Guild Wars 2

Tamias.7059:

New features, such as weapons or playable races, that would traditionally come bundled with expansions, will be presumably available to everyone, for free.

To be honest with you I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re like how skins were in Season 1, in the gem store piecemeal. It would be nice if they were free though, and I’d certainly appreciate it if they were.

Over time I don’t think the price is too bad, but if I were to sign up in a year when it’s all over, I wouldn’t want to pay $50 for the base game and $65 for the ‘expansion’. I would expect Anet to make a package deal at that point, probably around $20 or so. But what a good price is would certainly depend on the level of content. If we had Factions/Nightfall amounts of content I would think $30-$40 could be acceptable. And if it was nothing more than the same amount of instances in season 1, I wouldn’t pay more than $10.

GW2 players who get GW1 just for HoM points, what rewards are appealing to you to invest so much time in another game for? Have any of you got the game just to try to get GWAMM? If so, how much research did you do before deciding it’s for you?

For anyone who got the game just for the GW2 rewards and completed their goal, did you think the time involved was worth it?

This would be a really neat thing to have, especially to distinguish yourself from others of your same race/gender. I think revoicing the entire game might be pricey, but even if they just added new voices to the open world, that’d be the place you and others would hear it most and I still think it’d be worth it.

People who say more body choices aren’t or shouldn’t be a thing because of technical limitations, alright, I can buy that. If resources are too limited to make it happen then the choice that leads to the greatest happiness is probably the best one.

People who say it shouldn’t happen because it’s fantasy make me sad though. Some people do like larger body types for various reasons and not making it an option because “it’s ugly” is silly. While some race/gender combinations have more choices than others human females in particular really disappoint me. Norn women feel more “normal” than human women but still lack some larger options relative to their brothers (I think someone pointed out before there’s a larger female Norn NPC in-game that isn’t pickable), but I don’t enjoy playing Norn because being a scaled up human is really weird to me (but I’m not opposed to other people playing what they personally enjoy), so I wish some of their body options were available to human women.

And then the people who say it’d be unrealistic to have larger body types because of physical activity kind of forgot about all the skimpy armour destroying all sense for the sake of aesthetic. This is just another form of aesthetic that makes some people happy, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.

That comparison might work if it was $2000 for a taco a day, and only for as long as you have that specific oven.

Romo.3709:

I really wish they kept the Home Instance unlocks to in-game unlocks. They were on the right path with the idea. Until now…

Me too. The talk about home instances in the CDI has me excited, and I’d rather it not go the route of Town Clothes.

Teraphas: I think the idea isn’t to make a perfect solution but to just generally improve the quality of commanders. Ever since the Jubilee gold’s been a lot easier to obtain and commanders are much more common. I don’t think people should be able to vote commanders down, necessarily, though they could be reported if they troll. Right now anyone can get a tag for 100g, regardless of what anyone thinks of them. At least if a guild votes up some people, those people have the support of their own guild. I also think the vote system should be separate from the current system, so people who don’t have experience can continue to use the current system and prove themselves with spontaneous zergs, while the vote system can be used for more serious strategy and tactics, in general. No matter what the system there’ll always be flaws, but I think this improves on the current one.

I agree with some posts here and I feel the biggest issues are earning and distinction, especially in WvW. I don’t think commander tags as they are should be removed (but after the new system is implemented, if it is different enough, I think there should be a time frame where people can request gold refunds). I think an easy way to implement earning, apart from relevant achievements, is to have community approval. If enough of a community votes that x is a good y type of commander, they should get the y tag, and if a commander who was already nominated by the community approves of this person, their opinion should count for more. I think a peer approval system is less easy to abuse than a gold based system. But this is assuming the current commander tag could still exist for spontaneous group-ups, because that’s still important.

