And I a hate minmaxing and I love immersion. I could care less what other people are doing, I am there to have fun and see the world.
I do not care if the hidden Dynamic Events do not give me something to make my character extra special, I am there to see the world and explore. I am fine with getting different armor and weapon skins, I do not need a number reward to make the game fun.
So everything you said is still your choice to make the game that way! Believe it or not you just represent one groups of gamers, not all gamers think like you do. So when I look at GW2 I do not see the game you see. That still does not change the facts of the game, if you play the game that way it is by your choice and not GW2 forcing you to play that way.
Where exactly did I say all gamers were like me? I only said that there was a group of gamers like me.
And of course it's my choice to make the game that way. It's also your choice to make the game your way. That's what people do, they make choices on playstyle and their playstyle affects how they perceive the game.
Also, not all numbers are stats. A diffirent weapon or armor skin is, in the end, still a number. I'm fine with purely visual rewards, as long as they're unique. MMOs are, for me, about persistance. If I do something I want it to have atleast a semi-persistant effect on my character. Something that sticks. Be it an improved piece of gear, a new look or even journal entries that I couldn't have gotten elsewhere.
We are the bunny. Resistance is futile. ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\ ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o) (")("),,(")("),(")(")
You sure you played Guild Wars? Do you honestly think Guild Wars 2 needs mounts? Why put them in just for the sake of collecting them? You collectors have pets. Guild Wars isn't the kind of game where mounts are really useful because they would seem pretty pointless outside town walls with all the engagement in combat. Plus you can just teleport. It would be a waste of production cost.
It would be a nice extra feature but it's not neccesary imo, especially not with the travel system that they have set up. Now in WoW on the other hand getting from A to B in the barrens was a long and boring process (less so now) so mounts were neccesary, but I don't mind walking and looking at the scenery in GW 2. I'm neutral on the subject though, would be nice to have them but don't really care if their not there.
Most people go through life pretending to be a boss. I go through life pretending I'm not.
You know, I have another good reason as to why they opted out of mounts. Hear me out?
Okay, first of all, let me just say that I'm not talking about creatures/vehicles which can be used in dynamic events, as arenasb talked about above. That's a great idea and I'm completely for it, so long as it's limited to the dynamic event in question, you get in/on, you use it for the dynamic event, then you get out/off and leave it there. That'd be a grand thing because not having those kinds of things around all the time would mean that we'd be excited if we were to encounter an event that had them, yeah?
That's not what this post is about though, I just wanted to get that out of the way before I continue, as I feel that there's confusion about mounts as a gamplay element (which I like) vs mounts as a speed boost (which I don't like). Now I'm going to use WoW as an example because it'll help me explain my position, and I won't be speaking negatively about WoW because it was a more experimental game when it was launched, but there are areas that we can see now, years later, that clearly failed. And I think that one of htem is mounts.
Disclaimers out of the way, as I'm not trying to annoy people and I want that to be understood, I'll explain my position.
Okay, let's say that ArenaNet adds mounts. This makes areas trivial because you can speed through them and explore in seconds what might otherwise take a good half hour to get through. What's the response to this? WoW has the answer to this - the answer is larger maps, larger maps, and then even larger maps, but no extra content, so what happens is that it took you ten seconds to get from content point A to B early on in the game, but it takes you 40 minutes on foot to get from point A to point B later on, and this could be a problem. Why could this be a problem? You have to activate waypoints.
Now let's say that the game is designed for mounts and waypoints, yeah? Let's go with that assumption, what this means is that waypoints will need to be more spaced out, just as content would need to be more spaced out, so I'd spend an increasing amount of time just walking through long, bland areas that have no content in them, and the reason for this is because that area has been designed for a mount, so that the content that is in that area won't be made trivial by a mount. So I spend 30 minutes and I'm 80% of the way to a waypoint, and I get unlucky and die, so that's thirty minutes wasted, isn't it? I'll never get those 30 minutes back.
What happens then is that people are convinced that mounts are necessary for activating waypoints, that you need to ride a mount between waypoints to activate them, but faster mounts need to be more important, so there are things you then have to do rather than optionally choose to do to get one. The problem here is that people will want to feel like it's an accomplishment nd this adds the dreaded element of grind to Guild Wars 2, the one thing that the vast majority of people who're looking forward to this game don't want - optional grind is fine, but being forced to grind I think we can agree is a bad thing.
