Gw1 Why it is genius and gw2 just meh.

[Doomfrost.5728]

I was playing GW1 since the BWE's, yes it offered more skills and did have build diversity, but only to a certain extent. When you saw all those skills and sifted out the wheat from the chaff, you maybe only had a few good ones that were great in PvP and others that were great in PvE, then you had skills that never saw the light of day in a bar mostly because there were better alternatives, or their only purpose was to serve as a tutorial for skill usage, or they were powerful at one time but got nerfed to oblivion afterwards and never got fixed (smiter's boon, paragon class).

 

I'm sure Anet had a ton of data they collected from GW1 and identified the best and most used/useful skills and just ported them to GW2 and just focused on balancing them. The only thing I do miss is secondary professions, but if they keep adding more martial weapon types for classes, I can overlook it. (Give my warrior a staff Anet so I can thwack people over the head, i'm tired of using banners as a substitute.)

 

Again yes build diversity and everything, but I found it a mess at times.

[Zaklex.6308]

Technically you are comparing apples to oranges...in this case the apple being GW1 and the orange being GW2. Remember, GW1 was and is a CORPG aka CO-OPERATIVE RPG vs GW2 which is an MMO, two completely different genres there fore to compare them is really pointless. Most people will prefer one over the other, very few actually understand they're completely different and look at them as such.

[Goettel.4389]

GW wasn't really a MMO though, more like a MM lobby for co-op.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

GW1 got build templates in 2 years. GW2 still waiting, 6 years and counting...

[Brother.1504]

Two completely different games. Love them both. Hope gw2 continues to draw influence from gw1.

[ProtoGunner.4953]

> @"Cyrin.1035" said:

> GW 1 had far better storytelling, but the combat, gameplay, and versatility of builds is immensely better in GW 2. GW 1 combat was extremely tedious even when I played it back then. Traveling took forever and the morale mechanic was one of the worst things about the game IMO.

>

> There are many things I hope GW 2 implements from GW 1 however such as henchies, spear and scythe weps, ability to dye weps, better item versatility and usability, better ways to earn gold, and of course, better storytelling and style.

 

Lol, I remind you kindly of the infamously bad voice acting and acting of GW1 in Factions. Though story was good the execution was atrocious - even for its time:

 

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"ProtoGunner.4953" said:

> > @"Cyrin.1035" said:

> > GW 1 had far better storytelling, but the combat, gameplay, and versatility of builds is immensely better in GW 2. GW 1 combat was extremely tedious even when I played it back then. Traveling took forever and the morale mechanic was one of the worst things about the game IMO.

> >

> > There are many things I hope GW 2 implements from GW 1 however such as henchies, spear and scythe weps, ability to dye weps, better item versatility and usability, better ways to earn gold, and of course, better storytelling and style.

>

> Lol, I remind you kindly of the infamously bad voice acting and acting of GW1 in Factions. Though story was good the execution was atrocious - even for its time:

>

>

 

Voice acting in Factions was one of the worst I've heard in the history of gaming.

Story of Factions was also really weak/boring imo, several steps below the standards of any of the other GW1 Campaigns.

[MithranArkanere.8957]

GW1 was good, but GW2 is better, because it was made precisely to do the things they could not do in GW1.

 

But they can only be compared as overall game experience, because the game genres are not quite the same.

[Deaths.9165]

Well to heat the discussion up. PPl say gw1 was no MMO and gw2 is an mmo cause it has an openworld. We will look at the diffrences of this assumptions.

 

The open world of gw2 is an instance as well. the diffrences to gw1 are that mobs respawn. And ppl can join and leave the instance. But their is a player limit. In gw1 it was 8 players in gw2 it is arround 80. In gw1 u could choose who u wanted in ur instance. In gw2 their is just the join function. Else u can end anywhere. Beside the respawn function of mobs playerlimitation and a z axis The base map construction is the same.

Each map (instance) of gw2 is working on its own. U can synergiw them like in hot or events. Or let them be.

 

Ok charcter system is based on card gaming in gw1 and gw2

Map construction is based on instancing in gw1 and gw2.

 

Gw2 is just an advanced version of gw1 they are not that diffent like it seems.

 

[Einlanzer.1627]

I think GW2 is the superior game overall, but I think it has three major issues relative to GW1:

 

a.) They tried to restrict customization for the sake of balance. This is a common tactic in MMOs and, IMO, it's rarely a good idea. People will always complain about balance, and balancing a game is never easy, so let people have fun with it. Locking down a full half of your skills based on what weapon you have equipped (and then never introducing more weapons) is quite lame. Additionally, it's lame that there is no system of profession blending so create your own unique loadout. Stuff like this is very important particularly if you aren't going to have ongoing vertical progression.

