Yeah, but instead of riding around exploring the countryside, you're teleporting from place to place like Ganon in the old LoZ cartoons...
*snaps fingers and teleports out of the thread to avoid the flames*
Well, Ganon was the only reason worth watching that show. (Much like Team Rocket with Pokemon.) He actually had a sense of humour, as opposed to Link who was just obnoxious. >_> I'm not sure what it was about '80s/'90s cartoons, but the villains were often more sympathetic and enjoyable than the heroes. Odd!
Regardless, I have no issues with teleporting around like Ganon!
Adding mounts to the game wouldn't break anything. It's just a waste of time and resources that could have been spent adding real content or nifty features to the game instead. Why would you want a 50% speed boost from a mount when you can instantly warp to where you're going? Make it a 100% speed boost or 200% and it doesn't change the situation.
And it's not like games need mounts in order to work. Games that are designed around being a pain if you don't have a mount tend to be bad games, anyway. I can't think of a single game I've liked that did have mounts.
The problem is is that once you chip away at the people who want mounts, 90 per cent of them eventually admit in one way or another that it's all about the one-upmanship. That's the problem. People use mounts to separate themselves from the 'lesser peons,' but in GW2 there's none of this player classism or separation. Everyone can do everything, and at all times.
Now, mounts are unnecessary because of waypoints and speed boosts which already exist in the game. There's no need for mounts because everyone has the same advantage. But if you add mounts, then eventually people are going to bitch about needing bigger and better mounts. Faster mounts, shinier mounts, and that's what it's all about. Interpersonal competition to try and make lesser people feel like crap, to try and create haves and have-nots. But again, GW2 does not embrace this.
Furthermore, for the 10 per cent that genuinely want mounts just because they like them and not as one-upmanship, I will point out the above. What you think does not reflect the majority who want mounts, adding mounts will be maleficent to the spirit of the game because of them. They're going to ruin it for everyone. So the best solution is to keep mounts out.
So what happens is people start carrying on for faster, showier mounts. What this means is that instead of keeping the zones of hte game a uniform size, they have to get bigger, bigger, and bigger. And as they get bigger, they get emptier. If you look at WoW, some of the high-end zones are almost dead. Uldum is a lovely example. It has some lovely areas, but it also has some really empty ones with mobs sparsely spread out.
It's sort of like 'land inflation.' Because they need to add faster mounts, but they also need to make the content feel substantial so that you can't get from one end to the other in a few seconds. Hence why Gilneas, for example, is a tiny but feature-filled zone, whereas Uldum has pretty areas, but mostly it's just a big, empty thing. That's the curse of mounts, and it's really detrimental to the game, and this is why I hope to never see player mounts in the game.
That said...
I do hope that we see some environment mounts and zones designed for them. Essentially, a zone where you get on a mount and your skill bar changes, so for that zone you get to enjoy some mounted combat, but if you try to leave that zone the mount kicks you off and runs back to its stables. That I'd be more than okay with. I'd love that. But giving players permanent mounts is bad for all the reasons I've covered.
What you said is 100% correct. I like to see OP and others counter agree what you said, only problem is that I feel their argument is going to be based on A=B therefore B=A [fallacy argument]. So far I haven't seen one remotely decent argument from the OP and others besides their illogical reasoning.
I can understand your sentiment. I really don't buy into the "mounts occupy a lot space" argument for that can be easily solved in a variety of manners. I enjoy mounts, and I especially enjoy mounted combat. It's just one of those things that's nice to have in a game and that adds an interesting dynamic to the gameplay. I can live without them, but I also do not comprehend the overall hate towards such a feature in some of these forums.
Adding mounts to the game wouldn't break anything. It's just a waste of time and resources that could have been spent adding real content or nifty features to the game instead. Why would you want a 50% speed boost from a mount when you can instantly warp to where you're going? Make it a 100% speed boost or 200% and it doesn't change the situation.
And it's not like games need mounts in order to work. Games that are designed around being a pain if you don't have a mount tend to be bad games, anyway. I can't think of a single game I've liked that did have mounts.
