Again your points are all about your personal preference, there's nothing factual about the points you've made.
In reference to Oblivion and Bethesda feeling players don't want them, well why does TES V have them? You know, if they discovered mounts broke their other game and a majority don't want them?
Mounts add to the experience for some players, they don't for others, nothing more really needs to be said. You don't like running through expansive areas designed for mounts, others do, who's right or who's wrong? No one. It's all about preferences.
Again I have to point out there have been plenty of arguments against the points you're making, they're littered all over this thread, there are many differing opinions of why people want mounts. Each and every one is a direct argument against what you're saying. Or do you somehow believe your opinion carries more weight than everyone elses?
In response to this, in a fit of extreme masochism, I have reread this entire thread. I was interested in seeing what arguments have been made in favor of mounts so far.
You're right, these are all opinions, one person likes mounts, another one doesn't. I'm not here about that. I'm focused on the effects on gameplay. Saying mounts allow people to skip content is a fact. Someone saying whether they think that's bad is an opinion.
GW2 already has a speed increase for players when weapons are sheathed, so whether or not the player is providing that or the mount would be is purely aesthetic. There are plenty of arguments in this thread in favor of liking to collect them, liking the variety, increasing immersion, being more realistic, etc, but the pro-mount arguments are almost entirely aesthetic. There are almost no arguments in the entire thread that gameplay itself is improved by mounts. One person did argue that having to feed and groom mounts would be fun, and another liked the idea of having them be mobile banks. Another mentioned liking having time to think while riding somewhere.*
What Dream_Chaser and myself are arguing is that gameplay is negatively affected by mounts. Mounts (or unchecked speed increases) let people bypass content. Specific to GW2, I've made the argument that because PVE DEs are designed to be impossible to grief, having mounts that didn't dismount you immediately in combat would allow kiting or griefing of DEs (and I don't think anybody wants to be dismounted as soon as a mob looks at you...and this is aesthetic, but at least drawing weapons is better than a mount disappearing). Dream_Chaser has also argued that having mounts negatively impacts the game by making it so people move different speeds, as well as having their size and pixels negatively impacting view and display performance.
Of course, it is only our opinion that the way gameplay is affected by mounts is negative. However, having looked through this entire thread, I'm not seeing refutations of these arguments, arguments that these effects are actually a positive, or arguments that other aspects of mounts are overwhelmingly positive and make up for these negatives. Though if anyone has any such arguments, or notice any I might have missed while my eyes were bleeding, I'm sure we'd love to hear them.
*Another person did like the idea of swooping in to help a DE from their flying mount, but I wasn't really talking about flying mounts in this post, just comparing mounts to GW2's increased run speed. I also personally think flying mounts are exceptionally bad, due to the extreme ease of bypassing content.
Mounted combat is something else that people have expressed positive feelings for, but again it's out of the scope of a traditional speed increasing land mount.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it."-Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Again your points are all about your personal preference, there's nothing factual about the points you've made.
In reference to Oblivion and Bethesda feeling players don't want them, well why does TES V have them? You know, if they discovered mounts broke their other game and a majority don't want them?
Mounts add to the experience for some players, they don't for others, nothing more really needs to be said. You don't like running through expansive areas designed for mounts, others do, who's right or who's wrong? No one. It's all about preferences.
Again I have to point out there have been plenty of arguments against the points you're making, they're littered all over this thread, there are many differing opinions of why people want mounts. Each and every one is a direct argument against what you're saying. Or do you somehow believe your opinion carries more weight than everyone elses?
I want to see a quote from Bethesda saying there is going to be mounts in Skyrim! So far ever interview (including E3 interviews) I have seen they have said they might be in, but I have never seen them say that mounts will definitely be in Skyrim.
While Howard told fans that they shouldn’t count on riding any dragons, he did give some information about the team’s approach to horses in Skyrim. Describing the horses of Oblivion as closer to “jeeps” than actual living creatures, Howard reiterated his previous sentiment that the developers were working on it, but would only follow through if they felt it could make the game better:
“We don’t know where it’s going to end up. There were things with the Oblivion horses- we like having them, but there are certain things… they weren’t the greatest implementation of horses. And now you see games come out like Red Dead, you know, there are more horses in games that we feel like just the basic implementation we did in Oblivion isn’t going to be good enough. So, we are currently attempting things with that and we don’t know where it’s going to end up.
“A world without them feels a little weird, without seeing them… So, we definitely want to have them… we don’t know yet what you’re going to be able to do with them, and to what level.”
While it probably isn’t the yes or no answer fans were likely hoping for, a ‘maybe’ seems to be the most that we can expect this far from release. The team at Bethesda is obviously intent on giving their fans a game that is improved by past mistakes, not simply bigger or prettier. “
That in no way shape or form is a yes mounts are in game; that is a maybe they might make it if we can figure out a great way to do it. Like I said I want a direct quote confirming that they will be in the game, otherwise you are just making stuff up to prove a point.
You know what the interesting part is this exactly where mounts are with GW2, ANet has never said No! If they do have mounts in game they want them to be a great addition not just something thrown into the game, kind of like Skyrim!
I want to see a quote from Bethesda saying there is going to be mounts in Skyrim! So far ever interview (including E3 interviews) I have seen they have said they might be in, but I have never seen them say that mounts will definitely be in Skyrim.