 

b.) the storytelling is very above average in GW1 and very below average in GW2, even by MMO standards. Too much lore can only be experienced outside of the game. The PS was very poorly executed, probably because a.) it was too spread out and light in content, b.) they tried to do too much with branching paths, and c.) there were very few references to any story content outside of the individual instances. Consequently, the story and all the NPCs felt very generic and forgettable. The writing is generally of middling quality even if it has improved since the PS. The story is far too focused around your character as "the boss" - because this is for some reason arbitrarily considered important even though it's an MMO.

 

c.) they seem to have designed the framework of the game without future development in mind, so it's needlessly cumbersome to do things like reintroduce stories, add new armor skins, or add new playable races - things that are important to do for an MMO.

[Rasimir.6239]

> @"TheQuickFox.3826" said:

> If you show me the map of GW1, I can show you the journey I took

>

> If you ask me to do the same for GW2: I can't.

There's a simple reason for that: The GW2 story isn't on rails like the GW1 story is. Rather it's a huge jigsaw puzzle with pieces hooking up with other pieces all through the branches.

 

If you show me the map of GW2, I can show you the coast in the Caledon Forest, where my sylvari guardian first met Tegwen and Caryss and the mysterious mirror that they found washed up on the shore, just a couple of days after my guardian awoke from the dream. I can show you the swamp in the Bloodtide Coast, where my elementalist found Tegwen, Caryss and the newly formed Pale Reavers and recruited them to the priory's payroll after the fall of Claw Island. I can show you the wasteland in the Straits of Devastation where my asura warrior met Trahearne, Tegwen, and Caryss, and together they used the mysterious mirror that the sylvari once found washed up on the shore of the Caledon Forest to lure out and kill an Eye of Zaithan. I can show you the location of the temple of Dwayna in Malchor's Leap, where Tegwen sacrificed herself so that the Pale Reavers, the Gear Warband, and my asura engineer could proceed further into Orr.

 

Incidentally, if you show me the map of GW2, I can also show you where my Norn engineer and her Charr pals from the Gear Warband lost their tank during the early norn personal story some years previous. I can show you the run-ins of my priory asura and her pal Kekt from early days in old Lion's Arch, past Concordia in the Timberline Falls, all the way down to Orr where my little mesmer was heartbroken to loose Kekt to a risen attack, being mere seconds too late to save him. I can tell you about the adventures of Shrieksy, Kozzak's pet raptor, from Rata Sum all the way to the Cursed Shores, or how Shashoo came from being a quaggan within a village facing extinction from icebrood attacks in the Dredgehaunt Cliffs, to being the officer leading the Ordnance Corps outpost in Verdant Brink.

 

There's dozends of characters in the personal, living, and expansion story lines that have their own story going on, making the GW2 story not so much a novel to read through, but rather a giant tapestry being woven from lots of different strands. Once you dive into it, grab new characters to explore new branches of the story, try to follow all the different personalities, you will find that the GW2 story is just as rich as the GW1 one, or possibly (to those that like to piece things together rather than being handed the whole plot at once) even more intricate than its predecessor.

 

You might've guessed it: I love the way the GW2 story is told not in a single storyline but in lots of different fragments throught story instances as well as open world events and places, and even seemingly random npc chatter. It probably isn't for everyone, but to me it is a story to discover that keeps me far more interested than the comparably straight story of GW1.

 

[Ardenwolfe.8590]

@""ProtoGunner.4953" Oh my. LOL I forgot how bad that was!

 

> @"Deaths.9165" said:

>

> Gw2 is just an advanced version of gw1 they are not that diffent like it seems.

>

Bingo. And I fully expect Guild Wars 3 to be an even more advanced version of the two. Again, built on the past's foundation.

[Ashen.2907]

> @"Rasimir.6239" said:

> > @"TheQuickFox.3826" said:

> > If you show me the map of GW1, I can show you the journey I took

> >

> > If you ask me to do the same for GW2: I can't.

> There's a simple reason for that: The GW2 story isn't on rails like the GW1 story is. Rather it's a huge jigsaw puzzle with pieces hooking up with other pieces all through the branches.

>

> If you show me the map of GW2, I can show you the coast in the Caledon Forest, where my sylvari guardian first met Tegwen and Caryss and the mysterious mirror that they found washed up on the shore, just a couple of days after my guardian awoke from the dream. I can show you the swamp in the Bloodtide Coast, where my elementalist found Tegwen, Caryss and the newly formed Pale Reavers and recruited them to the priory's payroll after the fall of Claw Island. I can show you the wasteland in the Straits of Devastation where my asura warrior met Trahearne, Tegwen, and Caryss, and together they used the mysterious mirror that the sylvari once found washed up on the shore of the Caledon Forest to lure out and kill an Eye of Zaithan. I can show you the location of the temple of Dwayna in Malchor's Leap, where Tegwen sacrificed herself so that the Pale Reavers, the Gear Warband, and my asura engineer could proceed further into Orr.

