And as the poster above said. Blizzard employees thousands of people, you could get a whole lot of answers.
If Guild Wars and DDO are MMORPG, then so is Diablo
FYI, Guild Wars is NOT an MMO. ArenaNet themselves say it isn't. It was never designed to be as much as it seems similiar or is grouped with them. Guild Wars is a more massive version and style of Diablo than it is an MMO.
On topic:
I'd say Blizzard doesn't have a favorite anymore. They used to back when choices were limited. But now I'd venture to say that elements of non-MMOs get tossed into their designs now. I honestly think you can walk into the office and find them all playing non-MMOs alongside MMOs and find everything from Korean grinders to F2P to SW:TOR closed beta.
Every MMO that trys to copy WoW and fails is their favorite.
I'm struggling to think of one mmo thats failed that copied wow.
Only TR, MxO & TCoS have closed down and none of those were "wow clones".
All of them that were hyped up as the WoW Killers (A couple examples AoC and WAR) and turned out to just be a tedious grind but with a slightly better theme and graphics. They never dethroned WoW and they were essentially just a slightly different flavor of the same thing.
Not that I'm defending WoW. I think its metiocre really, haven't played it since BC.
Believe it or not, Mike Morhaime is a Darkfall subscriber.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Pretty difficult to answer to a question stating wrong things such as diablo being a MMO...
However, as long as we agree with the fact MMO must have a persistant world - which excludes Diablo of course - then we can discuss about what Blizzard pillaged.
Well, I have the feeling they didn't pillage much, as I think their success is based on the mass compromise: the less choice the better.
Wrong - in my opinion of course - because EQ provides too much choices for the masses. Sorry to look like condescending but well, the more choices you give, the less success you have. That is based on my 10 years MMO experience.
Edit: in my opinion, WoW succeeded because Blizzard gives little (to no) choice to the player and then, is able to adjust the PvE challenge precisely. I would openly understand you could think differently and I would be pleased if you could share your point of view.
Wrong - in my opinion of course - because EQ provides too much choices for the masses. Sorry to look like condescending but well, the more choices you give, the less success you have. That is based on my 10 years MMO experience.
Edit: in my opinion, WoW succeeded because Blizzard gives little (to no) choice to the player and then, is able to adjust the PvE challenge precisely. I would openly understand you could think differently and I would be pleased if you could share your point of view.
Edit2: as a side note, I would like to say BioWare (TOR) has no experience in creating PvE challenge, and more importantly - in my opinion - has no clue about character progression - since they got rid of what made all the work for them, i.e. D&D. That doesn't mean they can't create good story-based content, certainly not, as basically that is the only thing they can do
I think that you don't understand what the poster said.
Blizzard said that without Everquest, there would be no WoW. WoW was, according to them, based largely on EQ.
I could argue the other points, like EQ having more choices than WoW has (which I find ludicrous after having played both games for some time), but I mostly wanted to try and make what the other guy said a little more clear.
Blizzard has admitted in the past that WoW would not exist without EQ.
And as the poster above said. Blizzard employees thousands of people, you could get a whole lot of answers.
If Guild Wars and DDO are MMORPG, then so is Diablo
No, it isn't.
It's a single player RPG with limited online multiplayer capabilities.
In Diablo, you create or join dedicated "custom games" with a handful of other players. That handful of other players are all you will ever see in that custom game until any or all quit that particular game. You are not sharing a single server/shard/world with thousands of others whom you can interact with in real-time, simultaneously in the same virtual space.
Guild Wars supports thousands of players sharing the same world, separated into "channels" to reduce load in any one of them. You can see, talk to, trade and interact with dozens of other players in any given channel of any given hub area at will.
DDO has a similar setup.
Calling Diablo a MMORPG is like saying a bicycle is a passenger train.
Neverwinter Nights (the Atari one) is closer to being a MMORPG than Diablo, because you could have upwards of 100 people on a single custom server at the same time, sharing and interacting in the same space. Yet, Neverwinter Nights is not a MMORPG either. Like Diablo II, it's a single player RPG with limited online multiplayer capabilities.
WoW comes along and now people think any game with a multiplayer mode is a MMORPG.