While Howard told fans that they shouldn’t count on riding any dragons, he did give some information about the team’s approach to horses in Skyrim. Describing the horses of Oblivion as closer to “jeeps” than actual living creatures, Howard reiterated his previous sentiment that the developers were working on it, but would only follow through if they felt it could make the game better:
“We don’t know where it’s going to end up. There were things with the Oblivion horses- we like having them, but there are certain things… they weren’t the greatest implementation of horses. And now you see games come out like Red Dead, you know, there are more horses in games that we feel like just the basic implementation we did in Oblivion isn’t going to be good enough. So, we are currently attempting things with that and we don’t know where it’s going to end up.
“A world without them feels a little weird, without seeing them… So, we definitely want to have them… we don’t know yet what you’re going to be able to do with them, and to what level.”
While it probably isn’t the yes or no answer fans were likely hoping for, a ‘maybe’ seems to be the most that we can expect this far from release. The team at Bethesda is obviously intent on giving their fans a game that is improved by past mistakes, not simply bigger or prettier. “
That in no way shape or form is a yes mounts are in game; that is a maybe they might make it if we can figure out a great way to do it. Like I said I want a direct quote confirming that they will be in the game, otherwise you are just making stuff up to prove a point.
You know what the interesting part is this exactly where mounts are with GW2, ANet has never said No! If they do have mounts in game they want them to be a great addition not just something thrown into the game, kind of like Skyrim!
In response to this, in a fit of extreme masochism, I have reread this entire thread. I was interested in seeing what arguments have been made in favor of mounts so far.
You're right, these are all opinions, one person likes mounts, another one doesn't. I'm not here about that. I'm focused on the effects on gameplay. Saying mounts allow people to skip content is a fact. Someone saying whether they think that's bad is an opinion.
GW2 already has a speed increase for players when weapons are sheathed, so whether or not the player is providing that or the mount would be is purely aesthetic. There are plenty of arguments in this thread in favor of liking to collect them, liking the variety, increasing immersion, being more realistic, etc, but the pro-mount arguments are almost entirely aesthetic. There are almost no arguments in the entire thread that gameplay itself is improved by mounts. One person did argue that having to feed and groom mounts would be fun, and another liked the idea of having them be mobile banks. Another mentioned liking having time to think while riding somewhere.*
What Dream_Chaser and myself are arguing is that gameplay is negatively affected by mounts. Mounts (or unchecked speed increases) let people bypass content. Specific to GW2, I've made the argument that because PVE DEs are designed to be impossible to grief, having mounts that didn't dismount you immediately in combat would allow kiting or griefing of DEs (and I don't think anybody wants to be dismounted as soon as a mob looks at you...and this is aesthetic, but at least drawing weapons is better than a mount disappearing). Dream_Chaser has also argued that having mounts negatively impacts the game by making it so people move different speeds, as well as having their size and pixels negatively impacting view and display performance.
Of course, it is only our opinion that the way gameplay is affected by mounts is negative. However, having looked through this entire thread, I'm not seeing refutations of these arguments, arguments that these effects are actually a positive, or arguments that other aspects of mounts are overwhelmingly positive and make up for these negatives. Though if anyone has any such arguments, or notice any I might have missed while my eyes were bleeding, I'm sure we'd love to hear them.
*Another person did like the idea of swooping in to help a DE from their flying mount, but I wasn't really talking about flying mounts in this post, just comparing mounts to GW2's increased run speed. I also personally think flying mounts are exceptionally bad, due to the extreme ease of bypassing content.
Mounted combat is something else that people have expressed positive feelings for, but again it's out of the scope of a traditional speed increasing land mount.
This goes along with the point I made that it's about preference, more so than anything else. Can I skip through areas I'm trying to get through to reach something else?
Sure, is that bad? For you maybe, for me not exactly. How they're implemented is also important in this regard. Debuffs could be appiled when you're hit to ensure you're not using them to skip things, that aren't intended to be skipped. A fear debuff would be an interesting way to handle this, as the sight of certain mobs would make your horse rear up and kick you off. Which would ensure you're not using a mount to escape certain content.
There are many ways a Dev could ensure these issues do not crop up. Maybe that's why they're not focusing on them as a launch day addition, as they'd prefer to do them right rather than add them just for the sake of adding them.
As I also said above, for some the addition of mounts adds to the experience, for some it takes away from the experience. Much in the same way for some insta teleporting takes away, for others adds to.
As for speed buffs for characters, I could see this for beast races, which I would assume don't exactly need mounts from a lore perspective. However humans are a different subject. I'd prefer mounts as a speed buff for some races, a natural speed buff for others. That's just my preference though.
Personally I think it's a little early for any of us to be saying something would have a true positive or negative impact on the game world without seeing the game world, and seeing how they would be if they were implemented.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Why not have mounts? Why do people settle for less? If in its previous iterations mounts were mainly considered fluff, how could ArenaNet change that? Why not add mounted combat where your skill bar changes just like it does when you go underwater or change weapons? Why not make mounts living entities that can actually be customized, leveled, and changed? Why not allow mounts to serve as storage? Why not allow mounts to fight along side you like a pet? Why not allow mounts as a form of transportation for more than one player so that you can travel alongside your friend? Why not allow mounts to serve as an extension of your character, something that defines your character's image?