>

> Incidentally, if you show me the map of GW2, I can also show you where my Norn engineer and her Charr pals from the Gear Warband lost their tank during the early norn personal story some years previous. I can show you the run-ins of my priory asura and her pal Kekt from early days in old Lion's Arch, past Concordia in the Timberline Falls, all the way down to Orr where my little mesmer was heartbroken to loose Kekt to a risen attack, being mere seconds too late to save him. I can tell you about the adventures of Shrieksy, Kozzak's pet raptor, from Rata Sum all the way to the Cursed Shores, or how Shashoo came from being a quaggan within a village facing extinction from icebrood attacks in the Dredgehaunt Cliffs, to being the officer leading the Ordnance Corps outpost in Verdant Brink.

>

> There's dozends of characters in the personal, living, and expansion story lines that have their own story going on, making the GW2 story not so much a novel to read through, but rather a giant tapestry being woven from lots of different strands. Once you dive into it, grab new characters to explore new branches of the story, try to follow all the different personalities, you will find that the GW2 story is just as rich as the GW1 one, or possibly (to those that like to piece things together rather than being handed the whole plot at once) even more intricate than its predecessor.

>

> You might've guessed it: I love the way the GW2 story is told not in a single storyline but in lots of different fragments throught story instances as well as open world events and places, and even seemingly random npc chatter. It probably isn't for everyone, but to me it is a story to discover that keeps me far more interested than the comparably straight story of GW1.

>

 

This approach is an interesting idea I suppose, but for someone who seeks to experience the story through the eyes and ears of a single character, immersed in one main character, it just leads to a lot of, "who is this? where did this come from? why am I supposed to care about this? this character/plot device seems to be coming out of nowhere" and so on.

 

 

[Ardenwolfe.8590]

> @"Ashen.2907" said:

> This approach is an interesting idea I suppose, but for someone who seeks to experience the story through the eyes and ears of a single character, immersed in one main character, it just leads to a lot of, "who is this? where did this come from? why am I supposed to care about this? this character/plot device seems to be coming out of nowhere" and so on.

>

But it's proven to be a successful one if you think about it. It's how Avengers built its movie franchise. In order to understand everything, you pretty much have to watch all the movies. While not necessary, it sure does help! I think the same applies to these games. Most people will have no idea what the ghostly scene in Sand Swept Isles means. But for those that played Nightfall? It's a huge, emotional callback.

 

To me, it's the little things like that that make Guild Wars 2 special.

 

 

[Ashen.2907]

> @"Ardenwolfe.8590" said:

> > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > This approach is an interesting idea I suppose, but for someone who seeks to experience the story through the eyes and ears of a single character, immersed in one main character, it just leads to a lot of, "who is this? where did this come from? why am I supposed to care about this? this character/plot device seems to be coming out of nowhere" and so on.

> >

> But it's proven to be a successful one if you think about it. It's pretty much how Avengers built its movie franchise. In order to understand everything, you pretty much have to watch all the movies. While not necessary, it sure does help! I think the same applies to these games. Most people will have no idea what the ghostly scene in Sand Swept Isles means. But for those that played Nightfall? It's a huge, emotional callback.

>

> To me, it's the little things like that that make Guild Wars 2 special.

>

>

 

I think that there is a huge difference between sequels building on previous stories and a situation where major story elements are jarring or nonsensical unless you pursue the same story from different perspectives at the same time. I do not have the ability to play gw2 on two or more different characters simultaneously.

 

[Lincolnbeard.1735]

In terms of graphics, sound and story's dialogues, well, immersion overall, GW2 is better.

But combatwise, it's not even a contest GW1 takes the cake.

GW2 is just about who spam faster, all skills do the same, all it matters is damage, GW1 on the other hand has a more reactive playstyle and strategic approach if you x I'll do y.

All is so intricate and well thought from simple skills to team builds.

On the negative side (not really negative for me but for players used to gw2 dumb downess) on GW1 you had to know what hundreds of effects did in order to get into pvp, in GW2 you just have to know a handful of them.

 

[perilisk.1874]

> @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> a.) They tried to restrict customization for the sake of balance. This is a common tactic in MMOs and, IMO, it's rarely a good idea. People will always complain about balance, and balancing a game is never easy, so let people have fun with it. Locking down a full half of your skills based on what weapon you have equipped (and then never introducing more weapons) is quite lame. Additionally, it's lame that there is no system of profession blending so create your own unique loadout. Stuff like this is very important particularly if you aren't going to have ongoing vertical progression.

