Again belittling the opposing opinion doesn't justify yours in anyway. If anything it shows you're completely incapable of understanding people want different things than you do.
Does the exclusion of mounts make GW2 a bad game? No.
Would the inclusion of mounts make GW2 a bad game? No.
Would the inclusion of mounts make the game anymore similar to WOW? No.
This is a discussion forum everyone is entitled to giving their opinion, yours carries no more weight than anyone elses. No matter how long winded or full of hot air it is.
Step off your high horse and back away from the ad-hominem attacks on everyone who disagrees with you. Remove these two aspects of your last two posts, there's really not much there at all.
How do you know that? I think ANet has a liiittle better perspective on their game don't you agree? And if mounts would contribute to a better gaming experience in any way, I'm positive they would implement them in a heart beat.
But don't mind me.. they just don't want you to have fun.. right?
Haters and trolls would say yes.
Haters and trolls would say whatever it takes to get a rise out of people.
Did I say that? Did I not basically say whether mounts are in or not it doesn't change what would make GW2 a good game or not? A good game usually means it's a fun game.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Haters and trolls would say whatever it takes to get a rise out of people.
Did I say that? Did I not basically say whether mounts are in or not it doesn't change what would make GW2 a good game or not? A good game usually means it's a fun game.
I understand. I was just reading the post with the game in my mind as it is atm - with map traveling, where mounts are only a travel overkill imo.
Haters and trolls would say whatever it takes to get a rise out of people.
Did I say that? Did I not basically say whether mounts are in or not it doesn't change what would make GW2 a good game or not? A good game usually means it's a fun game.
I understand. I was just reading the post with the game in my mind as it is atm - with map traveling, where mounts are only a travel overkill imo.
I also understand where others are coming from in the opinion that mounts aren't really needed. Morrowind was a great game regardless of how you travelled around, in Oblivion I more often than not ran around on foot, as opposed to mounting up, same with AOC/ I just hate seeing people act as though their opinion is of greater importance than anyone elses.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
That is because mounted combat is so badly done in MMOs, AoC is the only game I know that even tried to implement it.
Imagine that only good scene from Kingdom of heaven, when the knights charge the saraccens. That is really cool.
With good mounted combat people on horseback have lances. Ground soldiers will have lances and traps that slows down or even kill the horse.
That kind of combat is interesting, try out mount and blade. Regular MMO combat where mounts is just about movement sucks and is a waste of time, I rather have no mounts than that.
Mounts are absolutly needed so you can explore the world in half time to get all the towns open, and just zoom past all the agro in a given area to open up the map.
Please look up the definition of sarcasim if you have issues understaning this post.
Flame ON
A fight where I might win or loose? That's PvP. Ganked or being ganked is not PvP.
That is because mounted combat is so badly done in MMOs, AoC is the only game I know that even tried to implement it.
Imagine that only good scene from Kingdom of heaven, when the knights charge the saraccens. That is really cool.
With good mounted combat people on horseback have lances. Ground soldiers will have lances and traps that slows down or even kill the horse.
That kind of combat is interesting, try out mount and blade. Regular MMO combat where mounts is just about movement sucks and is a waste of time, I rather have no mounts than that.
Mounts are absolutly needed so you can explore the world in half time to get all the towns open, and just zoom past all the agro in a given area to open up the map.
Please look up the definition of sarcasim if you have issues understaning this post.
Flame ON
And glowing mounts are a needed in case its dark. Chocolate mounts are needed in case we get hungry, underground mounts are needed in case we want to do some drive by mining, and of course jet ski mounts are needed if we don't feel like being involved in underwater combat. (or the Smokers want to catch that damn Muto Mariner that blew up their refueling barge)
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
Mounts are absolutly needed so you can explore the world in half time to get all the towns open, and just zoom past all the agro in a given area to open up the map.
Please look up the definition of sarcasim if you have issues understaning this post.
Flame ON
And glowing mounts are a needed in case its dark. Chocolate mounts are needed in case we get hungry, underground mounts are needed in case we want to do some drive by mining, and of course jet ski mounts are needed if we don't feel like being involved in underwater combat. (or the Smokers want to catch that damn Muto Mariner that blew up their refueling barge)
Dont you forget about spaceship mounts for when you get tired of the map and want to explore the espace
Cool. If you want mounts, go play World of Warcraft, Guild Wars is mainly a PvP game. ( Hence Guild Wars name )
Oh. I was told early on that pvp was entirely optional to the point where if you never pvp'd you wouldnt miss any thing or feel left out at all. Was I told wrong? Obviously if its focussed on pvp then a player that is focussed on pve should not come, correct?
Cool. If you want mounts, go play World of Warcraft, Guild Wars is mainly a PvP game. ( Hence Guild Wars name )
Oh. I was told early on that pvp was entirely optional to the point where if you never pvp'd you wouldnt miss any thing or feel left out at all. Was I told wrong? Obviously if its focussed on pvp then a player that is focussed on pve should not come, correct?
This reply isn't doing the game anywhere near the justice it deserves, but this is the mount thread so trying not to derail. The open world content of GW2 is entirely PVE events (replacing quests), as well as everyone having a PVE personal story and 8 PVE dungeons or so. There will also be separate large PVP battlegrounds and arena style PVP. You should probably check out the Everything We Know About GW2 sticky thread at the top to learn more.
