Since this thread is 38+ pages long, it seems the answer is "No".
Yeah it's because people can't listen to someone's opinion if it disagrees with theirs for some reason. For example, I said earlier on this thread that I felt GW2 would do better than SWTOR based on what I have seen thus far and the impressions of people that played the game.
This of course caused several rabid TOR-aligned posters to jump all over me, despite that fact that I'm basically just speculating, and know that I'm speculating. They're trying to "disprove" my opinion, which is pretty funny when you think about it .
The funny thing is, I'm probably going to play both games. I just feel that GW2 is going to be a better game. I also feel that Europa Universalis 3 is a better game than Civ 5...this doesn't stop me from playing Civ 5 when I'm in the mood though.
Sigh. There you go again, continuing to do the same. 'checking if I know what ad hominem means', really? That's sidetracking what the topic was about and another personally directed attack, implying as if the conversation is about whether I know what 'ad hominem' means or not. It's a dirty tactic, it seems like you're the kind of person who likes insulting other posters and attacking their credibility instead of debating in a reasonable, sensible manner, a clear case of someone who looks up conflict and flamewars and bathes in it, your arguments clearly can't be trusted since they lack reason and are only intended to flamebait
... was that ad hominem enough for you?
Sure, after you checked what AAH is. Good joob for me, got one forumgoer educated.
His correct use of the term leads me to believe he doesn't need to check what it means, and your insistence on this nonesence kind of confirmes him.
My thoughts on this whole debate:
1. It was ad hominem. The second poster argued that the original poster's argument was false because he hasn't brought up the fact that he played GW2 before and thus lacks credibility. Sounds like ad hominem to me.
2. The original poster's argument is just an opinion, and not even applicable to the whole SWTOR versus GW2 "debate." The original poster said that he didn't like GW2 because it was the same old tab-targeting stuff for combat etc. First, it's just his opinion. Second, SWTOR is also tab-target I believe so he probably wouldn't like either game.
Woah 39 pages in what a day? Someone needs to find out if that is an MMORPG.com record.
Oh but as far as Casey Schreiner goes, though I kind of agree with him on this one point, I almost always disagree with what he says. Yet I still waste 5 mins of my week watching his show hoping that once in a while he'll say something I don't find completely idiotic, but it rarely happens.
Hrm...I have a lot of faith in GW2, but I don't see how it can beat any game since it's Buy 2 Play...Think of it, how many of us play an MMO while also having an ongoing game on our Xbox/Ps3? It's essentially the same thing, except that GW2 will have a persistant world.
But I never played Guild Wars exclusively. I bought every expansion and played on and off while I maintained a subscription elsewhere. At first it was Aion, these days it's City of Heroes. I fully expect it'll be the same way when GW2 comes. I'll buy it and every expansion, play as I like, and maintain a sub somewhere else...where that somewhere else is going to be is the real question. Likely candidates are TERA or Blade and Soul, but who knows.
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
Sigh. There you go again, continuing to do the same. 'checking if I know what ad hominem means', really? That's sidetracking what the topic was about and another personally directed attack, implying as if the conversation is about whether I know what 'ad hominem' means or not. It's a dirty tactic, it seems like you're the kind of person who likes insulting other posters and attacking their credibility instead of debating in a reasonable, sensible manner, a clear case of someone who looks up conflict and flamewars and bathes in it, your arguments clearly can't be trusted since they lack reason and are only intended to flamebait
... was that ad hominem enough for you?
Sure, after you checked what AAH is. Good joob for me, got one forumgoer educated.
His correct use of the term leads me to believe he doesn't need to check what it means, and your insistence on this nonesence kind of confirmes him.
My thoughts on this whole debate:
1. It was ad hominem. The second poster argued that the original poster's argument was false because he hasn't brought up the fact that he played GW2 before and thus lacks credibility. Sounds like ad hominem to me.
2. The original poster's argument is just an opinion, and not even applicable to the whole SWTOR versus GW2 "debate." The original poster said that he didn't like GW2 because it was the same old tab-targeting stuff for combat etc. First, it's just his opinion. Second, SWTOR is also tab-target I believe so he probably wouldn't like either game.
