User talk:Shard/Flaws

This...

Made me cry with tears of joy. *sniff* How much truth is involved into this? A lot.... A LOT! Not to mention I have recently became a victim of a perma ban (as well as as few friends of mine JUST BECAUSE THEY KNEW ME -but had it lifted afterwards only AFTER they contacted aNet about it) for literally no reason on my "last offense" (for saying the word "gay" in an aproppriate nature as one reason). They abused their support system, and, run a communist system at that. I hope aNet dies and burns in hell... You have no idea.

The thing that bugs me most is how aNet stalked me to hell in my chat logs with my girlfriend and my guildies in PRIVATE/SECLUDED AREAS (such as dungeons) and tried using that against me (even when none of them even REPORTED me). Anyways... Tganks for your section, it shedded a lot of truth about Communist.Net and whom they really are.

Take care. :) --Uchiha Lena 16:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You're referencing communism as if it's a bad thing. The word you're looking for is totalitarianism. 69.109.160.252 23:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I like communism. Too bad it never works when applied. ~Shard 01:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with every political system that they don't calculate human behavior in them. Thus every system (like current day capitalism), is going to die. Boro 06:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Capitalism keeps itself afloat because it relies on greed, which humans have. Greed is also the reason communism doesn't work. ~Shard 07:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

just like new updates, anet greedy for money for investors to back GW2, or are they private? Annoying And Deadly

I'm almost positive that anet is funding itself, which is why they're overcharging for features we should be getting for free. NC obviously handles publishing and distribution. ~Shard 20:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

they should have just given every 2 make over credits, and maybe one extreme makeover free, if they had all four campaigns and maybe BMP Annoying And Deadly

Or they should have made it cost in game gold. The sole reason for making people pay a RM fee is because anet's broke. They have a working sales model, they just don't have a clue how it works. ~Shard 21:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

yeah the update bugged me, i was more pissed than i was happy when they nerfed ursan Annoying And Deadly

Ursan is for bad players with no skill, but unfortunately the idiots at Anet had to give the bad players permanent shadow form so bad tanks become better than good tanks (Obsidian/Stance tank) and the warrior stances got nerfed into trash anyway.

i liek shadow form, its great for running, they should had left to 50% dmg, and kept the duration, to make it easier for runners, its so hard to run droks with A/e Annoying And Deadly

Shadow form is great for anything. That's why it shouldn't exist. In pve, a caster class should not be a better tank than a warrior. ~Shard 03:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

i play a sin, i admit sf is broken, they need to split it into two skills,

for 5..25..30 seconds you are immune to everything, but cannot cast offensive spells, hexes, cause conditions, or use attack skills, when this skill ends you lose all but 40% of your maximum health 10e, 3/4 cast, 60 recharge, enchantment (second skill) 1..3..4 seconds you attack 66% faster, but take triple dmg from all elemental sources, and you cannot be the target of hexes, and have a 80% chance to block, and you cannot cast spells, this spell ends after you have dealt 500dmg and or inflicted three condition (enchant)(ends all stances) this skill is disabled for 120 seconds. 25e, 2 sec cast, 0 recharge that would bring it back for pvp, the 66% is alot, but with most teams having an ele on thier team, or some form of elemental dmg its seems ok, frenzy on steroids +VoS, and sins seed the ability to spike, and the energy cost is to make it harder to use, the #1 idea is for running, its great for that, the #2 idea is to ressurct sins in pvp, i know 66% is about a 4-5 skill chain in 3 secs? but pre prot. Annoying And Deadly

What an absolutely extraordinary suggestion. 99.142.23.15 01:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

not really, its what anet should have made it. Annoying And Deadly

How would someone with brain cells make it? ~Shard 01:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I also wanted to add my 'Amen, brother'. I made an account just to add this. As a player of 4 years, you encapsulated my thoughts on titles. I'll add a bit more while I'm in the mood, if you don't mind, regarding Prophecies being a great game. Weren't the missions and bonuses in Prophecies awesome! Great diversity and interesting storyline tie-ins! Get the nut, drop it here, summon lumbering things, quickly race to save 5 unique people from death, run away from a (then) unbeatable horde, seek out (but don't attack) enemies, find and lead a ghost to a cemetary etc., instead of just; 'Do the same thing, but do/don't do a thing related to it. Factions pve was like one long escort quest... and I hate escort quests! Grr. And another thing, those speech pop-ups that drive the storyline, ok, so it cuts down on cinematics and you can get more story in, its bad enough that I don't bother to read them anyway and don't care whats going on, but why is there no option to turn them off? --Tong2 01:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I also prefer the "do this extra objective" instead of "do the same thing faster" as bonus objectives. The thing is, when you have such a limited engine in terms of gameplay flexibility, sometimes you have to add "lazy content." I think they just ran out of ideas for cool side-quests after prophecies. ~Shard 02:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Time to just move on, and stop your bitchin'. Go play WoW or something else that charges you a monthly fee and stay off the Wikis. In all your ranting, you also forget to mention that Guild Wars is a free to play game, and does provide the player with enough material to make the cost of a $30 to ~$100 set of games worthwhile to play. I've bought other games that cost as much or more than Prophecies, finished them in a couple of hours, and basically have felt screwed out of my money. GW has given me more than my money's worth, and for as long as you have apparently played it for, it has done the same for you. Now that the fun is over for you, move along to something else. Your futile attempts to 'bring down' Anet are just annoying, anymore. Want to bring them down? Write your own damn game to compete with it and put them out of business that way, if you can. Just my opinion.--209.194.208.116 17:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion doesn't change the facts that the devs don't know how their own game works. we just list them on our userspaces and use every opportunity to show them how they can do it better. --Boro 18:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

