Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Is it Official yet, MOUNTS ARE OUT?
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
To be honest, I think the underwater combat layer is a bit much on its own (which is debatable, I could be mistaken), but to have a THIRD dynamic in which to balance combat and gameplay sounds a bit much to factor in at this stage (considering how far you suggest they take the concept of a mount).
Now, if they wanted to make this concept a mini-game of sorts, that seems like a viable option.
I dont need a motorcycle irl, I have no practical purpose for it, I own a car already. Yet I bought one. OMG WHY U GONE DO THAT!? DON'T U REALIZE THERE'S BUSS STOPS EVERY 100 METERS!?
Because it's fun to ride. I dont need some larger than life reason to do something fun okay? Some people just love to ride. I couldnt care less if the would-be-mounts should have some awesome combat system or not.
Sure there are more important things for the devs to develop than mounts, but they are also working on less important things than mounts, even though none of us are in a place to tell eachothers what's important in a game or not. Like underwater combat, I cant begin to understand why there's so much dev time spent on making something ridicilous like underwater gameplay so unique and awesome, what a waste...
If fixing underwater combat is something ArenaNet is willing to work on, then how is that less important than something like mounts?
To be quite honest, seeing a Charr or Norn riding a mount might be the absolute most stupidest thing I could ever see. Seriously, I'd probably puke.
If you read what ArenaNet says about their game and design process, you will begin to understand why they make the decisions they do (whether you agree with them or not). You'll also get a hint as to why mounts aren't in the game (yet), and an idea for what they might be like if they were put in-game.
ANet simply isn't going to add mounts as they are known in most MMOs just because it's something some people like. I'll eat my hat if they do, and I don't even own a hat. I wouldn't have been so sure before the underwater combat reveal, but they've shown (and then some) that they do not do things halfway. Mounts won't be in unless they make sense and work in a way that fits with the lore.
In Guild Wars, rangers needed pets. But they really only needed one particular pet. Making a bunch of different pets capturable wasn't essential to gameplay, but it was a kind of nifty feature. What it wasn't, however, was a good enough feature that it needed to be a high priority at the expense of fixing bugs, making missions work right, or that sort of thing. After the game was out, stable, and could have been called complete, they added more pets, let heroes get pets, added the Zaishen menagerie, and so forth.
Mounts in Guild Wars 2 should be kind of like that, I think. There's no real need to have them in at launch. It's a feature that some people think is kind of cool, even if it's not essential for game mechanics. And it's harmless, really, as the only real cost of including mounts in the game is the time lost that could have been spent putting something else in the game. If that's delaying major content patches or bug fixes, that's a big problem. If it's something that a few employees occasionally work on during a lull in their job, and not as a high priority thing, then it's fine. It gets added when it gets added, and then fleshed out further whenever they get around to it.
Either that, or it gets put in shortly after someone whispers in the ear of some bean counter, hey, we could add mounts to the game, and then add special other mounts that are functionally identical but cost $10 each to buy in the game store.
That's why I said "none of us are in a place to tell eachothers what's important in a game or not." George might like underwater combat is more important than mounts are and Jessica might think the exact opposite. I like mounts, a lot, just for the riding, everything else is just a bonus in them. It's okay to me if someone else dont like them, but I dont need them to tell me how useless the mounts are because for this and that reason, I dont play computer games based on how practical traveling/whatever system they have, I play what I find fun. I dont find much fun in teleporting to places, however, I like to ride to the places. It's just a personal preference and I dont think either of the systems are wrong or should be dismissed.
I wonder how many of these threads appear before the game goes live
I wonder how many of these threads the developers will (hopefully) ignore. : > )
Personally, I take ArenaNet's comment to mean that in their next expansion pack they intend to have a few areas which are designed for mounted combat, because hey, that would be mounts! It's ridiculous to believe anything else.
Why is it ridiculous? Mounts make content redundant. Mounts make teleportation redundant. Mounts are often just a grinded for vanity item that no-lifers use to state their self-worth with in a game. None of these things fit the mission statement of Guild Wars 2. In GW2 we al have the same running speed, so they can fit content and more importantly the feeling of danger and suspense around that. Mounts are a bad design choice that contradict the Rule of Fun because they remove any risk for the player.
A mount is sort of like typing IDDQD in Doom, it's fun for a tiny while, but the lack of any real threat gets boring very quickly. That's how I felt when I had mounts in every game that's had them, ever. It also tends to mean that the developers have to create open, empty areas which are as boring as fuck to cross on foot, and completely pointless to explore because they're designed to be empty. This is also contradictory to the Rule of Fun. Design is law, and most the people asking for mounts couldn't design a good game if they spent their whole life trying to.
At the end of the day, you have to ask what mounts give people, and it amounts to:
Cheats. (Skipping content.)
Boring content. (Empty areas for mount travel.)
Vanity items. (Yawn. We have minipets for that. Cats > Horses.)
Inequality of movement speed. (Content can no longer be designed around one movement speed.)
The removal of fear, suspense, and similar atmosheric elements.
And what do we gain?
