Interesting that horses exist in GW2 since they didn't in GW1.
They don't (at least not as far we know to this point). Those artworks are portfolio entries for the Anet art team. Anet has even stated that a lot of things seen in the art book will not be in the game, it is just concept and exhibition of the artist's skills.
Until something is posted on the GW2 site, the Anet blog, seen in game, or stated by an Anet staffer, it is not factual lore.
Although no living horses are actually seen in GW1 there are indications that they are around (or have been anyway).
I'm not acting anything, I was simply quoting a person that compared the game to other mmorpgs, most of the other major releases has mounts so yes ofcourse it's "removing" the concept since it was a comparison about it's uniqueness to other games. Stay in context please.
Most is a weasel word meant to imply that numbers make a concept correct, or in this case necessary. There hadn't been any concrete reasons for adding mounts outside of the "It's an MMO tradition," or "OMG PONYZ YAY."
Our game world, our context. Unwashed WoW refugees should leave their own context at home when they show up at our gates.
Originally posted by DerykCH Originally posted by Diovidius
Originally posted by therez0
Originally posted by RameiArashi Interesting that horses exist in GW2 since they didn't in GW1.
They don't (at least not as far we know to this point). Those artworks are portfolio entries for the Anet art team. Anet has even stated that a lot of things seen in the art book will not be in the game, it is just concept and exhibition of the artist's skills. Until something is posted on the GW2 site, the Anet blog, seen in game, or stated by an Anet staffer, it is not factual lore. Although no living horses are actually seen in GW1 there are indications that they are around (or have been anyway). http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Necrid_Horseman http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Iron_Horse_Mine actually there are horses as mounts exit in Kryta SEE # 89 an DON'T compare GW2 with GW1, can u see how much change between them ,an how much better GW2 is righnow? Anet try to create a game for all player not for mounts haters adding mounts to GW2 makes Kryta more lively and vivid , an haters no one force u to ride ,u can go anywhr on foot and by teleporting plz don't let ur disgust kill our
We don't know if there are horses in GW2; please stop saying they are as if it were fact. The art book does not constitute lore. And before you go off and call me a mount hater, I actually want mounts; not as a move-speed modifiers, but as something useful that has an effect on combat.
@Diovidius I already indicated those examples earlier in the thread when discussing horses in the GW1 lore with Meowhead. We both came to the conclusion that there may have once been horses, but there are no examples in the GW1 game time.
Back to topic: Should there be mounts?
I think yes, there should be mounts, but not necessarily as movement modifiers. I think mounts would be best as something similar to environmental weapons; where once you mount-up, it changes your skill-bar to reflect the mount. So if I used an ice-drake as a mount, one of the skills could be a tail-whip skill and another could be ice-breath. If I used a moa as a mount, skills could include a beak attack and a run-speed skill.
As to horses... they could be in GW2, they also could not be. Would I miss them if they were not? No, horses are the least dynamic of the possible mounts in the GW universe.
Finally, will there be mounts when the game releases? I doubt it. Dev time would be better spent elsewhere before release. Post-release, I can easily see mounts being added; I think a DLC pack for mounts would be perfect, but they could also be implemented in a patch or an expansion.
I'd like to point out that there are no current world (GW1 era) instances of horses being used in the GW lore. There are place-name uses (Iron Horse Mine), some artistry (Equine Aegis), a religious phenom (Celestial Horse (summon)), and historical references (Palawa Joko, some Canthan history). There is no evidence of horses existing in GW1 era; for all we know they may be extinct.
Edit: ninja'd. Forgot about the necrid horsemen, but those still kinda fall into a historical kind of use... and would support the extinction theory.
A possibility but even if horses are extinct there are other things you could use as mounts if you felt for it.
I guess you seen the picture from GW: Utopia where a human is riding a beetle.
Mounts are not against the lore but the question is if they would make GW2 a better game or not. I am not so sure they would because the reasons I stated earlier in the thread.
Flying mounts is truly a bad idea, they makes the game really small and is worse than teleporting, I actually like the exploring part and flying mounts totally take that away.
The only typ of game that would do fine with flying mounts would be if anyone made a Dragonlance MMO where flying mounts and flying combat actually were an important part of the game instead of a way to lessen travel time.
The main point of mounts is not to lessen travel time, the Roman legion proved that foot soldiers actually could move a lot faster long distances than mounted could. The only times you use mounts for fast travel long distances if when you have couriers who exchange their horse every 2 hours or so.
