Guild Wars: Nightfall Review

By Jim Rossignol Published 6 November, 2006

Dark times ahead.

Version tested: PC

Guild Wars is the MMO that doesn't require a subscription. What it does require is that you buy its regular standalone offerings, like Nightfall, if you want to enjoy fresh GW adventures. That ongoing experience is one of numerous instanced missions that you can play through with a handful of friends, or on your own as part of an NPC party. Opening up new regions and introducing its own new features, Nightfall ushers in another swathe of cleverly-instanced quests for Guild Wars' online adventures. This time the story-driven action takes place on a new continent, which is tinged with African folklore and populated by a lavish cast of African and Arabian characters. The new lands are, once again, exquisitely beautiful, with large, open areas and inspired African architecture. This is a large and impressive single-player expansion for Guild Wars, and it really concentrates on delivering an interesting story just as much as the last pack, Factions, concentrated on making changes to PvP.

'Guild Wars: Nightfall' Screenshot 1

Purple hoodies intimidate he local pirates into submission.

That story hinges on the idea of an insane chief-chappie who wants to raise an evil god from his slumber and thus bring permanent darkness to the land. (Evil Tanning Salons are pleased, but the legions of Guild Wars' adventurers are less positive.) The chief's doings are, of course, leaving clues in the form of errant baddies across the land, and your tribe of righteous warriors soon realises that something is afoot. So we set out to stop him, performing dozens of incidental quests along the way, all of which leads into some impressive key battles, and even some humorous asides.

However, it's the new NPC cleverness that will really inspire a dip into the wallet. One of Guild Wars' smartest features has always been the ability to add computer-controlled henchmen to a party when you were out adventuring, allowing you to fill out your party with whatever was needed - a healer, ranged support, and so on. This idea has been taken a giant leap further with the advent of 'heroes'. While you still maintain your central character, spending his attribute points, arranging his skills and dying his armour inappropriate colours, you also now have up to three other characters that you can tinker with. These heroes are a bit like pets in another famous MMO, and they can be ordered about and given particular stances in battle, making them aggressive, protective or passive. They can even be ordered about like the henchmen, allowing you to effectively control where they go and even what abilities they have. You can equip them directly or change their weapons and armour, and you can also spend their attribute points as they level up.

Crucially, however, these heroes are also interwoven into the overall story of Nightfall, appearing in cut-scenes and even having their own goals and ambitions - all of which make sense when you understand their individual personalities. This essentially makes Guild Wars closer to the party-based RPGs of old (Baldur's Gate, etc) instead of the solo-but-with-people RPG that it had initially delivered.

The idea of Heroes is a fundamental change to the way Guild Wars' PvE sequences work, and it'll be interesting to see if/how they are used in subsequent expansions.

There are new personal professions too, including the Dervish, who wield a scythe-like weapon, and the Paragon, who is pretty mean with a javelin. Neither of these stands out particularly against Guild Wars' array of previous character archetypes, but they're nevertheless useful and beautifully designed. The dervish fella, who specialises in close-range fighting and in area-of-effect close range abilities, is the more interesting of the two (since I like to get in close). His fighting method relies on buffing up with a sequence of 'enchantments' and then burning them off to produce other effects - a little like how the paladin works in World Of Warcraft.

'Guild Wars: Nightfall' Screenshot 2

Evil giant bird things abound. Later: transforming enemies!

As usual in Guild Wars the basic bent of your profession doesn't really matter, because you can throw everything into the mix depending on your 'build'. How you set up your deck of skills will determine how you fight, and a secondary class means that you're never helpless in the face of tricky challenges. As ever, Guild Wars flexibility means that there are no 'Oh I'm not class-type X' problems that you might find in other games. Everyone can heal, everyone can fight.

Anyway, as adventures go Nightfall feels much more open than previous Guild Wars modules. While many of the quests had been tied to tightly linear the maps, the missions of Nightfall are far more open-ended. There are even occasions where you just go off and hunt, with no real aim except to level up. This seems a bit grindy, but it works when you play through the backdrop of different quests that surround it. (Some of those quests actually made me smile: ArenaNet is being playful and using the tools its game gives it to make something that really stands up as a narrative RPG.) Nightfall feels a bit more like a world than previous incarnations, and it's better for it.