But if mounts were present, we'd have to grind to get a mount to be able to get between waypoints faster. Now then... let's look at an alternative scenario: No mounts! In this scenario, it takes you ten seconds to get from point A to point B of known content at level 1, and it takes you the same amount of time in level 80 maps, too. This means that areas can be vividly different but they don't have to be unnecessarily spacious with huge gaps between content, since ArenaNet can measure the amount of time it takes all players to get between content points.
The thing is is that all players are capalbe of two modes of movement: If you have your weapons drawn, it's more of a slow walk at the speed of movement in the average MMO, if you sheath your weapons, then you burst into a sprint and thi is the same as a mount's speed, but everyone has the same speed, and because everyone has the same speed ArenaNet doesn't have to space out the maps later on. No spacing, no gaps between content, and no grinding, right? So ask yourself: Is any of this really a bad thing? If you add mounts then you negate all of these elements and you introduce problems that MMOs have had since they started including mounts.
I want to be able to know that I'll be able to move around level 80 content as quickly as I move around earlier content without the added need for a mount. The thing is is that you have to artificially pad a world for mounts, and that's bad, yeah? Removing mounts allows ArenaNet to design maps as they want to.
I was going to read this entire post, but instead decided to teleport to the end of it.
You know, I have another good reason as to why they opted out of mounts. Hear me out?
Okay, first of all, let me just say that I'm not talking about creatures/vehicles which can be used in dynamic events, as arenasb talked about above. That's a great idea and I'm completely for it, so long as it's limited to the dynamic event in question, you get in/on, you use it for the dynamic event, then you get out/off and leave it there. That'd be a grand thing because not having those kinds of things around all the time would mean that we'd be excited if we were to encounter an event that had them, yeah?
That's not what this post is about though, I just wanted to get that out of the way before I continue, as I feel that there's confusion about mounts as a gamplay element (which I like) vs mounts as a speed boost (which I don't like). Now I'm going to use WoW as an example because it'll help me explain my position, and I won't be speaking negatively about WoW because it was a more experimental game when it was launched, but there are areas that we can see now, years later, that clearly failed. And I think that one of htem is mounts.
Disclaimers out of the way, as I'm not trying to annoy people and I want that to be understood, I'll explain my position.
Okay, let's say that ArenaNet adds mounts. This makes areas trivial because you can speed through them and explore in seconds what might otherwise take a good half hour to get through. What's the response to this? WoW has the answer to this - the answer is larger maps, larger maps, and then even larger maps, but no extra content, so what happens is that it took you ten seconds to get from content point A to B early on in the game, but it takes you 40 minutes on foot to get from point A to point B later on, and this could be a problem. Why could this be a problem? You have to activate waypoints.
Now let's say that the game is designed for mounts and waypoints, yeah? Let's go with that assumption, what this means is that waypoints will need to be more spaced out, just as content would need to be more spaced out, so I'd spend an increasing amount of time just walking through long, bland areas that have no content in them, and the reason for this is because that area has been designed for a mount, so that the content that is in that area won't be made trivial by a mount. So I spend 30 minutes and I'm 80% of the way to a waypoint, and I get unlucky and die, so that's thirty minutes wasted, isn't it? I'll never get those 30 minutes back.
What happens then is that people are convinced that mounts are necessary for activating waypoints, that you need to ride a mount between waypoints to activate them, but faster mounts need to be more important, so there are things you then have to do rather than optionally choose to do to get one. The problem here is that people will want to feel like it's an accomplishment nd this adds the dreaded element of grind to Guild Wars 2, the one thing that the vast majority of people who're looking forward to this game don't want - optional grind is fine, but being forced to grind I think we can agree is a bad thing.
But if mounts were present, we'd have to grind to get a mount to be able to get between waypoints faster. Now then... let's look at an alternative scenario: No mounts! In this scenario, it takes you ten seconds to get from point A to point B of known content at level 1, and it takes you the same amount of time in level 80 maps, too. This means that areas can be vividly different but they don't have to be unnecessarily spacious with huge gaps between content, since ArenaNet can measure the amount of time it takes all players to get between content points.
The thing is is that all players are capalbe of two modes of movement: If you have your weapons drawn, it's more of a slow walk at the speed of movement in the average MMO, if you sheath your weapons, then you burst into a sprint and thi is the same as a mount's speed, but everyone has the same speed, and because everyone has the same speed ArenaNet doesn't have to space out the maps later on. No spacing, no gaps between content, and no grinding, right? So ask yourself: Is any of this really a bad thing? If you add mounts then you negate all of these elements and you introduce problems that MMOs have had since they started including mounts.