"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
Cool. If you want mounts, go play World of Warcraft, Guild Wars is mainly a PvP game. ( Hence Guild Wars name )
Oh. I was told early on that pvp was entirely optional to the point where if you never pvp'd you wouldnt miss any thing or feel left out at all. Was I told wrong? Obviously if its focussed on pvp then a player that is focussed on pve should not come, correct?
This reply isn't doing the game anywhere near the justice it deserves, but this is the mount thread so trying not to derail. The open world content of GW2 is entirely PVE events (replacing quests), as well as everyone having a PVE personal story and 8 PVE dungeons or so. There will also be separate large PVP battlegrounds and arena style PVP. You should probably check out the Everything We Know About GW2 sticky thread at the top to learn more.
Thats cool and all. Just hoping it wont be like most of the population focussing on getting through the pve just so they can pvp. If the game is pvp centric then Im out. I originally read that it wasnt going to be. But as I keep reading Im getting mixed signals. Like it might turn out one way or it might turn out the other.
No mounts? Aww, I like mounts. They make the details in the world actually important, and make me want to personally thank the artistts for taking the time to make said details. Also it gives me time to think and stuff while I am riding/flying somewhere.
Cool. If you want mounts, go play World of Warcraft, Guild Wars is mainly a PvP game. ( Hence Guild Wars name )
Oh. I was told early on that pvp was entirely optional to the point where if you never pvp'd you wouldnt miss any thing or feel left out at all. Was I told wrong? Obviously if its focussed on pvp then a player that is focussed on pve should not come, correct?
This reply isn't doing the game anywhere near the justice it deserves, but this is the mount thread so trying not to derail. The open world content of GW2 is entirely PVE events (replacing quests), as well as everyone having a PVE personal story and 8 PVE dungeons or so. There will also be separate large PVP battlegrounds and arena style PVP. You should probably check out the Everything We Know About GW2 sticky thread at the top to learn more.
Thats cool and all. Just hoping it wont be like most of the population focussing on getting through the pve just so they can pvp. If the game is pvp centric then Im out. I originally read that it wasnt going to be. But as I keep reading Im getting mixed signals. Like it might turn out one way or it might turn out the other.
Kind of pointless to worry about it with the way the game is setup. Its not either PvE or PvP centric, it is a good mix of both. Its going to have a ton of PvE content done in a way we havent seen done in other games, or at least not anywhere near the same scale with the Dynamic Events System on top of the Personal Sotryline content, minigames, and other side things that are all PvE. Then on the other side you have both arena style PvP like in GW1 along with The Mists which is server vs server vs server large scale PvP.
Theyre all seperated. If you enjoy PvE, youre not going to be impacted by the PvP side much if at all (not sure yet exactly what the rewardas/bonuses will be for being on the winning PvP server, but if it is something major well its going to be your entire server effected, not you as an individual). If you enjoy PvP you can stick to just PvPing and level ont hat without bothering with PvE. Or you can do a mix of both.
Cool. If you want mounts, go play World of Warcraft, Guild Wars is mainly a PvP game. ( Hence Guild Wars name )
Oh. I was told early on that pvp was entirely optional to the point where if you never pvp'd you wouldnt miss any thing or feel left out at all. Was I told wrong? Obviously if its focussed on pvp then a player that is focussed on pve should not come, correct?
This reply isn't doing the game anywhere near the justice it deserves, but this is the mount thread so trying not to derail. The open world content of GW2 is entirely PVE events (replacing quests), as well as everyone having a PVE personal story and 8 PVE dungeons or so. There will also be separate large PVP battlegrounds and arena style PVP. You should probably check out the Everything We Know About GW2 sticky thread at the top to learn more.
Thats cool and all. Just hoping it wont be like most of the population focussing on getting through the pve just so they can pvp. If the game is pvp centric then Im out. I originally read that it wasnt going to be. But as I keep reading Im getting mixed signals. Like it might turn out one way or it might turn out the other.
The game will be PvE centric as any true AAA mmo absolutely has to be, however its pretty important to have top notch PvP as well especially for guilds and as part of the continued end game experience..
Im sure Anet will deliver both in an awesome way..
If its like the first game it's mostly instanced, so you have no reason to need a mount.
It's not a game about travel, it's a game about doing lame pve content so you can do good pvp.
It doesn't seem like it will be as PvP focused as the first was, which is a good thing. I hope its not just PvP focused, because I am just not the biggest PvPer around. I like to PvP, but I don't want a game focused on the subject. But that is still beside the point, why not do battle mounts or something? Giant flaming rhinos would be a decent combat mount, but not sure if that has ever been done before.
If its like the first game it's mostly instanced, so you have no reason to need a mount.
It's not a game about travel, it's a game about doing lame pve content so you can do good pvp.
Wow... you havent read a single thing about the game have you? Its not instanced at all except for some of the Personal Story content and dungeons. The core gameplay will by the Dynamic Events which are in an open world which is constantly changing.