It is of my strong belief that ArenaNet seeks to develop an MMO that most definingly improves on the industry's already set standards, and not completely neglects them. Indeed, the possibilities with mounts are endless and would only lead to a deeper, more engaging, and more varied gameplay.
If in its previous iterations mounts were mainly considered fluff, how could ArenaNet change that? Why not add mounted combat where your skill bar changes just like it does when you go underwater or change weapons? Why not make mounts living entities that can actually be customized, leveled, and changed? Why not allow mounts to serve as storage? Why not allow mounts to fight along side you like a pet? Why not allow mounts as a form of transportation for more than one player so that you can travel alongside your friend? Why not allow mounts to serve as an extension of your character, something that defines your character's image?
It is of my strong belief that ArenaNet seeks to develop an MMO that most definingly improves on the industry's already set standards, and not completely neglects them. Indeed, the possibilities with mounts are endless and would only lead to a deeper, more engaging, and more varied gameplay.
These are my thoughts as well, as my previous post in this thread attests. I have no opposition to mounts, but I think that IF ANet does go ahead and implement mounts, it will be mounts with a function, or mounts with combat, or something, anything, more than just a speed buff item or something to look at whilst flying over a flight path.
It just seems to me that ANet doesn't just throw in features of other MMOs because other MMOs have them without reviewing carefully why it is that people like those features and whether the effect can be achieved in any other way, or in a more meaningful way, in GW2.
Why not have mounts? Why do people settle for less? If in its previous iterations mounts were mainly considered fluff, how could ArenaNet change that? Why not add mounted combat where your skill bar changes just like it does when you go underwater or change weapons? Why not make mounts living entities that can actually be customized, leveled, and changed? Why not allow mounts to serve as storage? Why not allow mounts to fight along side you like a pet? Why not allow mounts as a form of transportation for more than one player so that you can travel alongside your friend? Why not allow mounts to serve as an extension of your character, something that defines your character's image?
It is of my strong belief that ArenaNet seeks to develop an MMO that most definingly improves on the industry's already set standards, and not completely neglects them. Indeed, the possibilities with mounts are endless and would only lead to a deeper, more engaging, and more varied gameplay.
My thoughts exactly. Why people hate mounts ... I don't know. Why have an awesome pet bear when you can't ride it? Because that bear is an angry Norn warrior? So what? — Also, people seem to think a mount's only purpose is fast travel. Then they mention the waypoints, like clockwork. And like your post says: there's more to it than that.
Let me try and break it down for you;
Because it takes a lot of time, and costs a lot of money to develop something unique and cool. Even normal boring mounts, that many MMORPGs have, would be a very large resource.
If you broke it down, even the animations alone would take time away for other things. They haven't even announced the last class yet, or shown any PvP yet. How much quality from other areas of the game do you want to sacrifice in order to implant these "awesome pet bears" when it's unsure how good the game already is? Or do you want to delay the games development to add these things to it, 6 or 12 months?
And why are everyone so certain that ArenaNet would do something unique with them if they choose to implant them? It's not like every aspect of Guild Wars 2 is unqiue. Crafting seems standard, for example. And so what? You can't expect
If you put mounts in the game that adds a speed boost, everyone will want to use them, even if they don't want them. It's true that if you play WoW, you don't physically have to use them, but you will be an idiot not to - As it's a means to get around faster. You will be a disadvantage to other people in the game.
I don't see the unique or cool part about them. Mounts so far, always seem to dminish the players individualism, because everyones mounts looks, and behaves the same. It makes their characters look less unique. Also it is very difficult to implant a mount that feels right. The best attempt I have seen is probably still... Shadow of the Colossus. Some of the Zelda/Assassins Creed games are ok too. But those things are the results of a lot of resources.
This game is not even out yet. You can't seriously expect all their features announced so far to be perfect?
My biggest grips with Mounts come from the fact(as seen in WoW) that they are just everywhere. I don't like it, when there are more pets and mounts running around than people. They get out of control so easily. I urge you to download WoW today and go to a high level server and see how things have spiralled out of control in the main cities.
They should make mounts realistic. You have to feed them, stable them, and generally take care of them. And none of this magic pocket mount nonsense. People talk about immersion when refering to mounts, well what breaks immersion faster than you can spell mount is when they appear out of thin air in a manner of seconds.
If there are mounts I much rather they be more like vehicles (such as the Siege Devourer in Guild Wars) rather than just the speed boosts visual enhancement that you see in games like WoW and Rift.
Why not have mounts? Why do people settle for less? If in its previous iterations mounts were mainly considered fluff, how could ArenaNet change that? Why not add mounted combat where your skill bar changes just like it does when you go underwater or change weapons? Why not make mounts living entities that can actually be customized, leveled, and changed? Why not allow mounts to serve as storage? Why not allow mounts to fight along side you like a pet? Why not allow mounts as a form of transportation for more than one player so that you can travel alongside your friend? Why not allow mounts to serve as an extension of your character, something that defines your character's image?
It is of my strong belief that ArenaNet seeks to develop an MMO that most definingly improves on the industry's already set standards, and not completely neglects them. Indeed, the possibilities with mounts are endless and would only lead to a deeper, more engaging, and more varied gameplay.