And all of your opinions on how they can do it better, really don't matter either. Any game can obviously be done 'better'. It's so easy for you or Shard or anyone to break down the game and say 'this is how they failed' and yet, they've sold millions of copies of the game, and it's still be played after 4 years. They must be doing something right then, and not charging a monthly fee for their efforts. I for one, applaud the job they've done, and appreciate the new content, even if you say it 'broke' the game. Sure, there are some added skills and changes that are 'unba;anced' to a point, but consider the difficulty of adding these new items, and how it would be difficult to test the multitude of skill variants to see how they can can be exploited. It's funny toom because Shard mentioned on one of his user pages that he used to do a bloodspike build with a team that could hardly be dealt with, then in the next breath bitches about new builds that also can't be dealt with, or that are overpowered. What? Is he just bitchin' because now others are doing the same thing that he was so proud of having done himself? You can't have it both ways. Just be glad that the game has changed, for better or for worse, because if it hadn't, it would be very stale and boring. Like I said before, if it's not fun for you anymore, stop playing...by choice..not by ban.--209.194.208.116 19:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You claim to have read my page, but clearly missed everything I said in it. they've sold millions of copies of the game, and it's still be played after 4 years. They must be doing something right then. Since you either don't retain information or are just too ignorant to do so, I'm going to make it as clear as I can:

1) 4 years ago: Game is good, people buy it.

2) Anet kills pvp and adds grind to pve.

3) Today: Game sucks, but everyone already bought it, hence the million+ copies.

I've seen GW when people played it. I wouldn't be surprised if 50% of the people who own accounts already quit. That number probably goes up to 80% for PvPers. I'd bet almost anything their player count goes down every week. What are they doing right? You tell me.

Your choices are to A) Actually read the page; or B) Go away. Thanks. ~Shard 20:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No you fail to read what I've said. You say 'they've failed', but they got your money, so they really didn't. They have you still talking about it, good or bad, so again, they didn't fail. They made changes to the game that you and others don't like, but how many other players can you say appreciate the changes? Where's your stats to prove the game sucks? Just your opinion, and your fanboy followers. I have yet to logon to the game and not seen a large number of players in many of the towns. Did you ask them all if they think it sucks? Um as for the grind, very little to none of it has to be done. Let me repeat that, 'You don't really have to grind, if you don't want to'. The GWEN titles, and skills that do require grind are by choice, and can't be used in PvP anyway. Don't like them? Don't do them. Not to mention, you can go straight into PvP right after you buy the game, so you don't have to do the PvE part if that is your goal in life. After 4 years, plenty of people still play it, and still buy it, so again they haven't failed. Is the percentange as high as it was 4 years ago, probably not, but is that because of the changes or just because people, by nature, will tend to move on to other things. That's not an indication of failure, it's just a natural progression for players to find other games to occupy their time with, period. Yes, four years ago people bought the game, accounting for millions, but how many bought the other games that came after it? No doubt, quite a few, including yourself, so um 'success' for them. Now really, tell me this, if they had not made any other campaigns, or additions, would you even be having this conversation? The short answer I would say is NO, because you would have stopped playing long ago because nothing would have be new or fun, and then you could honestly say they failed, and I would then agree with you. You sir, have failed. Failed to realize that you need to play something else, and that your measley ~$100 for the game has provided you with hours of entertainment. Not many games can really claim that kind of success.--209.194.208.116 20:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point of a business, and that's cash flow. So whether they got our money four years ago or not is irrelevant to the running costs required to keep GW going (hence the RM for in game accessories, they need a cash flow). From my personal experience, log onto GtoB around monthly update time. The place is full of hundreds of people ranting on about ArenaNet. I don't even play during "peak hour".

So, I'll reiterate it, so it's abundantly clear: Read the page, or go away. Either that, or learn the first thing about running a business, so you don't sound like another person talking about stuff they don't know anything about. King Neoterikos 23:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so you want them to charge you to play the game on a monthly basis, so then you'll have another thing to bitch about? Please, I do understand that a business is about cash flow, but Shard's page is about how they messed up the game by adding things that he and some others don't like in the game. Sure they could have charged you a monthly fee, and been able to provide many more things in the game, but look at it this way: they added quite a bit at NO CHARGE to you. They do offer some things that you can CHOOSE to buy, but you are not REQUIRED to do so. I'm not arguing that ANET has not made mistakes in game or in business. I'm arguing "why the hell is he still playing and bitching about it", when all he has to do is stop, and GO AWAY, as you say. I'm arguing that ANET has not failed, but rather succeeded to provide you with a good game and decent entertainment for very little money out of your pocket. And if they get as many people to buy GW2 as they got to buy GW1, then they will still be more successful than a couple of wiki 'god wanna-bes' like Shard. He's QQing about being banned, QQing about skill updates he doesn't like, QQing about about titles he doesn't have to go for, QQing about nothing important. You're right in that ANET is not making as much money as they could be, or could have been making. So, basically when it comes to the players, they're providing a free game to play, and in that sense, they failed at becoming uber rich on it. But they succeeded in making a good game that has kept even the cryers like Shard playing for 4 years. He should be happy he spent so little money, to have as much fun as he's had for so long, and if the fun has stopped for him, then he needs to leave the game behind and move on with his life, what little there may be of it. You guys are funny in how you end arguments with GO AWAY, or name calling. No wonder you people get banned from the game. What ever happened to GG (Good game) at the end of a match, and good sportmanship, or you make a good point? One last thing, in reference to your comment: The place is full of hundreds of people ranting on about ArenaNet. I don't even play during "peak hour". But they still play...HUNDREDS of them. They still come to the game for entertainment. If ANET truly failed, people like this would logon and find themselves alone in the district.--24.92.116.83 02:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Protip the first: most of the "cryers" don't play the game anymore (play the game, verb: actually engaging in content on a regular basis rather than using GW as a chat room/client). Protip the second: Sportsmanship largely went out the window with game balance and conga lines some time ago. Protip the third: Why are you complaining about a user on the wiki posting a rant in their own namespace? To use your logic, you ought to stop reading, and go away.