For all this praise I'm heaping on Nightfall, I do have some stock grumbles with the game - most of which stem from the basic mechanics of moving around and fighting. I hate how the characters are such floaty stick-people, and I never really feel connected to what is going on, either in the questing or in the fighting. Movement annoys me and even the trading seems clunky and artificial. It bugs me that I have to learn to make such complex builds to avoid being mocked in PvP, and the skills never seem unique enough or intuitive enough for me to learn by using them: I have to read all the little descriptions. Guild Wars combat always feels weightless and fiddly and has never really made me lust for more. For all the clever instancing and excellent script-writing, it simply lacks drama on the level of the physicality for the characters. It's soft focus fantasy that never really connects - that's my problem with Guild Wars.

Of course if you don't share my vague distaste for the ambience of Guild Wars then Nightfall will probably delight you. It's easily the best expansion so far and if there's more like this to come from ArenaNet then we can expect Guild Wars to get even more popular.

It's also worth mentioning, I think, that you can now buy 'PvP unlock packs' from the Guild Wars website, so that if the competitive team-based combat is your thing you don't have to play though the narrative game to unlock all the skills. Things like this make me glad that Guild Wars exists - it's a game that really caters for what players might want, and makes sure they can get it. Obvious really, but someone had to say it.

7 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Jim.

About Jim Rossignol

Read more articles from Jim by visiting the Jim Rossignol archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (59) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • vane101 #1 5 years ago

    Bah, all right I suppose!

  • WriterUK #2 5 years ago

    "It's easily the best expansion so far"

    Er, but EG gave Guild Wars Factions - the previous standalone game in the series - 8/10.

    That makes sense then.
    Edited by 1 at 06/11/06 @ 14:39

  • brokenkey #3 5 years ago

    They should get the bloke in from 1Up who wrote the NWN2 review, he'd be more positive than Jim.

  • Darkedge #4 5 years ago

    I disagree with Jim - I'd give it 8.5 or 9.
    It's the best GW yet and you actually don't need to by the expansions - if you only have one game you can play PVP forever.

  • Kostabi #5 5 years ago

    I treated the vanilla GW as more of a single player game so Nightfall sounds ideal to me as I skipped Factions due it being more PvP/Guild centric.

  • BremXJones #6 5 years ago

    WriterUK: Is the previous reviewer's name "Jim Rossignol"?

    Kostabi: It's very much the one for the PvE people. You'll love it.

    KG
    Edited by 2 at 06/11/06 @ 15:07

  • Monotreme #7 5 years ago

    I have to agree with WriterUK above. How can you simultaneously state that it's the best GW yet and give it the worst score EG has given to GW?

    I guess I'll pay attention to the part I agree with: Nightfall is, without doubt, the best Guild Wars yet.

    Not to mention the factual errors (none of them are expansions, they are all standalone games that just happen to be linkable; none of the purchases are required).
    Edited by 1 at 06/11/06 @ 15:07

  • WriterUK #8 5 years ago

    Brem: Oh, I realise that opinions vary. I was just hoping to hear your opinion on this particular title as you've reviewed the previous two. If I was commissioning the review I know I'd seek out the reviewer who'd gained most experience with the series....

    Don't get me wrong - Jim's a smart guy, great reviewer, but in this case I think his obvious dislike of the GW series (each to their own!) and a couple of factual errors dragged the score down. Let's face it: a 7/10 on here knocks a 'must purchase' game into 'probably not worth bothering' territory.

    Besides, Nightfall is much better than NWN2 and you gave that an 8. I guess that's where you were instead of reviewing this. ;)

  • rinoaMW #9 5 years ago

    It's a travesty that this gets 7 but the very generic and horrible to look at NWN2 gets 8.