My thoughts exactly. Why people hate mounts ... I don't know. Why have an awesome pet bear when you can't ride it? Because that bear is an angry Norn warrior? So what? — Also, people seem to think a mount's only purpose is fast travel. Then they mention the waypoints, like clockwork. And like your post says: there's more to it than that.
Oh god, It is like talking to these guys...
"How hard can it be?"
and
The answer is: very.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Implementing mounts in a game which has map teleportation system is nothing more than spending money which could've been used in more important things. Mounts are and have always been a show off. I played wow ever since it came out till like few months ago and in my opinion the first times in vanilla when everything was done on foot was the best... Tho FP is a good thing but that's what you have in GW2 and it's called teleporting.
I'm sure game developers had a really good thought about every single thing no matter how small or big it is and if they decided not to give us mounts they did it because they had a perfectly good reason for it. The game isn't out yet and you people discuss why there should be mount in the game... We can't possibly know what the reasons are for not implementing mounts untill we actually PLAY the game
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life." -------------------------------
Because it takes a lot of time, and costs a lot of money to develop something unique and cool. Even normal boring mounts, that many MMORPGs have, would be a very large resource.
If you broke it down, even the animations alone would take time away for other things. They haven't even announced the last class yet, or shown any PvP yet. How much quality from other areas of the game do you want to sacrifice in order to implant these "awesome pet bears" when it's unsure how good the game already is? Or do you want to delay the games development to add these things to it, 6 or 12 months?
Anything in an MMO takes time and effort to develop. It is not up to you to decide what the development team should prioritize or not. Furthermore, what your arguing is pointless as you have no real idea on how the development of the game is coming along.
And why are everyone so certain that ArenaNet would do something unique with them if they choose to implant them? It's not like every aspect of Guild Wars 2 is unqiue. Crafting seems standard, for example. And so what? You can't expect
People expect great things from this game. It does not come off as a surprise that people have high expectations and standards to be met. ArenaNet has promised an innovative game, why not expect such a quality to be present in the game's elements?
If you put mounts in the game that adds a speed boost, everyone will want to use them, even if they don't want them. It's true that if you play WoW, you don't physically have to use them, but you will be an idiot not to - As it's a means to get around faster. You will be a disadvantage to other people in the game.
This argument is so weak it's ridiculous. This could be applied to almost any system within the game. If people do not like using something that provides them with an advantage, it's their choice. If this argument were to be even considered, the game wouldn't even have teleports because some people don't enjoy using them.
I don't see the unique or cool part about them. Mounts so far, always seem to dminish the players individualism, because everyones mounts looks, and behaves the same. It makes their characters look less unique. Also it is very difficult to implant a mount that feels right. The best attempt I have seen is probably still... Shadow of the Colossus. Some of the Zelda/Assassins Creed games are ok too. But those things are the results of a lot of resources.
It is entirely your opinion that you don't see anything cool about mounts. However, if allowed to be customized, mounts would not detract from a character's uniqueness, on the contrary, they would bolster it. Again, you are in no position to argue about resources your are largely uninformed on.
This game is not even out yet. You can't seriously expect all their features announced so far to be perfect?
Only fools expect perfection. However, those that expect greatness do accordingly so. It is no secret that the game is over 8.7 on the MMORPG hype meter.
My biggest grips with Mounts come from the fact(as seen in WoW) that they are just everywhere. I don't like it, when there are more pets and mounts running around than people. They get out of control so easily. I urge you to download WoW today and go to a high level server and see how things have spiralled out of control in the main cities.
I played WoW on a full server, and while I agree that mounts are very present, this issue could be very easily solved in GW2 by simply not allowing them to be used within cities. After all, the cities are in an entirely different 'instance' than the main world (they require a loading screen to enter/leave)
Implementing mounts in a game which has map teleportation system is nothing more than spending money which could've been used in more important things. Mounts are and have always been a show off. I played wow ever since it came out till like few months ago and in my opinion the first times in vanilla when everything was done on foot was the best... Tho FP is a good thing but that's what you have in GW2 and it's called teleporting.
I'm sure game developers had a really good thought about every single thing no matter how small or big it is and if they decided not to give us mounts they did it because they had a perfectly good reason for it. The game isn't out yet and you people discuss why there should be mount in the game... We can't possibly know what the reasons are for not implementing mounts untill we actually PLAY the game
I am fairly certain no developer from ANet has ruled out mounts in Guild Wars 2. Furthermore, your assumptions will lead you nowhere, and this topic is perfectly reasonable to discuss. Your limited conception of mounts only serves to bias your views. Mounts can be implemented in a far deeper manner as detailed in my first post in this thread.
There is perfectly good reason to have mounts in this game... People want them.
Sometimes you just need to know when to not give a damn about those people. I'd much rather have a MMO with balance , minimal bugs , lots of stuff to do to keep me busy , etc ,etc. Mounts , meh , another asian form of dragging under aged girls to bed. Never cared about them , and never will. Never bought a mount and never will.
Will a mount save me from lag? No
Will a mount give me more quests? No
Will a mount wax my weapons? No
You give mounts to those cry babies , and then they'll want the game to be easier and blah blah.
Screw them. Guild Wars is after all about PvP , and you got more teleports then a 8 person roomed game of Diablo 2.
It's hard to believe this thread has been going on for 40 pages now.
