Guild Wars 2

Raziel.4216:

Manthas.6234:

What the devs say about their game is marketing. A business plan. Anyone can advertise a glass of juice as an elixir of youth and raise the price. Thing is, while you are drinking an elixir of youth, I am drinking a glass of juice.

We agree to disagree then, I follow objective & verifiable evidence.
Does faction meet the criteria for expansion, when compared to expansions from many games, including the ones you mentioned? No
Do EoTN and HoT? Yes
Does faction require an original game (base characteristic of any expansion)? No
Do EoTN and HoT? Yes

You’ve not refuted anything, not even your own examples which were easily turned to support my position, instead of yours. It all adds up to “screw the facts, I say it’s an expansion so it has to be one!”.
A debate where your opponent is unable to refute anything is extremely boring, have fun.

Easy example: Dawn of War: Dark Crusade – my favorite expansion. Devs said it’s an expansion? Yes. Stand-alone campaign? Yes. It’s actually even more different game to Dawn of War, since you can’t use your character from the original campaign. But somehow it still gives point to your claim, right?
My point is, that not requiring an original game is more of a pleasant feature, than a deciding point. Many expansions (like Frozen Throne, Awakening) could have easily had that feature but for some reason decided not to.
But ok, I get it, it’s all about how the devs call that. I just hope that such logic won’t bring more questionable practices in gaming world.

Manthas.6234:

Raziel.4216:

Manthas.6234:

What the devs say about their game is marketing. A business plan. Anyone can advertise a glass of juice as an elixir of youth and raise the price. Thing is, while you are drinking an elixir of youth, I am drinking a glass of juice.

We agree to disagree then, I follow objective & verifiable evidence.
Does faction meet the criteria for expansion, when compared to expansions from many games, including the ones you mentioned? No
Do EoTN and HoT? Yes
Does faction require an original game (base characteristic of any expansion)? No
Do EoTN and HoT? Yes

You’ve not refuted anything, not even your own examples which were easily turned to support my position, instead of yours. It all adds up to “screw the facts, I say it’s an expansion so it has to be one!”.
A debate where your opponent is unable to refute anything is extremely boring, have fun.

Easy example: Dawn of War: Dark Crusade – my favorite expansion. Devs said it’s an expansion? Yes. Stand-alone campaign? Yes. It’s actually even more different game to Dawn of War, since you can’t use your character from the original campaign. But somehow it still gives point to your claim, right?
My point is, that not requiring an original game is more of a pleasant feature, than a deciding point. Many expansions (like Frozen Throne, Awakening) could have easily had that feature but for some reason decided not to.
But ok, I get it, it’s all about how the devs call that. I just hope that such logic won’t bring more questionable practices in gaming world.

Great, Dawn of War has an expansion based on that dev’s definition.
But not based on the comparison with any other expansion mentioned so far (once again, I’m including your previous examples here too, still waiting for that refutal), not according to the developers themselves and not according to the very definition of “expansion”.
Having to cherry pick one game – after all the rest mentioned did not support your point- does not support your position.

Raziel.4216:

Manthas.6234:

Raziel.4216:

Manthas.6234:

What the devs say about their game is marketing. A business plan. Anyone can advertise a glass of juice as an elixir of youth and raise the price. Thing is, while you are drinking an elixir of youth, I am drinking a glass of juice.

We agree to disagree then, I follow objective & verifiable evidence.
Does faction meet the criteria for expansion, when compared to expansions from many games, including the ones you mentioned? No
Do EoTN and HoT? Yes
Does faction require an original game (base characteristic of any expansion)? No
Do EoTN and HoT? Yes

You’ve not refuted anything, not even your own examples which were easily turned to support my position, instead of yours. It all adds up to “screw the facts, I say it’s an expansion so it has to be one!”.
A debate where your opponent is unable to refute anything is extremely boring, have fun.

