Guild Wars 2

Leeto.1570:

Its actually Gold Wars now

Or Gear Wars, considering we will all have to re-gear after they destroy the celestial armors we spent months making.

Anyway, the lack of GvG in this game has been the biggest disappointment in regards to my expectations for game purchase. It’s a feature I was absolutely certain would be in the game. And no I didn’t do “my research”, I was stupid enough to think that GvG was an essential part of a Guild Wars game.

Xillllix.3485:

Leeto.1570:

Its actually Gold Wars now

Or Gear Wars, considering we will all have to re-gear after they destroy the celestial armors we spent months making.

Anyway, the lack of GvG in this game has been the biggest disappointment in regards to my expectations for game purchase. It’s a feature I was absolutely certain would be in the game. And no I didn’t do “my research”, I was stupid enough to think that GvG was an essential part of a Guild Wars game.

You can GvG – make a PvP arena and set it up so that you can invite another guild. There is your GvG. – pretty simple really. You can GvG, it is just ‘NOT GW1 GvG’ – I think that is what you want to say. But, GW2 is NOT GW1, so of course they are not the same.

Celestial will be fine after the patch. I am not worried about it (I use it on one toon I have).

Dusty Moon.4382:

You can GvG – make a PvP arena and set it up so that you can invite another guild.

lol easier said than done. First of all nobody wants to GvG in a PvP arena, they are too small, some builds do not work, and you do not have your gear.

Dusty Moon.4382:

Celestial will be fine after the patch. I am not worried about it (I use it on one toon I have).

Mine won’t be. I calculated my build to the precise stats and now it will lose 25-35% critical damage minimum. It’s a complete disaster.

Astralporing.1957:

No, as it has been mentioned many times in all the previous topics already, it is called like that because in the design stages of GW1 it was meant to be a PvP game with PvE entrance lobby, revolving around guilds.

Exactly. It was named Guild Wars to capture the intention of the design. Whatever happened later isn’t the point, the name was already out there. Lore came second. It’s why people find the name a touch odd in light of this context.

Astralporing.1957:

That design didn’t survive the first year of the game – it was already weakening at the launch, and was completely dropped after Factions when the focus schifted towards PvE.

Factions – again – indicates guilds/players choosing sides, as indeed they did. Alliance battles came with Factions – even more PvP – and centred around this split. Factions was initially designed to be a polarising dynamic for the PvP meta. Remember that Factions was already being worked on as GW shipped. The design was already laid out.

The game was named to promote its concept of competitive, Guild based, esport aspirational PvP, despite subsequent releases/iterations that is really all there is to it. For all they have diverged from that.

Xillllix.3485:

Dusty Moon.4382:

You can GvG – make a PvP arena and set it up so that you can invite another guild.

lol easier said than done. First of all nobody wants to GvG in a PvP arena, they are too small, some builds do not work, and you do not have your gear.

Dusty Moon.4382:

Celestial will be fine after the patch. I am not worried about it (I use it on one toon I have).

Mine won’t be. I calculated my build to the precise stats and now it will lose 25-35% critical damage minimum. It’s a complete disaster.

Well every thing easier said then done that why your here complain about something or “saying” vs trying to make things work in a game. You do have guild community making GvG happen and work i have no idea why your guild is not doing the same do you feel they cant?

Jski.6180:

Xillllix.3485:

Dusty Moon.4382:

You can GvG – make a PvP arena and set it up so that you can invite another guild.

lol easier said than done. First of all nobody wants to GvG in a PvP arena, they are too small, some builds do not work, and you do not have your gear.

Dusty Moon.4382:

Celestial will be fine after the patch. I am not worried about it (I use it on one toon I have).

Mine won’t be. I calculated my build to the precise stats and now it will lose 25-35% critical damage minimum. It’s a complete disaster.

Well every thing easier said then done that why your here complain about something or “saying” vs trying to make things work in a game. You do have guild community making GvG happen and work i have no idea why your guild is not doing the same do you feel they cant?

I can resume it to 1 word: Boring. GvG in the round circle of the jumping puzzle map (Obsidian Sanctum) is boring as hell. It is a pathetic replacement to what GvG in GW1 was.

Xillllix.3485:

Jski.6180:

Xillllix.3485:

Dusty Moon.4382:

You can GvG – make a PvP arena and set it up so that you can invite another guild.

lol easier said than done. First of all nobody wants to GvG in a PvP arena, they are too small, some builds do not work, and you do not have your gear.

Dusty Moon.4382:

Celestial will be fine after the patch. I am not worried about it (I use it on one toon I have).

Mine won’t be. I calculated my build to the precise stats and now it will lose 25-35% critical damage minimum. It’s a complete disaster.

Well every thing easier said then done that why your here complain about something or “saying” vs trying to make things work in a game. You do have guild community making GvG happen and work i have no idea why your guild is not doing the same do you feel they cant?

I can resume it to 1 word: Boring. GvG in the round circle of the jumping puzzle map (Obsidian Sanctum) is boring as hell. It is a pathetic replacement to what GvG in GW1 was.