Implementing mounts in a game which has map teleportation system is nothing more than spending money which could've been used in more important things. Mounts are and have always been a show off. I played wow ever since it came out till like few months ago and in my opinion the first times in vanilla when everything was done on foot was the best... Tho FP is a good thing but that's what you have in GW2 and it's called teleporting.
I'm sure game developers had a really good thought about every single thing no matter how small or big it is and if they decided not to give us mounts they did it because they had a perfectly good reason for it. The game isn't out yet and you people discuss why there should be mount in the game... We can't possibly know what the reasons are for not implementing mounts untill we actually PLAY the game
I am fairly certain no developer from ANet has ruled out mounts in Guild Wars 2. Furthermore, your assumptions will lead you nowhere, and this topic is perfectly reasonable to discuss. Your limited conception of mounts only serves to bias your views. Mounts can be implemented in a far deeper manner as detailed in my first post in this thread.
If they did not implement mounts so far it means they ruled them out, furthermore they didn't even mention mounts anywhere so far... GW didn't had mounts since it has teleport available in every outpost... And no, my concept of mounts isn't limited because if you think of how the skills change when you enter water, how your skills change when you enchant a nearby rock and use it as a weapon then implementing mounts isn't that easy... Hell, it's hard thing to do since you have to change your skills while you mount and balance all the mount fights since I see no other use of mounts than making battle more interesting and diverse since there's teleport available. Mounts are pretty much useless if teleport system is done well... Tho that's only my opinion and really don't care for mounts because as far as I've seen on video of gameplay, traveling isn't really like in many games I've play where you have to travel the whole map to get to 1 outpost.
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life." -------------------------------
If they did not implement mounts so far it means they ruled them out, furthermore they didn't even mention mounts anywhere so far... GW didn't had mounts since it has teleport available in every outpost... And no, my concept of mounts isn't limited because if you think of how the skills change when you enter water, how your skills change when you enchant a nearby rock and use it as a weapon then implementing mounts isn't that easy... Hell, it's hard thing to do since you have to change your skills while you mount and balance all the mount fights since I see no other use of mounts than making battle more interesting and diverse since there's teleport available. Mounts are pretty much useless if teleport system is done well... Tho that's only my opinion and really don't care for mounts because as far as I've seen on video of gameplay, traveling isn't really like in many games I've play where you have to travel the whole map to get to 1 outpost.
False. The game does not even have a release date yet and there is a lot of time for new things to be notified by the developers to the community regarding the game. Your conception of mounts is indeed limited as you believe "mounts are and have always been a show off." Mounts, if implemented in innovative ways, can be far more than a status amplifier. Nowhere did I state such a facet of the game would be easy to implement. On the contrary, I expect ArenaNet to work hard on every aspect of the game as to guarantee its greatness. For reasons I stated on my first post, mounts still have a lot of room within a game with teleports.
They have said that they haven't ruled mounts out for a possible future patch/expansion, but I honestly think they're talking about mounted dynamic events, because they clevelry did not specify what type of mounts. So what happens here is that ArenaNet gets box sales from the mount hopefuls, and when mounts turn up only in dynamic events, then they can just shrug and point out that they didn't specify.
If ArenaNet had planned on open world mounts, they would've said more about it, the way they're being so vague strongly implies that they're just not interested in the open world vanity mount that so many trad MMORPG fans are after. The same thing has been happening with Skyrim, they've done some very, very careful wording that says that they're thinking about mounts, but then they go on to say, no wait, not mounts, we're thinking about horses, yes, horses. And from there they go on to say that horses are cool but they don't know how much interaction a player might be allowed to have with them. It doesn't take a genius-level intellect to figure out what's going on there, especially since (as mentioned) Bethesda dropped the idea of mounts/bikes for Fallout 3.
(Coincidentally, the code for mounts is still in Fallout 3 and people have used it for bike mods and hoverchairs, but Bethesda soft set it to one side as something that they didn't want to use. And, examining these mods myself, I have to say that they're awkward, cumbersome, pointless, and more than a bit shit. I say that as a fan of mods, but I also realise that not all mods are a good idea.)
Let the open world mount fans keep believing, I suppose. We've tried reason, logical arguments, and explanations of good game design but nothing is penetrating, so at this point it's unstoppable force vs. immovable object. This thread died the moment that ArenaNet said that mounts wouldn't be in for release, and that mounts may only nebulously exist ta some vague point in the future in an undetermined form. Game developers are realising what most gamers always knew: Mounts are shit. The horse was terrible in Oblivion, most mounts are, because you can't simulate the animal realistically. The only thing to ever get close was Shadow of the Colossus. But ArenaNet aren't going to devote that much processing power to mounts and that means they're not goinog to do open world mounts at all.
Why? Their philosophy of course: If it can't be done right, it's not going in the game.
Fans of heroes were disappointed when the secondary character idea was shot down but they tested it and discovered that it was a bad idea. I can only imagine that internal testing went on with their iterative process regarding mounts. They tested mounts, thought that they were terrible for their game (and perhaps every game ever), and decided to leave them out, doing just PR speak to glean a few extra box sales. I can't blame them for it.