By the way, your thinly veiled "get a life" statement is not much better than "name calling". Vili 点 02:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If he can post his complaints in his user page, then I can comment on it as much as he can complain; that's why! Clearly he lets the game get to him so much, which is why I'm suggesting that he just move on, and maybe play something else. But he keeps updating his page with complaints about how the game sucks, and yet he just has to 'NOT PLAY' and he won't have anything to complain about. So your protip suggests that Shard is not a cryer, because he still plays the game, (i.e. actually engaging in content on a regular basis), right? If that's true, then the game has succeeded in its original intent...to entertain the player, right? And please, sportmanship has nothing to do with game balance, it's an attribute within you. A sportsman is a person who can still accept defeat and show dignity in the face of failure or success, even if that means in the face of cheating or exploiting the game features. Shard's recent youtube video posting is enough to show that he is a poor sportsman, whether he was on the winning team, or not even playing at all. True, I did suggest that he had no life, and true that is not much better than calling him a name, but, when in Rome... Note, that his one and only comment so far demonstrates his name calling and 'go away' statements, rather than actually considering that maybe he's not entirely right about the things his user page says. Finally, in response to your protip number 3(why are you complaining about a user on the wiki posting a rant in their own namespace) I say, Why are you commenting on his same user page as well? Hello Kettle, "You're black..don't ya know?" So if you comment in agreement on his page, that's ok, but you can't comment in disagreement? Good bye free speech! Debate is fun!--24.92.116.83 02:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Protip: Get out more. King Neoterikos 04:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You have amazing reading comprehension skills. I'll try to use simpler language this time.

Shard doesn't seriously play Guild Wars anymore, least of all because his main account got permabanned. Like many Guild Wars veterans, he might get on once in a while to shit around with friends, fuck up noobs in PvP, or just chat with guildies. The fact that he keeps updating this page says absolutely nothing about how much he plays, if he enjoys it or not (obviously he doesn't, which invalidates your "entertain the player" clause), or any other conclusions...other than that the game has failed to improve during that time, in his view. (Articles like this are often works in progress, anyway. I certainly couldn't list everything I liked or hated about Guild Wars in one sitting without forgetting some important thing or another.)

Game balance has plenty to do with sportsmanship in Guild Wars. Dishonorable play is dishonorable, cheating is cheating, what have you. You are correct that sportsmanship is an independent quality which arises from the player and not the game. But when you consider how few sportsmen are left in the game these days (honestly, how many times have you met a dignified touch ranger/pimpslapper/MB ele/whatever) compared to in the past, I come to the conclusion that they have deserted the game (due to it becoming increasingly unplayable over time) and/or while they would normally be sportsmen, the disgusting collapse of PvP has quashed any dignity and respect they might have had for their fellow players. It's unreasonably demanding on an average player to ask them to accept dignified defeat when no one takes the game seriously and the entire thing is more or less a joke anyway. I mean, when you have the supposed "pinnacle" of the playerbase thumbing their noses at sportsmanship (rawr and zero's conga line), what can you expect from the "lesser" of us?

Riposte is a bad skill and yours missed badly. I'm commenting on this page because I'm an RC hawk who loves to troll people for amusement. (You can make whatever comments you want about what sort of life I have/need to get, but you know, everyone needs a hobby.) I found your post(s) here ripe for countertrolling, largely because of your...original...logic and interpretation. To be level with you, I haven't even read the article more than a tl;dr skim, so I have no idea what the content is, much less could I comment on it (nor do I particularly care - there's no point arguing with Shard, I've found). Vili 点 05:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sportsmanship on the Internet? Keep dreaming. --Riddle 05:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, the Zaishen still tell me GG. They don't have apex honor. Vili 点 05:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Consider this: Zaishen like fighting. The best part of fighting is winning. Nothing good comes from a lost fight. Therefore, the Zaishen use "gg" ironically. :P --Riddle 05:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"Shard doesn't seriously play the game anymore". Probably true. That's why I recommend that he just stop playing, period. If he plays, even in a limited capacity, or just 'shitting' around with friends, then he is just promoting the game he hates, and that is just plain stupid. And I really don't care if he or you or anyone comments on how bad the game is or has become in their opinion, because after all, I really do respect your right to your opinions. All I'm saying is, don't support the game if you don't like it. Posting here, or playing the game is going to in some ways, keep the game going. Protip 1: When the game stops being fun for you, stop playing, stop commenting on it, stop complaining about it, and move on with your lives. There are other games and forms of entertainment. Protip 2: Without Protip 1, you prove what kind of life you really live, and that's just sad. I've only made a few remarks in the span of just a couple of days, for very little of my time, just for fun, and look at how seriously upset it has made you people over a GAME. King Neoterikos is the only one of you who has the right idea, whether intended or not to support my comments. Protip: Get out more Words to live by people. The game is just a game, not your lives. If your equation is in fact "life"="game" then Shard is indeed correct. The game is a failure. Do the 'math'. --209.194.208.116 17:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Upset? I'm just doing this for shits and giggles. :\ Vili 点 17:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Especially it is funny when the devs have to admit that they failed (in X or Y skill's update. Boro 17:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It's even funnier that the devs counted your money as soon as you spent it. As for the skills updates, well that doesn't prove failure or not. That's just changes...changes that even Shard, and many of you guys say need to be done. So they keep changing it. Some people like them, some don't. Can't please everyone. But they keep you coming back for more, if even to have you complain about it. So, that's a success...to get you to play, discusss, or disrepect their game. Still money they already received from you. And I too, am only doing this for shits and giggles. That's entertainment for you...and yet another aspect of how GW succeeded to entertain. If ANET and GW were a true failure, it wouldn't have lasted more than a few days, but 4 years later you still talk about it...for shits and giggles.--209.194.208.116 18:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess we have come to agreement. All of us are doing this for shits and giggles (to outsiders this mean that ranting gives us entertainment), and shard's article is just a part of it. Boro 19:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I absoulutely agree with that, and also that I know it's unlikely any of us will change our minds on the subject. But that is largely why I brought it up, because if Shard's article brings him some entertainment, then more power to him. But it's also more power to ANET and GW for illiciting such a response from him. Success for them...not a failure as his article would lead 'outside' readers to believe. Clearly, that's something he hasn't yet realized. I merely suggested that he make his peace with his feelings about the game, which he has made clear in his pages, and then move on to something else. It's his choice, I know, but it doesn't hurt to try to help him to realize that, and give him a little push out the door, so-to-speak. Wouldn't you agree?--209.194.208.116 20:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

--Babyduck 00:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

160000

what do you have to kill 160000 times for a title? --Lemming 02:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The Eye of the North reputation titles. That's the maximum, though: no one would be stupid enough to get the title by only killing foes for one rep point each, always stopping before 25, never completing any quests or missions, not turning in books, etc. But still - even if one does everything in a normal playthrough, all quests, all outposts, etc. and turns in an easy mode book (not counting dungeons, which I consider optional content), you end up with somewhere between 26,000 and 40,000 points. So you theoretically have to kill 120,000 more monsters or such.