Not only that, but you dont have to do PvE, you can level purely on PvP. GW1 didnt require PvE either, you could simply create a PvP character which started at max level and skip all the PvE content.
Please have some slight clue what youre talking about before trying to talk crap about a game.
If its like the first game it's mostly instanced, so you have no reason to need a mount.
It's not a game about travel, it's a game about doing lame pve content so you can do good pvp.
It doesn't seem like it will be as PvP focused as the first was, which is a good thing. I hope its not just PvP focused, because I am just not the biggest PvPer around. I like to PvP, but I don't want a game focused on the subject. But that is still beside the point, why not do battle mounts or something? Giant flaming rhinos would be a decent combat mount, but not sure if that has ever been done before.
The primary problem with having something like battle mounts is one of balance. If the mount is underpowered, then nobody uses it. If it's overpowered, then everybody uses it. It's kind of a bizarre situation, it would be like having 8 classes you need to balance, and then adding a 9th class anybody could switch to. Not only does it have to be balanced, it adds versatility to everybody.
GW1 has http://guildwars.wikia.com/wiki/Rollerbeetle_Racing_(arena) and I would not be at all surprised to see something like that make an appearance as one of the 5-6 minigames per capital city. We've already seen Charr cars in one of the videos, a racetrack would not be out of place. That would allow for mounted races (or even mounted combat if there was some kind of demoltion derby) without having to potentially negatively impact the open world with the introduction of mounts.
And while we're on the subject, it occurred to me today that since people like having their mounts, why not have unlockable, purchasable and/or customizable minigame mounts? Would that scratch the itch of the people who like to collect them?
"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
I'd rather deal with this on a point by point basis, so...
"[...] maybe if the world in between each magical wormhole was an interesting place to explore."
I see two problems with this
The lead-on fallacy that you need mounts to explore. (Why would you? I didn't need a mount to explore Fallout 3 and there was plenty of cntent there, in plain sight and hidden away, waiting to be discovered.)
The assumption that there will be no opportunities to explore within the areas themselves. (Please present your evidence based directly upon gameplay experience to support this argument, otherwise you're just pulling things out of your arse.)
"I'm not saying GW2 doesn't need instant travel (in a persistant world?). I'm just saying that there's nothing wrong with mounts (especially in a persistant world)."
Twice you draw attention here to it being a persistent world but you don't provide an argument to state why it being persistent or not is even relevant, you just hope that the reader will be dim enough to believe that simply because you drop in buzz words, they'll believe that magically mounts go with persistent worlds.
What is your reasoning for mounts and persistent worlds. Why do they go magically hand-in-hand?
"And it seems that every thread that mentions mounts in GW2, there's always several posts that always mention World of Warcraft."
You're leading people again here, you're trying to make people believe that every post that talks ill of mounts mentions World of Warcraft, but I've made arguments against mounts that have nothing to do with World of Warcraft.
Here's a post declaring my arguments against mounts. It does not mention World of Warcraft, it talks of real issues with mounts and why they're broken, and I've yet to see any of my points countered. The reason no one can really work up a defence against those points is because there is none. For a game like Guild Wars 2, open world speed-boost mounts make no sense, and this has absolutely nothing to do with WoW. Mounts were a broken idea long before WoW.
"Why not mention The Elder Scrolls? Assassin's Creed?"
I did mention Oblivion, which is the only Elder Scrolls game to have mounts. Morrowind, Daggerfall, and Arena all got by just fine without them. And here's the interesting thing - the next Bethesda game that followed, Fallout 3, had a world designed much more like Morrowind, where content was much closer together and there were no mounts. They could've fit in irradiated horses into that post-apocalyptic wasteland if they'd wanted to, but they chose not to. I wonder why? (I mention Fallout 3 as it was released after Oblivion and it's a Bethesda game, developed by the same people.)
Why, it's slmost like Bethesda learned that mounts were a bad idea in Oblivion and decided to drop them like the bad idea that they are.
And in the post I've linked I stated very clearly how mounts broke Oblivion. Large, empty, ugly terrain-generated areas designed purely for mounted travel, becasue that's exactly what every gamer wants. Except, no. It seems like Bethesda discovered that the vast majority of players were dissatisfied with mounts in Oblivion, and this is why Fallout 3 didn't any. This is why Skyrim looks like it won't have mounts (they've been avoiiding questions about it and they haven't shown any footage of mounts either). It just doesn't make sense to include some shonky, junky speed-boost just to couple it up with empty areas.
What's the point? So... woo... hooray... we have mounts. And then what? I'm forced to travel through boring, ugly, empty areas either on a mount, or worse, if I don't want a mount, on foot? Who in their right bloody mind would want that? What developer worth their salt would believe that that constitutes good design? It simply doesn't. It's incredibly poor design. And Bethesda has figured that out too. If an element is detrimental to game design and it didn't work out in your previous games, then you stop including it for future games. I and Bethesda understand something you clearly don't, here.
"At least Mass Effect's instant travel made some sense."
And here you're making more statements without actually backing them up without any reasoning. I hate that! This is why I make big posts, becuase if I say something then I'm damned well going to have enough respect for people to air my reasons. Why then, by comparison, do the interdimensional travel gates and magical site-to-site teleportation not make any sense? By proxy, you might as well say that Star Trek and Stargate don't make any sense. It's a ridiculous stance to have. Of course they make sense, within the context of that world.