I want to be able to know that I'll be able to move around level 80 content as quickly as I move around earlier content without the added need for a mount. The thing is is that you have to artificially pad a world for mounts, and that's bad, yeah? Removing mounts allows ArenaNet to design maps as they want to.
I was going to read this entire post, but instead decided to teleport to the end of it.
You can only teleport to the end of it if you've already read it once.
"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
At max level a mount wouldnt exactly hurt, you've already seen everything and slogging it thru those same zones again can be very tedius. So ye, mounts could be nice. I'm talking in general now, dont care too much for gw2, but more of the idea of mounts.
We all know that mounts will not initially be in Guild Wars 2, so for those who are wanting them, why not wait and see if the game is good without them? I know for a fact that if the game has problems and the solution demands mounts, ANet will only be too happy to oblige.
Call me a troll i am not, but the main reason why mmo fails it's because we are way too demanding in regards of expectation from a game.
Each thread i read about a new mmo free or p2p is about the request of one individual and how unhappy they are because this or that wasnt included into the game.
Let's take it this way, i played DAOC, EVE, WoW and im mainly a pve guy, i don't like much PVPing, i don't run after mounts, and i don't try to kill a level 6 when im 75 who is questing but, i love pve. And im most of this game pve was lacking something and i still played it (even tho EVE is mainly PVP) and took what i liked from it and started to have fun from there.
We all know that whatever new game they release it will prolly not be what John Doe requested as of a big fireball the size of the USS Enterprise eating baby and singing while dropping deadly poisonous flower wich smells good!
So my point is ok game will have problems im sure and at launch it will maybe be buggy and all the rest BUT, they will get it better, with amelioration or nerfs. Let's trust de devs and take the most part that we like from the game and enjoy it from there.
As i understand it, GW2 will probably not have mounts, but there is a really good transportation system wich do the job, but are you only playing for the mount? What wll happen when you will have collected them all? There is other aspect of a game to be explored and sincerely let's give that chance to a game, to be explored!
The truth of the matter is that ArenaNet are trying to create the best game they can according to their own standards, and one that they think that people tired of old, classical, traditional MMORPGs will enjoy. I'm a bit bored of those now so I can understand that, and they're trying to bring in people who don't normally play MMORPGs too, single-player types who won't understand or desire grind. And mounts just aren't an equation of the game they're trying to make.
You're right, people will want something to be this, or want it to be that, but at the end of the day it's the game they want to make, and there'll be those who love, hate it, and everything in between. One of the most important rules of life and especially of the entertainment industry is that you can't please everyone, that's what Hollywood blockbusters have been trying to do by aiming for the lowest common denominator and in doing so they've ended up making exceedingly boring films with tried and tested premises, or they'll just do sequel after sequel. There are developers out there making tried and tested MMORPGs, but ArenaNet is not one of those developers.
We need an experimental MMORPG every now and then to shake things up and introduce radically new ideas.
The truth of the matter is that ArenaNet are trying to create the best game they can according to their own standards, and one that they think that people tired of old, classical, traditional MMORPGs will enjoy. I'm a bit bored of those now so I can understand that, and they're trying to bring in people who don't normally play MMORPGs too, single-player types who won't understand or desire grind. And mounts just aren't an equation of the game they're trying to make.
You're right, people will want something to be this, or want it to be that, but at the end of the day it's the game they want to make, and there'll be those who love, hate it, and everything in between. One of the most important rules of life and especially of the entertainment industry is that you can't please everyone, that's what Hollywood blockbusters have been trying to do by aiming for the lowest common denominator and in doing so they've ended up making exceedingly boring films with tried and tested premises, or they'll just do sequel after sequel. There are developers out there making tried and tested MMORPGs, but ArenaNet is not one of those developers.
We need an experimental MMORPG every now and then to shake things up and introduce radically new ideas.
Totally agree, i wouldn't mind buying a game full of innovations, what me and i think lots of others mmorpg gamers want is a new type of game that make you say "Thats what i've been looking for the past few years". If what the devs makes don't hit the markets then they can try with something else till they create a good game. If what scares them is the budget that could be go to waste with a poor game, then they should stop making mmorpg and go make a hello kitty rpg; truthfully i'd prefer a fail new type of mmorpg then a fail wow clone.