From what I understand ad hominem to mean, we cannot clearly state that my comment towards the orginal poster was an ad hominem. Mainly because I never used his truth against him, I never said that "because you played GW2 you are wrong." I basically said "why is this the first time I've heard you speak of playing GW2 if your playing of GW2 is even the truth?" and on top of that I challenged his tab-targeting argument which he never even tried to dispute! But anyway, I do not feel what transpired is an accurate example of what an Ad hominem is.
So I think both GW2 and SWTOR are going to be good games in thier own right. I think that TOR will have MUCH more content with the 200 hrs for each class story +++. I think GW2 dynamic events are going to be refrashing and have more depth than RIFTs.
That being said, I watched several combat segments and some of the underwater footage. While It looks good it does not look any more compelling than watching DCUO combat and not THAT much better or more action packed than TOR.
Need to wait and see but I think they will both do fine. As to which one is better we will only know on release but TOR will be out for some time before GW2.
Sigh. There you go again, continuing to do the same. 'checking if I know what ad hominem means', really? That's sidetracking what the topic was about and another personally directed attack, implying as if the conversation is about whether I know what 'ad hominem' means or not. It's a dirty tactic, it seems like you're the kind of person who likes insulting other posters and attacking their credibility instead of debating in a reasonable, sensible manner, a clear case of someone who looks up conflict and flamewars and bathes in it, your arguments clearly can't be trusted since they lack reason and are only intended to flamebait
... was that ad hominem enough for you?
Sure, after you checked what AAH is. Good joob for me, got one forumgoer educated.
His correct use of the term leads me to believe he doesn't need to check what it means, and your insistence on this nonesence kind of confirmes him.
My thoughts on this whole debate:
1. It was ad hominem. The second poster argued that the original poster's argument was false because he hasn't brought up the fact that he played GW2 before and thus lacks credibility. Sounds like ad hominem to me.
2. The original poster's argument is just an opinion, and not even applicable to the whole SWTOR versus GW2 "debate." The original poster said that he didn't like GW2 because it was the same old tab-targeting stuff for combat etc. First, it's just his opinion. Second, SWTOR is also tab-target I believe so he probably wouldn't like either game.
From what I understand ad hominem to mean, we cannot clearly state that my comment towards the orginal poster was an ad hominem. Mainly because I never used his truth against him, I never said that "because you played GW2 you are wrong." I basically said "why is this the first time I've heard you speak of playing GW2 if your playing of GW2 is even the truth?" and on top of that I challenged his tab-targeting argument which he never even tried to dispute! But anyway, I do not feel what transpired is an accurate example of what an Ad hominem is.
I suppose the whole ad homimem thing is "iffy" in this case, but I still think it is.
Your argument is basically that he is lying about playing GW2 because you feel he would have mentioned it earlier if he did. But what is this argument based on if not his lack of credibility as a person?
If you believed him to be a credible person, or did not put his credibility into question, then I don't think you would have a problem believing that he indeed played GW2 but just didn't think to mention it.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
From what I understand ad hominem to mean, we cannot clearly state that my comment towards the orginal poster was an ad hominem. Mainly because I never used his truth against him, I never said that "because you played GW2 you are wrong." I basically said "why is this the first time I've heard you speak of playing GW2 if your playing of GW2 is even the truth?" and on top of that I challenged his tab-targeting argument which he never even tried to dispute! But anyway, I do not feel what transpired is an accurate example of what an Ad hominem is.
? This is going offtopic so I leave it at this post.
This is what you said:
Lol, you know why I know you haven't played this game? Firstly, this is the FIRST TIME I've ever read that you've played the game. Secondly, there isn't any tab targeting. Please try to be a better liar.