The main historical point of a horse is either for heavy work (plowing and similar) or in combat. Mounted knights and war chariots are effective.
what you're pointing out about Roman empire is correct and the use that they were giving to the horse too, but the Mediterranean sea and its surroundings including Europe was a relatively small zone and accequible everywhere for sea route, but it is not applied to other empires, what would it had been of the fearsome Mongolian empire without their dear horses, nothing...
As far as the lore issue is concerned, I am not convvinced the lack of horses in the first Guild Wars has anything to do with an active decision made by the developers. The engine clearly restricted the possibility of having genuine mounts, so why go to the trouble of modeling a particular species of animal which is completely useless? They also never said horses were extinct, so in my opinion they simply left them out as a necessity, hoping no-one would notice. And, I doubt I was the only one not to notice it before joining this particular discussion.
We have confirmed that they at least existed some time in the past and were used as mounts. In my opinion, it would be odd for them to have gone extinct, but then again it would be interesting. To have creatures like the Aurochs still in existence but to have horses be a remnant of the ancient past intrigues me. Despite this, I want to ride a horse in Guild Wars 2, pure and simple. We owe quite a few of the fantasy warrior motifs to the existence of horses, and the chivalric image is nothing without them. Right now, my dream character is a mounted norn guardian. Anything which gets me closer to that image has my support.
That being said, I am almost certain mounts will not be an option at launch. ArenaNet has confirmed that there will be no polearms in Guild Wars 2 - at least at first. This tells me that mounted combat is not a feature of the current game, as it would be insane not to include spears in the mix otherwise. That being said, as they have so far refused to address the issue directly, I am confident they are at least thinking about adding mounts in a future update. There is no reason why they would keep us in suspense if they were not even considering the idea themselves.
I would like to see mounts, not as a needed form of travel, just fluff. I like having the diversity between players, and mounts can add another dynamic that people have to choose from. I don't think it's critical by any means, but I'd still like to have them.
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
In WoW , the celestial steed exists too, it's an exclusive mount, is bought with real money and looks like this one, even it includes a constellation of stars in his body. So it makes me think: Who did rip off whom?
I'm not acting anything, I was simply quoting a person that compared the game to other mmorpgs, most of the other major releases has mounts so yes ofcourse it's "removing" the concept since it was a comparison about it's uniqueness to other games. Stay in context please.
Most is a weasel word meant to imply that numbers make a concept correct, or in this case necessary. There hadn't been any concrete reasons for adding mounts outside of the "It's an MMO tradition," or "OMG PONYZ YAY."
Our game world, our context. Unwashed WoW refugees should leave their own context at home when they show up at our gates.
Most of the other titles also has combat, not a very good reason to leave combat out of GW2 to be just unique for that reason, you know, it could be a game about picking up flowers and be superduper unique. It has nothing to do with mmo traditions or wow, it's just a fun game-mechanic that is totally logical in a fantasy game that is not set in stone-age, to have "work animals/creatures" as means to travel. No harm done. There's nothing really to even debate about it. In fact, how can you justify and explain why for example humans of Tyria will under no condition use a suitable animal or creature to travel instead using your two slow foot?
Just a side note: No it's not your game, or not your context. And no one, not a single person, need your permission to "show up at GW2's gates".
Most of the other titles also has combat, not a very good reason to leave combat out of GW2 to be just unique for that reason, you know, it could be a game about picking up flowers and be superduper unique[Red Herring]. It has nothing to do with mmo traditions or wow, it's just a fun game-mechanic[Appeal To Emotion] that is totally logical in a fantasy game that is not set in stone-age, to have "work animals/creatures" as means to travel[Confusing Cause and Effect]. No harm done. There's nothing really to even debate about it. In fact, how can you justify and explain why for example humans of Tyria will under no condition use a suitable animal or creature to travel instead using your two slow foot?[Burden of Proof]
Just a side note: No it's not your game, or not your context. And no one, not a single person, need your permission to "show up at GW2's gates".[Poisoning the Well, Straw Man]
[Confusing Cause and Effect] Crux of the argument seems to be that mounts occur in advanced cultures therefore cultures can only become advanced through the use of riding animals. There are a few posts above discussing why the Roman Legions didn't make heavy use of horses.