It's not really meant as a literal statement, though. It's the concept or the principle at stake... to get the reputation titles, you have to repetitively repeat content over and over again if you have any hope of being efficient. I can't be bothered to run the calculation, but I'm pretty sure even if you did everything in EotN once - all quests, missions, vanquishes, dungeons, etc. both in easy mode and hard mode - you would still not be at max rank. Vili 点 02:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but you DON'T have to kill that many, because ANET gave you other means in which to get the title, which is I'm sure why Lemming asked the question. Thus, Shard's comment is inaccurate. It is also inaccurate in that there actually were many players who, believe it or not, asked for some grind, and still actively do it. If they didn't, nobody would be getting the titles. Just because Shard doesn't want to do it, doesn't mean that 'Nobody wants grind'. Fortunately for him, he can choose not to do it. It's not like Anet says you have to max survivor in order to unlock the PvP side of the game, or to even complete the game. Some mild grind is needed to advance in the game, but that was to help prevent players from just running to all the towns and not really playing. If you play normally, and just do the quests, and missions, you'll get enough points to advance further in the game. Don't max the titles if you don't want to. Really simple stuff here.--24.92.116.83 02:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, there's a better way to make titles than grind, and that's by making it really hard to get a point, but have the title only need a few points. Example: "Win a rated GvG in 60 seconds." How many people can honestly say they've done that? Excluding that ridiculous bug with SoGM, anyway. It'd be singular epic achievements instead of OMGGRIND. The Hard Mode system was like this to an extent, in that you could do a mission that was harder than normal in exchange for some level of prestige if you did them all. It was still very grindy, though. --Jette 03:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

True. But do you really need to get the titles? Come on people! It's a choice. If the prestige of getting the titles is for others to see, and not for your own self-gratification that you acomplished something that you set out to do, then you're looking for respect in the wrong place. It's a game, not real life, and respect in real life is the only thing that matters. Unless you think it's going to be meaningful to put on your headstone, "Here lies Mr. Umptysquat, aka Jette, who once successfully Won and rated GvG match in under 60 seconds." Which is the point I'm trying to make. If you don't like the grind, simply don't do it. It's called free will. Make the choice, but don't complain about the choice you made.--24.92.116.83 03:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Flaw in your reasoning: Grind provides real benefits. Also, lolcontent. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 03:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really. It provides in game benefits, true...but that's not real benefits, because it's a game. Even still, the choice is yours to make. Grind for your 'benefits' or don't grind and don't get your 'benefits'. Choice is the key here. It's similar to a job. You can work hard to advance in your career, and reap the benefits of your 'grind', or you can just ease on through your job, do the bare minimum, and fail to obtain those benefits you could have otherwise gotten.--24.92.116.83 03:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Many players are so bad at the game that they require the assistance of those "benefits" to fully complete or even enjoy the game, though. Historical example: Ursan Blessing and Domain of Anguish.

The problem with the "if you don't like the grind, don't do it" argument is that "grind" infuses so many aspects of Guild Wars - not just the titles, those are simply the most obvious figureheads - that to not do any grind at all would be tantamount to....not playing Guild Wars. The amount of non-grind content one can complete before petering out is really quite small, unless you are a truly casual player who takes like a day to complete one mission/primary quest or whatever...in that case, Guild Wars might last you awhile. This claim does come with a disclaimer, though (see what I did there): you have to be of the mindset that much of the content in Guild Wars is the same old stuff reskinned and reused. Ice Caves of Sorrow is functionally no different from Jokanur Diggings or Sunjiang District...you go to point A, kill monster group B, solve simple puzzle C, keep idiot NPC D from Leeroying, and so on. The functional differences between most of the missions is very small in that regard. This is opposed to truly different missions, which are rare: for example, the Crystal Desert missions, Tihark Orchard, Dzagonur Bastion, Aurora Glade (well, part of it), Assault on the Stronghold...when most of the basic PvE is just the same old repetitive gameplay, the entire game becomes grind, and you're not left with much to play with.

Thankfully, we have PvP to alleviate such boredom...or we used to, before massive powercreep and imbalanced shit reduced most of it to buildwars. Even PvP starts to seem like a grind when you can more or less predict which cookie-cutter builds you'll run into...matches are no longer meaningfully different, and the worst part is that to seriously compete you might have to run that kind of shit too. (Or buy/bribe your way to acceptable rank, so you skip that part.) Vili 点 05:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) "comparing a game to real life"
"a game"
"A GAME"
So... I should have to work in my GAME to be able to play my GAME? I always thought the reward of playing a game was supposed to be PLAYING THE GAME, not being able to play the game later on. Maybe I'm totally wrong here, though. Maybe games are supposed to be like jobs. And maybe I should go work 9 to 5 at the nearest fast food place for a low paycheck and degrade myself for the entertainment of convenience of people I do not know, because at least then I would be getting actual money at the end, instead of a title which only helps me grind out more titles, since ANet refuses to even satisfy PvP or PvE players and introduce some new content or balance the game. Please remove your lips from ANet's member or get out. --Jette 05:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wellyou're right to a point. Much of the game has the same dynamic, of go do this, or go here for that, etc. Grind, if you wish to call it, simply because it is repetitive, and yes, in that respect I'll agree to a point that it is grind. Lots of games can then be called grindy. First person shooters: go here, kill these guys, protect these people, blow this up. Hmmm, grindy. Racing simulators: Drive this car, around these tracks, be the first to finish, repeat. See my point? Every game that I can think of, to a point has a degree of repetition(I mean grind) in it. But it still holds true that YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DO IT if you don't want to. If that means not playing PvE, then don't play PvE, and you won't have to bitch about grind. If that means, do not play the game entirely, then don't play it. That's the point I'm making. Nobody is holding a gun to your head, and saying, PLAY THIS GAME OR I'LL SHOOT. See my point? You can PvP right off the bat, and if that's your choice, and your choice to not PvE, then using the grind complaint about the game failing is just stupid. To Jette: No, if you consider grind, to be work, then you need to stop playing. But if you want to obtain the added content in the game, then you need to do something to get it, right. Now if that means killing x number of foes to get it, and you want the content bad enough, then go kill x numbder of foes. If you find that too hard, or too annoying, then don't do it. It's the similar to a job, at least in part(which is why I stress similar) in that if you want an end result, you need to perform those steps that are necessary to achieve that goal. The way you people are thinking is, "ANET should just give me everything that I want in the game." Well where's the fun in that? If grind is not your thing, well just don't do it. You DON'T need the added content. You will be able to live without it. At least that's what I hope to be true. --209.194.208.116 17:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for using a "Wikipedia definition", as I don't have Webster handy: "Grinding is a term used in video gaming to describe the process of engaging in repetitive and/or non-entertaining gameplay in order to gain access to other features within the game. The most common usage is in the context of MMORPGs ... in which it is often necessary for a character to repeatedly kill AI-controlled monsters, using basically the same strategy over and over again, in order to advance their character level to be able to access newer content."