Let's not soften this. You called him a liar. You directed your arguments directly towards him, not towards his arguments. You questioned and attacked his credibility for the simple fact he didn't mention his playtime experiences before, thus implying that his comments about GW2 were false and not to be believed. So... well, anyway, draw your own conclusions from that, I'm going to leave it at this
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
From what I understand ad hominem to mean, we cannot clearly state that my comment towards the orginal poster was an ad hominem. Mainly because I never used his truth against him, I never said that "because you played GW2 you are wrong." I basically said "why is this the first time I've heard you speak of playing GW2 if your playing of GW2 is even the truth?" and on top of that I challenged his tab-targeting argument which he never even tried to dispute! But anyway, I do not feel what transpired is an accurate example of what an Ad hominem is.
I suppose the whole ad homimem thing is "iffy" in this case, but I still think it is.
Your argument is basically that he is lying about playing GW2 because you feel he would have mentioned it earlier if he did. But what is this argument based on if not his lack of credibility as a person?
If you believed him to be a credible person, or did not put his credibility into question, then I don't think you would have a problem believing that he indeed played GW2 but just didn't think to mention it.
Though I don't think it's implemented exactly the same as WoW.
I guess the ad hominem can be seen when I say "the reason why I think you're lying is because you haven't mentioned this before" but even then it is quite "iffy". And of course IF the poster's credibility to me was high I wouldn't dispute what he said.
I know it has tab-targeting now since I did my quick back-check but it would have been cool if the original poster was able to reaffirm that, which he did not.
From what I understand ad hominem to mean, we cannot clearly state that my comment towards the orginal poster was an ad hominem. Mainly because I never used his truth against him, I never said that "because you played GW2 you are wrong." I basically said "why is this the first time I've heard you speak of playing GW2 if your playing of GW2 is even the truth?" and on top of that I challenged his tab-targeting argument which he never even tried to dispute! But anyway, I do not feel what transpired is an accurate example of what an Ad hominem is.
? This is going offtopic so I leave it at this post.
This is what you said:
Lol, you know why I know you haven't played this game? Firstly, this is the FIRST TIME I've ever read that you've played the game. Secondly, there isn't any tab targeting. Please try to be a better liar.
Let's not soften this. You called him a liar. You directed your arguments directly towards him, not towards his arguments. You questioned and attacked his credibility for the simple fact he didn't mention his playtime experiences before, thus implying that his comments about GW2 were false and not to be believed. So... well, anyway, draw your own conclusions from that, I'm going to leave it at this
Yes yes, my wording could have been a little softer. I guess I was just running on tiger blood at the time.
Surely ppl moving from one AAA MMO to another arent gonna be "shocked". He makes it sound like SWtor is the next darkfall, earthrise or mortal online (no offense, if you enjoy these games then thumbs up! but they are not AAA titles).
And I read somewhere that GW1 sold many many millions of copies at least in part due to not having a subscription requirement. To think GW2 with the same payment model would do much worse would really be upsetting. SWtor has no realistic chance of attracting and keeping millions and millions of subs. If that's what he means.
If he just means gameplay wise, then I'm sure those playing respective game will think its the better one as taste is rather subjective.
So he's really not putting his neck out there is he? I'm sorry but GW2 fans everywhere, you are not some kind of underdog here. I know you like to play that card with ArenaNet etc, but no.
I hate to say it (because I'll probably be playing SW:TOR) and May try GW2 but I'm predicting the same. Though I don't see GW2 making more money than SW:TOR without expansions which will probably sell more and bring income in than SW:TOR expansions and subscriptions which would be less in number and sales (though a cash shop might boost SW:TOR's income higher if its done in way that its community tolerates or even likes and GW2 doesn't supplement their income with a Cash Shop/micro-transaction content sales and/or expansions).
(since it already appears that Star War fans in general are very divided in opinion of Star Wars:The Old Republic [happy I used the name instead of acronym?] - which will hurt its sales - Bioware fans are even divided due the art & playstyle of it [different from any of there other titles] - which leaves MMO fans - its Not that revolutionary but it is the latest Big thing so mixed results there as well and with increasing quality competition from F2P games out nowadays as well as surviving P2P MMO's it looks like it will have a big Initial sales due to Hype and typical drop afterwards [I don't imagine the drop will be as sudden or bad as most MMO's though]).