False. The game does not even have a release date yet and there is a lot of time for new things to be notified by the developers to the community regarding the game. Your conception of mounts is indeed limited as you believe "mounts are and have always been a show off." Mounts, if implemented in innovative ways, can be far more than a status amplifier. Nowhere did I state such a facet of the game would be easy to implement. On the contrary, I expect ArenaNet to work hard on every aspect of the game as to guarantee its greatness. For reasons I stated on my first post, mounts still have a lot of room within a game with teleports.
ArenaNet has already stated, unequivocally, that mounts will not be in at releasse, but mounts MAY be included in SOME shape or form in a future patch or expansion pack. Google it if you like or go on being deluded, it's no skin off my nose, but please don't flame ArenaNet when you buy the game and find that it's sans mounts.
Fast travel mount are just not compatibles with GW2 gameplay. Why ? Because it interfere with the death system.
In GW2 there are 2 penalties for dying :
1. The more you die, the more time people need to rez you.
2. If you don't get rezzed on the spot, you get telported to a nearby waypoint and need to come back on foot.
Now if there are fast travel mounts, the point number 2 just get kicked out and people won't care a bit about death because they won't have to think about walking by for 5-10 minutes each time they wipe.
Comments
In response to this, in a fit of extreme masochism, I have reread this entire thread. I was interested in seeing what arguments have been made in favor of mounts so far.
You're right, these are all opinions, one person likes mounts, another one doesn't. I'm not here about that. I'm focused on the effects on gameplay. Saying mounts allow people to skip content is a fact. Someone saying whether they think that's bad is an opinion.
GW2 already has a speed increase for players when weapons are sheathed, so whether or not the player is providing that or the mount would be is purely aesthetic. There are plenty of arguments in this thread in favor of liking to collect them, liking the variety, increasing immersion, being more realistic, etc, but the pro-mount arguments are almost entirely aesthetic. There are almost no arguments in the entire thread that gameplay itself is improved by mounts. One person did argue that having to feed and groom mounts would be fun, and another liked the idea of having them be mobile banks. Another mentioned liking having time to think while riding somewhere.*
What Dream_Chaser and myself are arguing is that gameplay is negatively affected by mounts. Mounts (or unchecked speed increases) let people bypass content. Specific to GW2, I've made the argument that because PVE DEs are designed to be impossible to grief, having mounts that didn't dismount you immediately in combat would allow kiting or griefing of DEs (and I don't think anybody wants to be dismounted as soon as a mob looks at you...and this is aesthetic, but at least drawing weapons is better than a mount disappearing). Dream_Chaser has also argued that having mounts negatively impacts the game by making it so people move different speeds, as well as having their size and pixels negatively impacting view and display performance.
Of course, it is only our opinion that the way gameplay is affected by mounts is negative. However, having looked through this entire thread, I'm not seeing refutations of these arguments, arguments that these effects are actually a positive, or arguments that other aspects of mounts are overwhelmingly positive and make up for these negatives. Though if anyone has any such arguments, or notice any I might have missed while my eyes were bleeding, I'm sure we'd love to hear them.
*Another person did like the idea of swooping in to help a DE from their flying mount, but I wasn't really talking about flying mounts in this post, just comparing mounts to GW2's increased run speed. I also personally think flying mounts are exceptionally bad, due to the extreme ease of bypassing content.
Mounted combat is something else that people have expressed positive feelings for, but again it's out of the scope of a traditional speed increasing land mount.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
I want to see a quote from Bethesda saying there is going to be mounts in Skyrim! So far ever interview (including E3 interviews) I have seen they have said they might be in, but I have never seen them say that mounts will definitely be in Skyrim.
While Howard told fans that they shouldn’t count on riding any dragons, he did give some information about the team’s approach to horses in Skyrim. Describing the horses of Oblivion as closer to “jeeps” than actual living creatures, Howard reiterated his previous sentiment that the developers were working on it, but would only follow through if they felt it could make the game better:
“We don’t know where it’s going to end up. There were things with the Oblivion horses- we like having them, but there are certain things… they weren’t the greatest implementation of horses. And now you see games come out like Red Dead, you know, there are more horses in games that we feel like just the basic implementation we did in Oblivion isn’t going to be good enough. So, we are currently attempting things with that and we don’t know where it’s going to end up.
“A world without them feels a little weird, without seeing them… So, we definitely want to have them… we don’t know yet what you’re going to be able to do with them, and to what level.”
While it probably isn’t the yes or no answer fans were likely hoping for, a ‘maybe’ seems to be the most that we can expect this far from release. The team at Bethesda is obviously intent on giving their fans a game that is improved by past mistakes, not simply bigger or prettier. “
That in no way shape or form is a yes mounts are in game; that is a maybe they might make it if we can figure out a great way to do it. Like I said I want a direct quote confirming that they will be in the game, otherwise you are just making stuff up to prove a point.
You know what the interesting part is this exactly where mounts are with GW2, ANet has never said No! If they do have mounts in game they want them to be a great addition not just something thrown into the game, kind of like Skyrim!
http://gamerant.com/elder-scrolls-skyrim-mounts-shapeshifting-dyce-64776/
http://steamcommunity.com/id/Cloudsol/
Mounts ruin pvp.
And flying mounts ruin the whole game. I know kids and ******* love them though
This goes along with the point I made that it's about preference, more so than anything else. Can I skip through areas I'm trying to get through to reach something else?