[Burden of Proof] You misunderstand my position. I'm following a game that I've been waiting to be released for well over 3 years. Mounts will not be a feature of this game (at launch). Adding them as a feature will add additional time to my wait, therefore I don't find mounts worth having (at launch.) I don't need to justify the humans of Tyria going on foot, you need to justify why it's worth the extra time to implement.
[Poisoning the Well, Straw Man] I never asked for permission, distorted argument. You appealed to have your position (context) viewed as a [Bandwagon] argument, I attempted to shift the position (context) towards GW2.
I would like to say that this thread is nonsense. I think there whould be no mounts in GW2 unless these mounts are a class specific thing and are balanced for combat as such (mounted fighter). this would make adding mounts of any function much easier (limiting access to one class).
Fast movement (which is what mounts are for in other games) doesn't make any sense for GW2. Cosmetic mounts are little better, and wouldn't really work with how the game works anyways (what is the point in showing something off to people if you can't play the game while doing it... So what would a mount be for if not for combat, movement, or cosmetic (which would be the most likely kind of mount anyways)? and where do I keep that mount anyways?
I used to TL;DR, but then I took a bullet point to the footnote.
Most of the other titles also has combat, not a very good reason to leave combat out of GW2 to be just unique for that reason, you know, it could be a game about picking up flowers and be superduper unique[Red Herring]. It has nothing to do with mmo traditions or wow, it's just a fun game-mechanic[Appeal To Emotion] that is totally logical in a fantasy game that is not set in stone-age, to have "work animals/creatures" as means to travel[Confusing Cause and Effect]. No harm done. There's nothing really to even debate about it. In fact, how can you justify and explain why for example humans of Tyria will under no condition use a suitable animal or creature to travel instead using your two slow foot?[Burden of Proof]
Just a side note: No it's not your game, or not your context. And no one, not a single person, need your permission to "show up at GW2's gates".[Poisoning the Well, Straw Man]
[Confusing Cause and Effect] Crux of the argument seems to be that mounts occur in advanced cultures therefore cultures can only become advanced through the use of riding animals. There are a few posts above discussing why the Roman Legions didn't make heavy use of horses.
[Burden of Proof] You misunderstand my position. I'm following a game that I've been waiting to be released for well over 3 years. Mounts will not be a feature of this game (at launch). Adding them as a feature will add additional time to my wait, therefore I don't find mounts worth having (at launch.) I don't need to justify the humans of Tyria going on foot, you need to justify why it's worth the extra time to implement.
[Poisoning the Well, Straw Man] I never asked for permission, distorted argument. You appealed to have your position (context) viewed as a [Bandwagon] argument, I attempted to shift the position (context) towards GW2.
Please try not to use those red title thingys from this point onwards, they are more confusing than what ever you thought they'd add to your arguments. Thank you.
I'm not sure if I should just quote my last post here since you didnt really explain why animals/creatures wouldnt be used as work/travel means in Tyria which is only logical seeing their level of culture in the game, are you suggesting they skip this part of evolution and development as intelligent beings straight to cars? Roman legions used cavalry and chariots more or less. But that's not the point, the point is, it would be illogical to not use animals for this purpose. No reason not to. You dont need to use mounts to be advanced civilization, if you are advanced the use of mounts comes naturally.
"I don't need to justify the humans of Tyria going on foot, you need to justify why it's worth the extra time to implement." Actually you do need to justify it. As I have said several times it's illogical not to have mount creatures. It makes the world feel unfinished, if it was only a lobby world like WoW to wait for instances to pop up it would be fine, but Anet has been telling how immersive their world will be, with dynamic content and a ton of minigames (maybe take dev time from here?) yet the world will lack one single most important feature that a world would have at this point of timeline of development, no matter if there's teleports or not. If the teleports stopped working all of a sudden it would be quite nasty not being able to hop onto a back of suitable creature to travel since invisible force would prevent you.
In fact, I would love to have you justify the "only on foot" ideology to feel better my self about the game, since this looks really a big hole in the design to me as it does to many others, something that I'd like to adress as "oh that makes sense" which it does not at the moment, at all. There will be a lot of questions about this from people who dont read boards like this when the game is out, about this "issue". Not because mounts were done in some other game, but because it makes no sense not to have them.
What is the harm done to you, if I can hop onto some creature to ride? Dev time goes to a range of minigames and fluff so that cant be the reason, unless you honestly think that across every little thing in the game the mounts should be at the bottom of the dev list. If nothing else, it's an opinion you are entirely entitled to.