Diablo 2's Multiplayer Battlenet is ultimately the same thing. You are in avatar chat with thousands via channel selection.
I would say that the game that Blizzard "borrowed" and refined the most from is obviously not only EQ, but EQ2.
I could LIST the number of things that have been taken from both of those games since even AFTER WoW was first released. And now...the funny thing is, SoE is now following in suit and "borrowing" things from Blizzard TOO. So.....
If I had to GUESS what the dev's favorite MMOs outside of WoW WERE (when the game was developed) I would say EQ and then later EQ2.
What is their favorite game outside of WoW NOW? Hmm....I don't even dare to guess that. However, I still see them adding little touches from EQ2 (like the guild leveling system, and archaelogy, which resembles, a bit....rare collections from EQ2). So.....I'm not sure if they still play EQ2, OR....if they just all play a wide variety of games (I"m betting on that one).
Blizzard has admitted in the past that WoW would not exist without EQ.
OK, if you want to restrict to that, I understand.
Yes, WoW emerged from EQ. That is not very interesting in my opinion, but yes you are right....
Edit: It is much more interesting to see where WoW differs from EQ and especiallly why one became a mass success, but well, it seems you don't care...
WoW differs from EQ in that it's not quite as in depth or nerdy, and is thus successful because of that same trait. Also, open PvP which EQ did not have. EQ was a huge success back in the day, but WoW made what EQ was accessible to the masses by watering it down, taking out a lot of the penalties, and essentially streamlining everything while making it playable on nearly every PC. Not to mention WoW's release was after most people had broadband and were able to get into gaming more on them by means of such.
What led to WoW's success was timing and ease of introduction. There were no novels to tell you how to play, nor were you left to your own devices to learn. It was simply "log and play." Then word of mouth, and then advertising. I guarantee you Blizzard never expected what they ended up with.
Blizzard has admitted in the past that WoW would not exist without EQ.
OK, if you want to restrict to that, I understand.
Yes, WoW emerged from EQ. That is not very interesting in my opinion, but yes you are right....
Edit: It is much more interesting to see where WoW differs from EQ and especiallly why one became a mass success, but well, it seems you don't care...
WoW differs from EQ in that it's not quite as in depth or nerdy, and is thus successful because of that same trait. Also, open PvP which EQ did not have. EQ was a huge success back in the day, but WoW made what EQ was accessible to the masses by watering it down, taking out a lot of the penalties, and essentially streamlining everything while making it playable on nearly every PC. Not to mention WoW's release was after most people had broadband and were able to get into gaming more on them by means of such.
What led to WoW's success was timing and ease of introduction. There were no novels to tell you how to play, nor were you left to your own devices to learn. It was simply "log and play." Then word of mouth, and then advertising. I guarantee you Blizzard never expected what they ended up with.
qft
WoW is far more accessible to the masses than most other MMORPG games. WoW has the largest subscription base not because it is a better game from a technical standpoint (via graphics, character mechanics, challenge, PvP, etc), but because it has almost all of the components done well enough. WoW is the McDonald's of MMORPG games; noone would mistake the quality a McDonald's hamburger with, say, a 5 Guys hamburger (possible exception for young kids who look more for the toy in the bag)...yet McDonalds is (and will likely forever be) much larger than 5 Guys. Similarly, WoW doesn't have the best PvP, it doesn't have the best graphics, it doesn't have the most challenge, etc, etc, etc. But it does all of it, done well enough, to get the majority of players. EQ (similar to 5 Guys) may very well be better than WoW in many important respects, but that doesn't mean it will have the same large following.
If you tried to give rock and roll - "MMORPGs" another name, you might call them Chuck Berry - "Everquest"
- John Lennon - "Blizzard"
"Listen, you fuckers, you screwheads. Here is a man who would not take it anymore. A man who stood up against the scum, the cunts, the dogs, the filth, the shit. Here is a man who stood up." - Robert DeNiro
Blizzard has admitted in the past that WoW would not exist without EQ.
OK, if you want to restrict to that, I understand.
Yes, WoW emerged from EQ. That is not very interesting in my opinion, but yes you are right....
Edit: It is much more interesting to see where WoW differs from EQ and especiallly why one became a mass success, but well, it seems you don't care...
