completely in the game in 6 months, a tier of gear they said was planned for release but didn’t make it no less, makes them a game that centers on vertical progression.
I think people are making a mountain out of a molehill with ascended gear, and I know I’m not alone in this.
But none of this has ANYTHING to do with the manifesto. Not one thing.
I wouldn’t say evolved. That implies a positive progression, which overall is not what I see between the ANet of Guild Wars and the the ANet of Guild Wars 2. Their philosophies have shifted. This game makes people feel like they have to play around ANet’s schedule instead of their own. This game doesn’t naturally put everyone on an equal playing field when it comes to character power. This game is designed to be inflexible for PvE and WvW character builds. This game is also designed to be unnecessarily punishing in regard to people’s time, so much so that someone like myself feels compelled to buy gems to get gold for buying or crafting exotic gear, or crafting mats to level up an alt so they can play through the story without having to do things they don’t want to do.
I personally don’t want to have to pay/play extra to play the game the way I want to play it, especially when someone else who wants to play it a different way doesn’t pay extra at all, and even comes out ahead converting gold to gems, which is fine, but paying extra for my preferred way to play isn’t.
All of these things do not indicate evolution to me, but rather steps backwards.
Sylvari Elementalist – Mystree Duskbloom (Lv 80)
Norn Guardian – Aurora Lustyr (Lv 80)
Mia A Shadows Glow – Human Thief (Lv 80)
Norn Guardian – Aurora Lustyr (Lv 80)
Mia A Shadows Glow – Human Thief (Lv 80)
(edited by Shockwave.1230)
I strongly disagree with the argument that people are taking the manifesto out of context. I believe what we have is people like me who saw the manifesto and its language and realized it happened to be consistent with our current understanding of what kind of gaming company ANet was. They were a players company, in my eye, that catered towards a crowd who didn’t want vertical power progression, preferred horizontal progression, and didn’t even know what time gated rewards were other than BDay gifts.
The change from those positions is drastic, and there don’t seem to be any modern games on the market like the original Guild Wars, not that everyone necessarily would switch due to lore, loyalty, and other reasons. That said, ANet made a one of a kind game for an audience that is no longer catered specifically to, therefore they are upset. The manifesto is what made many believe Guild Wars 2 would cater just as much to ANet’s original audience, therefore the manifesto gets a lot of heat.
How widespread this actually is remains to be seen, but I know applies to me and at least a dozen people I play with. Not that I view GW2 as a bad game, but it’s not on the same level as Guild Wars. I hope as time goes on ANet phases out the gating of vertical progression and makes obtaining max stat gear more trivial, and I would also hope they do a better job at making the game feel less punishing when it comes to character build and playstyle flexibility. They should also strike a better balance with timegated rewards. I believe these are the three biggest issues people have with ANet’s designs.
Except that the manifesto didn’t mention progression at all. It’s incorrect to suggest that it did. Nor did it mention vertical or horizontal progression.
It’s one thing to say that I know Anet and they changed, but quite another to say Anet put out a manifesto that said it.
I don’t think the company has changed as much as you did, but it has certainly evolved, that much I do know. But I don’t think adding in one tier of gear that’s not even completely in the game in 6 months, a tier of gear they said was planned for release but didn’t make it no less, makes them a game that centers on vertical progression.
I think people are making a mountain out of a molehill with ascended gear, and I know I’m not alone in this.
But none of this has ANYTHING to do with the manifesto. Not one thing.
I wouldn’t say evolved. That implies a positive progression, which overall is not what I see between the ANet of Guild Wars and the the ANet of Guild Wars 2. Their philosophies have shifted. This game makes people feel like they have to play around ANet’s schedule instead of their own. This game doesn’t naturally put everyone on an equal playing field when it comes to character power. This game is designed to be inflexible for PvE and WvW character builds. This game is also designed to be unnecessarily punishing in regard to people’s time, so much so that someone like myself feels compelled to buy gems to get gold for buying or crafting exotic gear, or crafting mats to level up an alt so they can play through the story without having to do things they don’t want to do.
I personally don’t want to have to pay/play extra to play the game the way I want to play it, especially when someone else who wants to play it a different way doesn’t pay extra at all, and even comes out ahead converting gold to gems, which is fine, but paying extra for my preferred way to play isn’t.
All of these things do not indicate evolution to me, but rather steps backwards.
Evolution doesn’t always mean better. It’s evolved. Some evolution occurs horizontally. In any case, how a game evolves depends completely on your personal perspective.
To me this game has become much better. There’s more to do that interests me now than there was say back in November. That’s because I’m enjoying many of the minigames coming out.
The evolution I see particularly is the idea that because dynamic events repeat…and thus could never really be the basis of the living world, Anet is trying something new…the Living Story.