Well that's some awkward taste for games you have there.. You didn't enjoy Skyrim, Oblivion, Assassin's Creed, Battlefield, etc?
i was reading a post on another GW2 forum and it just seems there is a lot of hate for anyone who wants mounts added to the game, and really i just don't get it. I mean i understand that "fanbois" will take a developers word as a commandment and rationalize any decision as being "best for the game".
but no mounts? really? this is gamebreaking? every major MMORPG since EQ1 has had mounts (either from the start or added later) and it didn't break that game.
so tell me how exactly mounts would ruin GW2, even with fast travel and all that some people just enjoy seeing their character on a armored horse or some other mythical beast.
its just not gamebreaking and hell i consider having mounts a basic to any MMORPG.
I dont get it why players like yourself feel the need that an mmo requires a mount just because other games had them, there are no need for them, and like you said in your statement not all MMO's released with mounts ingame, so there is a possibiity that Anet might add them in later. I dont hate mounts, I just dont see the need to have them in GW2 when there is an easy way to travel around the world already implimented, and I really hope that Anet doesnt cave in and introduce mounts to this game.
Well, first of all i got my own oppinion so please don't yell at me, but i think it's good for this game to not have mounts in it, why? well what would they add? beside being big creatures, they don't do that much, you don't use mounts for anything in this game, if you can fight on mounts i would love to see some, but you can't, so mostly they are just big and clumsy, "ruining the view" in the way that most mounts aren't even connected to lore, and are just big weird creatures in weird colors standing, jumping around to get your attention.
Now I do not hate mounts, and i agree in some games that there should be mounts in it, but in guild wars 2 you simply won't have any use for them at all, and before you begin thinking, well thats just stupid, don't you like skyrim? assassins creed or wow? well this is a new game, and it stands out for any other game so it dosn't have to follow the same game recipe that any other mmos do, and skyrim, well it's a good game, I myself used a mount now and then to travel, but that was because you needed to travel far to get to new content, in gw 2 there will be content packed together so you don't have to travel a mile or more, and assassins creed don't have mounts only in brotherhood, and thats because rome was a big city, and you needed a easy way to travel fast to get to content, same as skyrim, you don't need to travel far in gw 2 to get to any content, and last wow, well wow is a great reason why gw2 SHOULDN'T have mounts, and i know i'm a hater, but i played wow many years now, and let me say it a nice way: when many people got diffrent mounts and join in these big groups, it just looks ridiculous, seriously, but i got to admit that they are useful because you have to travel long ways, but still, gw2 dosn't want players to fall asleep while autorunning through an entire continent, they want us to have fun and don't use time on traveling a half mile to get to the fun stuff, and well thats my oppinion you might aswell have your own, so share, but please don't be cruel to me x3
Even if you can think of workarounds or solutions so that their impact on gameplay is minimized, it's still not improving gameplay, it's just trying to fix problems that mounts created.
I don't need to come up with a reason why having no mounts is good for GW2, they aren't in the game. I happen to agree with the current system that keeps mounts as something special by making them only part of certain events and minigames and not something that everyone has and/or needs. If that means sacrificing the ability of people to ride anywhere in a game that has teleportation then I'm on board with that. Sorry you're not.
I'm sorry too. I would love to love the current system because the game looks absolutely fantastic for the most part, and I'd like to see the game as even better for my tastest. I'm glad you like the current system better, however, I dont agree with the attitude "it's still not improving gameplay" when in fact it is improving gameplay for every player who likes mounts, I'm sorry but you dont get to decide if it improves gameplay for anyone else than you. It certainly would improve gameplay for me, and for many others, and as I said the game does not have to be designed in a way that mounts would harm DE's or such. The performance issue could be the only real, or noticeable issue imo, but that's just like any visual feature, why not cut a down a bit the excessive effect storm ;P
But you are right, they are not in and that's that for the moment. If there's truly so many people who dont wish mounts at all, and many who does, a good solution would be to create a couple of server types where there is only big fast travel locations, and instead of the small ones there would be mounts, and then the rest of the servers with the teleporter inflation mechanics.
Whyyyyy! Can someone explain me the obsession with mounts??? WHAT IS SO FREAKING AWESOME ABOUT THEM??
What is so cool about stoppping yourself after every fight just to summon a mount to get to te next point 0.1 sec sooner? I honestly Dont get it!!??
For me it's the same as if gamers were wishing for a hug emote in every game...Just downright absurd and worthless...I seriously feel like im taking crazy pills here..