  • BremXJones #10 5 years ago

    WriterUK: Yeah. And I've reviewed Nightfall for someone else, so wasn't able to do this one too.

    KG

  • absolutezero #11 5 years ago

    Aye im really enjoying Nightfall, the PvE parts are alot better and more involved, and its just alot more user friendly.

  • lemonfist #12 5 years ago

    Come on. It's a different reviewer this time, so when he says this is the best GW yet, he implies that he would not have awarded the previous two outings with 8/10 and 9/10.

  • WriterUK #13 5 years ago

    Lemonfist: Indeed, because I'm sure the original Guild Wars and Factions were worth, ooooh, say 7/10 and 6/10 respectively...

    Brem: Look forward to reading it mate - can you tell us, in print or online?

  • BrokenSymmetry #14 5 years ago

    Some more errors in this review: You can equip the skills of your heroes, you can change the weapons of your heroes, and you can change their armor (by using runes and insiginias).

    For the rest this is an extremely shallow review, Eurogamer unworthy. It's clearly the writer didn't like Guild Wars at all to start with, and has spent the least amount of effort he could get away with to write this review. I'd say this calls for a retraction.

  • BremXJones #15 5 years ago

    WriterUK: It's print. PCG.

    KG

  • Monotreme #16 5 years ago

    Looking forward to reading it, Brem :)

  • wayn3h #17 5 years ago

    Well, I have to say I totally disagree with a lot of that review. As has already been pointed out a lot of the things said in that review are simply untrue.

    Guild Wars is an absolute delight to play. And this game succeeds where the last two games have failed and improves on the things they did right. It is the best in the series by far and one of the best games on the platform this year imho.

    I'm into 3K+ hours now on my account and I'm really getting into competitive PvP. No other MMO offers so many options for PvP'ers and all on a level playing field. I love it.

    9/10 tbh.

  • rinoaMW #18 5 years ago

    Personally If the 1UP NWN2 review got pulled and given an apology to fans, then EG should do the same for this ;)

    SO 9/10 review please and a written apology :p
    Edited by 1 at 06/11/06 @ 17:27

  • Azazel #19 5 years ago

    Nightfall is brill. Really enjoying it so far. I couldn't give a toss about PvP really, so the fact that it adds a ton of (excellent) new stuff on the PvE side is just what I was looking for. And yes you can customize all the heroes gear. Baldur's Gate was also in my mind concerning them.

  • BremXJones #20 5 years ago

    Funny random thing: I only realised that you could store crafting ingredients in your Store last night when I was playing GW. I am the worst gamer in the world.

    KG

  • Lim-Dul #21 5 years ago

    I strongly disagree with the review. It describes practically only the PvE portion of GW, which isn't its stongest side and probably deserves a 7/10 at its best... The PvP component, the skill complexity is only briefly mentioned, although THIS forms the core of GW. The skills are counter-intuitive and you have to make good combos - yeah - that's what sets GW apart from other MMORPGs.

    And besides - GW isn't a MMORPG, but in this review one could get the false impression that it actually is one. The review simply seems off as it 1. doesn't show GWs main strengths and how they have been improved upon in NF and 2. it reviews GW from a genre's point of view to which it simply doesn't belong to.

    As a random thought: <a href="http://www. nzgamer.com/hub-pc-reviews-354
    ">http://www. nzgamer.com/hub-pc-reviews-354
    </a>

    This seems to be a review written by people, who have actually played the game A LOT and know its ups and downs.

    P.S. The screens in the EG review just show that the author of the article didn't even get past Istan... n/c LVL5/6 chars/heroes... And that in GW, where you hit lvl20 in less than a week.
    Edited by 2 at 06/11/06 @ 17:20

  • EmiliasHorse #22 5 years ago

    He summed it all up by saying if you love GW you will love this expansion. Why are you so upset about a few errors in the review? I bought GWs to compliment WOW but found it floaty and movement awkward just as stated in this review. I want the reviewer to be honest and that seems to be the case here.