For distinction, apart from the colour/shape suggestion, this “lieutenant” suggestion is good — a second tier of command. I believe it should be tied to commanders and assigned by them. I also think commanders should be able to assign their squad members to different lieutenants, and then those squad members can only see the tag of their lieutenant (not omitting the other tags will make people following them more difficult, since they’ll follow who they feel like). I think bearing in mind the zerg mentality is important. People see a tag, they go to it, they kill for loot. Some people are interested in tactics, some aren’t. The system should try to allow the commanding people to organize these people that aren’t thinking tactically but just blindly following. It also needs to be quick and easy — I’d have each squad member represented by a dot, rather than their large portrait, and I think the commander should be able to drag a selection and right click to assign/de-assign. I’ll make a crude mock-up to show what I mean. I also think a commander should be able to click someone individually and assign them, if they want a specific person to a specific lieutenant, and also choose which lieutenant people who join go under by default.

Honestly, we have things like the named exotics and pitfighter.

They did say medium!

Gameplay-wise, my biggest problem with the Living Story is how time consuming, and, frequently, how boring it is. I often play these releases only because of the temporary item, and… I get the feeling this is intentional. I think those items are there not with the intention of rewarding players who play it anyway, but to hook people who wouldn’t otherwise play it. There is an appeal to limited time items. Looking back at Guild Wars 1, people often liked the festival hats for their age or exclusivity. I believe the limited time items in this game will be regarded in a similar fashion over time, but they won’t be admired for being earned (with the exception of ones like the Gauntlet mini, which truly were earned). What I’m getting at is that to get the meta achievement it takes more than it should, and I really feel this way after the last release, Tower of Nightmares.

I’m always really iffy on anything that has to be done x amount of times. What does it prove? If it’s fun, shouldn’t we be doing it on our own because we find it fun, and not because we’re told to? Things like kill 100 Toxic Allegience or do 50 door events. What does 50 door events prove that 20 doesn’t? My impression is that it’s a way to make the player invest more time, and investing more time gives a vague feeling of ‘earning’ it. I sort of liked the diving goggles in the Zephyr Sanctum. That was fun, my only problem is that I felt it was difficult to discover without a guide. Simple achievements like that are fun, make you feel like you’re exploring the content, and don’t take up a lot of time doing the same thing repeatedly. Then there’s items gained from single achievements, like the balloon and torch. The torch, I think, was good — you still had to do something repeatedly, but each time was different because there were different races. It also wasn’t excessively time consuming. I found acquiring the torch fun, and I still felt like I earned it by beating all of those races. Then there was the balloon. I did not like travelling to all of those hot air balloons and doing all of their events. It was fun the first couple of times, but after, not at all. But I didn’t want to miss out on the limited time item, which I wanted more for its limitedness and novelty than as a reward for “earning” something, and despite being more time consuming than the torch, I felt like I earned it less, because I wasn’t figuring anything out, I was just doing the same task many times.

I think you guys were on to something with the daily achievements. It allows players to circumvent achievements they don’t prefer. But what I don’t like is not also providing enough achievements normally, thereby forcing the player to do dailies. I think option is really important, especially if someone starts near the end and doesn’t have enough available days to do the required dailies.

Another thing I greatly dislike about these items is that they take up bank space and you only have one. I see absolutely no reason to not do something like the festival hat creator from GW1. You already have a system like it in place with the achievement skins, and I think using a similar system for holiday and cash shop skins would make the game much more enjoyable.

Story-wise, well. I feel like the story is mostly tacked on, and that makes me sad. The whole appeal of the Living Story originally was that it made the game feel more alive and immersive, so I’d figure the story would be the biggest draw, but it still feels like these limited time items are the bigger draw. If you took out those items, how many people would still play the content? I almost feel like these items are a detriment to the LS as a whole because of the focus on meta achievements and playing things just to get these achievements.

And having to complete the meta to finish the story? Don’t like that one bit, sorry. Having jumped on the boat too late in the Halloween event to get a lot of easy dailies, I found myself doing some of the harder, more annoying achievements to get the meta, and it felt so disconnected from the story. She wants a candy corn mini, and you get a candy corn mini out of nowhere once you do enough things enough times. It just reinforced how weak these stories feel. I definitely feel the candy corn mini should’ve been given from a singular achievement like the torch/balloon, and the achievements you can unlock in the Bloody Prince Thorn fight should have counted towards the meta, which would provide the candy corn node. I think that would have been a lot more fun.