Chill pill time rather I've already said that it's not a gamebreaker, it wont affect my final decision about buying this game, certainly not an obsession. I just like the feature very much and dont see any downsides for having them in a mmorpg, even with forests of teleports around every freaking step. I bought a motorcycle irl just because I like to ride, it's just fluff, I have a car and public transports already, and I dont need it in combat lol or anything like that (which you could have in a fantasy game), but I paid 10k for it because I like to ride. If you dont think mounts are awesome, why do you even care? If you are against them.... WHYYYY OMG WHYYYY WHAT'S SO NOT AWESOME ABOUT THEM??
I have 2 reasons for no mounts in GW2, first, and the non-important one, it breaks immersion, some can say that mounts are more roleplay, etc... Thats a fragrant LIE when you are mounted inside houses and inside the cities, no thanks.
Second, and the real important one, in Tyria there are no horses, is not in the lore, the only races that use "mounts" are slavist ones, like the Stone Summit Dwarves and the ancient Charr and they ride Devourers and big beasts, the only thing that looks like a horse in Tyria are the kirin and undead constructions. In Tyria you use Dolyaks to transport things for the world, but you never ride them either.
The problem is is that once you chip away at the people who want mounts, 90 per cent of them eventually admit in one way or another that it's all about the one-upmanship. That's the problem. People use mounts to separate themselves from the 'lesser peons,' but in GW2 there's none of this player classism or separation. Everyone can do everything, and at all times.
Stopped reading right there because I couldnt care less about what you think about my mount in game. I could be the better person anyway compared to a lesser peon, by shinier gear and other means aswell.
1) not having mounts is not game breaking. its a personal preference of yours, not something that doesnt work correctly
2) who cares really? Lets just say for example if Aion had been in EQs place, and most games made after it also had wings allowing you to fly around. Would you be throwing a fit every time a game came out that didnt give you winged characters?
3) again who cares. wether its on a mount or not, youre still just running around. ffs you people act like they cut off your legs and said youre not allowed to move at all. its simply an aesthetic that some people prefer but that certainly doesnt mean everyone else wants it too, and it certainly is not a required mechanic.
Pretty sure he thinks more of cosmetic value and character progress, lets say you could do some elite event and get rewarded with tokens that lets you buy a mount. Yes, in GW2 you don't need mounts to run around faster. But I would not mind having mounts purely for the cosmetic value and feel of accomplishment.
I have 2 reasons for no mounts in GW2, first, and the non-important one, it breaks immersion, some can say that mounts are more roleplay, etc... Thats a fragrant LIE when you are mounted inside houses and inside the cities, no thanks.
Second, and the real important one, in Tyria there are no horses, is not in the lore, the only races that use "mounts" are slavist ones, like the Stone Summit Dwarves and the ancient Charr and they ride Devourers and big beasts, the only thing that looks like a horse in Tyria are the kirin and undead constructions. In Tyria you use Dolyaks to transport things for the world, but you never ride them either.
First, I find clicking on a map to appear there instantly a lot more immersion breaking than riding some suitable creature around.
I have 2 reasons for no mounts in GW2, first, and the non-important one, it breaks immersion, some can say that mounts are more roleplay, etc... Thats a fragrant LIE when you are mounted inside houses and inside the cities, no thanks.
Second, and the real important one, in Tyria there are no horses, is not in the lore, the only races that use "mounts" are slavist ones, like the Stone Summit Dwarves and the ancient Charr and they ride Devourers and big beasts, the only thing that looks like a horse in Tyria are the kirin and undead constructions. In Tyria you use Dolyaks to transport things for the world, but you never ride them either.
How can immersion be an argument when mounts are replaced with map teleportation? I don't remember people sitting on mounts indoors in SWG, probably because you couldn't, but hey a bad implementation =/= no other way...
No one else rides anything in Tyria? what kind of counter productive society is this? Sounds more like lore trying to make up for a lack of something in an earlier game to promote immersion into it.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I have 2 reasons for no mounts in GW2, first, and the non-important one, it breaks immersion, some can say that mounts are more roleplay, etc... Thats a fragrant LIE when you are mounted inside houses and inside the cities, no thanks.
Second, and the real important one, in Tyria there are no horses, is not in the lore, the only races that use "mounts" are slavist ones, like the Stone Summit Dwarves and the ancient Charr and they ride Devourers and big beasts, the only thing that looks like a horse in Tyria are the kirin and undead constructions. In Tyria you use Dolyaks to transport things for the world, but you never ride them either.