So what your saying is that there is GvG but you do not like it. I am sry not every one likes the same things as you do and most ppl who do GvG in OS realty likes it most ppl who watches it realty likes it to i am sry not every one is like you. In fact its the thing to watch on twitch it may not be crazy numbers but there is a community behind GvG in OS to the point that you have players from NA jumping to EU to test them self and with the new worlds coming into play soon (Asian i am not sure what to call it) you will see even more ppl use OS to GvG.

Dusty Moon.4382:

GW1 was considered a cooperative RPG not an MMO. Max players you could have in an instance (any of the zones, etc. was 12). The Towns and outposts could be considered graphical lobbies to meet and match players.

“Graphical Lobbies”.. cute term but they were in essence persistent worlds where players could interact with each other as well as perform a myriad of town/outpost related tasks common to GW1.

When people say that GW1 wasn’t an MMORPG, I figure they either a. didn’t play it or b. assume that it’s lack of persistent world style content means it’s not an MMO.

Sorry folks, GW1 was an MMORPG, albeit an odd one. None of this has anything to do with GvG, however. I still hold by my sentiment that GW2 GvG simply wouldn’t be the same and to keep expectations in check before you make demands.

Jski.6180:

Xillllix.3485:

Jski.6180:

Xillllix.3485:

Dusty Moon.4382:

You can GvG – make a PvP arena and set it up so that you can invite another guild.

lol easier said than done. First of all nobody wants to GvG in a PvP arena, they are too small, some builds do not work, and you do not have your gear.

Dusty Moon.4382:

Celestial will be fine after the patch. I am not worried about it (I use it on one toon I have).

Mine won’t be. I calculated my build to the precise stats and now it will lose 25-35% critical damage minimum. It’s a complete disaster.

Well every thing easier said then done that why your here complain about something or “saying” vs trying to make things work in a game. You do have guild community making GvG happen and work i have no idea why your guild is not doing the same do you feel they cant?

I can resume it to 1 word: Boring. GvG in the round circle of the jumping puzzle map (Obsidian Sanctum) is boring as hell. It is a pathetic replacement to what GvG in GW1 was.

So what your saying is that there is GvG but you do not like it. I am sry not every one likes the same things as you do and most ppl who do GvG in OS realty likes it most ppl who watches it realty likes it to i am sry not every one is like you. In fact its the thing to watch on twitch it may not be crazy numbers but there is a community behind GvG in OS to the point that you have players from NA jumping to EU to test them self and with the new worlds coming into play soon (Asian i am not sure what to call it) you will see even more ppl use OS to GvG.

We no that’s not what I am saying at all. I would not define an empty circle in a jumping puzzle map as a GvG game mode.

mooty.4560:

Dusty Moon.4382:

GW1 was considered a cooperative RPG not an MMO. Max players you could have in an instance (any of the zones, etc. was 12). The Towns and outposts could be considered graphical lobbies to meet and match players.

“Graphical Lobbies”.. cute term but they were in essence persistent worlds where players could interact with each other as well as perform a myriad of town/outpost related tasks common to GW1.

When people say that GW1 wasn’t an MMORPG, I figure they either a. didn’t play it or b. assume that it’s lack of persistent world style content means it’s not an MMO.

Sorry folks, GW1 was an MMORPG, albeit an odd one. None of this has anything to do with GvG, however. I still hold by my sentiment that GW2 GvG simply wouldn’t be the same and to keep expectations in check before you make demands.

Sounds like two worlds 2 is an MMORPG too then.

Xillllix.3485:

Dusty Moon.4382:

You can GvG – make a PvP arena and set it up so that you can invite another guild.

lol easier said than done. First of all nobody wants to GvG in a PvP arena, they are too small, some builds do not work, and you do not have your gear.

Dusty Moon.4382:

Celestial will be fine after the patch. I am not worried about it (I use it on one toon I have).

Mine won’t be. I calculated my build to the precise stats and now it will lose 25-35% critical damage minimum. It’s a complete disaster.

No – sorry that is not right as we don’t really know what they will do with the other stats. You are kitten -U-ME-ing a lot and they have suggested what they might do not what they will do. Until then all is conjecture.

Escadin.9482:

mooty.4560:

Dusty Moon.4382:

GW1 was considered a cooperative RPG not an MMO. Max players you could have in an instance (any of the zones, etc. was 12). The Towns and outposts could be considered graphical lobbies to meet and match players.

“Graphical Lobbies”.. cute term but they were in essence persistent worlds where players could interact with each other as well as perform a myriad of town/outpost related tasks common to GW1.

When people say that GW1 wasn’t an MMORPG, I figure they either a. didn’t play it or b. assume that it’s lack of persistent world style content means it’s not an MMO.

Sorry folks, GW1 was an MMORPG, albeit an odd one. None of this has anything to do with GvG, however. I still hold by my sentiment that GW2 GvG simply wouldn’t be the same and to keep expectations in check before you make demands.

Sounds like two worlds 2 is an MMORPG too then.

CoD is an mmo to some ppl the term is way over used for every thing. At this point its just another way of saying a game is online or has some type of online play.

Xillllix.3485:

We no that’s not what I am saying at all. I would not define an empty circle in a jumping puzzle map as a GvG game mode.

GvG is any time your fighting another group in the same guild with a group of ppl of your guild. Like saying pvp is when your fighting another player WvW is when your fighting with other ppl from your world vs another world! What your talking about is more on the lines of death match with in a pvp setting or a cap the flag or hold a places your asking for a type of play with in GvG but there is GvG in GW2 just not the mod that your looking for (truth be told i am not sure what type of GvG formant your even looking for).

Escadin.9482:

mooty.4560:

Dusty Moon.4382:

GW1 was considered a cooperative RPG not an MMO. Max players you could have in an instance (any of the zones, etc. was 12). The Towns and outposts could be considered graphical lobbies to meet and match players.

“Graphical Lobbies”.. cute term but they were in essence persistent worlds where players could interact with each other as well as perform a myriad of town/outpost related tasks common to GW1.

When people say that GW1 wasn’t an MMORPG, I figure they either a. didn’t play it or b. assume that it’s lack of persistent world style content means it’s not an MMO.

Sorry folks, GW1 was an MMORPG, albeit an odd one. None of this has anything to do with GvG, however. I still hold by my sentiment that GW2 GvG simply wouldn’t be the same and to keep expectations in check before you make demands.

Sounds like two worlds 2 is an MMORPG too then.

GW1 was not an MMO – EVEN A.Net said it was a CORPG -look at the FAQ on the Guildwars.com website. It was a Co-Operative RPG, not an MMO and (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game -which GW2 is but GW1 is not because there was a max of 12 players in your map and every group had their own copy of the map – think a more advanced Diablo 2).

Jski.6180:

So what your saying is that there is GvG but you do not like it. I am sry not every one likes the same things as you do and most ppl who do GvG in OS realty likes it most ppl who watches it realty likes it to i am sry not every one is like you. In fact its the thing to watch on twitch it may not be crazy numbers but there is a community behind GvG in OS to the point that you have players from NA jumping to EU to test them self and with the new worlds coming into play soon (Asian i am not sure what to call it) you will see even more ppl use OS to GvG.

I can’t speak for every guild that GvG’s, but most that I know of are not that happy with OS. Matches are easily trollable, only one can take place at a time, and the map can even get queued.

I think it’s awesome that the Guild Wars 2 community has done so much to continue GvG’s from the original Guild Wars. However, a community-managed replacement is not in any means a be-all-end-all and the Obsidian Sanctum solution is simply a Band-Aid fix.

I hope that when Guild Halls launch (if they ever do), ANet will implement an official GvG functionality. I mean, it’s been one and a half years since launch… let’s pick up the pace.

Dusty Moon.4382:

GW1 was not an MMO – EVEN A.Net said it was a CORPG -look at the FAQ on the Guildwars.com website. It was a Co-Operative RPG, not an MMO and (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game -which GW2 is but GW1 is not because there was a max of 12 players in your map and every group had their own copy of the map – think a more advanced Diablo 2).

Why does it even matter?

You’re just splitting hairs for the sake of argument.

Jski.6180:

Escadin.9482:

mooty.4560:

Dusty Moon.4382:

GW1 was considered a cooperative RPG not an MMO. Max players you could have in an instance (any of the zones, etc. was 12). The Towns and outposts could be considered graphical lobbies to meet and match players.

“Graphical Lobbies”.. cute term but they were in essence persistent worlds where players could interact with each other as well as perform a myriad of town/outpost related tasks common to GW1.

When people say that GW1 wasn’t an MMORPG, I figure they either a. didn’t play it or b. assume that it’s lack of persistent world style content means it’s not an MMO.

Sorry folks, GW1 was an MMORPG, albeit an odd one. None of this has anything to do with GvG, however. I still hold by my sentiment that GW2 GvG simply wouldn’t be the same and to keep expectations in check before you make demands.

Sounds like two worlds 2 is an MMORPG too then.

CoD is an mmo to some ppl the term is way over used for every thing. At this point its just another way of saying a game is online or has some type of online play.

A trend for pretty much every genre and subgenre, I’m afraid. To be fair, wikipedia says GW1 is an MMORPG which distinguishes from other MMORPG in that it has instanced gameplay areas and no subscription fees. Can’t tell who’s right though, because I (unfortunatly) didn’t play it.

edit:
I’d personally say the first difference already excludes it from MMORPGS, comparably to diablo series or path of exile.

Flytrap.8075:

Why does it even matter?

You’re just splitting hairs for the sake of argument.

I for one am interested in this question

Anyone arguing in this thread obviously never played GW1. PvP in GW2 is a disaster, a massive disappointment to all those who played GW1 competitively.

GW1= eSport
GW2= Casual

Casual = Money

end of story.

I do miss HA, GvG and even AB which felt a little like WvW does.. even had more organisation and skill in it.

Sceinna.3561:

Anyone arguing in this thread obviously never played GW1. PvP in GW2 is a disaster, a massive disappointment to all those who played GW1 competitively.

GW1= eSport
GW2= Casual

Casual = Money

end of story.

I do miss HA, GvG and even AB which felt a little like WvW does.. even had more organisation and skill in it.

I really do miss the PvP in the original Guild Wars.

You’d think that ANet would want to emulate it based on its popularity, but I guess Scarlet was more tempting. #priorities

Jski.6180:

GvG is any time your fighting another group in the same guild with a group of ppl of your guild.

This is not how Anet has defined the term GvG in their world.

If you went into HA in GW1 with a guild team and faced another guild team you were not participating in GvG. You were participating in HA. You did not get GvG rewards, you got HA rewards.

As a person who played GW1 for seven years and did GvG a lot back then, I genuinely don’t get why people favor it so much over GW2’s PvP. It worked because of trinity rolls and it was a completely different thing. Even with GvG translated identically to GW2, it would never be the same or work at all. GW2 is designed with smaller group dynamics in mind and the PvP utilizes a much more action game style of fighting than classic RPG style of fighting. I’ve played the Guild Wars franchise for nearly a decade now, and I have never enjoyed PvP in the franchise as much as I do in GW2.

Flytrap.8075:

Jski.6180:

So what your saying is that there is GvG but you do not like it. I am sry not every one likes the same things as you do and most ppl who do GvG in OS realty likes it most ppl who watches it realty likes it to i am sry not every one is like you. In fact its the thing to watch on twitch it may not be crazy numbers but there is a community behind GvG in OS to the point that you have players from NA jumping to EU to test them self and with the new worlds coming into play soon (Asian i am not sure what to call it) you will see even more ppl use OS to GvG.

I can’t speak for every guild that GvG’s, but most that I know of are not that happy with OS. Matches are easily trollable, only one can take place at a time, and the map can even get queued.

I think it’s awesome that the Guild Wars 2 community has done so much to continue GvG’s from the original Guild Wars. However, a community-managed replacement is not in any means a be-all-end-all and the Obsidian Sanctum solution is simply a Band-Aid fix.

I hope that when Guild Halls launch (if they ever do), ANet will implement an official GvG functionality. I mean, it’s been one and a half years since launch… let’s pick up the pace.

Dusty Moon.4382:

GW1 was not an MMO – EVEN A.Net said it was a CORPG -look at the FAQ on the Guildwars.com website. It was a Co-Operative RPG, not an MMO and (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game -which GW2 is but GW1 is not because there was a max of 12 players in your map and every group had their own copy of the map – think a more advanced Diablo 2).

Why does it even matter?

You’re just splitting hairs for the sake of argument.

That part of the fun of OS or open field GvG that any one can mess it up AND the ppl who are washing it can help keep the GvG fair there by giving them more meaning to the outcome of the fight because they take ownership of the match they are watching. Much like how ppl yell at tv when there team is not doing well but this way the watchers can have a real impact over a made up one.

Ashen.2907:

This is not how Anet has defined the term GvG in their world.

If you went into HA in GW1 with a guild team and faced another guild team you were not participating in GvG. You were participating in HA. You did not get GvG rewards, you got HA rewards.

Its not important now Anet defines it. Its only important how the players defined it because its a formant made by the players. Rewards mean nothing to a real pvp gvg or wvw fight wining and losing is every thing.

“Because of lore” is a really poor excuse, considering how the story puts heavy emphasis on dragons and barely even cares about the guild war event that took place hundred years before the game.

The real reason is: brand name. Guild Wars has a estabilished brand name – making a game called Guild Wars 2 would be better for the sales than making a game called, say, Dragon Wars.

I believe TS is looking for a content where guild “warring” has a purpose or purposes.
Purpose can be seen as a logicial, not emotional, reason to do something.

For example, the purpose of doing fractal repeatedly can be farming for certain gears or items.

I have joined the game too, with the mislead information that there exist a game design where guild has a purpose but after joining the game, I realise, anet does not have any slightest intention to have any guild related game designs. Anet leaving a impression that a guild is simply a social group and nothing more. There are mmorpgs which recognize the differences between a guild/clan and social groups to the point that they have a separate social tabs in which one can join as many social groups as they want while restricted to one and only one guild/clan.

TS, it is unfortunate, gw2 is genuinely a PvE game.

So, just becuase GW2 is a new game it shouldn’t have a GVG?
Is that the best argument? It shouldn’t have GvG because GvG is GW1 lore only?
What.

DiogoSilva.7089:

“Because of lore” is a really poor excuse, considering how the story puts heavy emphasis on dragons and barely even cares about the guild war event that took place hundred years before the game.

The real reason is: brand name. Guild Wars has a estabilished brand name – making a game called Guild Wars 2 would be better for the sales than making a game called, say, Dragon Wars.

Well its not a name is just that a NAME it tends to mean nothing at the end of the day it only has meaning in the moment. This is how real life works why should it be any different for a game?
GW2 is part of GW1 its the same world therefor it should share the name as if it was a sequential to GW1. What ppl are going on about is more on the lines of trying to attk GW2 because it dose not have just want they want so they are using a name to come after the game. Its realty simple as that and in truth nothing more but pointless bickering that will lead to nothing but each side getting more harden in there own view points.
You can do this for nearly any thing if the name dose come comply match up to an older version of the game. I present the ideal WoW is a miss name because Warcraft is a RTS not an mmorpg therefor it should be called something different. I say that ESO is missed name because ES games are single player rpg and that because you can play with different ppl in groups it is something comply different and should no longer hold the ES name. FF11 is comply different from all FF games that came before it should it should not be called FF.
Cant think of other games offhand that had a formant shift in there reincarnation of them but i am sure there are a lot of them. The point is its just a name and the name will be used for the next version of that game even if the games are not the same because its out right dumb to have a game in the same world with a vastly different name. To ask for it to have a different name or to give reason why it should not be called something comes down to name calling.

Jski.6180:

DiogoSilva.7089:

“Because of lore” is a really poor excuse, considering how the story puts heavy emphasis on dragons and barely even cares about the guild war event that took place hundred years before the game.

The real reason is: brand name. Guild Wars has a estabilished brand name – making a game called Guild Wars 2 would be better for the sales than making a game called, say, Dragon Wars.

Well its not a name is just that a NAME it tends to mean nothing at the end of the day it only has meaning in the moment. This is how real life works why should it be any different for a game?

GW2 is not a name – it’s a title. A title is supposed to reflect the content of books, songs, movies or games in a meaningful way, rhetorically play with it and be the key to it’s comprehension. In a series of games, movies, songs etc it also evokes and plays with memories of core impressions from prequels and uses them similar to a brandname.
The frequent abuse and failed utilization of this concept is no excuse for it’s continuation.

The title guild wars is undoubtly bonded to indepth pvp and gvg experience as you can easily tell at a single glance at this thread. It’s also quite obvious that GW2, by no means, is a successor to GW1 in any of it’s outstanding game desing choices, except for the lack of subscription fees.

However, the title DOES mean something. Using the title of a well established brand or series yields marketing advantages, because people who liked GW1 have a significantly increased likelyhood to buy GW2 due to the concept I’ve explained above.

I’m sorry, but you are just being naive here.

Jski.6180:

Well its not a name is just that a NAME it tends to mean nothing at the end of the day it only has meaning in the moment. This is how real life works why should it be any different for a game?

Names, titles, descriptors, brands, etc have MUCH more than momentary impact in the real world. They drive social evolution, the movement of billions of dollars, wars, politics, etc.

Dusty Moon.4382:

GW1 was not an MMO – EVEN A.Net said it was a CORPG -look at the FAQ on the Guildwars.com website. It was a Co-Operative RPG, not an MMO and (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game

Actually it stands for “competitive” rather than “cooperative,” but it’s a made up term. It’s just more hair splitting for slight variations in game design, a la MOBA. Note that you will find little reference, if any, to the term “CORPG” outside of Guild Wars discussion.

-which GW2 is but GW1 is not because there was a max of 12 players in your map and every group had their own copy of the map – think a more advanced Diablo 2).

You’re talking about instanced PvE content. It was actually a maximum of 24 players per map if you consider Hall of Heroes 3-way matches and Alliance Battles. In town/outpost districts it was a maximum of 100 players per map.

Now you could argue that it paled in comparison to MMOs with persistent world style maps that accommodated for hundreds and sometimes thousands of players in a single instance. I would agree there but I would counter that with the fact that despite the artificial separation you could still interact with and play alongside or against the many thousands(millions?) of GW1 players who were active during it’s peak years. The design did not isolate players in small social pockets and keep the game from feeling like a much larger, one might say massive, community. It’s at this point in this particular argument that I have a serious doubts the person I’m talking to spent much time playing the game.

Sceinna.3561:

Anyone arguing in this thread obviously never played GW1. PvP in GW2 is a disaster, a massive disappointment to all those who played GW1 competitively.

GW1= eSport
GW2= Casual

Casual = Money

end of story.

I do miss HA, GvG and even AB which felt a little like WvW does.. even had more organisation and skill in it.

I agree with this to some degree. I like to say that GW2 is a good game but it’s an atrocious sequel. GW1 PvP was fantastic but GW2 PvP isn’t a complete flop. It’s quirky, arcade-ish(like, insert another quarter in this game of luck, fool) and there isn’t much depth to it but it’s still fun in it’s own right.

Jski.6180:

GvG is any time your fighting another group in the same guild with a group of ppl of your guild. Like saying pvp is when your fighting another player WvW is when your fighting with other ppl from your world vs another world! What your talking about is more on the lines of death match with in a pvp setting or a cap the flag or hold a places your asking for a type of play with in GvG but there is GvG in GW2 just not the mod that your looking for (truth be told i am not sure what type of GvG formant your even looking for).

GvG was a standardized format from GW1 where you organized players/guests/sometimes NPCs from your particular guild to fight against another guild. It was a very well defined format with tournaments and all important bragging rights. The high ladder rank and tournament matches were even recorded and retained for a short period so any player could observe and learn from/be entertained by them.

That’s what people want but I don’t think it would ever be quite the same within the framework of GW2’s game play. I’d really be curious to see it, should it ever be added, but I have my doubts I would enjoy it as much.

Anet we demand GvGs or rename the game to Siege Wars 2

Nick.6972:

So, just becuase GW2 is a new game it shouldn’t have a GVG?
Is that the best argument? It shouldn’t have GvG because GvG is GW1 lore only?
What.

No. It doesn’t have GvG because it is a primarily PvE oriented game. The name by that point is only a brand, and does not influence design in any way. And the change did not happen inbetween GW1/GW2 but back in the early years of GW1.
Whether it should have GvG or not is a completely separate matter, and currently something that is in no way connected to its brand name.

By the way,. it’s like insisting that World of Warcraft should be renamed to World of Skirmish, because there are no real large scale military battles you can play in the game.

maxinion.8396:

inb4 lore reasons

I’m not even going to bother with that anymore.

People are so incomprehensibly ignorant when it comes to the name Guild Wars.

The GVG community primarily takes care of itself which is why Anet focuses on other things. They are away of GVG, they do actually play in WVW if anything.. Its just not a top priority since the community has done a decent job maintaining the GVG. Think about it. its not even an official part of the game yet it plays such a large role within the WVW community.

Astralporing.1957:

No. It doesn’t have GvG because it is a primarily PvE oriented game. The name by that point is only a brand, and does not influence design in any way.

Then why does Anet balance the game around PvP? Why are all the latest shaves specifically directed to pvp’s meta? Why are runes of perplexity only being nerfed the moment they were about to enter pvp? Why have pve’s and wvw’s metas mostly been stale, with only few exceptions aside?

It’s clear Anet priotizes pvp in some areas, especially for something as game-wide as balancing.

It’s not a war between guilds. It refers to guilds at war. They don’t necessarily mean with each other.

That’s my story and I’m sticking with it.

EVEN if the name refers to lore, why should that mean there can’t be a Guild vs. Guild – style player vs. player mode??? Completely irrelevant.

Xillllix.3485:

It’s quite normal that people expect GvG in GW2 considering there was GvG in GW1.

“Lore reason” doesn’t cut it. It’s not a argument at all, it’s an excuse.

Whats funny is I never played GW1, but when I heard the name GW2 I immediately assumed that there would be guild vs guild pvp action… Well, we all know what assuming gets you and thats what it got me.

Well the problem with gw2 is that arena net is super slow to give content that relates to player needs. Take the lfg for example, took over a year for them to implement. Another game for example, (ffxiv) started the game off with lfg tool already built, then they built the party finder tool which is extremely similar to the gw2 and put it in game in about 3 months, then the following 2 months they listened to player feedback and finetuned the party finder tool to have better user interface and options.

I think eventually, they will release GvG, like in their working speed, we’re probably looking at another year or so and they’ll probably make a big deal out of it and make it sound like they worked on it as fast as possible…

“Coming this fall, you’ve asked for it and it’s finally here! GvG…………coming soon in 2016.”

Escadin.9482:

Jski.6180:

DiogoSilva.7089:

“Because of lore” is a really poor excuse, considering how the story puts heavy emphasis on dragons and barely even cares about the guild war event that took place hundred years before the game.

The real reason is: brand name. Guild Wars has a estabilished brand name – making a game called Guild Wars 2 would be better for the sales than making a game called, say, Dragon Wars.

Well its not a name is just that a NAME it tends to mean nothing at the end of the day it only has meaning in the moment. This is how real life works why should it be any different for a game?

GW2 is not a name – it’s a title. A title is supposed to reflect the content of books, songs, movies or games in a meaningful way, rhetorically play with it and be the key to it’s comprehension. In a series of games, movies, songs etc it also evokes and plays with memories of core impressions from prequels and uses them similar to a brandname.
The frequent abuse and failed utilization of this concept is no excuse for it’s continuation.

The title guild wars is undoubtly bonded to indepth pvp and gvg experience as you can easily tell at a single glance at this thread. It’s also quite obvious that GW2, by no means, is a successor to GW1 in any of it’s outstanding game desing choices, except for the lack of subscription fees.

However, the title DOES mean something. Using the title of a well established brand or series yields marketing advantages, because people who liked GW1 have a significantly increased likelyhood to buy GW2 due to the concept I’ve explained above.

I’m sorry, but you are just being naive here.

Title tend to be something given after the fact for a person as for story titles can mean any thing they may have nothing to do with the story line until the end of the story or even as vague as giving a suggestion of the way things are going. A title for a story means less to the reader then it dose to the person writing it. So yes GW2 fits the game hands down because its still in the same world and still with the same back ground. Yes any game could be called a number of titles but this title works the best. Now your just name calling because its not just like GW1.

Kind of a side note that no one seemed to pick up on there is way too much on the G part of GW there still the W part even in GW1 there was no Guild War there was guild pvp but that is not a war that a battle point of view or “play/sport” very farm from a real war. In GW2 we have a real war system called WvW in some ways the W at least is more well named in GW2 then it was in GW1 and i present that WvW is a type of GvG but more open. This point of view is coming from how big of an impact a guild has in WvW with buffs sieges and communication to other guilds on the same world to get things done. If your solo in wvw your doing it very wrong and to run with out a guild your not going to have a good time at all.

While GvG would be great and all, the title is misleading. Don’t start an argument by introducing a losing case like pointing out the title as it is indeed based on the lore and wether adding GvG is good or bad for the game, the title of the franchise itself shouldn’t be used as a tool for argumenting to complain later that people give you the same response of lore reasons.