  • Lim-Dul #23 5 years ago

    Well - you bought GW to compliment WoW - that's exactly what you shouldn't do. You and the reviewer as well, expected some kind of WoW clone, which GW isn't. GW's strengths lie in totally different areas and he hasn't considered them. These aren't some "minor mistakes" in the review, it's a completely wrong way of reviewing GW. It's as if you'd be reviewing only the minigames in Zelda: Ocarina of Time, instead of seeing the grand picture.

  • lemonfist #24 5 years ago

    I agree 100 % with the horse.

  • Azazel #25 5 years ago

    Brem: That's probably going to be simultaneously the most overlooked and useful new feature tbh...

    I actually end up keeping all my materials now rather than selling them all due to lack of inventory space. 250 of each. Nice. It's the little things.

    I was disappointed they don't automatically upgrade all your characters storage accounts though...
    You actually have to take your prophecies character or whatever to NF and upgrade their account there... I mean: Why?
    Edited by 1 at 06/11/06 @ 18:19

  • Katsumoto #26 5 years ago

    This isn't trolling or flaming so please don't take offence, but I really don't think the deluge of comments along the lines of "this review is wrong because i'd give it 9/10" are really contributing anything. Remember, journalism of this type is entirely SUBjective, this is Jim Rossignol's - not your - opinion. Disagreeing with a review, which many people fairly do, is one thing but saying it is wrong is something else.

    For my money's worth - haven't played this yet but I am looking forward to it as it very much sounds like one for the PVE'ers. The main campaign of Prophecies was far superior to Factions in my opinion.

    PS. you may notice that only one paragraph of this entire review was devoted to negative critcism of the game!

    PPS. to clarify! I am not saying stating your opinion that this deserved 9/10 is wrong :)
    Edited by 3 at 06/11/06 @ 18:41

  • BremXJones #27 5 years ago

    Katsumoto: Well, to be equally fair, it cuts both ways. If Jim's subjective opinion is valid, so are the people's in the comments. I'd like to hear what people make of it. Its at least partially why sites have comments on.

    If people start saying something purely subjective is *wrong* on the other hand, I'd be in your corner.

    (Which is a different thing from saying "I think this opinion is badly phrased and/or argued";)

    KG

  • EmiliasHorse #28 5 years ago

    Not being a fan of WOWs big time raid parties (Small groups of actual friends is much nicer) I am rather interested in this expansion. I take Lim_Dul's comment on board that GW is not a complimentary game to WOW. I think I will maybe try GW again but can I ask a very important question...Is GW newbie friendly?

  • Katsumoto #29 5 years ago

    KG: yeah, thats pretty much I wanted to say, I just didn't phrase it very precisely :). I just think sometimes people condemn outright a review when they mean to merely disagree with it.

  • BremXJones #30 5 years ago

    Exactly. I like debate.

    KG

  • Azazel #31 5 years ago

    Guild Wars is newbie friendly in the sense that you don't *have* to join up with a bunch of people who've been playing the game for ages and immediately get 'NUB!11' yelled at you. You can just dip in, grab some henchmen and run around by yourself, get comfortable with the skills system and generally just do the whole trial and error thing. Essentially it's a single player game until you're ready for it to be otherwise.

    As Jim correctly points out in his review, it's also very very flexible in terms of character creation. Pick a secondary class and realize you don't like it? Then you can easily change it to any of the others later on down the line and switch back and forth between them. And you can also reallocate all your attribute points as you see fit at any point. Nightfall gets challenging quite quickly, but it won't punish you harshly for making uninformed decisions early on.

  • EmiliasHorse #32 5 years ago

    Thanks Azazel I think this deserves a purchase.

  • BremXJones #33 5 years ago

    I'd agree with Azarael, basically. The community isn't INCREDIBLY friendly, but the game itself is - and encourages experimentation. You don't need to actually get involved with anyone unless you want to. Over in PvP, the auto-matchup stuff works well too.

    I'd start with Nightfall, by the way.