Sure, is that bad? For you maybe, for me not exactly. How they're implemented is also important in this regard. Debuffs could be appiled when you're hit to ensure you're not using them to skip things, that aren't intended to be skipped. A fear debuff would be an interesting way to handle this, as the sight of certain mobs would make your horse rear up and kick you off. Which would ensure you're not using a mount to escape certain content.
There are many ways a Dev could ensure these issues do not crop up. Maybe that's why they're not focusing on them as a launch day addition, as they'd prefer to do them right rather than add them just for the sake of adding them.
As I also said above, for some the addition of mounts adds to the experience, for some it takes away from the experience. Much in the same way for some insta teleporting takes away, for others adds to.
As for speed buffs for characters, I could see this for beast races, which I would assume don't exactly need mounts from a lore perspective. However humans are a different subject. I'd prefer mounts as a speed buff for some races, a natural speed buff for others. That's just my preference though.
Personally I think it's a little early for any of us to be saying something would have a true positive or negative impact on the game world without seeing the game world, and seeing how they would be if they were implemented.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Why not have mounts? Why do people settle for less? If in its previous iterations mounts were mainly considered fluff, how could ArenaNet change that? Why not add mounted combat where your skill bar changes just like it does when you go underwater or change weapons? Why not make mounts living entities that can actually be customized, leveled, and changed? Why not allow mounts to serve as storage? Why not allow mounts to fight along side you like a pet? Why not allow mounts as a form of transportation for more than one player so that you can travel alongside your friend? Why not allow mounts to serve as an extension of your character, something that defines your character's image?
It is of my strong belief that ArenaNet seeks to develop an MMO that most definingly improves on the industry's already set standards, and not completely neglects them. Indeed, the possibilities with mounts are endless and would only lead to a deeper, more engaging, and more varied gameplay.
These are my thoughts as well, as my previous post in this thread attests. I have no opposition to mounts, but I think that IF ANet does go ahead and implement mounts, it will be mounts with a function, or mounts with combat, or something, anything, more than just a speed buff item or something to look at whilst flying over a flight path.
It just seems to me that ANet doesn't just throw in features of other MMOs because other MMOs have them without reviewing carefully why it is that people like those features and whether the effect can be achieved in any other way, or in a more meaningful way, in GW2.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/Cloudsol/
Fact of the matter is that mounts would take more away from the game than they would add.
If GW2 has mounts I'll be very sad, very sad indeed.
But then Arenanet are smart guys, they know they don't need mounts.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/Cloudsol/
Let me try and break it down for you;
Because it takes a lot of time, and costs a lot of money to develop something unique and cool. Even normal boring mounts, that many MMORPGs have, would be a very large resource.
If you broke it down, even the animations alone would take time away for other things. They haven't even announced the last class yet, or shown any PvP yet. How much quality from other areas of the game do you want to sacrifice in order to implant these "awesome pet bears" when it's unsure how good the game already is? Or do you want to delay the games development to add these things to it, 6 or 12 months?
And why are everyone so certain that ArenaNet would do something unique with them if they choose to implant them? It's not like every aspect of Guild Wars 2 is unqiue. Crafting seems standard, for example. And so what? You can't expect
If you put mounts in the game that adds a speed boost, everyone will want to use them, even if they don't want them. It's true that if you play WoW, you don't physically have to use them, but you will be an idiot not to - As it's a means to get around faster. You will be a disadvantage to other people in the game.
I don't see the unique or cool part about them. Mounts so far, always seem to dminish the players individualism, because everyones mounts looks, and behaves the same. It makes their characters look less unique. Also it is very difficult to implant a mount that feels right. The best attempt I have seen is probably still... Shadow of the Colossus. Some of the Zelda/Assassins Creed games are ok too. But those things are the results of a lot of resources.
This game is not even out yet. You can't seriously expect all their features announced so far to be perfect?
My biggest grips with Mounts come from the fact(as seen in WoW) that they are just everywhere. I don't like it, when there are more pets and mounts running around than people. They get out of control so easily. I urge you to download WoW today and go to a high level server and see how things have spiralled out of control in the main cities.
They should make mounts realistic. You have to feed them, stable them, and generally take care of them. And none of this magic pocket mount nonsense. People talk about immersion when refering to mounts, well what breaks immersion faster than you can spell mount is when they appear out of thin air in a manner of seconds.
If there are mounts I much rather they be more like vehicles (such as the Siege Devourer in Guild Wars) rather than just the speed boosts visual enhancement that you see in games like WoW and Rift.
Oh god, It is like talking to these guys...
"How hard can it be?"
and
The answer is: very.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Wow, this thread TOOK off.
Need mounts, go!
http://steamcommunity.com/id/Cloudsol/
Implementing mounts in a game which has map teleportation system is nothing more than spending money which could've been used in more important things. Mounts are and have always been a show off. I played wow ever since it came out till like few months ago and in my opinion the first times in vanilla when everything was done on foot was the best... Tho FP is a good thing but that's what you have in GW2 and it's called teleporting.
I'm sure game developers had a really good thought about every single thing no matter how small or big it is and if they decided not to give us mounts they did it because they had a perfectly good reason for it. The game isn't out yet and you people discuss why there should be mount in the game... We can't possibly know what the reasons are for not implementing mounts untill we actually PLAY the game
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life."