Just because we can't do something in reality, that means we shouldn't do it in fantasy? Right. Let's remove all magic users! Elementalists? Sorry, DanMcC says that Tyria has to obey the rules of reality, you're out! Necromancers, you're gone too. Mesmers? No, I'm sorry, DanMcC says that your powers have to conform to reality and make sense according to it, otherwise you're not permitted to be a part of the game, so you're out too. Etc, etc.
If you honestly think like that then Guild Wars 2 is clearly not the game for you.
Anyway, this is why I know mounts are a bad idea, because there are no rational, reasonable, level-headed, logical arguments for open world mounts, only arguments against. The only sort of mount I could personally tolerate is either mounts that exist only for dynamic events, as I mentioned in my own linked post, or cali59's idea of minigame mounts.
Really, mounts are such a bad idea. I think everyone needs to read that linked post, this post, and take it to heart.
And at least do us all the favour, please, of not patronising us. Just admit that at the end of the day the only reason you want a mount is so that you can shove a giant vanity item in someone's face, so that you can do so until it infuriates them enough to yell and cuss at you, and so that you can then trot off feeling fulfilled that that person you've just annoyed must obviously be jealous of your 'gamin' skillz.' Please, let's not pretend that there's any other reason behind this, because I have seen no other reasons which stand up against critical analysis.
I'd rather deal with this on a point by point basis, so...
"[...] maybe if the world in between each magical wormhole was an interesting place to explore."
I see two problems with this
The lead-on fallacy that you need mounts to explore. (Why would you? I didn't need a mount to explore Fallout 3 and there was plenty of cntent there, in plain sight and hidden away, waiting to be discovered.)
The assumption that there will be no opportunities to explore within the areas themselves. (Please present your evidence based directly upon gameplay experience to support this argument, otherwise you're just pulling things out of your arse.)
"I'm not saying GW2 doesn't need instant travel (in a persistant world?). I'm just saying that there's nothing wrong with mounts (especially in a persistant world)."
Twice you draw attention here to it being a persistent world but you don't provide an argument to state why it being persistent or not is even relevant, you just hope that the reader will be dim enough to believe that simply because you drop in buzz words, they'll believe that magically mounts go with persistent worlds.
What is your reasoning for mounts and persistent worlds. Why do they go magically hand-in-hand?
"And it seems that every thread that mentions mounts in GW2, there's always several posts that always mention World of Warcraft."
You're leading people again here, you're trying to make people believe that every post that talks ill of mounts mentions World of Warcraft, but I've made arguments against mounts that have nothing to do with World of Warcraft.
Here's a post declaring my arguments against mounts. It does not mention World of Warcraft, it talks of real issues with mounts and why they're broken, and I've yet to see any of my points countered. The reason no one can really work up a defence against those points is because there is none. For a game like Guild Wars 2, open world speed-boost mounts make no sense, and this has absolutely nothing to do with WoW. Mounts were a broken idea long before WoW.
"Why not mention The Elder Scrolls? Assassin's Creed?"
I did mention Oblivion, which is the only Elder Scrolls game to have mounts. Morrowind, Daggerfall, and Arena all got by just fine without them. And here's the interesting thing - the next Bethesda game that followed, Fallout 3, had a world designed much more like Morrowind, where content was much closer together and there were no mounts. They could've fit in irradiated horses into that post-apocalyptic wasteland if they'd wanted to, but they chose not to. I wonder why? (I mention Fallout 3 as it was released after Oblivion and it's a Bethesda game, developed by the same people.)
Why, it's slmost like Bethesda learned that mounts were a bad idea in Oblivion and decided to drop them like the bad idea that they are.
And in the post I've linked I stated very clearly how mounts broke Oblivion. Large, empty, ugly terrain-generated areas designed purely for mounted travel, becasue that's exactly what every gamer wants. Except, no. It seems like Bethesda discovered that the vast majority of players were dissatisfied with mounts in Oblivion, and this is why Fallout 3 didn't any. This is why Skyrim looks like it won't have mounts (they've been avoiiding questions about it and they haven't shown any footage of mounts either). It just doesn't make sense to include some shonky, junky speed-boost just to couple it up with empty areas.
What's the point? So... woo... hooray... we have mounts. And then what? I'm forced to travel through boring, ugly, empty areas either on a mount, or worse, if I don't want a mount, on foot? Who in their right bloody mind would want that? What developer worth their salt would believe that that constitutes good design? It simply doesn't. It's incredibly poor design. And Bethesda has figured that out too. If an element is detrimental to game design and it didn't work out in your previous games, then you stop including it for future games. I and Bethesda understand something you clearly don't, here.
"At least Mass Effect's instant travel made some sense."
And here you're making more statements without actually backing them up without any reasoning. I hate that! This is why I make big posts, becuase if I say something then I'm damned well going to have enough respect for people to air my reasons. Why then, by comparison, do the interdimensional travel gates and magical site-to-site teleportation not make any sense? By proxy, you might as well say that Star Trek and Stargate don't make any sense. It's a ridiculous stance to have. Of course they make sense, within the context of that world.