So yes, repetition fits the description of grind fairly well. Most of PvE is won by tab-spacing repetitively without any thought given to what skills one is running, selection of build, even paying attention to the game, etc. Especially after one gets heroes, you can more or less complete everything in the game without ever changing your build and/or strategy. You could easily apply the analogy to a racing game...few have "item systems" any more complicated than Mario Kart, and the differences in "tracks" is largely cosmetic. I would, however, strongly disagree with lumping FPS into the same category. Consider Golden Eye for example, perhaps the greatest ever made...You can boil the game down so far that it becomes "shoot bad guys" or whatever, but then that is oversimplifying. While simple in theory, FPS games generally provide significantly different variation of content to avoid becoming grindy. The analogy most certainly doesn't hold for most RPG games, to analyze further... look at any Final Fantasy or Zelda game, for example...Sometimes there are grindy bits where one might have to, say, level up by fighting repeated random battles. But generally that is just an inherent part of playing through the game. To be identified as grind, one generally has to stop from "normal" gameplay to accomplish it. An example of this would be the "Befriending the Kurzicks/Luxons" quests, especially back in the days when the only way to get faction was from CMs and a few quests.

By the way, PvP can get pretty grindy too. And even though one starts at max level on a PvP character, you will have to grind sooner or later if you want to acquire the proper skills and equipment to PvP for srs...

The thing with the "Nobody is holding a gun to your head" counterargument is that that's general life advice which just reflects a totally different viewpoint from most people...It's correct, for the vast majority of choices in life, "no one" is "forcing" you to do anything...but that kind of attitude also means it's pointless to bitch about, well, anything. And I don't know anyone who could hold to that... Vili 点 18:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You're the one who started the "it's the repetition that makes it grindy" argument. Which is why I said I agreed to a point that if you use the definition of having to repeat certain steps to achieve a goal is considered grind, then many games also equate to grind. Even in many RPGs you have to complete this quest or that quest, find and bring this item to that guy, and he'll make this for you in return. And golden eye is no different in that simplified nature. I personally don't really believe that FPS shooters are grind, or racing games for that matter. I was just using your equation of repetition=grind to show that it isn't very accurate. I agree that GW has alot of grind in it. I never once said that it didn't. But in reality, if you do just the minimum of what is needed to beat the game, then your level of grind, and repetition really isn't much more than that of other games, including golden eye. My point exactly is that if you consider it to be grind, by wiki's definition, in that it is repetitive to the point of not being fun for you, then don't play the game. Need a simple equation? "Not fun to play?" = "Don't Play". But don't play the game, then bitch because you had zero fun in it all the way. You are not obligated once you start the game to complete the game, or to even play the game. Money lost? So what? Instead, posters like Shard will play the game, then bitch they had no fun at it, when all they had to do was stop altogether once the game became to unbearable for them. Wouldn't you agree? I've bought games myself that in the first few minutes of play, I tell myself "This is crap." and never play the game ever again. Ocassionally I might try to send the game back and get a refund, but never once did I contact the company and say "You got me! Took my money and ran with it for the piece of crap game", or for that matter played the game all the way through, then get on some forum or user page and bitch about how the game sucked. Either you play for fun, or you don't play at all. In the first few minutes of Guild Wars, you people should have recognized the pattern of repetition that was forming as you went through Pre, and decided then and there that you didn't like the game because of the grind. Not 4 years later, or even 1 month later of playing it. It was obvious from the quests and the leveling up, that grind was involved in the game.--209.194.208.116 19:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No, actually, I got that argument from the article. "Go to point A, fight through area B, kill enemy C, collect reward at point D, get next identical quest." This is an elaboration of the "textbook" definition of "grind". I haven't discussed any of my own personal views at all yet...