Easy example: Dawn of War: Dark Crusade – my favorite expansion. Devs said it’s an expansion? Yes. Stand-alone campaign? Yes. It’s actually even more different game to Dawn of War, since you can’t use your character from the original campaign. But somehow it still gives point to your claim, right?
My point is, that not requiring an original game is more of a pleasant feature, than a deciding point. Many expansions (like Frozen Throne, Awakening) could have easily had that feature but for some reason decided not to.
But ok, I get it, it’s all about how the devs call that. I just hope that such logic won’t bring more questionable practices in gaming world.

Great, Dawn of War has an expansion based on that dev’s definition.
But not based on the comparison with any other expansion mentioned so far (once again, I’m including your previous examples here too, still waiting for that refutal), not according to the developers themselves and not according to the very definition of “expansion”.
Having to cherry pick one game – after all the rest mentioned did not support your point- does not support your position.

And yet, your only points against Factions being an expansion are: 1) it does not require original game; 2) devs said so. I have actually dismissed both, yet you ignore it.
Furthermore, google “expansion pack” and “standalone expansion”. You’ll get much more examples you’ll probably ignore.

Manthas.6234:

Raziel.4216:

Manthas.6234:

Raziel.4216:

Manthas.6234:

What the devs say about their game is marketing. A business plan. Anyone can advertise a glass of juice as an elixir of youth and raise the price. Thing is, while you are drinking an elixir of youth, I am drinking a glass of juice.

We agree to disagree then, I follow objective & verifiable evidence.
Does faction meet the criteria for expansion, when compared to expansions from many games, including the ones you mentioned? No
Do EoTN and HoT? Yes
Does faction require an original game (base characteristic of any expansion)? No
Do EoTN and HoT? Yes

You’ve not refuted anything, not even your own examples which were easily turned to support my position, instead of yours. It all adds up to “screw the facts, I say it’s an expansion so it has to be one!”.
A debate where your opponent is unable to refute anything is extremely boring, have fun.

Easy example: Dawn of War: Dark Crusade – my favorite expansion. Devs said it’s an expansion? Yes. Stand-alone campaign? Yes. It’s actually even more different game to Dawn of War, since you can’t use your character from the original campaign. But somehow it still gives point to your claim, right?
My point is, that not requiring an original game is more of a pleasant feature, than a deciding point. Many expansions (like Frozen Throne, Awakening) could have easily had that feature but for some reason decided not to.
But ok, I get it, it’s all about how the devs call that. I just hope that such logic won’t bring more questionable practices in gaming world.

Great, Dawn of War has an expansion based on that dev’s definition.
But not based on the comparison with any other expansion mentioned so far (once again, I’m including your previous examples here too, still waiting for that refutal), not according to the developers themselves and not according to the very definition of “expansion”.
Having to cherry pick one game – after all the rest mentioned did not support your point- does not support your position.

And yet, your only points against Factions being an expansion are: 1) it does not require original game; 2) devs said so. I have actually dismissed both, yet you ignore it.
Furthermore, google “expansion pack” and “standalone expansion”. You’ll get much more examples you’ll probably ignore.

Not sure why we’d dismiss that the devs themselves tells us, but I guess you know better than the devs themselves right?
Don’t forget the fact that all the other games mentioned, including all your previous examples, meet the same criteria as EoTN and HoT. Don’t let that inconvenient fact bother your pointless cherry picking tho.
Google the very definition of the word expansion before you go on.
Dismissing =/= refuting.
I can easily dismiss the fact that the sky is blue because of rayleigh scattering, but that’s not the same as refuting it.

Raziel.4216:

Manthas.6234:

Raziel.4216:

Manthas.6234:

Raziel.4216:

Manthas.6234:

What the devs say about their game is marketing. A business plan. Anyone can advertise a glass of juice as an elixir of youth and raise the price. Thing is, while you are drinking an elixir of youth, I am drinking a glass of juice.