Please try not to use those red title thingys from this point onwards, they are more confusing than what ever you thought they'd add to your arguments. Thank you.[Special Pleading]
I'm not sure if I should just quote my last post here since you didnt really explain why animals/creatures wouldnt be used as work/travel means in Tyria which is only logical seeing their level of culture in the game, are you suggesting they skip this part of evolution and development as intelligent beings straight to cars?[Straw Man] Roman legions used cavalry and chariots[Source?] more or less[Weasel Word]. But that's not the point, the point is, it would be illogical to not use animals for this purpose. No reason not to. You dont need to use mounts to be advanced civilization, if you are advanced the use of mounts comes naturally.[Ignoring a Common Cause]
"I don't need to justify the humans of Tyria going on foot, you need to justify why it's worth the extra time to implement." Actually you do need to justify it. As I have said several times it's illogical not to have mount creatures. It makes the world feel unfinished, if it was only a lobby world like WoW to wait for instances to pop up it would be fine[Red Herring], but Anet has been telling how immersive their world will be, with dynamic content and a ton of minigames (maybe take dev time from here?) yet the world will lack one single most important feature that a world would have at this point of timeline of development, no matter if there's teleports or not[Confusing Cause and Effect]. If the teleports stopped working all of a sudden it would be quite nasty not being able to hop onto a back of suitable creature to travel since invisible force would prevent you.[Misleading Vividness]
In fact, I would love to have you justify the "only on foot" ideology to feel better my self about the game, since this looks really a big hole in the design to me as it does to many others[Appeal to Popularity], something that I'd like to adress as "oh that makes sense" which it does not at the moment, at all. There will be a lot of questions about this from people who dont read boards like this when the game is out, about this "issue". Not because mounts were done in some other game, but because it makes no sense not to have them.[Slippery Slope]
What is the harm done to you, if I can hop onto some creature to ride? Dev time goes to a range of minigames and fluff so that cant be the reason, unless you honestly think that across every little thing in the game the mounts should be at the bottom of the dev list. If nothing else, it's an opinion you are entirely entitled to.
I'll keep the confusing red thingies tyvm. They bring back fond memories of my debate classes ^^; Feels like I'm arguing with an online fallacy generator.
Anyhow, the other "fluff" features you mentioned were written into the design from the get-go and it's taking them over 3 years to get all of it done, each of those should be argued on their own merit. Features you're in favor of have not been allocated any resources as of yet, and allocating those resources now will lead to a net increase in development time.
That's the harm done to me, longer wait. I could care less if I get to hop on some creature for a ride as a result.
This will probably be my last response, not seeing any new arguments, just reorganized old ones.
In WoW , the celestial steed exists too, it's an exclusive mount, is bought with real money and looks like this one, even it includes a constellation of stars in his body. So it makes me think: Who did rip off whom?
Well the look of that has been around since Factions was released (april 28, 2006). So you do the math.
if there is truely no mounts in GW2, he would say 'no' , but he didn't
The game is currently in a late alpha stage. Meaning the engine is solid, stable, and feature complete. What's isn't currently fleshed is the storyline elements, maps, and events (Read the Designing and Redesigning Events blog post for a sense of how much further they have left to go.)
Query: Will there be mounts?
Analysis: No time frame has been posed (At release? With a future expansion?)
Answer: We don't know.
Analysis: A late Alpha game with Mounts as an intended feature would already have some basic framework.
If mounts contretely planned in the future = we know.
If mounts as a feature exists = we know.
If mounts not planned at release but the engine hypothetically supports them = we don't know.
If mounts will not be a feature at any point in the lifecycle = no.
Complete Query: Will mounts be added as a game feature during the lifetime of Guild Wars 2?
Complete Answer: Our engine supports the addition of mounts they are not planned for release.
Conclusion: There *IS* truley no mounts in GW2 as of today. They *may* have a place in the game after release.
I'll keep the confusing red thingies tyvm. They bring back fond memories of my debate classes ^^; Feels like I'm arguing with an online fallacy generator.
Anyhow, the other "fluff" features you mentioned were written into the design from the get-go and it's taking them over 3 years to get all of it done, each of those should be argued on their own merit. Features you're in favor of have not been allocated any resources as of yet, and allocating those resources now will lead to a net increase in development time.
That's the harm done to me, longer wait. I could care less if I get to hop on some creature for a ride as a result.
This will probably be my last response, not seeing any new arguments, just reorganized old ones.