    KG

  • romeus #34 5 years ago

    This review is totally biased and unacceptable, it clearly self contradictory. GW:NF is one of the best MMORPGs on the market atm and the writer himself states it is the best GW, how can the best GW get a 7/10 while the one before it got an 8. This review needs a review of its own. GW:NF deserves at least a 9/10. Reviews on other sites gave it way better ratings. This review is clearly unobjective.

  • lemonfist #35 5 years ago

    Yeah, it's not like a reviewer is entitled to his own opinion.

    Anyway, I'm getting Nightfall as well even though I didn't like Guild Wars: Prophecies mich. I'm intrigued by the talk of a more open PvE environment and Baldur's Gate-esque henchmen.
    Edited by 1 at 06/11/06 @ 19:21

  • EmiliasHorse #36 5 years ago

    Can I point out that WOW only scored an 8 and while it caused a stir at the time we all got over it. If you think this is a 9 or 10 then great... But Jim didn't, he went for a 7 which is a good score. I am buying the expansion on the grounds of the review.

    Romeus you have to let individuals make up their own minds...Personally I would recommend actually reading the review and not focus on the score. Only one little paragraph is negative

  • Kostabi #37 5 years ago

    "Kostabi: It's very much the one for the PvE people. You'll love it."

    Excellent. That's all I needed to know.

    /orders.

  • spindizzy #38 5 years ago

    romeus: read the other comments and calm down mate. What you've said has been addressed (clue - it's not the same reviewer).

  • romeus #39 5 years ago

    Spindizzy, it is not the same reviewer but it is the same site, their scoring needs to be standardized among different reviewers so readers would be able to compare different games. It is really a big shame that a great game like GW:NF would only get 7/10 while other pathetic games got higher scores on the same site. if I was a casual reader I would think other games (e.g. Factions) are better when they are clearly not. I still think the score given for GW needs to be reviewed.

  • Lim-Dul #40 5 years ago

    Yeah - my ratings would probably be as follows:

    Prophecies 8/10
    Factions 6 or 7/10
    Nightfall 9/10

    Though one has to consider the fact that GW:prophecies had a very big impact on how Online RPGs are perceived - it virtually started its own genre.

  • Avaloner #41 5 years ago

    Well, while the reviewer does seem biased against GW in general, I do agree with him that somehow the feel of GW's combat is off. Its hard to explain but I just do not like it. I only have prophecies but I cannot imagine how the other two can be that different in terms of fighting mechanics.

  • Katsumoto #42 5 years ago

    Well, I recommend looking at http://ww w.eurogamer.net/scoring_policy.php - EG's scoring policy.

    Even then, all review scores are massively subjective and based on a bewildering multitude of individual factors as varied and diverse as the people reading the reviews themselves. Anything from the age of the reviewer to the systems they grew up with to the games played beforehand all have a part to play, and in our long experience even when these factors all collide you still don't all necessarily draw the same conclusions.

    Standardising review scores simply would not work. A review is someone's opinion - EG is not a homogenous entity remember, several different people write for it and make up its whole. How can "Eurogamer" create a frame of reference that somehow incorporates all the different writers opinions and gives you some sort of average?

    Edited by 1 at 06/11/06 @ 21:15

  • BrokenSymmetry #43 5 years ago

    Still, whatever can be said about the outcome of the review, it remains a very meagre and shallow review, containing just a handful of paragraphs, and glossing over almost all new aspects of Nightfall. It's by far the worst review I've ever seen on Eurogamer...

  • BigJonno #44 5 years ago

    I can't believe this is being compared to 1up's NWN2 review. There's a huge difference between highly praising a game for its strengths, explaining the things you don't like and then giving it a respectable score and immediately bashing a game because you don't like the subject matter and failing to mention any of its good points.

    To all those crying out for a higher score, please be aware that there is a whole world of people out there who don't like Guild Wars. I agree that GW feels very disconnected and, personally, would struggle to give it a 7/10. It's a sign of a good review that it spends so long on the high points when the reviewer obviously has some major problems with the game.

  • Glitch #45 5 years ago

    I dont think it was that bad, gave me the info I need/want so I am happy. I think some of the comments made are unfair and that people should not be so harsh. I think if the final mark out of ten was an 8 or 9 I think 80% of the comments here would be positive instead of negative.