I don't see why mounts can't be added at a later date simply for aesthetic purposes. Some people really like the companionship between a knight and his steed or a warrior and his crazy ostrich bird thing. It shouldn't eat up development time prior to release but if enough people want it I think it could be a cool addition to later patches. It shouldn't be something you buy or get from a drop but a quest reward. I think it would be pretty fun to tame a wild buck that has been causing problems in a nearby village or befriending an ancient bear. It would be a great role-playing element, available to everyone so it wouldn't be a status icon, and just be pretty cool. I know a lot of people won't like a mount that doesn't boost speed or anything but it seems like a good idea in my head. Basically just for coolness points and could fuel some interesting quest lines.
Another good argument against mounts has just occurred to me, too, and this would count for all sorts, even just aesthetic ones. I bet ArenaNet has already thought of all of these, too, since they're pretty clever like that.
Okay, so... one element of Guild Wars 2 is visual consistency, right? Anything large that exists in the world is a persistent element. You don't just pull a mortar out of nowhere, it's right there, you interact with it, and then you leave it be, it's all very solid and real, that's how they've designed the game. But a mount would have to be pulled out of some non-existent nether-region, and then dumped back into it when the player is done. So you'd have these horses and cars suddenly disappearing and reappearing, this would completely destroy the persistent element they're giong for if you ask me.
The only way to solve that would be to have your mount with you at all times, so you'd have to stable it when you get off it, then you'd have to go back for it. But that means that there's a lot more pressure put on the graphics cards of folks for all these people with persistent mounts, imagine leaving a dynamic event to have to wander through a mount 'car park,' as that's something that could have a nasty framerate hit. So even if you leave the mounts in the world, it has a negative element to it that detracts from the game as a whole and benefits only those who actually want mounts.
I think we have a bigger issue here than just mount, we have an issue about peoples expectation towards a game. We can't just expect the developpers to make a game especially to each and everyone liking.
One thing for sure does devs must not have profit in the head first because we know profit in the first place killed a ton of MMO.
We on our side have a job to give a chance to new mmo's, try them out, and enjoy the part that we like even tho they are things we don't like in the game. They wont make games with everyones ideas in it, we have to understand that and enjoy what we like about the game! Might be PVP, PVE, RP or whatever else is in the game.
Another thing and i know it's hard to do but we need to stop comparing every mmo to a successfull mmo out there. Sure there was some WoW fail and etc but if we build our expectation of a game regarding of what we had back we will be deceived. I know it's not at all the same but let's say you have a girlfriend and she cook a certain way, you get another one and she cook in a different way, it might be as good as the previous one but only different.
What makes me down about the genre is the community. Not you people directly but everytime there is a discussion about mmo 90% of the time it's to rant about it. Let's show the devs our support and our help to make great game, let's put the good and bad about a game in a constructive manner without taking side and enjoy the game, we are all here to play and have fun.
Different people, different ideas, doesn't mean we all can't get along and enjoy our main hobby we have in common wich is getting into an online world and bashing stuff!
I'll be one sad dude if this very promising game doesn't have mounts. Mounts are fun and they make world PvP a blast!
I Want Mounts!(and airwaves)
Here fixed it for you! Because not all of us want mounts if they are just going to be the equivalent of designer jeans that make you run faster. If they have more function then a speed boast I am all for mounts being in game!
Another good argument against mounts has just occurred to me, too, and this would count for all sorts, even just aesthetic ones. I bet ArenaNet has already thought of all of these, too, since they're pretty clever like that.
Okay, so... one element of Guild Wars 2 is visual consistency, right? Anything large that exists in the world is a persistent element. You don't just pull a mortar out of nowhere, it's right there, you interact with it, and then you leave it be, it's all very solid and real, that's how they've designed the game. But a mount would have to be pulled out of some non-existent nether-region, and then dumped back into it when the player is done. So you'd have these horses and cars suddenly disappearing and reappearing, this would completely destroy the persistent element they're giong for if you ask me.
The only way to solve that would be to have your mount with you at all times, so you'd have to stable it when you get off it, then you'd have to go back for it. But that means that there's a lot more pressure put on the graphics cards of folks for all these people with persistent mounts, imagine leaving a dynamic event to have to wander through a mount 'car park,' as that's something that could have a nasty framerate hit. So even if you leave the mounts in the world, it has a negative element to it that detracts from the game as a whole and benefits only those who actually want mounts.