Just because we can't do something in reality, that means we shouldn't do it in fantasy? Right. Let's remove all magic users! Elementalists? Sorry, DanMcC says that Tyria has to obey the rules of reality, you're out! Necromancers, you're gone too. Mesmers? No, I'm sorry, DanMcC says that your powers have to conform to reality and make sense according to it, otherwise you're not permitted to be a part of the game, so you're out too. Etc, etc.
If you honestly think like that then Guild Wars 2 is clearly not the game for you.
Anyway, this is why I know mounts are a bad idea, because there are no rational, reasonable, level-headed, logical arguments for open world mounts, only arguments against. The only sort of mount I could personally tolerate is either mounts that exist only for dynamic events, as I mentioned in my own linked post, or cali59's idea of minigame mounts.
Really, mounts are such a bad idea. I think everyone needs to read that linked post, this post, and take it to heart.
And at least do us all the favour, please, of not patronising us. Just admit that at the end of the day the only reason you want a mount is so that you can shove a giant vanity item in someone's face, so that you can do so until it infuriates them enough to yell and cuss at you, and so that you can then trot off feeling fulfilled that that person you've just annoyed must obviously be jealous of your 'gamin' skillz.' Please, let's not pretend that there's any other reason behind this, because I have seen no other reasons which stand up against critical analysis.
I do agree, in large part, with this rather long and interesting post XD
Also, I do like the idea of mounts, but almost NEVER as I've seen them implemented in a game. So unless ANet can work their magic on this (they may do so at a later date!), I say no.
I don't understand why people seem to think that mounts are necessary in a game to explore. They're not, and in many ways, they remove the need and will to do so. If you're on some blazingly fast horse, you will likely miss any content anyway, or are merely travelling from hub to hub. This long travel time is really just a time sink, IMO. Sometimes, yeah, I want to walk around on my horse and feel badass, but I think it's far from necessary, and if implemented half-ass-edly (*cough* every MMO I've ever played *cough*), then it's simply not worth it.
That said, GW2 is NOT taking emphasis away from exploration by removing mounts. You will still *have* to walk everywhere, and may find secret places and/or events. Waypoints are merely removing the annoyance of spending half an hour trying to meet up with your friend.
I'd rather deal with this on a point by point basis, so...
"[...] maybe if the world in between each magical wormhole was an interesting place to explore."
I see two problems with this
The lead-on fallacy that you need mounts to explore. (Why would you? I didn't need a mount to explore Fallout 3 and there was plenty of cntent there, in plain sight and hidden away, waiting to be discovered.)
The assumption that there will be no opportunities to explore within the areas themselves. (Please present your evidence based directly upon gameplay experience to support this argument, otherwise you're just pulling things out of your arse.)
"I'm not saying GW2 doesn't need instant travel (in a persistant world?). I'm just saying that there's nothing wrong with mounts (especially in a persistant world)."
Twice you draw attention here to it being a persistent world but you don't provide an argument to state why it being persistent or not is even relevant, you just hope that the reader will be dim enough to believe that simply because you drop in buzz words, they'll believe that magically mounts go with persistent worlds.
What is your reasoning for mounts and persistent worlds. Why do they go magically hand-in-hand?
"And it seems that every thread that mentions mounts in GW2, there's always several posts that always mention World of Warcraft."
You're leading people again here, you're trying to make people believe that every post that talks ill of mounts mentions World of Warcraft, but I've made arguments against mounts that have nothing to do with World of Warcraft.
Here's a post declaring my arguments against mounts. It does not mention World of Warcraft, it talks of real issues with mounts and why they're broken, and I've yet to see any of my points countered. The reason no one can really work up a defence against those points is because there is none. For a game like Guild Wars 2, open world speed-boost mounts make no sense, and this has absolutely nothing to do with WoW. Mounts were a broken idea long before WoW.
"Why not mention The Elder Scrolls? Assassin's Creed?"
I did mention Oblivion, which is the only Elder Scrolls game to have mounts. Morrowind, Daggerfall, and Arena all got by just fine without them. And here's the interesting thing - the next Bethesda game that followed, Fallout 3, had a world designed much more like Morrowind, where content was much closer together and there were no mounts. They could've fit in irradiated horses into that post-apocalyptic wasteland if they'd wanted to, but they chose not to. I wonder why? (I mention Fallout 3 as it was released after Oblivion and it's a Bethesda game, developed by the same people.)
Why, it's slmost like Bethesda learned that mounts were a bad idea in Oblivion and decided to drop them like the bad idea that they are.
And in the post I've linked I stated very clearly how mounts broke Oblivion. Large, empty, ugly terrain-generated areas designed purely for mounted travel, becasue that's exactly what every gamer wants. Except, no. It seems like Bethesda discovered that the vast majority of players were dissatisfied with mounts in Oblivion, and this is why Fallout 3 didn't any. This is why Skyrim looks like it won't have mounts (they've been avoiiding questions about it and they haven't shown any footage of mounts either). It just doesn't make sense to include some shonky, junky speed-boost just to couple it up with empty areas.