 

I think that's what bugs me the most about GW2. There's a spectrum of the variability of build effectiveness in games that runs from bland to awesome to broken, and GW1 tended to stay closer to awesome, occasionally veering into broken, while GW2 mostly stays closer to bland. It's harder for players to make a truly useless or overpowered build (that's a privilege reserved for anet), but it's also hard to make one that really feels unique or situational or clever.

 

It's worse in PvE, since there isn't really enough variability in mob behavior to warrant caring, nor do mobs normally have any sense of group tactics beyond the occasional support mob. It's pretty rare, particularly in open-world PvE, to find a situation that doesn't warrant just doing straightforward DPS and using the occasional active defense or heal. Even in situations where there is something to counter, the counters are all very straightforward. Conditions? Use cleanse. Boons? Use strip. Defiance bar? Use CC -- doesn't even really matter which. CC spamming kitten? Use stab or evade it. Rather than synergies and counters being the essence of buildcraft, they just provide a marginal boost in effectiveness. Even enchantment and hex spam in GW1 had more depth, in the sense of ordering the stacks to minimize the impact of removal skills.

 

 

[Ardenwolfe.8590]

@"Ashen.2907" Well . . . I have only one character in Guild Wars 2, and I don't feel I missed anything, but I do see your point. :)

[Ashen.2907]

I do not fully agree with the title of the thread. I do think that GW1 was the superior game, but GW2 is far from meh IMO. I firmly GW2 is a good game even if I feel that it is a step down from its predecessor.

[Ardid.7203]

> @"Imba.9451" said:

> > @"Ardid.7203" said:

>

> > I really don't see the point. I just hope GW1 simply stop appearing all the time like an old uncle who was really cool in the 60 and now still tries to be cool and fails. So annoying.

> Just for clarification AGAIN, before someone dismisses those words because they feel like I oppose them: I enjoy both games, even when I prefer GW1's system. And it simply is sad to let something you enjoyed go. I can fully understand that, and assume this to be the reason for this topic to pop up again and again. It only shows the impression GW1 left, the sucess it had and the foundation it layed for GW2.

>

> Long story short: One can like apples AND oranges. One can prefer one of them without hating the other. And Tasting oranges after enjoying apples doesn't make the need for the taste of apples go away.

>

Totally agree. What I don't understand is why some people try so hard to make Oranges taste like Apples. IS NOT GOING TO WORK.

 

 

[alcopaul.2156]

both are great games. of course guild wars 2 is better coz of the features. guild wars 1 was limited. click to move and no jumping = z axis.

[Obtena.7952]

People that compare the two don't get it. They aren't even the same kind of game.

[Imba.9451]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> People that compare the two don't get it. They aren't even the same kind of game.

 

Well, to be fair, the whole point of _comparing_ two things is two show similarities and differences. You can compare everything to anything, as long as you got the rethorical skills to do so correctly. But when it comes down to GW1 vs GW2 it's not that you can't compare them, but rather the result being 100% down to personal preference.

[Dante.1763]

As good as GW1 was, and i played it for 7 years, i cant play it anymore. Not because it has no new content or anything like that. But the combat is so bland, the fact that you are useless with out a party 90% of the drives me up the wall. Not being able to jump. The story, as many impressions as it left on me was no better than GW2 when it comes to actual story telling(which has left me with far more memories than GW1 ever did), and when it comes to skills, everyone looks at GW1s vast amount but almost always you use very few of those, and most of them are clones, so i prefer GW2s skills limited as they are. When it comes to professions in the game, i still wish we had Rits, paragons and dervishs(dont give me that "oh they got merged and their mechanics exist in other professions" garbage) each of them played uniquely enough that theyd still have a place in this game as full professions, but if they come back as elite specs in this game ill be happy.

 

On top of that, even with me having been deployed twice during this games lifetime im almost caught up to the amount of invested hours into GW2 as i was to GW1, and i was getting soooo run down in GW1 with the amount of game time i had there. Here though? not so much, theres always *something* to do even in PVE.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"Imba.9451" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > People that compare the two don't get it. They aren't even the same kind of game.

>

> Well, to be fair, the whole point of _comparing_ two things is two show similarities and differences. You can compare everything to anything, as long as you got the rethorical skills to do so correctly. But when it comes down to GW1 vs GW2 it's not that you can't compare them, but rather the result being 100% down to personal preference.

 

In this case it doesn't make sense unless the comparison is limited to JUST the storyline.