WoW differs from EQ in that it's not quite as in depth or nerdy, and is thus successful because of that same trait. Also, open PvP which EQ did not have. EQ was a huge success back in the day, but WoW made what EQ was accessible to the masses by watering it down, taking out a lot of the penalties, and essentially streamlining everything while making it playable on nearly every PC. Not to mention WoW's release was after most people had broadband and were able to get into gaming more on them by means of such.
What led to WoW's success was timing and ease of introduction. There were no novels to tell you how to play, nor were you left to your own devices to learn. It was simply "log and play." Then word of mouth, and then advertising. I guarantee you Blizzard never expected what they ended up with.
qft
WoW is far more accessible to the masses than most other MMORPG games. WoW has the largest subscription base not because it is a better game from a technical standpoint (via graphics, character mechanics, challenge, PvP, etc), but because it has almost all of the components done well enough. WoW is the McDonald's of MMORPG games; noone would mistake the quality a McDonald's hamburger with, say, a 5 Guys hamburger (possible exception for young kids who look more for the toy in the bag)...yet McDonalds is (and will likely forever be) much larger than 5 Guys. Similarly, WoW doesn't have the best PvP, it doesn't have the best graphics, it doesn't have the most challenge, etc, etc, etc. But it does all of it, done well enough, to get the majority of players. EQ (similar to 5 Guys) may very well be better than WoW in many important respects, but that doesn't mean it will have the same large following.
Agreed. As much as people want to argue, EQ is a niche game. It is for super nerds, such as myself, that really really enjoy fantasy genre. Much like Warhammer (not the MMO, but tabletop/novels) is my bread and butter. Not everybody enjoys it, so it won't get that huge hit.
If you generify (it's a word as of right now, deal with it.) enough, you won't turn people on especially well, but you won't turn them completely off either. I find myself playing WoW right now because more than cataclysm's influence, I'm enjoying playing a new class and experiencing things I haven't before. I'd enjoy playing Vanguard moreso, but I don't have the computer nor time to invest to make it worth my while. It is what it is.
If you're drunk, or kinda broke, or not in a specific mood, you're going to go for whatever fills that emptiness.
Blizzard has admitted in the past that WoW would not exist without EQ.
OK, if you want to restrict to that, I understand.
Yes, WoW emerged from EQ. That is not very interesting in my opinion, but yes you are right....
Edit: It is much more interesting to see where WoW differs from EQ and especiallly why one became a mass success, but well, it seems you don't care...
WoW differs from EQ in that it's not quite as in depth or nerdy, and is thus successful because of that same trait. Also, open PvP which EQ did not have. EQ was a huge success back in the day, but WoW made what EQ was accessible to the masses by watering it down, taking out a lot of the penalties, and essentially streamlining everything while making it playable on nearly every PC. Not to mention WoW's release was after most people had broadband and were able to get into gaming more on them by means of such.
What led to WoW's success was timing and ease of introduction. There were no novels to tell you how to play, nor were you left to your own devices to learn. It was simply "log and play." Then word of mouth, and then advertising. I guarantee you Blizzard never expected what they ended up with.
qft
WoW is far more accessible to the masses than most other MMORPG games. WoW has the largest subscription base not because it is a better game from a technical standpoint (via graphics, character mechanics, challenge, PvP, etc), but because it has almost all of the components done well enough. WoW is the McDonald's of MMORPG games; noone would mistake the quality a McDonald's hamburger with, say, a 5 Guys hamburger (possible exception for young kids who look more for the toy in the bag)...yet McDonalds is (and will likely forever be) much larger than 5 Guys. Similarly, WoW doesn't have the best PvP, it doesn't have the best graphics, it doesn't have the most challenge, etc, etc, etc. But it does all of it, done well enough, to get the majority of players. EQ (similar to 5 Guys) may very well be better than WoW in many important respects, but that doesn't mean it will have the same large following.
Agreed. As much as people want to argue, EQ is a niche game. It is for super nerds, such as myself, that really really enjoy fantasy genre. Much like Warhammer (not the MMO, but tabletop/novels) is my bread and butter. Not everybody enjoys it, so it won't get that huge hit.