*Turns around*...*Jumps off a bridge.*
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
I have 2 reasons for no mounts in GW2, first, and the non-important one, it breaks immersion, some can say that mounts are more roleplay, etc... Thats a fragrant LIE when you are mounted inside houses and inside the cities, no thanks.
Second, and the real important one, in Tyria there are no horses, is not in the lore, the only races that use "mounts" are slavist ones, like the Stone Summit Dwarves and the ancient Charr and they ride Devourers and big beasts, the only thing that looks like a horse in Tyria are the kirin and undead constructions. In Tyria you use Dolyaks to transport things for the world, but you never ride them either.
I also don't understand why there are no mounts. I don't hold it against the dev team for not implementing them and that's fine, but it still doesn't mean I have to agree with it. I have ot agree that the immersion argument is pretty useles as stated that teleportation is ok, but having a mount isn't?
I understand that the teleportation system makes mounts, for the most part, useless. I also understand that GW lore and the first game didn't have mounts and the game used teleportation. What I also understand, for me, was the teleportatin in GW1 was the main reason my wife refused to play and I have to say it made the game feel hollow. Anyone can feel free to tell me that my opinion is wrong and I have no clue what I am talking about, but the games teleporation system made the game world feel even more like a lobby game than usual. I'd get a quest, go do said quest, and then port back to town (losing my group) only to reform the group turn in, and do it again. The game world wound up feeling even smaller to me.
While I can't say this will be the same in GW2, I can say from my experiences with MMO's that GW1's teleportation system was the ONLY time I ever felt this way about a world and travel so the track record, for me, speaks for itself. I know the teleportation is optional and if you don't like it you don't have to use it, but the game doesn't offer an alternative to getting to the DE content aside from walking so it is a viable argument for those that would have liked to have seen mounts in the game. My own opinion is, if there were an option for mounts vs teleporatation, I'd go with mounts in a heartbeat based on my experiences in the past. I am a huge fan of the game, but let's not act like every decision they make is a perfect solution and will sit well with everyone and this just happens to be one of the few where I SMH.
I also don't understand why there are no mounts. I don't hold it against the dev team for not implementing them and that's fine, but it still doesn't mean I have to agree with it. I have ot agree that the immersion argument is pretty useles as stated that teleportation is ok, but having a mount isn't?
I understand that the teleportation system makes mounts, for the most part, useless. I also understand that GW lore and the first game didn't have mounts and the game used teleportation. What I also understand, for me, was the teleportatin in GW1 was the main reason my wife refused to play and I have to say it made the game feel hollow. Anyone can feel free to tell me that my opinion is wrong and I have no clue what I am talking about, but the games teleporation system made the game world feel even more like a lobby game than usual. I'd get a quest, go do said quest, and then port back to town (losing my group) only to reform the group turn in, and do it again. The game world wound up feeling even smaller to me.
While I can't say this will be the same in GW2, I can say from my experiences with MMO's that GW1's teleportation system was the ONLY time I ever felt this way about a world and travel so the track record, for me, speaks for itself. I know the teleportation is optional and if you don't like it you don't have to use it, but the game doesn't offer an alternative to getting to the DE content aside from walking so it is a viable argument for those that would have liked to have seen mounts in the game. My own opinion is, if there were an option for mounts vs teleporatation, I'd go with mounts in a heartbeat based on my experiences in the past. I am a huge fan of the game, but let's not act like every decision they make is a perfect solution and will sit well with everyone and this just happens to be one of the few where I SMH.
Yours is a valid concern. Some people prefer to sacrifice their time to feel more immersed in the world. Not much we can do to change that, as the quick travel system was made to save time.
Hope you can get over it. And hopefully the open world will make it feel less like a lobby game.
Yours is a valid concern. Some people prefer to sacrifice their time to feel more immersed in the world. Not much we can do to change that, as the quick travel system was made to save time.
Hope you can get over it. And hopefully the open world will make it feel less like a lobby game.
I never claimed I needed to get over it as I stated I am a huge fan. For me it wasn't about time, but about poorly implementation of the travel system. The first GW's travel system was shit due to dropping groups when you wanted to travel (except when going from safe zone to safe zone), when you ported you didn't end up in the same spot so it made finding your group members a pain at times, if the group size was 8 where you left and your group members had out heroes you had to dismiss them just to regroup when you hit zones that only allowed for 4 members, etc...