I think this could be countered with a call function similar to Harvest Moon (yes I know it's a farming game) so you see the mount run off into the horizon, returning to a stable after being dismissed. There could also be a stable in your home instance, or not depending on the choices you made! The main reason I would like to see mounts in game is because it just fits the adventure theme. When I picture a courageous knight I can't picture him without a noble steed. It's like Shrek without Donkey! I am not saying mounts MUST be in the game I'm just saying they could exist in the game without causing problems. Dare I say, they could improve the overall feel of the game for manh individuals.
There is perfectly good reason to have mounts in this game... People want them.
There is a perfectly good reason not to have mounts in this game... People don't want them.
Terrible response, his logic may cost them sales your desire to not have mounts wont.
Any decision they make will cost them sales.
It's not possible to create a game that everybody will enjoy. It's just not. Especially when people often want conflicting things.
I think an MMORPG made based off of 'What do the masses want, exactly?' is how you end up with a crappy generic, bland game. Better if the game developers build what they want, so there's a much more unified, focused vision... even if it's not the unified focused vision some people will want.
(Because it's impossible to make a game EVERYBODY will want, anyway)
Another good argument against mounts has just occurred to me, too, and this would count for all sorts, even just aesthetic ones. I bet ArenaNet has already thought of all of these, too, since they're pretty clever like that.
Okay, so... one element of Guild Wars 2 is visual consistency, right? Anything large that exists in the world is a persistent element. You don't just pull a mortar out of nowhere, it's right there, you interact with it, and then you leave it be, it's all very solid and real, that's how they've designed the game. But a mount would have to be pulled out of some non-existent nether-region, and then dumped back into it when the player is done. So you'd have these horses and cars suddenly disappearing and reappearing, this would completely destroy the persistent element they're giong for if you ask me.
The only way to solve that would be to have your mount with you at all times, so you'd have to stable it when you get off it, then you'd have to go back for it. But that means that there's a lot more pressure put on the graphics cards of folks for all these people with persistent mounts, imagine leaving a dynamic event to have to wander through a mount 'car park,' as that's something that could have a nasty framerate hit. So even if you leave the mounts in the world, it has a negative element to it that detracts from the game as a whole and benefits only those who actually want mounts.
I think this could be countered with a call function similar to Harvest Moon (yes I know it's a farming game) so you see the mount run off into the horizon, returning to a stable after being dismissed. There could also be a stable in your home instance, or not depending on the choices you made! The main reason I would like to see mounts in game is because it just fits the adventure theme. When I picture a courageous knight I can't picture him without a noble steed. It's like Shrek without Donkey! I am not saying mounts MUST be in the game I'm just saying they could exist in the game without causing problems. Dare I say, they could improve the overall feel of the game for manh individuals.
This can't work for the reason that what you're talking about is a single player RPG and this is an MMORPG, the chance that the mount will still run past someone and disappear right next to them is pretty high on the probability scale. And what about vehicles? Ghost cars? o_O So yeah, there are problems with that. As advanced as the charr are, I don't think they're quite at the point where they can make KITT.
I think the lack of mounts is quite odd considering the dev's made the specific point of showing off some rather sexy tank like vehicles in the new Charr trailer.
I think those who played Guild Wars 1 know why mounts are not needed/wanted...I don't care but mounts are really not talked about in any of the lore or game...ill enjoy the walk...
and if anyone is really on the fence about a game due to lack of mounts.....grow up?
Comments
Where exactly did I say all gamers were like me? I only said that there was a group of gamers like me.
And of course it's my choice to make the game that way. It's also your choice to make the game your way. That's what people do, they make choices on playstyle and their playstyle affects how they perceive the game.
Also, not all numbers are stats. A diffirent weapon or armor skin is, in the end, still a number. I'm fine with purely visual rewards, as long as they're unique. MMOs are, for me, about persistance. If I do something I want it to have atleast a semi-persistant effect on my character. Something that sticks. Be it an improved piece of gear, a new look or even journal entries that I couldn't have gotten elsewhere.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
You sure you played Guild Wars? Do you honestly think Guild Wars 2 needs mounts? Why put them in just for the sake of collecting them? You collectors have pets. Guild Wars isn't the kind of game where mounts are really useful because they would seem pretty pointless outside town walls with all the engagement in combat. Plus you can just teleport. It would be a waste of production cost.