We agree to disagree then, I follow objective & verifiable evidence.
Does faction meet the criteria for expansion, when compared to expansions from many games, including the ones you mentioned? No
Do EoTN and HoT? Yes
Does faction require an original game (base characteristic of any expansion)? No
Do EoTN and HoT? Yes

You’ve not refuted anything, not even your own examples which were easily turned to support my position, instead of yours. It all adds up to “screw the facts, I say it’s an expansion so it has to be one!”.
A debate where your opponent is unable to refute anything is extremely boring, have fun.

Easy example: Dawn of War: Dark Crusade – my favorite expansion. Devs said it’s an expansion? Yes. Stand-alone campaign? Yes. It’s actually even more different game to Dawn of War, since you can’t use your character from the original campaign. But somehow it still gives point to your claim, right?
My point is, that not requiring an original game is more of a pleasant feature, than a deciding point. Many expansions (like Frozen Throne, Awakening) could have easily had that feature but for some reason decided not to.
But ok, I get it, it’s all about how the devs call that. I just hope that such logic won’t bring more questionable practices in gaming world.

Great, Dawn of War has an expansion based on that dev’s definition.
But not based on the comparison with any other expansion mentioned so far (once again, I’m including your previous examples here too, still waiting for that refutal), not according to the developers themselves and not according to the very definition of “expansion”.
Having to cherry pick one game – after all the rest mentioned did not support your point- does not support your position.

And yet, your only points against Factions being an expansion are: 1) it does not require original game; 2) devs said so. I have actually dismissed both, yet you ignore it.
Furthermore, google “expansion pack” and “standalone expansion”. You’ll get much more examples you’ll probably ignore.

And the fact that all the other games mentioned, including all your previous examples, meet the same criteria as EoTN and HoT.
Google the very definition of the word expansion before you go on.
Don’t let that inconvenient fact bother your pointless cherry picking tho.
Dismissing =/= refuting.
I can easily dismiss the fact that the sky is blue because of rayleigh scattering, but that’s not the same as refuting it.

To put the final nail: Could you give any example of a game, which uses the same engine, game mechanics and universe of the other game and yet, is not considered its expansion? You can cherry pick.

All the starcraft 2 campaigns.
Took me 1 second, off the top of my head
But maybe, just like before, you know better than the devs themselves and they’re actually expansions? Dunno, after all, devs themselves don’t know what they make in front of you right?

Raziel.4216:

All the starcraft 2 campaigns.
Took me 1 second, off the top of my head
But maybe, just like before, you know better than the devs themselves and they’re actually expansions? Dunno, after all, devs themselves don’t know what they make in front of you right?

Those are expansions >.<

Manthas.6234:

Raziel.4216:

All the starcraft 2 campaigns.
Took me 1 second, off the top of my head
But maybe, just like before, you know better than the devs themselves and they’re actually expansions? Dunno, after all, devs themselves don’t know what they make in front of you right?

Those are expansions >.<

Exactly what I expected

Based on what?
Do they require previous releases to be played? No
Do they meet all the criteria you requested? Yes
Do devs themselves call’em expansions? Yes, but we ignore devs right?

To call’em expansions we’d have to listen to the devs, but you’ve already proven that we can just dismiss whatever the maker of a product says and re-define it ourselves, ‘coz we know better than them.
If we listen to Blizzard when talking about their games we’d have to listen to Anet when talking about Factions, and doing so would be a suicide for your position that stands on shaky ground.
After all, you asked for a final nail didn’t you?

If Blizzard called Starcraft 2 a FPS game would that make it FPS?

Manthas.6234:

If Blizzard called Starcraft 2 a FPS game would that make it FPS?

For blizzard’s weird and screwed up FPS standards ? Yeah, they can define their product in whatever category they want. Nice straw-man there
But we know better right? You did not answer anything btw but I don’t expect you to. After all, the first page of this topic is full of unrefuted stuff, you just dismiss whatever’s inconvenient.