The thing with Pre-Searing (okay, this is my actual view) and, in fact, Prophecies in general is that it really doesn't equate to the rest of Guild Wars. Pre-Searing is an immaculately designed utopia; few other places in Guild Wars can compare to it in terms of quality. I almost want to compare it to starting a new PvE character in WoW. You can almost develop a positive care level for the NPCs there, enough to motivate you to complete optional secondary quests. Primary quests and missions in Prophecies actually served a purpose: they move the storyline along in some meaningful way and often have the player moving some decent distance mapwise as well. Many of them actually seemed to be, how to say? Important. More importantly, they were actually bearable or even fun due to a large lack of NPCs getting stuck on chests, NPCs taking forty minutes to open doors, having to vanquish an entire area, and so on...A player like me, who started Guild Wars way back in the day when Prophecies was the only campaign, never really experienced the sort of boring repetitive gameplay that so characterized Factions, Nightfall, and Grind of the North. One of the best features of Pre was that you could skip ahead if you got bored, and the game wouldn't even penalize you, since monsters in Old Ascalon are designed for a party of level 3 characters or so. (And then if you really wanted to, you could get a Droks run, and instantly get to the endgame. You even had a fair fighting chance to beat the game at that point, too!) You can roll a new character in Prophecies and be out of Pre within like five minutes. Compare that to Shing Jea or Istan, where there are many quests, two primary missions, Sunspear points requirements, and all sorts of other zzz stuff which takes some hours. By the time you finally leave those "noob islands" you're already at or close to Level 20, have a secondary profession, and so on...Even if you stick to the bare minimum of playing, you'd be at least level 10. But then especially in Factions, the game severely punishes you, by putting level 20 and up foes right in your path who will kill you in one hit and otherwise make gameplay not fun. The first mainland mission, Vizunah Square, is extremely difficult for new players who aren't at level 20 and fully equipped with max armor and fairly decent skills. Thus a player's dilemna: be figuratively "forced" to do secondary quests, kill enemies for exp, farm money for armor, buy new skills, and so on; or struggle through an all-but-impossible situation where only luck would get one through. (A very good allied party can carry a terrible one in Vizunah, for example.) Nightfall addressed this problem in two ways, namely by 1) giving the "Sunspear Battle Cry" buff for the Consulate Docks misson, and 2) giving all of the player's attribute points as rewards for primary quests, so they actually had a fighting chance. Of course, this is kind of negated due to the aforementioned required point-farming. (I've never personally had to "farm" for points, but then I always complete like 100% of the secondary quests anyway. People who just played the "bare minimum" to advance got caught up on that.) If one had started with Factions or Nightfall, I agree 100% that within just a few minutes of playing the game one could realize how much "grind" would be involved...and I personally probably would have quit at that point. I believe that one thing that keeps people like me (and Shard etc?) playing is our memories of a less grindy Guild Wars which was pretty fun. We hang around in the hopes to see the game come back to that level again. Even though we've been more or less continually disappointed, it's hard to give up on something that was once so great. A weak motiation, I suppose, but... Vili 点 18:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I can agree with some of your arguments which, believe it or not, I don't actually disagree with all of Shard arguments either, which I think most of you commentors are missing. I only really disagree with him saying ANET failed, and suggest he move on to something else. First: You did reference Shard's argument for the A-B-C repetition pattern in a previous post, which makes it appear that Shard's views on this were also your own views, and that is what I was responding to. Secondly: You, made the following statement; "The functional differences between most of the missions is very small in that regard", and you made exception with truly rare missions, like the desert missions etc. So, even you recognized that the majority of the missions(quests as well, mind you) are not functionally that different from each other, even in Prophecies. And that proves my point that early on in Prophecies, you should have recognized that pattern of repetition to the point of deciding whether or not you wanted continue to repeat quests and missions that have so much in simularity, or to just stop playing because you were beginning to realize the game sucks, as Shard put it. Thirdly: You say that with Pre you were almost able to develop a positive care level with the characters to make you want to do optional quests for them. But isn't it possible that you were able to develop this 'link' to npcs primarily because it was all still new to you, making it much easier to immerse yourself into this world, than it would be to immerse yourself into subsequent campaigns? Think about it. Have you ever watched a movie you really liked that had actors in it that you liked, only to see the sequel come out with different actors playing the same characters, and you hated it because of that? Going from one campaign to another, unfortunately, sets a bias for you and many others that set the sequels at a higher, and unfair, expectation level than the original. It's the New Coke, Classic Coke scenario. GW started at 0 for you where Factions Started at minus 500, and had to work it's way to 0 before you would even give it a chance. Fourthly: You pointed out some glitches in the games. Well, Mr. Perfect, write up a game that can sell as many copies as GW and see how many glitches are in it. Programming is not easy, and working all of the bugs out can never be %100, especially since the game has to run on a nearly unlimited combination of hardware for the players. I think ANET has done a pretty good job to fix a lot of these issues. Some still exist, but are really so minor that it really isn't that big of a deal. I mean come on. So you had to restart a mission because an NPC got stuck on a chest. Sure, annoying, but much better than having a game that blue screens your PC right out of the box, and that you need to find patches for just to get it to run the first time. I've had that happen too many times to count with other games. Fifthly: Ok you're right. In Prophecies, you weren't forced to grind and could move through the game pretty quickly by avoiding all those repetitive and boring quests and missions you didn't want to play. Of course, alot of players also complained because then it was too easy, and players didn't really have to play to beat the game, and running is 'cheating'. How many level ones did you see in Drok's or further? It was cool at first, but then it became just annoying. Well, ANET listened, and implemented blocks in later campaigns the reduced running, by making you have to do x-y-z first before advancing. Some people liked it; some didn't. Can't please everyone. Unfortunately, this x-y-z involved adding more quests, and missions that had pre-requisites to them, plus some modest amount of grind. Not so much that you would slit your wrists over, however. I mean, they did not say you had to max Sunspear points to get to another town, just rank 7. And seriously, 2500 points after doing the quests and just naturally killing with the bounties active, it's not that hard to achieve that rank. I have a friend who finished Nightfall in less that 24 hours from start to finish. Sure it was slower than the sub-4 hours he took to complete factions. The point being that Shard and you make it seem like you really have to spend hours if not days of grind to just finish the game, and that is just untrue. Now, to max the titles, which Shard was really bitching about, that's where I said YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IT if you chose not to, so don't bitch about it as having broken the game, because you can still finish the game without them. Now i do understand why you and Shard still stick around...hoping that somehow ANET will recode all of GW into a completely new game so that you can replay it once again and get more enjoyment playing it for another 4 years, but you're an adult I presume, so I ask you "What's the likely-hood that will happen?" Well it's not. Sure, they'll add a little content here and there, but most of it will involve some grind that you don't like, so why do you or Shard even bother? Wait for GW2 to come out and just hope that ANET does as well, if not better with it, as they have done with GW1.--24.92.116.83 02:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I have full intentions of responding to this section in more depth, but our dialogue has grown to such WoT's that it's gonna take me awhile to find that kind of time again. ;) Vili 点 03:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

"If you don't like it, don't do it" or "only do what you enjoy" don't apply to a game where the developers purposefully flip entire game areas upside down in terms of playability. Some things were fun a long time ago, but were changed drastically and now are pointless (all of pvp, most of pve). It's not about sticking with what we like, because Anet takes things we like out of the game. I can't really compare it to anything else, no other game company I know of has ever been that stupid. Arenanet literally stripped all the good parts of GW out of the game and left only garbage.