It's boggling how you can call fallacy something that is explained, logical, and very much in context with a sword and board fantasy world, when you, in fact, are just using your "fallacy generator" as counter argument without really having anything to say. Your mouth moves and noise comes out yet you manage to say absolutely nothing. If that's your goal, alright, I got trolled, but it just proves my point since I've yet to see a counter arguments to any of my points.
Welcome to the next gen immersive dynamic fantasy world where invisible wall prevents you from hopping onto the back of a horse! Well, as I've stated, it's not a make it or break it situation, just plain silly
I'll keep the confusing red thingies tyvm. They bring back fond memories of my debate classes ^^; Feels like I'm arguing with an online fallacy generator.
Anyhow, the other "fluff" features you mentioned were written into the design from the get-go and it's taking them over 3 years to get all of it done, each of those should be argued on their own merit. Features you're in favor of have not been allocated any resources as of yet, and allocating those resources now will lead to a net increase in development time.
That's the harm done to me, longer wait. I could care less if I get to hop on some creature for a ride as a result.
This will probably be my last response, not seeing any new arguments, just reorganized old ones.
It's boggling how you can call fallacy something that is explained, logical, and very much in context with a sword and board fantasy world, when you, in fact, are just using your "fallacy generator" as counter argument without really having anything to say. Your mouth moves and noise comes out yet you manage to say absolutely nothing. If that's your goal, alright, I got trolled, but it just proves my point since I've yet to see a counter arguments to any of my points.
Welcome to the next gen immersive dynamic fantasy world where invisible wall prevents you from hopping onto the back of a horse! Well, as I've stated, it's not a make it or break it situation, just plain silly
So you are saying that all sword and board fantasy worlds have to have people riding around on animals? So there could never be a deviation from this that would be logical? The only thing I have to say is I am glad I do not have your limited imagination. That you cannot possible think of a reason why everyone does not learn how to ride a domesticated animal is actually kind of sad.
As for your silly comment, I have not played a MMO in the last five years that once I learn a riding skill I can go hop on any horse just sitting around. So I guess they are all silly, since I can only ride ones that I can magically summon out of my butt (Especially since I can catch and break any horse in RDR, and apparently MMO designers cannot manage to do this).
I actually hope horses are added in as a mini game where you get to race them. But since I do not see a Norn ever riding on anything, if they add in mounts they better only be as fast as my run speed. I should not be forced to have to use a mount, to keep up with the people I play with. You can have your mount for your fluff that moves as fast as the characters run, and I can play the way I want. There we both have options.
if there is truely no mounts in GW2, he would say 'no' , but he didn't
The game is currently in a late alpha stage. Meaning the engine is solid, stable, and feature complete. What's isn't currently fleshed is the storyline elements, maps, and events (Read the Designing and Redesigning Events blog post for a sense of how much further they have left to go.)
Query: Will there be mounts?
Analysis: No time frame has been posed (At release? With a future expansion?)
Answer: We don't know.
Analysis: A late Alpha game with Mounts as an intended feature would already have some basic framework.
If mounts contretely planned in the future = we know.
If mounts as a feature exists = we know.
If mounts not planned at release but the engine hypothetically supports them = we don't know.
If mounts will not be a feature at any point in the lifecycle = no.
Complete Query: Will mounts be added as a game feature during the lifetime of Guild Wars 2?
Complete Answer: Our engine supports the addition of mounts they are not planned for release.
Conclusion: There *IS* truley no mounts in GW2 as of today. They *may* have a place in the game after release.
ye~ maybe u r right ,so hope we can see mounts in future
and i heard about there will be some kinda of horse racing at special festival?lol
There is no need for mounts, at all. I love the fact we do not need them. GW2, like Guild Wars the first, removes the unnecessary barrier of travel times. There is no good reason to make me take fifteen minutes to get somewhere I want to be. In addition, if you remove this barrier, you can make the world as huge as you want and still not limit the ability of players to congregate in the areas they want, or to group up with friends for specific activities in specific places.
Of course, all that said, I think mounts are flat-out awesome. I love having them, I love collecting them, and I love showing them off. I love vanity pets and costumes for the same reason. It is one more thing to have and show off. And from a lore perspective, I like the idea of having a mount. I mean, Destiny's Edge did not have mounts, but I think they might have moved faster. Of course, what I really want is a portal in a pocket.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
In WoW , the celestial steed exists too, it's an exclusive mount, is bought with real money and looks like this one, even it includes a constellation of stars in his body. So it makes me think: Who did rip off whom?