What's the point? So... woo... hooray... we have mounts. And then what? I'm forced to travel through boring, ugly, empty areas either on a mount, or worse, if I don't want a mount, on foot? Who in their right bloody mind would want that? What developer worth their salt would believe that that constitutes good design? It simply doesn't. It's incredibly poor design. And Bethesda has figured that out too. If an element is detrimental to game design and it didn't work out in your previous games, then you stop including it for future games. I and Bethesda understand something you clearly don't, here.
"At least Mass Effect's instant travel made some sense."
And here you're making more statements without actually backing them up without any reasoning. I hate that! This is why I make big posts, becuase if I say something then I'm damned well going to have enough respect for people to air my reasons. Why then, by comparison, do the interdimensional travel gates and magical site-to-site teleportation not make any sense? By proxy, you might as well say that Star Trek and Stargate don't make any sense. It's a ridiculous stance to have. Of course they make sense, within the context of that world.
Just because we can't do something in reality, that means we shouldn't do it in fantasy? Right. Let's remove all magic users! Elementalists? Sorry, DanMcC says that Tyria has to obey the rules of reality, you're out! Necromancers, you're gone too. Mesmers? No, I'm sorry, DanMcC says that your powers have to conform to reality and make sense according to it, otherwise you're not permitted to be a part of the game, so you're out too. Etc, etc.
If you honestly think like that then Guild Wars 2 is clearly not the game for you.
Anyway, this is why I know mounts are a bad idea, because there are no rational, reasonable, level-headed, logical arguments for open world mounts, only arguments against. The only sort of mount I could personally tolerate is either mounts that exist only for dynamic events, as I mentioned in my own linked post, or cali59's idea of minigame mounts.
Really, mounts are such a bad idea. I think everyone needs to read that linked post, this post, and take it to heart.
And at least do us all the favour, please, of not patronising us. Just admit that at the end of the day the only reason you want a mount is so that you can shove a giant vanity item in someone's face, so that you can do so until it infuriates them enough to yell and cuss at you, and so that you can then trot off feeling fulfilled that that person you've just annoyed must obviously be jealous of your 'gamin' skillz.' Please, let's not pretend that there's any other reason behind this, because I have seen no other reasons which stand up against critical analysis.
Again your points are all about your personal preference, there's nothing factual about the points you've made.
In reference to Oblivion and Bethesda feeling players don't want them, well why does TES V have them? You know, if they discovered mounts broke their other game and a majority don't want them?
Mounts add to the experience for some players, they don't for others, nothing more really needs to be said. You don't like running through expansive areas designed for mounts, others do, who's right or who's wrong? No one. It's all about preferences.
Again I have to point out there have been plenty of arguments against the points you're making, they're littered all over this thread, there are many differing opinions of why people want mounts. Each and every one is a direct argument against what you're saying. Or do you somehow believe your opinion carries more weight than everyone elses?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Comments
Haters and trolls would say whatever it takes to get a rise out of people.
Did I say that? Did I not basically say whether mounts are in or not it doesn't change what would make GW2 a good game or not? A good game usually means it's a fun game.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I understand. I was just reading the post with the game in my mind as it is atm - with map traveling, where mounts are only a travel overkill imo.
Eat me!
I also understand where others are coming from in the opinion that mounts aren't really needed. Morrowind was a great game regardless of how you travelled around, in Oblivion I more often than not ran around on foot, as opposed to mounting up, same with AOC/ I just hate seeing people act as though their opinion is of greater importance than anyone elses.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
/agree
An honest review of SW:TOR 6/10 (Danny Wojcicki)
That is because mounted combat is so badly done in MMOs, AoC is the only game I know that even tried to implement it.
Imagine that only good scene from Kingdom of heaven, when the knights charge the saraccens. That is really cool.
With good mounted combat people on horseback have lances. Ground soldiers will have lances and traps that slows down or even kill the horse.
That kind of combat is interesting, try out mount and blade. Regular MMO combat where mounts is just about movement sucks and is a waste of time, I rather have no mounts than that.
I want to have use huge sock as mount. With special attacks: "stink them to death"(shout) and "dirty touch" (touch hp steal skill)
Mounts are absolutly needed so you can explore the world in half time to get all the towns open, and just zoom past all the agro in a given area to open up the map.
Please look up the definition of sarcasim if you have issues understaning this post.
Flame ON
A fight where I might win or loose? That's PvP. Ganked or being ganked is not PvP.
That would be really awesome
And glowing mounts are a needed in case its dark. Chocolate mounts are needed in case we get hungry, underground mounts are needed in case we want to do some drive by mining, and of course jet ski mounts are needed if we don't feel like being involved in underwater combat. (or the Smokers want to catch that damn Muto Mariner that blew up their refueling barge)
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
Dont you forget about spaceship mounts for when you get tired of the map and want to explore the espace
Oh. I was told early on that pvp was entirely optional to the point where if you never pvp'd you wouldnt miss any thing or feel left out at all. Was I told wrong? Obviously if its focussed on pvp then a player that is focussed on pve should not come, correct?