For a completionist, this is a nightmare. If you feel you have to do everything, well then, you’re going to feel pressured by what is going on. I stopped playing this game as a completionist, because it’s just not possible for me. There are too many things I won’t be able to do.
But whenever I want to do stuff, there is stuff to do…stuff that I find fun. I’ve never seen any other MMO provide this experience….so for me there is evolution. It’s becoming it’s own game. It’s finding it’s way.
That’s what happens with all MMOs. And if some people don’t like the way it evolves, they’ll leave, but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t evolved. It just hasn’t evolved in a direction you like.
One of my favorite lines from Manifesto..
“I swung a sword, I swung a sword again, Hey! I swung a sword AGAIN!…….We just don’t want players to grind”Even after such a long time it still cracks me up. Now people like OP can try and clarify what devs actually meant by things they said in manifesto but one can not change the fact that it was pure exaggeration and nothing but a tool to create hype to the point where it was completely dishonest.
Nope, I don’t have to clarify this because Anet already has.
You don’t just swing a sword, even if you have a sword. They’re talking about other stuff like enviromental weapons (which they show as a catapult in the video when saying that). They’re talking about the quests where you change form to other forms. They’re talking about transformation skills, where you get five new skills.
You don’t have to like it, but that’s what they’re talking about. And those things are all in the game.
No that is not what they are talking about. They were trying to assure the players that their game won’t follow old formula of repetition and grind. Hence the above statement of swinging the sword again and again.
Between two evils, I always pick the one I never tried before.
(edited by Moderator)
I guess nobody ever noticed that Age of Conan had an instanced personal story way before GW2 and SWtOR were ever even mentioned…
Actually I did. But even though it was instanced, it was different from the personal stories that came later…it’s more like a forerunner.
There’s a different personal story for each profession (so it would be different if you played a necromancer, say than another profession) but it was the same for ALL necromancers. There were no choices in that game.
Of course, that instanced story only lasted 20 levels till the end of the tutorial area, which coincidentally was all you could play on the free demo. A whole lot of people, including me, loved that part of the game, and felt pretty disenfranchised when the rest of the game wasn’t at all like it.
In AoC, the story continued to level 80. The main difference between Tortage and the mainland portions was that 1-20, the story quests came fast and furious, and on the mainland players had to wait 10-20 levels until the next story quest. Most (if not all, I don’t remember them all) of the level 30-80 story quests were instanced.
The story quest NPC’s on the mainland had voice-acting. Side quests in Tortage were voice-acted, the ones on the mainland were not. This did create a wts? experience when people hit the mainland. People did object. I’ve no doubt this experience contributed to some people leaving.
If you’re going to try to refute someone’s point, I’d suggest you get your facts straight.
Evolution doesn’t always mean better. It’s evolved. Some evolution occurs horizontally. In any case, how a game evolves depends completely on your personal perspective.
To me this game has become much better. There’s more to do that interests me now than there was say back in November. That’s because I’m enjoying many of the minigames coming out.
The evolution I see particularly is the idea that because dynamic events repeat…and thus could never really be the basis of the living world, Anet is trying something new…the Living Story.
For a completionist, this is a nightmare. If you feel you have to do everything, well then, you’re going to feel pressured by what is going on. I stopped playing this game as a completionist, because it’s just not possible for me. There are too many things I won’t be able to do.
But whenever I want to do stuff, there is stuff to do…stuff that I find fun. I’ve never seen any other MMO provide this experience….so for me there is evolution. It’s becoming it’s own game. It’s finding it’s way.
That’s what happens with all MMOs. And if some people don’t like the way it evolves, they’ll leave, but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t evolved. It just hasn’t evolved in a direction you like.
The only thing I would consider completionist about someone such as myself is wanting to experience the entirity of the main storylines. I don’t even know what the purpose of this living story is and I have no idea if it is a significant part of the main storylines I have been expecting, which are dragons, orders, and each race’s own conflicts and infighting. It doesn’t seem to be part of the main storylines, but I don’t know. I just know that since they introduced Ascended, I stopped playing for about 6 months and missed most of the story up to this point and can’t partake.
None of my arguments other than that has anything to do with being completionist. And the living story has nothing to do with most of my points. I’m just pointing out how ANet abandoned what I and other people loved about their last game. What people are saying is adapt or quit. And I’m not able to adapt how I value my time, which means people would prefer me to quit. But I enjoy the lore and gameplay, so all I can do is push for what I saw working so well from Guild Wars.
Sylvari Elementalist – Mystree Duskbloom (Lv 80)
Norn Guardian – Aurora Lustyr (Lv 80)
Mia A Shadows Glow – Human Thief (Lv 80)
Norn Guardian – Aurora Lustyr (Lv 80)
Mia A Shadows Glow – Human Thief (Lv 80)