It would be a nice extra feature but it's not neccesary imo, especially not with the travel system that they have set up. Now in WoW on the other hand getting from A to B in the barrens was a long and boring process (less so now) so mounts were neccesary, but I don't mind walking and looking at the scenery in GW 2. I'm neutral on the subject though, would be nice to have them but don't really care if their not there.
Most people go through life pretending to be a boss. I go through life pretending I'm not.
I was going to read this entire post, but instead decided to teleport to the end of it.
i dont want mounts. GW2 is about quality, not about fluff.
You can only teleport to the end of it if you've already read it once.
"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
@dreamchaser I think you make some of the finest points I've seen.
@Cali Well played.
"Have to grind for mounts"
"speed thru content"
At max level a mount wouldnt exactly hurt, you've already seen everything and slogging it thru those same zones again can be very tedius. So ye, mounts could be nice. I'm talking in general now, dont care too much for gw2, but more of the idea of mounts.
We all know that mounts will not initially be in Guild Wars 2, so for those who are wanting them, why not wait and see if the game is good without them? I know for a fact that if the game has problems and the solution demands mounts, ANet will only be too happy to oblige.
We just have to wait and see.
Call me a troll i am not, but the main reason why mmo fails it's because we are way too demanding in regards of expectation from a game.
Each thread i read about a new mmo free or p2p is about the request of one individual and how unhappy they are because this or that wasnt included into the game.
Let's take it this way, i played DAOC, EVE, WoW and im mainly a pve guy, i don't like much PVPing, i don't run after mounts, and i don't try to kill a level 6 when im 75 who is questing but, i love pve. And im most of this game pve was lacking something and i still played it (even tho EVE is mainly PVP) and took what i liked from it and started to have fun from there.
We all know that whatever new game they release it will prolly not be what John Doe requested as of a big fireball the size of the USS Enterprise eating baby and singing while dropping deadly poisonous flower wich smells good!
So my point is ok game will have problems im sure and at launch it will maybe be buggy and all the rest BUT, they will get it better, with amelioration or nerfs. Let's trust de devs and take the most part that we like from the game and enjoy it from there.
As i understand it, GW2 will probably not have mounts, but there is a really good transportation system wich do the job, but are you only playing for the mount? What wll happen when you will have collected them all? There is other aspect of a game to be explored and sincerely let's give that chance to a game, to be explored!
Jonathan
I completely concur, Jonathan.
The truth of the matter is that ArenaNet are trying to create the best game they can according to their own standards, and one that they think that people tired of old, classical, traditional MMORPGs will enjoy. I'm a bit bored of those now so I can understand that, and they're trying to bring in people who don't normally play MMORPGs too, single-player types who won't understand or desire grind. And mounts just aren't an equation of the game they're trying to make.
You're right, people will want something to be this, or want it to be that, but at the end of the day it's the game they want to make, and there'll be those who love, hate it, and everything in between. One of the most important rules of life and especially of the entertainment industry is that you can't please everyone, that's what Hollywood blockbusters have been trying to do by aiming for the lowest common denominator and in doing so they've ended up making exceedingly boring films with tried and tested premises, or they'll just do sequel after sequel. There are developers out there making tried and tested MMORPGs, but ArenaNet is not one of those developers.
We need an experimental MMORPG every now and then to shake things up and introduce radically new ideas.
No mounts doesn't break a game. Especially a game where there's a teleportation system.
Totally agree, i wouldn't mind buying a game full of innovations, what me and i think lots of others mmorpg gamers want is a new type of game that make you say "Thats what i've been looking for the past few years". If what the devs makes don't hit the markets then they can try with something else till they create a good game. If what scares them is the budget that could be go to waste with a poor game, then they should stop making mmorpg and go make a hello kitty rpg; truthfully i'd prefer a fail new type of mmorpg then a fail wow clone.
I don't see why mounts can't be added at a later date simply for aesthetic purposes. Some people really like the companionship between a knight and his steed or a warrior and his crazy ostrich bird thing. It shouldn't eat up development time prior to release but if enough people want it I think it could be a cool addition to later patches. It shouldn't be something you buy or get from a drop but a quest reward. I think it would be pretty fun to tame a wild buck that has been causing problems in a nearby village or befriending an ancient bear. It would be a great role-playing element, available to everyone so it wouldn't be a status icon, and just be pretty cool. I know a lot of people won't like a mount that doesn't boost speed or anything but it seems like a good idea in my head. Basically just for coolness points and could fuel some interesting quest lines.