So, do we follow the definition of the devs, who’ve marketed it as an expansion? or do we follow the criteria laid before, that doesn’t define it as an expansion?
If you follow what the devs said you’d be shooting yourself in the foot.
There’s your final nail, enjoy.

Factions was not an expansion, and it was the worst of all 3 GW1 games because of the small size and the closed gates; Fortunately the follow up Nightfall returned to a real open world model, and the new heroes there made it the best of all GW1 games. Too bad Anet made the same mistake with HoT as they did with Factions: hide content behind ‘closed doors’ by making it very linear and depending on skills unuseual in MMORPG’s (e.g. jumping) and playing in trains to get achievements.

This is not likely to change. It seems the new target group is Young Adults, who grew up with SuperMario and like fast action games and puzzles, lol!

It doesn’t matter if HoT is an expansion or not. If it is an expansion it should have more dungeons than classic GW2 has. And a similar amount of maps.
If only a small amount of content is added you call it a DLC.

Jockum.1385:

It doesn’t matter if HoT is an expansion or not. If it is an expansion it should have more dungeons than classic GW2 has. And a similar amount of maps.
If only a small amount of content is added you call it a DLC.

What’s your basis for this?

Jockum.1385:

It doesn’t matter if HoT is an expansion or not. If it is an expansion it should have more dungeons than classic GW2 has. And a similar amount of maps.
If only a small amount of content is added you call it a DLC.

No expansion will ever have as much content as the original videogame.

Take diablo 3 for example
Original game: 4 acts, 5 classes.
Expansion: 1 act, 1 class.

GW1
Original game: almost all of the tyria continent map-wise.
8 classes.
Forgot how many skills.
Anyone know the insane amount of quests?
EoTN (only expansion): 0 classes, 150 skills, shiverpeaks, some maps around maguuma, 2 (?) new maps by ascalon, nowhere near as many quests.
That’s less than 1/3 of the original game. It’s still the most expensive one in steam.

Ayrilana.1396:

What’s your basis for this?

GW2 has roughly 30 maps and 8 dungeons which each 4 paths (arah 5). An expansion or standalone should have a similiar amount of content. Maybe not 30 maps, but 4 is quite a huge difference. Thats close to LS2 which added two new maps (SW, DT). Remember, Drytop and SW also got different levels (SW has three levels).

The “was Factions (or Nightfall) an expansion or not” argument is annoying. Factions wasn’t an expansion. It was a Standalone Campaign. Even though most people played it as an addon to Prophecies, it could be bought and played on its own without owning the “base game”. It wasn’t an expansion…most people played it as an addon to Prophecies. It’s classified as a “Standalone Campaign” and that’s exactly what it was…as was Nightfall. Eye of the North was another Standalone Campaign in the works, which they scrapped and stitched together what they had, as an expansion that required one of the Campaigns to play. Eye of the North could be played with Factions alone. Does that mean it’s an expansion expansion? If I bought Factions first, and then later added Prophecies to my account, does that mean Prophecies was an expansion as well? Prophecies, Factions, and Nightfall were all Standalone games that can be tied to an existing account. None of the three were expansions. All three were “Base Games” that can be tied together. Eye of the North was the only true GW1 expansion.

That said….I found EotN to be more fun than HoT. If that bugs anyone…too bad. :p

Raziel.4216:

EoTN (only expansion): 0 classes, 150 skills, shiverpeaks, some maps around maguuma, 2 (?) new maps by ascalon, nowhere near as many quests.

With 18 dungeons adding 49 dungeon maps.
An expansion/new standalone can be a bit smaller. But were talking about 4 maps. Not 15 new open world maps in HoT and 18 new dungeons.

Jockum.1385:

Ayrilana.1396:

What’s your basis for this?