-------------------------------
I am fairly certain no developer from ANet has ruled out mounts in Guild Wars 2. Furthermore, your assumptions will lead you nowhere, and this topic is perfectly reasonable to discuss. Your limited conception of mounts only serves to bias your views. Mounts can be implemented in a far deeper manner as detailed in my first post in this thread.
Sometimes you just need to know when to not give a damn about those people. I'd much rather have a MMO with balance , minimal bugs , lots of stuff to do to keep me busy , etc ,etc. Mounts , meh , another asian form of dragging under aged girls to bed. Never cared about them , and never will. Never bought a mount and never will.
Will a mount save me from lag? No
Will a mount give me more quests? No
Will a mount wax my weapons? No
You give mounts to those cry babies , and then they'll want the game to be easier and blah blah.
Screw them. Guild Wars is after all about PvP , and you got more teleports then a 8 person roomed game of Diablo 2.
It's hard to believe this thread has been going on for 40 pages now.
If they did not implement mounts so far it means they ruled them out, furthermore they didn't even mention mounts anywhere so far... GW didn't had mounts since it has teleport available in every outpost... And no, my concept of mounts isn't limited because if you think of how the skills change when you enter water, how your skills change when you enchant a nearby rock and use it as a weapon then implementing mounts isn't that easy... Hell, it's hard thing to do since you have to change your skills while you mount and balance all the mount fights since I see no other use of mounts than making battle more interesting and diverse since there's teleport available. Mounts are pretty much useless if teleport system is done well... Tho that's only my opinion and really don't care for mounts because as far as I've seen on video of gameplay, traveling isn't really like in many games I've play where you have to travel the whole map to get to 1 outpost.
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life."
-------------------------------
False. The game does not even have a release date yet and there is a lot of time for new things to be notified by the developers to the community regarding the game. Your conception of mounts is indeed limited as you believe "mounts are and have always been a show off." Mounts, if implemented in innovative ways, can be far more than a status amplifier. Nowhere did I state such a facet of the game would be easy to implement. On the contrary, I expect ArenaNet to work hard on every aspect of the game as to guarantee its greatness. For reasons I stated on my first post, mounts still have a lot of room within a game with teleports.
They have said that they haven't ruled mounts out for a possible future patch/expansion, but I honestly think they're talking about mounted dynamic events, because they clevelry did not specify what type of mounts. So what happens here is that ArenaNet gets box sales from the mount hopefuls, and when mounts turn up only in dynamic events, then they can just shrug and point out that they didn't specify.
If ArenaNet had planned on open world mounts, they would've said more about it, the way they're being so vague strongly implies that they're just not interested in the open world vanity mount that so many trad MMORPG fans are after. The same thing has been happening with Skyrim, they've done some very, very careful wording that says that they're thinking about mounts, but then they go on to say, no wait, not mounts, we're thinking about horses, yes, horses. And from there they go on to say that horses are cool but they don't know how much interaction a player might be allowed to have with them. It doesn't take a genius-level intellect to figure out what's going on there, especially since (as mentioned) Bethesda dropped the idea of mounts/bikes for Fallout 3.
(Coincidentally, the code for mounts is still in Fallout 3 and people have used it for bike mods and hoverchairs, but Bethesda soft set it to one side as something that they didn't want to use. And, examining these mods myself, I have to say that they're awkward, cumbersome, pointless, and more than a bit shit. I say that as a fan of mods, but I also realise that not all mods are a good idea.)
Let the open world mount fans keep believing, I suppose. We've tried reason, logical arguments, and explanations of good game design but nothing is penetrating, so at this point it's unstoppable force vs. immovable object. This thread died the moment that ArenaNet said that mounts wouldn't be in for release, and that mounts may only nebulously exist ta some vague point in the future in an undetermined form. Game developers are realising what most gamers always knew: Mounts are shit. The horse was terrible in Oblivion, most mounts are, because you can't simulate the animal realistically. The only thing to ever get close was Shadow of the Colossus. But ArenaNet aren't going to devote that much processing power to mounts and that means they're not goinog to do open world mounts at all.
Why? Their philosophy of course: If it can't be done right, it's not going in the game.
Fans of heroes were disappointed when the secondary character idea was shot down but they tested it and discovered that it was a bad idea. I can only imagine that internal testing went on with their iterative process regarding mounts. They tested mounts, thought that they were terrible for their game (and perhaps every game ever), and decided to leave them out, doing just PR speak to glean a few extra box sales. I can't blame them for it.
ArenaNet has already stated, unequivocally, that mounts will not be in at releasse, but mounts MAY be included in SOME shape or form in a future patch or expansion pack. Google it if you like or go on being deluded, it's no skin off my nose, but please don't flame ArenaNet when you buy the game and find that it's sans mounts.
Fast travel mount are just not compatibles with GW2 gameplay. Why ? Because it interfere with the death system.
In GW2 there are 2 penalties for dying :
1. The more you die, the more time people need to rez you.
2. If you don't get rezzed on the spot, you get telported to a nearby waypoint and need to come back on foot.
Now if there are fast travel mounts, the point number 2 just get kicked out and people won't care a bit about death because they won't have to think about walking by for 5-10 minutes each time they wipe.
Now about combat mounts (so no speed buff here), they already exist : http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Hazmat_Suit
We got a bloody gundam, and I'm sure it won't be the last on the list...