If you generify (it's a word as of right now, deal with it.) enough, you won't turn people on especially well, but you won't turn them completely off either. I find myself playing WoW right now because more than cataclysm's influence, I'm enjoying playing a new class and experiencing things I haven't before. I'd enjoy playing Vanguard moreso, but I don't have the computer nor time to invest to make it worth my while. It is what it is.
If you're drunk, or kinda broke, or not in a specific mood, you're going to go for whatever fills that emptiness.
EQ isn't any more in-depth or nerdy than WoW, it's just a lot older and a lot less polished.
I know EQ has tried to keep up, offering WoW-style 'tasks' instead of quests, but the main focus of EQ when you were levelling was to find a group, find a camp (if it were available), stand in the same spot (unless you were pulling) and kill the same creatures over and over again. Compare that to the plethora of gameplay styles you have in WoW and there is just no comparison.
Clerics vs Priests --- not even a contest here. (Complete-heal chain anyone? Wtf is in-depth about that?)
EQ had the occasional quests that were worthwhile - but they gave almost NIL experience. Your EXP came from repeatedly killing mobs. There is nothing in-depth about that at all, sure - it takes more commitment because if you have to endure that boring shit.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely loved my Ranger, especially when they made Archery good and I was no longer such a joke class. But the statement that EQ is more in-depth than WoW is completely wrong, it's the other way around.
People mistake EQ's terrible, terrible interface and inaccessible game design with depth - it isn't. Add to the fact that the game has been expansioned to death, not keeping any form of consistency in art style or game design and it's just a horrible frankenstien of a mess now.
But I still love EQ. I did feel kind of like a god, leading my 72-man raiding guild through the PoP, but to keep that many people happy and a guild progressing was like a job - not because it was anymore in depth - WoW's raids are more dynamic and more interesting, but because EQ was just TIMESINK HELL.
Edit: I would like to clarify a mistake that a quoted poster made is that EQ did actually offer world PvP in the form of the various Zek servers. Not sure if they exist anymore but they made for some great stories on the forums. WoW has about 200 times the amount of forums filled with the same thing now, so yeah, it's not as if that kind of thing is dead now, just better.
Still waiting for your Holy Grail MMORPG? Interesting...
And as the poster above said. Blizzard employees thousands of people, you could get a whole lot of answers.
If Guild Wars and DDO are MMORPG, then so is Diablo
No, it isn't.
It's a single player RPG with limited online multiplayer capabilities.
In Diablo, you create or join dedicated "custom games" with a handful of other players. That handful of other players are all you will ever see in that custom game until any or all quit that particular game. You are not sharing a single server/shard/world with thousands of others whom you can interact with in real-time, simultaneously in the same virtual space.
Guild Wars supports thousands of players sharing the same world, separated into "channels" to reduce load in any one of them. You can see, talk to, trade and interact with dozens of other players in any given channel of any given hub area at will.
DDO has a similar setup.
Calling Diablo a MMORPG is like saying a bicycle is a passenger train.
Neverwinter Nights (the Atari one) is closer to being a MMORPG than Diablo, because you could have upwards of 100 people on a single custom server at the same time, sharing and interacting in the same space. Yet, Neverwinter Nights is not a MMORPG either. Like Diablo II, it's a single player RPG with limited online multiplayer capabilities.
WoW comes along and now people think any game with a multiplayer mode is a MMORPG.
It's not an MMORPG but it is an MMO. However the only thing seprating Diablo from GW is GW has a town as a hub .... you never actually run into these people unless your in a town ... not much different than Diablo's waiting room. Which was most people's complaint's about the game which is why they are going the normal MMORPG route with GW2.
Comments
Eve or DAoC, I doubt that many of them even play their game other than when the job forces them to.
If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25 cars that got 1000 MPG - Bill Gates
Every MMO that trys to copy WoW and fails is their favorite.
I'm struggling to think of one mmo thats failed that copied wow.
Only TR, MxO & TCoS have closed down and none of those were "wow clones".
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
Every mmo that fails is their favorite but they'll be more than happy to copy your hard work into their game.
FYI, Guild Wars is NOT an MMO. ArenaNet themselves say it isn't. It was never designed to be as much as it seems similiar or is grouped with them. Guild Wars is a more massive version and style of Diablo than it is an MMO.