Surely ppl moving from one AAA MMO to another arent gonna be "shocked". He makes it sound like SWtor is the next darkfall, earthrise or mortal online (no offense, if you enjoy these games then thumbs up! but they are not AAA titles).
And I read somewhere that GW1 sold many many millions of copies at least in part due to not having a subscription requirement. To think GW2 with the same payment model would do much worse would really be upsetting. SWtor has no realistic chance of attracting and keeping millions and millions of subs. If that's what he means.
If he just means gameplay wise, then I'm sure those playing respective game will think its the better one as taste is rather subjective.
So he's really not putting his neck out there is he? I'm sorry but GW2 fans everywhere, you are not some kind of underdog here. I know you like to play that card with ArenaNet etc, but no.
GW2 is getting far less coverage than SW:TOR though. Only recently it got a boost in attention from the press due to the Fanday.
Surely ppl moving from one AAA MMO to another arent gonna be "shocked". He makes it sound like SWtor is the next darkfall, earthrise or mortal online (no offense, if you enjoy these games then thumbs up! but they are not AAA titles).
And I read somewhere that GW1 sold many many millions of copies at least in part due to not having a subscription requirement. To think GW2 with the same payment model would do much worse would really be upsetting. SWtor has no realistic chance of attracting and keeping millions and millions of subs. If that's what he means.
If he just means gameplay wise, then I'm sure those playing respective game will think its the better one as taste is rather subjective.
So he's really not putting his neck out there is he? I'm sorry but GW2 fans everywhere, you are not some kind of underdog here. I know you like to play that card with ArenaNet etc, but no.
well we were, atleast until gamescom 2010 GW2 was just the hobo hiding under the bridge while SW:TOR passed through it inside an awesome limo...
Dont get me wrong, I follow GW2, but the last thing I want is people tagging the fans for being overhyped. overzealous people(which may a bit be true..) like darkpony says, due to such declarations...
"It has potential" -Second most used phrase on existence "It sucks" -Most used phrase on existence
well we were, atleast until gamescom 2010 GW2 was just the hobo hiding under the bridge while SW:TOR passed through it inside an awesome limo...
Dont get me wrong, I follow GW2, but the last thing I want is people tagging the fans for being overhyped. overzealous people(which may a bit be true..) like darkpony says, due to such declarations...
GW2 fans are going to end up being so disappointed w/ the "event" system.
Definitely possible. I think I have a fairly realistic view of what the event system will be. I basically see it as a fairly elaborate network of branching public quests that move down different branches dependent on whether the players "beat" the current state that the Dynamic Event (DE) is in. There are of course a finite number of individual "public quests" in each DE. So once you've seen all of them for any given DE, it won't be very exciting anymore.
Personally, I still think that's awesome, and WAY better than the quest system. My biggest gripe with the quest system is that it basically kills exploration, you get a quest, go to objective, return. At least with DE's you will just explore the world (or follow a tip) and find stuff happening that you can participate in. Much more immersive and fun in my opinion.
However, I think some people probably see it as some "magical" system that's going to create an infinite amount of dynamic content, so that the world will always be fresh. This obviously will not be the case, and ANet has never really sold it as such. I can see where these people will be disappointed.
Comments
I don't know, I ask that same question every time people start claiming that a new mmo will dethrone World of Warcraft.
Yeah it's because people can't listen to someone's opinion if it disagrees with theirs for some reason. For example, I said earlier on this thread that I felt GW2 would do better than SWTOR based on what I have seen thus far and the impressions of people that played the game.
This of course caused several rabid TOR-aligned posters to jump all over me, despite that fact that I'm basically just speculating, and know that I'm speculating. They're trying to "disprove" my opinion, which is pretty funny when you think about it
.