This reply isn't doing the game anywhere near the justice it deserves, but this is the mount thread so trying not to derail. The open world content of GW2 is entirely PVE events (replacing quests), as well as everyone having a PVE personal story and 8 PVE dungeons or so. There will also be separate large PVP battlegrounds and arena style PVP. You should probably check out the Everything We Know About GW2 sticky thread at the top to learn more.
"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
I approve of this
+1
Thats cool and all. Just hoping it wont be like most of the population focussing on getting through the pve just so they can pvp. If the game is pvp centric then Im out. I originally read that it wasnt going to be. But as I keep reading Im getting mixed signals. Like it might turn out one way or it might turn out the other.
No mounts? Aww, I like mounts. They make the details in the world actually important, and make me want to personally thank the artistts for taking the time to make said details. Also it gives me time to think and stuff while I am riding/flying somewhere.
Newb= Newly Enrolled Wannabe Badass.
If its like the first game it's mostly instanced, so you have no reason to need a mount.
It's not a game about travel, it's a game about doing lame pve content so you can do good pvp.
Kind of pointless to worry about it with the way the game is setup. Its not either PvE or PvP centric, it is a good mix of both. Its going to have a ton of PvE content done in a way we havent seen done in other games, or at least not anywhere near the same scale with the Dynamic Events System on top of the Personal Sotryline content, minigames, and other side things that are all PvE. Then on the other side you have both arena style PvP like in GW1 along with The Mists which is server vs server vs server large scale PvP.
Theyre all seperated. If you enjoy PvE, youre not going to be impacted by the PvP side much if at all (not sure yet exactly what the rewardas/bonuses will be for being on the winning PvP server, but if it is something major well its going to be your entire server effected, not you as an individual). If you enjoy PvP you can stick to just PvPing and level ont hat without bothering with PvE. Or you can do a mix of both.
The game will be PvE centric as any true AAA mmo absolutely has to be, however its pretty important to have top notch PvP as well especially for guilds and as part of the continued end game experience..
Im sure Anet will deliver both in an awesome way..
Playing GW2..
It doesn't seem like it will be as PvP focused as the first was, which is a good thing. I hope its not just PvP focused, because I am just not the biggest PvPer around. I like to PvP, but I don't want a game focused on the subject. But that is still beside the point, why not do battle mounts or something? Giant flaming rhinos would be a decent combat mount, but not sure if that has ever been done before.
Newb= Newly Enrolled Wannabe Badass.
Wow... you havent read a single thing about the game have you? Its not instanced at all except for some of the Personal Story content and dungeons. The core gameplay will by the Dynamic Events which are in an open world which is constantly changing.
Not only that, but you dont have to do PvE, you can level purely on PvP. GW1 didnt require PvE either, you could simply create a PvP character which started at max level and skip all the PvE content.
Please have some slight clue what youre talking about before trying to talk crap about a game.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/Cloudsol/
The primary problem with having something like battle mounts is one of balance. If the mount is underpowered, then nobody uses it. If it's overpowered, then everybody uses it. It's kind of a bizarre situation, it would be like having 8 classes you need to balance, and then adding a 9th class anybody could switch to. Not only does it have to be balanced, it adds versatility to everybody.
GW1 has http://guildwars.wikia.com/wiki/Rollerbeetle_Racing_(arena) and I would not be at all surprised to see something like that make an appearance as one of the 5-6 minigames per capital city. We've already seen Charr cars in one of the videos, a racetrack would not be out of place. That would allow for mounted races (or even mounted combat if there was some kind of demoltion derby) without having to potentially negatively impact the open world with the introduction of mounts.
And while we're on the subject, it occurred to me today that since people like having their mounts, why not have unlockable, purchasable and/or customizable minigame mounts? Would that scratch the itch of the people who like to collect them?
"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
@DanMcC
I'd rather deal with this on a point by point basis, so...
"[...] maybe if the world in between each magical wormhole was an interesting place to explore."
I see two problems with this
The lead-on fallacy that you need mounts to explore. (Why would you? I didn't need a mount to explore Fallout 3 and there was plenty of cntent there, in plain sight and hidden away, waiting to be discovered.)
The assumption that there will be no opportunities to explore within the areas themselves. (Please present your evidence based directly upon gameplay experience to support this argument, otherwise you're just pulling things out of your arse.)
"I'm not saying GW2 doesn't need instant travel (in a persistant world?). I'm just saying that there's nothing wrong with mounts (especially in a persistant world)."
Twice you draw attention here to it being a persistent world but you don't provide an argument to state why it being persistent or not is even relevant, you just hope that the reader will be dim enough to believe that simply because you drop in buzz words, they'll believe that magically mounts go with persistent worlds.
What is your reasoning for mounts and persistent worlds. Why do they go magically hand-in-hand?
"And it seems that every thread that mentions mounts in GW2, there's always several posts that always mention World of Warcraft."
You're leading people again here, you're trying to make people believe that every post that talks ill of mounts mentions World of Warcraft, but I've made arguments against mounts that have nothing to do with World of Warcraft.
Here's a post declaring my arguments against mounts. It does not mention World of Warcraft, it talks of real issues with mounts and why they're broken, and I've yet to see any of my points countered. The reason no one can really work up a defence against those points is because there is none. For a game like Guild Wars 2, open world speed-boost mounts make no sense, and this has absolutely nothing to do with WoW. Mounts were a broken idea long before WoW.