On topic:
I'd say Blizzard doesn't have a favorite anymore. They used to back when choices were limited. But now I'd venture to say that elements of non-MMOs get tossed into their designs now. I honestly think you can walk into the office and find them all playing non-MMOs alongside MMOs and find everything from Korean grinders to F2P to SW:TOR closed beta.
All of them that were hyped up as the WoW Killers (A couple examples AoC and WAR) and turned out to just be a tedious grind but with a slightly better theme and graphics. They never dethroned WoW and they were essentially just a slightly different flavor of the same thing.
Not that I'm defending WoW. I think its metiocre really, haven't played it since BC.
Believe it or not, Mike Morhaime is a Darkfall subscriber.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
GW
----ITS A TRAP!!!----
Pretty difficult to answer to a question stating wrong things such as diablo being a MMO...
However, as long as we agree with the fact MMO must have a persistant world - which excludes Diablo of course - then we can discuss about what Blizzard pillaged.
Well, I have the feeling they didn't pillage much, as I think their success is based on the mass compromise: the less choice the better.
They said without Everquest there would be no WoW
Ok, I don't know why anyone hasn't trolled this yet, but I think they all play:
http://www.hellokittyonline.com/
Wrong - in my opinion of course - because EQ provides too much choices for the masses. Sorry to look like condescending but well, the more choices you give, the less success you have. That is based on my 10 years MMO experience.
Edit: in my opinion, WoW succeeded because Blizzard gives little (to no) choice to the player and then, is able to adjust the PvE challenge precisely. I would openly understand you could think differently and I would be pleased if you could share your point of view.
I think that you don't understand what the poster said.
Blizzard said that without Everquest, there would be no WoW. WoW was, according to them, based largely on EQ.
I could argue the other points, like EQ having more choices than WoW has (which I find ludicrous after having played both games for some time), but I mostly wanted to try and make what the other guy said a little more clear.
Blizzard has admitted in the past that WoW would not exist without EQ.
OK, if you want to restrict to that, I understand.
Yes, WoW emerged from EQ. That is not very interesting in my opinion, but yes you are right....
Edit: It is much more interesting to see where WoW differs from EQ and especiallly why one became a mass success, but well, it seems you don't care...
Diablo 2's Multiplayer Battlenet is ultimately the same thing. You are in avatar chat with thousands via channel selection.
I would say that the game that Blizzard "borrowed" and refined the most from is obviously not only EQ, but EQ2.
I could LIST the number of things that have been taken from both of those games since even AFTER WoW was first released. And now...the funny thing is, SoE is now following in suit and "borrowing" things from Blizzard TOO. So.....
If I had to GUESS what the dev's favorite MMOs outside of WoW WERE (when the game was developed) I would say EQ and then later EQ2.
What is their favorite game outside of WoW NOW? Hmm....I don't even dare to guess that. However, I still see them adding little touches from EQ2 (like the guild leveling system, and archaelogy, which resembles, a bit....rare collections from EQ2). So.....I'm not sure if they still play EQ2, OR....if they just all play a wide variety of games (I"m betting on that one).
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
WoW differs from EQ in that it's not quite as in depth or nerdy, and is thus successful because of that same trait. Also, open PvP which EQ did not have. EQ was a huge success back in the day, but WoW made what EQ was accessible to the masses by watering it down, taking out a lot of the penalties, and essentially streamlining everything while making it playable on nearly every PC. Not to mention WoW's release was after most people had broadband and were able to get into gaming more on them by means of such.
What led to WoW's success was timing and ease of introduction. There were no novels to tell you how to play, nor were you left to your own devices to learn. It was simply "log and play." Then word of mouth, and then advertising. I guarantee you Blizzard never expected what they ended up with.
kotor 2 sith lords
qft
WoW is far more accessible to the masses than most other MMORPG games. WoW has the largest subscription base not because it is a better game from a technical standpoint (via graphics, character mechanics, challenge, PvP, etc), but because it has almost all of the components done well enough. WoW is the McDonald's of MMORPG games; noone would mistake the quality a McDonald's hamburger with, say, a 5 Guys hamburger (possible exception for young kids who look more for the toy in the bag)...yet McDonalds is (and will likely forever be) much larger than 5 Guys. Similarly, WoW doesn't have the best PvP, it doesn't have the best graphics, it doesn't have the most challenge, etc, etc, etc. But it does all of it, done well enough, to get the majority of players. EQ (similar to 5 Guys) may very well be better than WoW in many important respects, but that doesn't mean it will have the same large following.