The funny thing is, I'm probably going to play both games. I just feel that GW2 is going to be a better game. I also feel that Europa Universalis 3 is a better game than Civ 5...this doesn't stop me from playing Civ 5 when I'm in the mood though.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
My thoughts on this whole debate:
1. It was ad hominem. The second poster argued that the original poster's argument was false because he hasn't brought up the fact that he played GW2 before and thus lacks credibility. Sounds like ad hominem to me.
2. The original poster's argument is just an opinion, and not even applicable to the whole SWTOR versus GW2 "debate." The original poster said that he didn't like GW2 because it was the same old tab-targeting stuff for combat etc. First, it's just his opinion. Second, SWTOR is also tab-target I believe so he probably wouldn't like either game.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Woah 39 pages in what a day? Someone needs to find out if that is an MMORPG.com record.
Oh but as far as Casey Schreiner goes, though I kind of agree with him on this one point, I almost always disagree with what he says. Yet I still waste 5 mins of my week watching his show hoping that once in a while he'll say something I don't find completely idiotic, but it rarely happens.
Hrm...I have a lot of faith in GW2, but I don't see how it can beat any game since it's Buy 2 Play...Think of it, how many of us play an MMO while also having an ongoing game on our Xbox/Ps3? It's essentially the same thing, except that GW2 will have a persistant world.
But I never played Guild Wars exclusively. I bought every expansion and played on and off while I maintained a subscription elsewhere. At first it was Aion, these days it's City of Heroes. I fully expect it'll be the same way when GW2 comes. I'll buy it and every expansion, play as I like, and maintain a sub somewhere else...where that somewhere else is going to be is the real question. Likely candidates are TERA or Blade and Soul, but who knows.
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
From what I understand ad hominem to mean, we cannot clearly state that my comment towards the orginal poster was an ad hominem. Mainly because I never used his truth against him, I never said that "because you played GW2 you are wrong." I basically said "why is this the first time I've heard you speak of playing GW2 if your playing of GW2 is even the truth?" and on top of that I challenged his tab-targeting argument which he never even tried to dispute! But anyway, I do not feel what transpired is an accurate example of what an Ad hominem is.
This is not a game.
Should I even be surprised that he said Gw2 is better than SWTOR?
I should be even more surprised that he hadn't mention GW2 until now.
So I think both GW2 and SWTOR are going to be good games in thier own right. I think that TOR will have MUCH more content with the 200 hrs for each class story +++. I think GW2 dynamic events are going to be refrashing and have more depth than RIFTs.
That being said, I watched several combat segments and some of the underwater footage. While It looks good it does not look any more compelling than watching DCUO combat and not THAT much better or more action packed than TOR.
Need to wait and see but I think they will both do fine. As to which one is better we will only know on release but TOR will be out for some time before GW2.
I suppose the whole ad homimem thing is "iffy" in this case, but I still think it is.
Your argument is basically that he is lying about playing GW2 because you feel he would have mentioned it earlier if he did. But what is this argument based on if not his lack of credibility as a person?
If you believed him to be a credible person, or did not put his credibility into question, then I don't think you would have a problem believing that he indeed played GW2 but just didn't think to mention it.
Also, on the whole tab targeting thing, GW2 DOES have tab targeting: http://www.guildwars2guru.com/forum/skills-that-require-enemy-targeti-t17364.html.
Though I don't think it's implemented exactly the same as WoW.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I bet 6 - 12 months post release GW2 will have zero subs!
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
? This is going offtopic so I leave it at this post.
This is what you said:
Lol, you know why I know you haven't played this game? Firstly, this is the FIRST TIME I've ever read that you've played the game. Secondly, there isn't any tab targeting. Please try to be a better liar.
Let's not soften this. You called him a liar. You directed your arguments directly towards him, not towards his arguments. You questioned and attacked his credibility for the simple fact he didn't mention his playtime experiences before, thus implying that his comments about GW2 were false and not to be believed. So... well, anyway, draw your own conclusions from that, I'm going to leave it at this
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
I guess the ad hominem can be seen when I say "the reason why I think you're lying is because you haven't mentioned this before" but even then it is quite "iffy". And of course IF the poster's credibility to me was high I wouldn't dispute what he said.