If they had added a pvp format where you could use older versions of skills, or where people with competitive gameplay experience ran tournaments and set up the rules, pvp would have a chance. PvE can't really be helped after all the additions they've made. Too many people are too spread out to play together, and the average player is too dumb to know how good the party search feature is, which is why nobody uses it. PvE has turned into a single player game with tons of grind and no story, minus the occasional guild vanquish or dungeon gatherings.

I'm not buying GW2 because I know how terrible the maintenance will be. Hopefully, some of the smart developers will walk away from Arenanet with some lessons learned. Most important of those: don't shit on a good game. ~Shard 04:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If somebody will buy me a nice black jumpsuit and a crowbar, I could steal all the source files for GW and set up my own server somewhere in China and invite all of you, but something tells me nobody will. In any case, ANet shouldn't be too surprised when all of their fans are playing starcraft 2. --Jette 05:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I doubt the devs will walk away from GW2. If GW2 goes like GW1 however, I would imagine they will have learned. If ANet tells them GW3 though "fool me 3 times" some might stay. The name of the original was that awesome so it may have that effect. I'm probably going to give GW2 a chance. That really depends on if it's a WoW wannabe or progression of the genre.~>Sins WDB 07:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

WoW plus polygons. ~Shard 07:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

WoW with higher systems requirements. :< (other than pure filesize....ugh) Vili 点 07:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

What I want is a free open-source PvP-based MMO made by competent enthusiasts of the genre and maintained by people who actually play the game and, just as importantly, are actually good at the game. You know that old saying, "the best things in life are free?" Well, it goes triple for computers. Without the motivation to make the game crappy to attract casual-play dick-sponges and the obsessive qualities needed to make and support a free MMO in the first place, it will be perfect. I'd do it myself but I has no programman skills. Proof of my theory can be seen with other free programs: frostwire is better than limewire, gimp is better than photoshop, openoffice is better than msoffice, linux is a thousand times better than windows, firefox is better than... well, everything except Opera, which is about equal, except Opera has no extensions... you get my point. --Jette 13:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, we'll just have to agree that Shard, and most of you just wouldn't be pleased with anything, and will gripe just about anything. Somehow I doubt even Shard would be happy with the whole "If they had added a pvp format where you could use older versions of skills." if that scenario took place. While I'm sure it would be fun for you for a little while, how quickly would you get bored if nothing changed? No skills added, or changed. No controversy, or conflict over the changes. *Yawn* Most people, I would wager, enjoy a certain level of change, otherwise things would be very boring. Clearly Shard, you no longer like GW or ANET, and have stated that you will not buy GW2. With that being said, I think your time could be better spent doing something else. Which only stresses why I suggested you stop your bitchin', leave GW in your past, leave GW Wiki behind you, and move on with your life. You serve no purpose here.--24.92.116.83 18:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I try not to presume what others are thinking... but I imagine the reason a lot of people disgusted with ANet and the state of the game, myself included, never stop complaining about it is because 99% of things ANet does, they do wrong. Poor implementation, poor research, poor ideas... give them anything and they will find a way to screw it up. I won't speak for Shard or any of the others who don't feel like pretending ANet is doing the best they can or even being competent, but I will say that if they cleaned up their act and made the game good again, I would be more than happy to shut up and play it again, because I remember before Nightfall came out when the game was really good and I had precious few complaints. Guild Wars was an amazing game with a lot of unique ideas that should have been great a lot longer than it ended up being. Now it's like Diet WoW. --Jette 18:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Anon, do you know who I am? I played during prophecies and was very pleased with it, so pleased that the only posts I made were content suggestions on guru or something. I only started complaining about Anet's failures when they started making them. If I complain about everything, search for my posts on blizzard's forums (ShardFenix), or on bioware's (Shard_Fenix). You will find zero complaints from me. ~Shard 21:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Shard, do you know who I am? Do you care? Well the feeling is mutual, I'm sure. I too played Prophecies when it first came out. Did you think you were special in having played it so long ago, and found it to be fun back then? Did you think you were you the only one, thus somehow making you the expert of all experts on the game? My, you do have a very high opinion of yourself, 'oh all-knowing player of 4 years ago.' I too have played other games, and you will not find any complaints from me about them, even if you knew who I really am. So what? Your opinions or lack thereof on other games are irrelevant to this conversation. Regardless of your opinions on any "mistakes" ANET has or has not made, the question still remains. Why continue complaining after 4 years? You've said your peace, more than a few times in your pages, now it's time for you to shut your mind to ANET and Guild Wars and move along. That's been my point to you all this time. But failing to do so, that is a victory for ANET. Bad publicity is just as useful and good publicity.--24.92.116.83 23:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

1/10. You are posting here because you are reading Shard's opinions. I have never seen a troll fail so hard before. King Neoterikos 23:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