"Why not mention The Elder Scrolls? Assassin's Creed?"
I did mention Oblivion, which is the only Elder Scrolls game to have mounts. Morrowind, Daggerfall, and Arena all got by just fine without them. And here's the interesting thing - the next Bethesda game that followed, Fallout 3, had a world designed much more like Morrowind, where content was much closer together and there were no mounts. They could've fit in irradiated horses into that post-apocalyptic wasteland if they'd wanted to, but they chose not to. I wonder why? (I mention Fallout 3 as it was released after Oblivion and it's a Bethesda game, developed by the same people.)
Why, it's slmost like Bethesda learned that mounts were a bad idea in Oblivion and decided to drop them like the bad idea that they are.
And in the post I've linked I stated very clearly how mounts broke Oblivion. Large, empty, ugly terrain-generated areas designed purely for mounted travel, becasue that's exactly what every gamer wants. Except, no. It seems like Bethesda discovered that the vast majority of players were dissatisfied with mounts in Oblivion, and this is why Fallout 3 didn't any. This is why Skyrim looks like it won't have mounts (they've been avoiiding questions about it and they haven't shown any footage of mounts either). It just doesn't make sense to include some shonky, junky speed-boost just to couple it up with empty areas.
What's the point? So... woo... hooray... we have mounts. And then what? I'm forced to travel through boring, ugly, empty areas either on a mount, or worse, if I don't want a mount, on foot? Who in their right bloody mind would want that? What developer worth their salt would believe that that constitutes good design? It simply doesn't. It's incredibly poor design. And Bethesda has figured that out too. If an element is detrimental to game design and it didn't work out in your previous games, then you stop including it for future games. I and Bethesda understand something you clearly don't, here.
"At least Mass Effect's instant travel made some sense."
And here you're making more statements without actually backing them up without any reasoning. I hate that! This is why I make big posts, becuase if I say something then I'm damned well going to have enough respect for people to air my reasons. Why then, by comparison, do the interdimensional travel gates and magical site-to-site teleportation not make any sense? By proxy, you might as well say that Star Trek and Stargate don't make any sense. It's a ridiculous stance to have. Of course they make sense, within the context of that world.
Just because we can't do something in reality, that means we shouldn't do it in fantasy? Right. Let's remove all magic users! Elementalists? Sorry, DanMcC says that Tyria has to obey the rules of reality, you're out! Necromancers, you're gone too. Mesmers? No, I'm sorry, DanMcC says that your powers have to conform to reality and make sense according to it, otherwise you're not permitted to be a part of the game, so you're out too. Etc, etc.
If you honestly think like that then Guild Wars 2 is clearly not the game for you.
Anyway, this is why I know mounts are a bad idea, because there are no rational, reasonable, level-headed, logical arguments for open world mounts, only arguments against. The only sort of mount I could personally tolerate is either mounts that exist only for dynamic events, as I mentioned in my own linked post, or cali59's idea of minigame mounts.
Really, mounts are such a bad idea. I think everyone needs to read that linked post, this post, and take it to heart.
And at least do us all the favour, please, of not patronising us. Just admit that at the end of the day the only reason you want a mount is so that you can shove a giant vanity item in someone's face, so that you can do so until it infuriates them enough to yell and cuss at you, and so that you can then trot off feeling fulfilled that that person you've just annoyed must obviously be jealous of your 'gamin' skillz.' Please, let's not pretend that there's any other reason behind this, because I have seen no other reasons which stand up against critical analysis.
I do agree, in large part, with this rather long and interesting post XD
Also, I do like the idea of mounts, but almost NEVER as I've seen them implemented in a game. So unless ANet can work their magic on this (they may do so at a later date!), I say no.
I don't understand why people seem to think that mounts are necessary in a game to explore. They're not, and in many ways, they remove the need and will to do so. If you're on some blazingly fast horse, you will likely miss any content anyway, or are merely travelling from hub to hub. This long travel time is really just a time sink, IMO. Sometimes, yeah, I want to walk around on my horse and feel badass, but I think it's far from necessary, and if implemented half-ass-edly (*cough* every MMO I've ever played *cough*), then it's simply not worth it.
That said, GW2 is NOT taking emphasis away from exploration by removing mounts. You will still *have* to walk everywhere, and may find secret places and/or events. Waypoints are merely removing the annoyance of spending half an hour trying to meet up with your friend.
Again your points are all about your personal preference, there's nothing factual about the points you've made.
In reference to Oblivion and Bethesda feeling players don't want them, well why does TES V have them? You know, if they discovered mounts broke their other game and a majority don't want them?
Mounts add to the experience for some players, they don't for others, nothing more really needs to be said. You don't like running through expansive areas designed for mounts, others do, who's right or who's wrong? No one. It's all about preferences.
Again I have to point out there have been plenty of arguments against the points you're making, they're littered all over this thread, there are many differing opinions of why people want mounts. Each and every one is a direct argument against what you're saying. Or do you somehow believe your opinion carries more weight than everyone elses?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson