I just want to start out by saying that I generally like GW2’s offerings.. and there is a lot of variety to like for a game that’s just a few months old. The platforming is great, dodging and z-axis play are fun and make the game feel dynamic in the movement/positioning department. Knockbacks and pulls are a welcome addition to the staple knockdown of GW1. Jumping puzzles are a great idea, the auction house is generally pretty well designed. The “dungeons” aka instances, while a bit glitchy, are interesting and varied. There is always something to do in GW2, and I will continue to play for several years in the future.
… but as a whole, I feel that the combat system is less than the sum of it’s parts. I can see where the system from GW1 was revisited and overhauled to create the system in place for GW2… but I feel something’s been lost in translation, so to speak.
GW1 had hexes in addition to conditions for offensive status effects. They were less accessible and harder to remove, but did very specific things while conditions were as they are now, basically a consistant effect for a duration. Some people complained that hexes were overpowered, but it added a dynamic to combat other than just push/pull/stun/DoT and movement control. There was another layer to combat other than just pushing people around and fighting for positioning like a GW1 warrior. Most classes in GW2 feel a bit like a GW1 warrior with some extra tools and self sufficiency.
The combat system of GW1 used micro instead of the macro elements of GW2. What I mean is you could micro a number of skills on specific allies instead of just being in their general area and using your nuanced AoE effect(a la guardian buffs). The monk class would apply buffs directly. Support was much more effective in this fashion, not to mention the options were greater. They had enchantments which, like hexes, were more specific than what we now know as boons.
I realize that there was an attempt to make classes self sufficient and to remove the cliche tank/dps/heal trinity. However, I would argue that this trinity didn’t really exist in GW1. Technically, you could exploit AI somewhat to have “tanks” and warriors had high armor which made them more suitable for walking into the fray… but there was no threat mechanic, no taunts.. just classes with skill sets more suited for certain things. Now we have an enormous amount of confusion as to what classes are good for what roles and some classes may be simply inferior to use in any situation.
Lastly I feel that the greatest asset of GW1’s combat system was the focus on skills. There was an enormous amount of choices, which I understand created a bit of strife, but also provided people with the ability to fine tune builds with small utility skills and nuanced changes. I quite liked borrowing something from the ele or mesmer arsenal to make my warrior more effective in pve.. or playing the same weapon an entirely different way a la skill choices rather than a fixed bar. In addition to these choices you could see people’s skill activation and there was a comprehensive disruption system. I’m told Arenanet removed this at the behest of people with high latency. I was definitely middle of the pack as far connections were concerned but I still found this system to be very satisfying. Even in GW2 I’m pretty sure low latency can win out, as it always has since the days of Quakeworld.
I’m probably the wrong person to be pitching this. I probably lack the charisma and articulation.. but seriously, GW1 combat was a beautiful thing.. it played fluid and a bit chess like. I know it had issues, but which game doesn’t? Sometimes GW2 feels like a button mash brawl. Just don’t forget about it.. revisit it, do something with it.. but don’t leave it in the dust or I’m sure another developer will shamelessly copy it and ride it to success.
(edited by mooty.4560)