Sirendor.1394:

EVEN if the name refers to lore, why should that mean there can’t be a Guild vs. Guild – style player vs. player mode??? Completely irrelevant.

Most people think there should be GvG because the game is called Guild Wars. They think the name of this game refers to GvG specifically. Which is not true.

Nobody is saying GW2 shouldn’t have GvG because the name refers to the lore.

Jski.6180:

… for story titles can mean any thing they may have nothing to do with the story line until the end of the story or even as vague as giving a suggestion of the way things are going. A title for a story means less to the reader then it dose to the person writing it.

I don’t get what you are trying to say here. Really.

Jski.6180:

So yes GW2 fits the game hands down because its still in the same world and still with the same back ground. Yes any game could be called a number of titles but this title works the best. Now your just name calling because its not just like GW1.

It fits the game’s story, but not it’s gameplay.

Jski.6180:

Kind of a side note that no one seemed to pick up on there is way too much on the G part of GW there still the W part even in GW1 there was no Guild War there was guild pvp but that is not a war that a battle point of view or “play/sport” very farm from a real war. In GW2 we have a real war system called WvW in some ways the W at least is more well named in GW2 then it was in GW1 and i present that WvW is a type of GvG but more open. This point of view is coming from how big of an impact a guild has in WvW with buffs sieges and communication to other guilds on the same world to get things done. If your solo in wvw your doing it very wrong and to run with out a guild your not going to have a good time at all.

… because it doesn’t feel like GvG for many people, quite obviously. WvW is not the type of experience GW1 crafted for them and it’s said experience they felt was representative for GW1. Since GW2 is a sequel to GW1, they were right to expect it though.

Escadin.9482:

Jski.6180:

… for story titles can mean any thing they may have nothing to do with the story line until the end of the story or even as vague as giving a suggestion of the way things are going. A title for a story means less to the reader then it dose to the person writing it.

I don’t get what you are trying to say here. Really.

Jski.6180:

So yes GW2 fits the game hands down because its still in the same world and still with the same back ground. Yes any game could be called a number of titles but this title works the best. Now your just name calling because its not just like GW1.

It fits the game’s story, but not it’s gameplay.

Jski.6180:

Kind of a side note that no one seemed to pick up on there is way too much on the G part of GW there still the W part even in GW1 there was no Guild War there was guild pvp but that is not a war that a battle point of view or “play/sport” very farm from a real war. In GW2 we have a real war system called WvW in some ways the W at least is more well named in GW2 then it was in GW1 and i present that WvW is a type of GvG but more open. This point of view is coming from how big of an impact a guild has in WvW with buffs sieges and communication to other guilds on the same world to get things done. If your solo in wvw your doing it very wrong and to run with out a guild your not going to have a good time at all.

… because it doesn’t feel like GvG for many people, quite obviously. WvW is not the type of experience GW1 crafted for them and it’s said experience they felt was representative for GW1. Since GW2 is a sequel to GW1, they were right to expect it though.

That the thing games are always going to feel different or you would just have the same game. WvW is like a large scale GvG smaller scale GvG but still in the open WvW maps is fond in OS and even smaller and very well even GvG is going to be found in Spvp. The GvG in OS and Spvp are player made atm and it may be best to keep them that way.

Professor Sensei.2941:

maxinion.8396:

inb4 lore reasons

holy crap dude good call LOL

But who gives a hoodle about lore. GvG and guild halls made Guild Wars amazing.

People who play RPGs usually do.

Jski.6180:

That the thing games are always going to feel different or you would just have the same game. WvW is like a large scale GvG smaller scale GvG but still in the open WvW maps is fond in OS and even smaller and very well even GvG is going to be found in Spvp. The GvG in OS and Spvp are player made atm and it may be best to keep them that way.

Lore aside, call me crazy but I wholeheartedly expected a sequel carrying the Guild Wars namesake to be similar to the original. It is, pretty much, similar in name only. That’s misleading, disappointing and frustrating to some degree. My regard for Arenanet has slipped in recent years as a result.

You have to understand what GvG meant to the GW1 PvP community. Having some kind of makeshift faux GvG within WvW is not even a remotely good consolation to people who played the original GvG.

Jski.6180:

That the thing games are always going to feel different or you would just have the same game. WvW is like a large scale GvG smaller scale GvG but still in the open WvW maps is fond in OS and even smaller and very well even GvG is going to be found in Spvp. The GvG in OS and Spvp are player made atm and it may be best to keep them that way.

There is a difference between new game and new game of a series. It is true that every game of a series will feel a bit different, but they usually share the same defining characteristics. No developer breaks this rule without certain consequences and the same holds true for other media.

mooty.4560:

Jski.6180:

That the thing games are always going to feel different or you would just have the same game. WvW is like a large scale GvG smaller scale GvG but still in the open WvW maps is fond in OS and even smaller and very well even GvG is going to be found in Spvp. The GvG in OS and Spvp are player made atm and it may be best to keep them that way.

Lore aside, call me crazy but I wholeheartedly expected a sequel carrying the Guild Wars namesake to be similar to the original. It is, pretty much, similar in name only. That’s misleading, disappointing and frustrating to some degree. My regard for Arenanet has slipped in recent years as a result.