Well the look of that has been around since Factions was released (april 28, 2006). So you do the math.
thanx, Honestly i wasn't expecting GW ripping off neither this one nor anything else from WoW, in the case of the celestial horse now i'm sure it was the opposite
Comments
someone claim that there is no kinda of horse mounts in Kryta, i juz wanna prove he is wrong
actually there are horses as mounts exit in Kryta
SEE # 89
an DON'T compare GW2 with GW1, can u see how much change between them ,an how much better GW2 is righnow?
Anet try to create a game for all player not for mounts haters
adding mounts to GW2 makes Kryta more lively and vivid , an haters no one force u to ride ,u can go anywhr on foot and by teleporting
plz don't let ur disgust kill our
Most is a weasel word meant to imply that numbers make a concept correct, or in this case necessary. There hadn't been any concrete reasons for adding mounts outside of the "It's an MMO tradition," or "OMG PONYZ YAY."
Our game world, our context. Unwashed WoW refugees should leave their own context at home when they show up at our gates.
Until something is posted on the GW2 site, the Anet blog, seen in game, or stated by an Anet staffer, it is not factual lore.
Although no living horses are actually seen in GW1 there are indications that they are around (or have been anyway).
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Necrid_Horseman
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Iron_Horse_Mine
actually there are horses as mounts exit in Kryta
SEE # 89
an DON'T compare GW2 with GW1, can u see how much change between them ,an how much better GW2 is righnow?
Anet try to create a game for all player not for mounts haters
adding mounts to GW2 makes Kryta more lively and vivid , an haters no one force u to ride ,u can go anywhr on foot and by teleporting
plz don't let ur disgust kill our
We don't know if there are horses in GW2; please stop saying they are as if it were fact. The art book does not constitute lore. And before you go off and call me a mount hater, I actually want mounts; not as a move-speed modifiers, but as something useful that has an effect on combat.
@Diovidius
I already indicated those examples earlier in the thread when discussing horses in the GW1 lore with Meowhead. We both came to the conclusion that there may have once been horses, but there are no examples in the GW1 game time.
Back to topic: Should there be mounts?
I think yes, there should be mounts, but not necessarily as movement modifiers. I think mounts would be best as something similar to environmental weapons; where once you mount-up, it changes your skill-bar to reflect the mount. So if I used an ice-drake as a mount, one of the skills could be a tail-whip skill and another could be ice-breath. If I used a moa as a mount, skills could include a beak attack and a run-speed skill.
As to horses... they could be in GW2, they also could not be. Would I miss them if they were not? No, horses are the least dynamic of the possible mounts in the GW universe.
Finally, will there be mounts when the game releases? I doubt it. Dev time would be better spent elsewhere before release. Post-release, I can easily see mounts being added; I think a DLC pack for mounts would be perfect, but they could also be implemented in a patch or an expansion.
what you're pointing out about Roman empire is correct and the use that they were giving to the horse too, but the Mediterranean sea and its surroundings including Europe was a relatively small zone and accequible everywhere for sea route, but it is not applied to other empires, what would it had been of the fearsome Mongolian empire without their dear horses, nothing...
u r right
http://kekai.weebly.com/guild-wars.html#
As far as the lore issue is concerned, I am not convvinced the lack of horses in the first Guild Wars has anything to do with an active decision made by the developers. The engine clearly restricted the possibility of having genuine mounts, so why go to the trouble of modeling a particular species of animal which is completely useless? They also never said horses were extinct, so in my opinion they simply left them out as a necessity, hoping no-one would notice. And, I doubt I was the only one not to notice it before joining this particular discussion.
We have confirmed that they at least existed some time in the past and were used as mounts. In my opinion, it would be odd for them to have gone extinct, but then again it would be interesting. To have creatures like the Aurochs still in existence but to have horses be a remnant of the ancient past intrigues me. Despite this, I want to ride a horse in Guild Wars 2, pure and simple. We owe quite a few of the fantasy warrior motifs to the existence of horses, and the chivalric image is nothing without them. Right now, my dream character is a mounted norn guardian. Anything which gets me closer to that image has my support.
That being said, I am almost certain mounts will not be an option at launch. ArenaNet has confirmed that there will be no polearms in Guild Wars 2 - at least at first. This tells me that mounted combat is not a feature of the current game, as it would be insane not to include spears in the mix otherwise. That being said, as they have so far refused to address the issue directly, I am confident they are at least thinking about adding mounts in a future update. There is no reason why they would keep us in suspense if they were not even considering the idea themselves.