  • Monotreme #46 5 years ago

    I think the problem is that the text of the review does not match up to the final score. The bulk of the text is glowing praise (minus the blatant errors - hero equipment, including armour, *can* be upgraded) and yet the score is a 7 ... far more in line with the paragraph where the reviewer admits personal bias, IMO. So on one hand we've got a lengthy review that reads like an 8 or 9 but a score of a 7. It just doesn't fit.

    I think that's where the disatisfaction with this review comes from. It *reads* one way, and is *scored* a different way.

  • rinoaMW #47 5 years ago

    @BigJonno

    Wasn't the 1UP review also criticised for not giving a complete picture of the game? Leaving out the whole toolset editor, etc? This review does very much the same by leaving out whole sections of Nightfall's strengths AS WELL AS being wildly inaccurate, which is reason enough in itself to shout "Shenanigans!” - hence the comparison. The 1UP review did mention some of NWN2's strengths and weaknesses and give a score based on the reviewer’s personal opinions, again, much like this one.

    There's a whole world of people who don't like NWN2. I bought and played it for 4 hours (around the same amount of time that the reviewer on 1UP played if for), and I found I disliked it for the same reasons he did. Personally I would struggle to give NWN2 the 5/10 he did, but the community spoke and the majority got their way. The majority of ppl here seem to give Nightfall 9/10, (as do I) so I guess that must be something to say about this review?

  • mingster #48 5 years ago

    well the 1up NWN2 review got pulled so stop mentioning it..

  • severus_alpha #49 5 years ago

    Hey "Lim-Dul" that review was real good. never heard of that site before.

    I'd prolly give Nightfall 90% or a little higher thanks to the new patch.

  • BremXJones #50 5 years ago

    Another reason why it annoys me why 1-UP wimped out of their score/review: It makes people think everyone else is just as weak.

    KG

  • Bonzrat #51 5 years ago

    Have to say I'm with Jim on this one, much as the tide at large may be against us. Much of it, to me, depends on to what degree one treats GW as a world or a game. As a game, sure, it does fix a lot of things that are wrong with MMORPGs at large, but as a world to spend my time in and discover delights within, it leaves an awful lot to be desired. This is, of course, entirely subjective; I'm fully aware that, unlike my own predelictions, many folk are far more enamoured with getting their PvP skills just so than they are simply exploring and collecting funny hats for their character.
    - Alec

  • Lim-Dul #52 5 years ago

    Bonzrat - you're totally right. GW isn't a world to be immersed in - and it doesn't try to be like that. If you want a rich RPG experience then go for one of the other 200 MMORPGs or so. GW tried to be different and it IS different. And it's just unfair to give it 7/10 just because it doesn't fit into a genres strict rules.

    GW is wonderful for casual gamers, who DON'T want to spend half of their life in a virtual world. GW has simply the cleverest and best skill mechanics of all the fantasy games out their - the PvP part is simply brilliant. All these things haven't been mentioned in the article since it treated GW as yet another MMORPG that doesn't stand up to MMORPG standards - this is crazy - it's like criticizing a shooter that its roleplaying elements are weak.

    In GW your character isn't your alter ego - it's a tool, just like a gun in a shooter. But it's so much more complex - you have to think about the right skill combinations, you have to improve YOUR skill while playing the game...

    So you basically brought the discussion to the point - the review treats GW as a world - and it shouldn't - alone the fact, that there aren't any subscription fees implies that you aren't supposed to play the game as a world for long periods of time - but you can play PvP as long as you want to - just like Counter-Strike. What the review should have done and what previous EG reviews of GW have done is treat GW as a game.

  • BremXJones #53 5 years ago

    You can only imagine the conversations we have in the pub on this particular topic. SHOUTING!

    KG

  • BigJonno #54 5 years ago

    Has this review been changed since it was posted? I'm looking for these "factual inaccuracies" about heroes, but the review I'm reading says that you can change their equipment, but there are lots of people complaining that it says you can't.