I have never had this problem when dealing with mounts as far as travel. I also stated that I can't say if this will be the case for GW2, because GW1 was the only game that I experienced this dislike for the instant travel, not to mention it is the only MMORPG that I have played that had no mounts and relied exclusively on quicktravel. I have even played FFXI and that game is on the polar opposite where there were no real mounts and travel was a pain, yet I still would take walking in that game over the way GW's travel played. Just hope GW2's system doesn't give me flashbacks to the nitemare I had trying to play with a trio in GW1.
I really don't see why there will be no mounts in GW2, it just seems to me that arenanet wanted to try to be innovative and not add them. For starters I really don't understand the "well teleporting is avaliable!" arguement for a few reasons. One reason is the fact that no one can tell me that I will have the ability to teleport at ANY PLACE in GW2. While I do believe that everyone will be able to teleport at popular / important places, I feel like a mount will save me more time if I need to go to, say a wasteland that teleportation dosen't bring me close to. Another reason is that teleporting takes way more depth out of the game then mounts do. Atleast with a mount I can see the scenery from point A to B while saving time, but with teleporting I miss it all togather. It dosen't need to even be mounts honestly, ide just enjoy some type of speed boost over teleporting.
FYI guys, I think Geobaldi was talking about the Cosmic Sparklemounts, those ten foot tall things which sparkle more than vampires and are filled with glitter and glow. Gods I've seen enough of those in other MMOs to last me a life time.
Cosmic Sparklemounts are pretty much 50% of my argument against them.
FYI guys, I think Geobaldi was talking about the Cosmic Sparklemounts, those ten foot tall things which sparkle more than vampires and are filled with glitter and glow. Gods I've seen enough of those in other MMOs to last me a life time.
Cosmic Sparklemounts are pretty much 50% of my argument against them.
Thanks but no thanks.
Only the abomination vampires that this twilight generation generated.
I have yet to like the way any game, MMO or single player game for that matter, has implemented mounts so far, although I really like how SWTOR implemented sprint as an always on toggle that re-engages after combat automatically and functions in water. They're inconvenient most of the time because you can't gather in them without dismounting, you have to mount and dismount for battle or if they let you stay mounted, then you have to deal with them getting killed all the time. As soon as you come across a puddle of water....dismount. The moment you want to use out in the field crafting skill like potions.....dismount. Too many games love to apply physics to mounts, making them goosey and skiddish and very annoying.
I'd rather have no mount or a toggle skill like TOR's sprint.
Comments
hahahaha...!!! that was actually very funny.
Well, Ganon was the only reason worth watching that show. (Much like Team Rocket with Pokemon.) He actually had a sense of humour, as opposed to Link who was just obnoxious. >_> I'm not sure what it was about '80s/'90s cartoons, but the villains were often more sympathetic and enjoyable than the heroes. Odd!
Regardless, I have no issues with teleporting around like Ganon!
Adding mounts to the game wouldn't break anything. It's just a waste of time and resources that could have been spent adding real content or nifty features to the game instead. Why would you want a 50% speed boost from a mount when you can instantly warp to where you're going? Make it a 100% speed boost or 200% and it doesn't change the situation.
And it's not like games need mounts in order to work. Games that are designed around being a pain if you don't have a mount tend to be bad games, anyway. I can't think of a single game I've liked that did have mounts.
What you said is 100% correct. I like to see OP and others counter agree what you said, only problem is that I feel their argument is going to be based on A=B therefore B=A [fallacy argument]. So far I haven't seen one remotely decent argument from the OP and others besides their illogical reasoning.
I personally would like mounts in game. If for nothing else just to ride around and explore the world in.
Fast travel / teleporting is fine with me, but should not exclude mounts in game.
Its not a game breaker for me by any means, but If I had a choice mounts would be in.
I can understand your sentiment. I really don't buy into the "mounts occupy a lot space" argument for that can be easily solved in a variety of manners. I enjoy mounts, and I especially enjoy mounted combat. It's just one of those things that's nice to have in a game and that adds an interesting dynamic to the gameplay. I can live without them, but I also do not comprehend the overall hate towards such a feature in some of these forums.
Well that's some awkward taste for games you have there.. You didn't enjoy Skyrim, Oblivion, Assassin's Creed, Battlefield, etc?