If all aspects of the female body were taken out of the game, then the female players who are complaining now would complain more because of the sexism in omitting the female body.

No, because they’re different forms of feminism, generally held by separate people. And not all people complaining are women either.

My point with the art-craft argument is expression vs. requirement, since you’d rather debate language over my point. As I said several times before, there is no way to tell what the intentions of the designer were with the watch knight specifically. This is why comparing a statue to the watch knight is not equivalent.

Radio Isotope.3045:

Craft huh?
I guess Sculpting is a craft then……. oh wait it is
I guess Painting is a craft as well……..oh wait it is

I’m using specific definitions here for the sake of argument and you know it, bro.

Radio Isotope.3045:

I said I was going to laugh and call it a day I know i know. BUT Video games are pure art as well, just a different form, like the statue and the painting. Now think of this game as a canvas without the colors and objects there is nothing its empty and blank. Then an ARTIST draws a concept, then the concepts are filtered out to just the best pieces, then the ART is put into coding and another ARTIST makes a 3D version of the concepts and “paints” and “sculpts” the world to create what we play. The flagship for the manifesto of GW2 was that this is an ARTISTIC game. To say this game is NOT PURE ART is to be closed minded in what your own definitions of art is. If you are so upset about not having fat people in the game then make a fat toon (which you can, I checked (which I don’t see many of ingame. WHO KNEW?) to explore this beautiful handcrafted collaborative ART that you experience.

This is a craft, not an art, to me. A craft is something that is practical but ornate, but primarily practical. In this case, the assets are required for the game to function. Pure art to me is making something purely for the sake of expression, and not because it’s required.

By the way, man, relax. Remember what I said about people being blinded by emotion? That kinda sounds like you right now.

But there is a science behind what is appealing to our eyes. and the science says that when we see a “beautiful person” we get certain stimuli that actually prolongs your life.

Different cultures have different definitions of beauty. Fat women were certainly attractive in the past, and I believe the theory behind this is that food was more scarce so a fat woman was better off. There is a science behind it like you say, but it’s very complicated. Our modern western view of what an attractive woman is, is not objective.

the fact still remains though if you don’t like it then don’t play! In this game they have artistic rights and therefore it does not matter what you or the (guessed—->3% <—-guessed) of you that are offended think and it will stay.

That’s not the point… As long as it comes up, it will be pointed out, and discussed. It’s an issue deeply embedded into society itself. Don’t like the discussion, don’t join.

Maybe we should censor these as well then and make them fat? and give them covered breasts?

Inequivalent analogy — different media, different intentions. What you posted is pure art, and as Celestina points out, doesn’t completely match our modern definition of beauty anyway. In this particular example of the watch knights, it may, or may not, be art. It might be an appreciation of the female body, or it might be marketing, or it might be creative laziness. But the problem is much more widespread than just this, not just in this game, but all media. There is no one solution. Not all women should be fat, or covered. But that doesn’t mean this isn’t a problem.

I definitely agree.

Whats the point then? Whats offensive about the human body?

It’s not what’s offensive about the human body itself, but the artists’ intentions, and the prominence across media over time and the impression and influence it leaves upon its consumers. There is nothing wrong with a woman who is conventionally attractive, and she has every right to feel good about herself, and to be represented in the media she consumes. She has the right to be sexual, dress however she wants, et cetera. But there are many women who aren’t conventionally attractive, who not only rarely see themselves in the media they consume, but are insulted and disregarded by the men (and sometimes women!) who believe the only attractive women are the ones they see in media. And people’s impressions of what are beautiful are definitely influenced by media (and vice versa), if you consider what people considered beautiful across different times and cultures, and compare it to their works of art. There’s also a problem of artists using sex to sell, or just casually thinking, I want a sexy women, so they put in a sexy women, because she’s sexy, not because they want to show her as empowered and capable of choice. Of course, someone who would want to put in just that might very well create the same product, which is why issues such as the watch knight are tricky to discuss.