GW2 has roughly 30 maps and 8 dungeons which each 4 paths (arah 5). An expansion or standalone should have a similiar amount of content. Maybe not 30 maps, but 4 is quite a huge difference. Thats close to LS2 which added two new maps (SW, DT). Remember, Drytop and SW also got different levels (SW has three levels).

I probably should have been more clearer.

I was referring to what was your basis that HoT should have more dungeons than classic GW2 and similar amount of maps.

Raziel.4216:

Jockum.1385:

It doesn’t matter if HoT is an expansion or not. If it is an expansion it should have more dungeons than classic GW2 has. And a similar amount of maps.
If only a small amount of content is added you call it a DLC.

No expansion will ever have as much content as the original videogame.

Take diablo 3 for example
Original game: 4 acts, 5 classes.
Expansion: 1 act, 1 class.

GW1
Original game: almost all of the tyria continent map-wise.
8 classes.
Forgot how many skills.
Anyone know the insane amount of quests?
EoTN (only expansion): 0 classes, 150 skills, shiverpeaks, some maps around maguuma, 2 (?) new maps by ascalon, nowhere near as many quests.
That’s less than 1/3 of the original game. It’s still the most expensive one in steam.

Prophecies has 203 quests at launch. Hardly an insane amount. lol

Jockum.1385:

Raziel.4216:

EoTN (only expansion): 0 classes, 150 skills, shiverpeaks, some maps around maguuma, 2 (?) new maps by ascalon, nowhere near as many quests.

With 18 dungeons adding 49 dungeon maps.

Where are you getting your information? Also remember that the dungeons had many sections that were copy and pasted from others. Many of the armor skins were recycled and slightly tweaked to appear different.

You can find the amount of maps in the wiki. But to give you a rough number: 18 dungeons with ~ three levels each. Yes, many map parts are copied. I wouldn’t mind when Anet would implement 18 new dungeons in GW2 which are also using similar backgrounds etc.

I was referring to what was your basis that HoT should have more dungeons than classic GW2 and similar amount of maps.

Because you pay the price of an full addon.

“similar” is a wide range. But if you compare the classic GW2 and the LS2 with HoT: LS2 is closer to HoT when it comes to content.
LS2 is a DLC, no expansion/standalone. I think a fullprices expansion should offer a bit more. But we all knew that HoT would only offer 4 maps, so I guess Anet knows what they can do. HoT seems to be a sucess and there isn’t much flame going on in forums/reddit, so most players seem to be lucky with HoT.

Jockum.1385:

You can find the amount of maps in the wiki. But to give you a rough number: 18 dungeons with ~ three levels each. Yes, many map parts are copied. I wouldn’t mind when Anet would implement 18 new dungeons in GW2 which are also using similar backgrounds etc.

I was referring to what was your basis that HoT should have more dungeons than classic GW2 and similar amount of maps.

Because you pay the price of an full addon.

“similar” is a wide range. But if you compare the classic GW2 and the LS2 with HoT: LS2 is closer to HoT when it comes to content.
LS2 is a DLC, no expansion/standalone. I think a fullprices expansion should offer a bit more. But we all knew that HoT would only offer 4 maps, so I guess Anet knows what they can do. HoT seems to be a sucess and there isn’t much flame going on in forums/reddit, so most players seem to be lucky with HoT.

So now you’re counting the various levels in the EotN dungeons as separate dungeons? Well then we can apply the same to HoT maps that have many levels. Fair is fair, right?

HoT is not similar to LS2. You got so much more than you got in LS2. Expansions have never delivered as much content as their core games did. There’s also no basis that if an expansion cost a certain amount then it must provide a certain amount.

Ayrilana.1396:

So now you’re counting the various levels in the EotN dungeons as separate dungeons?

If you look carefully: I was speaking of 49 dungeon maps. For each level of a dungeon you have to walk through a portal and get to the new level, same as in GW2. When you go from rata sum to metrica you have to walk through a portal. So I call it a new map.