You have to understand what GvG meant to the GW1 PvP community. Having some kind of makeshift faux GvG within WvW is not even a remotely good consolation to people who played the original GvG.

So there are other games that have made compel shift in there game play type yet still used the old name WoW and the WC games are great example of this. WC 1 to 2 where full RTS WC3 was more of an RTS with a RPG like hero system and WoW is comply apart from the WC system to where its no longer an RTS. How can they hold the name Warcraft? Because the story was the same lines and the world that was being played in the same even though they where very different games.

Final fantasy is another example of holding the same name by mostly though story alone. This game has started out as a pure turn base game then jumped to a time turn base to a live action turn back (what you see in mmorpgs) and now its going to a full live action in the newest ff game. All these games hold the same name with a number to show how long or how many have been out. This is comply ok too its dumb to lose a reconnaissance name for something as small as a changes in how the game plays and to ask a game maker to do this is asking them to commit suicide.

If you want them to have very locked in GvG like GW1 that ok but this is comply the worst way to ask for it. And the argument is always going to get bogged down in facts of why GW1 was called as such etc.. So if you want to realty ask for GvG like you saw in GW1 you should ask for it that way and not this very round about way of trying to “troll” a name in some effect to get them on your side (i am realty not sure how you can ever convenes some one of any thing if your just going to be mean about things i highly dough trolling some one is every going to get them to do just what you want.)

Escadin.9482:

There is a difference between new game and new game of a series. It is true that every game of a series will feel a bit different, but they usually share the same defining characteristics. No developer breaks this rule without certain consequences and the same holds true for other media.

Who’s rules? Is there a gov. body that sets them? Or is it just a mob of ppl who “think” they are right above others? A game maker makes there own rules when it comes to naming or even making there own game. Comments like that makes it sound like your making things up as you go along to fit your current needs that is not a set of rule of ideal that just an excuse to say things.

Grind Wars 2 – The Grindening

Jski.6180:

So there are other games that have made compel shift in there game play type yet still used the old name WoW and the WC games are great example of this. WC 1 to 2 where full RTS WC3 was more of an RTS with a RPG like hero system and WoW is comply apart from the WC system to where its no longer an RTS. How can they hold the name Warcraft? Because the story was the same lines and the world that was being played in the same even though they where very different games.

I think this is different. Adding the hero system in WC3 was more an addition to, than replacement of previous gaming experience. There were probably people who didn’t like it but they still had whatever made WC2 worthwile for them alongside (mostly).

WoW on the other hand is not really part of the RTS series. It is more clearly a completely new game which takes place in the same universe.

Jski.6180:

Who’s rules? Is there a gov. body that sets them? Or is it just a mob of ppl who “think” they are right above others? A game maker makes there own rules when it comes to naming or even making there own game. Comments like that makes it sound like your making things up as you go along to fit your current needs that is not a set of rule of ideal that just an excuse to say things.

Market rules undoubtly. Furthermore, gamedesigner can’t dictate how people enjoy or experience their games through laws. They can only investigate reactions to certain decisions and elements and this one example of it.
You can bet your kitten that this decision encouraged a shift in their target audience. Many people became alienated to the franchise, while new people discovered the second part as a new game.
This doesn’t necessarily have have bad consequences (I didn’t want to imply that btw). It easily can though, which for example EA games has proven with all the formerly popular franchises they have loused up over the past 10 years.

Jski.6180:

Final fantasy is another example of holding the same name by mostly though story alone. This game has started out as a pure turn base game then jumped to a time turn base to a live action turn back (what you see in mmorpgs) and now its going to a full live action in the newest ff game. All these games hold the same name with a number to show how long or how many have been out. This is comply ok too its dumb to lose a reconnaissance name for something as small as a changes in how the game plays and to ask a game maker to do this is asking them to commit suicide.

I didn’t play FF so I can’t tell. It is obvious though, that increasingly bigger changes are necessary in order to avoid other (possibly bigger) issues within a series of what? 16 parts? compared to merely 2. And they had much more time to implement them step by step too.
Perhaps the combat pace was no defining characteristic. Perhaps it was and the game had to go through the same troubles (but obviously made it). I can’t tell.

Escadin.9482:

If you want them to have very locked in GvG like GW1 that ok but this is comply the worst way to ask for it. And the argument is always going to get bogged down in facts of why GW1 was called as such etc.. So if you want to realty ask for GvG like you saw in GW1 you should ask for it that way and not this very round about way of trying to “troll” a name in some effect to get them on your side (i am realty not sure how you can ever convenes some one of any thing if your just going to be mean about things i highly dough trolling some one is every going to get them to do just what you want.)

It’s not a very elaborate way of expressing the issue, that’s true. Not everyone puts as much effort into researching why he/she likes things the way they are. All they know is GW2 feels different were it’s not “supposed to” and they don’t like that.
The usual reply “we got the lore, your argument is invalid” isn’t much better though.

The more words one needs to justify his point of view, the weaker his arguments become.

BTW I am currently developing a nice game titled “Tennis Wars” and the killer feature is: there is no Tennis in it! Anwesome, is it not?
But no worries….there will be some lore to explain the title…maybe some NPC played tennis in his youth….that should suffice for most.