I dont get it why players like yourself feel the need that an mmo requires a mount just because other games had them, there are no need for them, and like you said in your statement not all MMO's released with mounts ingame, so there is a possibiity that Anet might add them in later. I dont hate mounts, I just dont see the need to have them in GW2 when there is an easy way to travel around the world already implimented, and I really hope that Anet doesnt cave in and introduce mounts to this game.
Well, first of all i got my own oppinion so please don't yell at me, but i think it's good for this game to not have mounts in it, why? well what would they add? beside being big creatures, they don't do that much, you don't use mounts for anything in this game, if you can fight on mounts i would love to see some, but you can't, so mostly they are just big and clumsy, "ruining the view" in the way that most mounts aren't even connected to lore, and are just big weird creatures in weird colors standing, jumping around to get your attention.
Now I do not hate mounts, and i agree in some games that there should be mounts in it, but in guild wars 2 you simply won't have any use for them at all, and before you begin thinking, well thats just stupid, don't you like skyrim? assassins creed or wow? well this is a new game, and it stands out for any other game so it dosn't have to follow the same game recipe that any other mmos do, and skyrim, well it's a good game, I myself used a mount now and then to travel, but that was because you needed to travel far to get to new content, in gw 2 there will be content packed together so you don't have to travel a mile or more, and assassins creed don't have mounts only in brotherhood, and thats because rome was a big city, and you needed a easy way to travel fast to get to content, same as skyrim, you don't need to travel far in gw 2 to get to any content, and last wow, well wow is a great reason why gw2 SHOULDN'T have mounts, and i know i'm a hater, but i played wow many years now, and let me say it a nice way: when many people got diffrent mounts and join in these big groups, it just looks ridiculous, seriously, but i got to admit that they are useful because you have to travel long ways, but still, gw2 dosn't want players to fall asleep while autorunning through an entire continent, they want us to have fun and don't use time on traveling a half mile to get to the fun stuff, and well thats my oppinion you might aswell have your own, so share, but please don't be cruel to me x3
Chill pill time rather
I've already said that it's not a gamebreaker, it wont affect my final decision about buying this game, certainly not an obsession. I just like the feature very much and dont see any downsides for having them in a mmorpg, even with forests of teleports around every freaking step. I bought a motorcycle irl just because I like to ride, it's just fluff, I have a car and public transports already, and I dont need it in combat lol or anything like that (which you could have in a fantasy game), but I paid 10k for it because I like to ride. If you dont think mounts are awesome, why do you even care? If you are against them.... WHYYYY OMG WHYYYY WHAT'S SO NOT AWESOME ABOUT THEM??
I have 2 reasons for no mounts in GW2, first, and the non-important one, it breaks immersion, some can say that mounts are more roleplay, etc... Thats a fragrant LIE when you are mounted inside houses and inside the cities, no thanks.
Second, and the real important one, in Tyria there are no horses, is not in the lore, the only races that use "mounts" are slavist ones, like the Stone Summit Dwarves and the ancient Charr and they ride Devourers and big beasts, the only thing that looks like a horse in Tyria are the kirin and undead constructions. In Tyria you use Dolyaks to transport things for the world, but you never ride them either.
Stopped reading right there because I couldnt care less about what you think about my mount in game. I could be the better person anyway compared to a lesser peon, by shinier gear and other means aswell.
Pretty sure he thinks more of cosmetic value and character progress, lets say you could do some elite event and get rewarded with tokens that lets you buy a mount. Yes, in GW2 you don't need mounts to run around faster. But I would not mind having mounts purely for the cosmetic value and feel of accomplishment.
First, I find clicking on a map to appear there instantly a lot more immersion breaking than riding some suitable creature around.
Second, who said mounts has to be horses?
How can immersion be an argument when mounts are replaced with map teleportation? I don't remember people sitting on mounts indoors in SWG, probably because you couldn't, but hey a bad implementation =/= no other way...
No one else rides anything in Tyria? what kind of counter productive society is this? Sounds more like lore trying to make up for a lack of something in an earlier game to promote immersion into it.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
*Turns around*...*Jumps off a bridge.*
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
well... centaurs but I agree with you.
I also don't understand why there are no mounts. I don't hold it against the dev team for not implementing them and that's fine, but it still doesn't mean I have to agree with it. I have ot agree that the immersion argument is pretty useles as stated that teleportation is ok, but having a mount isn't?