I know it has tab-targeting now since I did my quick back-check but it would have been cool if the original poster was able to reaffirm that, which he did not.
This is not a game.
Yes yes, my wording could have been a little softer. I guess I was just running on tiger blood at the time.
This is not a game.
I'm a GW2 fan, but I will refrain myself from posting my opinion on this subject.
Therefore I'm proud of myself. =D
Eat me!
Casey drinks beer, has a killer beard, and is witty; isn't that enough to trust him?
Oh geez when I read the title I was like "here we go again"
"It has potential"
-Second most used phrase on existence
"It sucks"
-Most used phrase on existence
One thing I learned from this thread was that we were trolled by Casey. Your epic trollage knows no bounds!
BOOYAKA!
Didn't expect this tbh. I hoped we'll see some civil and well argumented discussion.
Surely ppl moving from one AAA MMO to another arent gonna be "shocked". He makes it sound like SWtor is the next darkfall, earthrise or mortal online (no offense, if you enjoy these games then thumbs up! but they are not AAA titles).
And I read somewhere that GW1 sold many many millions of copies at least in part due to not having a subscription requirement. To think GW2 with the same payment model would do much worse would really be upsetting. SWtor has no realistic chance of attracting and keeping millions and millions of subs. If that's what he means.
If he just means gameplay wise, then I'm sure those playing respective game will think its the better one as taste is rather subjective.
So he's really not putting his neck out there is he? I'm sorry but GW2 fans everywhere, you are not some kind of underdog here. I know you like to play that card with ArenaNet etc, but no.
I hate to say it (because I'll probably be playing SW:TOR) and May try GW2 but I'm predicting the same. Though I don't see GW2 making more money than SW:TOR without expansions which will probably sell more and bring income in than SW:TOR expansions and subscriptions which would be less in number and sales (though a cash shop might boost SW:TOR's income higher if its done in way that its community tolerates or even likes and GW2 doesn't supplement their income with a Cash Shop/micro-transaction content sales and/or expansions).
(since it already appears that Star War fans in general are very divided in opinion of Star Wars:The Old Republic [happy I used the name instead of acronym?] - which will hurt its sales - Bioware fans are even divided due the art & playstyle of it [different from any of there other titles] - which leaves MMO fans - its Not that revolutionary but it is the latest Big thing so mixed results there as well and with increasing quality competition from F2P games out nowadays as well as surviving P2P MMO's it looks like it will have a big Initial sales due to Hype and typical drop afterwards [I don't imagine the drop will be as sudden or bad as most MMO's though]).
GW2 is getting far less coverage than SW:TOR though. Only recently it got a boost in attention from the press due to the Fanday.
well we were, atleast until gamescom 2010 GW2 was just the hobo hiding under the bridge while SW:TOR passed through it inside an awesome limo...
Dont get me wrong, I follow GW2, but the last thing I want is people tagging the fans for being overhyped. overzealous people(which may a bit be true..) like darkpony says, due to such declarations...
"It has potential"
-Second most used phrase on existence
"It sucks"
-Most used phrase on existence
GW2 = Rocky
SWTOR = Apollo Creed
GW2 fans are going to end up being so disappointed w/ the "event" system.
Definitely possible. I think I have a fairly realistic view of what the event system will be. I basically see it as a fairly elaborate network of branching public quests that move down different branches dependent on whether the players "beat" the current state that the Dynamic Event (DE) is in. There are of course a finite number of individual "public quests" in each DE. So once you've seen all of them for any given DE, it won't be very exciting anymore.
Personally, I still think that's awesome, and WAY better than the quest system. My biggest gripe with the quest system is that it basically kills exploration, you get a quest, go to objective, return. At least with DE's you will just explore the world (or follow a tip) and find stuff happening that you can participate in. Much more immersive and fun in my opinion.
However, I think some people probably see it as some "magical" system that's going to create an infinite amount of dynamic content, so that the world will always be fresh. This obviously will not be the case, and ANet has never really sold it as such. I can see where these people will be disappointed.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?