    I tend to put review scores through a mental filter, adding or removing points based on my tastes vs. the reviewer's. Most people reading this review will already have played Guild Wars. It's the second expansion pack (yes, I know it's standalone) and they've frequently hosted open weekends where people can play the game. If I liked GW and read the review, I could clearly see that I'd really dig Nightfall. New classes, lots of new skills, better storyline/PvE component, brand new hero feature. I don't know how a GW fan could read that and not want to go out and buy it.

    However if you've played GW and didn't like it for the reasons stated right at the end of the review, you'd see that there's probably not much reason for you to buy Nightfall. It's still got the same issues that the original had. This is where I fail to see why people are calling this a bad review. Actually, scratch that, I know that people are calling it a bad review because they look at the score at the end, which doesn't fit into their idea of awesomeness and call foul. Of course, 1-up has made this even easier for people to justify.

    As many people have already stated, a review is an opinion, that's the entire point. It's not like games can be judged against some objective scale. As long as the reviewer covers both the positive and negative aspects of the game (check,) clearly states his opinion (check) and, most importantly, explains why he feels the way he does (check) then it's a good review.

    Incidentally, when did 7/10 become a bad score? I may be old-school (I still own a 'Your Sinclair' badge,) but I'm pretty sure that 7/10, or 70% or whatever you want to call it, is a lot closer to a 10 than a 0.

  • Reapergold #55 5 years ago

    Yawn!!!
    *Tires of the winges of children who have been thold there new toy sucks and gos to bed*

  • romeus #56 5 years ago

    I think a lot of ppl are still missing the point: THIS REVIEW IS OBVIOUSLY BIASED. When you review a game for a public website and you post for ppl to read, although is subjective and reflects your own opinion, it should have the decency of at least attempting to seem objective. This review doesnt even go that far. GW is a great game by all accounts, easily the best MMORPG on the market. Deserves 9/10 by all standards, and this is the score it got on most websites.

  • Katsumoto #57 5 years ago

    Biased eh? This is written by Jim Rossignol: the man who gave the original game a mark in the high eighties in PCG and said he looked forward to seeing how such a revolutionary game would fit into the gaming community at large. He clearly respects the game, he just isn't afraid to point out its obvious flaws. Maybe now he's been playing the game for 18 months he has seen just what sort of a community the game has built up and can take into account how the game has matured. He does not, unless you know something I don't, have some sort of vendetta against the franchise.

    PS i love guild wars, yet acknowledge it has a lot of room for improvement. Heck, my favourite game, Deus Ex, could be SO MUCH BETTER. Doesn't stop it having a permanent place in my "hall of honour" or whatever!
    Edited by 1 at 08/11/06 @ 19:35

  • semantic #58 5 years ago

    I found this review via a site that lists game reviews and honestly, seeing the 7/10 I was intrigued enough to come check it out (who says negative campaigning is the death of democracy?) So I read it from the perspective of a fan of the game, looking for the criticism. And it's hard not to chime in with the others who have pointed out that complaining that an apple isn't the orange you were craving seems a flimsy basis for something as concrete as a numerical score. But that's the nature of game reviews, I suppose.

    It's not that I don't share the reviewer's fundamental complaint about game physics and the way characters move and interact with the game world. It IS disconnecting, and not at all satisfying in the way that other games that incorporate some model of real-world physics are. It would be a lot of fun to jump and bounce off of rocks and monsters and other players, etc. But alas, GW is bereft of inner ear fun and almost entirely cerebral (with some very sleek window dressing), and that cerebral fun is found in the interaction between the hundreds of skills and their linked attributes. Fundamentally altering the game physics at this point would throw those interactions into chaos, so there's really no reason to even bring it up except as an aside. Unless, of course, the intention was to review NF from the perspective of a WoW player.

    As to the reviewer's familiarity with the game, it's a little hard to believe he has played GW for months given his aversion to reading skill descriptions.

  • rinoaMW #59 2 years ago

    love GWs