People pulling mounts out of their arses. OR...
Mounts being called from a distance and still disappearing/appearing next to folks out of nowhere. OR...
Mounts remaining static and their special effects killing framerates of lower end computers. AND...
Mounts getting in the way of clear visibility of dynamic events.
Mounts ruining silhouettes. (Working against them, much like TF2 hats do.)
Mounts making teleportation redundant.
What's this really about at the end of the day? Vanity items. If people think that ruining a game is a good idea just so that they can get their rocks off with some vanity items, then good luck to them, but a mount is no different than an XP scroll. If you think a mount is a good idea, then you likely think that other cheats such as XP scrolls are good ideas, too. And to support one sort of cheat without supporting the other is hypocrisy.
If, by this point, everyone doesn't realise that mounts are a bad design choice, contrary to the Rule of Fun, and with game killing potential then god help them, because they're not very bright.
Mounts are not a good idea.
---
Sigh.
I have a mild headache from trying to explain this, but I still think that even after that, some people are not going to get it. So I'll try and provide an example that might make it click for them.
Okay, here is a thinking exercise:
Remember Fallout 3.
Think of how it had content everywhere.
Add horses.
Realise just how much of the content in Fallout 3 suddenly becomes redundant.
Realise how pointless super mutants are when you can bolt past them on mounts.
Realise the lack of thrill by speeding through the wastes and not stopping to see the sights.
Realise that the game was designed to be progressed through on foot, so that you could see those sights.
Think of Oblivion.
Think of how it had large, empty areas between content.
Remember the mounts.
Realise that ArenaNet is taking the Fallout 3 approach.
Understand that adding mounts to Guild Wars 2 is like adding Oblivion mounts to Fallout 3.
Think on why this is destructive.
Understand why mounts are a bad idea.
Now you're on the same page that I am.
Considering how hell-bent ANet is on quality redesigning the mmo genre, introducing mounts at this time would be a bit of an overkill.
Just stop and think. ANet is not going to put mounts in game just as some fancy gfx speed buff. That's just not the way they're doing things. Just look at what they did with underwater combat, the amount of effort etc...
When they decide to put mounts in you can bet that the whole "mounts in mmos" is going to get a thorough makeover, just like underwater combat did and that entails, for example, separate skillsets while mounted and the whole mounted combat physics and things. You can be sure that they are not going to go for "fire a skill and poof your mount magically disappears" garbage that is the norm in today's mmos.
In short, to put mounts in GW2 at this point and to retain the level of quality the rest of the game boasts you'd need a huge amount of resources and designing a whole slew of additional mechanix. I'll bet you a dime that if GW2 takes off we'll see mounts in a future expansion and I can even envisage flying mounts and flying combat in a far off future. Who knows? Imo they're building a great foundation here and maybe it's smart to introduce new things gradually.
Lets see its 250 years later and we have guns and steampunk but no mounts?
The only things i can think of is anet has something against mounts or their world design isnt cut out to handle mounts, even EQ1 has mounts!
Personally i dont need a mount since there is a portal system and im all for seeing the whole world in all its wonder on foot first but at some point at a high level a mount would be nice!
Playing GW2..
Just because X or Y had Z doesn't mean Z isn't a bad idea.
Fallacious argument is fallacious and bloody stupid.
I want my Underwater mount...A SEA HORSIE!
Edit: Or a KRAKEN.
First I actually thought that your post was NOT being sarcastic, it's so close to the actual hater posts, well done
Not all player controlled transportation devices are horses. Personally I have two bike-mounts, a long board mount and a car-mount in real life and I go rowing in a boat-mount twice a week. Even though I love hiking I would be really pissed off (and an hour late) if I had to walk to work every day (and probably never visit family ever again).
It wouldn't be so much of a problem if our shower cells could be used for teleportation though. But as of yet they sadly can not V_V
My brand new bloggity blog.
Yeah but won't that mean you have to change your name to "Dark Scotty" if you decide to play GW2, my trusty steed?
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
They said nothing like that.
Jeff Grubb said that they are looking into it (that was 6 months ago) but refused to say if they were in from launch or not.
I personally think there are more important things but mounted combat would make fun PvP if done right (with weapons like lances and pikes, special attacks and so on).
It seems like there will be flying ships in the game BTW, shouldn't that trump a horse?
*shivers*
It indeed would implicate such a name change, my lord. A most unsettling prospect.
My brand new bloggity blog.
Mounts in PvE yeah fine, Mounts in PvP/GvG/WvW would mean an entirely new balance to the PvP system, including maps and strat/tact balance, if it follows the same style of PvP in GW, which i assume it will.
Theres nothing to say they couldnt do it since it could involve a system similar to the sandwurms in GW and have an entrily new balanced system for mounted PvP/GvG, but thats what it would be, everyone will have a mount, no have's and have not's, all about balance !
Not if said horses could fly.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
There is a whole thread on mounts right here on the first page of the forum. Please do not create duplicate threads.
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/313591/Guild-Wars-2-Mounts-.html
To give feedback on moderation, contact mikeb@mmorpg.com