So sayeth a troller himself. Contribute something useful to the conversation, otherwise you fail.--24.92.116.83 00:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for just undermining everything you have said on this page :D King Neoterikos 00:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've read many of Shard's diatribes and have been following this saga as well, and I must say that i haven't felt the need to comment until now. Shard's proclamation of self importance forced me to make an account just to ask a very important question. I also have played GW Prophecies since way back in the day of 2005. So Shard, do you know me? Oh and I would like to point out that I checked and rechecked my little blog here so I didn't end up on your list of people who need to be schooled in English, (also pretty self important) but I'm sure you will find a way to add me.--Babyduck 00:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The devs all know who Shard is. That English article should be posted wherever your posts are required to make sense to other people. King Neoterikos 00:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see, since the devs all know who Shard is everyone else should as well. Maybe it's not proper etiquette to disagree with or say something oppossing Shard on his page? Maybe the titles or headings should say Shard sycophants only or defenders of Shard only, others need not comment. What is so wrong about saying that the comment he made was maybe a little self important. He wasn't responding to a dev, just someone blogging on his page. Most likely that person does infact not know who Shard is. "Anon, do you know who I am?" hmmmm nope still looks to be self important to me.--Babyduck 01:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop putting words into my mouth, it makes you look stupid. King Neoterikos 01:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I have to agree with sins, although i dont think anet is going to make any expansions for gw2. i think they're gunna fold after noone buys it. this economy is too bad to try to do something like launch a game with an unsupportive player base. --adrin 01:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I was not proclaiming my self-importance, I was asking if you knew me. People who say things like you just wouldn't be pleased with anything, and will gripe just about anything, clearly have no idea what I'm like and probably shouldn't be revealing their shining retardation in a public place like the wiki. It's nice that you assume you know what I think of myself, but it's hardly relevant to anything. Please clean the cobwebs out of your brain, and when you've done that, contribute something worthwhile to the conversation. ~Shard 01:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess that answers my question about disagreeing with Shard or one of his (as I have started thinking of them) Shardies, hmmm would the ladies be Shardettes? Ah well thats another subject, moving on. I did not put words into your mouth I posed questions and gave my opinion. I guess that calling someone stupid and pointing out their "shining retardation" is the best way to deal with someone elses opposing comments. I will "shine on" and leave this blog for the Shardy's and Shardettes to keep up there vigil against us of the shining retardation sect. --Babyduck 02:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

it's shardite. not shardie --adrin 02:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL, OK, clearly you'll all dance around the point I was making, even if to deaf hears (eyes), and throw out insults as a way to support your arguments rather than actually trying to understand what someone else is saying. So I'll just end by saying that ANET did succeed with Guild Wars and the subsequent campaigns, even if to just get you talking about, arguing about, trolling about, or complaining about it. Sure this is a pointless conversation...because it's just a game. The way Shard talks about it, though, he makes it sound like ANET killed his dog, and the developers took his car for a joy ride. They gave you a game, that for a while you had fun at. They changed it, and you didn't like it. Period. While I don't know you, I wish you the best, and hope that 4 years from now, you're not still blogging about how ANET 'failed' and Guild Wars 'sucks', because that would just be sad.--24.92.116.83 02:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I would have been gone last December if SC2 was released on time. I'm only still here because I have nothing else to do. ~Shard 02:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

they didnt change the game, they ruined it. there's a difference. changed pvp from who you have on your team to what skills are on your bar --adrin 02:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

On the plus side, SC2 is looking better and better every time they release a battle report... --76.79.47.141 03:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Very mch so. You know what else? They're testing their game!! I know, right!? ~Shard 05:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

So true.

Guild Wars failed because Arenanet doesn't care about its players.

Damn right, i've thought that should i buy WoW. And this:

We make games we want to play

A simple reason why they don't care what we think. And passioned gamers? Yeah, passioned gamers of shitty games XD - J.P.Talk 14:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Having gotten back into D2...

"Around this time, arenanet was working on a new way to play the game: Hard Mode Enemies are Higher Level and are on Steroids, but are Still Stupid and thus Not Challenging Mode. I see the concept. Make an easy game harder. However, you don't make something harder by making it take longer to do. You make it harder by making it more challenging. I don't know how they could have missed that, it's so simple, the words tell you what to do to."

I am curious of your opinion towards Diablo II's Nightmare and Hell modes. For those who don't know, after you beat the Diablo (II/II:LoD) campaign on a character, that character has an option to play in Nightmare, where the monsters have more HP, do more damage and there are more boss monsters around, which the bosses in Nightmare also have more effects. And for icing on the cake, player's elemental resistances are hit with a -40 debuff, and the maps are bigger and more complex. Hell mode comes after completing the Nightmare Campaign, and monsters are even tougher. Virtually all monsters are immune to at least one damage type, have even more HP, do more damage, and spawn as more bosses. Furthermore, players are hit with a further -60 elemental resistances debuff (-100 in total) and maps are even bigger and more complex than Nightmare's.

After re-reading that quote, I couldn't help but draw some similarities between Nightmare and Hell compared to Hard Mode. I think the major differences are:

1. Guild Wars started as a game balanced to challenge level 20s, while Diablo II was meant to challenge up to Level 99s.
   1. This meant that, in order for Guild Wars to add a difficulty, there would have to be a way to raise the player's level too. As such, you are given the ability to artificially raise your level.
   2. Given the limited amount of leveling you can do in GW, there is only a limited amount of changes devs can do before the monsters are "too far out of reach."
2. Also given the limits of items in GW, you can't debuff the characters pretty much at all, since there is no means by what you could equip to balance out said debuffs.
3. Guild Wars maps are also fairly static (especially in the later campaigns, when Creature Spawns also became much more static) whereas Diablo II's map changes every time you enter a game.

tl:dr What do you think of D2's difficulty system, especially compared to GW's Hard Mode? --Riddle 22:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. 1. Why did I read in articles from a couple of them that they did play the game a bit? 2. Why are you even on gw wiki if you don't like anet or the game? I'm curious. Some left for WoW or other games, that didn't like how gw is, etc. There's good and bad in all games and if someone can truly make a 'great' game. I'd like to see that. X-D Thanks for an interesting read, though. ♥ Ariyen ♀ 21:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

1. I don't understand that question.
2. I don't hate arenanet or the game. They just happen to both suck.
3. Blizzard makes truly great games and Arenanet fails at copying them. ~Shard 19:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Stumbled on your page

Hi, I stumbled on your page. "Around this time, arenanet was working on a new way to play the game: Hard Mode Enemies are Higher Level and are on Steroids, but are Still Stupid and thus Not Challenging Mode. I see the concept. Make an easy game harder. However, you don't make something harder by making it take longer to do. You make it harder by making it more challenging. I don't know how they could have missed that, it's so simple, the words tell you what to do to. " ... love this quote. --Life Infusion «T» 23:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)