I understand that the teleportation system makes mounts, for the most part, useless. I also understand that GW lore and the first game didn't have mounts and the game used teleportation. What I also understand, for me, was the teleportatin in GW1 was the main reason my wife refused to play and I have to say it made the game feel hollow. Anyone can feel free to tell me that my opinion is wrong and I have no clue what I am talking about, but the games teleporation system made the game world feel even more like a lobby game than usual. I'd get a quest, go do said quest, and then port back to town (losing my group) only to reform the group turn in, and do it again. The game world wound up feeling even smaller to me.
While I can't say this will be the same in GW2, I can say from my experiences with MMO's that GW1's teleportation system was the ONLY time I ever felt this way about a world and travel so the track record, for me, speaks for itself. I know the teleportation is optional and if you don't like it you don't have to use it, but the game doesn't offer an alternative to getting to the DE content aside from walking so it is a viable argument for those that would have liked to have seen mounts in the game. My own opinion is, if there were an option for mounts vs teleporatation, I'd go with mounts in a heartbeat based on my experiences in the past. I am a huge fan of the game, but let's not act like every decision they make is a perfect solution and will sit well with everyone and this just happens to be one of the few where I SMH.
RIP Jimmy "The Rev" Sullivan and Paul Gray.
Yours is a valid concern. Some people prefer to sacrifice their time to feel more immersed in the world. Not much we can do to change that, as the quick travel system was made to save time.
Hope you can get over it. And hopefully the open world will make it feel less like a lobby game.
I never claimed I needed to get over it as I stated I am a huge fan. For me it wasn't about time, but about poorly implementation of the travel system. The first GW's travel system was shit due to dropping groups when you wanted to travel (except when going from safe zone to safe zone), when you ported you didn't end up in the same spot so it made finding your group members a pain at times, if the group size was 8 where you left and your group members had out heroes you had to dismiss them just to regroup when you hit zones that only allowed for 4 members, etc...
I have never had this problem when dealing with mounts as far as travel. I also stated that I can't say if this will be the case for GW2, because GW1 was the only game that I experienced this dislike for the instant travel, not to mention it is the only MMORPG that I have played that had no mounts and relied exclusively on quicktravel. I have even played FFXI and that game is on the polar opposite where there were no real mounts and travel was a pain, yet I still would take walking in that game over the way GW's travel played. Just hope GW2's system doesn't give me flashbacks to the nitemare I had trying to play with a trio in GW1.
RIP Jimmy "The Rev" Sullivan and Paul Gray.
I really don't see why there will be no mounts in GW2, it just seems to me that arenanet wanted to try to be innovative and not add them. For starters I really don't understand the "well teleporting is avaliable!" arguement for a few reasons. One reason is the fact that no one can tell me that I will have the ability to teleport at ANY PLACE in GW2. While I do believe that everyone will be able to teleport at popular / important places, I feel like a mount will save me more time if I need to go to, say a wasteland that teleportation dosen't bring me close to. Another reason is that teleporting takes way more depth out of the game then mounts do. Atleast with a mount I can see the scenery from point A to B while saving time, but with teleporting I miss it all togather. It dosen't need to even be mounts honestly, ide just enjoy some type of speed boost over teleporting.
FYI guys, I think Geobaldi was talking about the Cosmic Sparklemounts, those ten foot tall things which sparkle more than vampires and are filled with glitter and glow. Gods I've seen enough of those in other MMOs to last me a life time.
Cosmic Sparklemounts are pretty much 50% of my argument against them.
Thanks but no thanks.
Only the abomination vampires that this twilight generation generated.
"I am not a robot. I am a unicorn."
I have yet to like the way any game, MMO or single player game for that matter, has implemented mounts so far, although I really like how SWTOR implemented sprint as an always on toggle that re-engages after combat automatically and functions in water. They're inconvenient most of the time because you can't gather in them without dismounting, you have to mount and dismount for battle or if they let you stay mounted, then you have to deal with them getting killed all the time. As soon as you come across a puddle of water....dismount. The moment you want to use out in the field crafting skill like potions.....dismount. Too many games love to apply physics to mounts, making them goosey and skiddish and very annoying.
I'd rather have no mount or a toggle skill like TOR's sprint.
If I was'nt in agreement with not having mounts, then this statement alone would have convinced me. That was so very annoying in WoW.