If you tried to give rock and roll - "MMORPGs" another name, you might call them Chuck Berry - "Everquest"
- John Lennon - "Blizzard"
"Listen, you fuckers, you screwheads. Here is a man who would not take it anymore. A man who stood up against the scum, the cunts, the dogs, the filth, the shit. Here is a man who stood up." - Robert DeNiro
What. No. Just... no.
For starters...
http://www.1up.com/news/diablo-fans-petition-iii-artistic
Diablo:
M-rating
Random Maps
Random loot
Fast paced.
No holy trinity play
Small groups of players
No stupid gnomes or stupid elves. Just humans.
WOW:
The opposite of all those.
Error: 37. Signature not found. Please connect to my server for signature access.
Well let's see what would be their Fav MMORPG w/o taking WoW or Diablo into account...
I'd say Warhammer 40k Dark Millenium Online
Person 1: WHAT?! YOU STUPID NOOB It's Not even out yet!
Person 2: yeah retard how come you name a game that isn't out yet?!
Simple it's Warhammer 40k what do you think the natural progression of Starcraft is once Starcraft 2 has its run?
I'll tell you what SU or Starcraft Universe
Agreed. As much as people want to argue, EQ is a niche game. It is for super nerds, such as myself, that really really enjoy fantasy genre. Much like Warhammer (not the MMO, but tabletop/novels) is my bread and butter. Not everybody enjoys it, so it won't get that huge hit.
If you generify (it's a word as of right now, deal with it.) enough, you won't turn people on especially well, but you won't turn them completely off either. I find myself playing WoW right now because more than cataclysm's influence, I'm enjoying playing a new class and experiencing things I haven't before. I'd enjoy playing Vanguard moreso, but I don't have the computer nor time to invest to make it worth my while. It is what it is.
If you're drunk, or kinda broke, or not in a specific mood, you're going to go for whatever fills that emptiness.
EQ isn't any more in-depth or nerdy than WoW, it's just a lot older and a lot less polished.
I know EQ has tried to keep up, offering WoW-style 'tasks' instead of quests, but the main focus of EQ when you were levelling was to find a group, find a camp (if it were available), stand in the same spot (unless you were pulling) and kill the same creatures over and over again. Compare that to the plethora of gameplay styles you have in WoW and there is just no comparison.
Clerics vs Priests --- not even a contest here. (Complete-heal chain anyone? Wtf is in-depth about that?)
EQ had the occasional quests that were worthwhile - but they gave almost NIL experience. Your EXP came from repeatedly killing mobs. There is nothing in-depth about that at all, sure - it takes more commitment because if you have to endure that boring shit.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely loved my Ranger, especially when they made Archery good and I was no longer such a joke class. But the statement that EQ is more in-depth than WoW is completely wrong, it's the other way around.
People mistake EQ's terrible, terrible interface and inaccessible game design with depth - it isn't. Add to the fact that the game has been expansioned to death, not keeping any form of consistency in art style or game design and it's just a horrible frankenstien of a mess now.
But I still love EQ. I did feel kind of like a god, leading my 72-man raiding guild through the PoP, but to keep that many people happy and a guild progressing was like a job - not because it was anymore in depth - WoW's raids are more dynamic and more interesting, but because EQ was just TIMESINK HELL.
Edit: I would like to clarify a mistake that a quoted poster made is that EQ did actually offer world PvP in the form of the various Zek servers. Not sure if they exist anymore but they made for some great stories on the forums. WoW has about 200 times the amount of forums filled with the same thing now, so yeah, it's not as if that kind of thing is dead now, just better.
Still waiting for your Holy Grail MMORPG? Interesting...
It's not an MMORPG but it is an MMO. However the only thing seprating Diablo from GW is GW has a town as a hub .... you never actually run into these people unless your in a town ... not much different than Diablo's waiting room. Which was most people's complaint's about the game which is why they are going the normal MMORPG route with GW2.