Those are my two cents.
I would like to see mounts, not as a needed form of travel, just fluff. I like having the diversity between players, and mounts can add another dynamic that people have to choose from. I don't think it's critical by any means, but I'd still like to have them.
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
I don't hate much, but I hate Apple© with a passion. If Steve Jobs was alive, I would punch him in the face.
In WoW , the celestial steed exists too, it's an exclusive mount, is bought with real money and looks like this one, even it includes a constellation of stars in his body. So it makes me think: Who did rip off whom?
Most of the other titles also has combat, not a very good reason to leave combat out of GW2 to be just unique for that reason, you know, it could be a game about picking up flowers and be superduper unique. It has nothing to do with mmo traditions or wow, it's just a fun game-mechanic that is totally logical in a fantasy game that is not set in stone-age, to have "work animals/creatures" as means to travel. No harm done. There's nothing really to even debate about it. In fact, how can you justify and explain why for example humans of Tyria will under no condition use a suitable animal or creature to travel instead using your two slow foot?
Just a side note: No it's not your game, or not your context. And no one, not a single person, need your permission to "show up at GW2's gates".
[Confusing Cause and Effect] Crux of the argument seems to be that mounts occur in advanced cultures therefore cultures can only become advanced through the use of riding animals. There are a few posts above discussing why the Roman Legions didn't make heavy use of horses.
[Burden of Proof] You misunderstand my position. I'm following a game that I've been waiting to be released for well over 3 years. Mounts will not be a feature of this game (at launch). Adding them as a feature will add additional time to my wait, therefore I don't find mounts worth having (at launch.) I don't need to justify the humans of Tyria going on foot, you need to justify why it's worth the extra time to implement.
[Poisoning the Well, Straw Man] I never asked for permission, distorted argument. You appealed to have your position (context) viewed as a [Bandwagon] argument, I attempted to shift the position (context) towards GW2.
me and a friend had a discussion about that today at work. haha
I would like to say that this thread is nonsense. I think there whould be no mounts in GW2 unless these mounts are a class specific thing and are balanced for combat as such (mounted fighter). this would make adding mounts of any function much easier (limiting access to one class).
Fast movement (which is what mounts are for in other games) doesn't make any sense for GW2. Cosmetic mounts are little better, and wouldn't really work with how the game works anyways (what is the point in showing something off to people if you can't play the game while doing it... So what would a mount be for if not for combat, movement, or cosmetic (which would be the most likely kind of mount anyways)? and where do I keep that mount anyways?
I used to TL;DR, but then I took a bullet point to the footnote.
Please try not to use those red title thingys from this point onwards, they are more confusing than what ever you thought they'd add to your arguments. Thank you.
I'm not sure if I should just quote my last post here since you didnt really explain why animals/creatures wouldnt be used as work/travel means in Tyria which is only logical seeing their level of culture in the game, are you suggesting they skip this part of evolution and development as intelligent beings straight to cars? Roman legions used cavalry and chariots more or less. But that's not the point, the point is, it would be illogical to not use animals for this purpose. No reason not to. You dont need to use mounts to be advanced civilization, if you are advanced the use of mounts comes naturally.
"I don't need to justify the humans of Tyria going on foot, you need to justify why it's worth the extra time to implement." Actually you do need to justify it. As I have said several times it's illogical not to have mount creatures. It makes the world feel unfinished, if it was only a lobby world like WoW to wait for instances to pop up it would be fine, but Anet has been telling how immersive their world will be, with dynamic content and a ton of minigames (maybe take dev time from here?) yet the world will lack one single most important feature that a world would have at this point of timeline of development, no matter if there's teleports or not. If the teleports stopped working all of a sudden it would be quite nasty not being able to hop onto a back of suitable creature to travel since invisible force would prevent you.
In fact, I would love to have you justify the "only on foot" ideology to feel better my self about the game, since this looks really a big hole in the design to me as it does to many others, something that I'd like to adress as "oh that makes sense" which it does not at the moment, at all. There will be a lot of questions about this from people who dont read boards like this when the game is out, about this "issue". Not because mounts were done in some other game, but because it makes no sense not to have them.