The problem is that there is a very small definition of beauty, and that small definition is everywhere. If you’re a woman who doesn’t fall into that definition, there’s a good chance life will be harder for you. And yes, some people will rage and think all women who fit this standard of beauty (fictional or otherwise) are terrible, but just because they argue it poorly doesn’t make the problem a non-issue.

I’m sure there’s a lot of details I’m missing here. But it’s not about ruining the game for those who don’t have their problems.

@Radio Isotope (since the post was deleted): There are feminists who are bad at making arguments for sure, but your wife’s missing the point entirely. :/

It’s not at all harmful to male self-esteem or body image, it’s not an example of misandry, it’s not reducing masculinity only to it’s physical parts, etc.

First and last — not true. That’s why it’s still a problem. Yes, it’s often brought up in a way to say, women and men aren’t portrayed equally. But it’s still a problem on its own, for these reasons. I believe it’s harmful to men as well. As for misandry, it could be argued both ways, but it’s harder to equalize it to the female sexualization because it’s still mostly men behind the media. If it was women who spammed beefcakes in media in the first place and for the most part, it would be easier to say this. I’m not disagreeing, but it would have to be investigated and discussed in detail.

It’s a clear double standard, but generally men aren’t allowed to talk about it. If a male said, “That image of a hyper-built, physically perfect, air brushed model makes me feel insecure.” he’d just get laughed at.

I think this is dumb. I think they should be allowed to, and should talk about it. And this is also a side effect of a greater problem men have in general, where femininity is insulting. That usually gets brought up in feminism topics, but I think it’s a problem that very much applies to men.

It doesn’t help with actual womens’ issues. There are a lot of them, too. Real issues in the real world that demand attention. Instead we get a lot of – quite frankly – lazy “feminists” who want to feel like they’re morally superior crusaders, but only want to pick the low hanging fruit that is the “omg boobs” topic.

I agree that there are greater issues. And yes, there’s people who only discuss the easier, less dangerous topics. But it gets people thinking, too. I think it’s fine to discuss this, but people should strive to keep it objective and not let emotion blind them. This counts for all sides.

It only further stigmatizes the female form. I actually wonder if women in the real world with large busts feel self-conscious because the rest of their gender seems to be so disgusted with any depiction – real or created – of breasts larger than a B cup. (Even fully clothed ones.)

I’ve seen this. And I believe this is why having several kinds of feminism is a good thing. I don’t think there’s any one true answer, and having multiple opinions is very beneficial. In the case of the watch knights, I feel the problem is that it’s fairly pointless. I’m not offended by the sight of boobs, I just feel it isn’t all that artistic either, and strikes me more that because it has a female shape, it also has to be conventionally sexy. But as you said, it’s also not that significant, so I don’t care to argue on this particular topic.

The problem is that no one ever attacks the male side, only the female side.

This simply isn’t true. It’s just that it’s a completely different problem (power fantasy vs. sexualization), and I feel it’s best discussed separately. I would definitely appreciate better represented males as well. But it’s certainly an issue that’s discussed, just not as often, and it’s not as controversial. You’re sooner to skim and forget it, whereas this is a hot topic (especially as of late because of Anita Sarkeesian’s controversial behaviour) where you’re bound to see more emotionally charged replies which inclines you to jump in.

I think it’s reasonable to expect such a beautifully designed game to have more than 1 well thought out set of armour for heavy.

I think your debate will benefit from not insulting the sets you don’t personally like. There are several that are well thought out, you just don’t like them.

SnoodBeAR.5286:

Heavy armour needs to cover a lot of the body I guess.. and actually look heavy

Dragons and magic. Sorry we’re going for accuracy? xP

I’m not asking for skimpy but well fitted. If I wore armour that is supposedly heavy and didn’t fit me, you would soon see it down on the floor.