HoT is not similar to LS2. You got so much more than you got in LS2. Expansions have never delivered as much content as their core games did. There’s also no basis that if an expansion cost a certain amount then it must provide a certain amount.

Yes, this is why there are expansions like the oblivion horse armour.
There are lots of different formulations: “expansion pack (usually DLC)”. “full expansion (usually a whole game)”. “major expansion(something in between)”.
HoT offers four maps. If you want to add maps for each level do so. Would still be less than 15 maps – and there are still no 18 dungeons. I’m not saying it needs to be exact 18 dungeons. Maybe 5 would also be ok. But so it feels like a DLC. Like two LS episodes in one. Remember: LS also offered quite a lot of content. (LS1+2: soutsun, SW, DT, many unique bossfights, new WvW map (EoTM), two new dungeons, …)

Jockum.1385:

Raziel.4216:

EoTN (only expansion): 0 classes, 150 skills, shiverpeaks, some maps around maguuma, 2 (?) new maps by ascalon, nowhere near as many quests.

With 18 dungeons adding 49 dungeon maps.
An expansion/new standalone can be a bit smaller. But were talking about 4 maps. Not 15 new open world maps in HoT and 18 new dungeons.

18 dungeons that are copy paste versions of each other, out of wich only 3 were active? Awesome!
I’d rather Anet stick to few maps filled with stuff to do instead of 50 new maps that are copy pasted versions of each other.
But that’s beside the point, no matter how much we sugar coat EoTN, you can never argue that it had as much content as the base game, that’s the point I was making.

Raziel.4216:

Jockum.1385:

Raziel.4216:

EoTN (only expansion): 0 classes, 150 skills, shiverpeaks, some maps around maguuma, 2 (?) new maps by ascalon, nowhere near as many quests.

With 18 dungeons adding 49 dungeon maps.
An expansion/new standalone can be a bit smaller. But were talking about 4 maps. Not 15 new open world maps in HoT and 18 new dungeons.

18 dungeons that are copy paste versions of each other, out of wich only 3 were active? Awesome!
I’d rather Anet stick to few maps filled with stuff to do instead of 50 new maps that are copy pasted versions of each other.
But that’s beside the point, no matter how much we sugar coat EoTN, you can never argue that it had as much content as the base game, that’s the point I was making.

They weren’t all copy/paste. The ritualist one was nothing like the flame legion one.

people are going off on a rabbit trail but just my 2 cents. Factions and nightfall were expansions… what do you call adding new content to a previous game, an expansion. GG. They marketed it as a stand-alone game b/c it is and it was great for advertising, unlike WoW where you had to buy several expansions just to play the current one. But at the end of the day it was still new content, that was connected if you wanted to link it. That’s an expansion.

Anyways going back to the op topic. Definitely hope the next gw2 expansion is a lot bigger. Hopefully updates and a new living world/story help with this.

Chrono.6928:

people are going off on a rabbit trail but just my 2 cents. Factions and nightfall were expansions… what do you call adding new content to a previous game, an expansion. GG. They marketed it as a stand-alone game b/c it is and it was great for advertising, unlike WoW where you had to buy several expansions just to play the current one. But at the end of the day it was still new content, that was connected if you wanted to link it. That’s an expansion.

Addind content? like, you had GW1 and then installed more content on top of it, you know like D2 LoD or D3 RoS ?
Or you mean stand-alone content that can be (optional) linked to other stand-alone content for added benefits?
Do you also mean content that has been -explicitly- differentiated from expansions by it’s developers?
And it fails to meet the same criteria as all but one of the expansions listed in this topic?
Doesn’t look like an expansion at all.

Beating the same horse over and over is starting to get boring.

Chrono.6928:

people are going off on a rabbit trail but just my 2 cents. Factions and nightfall were expansions… what do you call adding new content to a previous game, an expansion. GG. They marketed it as a stand-alone game b/c it is and it was great for advertising, unlike WoW where you had to buy several expansions just to play the current one. But at the end of the day it was still new content, that was connected if you wanted to link it. That’s an expansion.