What is the harm done to you, if I can hop onto some creature to ride? Dev time goes to a range of minigames and fluff so that cant be the reason, unless you honestly think that across every little thing in the game the mounts should be at the bottom of the dev list. If nothing else, it's an opinion you are entirely entitled to.
I'll keep the confusing red thingies tyvm. They bring back fond memories of my debate classes ^^; Feels like I'm arguing with an online fallacy generator.
Anyhow, the other "fluff" features you mentioned were written into the design from the get-go and it's taking them over 3 years to get all of it done, each of those should be argued on their own merit. Features you're in favor of have not been allocated any resources as of yet, and allocating those resources now will lead to a net increase in development time.
That's the harm done to me, longer wait. I could care less if I get to hop on some creature for a ride as a result.
This will probably be my last response, not seeing any new arguments, just reorganized old ones.
Well the look of that has been around since Factions was released (april 28, 2006). So you do the math.
horse-mounts should be a part of human's culture even in Tyria
From FAQ
Will my character be able to fly?
No, your character will not be able to fly.
Will there be mounts?
We don't know.
if there is truely no mounts in GW2, he would say 'no' , but he didn't
The game is currently in a late alpha stage. Meaning the engine is solid, stable, and feature complete. What's isn't currently fleshed is the storyline elements, maps, and events (Read the Designing and Redesigning Events blog post for a sense of how much further they have left to go.)
Query: Will there be mounts?
Analysis: No time frame has been posed (At release? With a future expansion?)
Answer: We don't know.
Analysis: A late Alpha game with Mounts as an intended feature would already have some basic framework.
If mounts contretely planned in the future = we know.
If mounts as a feature exists = we know.
If mounts not planned at release but the engine hypothetically supports them = we don't know.
If mounts will not be a feature at any point in the lifecycle = no.
Complete Query: Will mounts be added as a game feature during the lifetime of Guild Wars 2?
Complete Answer: Our engine supports the addition of mounts they are not planned for release.
Conclusion: There *IS* truley no mounts in GW2 as of today. They *may* have a place in the game after release.
It's boggling how you can call fallacy something that is explained, logical, and very much in context with a sword and board fantasy world, when you, in fact, are just using your "fallacy generator" as counter argument without really having anything to say. Your mouth moves and noise comes out yet you manage to say absolutely nothing. If that's your goal, alright, I got trolled, but it just proves my point since I've yet to see a counter arguments to any of my points.
Welcome to the next gen immersive dynamic fantasy world where invisible wall prevents you from hopping onto the back of a horse! Well, as I've stated, it's not a make it or break it situation, just plain silly
So you are saying that all sword and board fantasy worlds have to have people riding around on animals? So there could never be a deviation from this that would be logical? The only thing I have to say is I am glad I do not have your limited imagination. That you cannot possible think of a reason why everyone does not learn how to ride a domesticated animal is actually kind of sad.
As for your silly comment, I have not played a MMO in the last five years that once I learn a riding skill I can go hop on any horse just sitting around. So I guess they are all silly, since I can only ride ones that I can magically summon out of my butt (Especially since I can catch and break any horse in RDR, and apparently MMO designers cannot manage to do this).
I actually hope horses are added in as a mini game where you get to race them. But since I do not see a Norn ever riding on anything, if they add in mounts they better only be as fast as my run speed. I should not be forced to have to use a mount, to keep up with the people I play with. You can have your mount for your fluff that moves as fast as the characters run, and I can play the way I want. There we both have options.
ye~ maybe u r right ,so hope we can see mounts in future
and i heard about there will be some kinda of horse racing at special festival?lol
There is no need for mounts, at all. I love the fact we do not need them. GW2, like Guild Wars the first, removes the unnecessary barrier of travel times. There is no good reason to make me take fifteen minutes to get somewhere I want to be. In addition, if you remove this barrier, you can make the world as huge as you want and still not limit the ability of players to congregate in the areas they want, or to group up with friends for specific activities in specific places.
Of course, all that said, I think mounts are flat-out awesome. I love having them, I love collecting them, and I love showing them off. I love vanity pets and costumes for the same reason. It is one more thing to have and show off. And from a lore perspective, I like the idea of having a mount. I mean, Destiny's Edge did not have mounts, but I think they might have moved faster. Of course, what I really want is a portal in a pocket.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
WTF? No subscription fee?
thanx, Honestly i wasn't expecting GW ripping off neither this one nor anything else from WoW, in the case of the celestial horse now i'm sure it was the opposite