I’ll never get this “we should have less realistic heavy armour because we don’t need realism” opinion, because it feels contradictory. I’m fairly certain the magic excuse was brought up before the game was released in some developer blog post, and of course it’s not like they’re the only ones to use it. In this case, why have heavy armour at all? What is the appeal of heavy armour? What is its purpose? If magic is going to defend you, why don’t we have magical shields that operate similarly to those in Borderlands and Mass Effect, and just have everyone wear normal clothing? I don’t see the appeal of armour beyond realism and looking tough and protected, and those reasons are precisely why I love armour. But to reduce the effectiveness of armour for the sake of femininity, delicacy, or skimpiness seems pointless. I wouldn’t understand how the hard plates would make them appealing or sexy in those ways.

As for “well fitting”, are you sure what you’re wanting is well fitting? Pauldrons I can understand, they literally float in this game, but there’s padding under armour, the plate’s not painted on their skin.

I feel a problem here would be coming up with an algorithm to generate random unique names that don’t sound like gibberish, or, more difficult, something lore friendly. Humans and charr would probably be easiest.

Also have you noticed anyone riding mounts in the world? \
no- that is because they walk.

There’s mounts in the lore!

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Stone_Summit_Arcanist
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Stone_Summit_Herder
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Dolyak_Rider

Of course, there’s still reasons to not include mounts like balance and art work, but they’re lore friendly!

To elaborate on the part about Zhaitan going down easily, it’s not really just that, it’s the precise mechanics of the fight. It’s really hard to lose.

As for what the team thinks, it’s mentioned here.

Briefly, we mill around what Johanson and his team, economical usage of time aside, want for Tyria. It’s the usual suspects: more dungeons, revamps of bosses, bigger and better things. I interrupt him, mid-way. What about Zhaitan? Something on their list. Johanson describes the visuals of the fight as ‘incredibly impressive’ and ‘really awe-inspiring’ but acknowledges that the experience could have been much better. “It really got finished right before the end and basically got put out of the door in time for us to ship.”

I definitely don’t want revealing armour for the sake of being revealing, but I agree that there should be more variety, especially if it’s well done. I’m particularly fond of Ritualist armour, which while revealing I feel many of them are well designed. Light armour has it easy for style, with no practicality in mind you can be very creative. Medium armour does suffer from a lot of trenchcoats. I love trenchcoats but I find it perplexing why most sets are variations of them. Even GW1’s Rangers had more variety, and I’m surprised there isn’t more armour like the Assassin armour for thieves (but I’d prefer if they weren’t riddled with spikes). As this game has a lot of inspiration from steampunk, I’d adore if there were more steampunk sets for engineers.

I agree that mini-pets probably aren’t used because they’re inconvenient. I’d like them to be more convenient too (I’d also prefer not to carry around an invisible bag), but they’re probably far too low priority to make any real changes to them.

Agreed. I don’t really get the attitude of dyes not being collectibles. They seem perfectly suitable for it and acknowledging them as collectible seems like it’d be more profitable for the gem store.

It’s not about being Indiana Jones or not, it’s about decent game design. It might’ve worked fine at launch, but this problem is only going to get worse with time. The philosophy of forcing players in an MMO to band together is fine on its own, but the problem is that it’s inconsistent with the entire rest of the story. It’s consistent with dungeons themselves, and hey, that’s fine, because people who like that play dungeons, people who don’t, don’t. GW2 as far as I can tell is largely about being able to avoid content you don’t enjoy; you don’t even have to do the personal story. But some people enjoy the open world part, and the story part of the game. And if they don’t want to be forced into a guild or in a pick up group when the entire rest of the game they play doesn’t force them, then they shouldn’t be. If you’re trying to give scope to the battle, use all of the NPCs you’ve been aiding to do that. You don’t need other players to give that scope to the final battle. Any social benefit gained at launch by this is lost at this point, and is a serious inconvenience now.