No. They were “marketed as stand-alone”, because they could be played alone. Again, Eye of the North was the only actual Guild Wars 1 Expansion, and was labeled as such. Also again, what if I bought factions FIRST, played it for a few months, then bought Prophecies and added it to my account? You’re saying Prophecies was an expansion as well…meaning to you every GW1 game was an expansion? To properly compare HoT to Factions/Nightfall, you would need to either…remove all the starter zones from Factions/Nightfall and require it be tied to Prophecies to play, or, make HoT a standalone game, which would mean starter zones and a vast amount of leveling content would have to be added to it. They are two different things, and comparing HoT to EotN is definitely the only viable comparison, as both ARE expansions.

Again though…I still liked EotN better than HoT. And if there is another GW2 expansion I hope they will go in a very different direction.

DoctorDing.5890:

The whole GW1 series, whether you call them expansions or not, were basically more of the same. There was no huge change in difficulty level or game meta. Hence, they were popular and well-received by the bulk of the regular players. HoT seems to have been a month ’s worth of distraction for a portion of the player base and then lots of them seem to have gone back to core.

This has the core of the argument in it. H0T has little longer term appeal- waiting for gated/timed/locked content isn’t much fun. Once you know the paths and have unlocked gliding and mushrooms repeating the maps takes less and less time- and mastery points are done, so no repeat value there, POI’s are just somewhere you have to go to fill the map, and large parts of some maps are unavailable for long periods of time.

Add in constantly contested WP’s, mobs that are just annoying so you start to avoid them (as they are totally irrelevant to anything really, not going to grind on mobs to level masteries, etc) and meta events that need taxis…

It’s no wonder people have wondered off. Sadly they put in Deserted BL at the same time with a vague promise of ‘working on a wvw overhaul’ for some point in the future (same promise for last 3 years rally…) so there’s little left to appeal.

I’m enjoying Factions again, along with the rest of Guild Wars, as there is so much to do and mobs mostly have a point there rather than being things to skip on the way to the next pile of players/event with gimmick one shot mechanics and JPs, etc.

I wish a bunch of anet employees would start their own company and make a spiritual successor to GW1. I’d love to see a game like that be made again.

I see that a lot of was discussed while I was away. So, I’ll try put my final thought there. Stand-alone campaign. For some of you, this is a whole new game. For people like me, it’s just another type of expansion (expandalone). I would have no problem with that, if not for some inconsistencies I can’t allow to pass.

Take Frozen Throne and Legacy of Void for an example. One would be considered expansion, the other – stand-alone campaign. To me, as a player, it is almost the same experience compared to the original versions. Yet, because of the minor differences (requiring original game and marketing), one can’t be considered an expansion. To me, such minor differences can not be the deciding factor.

One more thing, and I’ll be gone from this thread since it really dragged too much. “On July 15, 2015, Heart of the Swarm was made a standalone title, allowing play without having first purchased Wings Of Liberty” (Source: Wiki). What was HotS before July 15 and what it is now?

It’s fun as I remember exactly how many disliked Factions and it got criticized a lot by fans for having a rather short story, horrible voice acting, a lot of duplicate skills (remember touch ranger who took advantage of this?).

Don’t get me wrong, I loved the expansion, also the areas were great looking and also the elite areas were awesome.

You also can’t compare the map and map sizes. The maps in GW1 are extremely simple, there are no meta events, no multilevel and you couldn’t even jump. Yes, sheer landmass was rather big, but there were a lot of parts you can’t go, which was there only for decoration.

I do have to agree that they missed the boat on story content. They could have had more interactions with the local NPC’S like they did on the VB map. Have more mini quests to advance the story. After the ABC map the story just gets you from point a to b.
The core game story was set up so you would unlock the maps and content and the further you get into the expansion the less content for the storyline.