Another good argument against mounts has just occurred to me, too, and this would count for all sorts, even just aesthetic ones. I bet ArenaNet has already thought of all of these, too, since they're pretty clever like that.
Okay, so... one element of Guild Wars 2 is visual consistency, right? Anything large that exists in the world is a persistent element. You don't just pull a mortar out of nowhere, it's right there, you interact with it, and then you leave it be, it's all very solid and real, that's how they've designed the game. But a mount would have to be pulled out of some non-existent nether-region, and then dumped back into it when the player is done. So you'd have these horses and cars suddenly disappearing and reappearing, this would completely destroy the persistent element they're giong for if you ask me.
The only way to solve that would be to have your mount with you at all times, so you'd have to stable it when you get off it, then you'd have to go back for it. But that means that there's a lot more pressure put on the graphics cards of folks for all these people with persistent mounts, imagine leaving a dynamic event to have to wander through a mount 'car park,' as that's something that could have a nasty framerate hit. So even if you leave the mounts in the world, it has a negative element to it that detracts from the game as a whole and benefits only those who actually want mounts.
I think we have a bigger issue here than just mount, we have an issue about peoples expectation towards a game. We can't just expect the developpers to make a game especially to each and everyone liking.
One thing for sure does devs must not have profit in the head first because we know profit in the first place killed a ton of MMO.
We on our side have a job to give a chance to new mmo's, try them out, and enjoy the part that we like even tho they are things we don't like in the game. They wont make games with everyones ideas in it, we have to understand that and enjoy what we like about the game! Might be PVP, PVE, RP or whatever else is in the game.
Another thing and i know it's hard to do but we need to stop comparing every mmo to a successfull mmo out there. Sure there was some WoW fail and etc but if we build our expectation of a game regarding of what we had back we will be deceived. I know it's not at all the same but let's say you have a girlfriend and she cook a certain way, you get another one and she cook in a different way, it might be as good as the previous one but only different.
What makes me down about the genre is the community. Not you people directly but everytime there is a discussion about mmo 90% of the time it's to rant about it. Let's show the devs our support and our help to make great game, let's put the good and bad about a game in a constructive manner without taking side and enjoy the game, we are all here to play and have fun.
Different people, different ideas, doesn't mean we all can't get along and enjoy our main hobby we have in common wich is getting into an online world and bashing stuff!
I'll be one sad dude if this very promising game doesn't have mounts. Mounts are fun and they make world PvP a blast!
We Want Mounts!(and airwaves)
Here fixed it for you! Because not all of us want mounts if they are just going to be the equivalent of designer jeans that make you run faster. If they have more function then a speed boast I am all for mounts being in game!
I think this could be countered with a call function similar to Harvest Moon (yes I know it's a farming game) so you see the mount run off into the horizon, returning to a stable after being dismissed. There could also be a stable in your home instance, or not depending on the choices you made! The main reason I would like to see mounts in game is because it just fits the adventure theme. When I picture a courageous knight I can't picture him without a noble steed. It's like Shrek without Donkey! I am not saying mounts MUST be in the game I'm just saying they could exist in the game without causing problems. Dare I say, they could improve the overall feel of the game for manh individuals.
Any decision they make will cost them sales.
It's not possible to create a game that everybody will enjoy. It's just not. Especially when people often want conflicting things.
I think an MMORPG made based off of 'What do the masses want, exactly?' is how you end up with a crappy generic, bland game. Better if the game developers build what they want, so there's a much more unified, focused vision... even if it's not the unified focused vision some people will want.
(Because it's impossible to make a game EVERYBODY will want, anyway)
This can't work for the reason that what you're talking about is a single player RPG and this is an MMORPG, the chance that the mount will still run past someone and disappear right next to them is pretty high on the probability scale. And what about vehicles? Ghost cars? o_O So yeah, there are problems with that. As advanced as the charr are, I don't think they're quite at the point where they can make KITT.
Can I have a submarine? Preferably one with nukes.
I think the lack of mounts is quite odd considering the dev's made the specific point of showing off some rather sexy tank like vehicles in the new Charr trailer.
Personally I'm easy either way.
~Wolf
the tank like veichles might just be part of a mission sort of thing like the siege devourer in eye of the north.
I think those who played Guild Wars 1 know why mounts are not needed/wanted...I don't care but mounts are really not talked about in any of the lore or game...ill enjoy the walk...
and if anyone is really on the fence about a game due to lack of mounts.....grow up?