And we have a FailTroll!! Guess what, Big Guy, I don’t play WoW – never have and never will. I am a big Anet and GW fanboi, so head back to the cave and try again. Here is where one would normally insert a personal gibe against your presumptuous comment, but it pretty much speaks for itself and saves me the trouble.

Contrary to popular belief, GW2 isn’t the Messiah of the Gaming Industry. Anet made a very interesting and important choice with the direction they took GW2. However, just because it is different, doesn’t mean it is better than the traditional way.

Both styles of MMO gaming have advantages and disadvantages, and which style you prefer will depend on how you enjoy playing a game (i.e. your playstyle). WoW  and similar games appeal primarily to one playstyle, GW1 and GW2 appeal to another playstyle. Again, one is not objectively better than another. There are things in the GW games I like and there are things I do not like. Similarly, there are things I like in games that follow the traditional model, as well as things I don’t like. When you are through making completely idiotic assumptions, come back and perhaps we can have a thoughtful debate on the topic at hand.

You can be sick of reading about them all you want, it still doesn’t change the fact that they are an accepted and popular way of gaming that many players enjoy – you happen not to be one of them.

Your second comment above is very
poignant. First you say joining a zerg isn’t a choice – and you are right to some extent, but then in the comment above, you say that players don’t have to participate in zergs. So which is it? You either have a choice or you don’t. The problem with having the choice not to zerg, in GW2 particularly, is that in order not to participate, you have to leave content that you may want to play, but can’t because it’s being zerged, and the mechanics of it pretty much cannot prevent it. Being forced out of doing something enjoyable is not healthy gameplay.

That is one of the drawbacks to GW2 and where I think GW1 was a little more superior. GW1 didn’t have raids as such – the largest potential grouping for most PvE is 8 players, with the exception of a couple of Elite areas, but at least you could attempt to capture that raiding experience without having to worry about a massive zerg group rushing in and ruining the feeling. The unfortunate part in GW1 was that a lot of strategy outside of picking out specific builds and watching aggro was non-existent. I think some of the changes in GW2 improve upon that, and you are correct in that the skill and class systems now do not require certain players to be more important than others (i.e. your Warrior/tank and Monk/healer) as any player can now fill those rolls as needed. However, they failed to fully capitalize on the system by the rest of the design of their game – it almost seems they wanted to be as anti-WoW as possible, when not all those things that WoW (EQ really) did and perfected are inherently bad.

The larger DEs and battles look really cool and neat on the screen – a bunch of heroes all fighting a war of attrition against a massive boss, but that’s all it really is in the end. GW1 introduced me to the MMO genre and it’s one of my favorite games to this day, however, upon trying several others, I find, despite being a casual player and having limited times I can play the game in a group, raiding is one hellava good time. It’s unfortunate that GW2 is even more limited in the types of ways you can experience that raiding feeling. Some people won’t mind that at all, but many others, myself included see it as a lost opportunity to make a good game even better.

>”Because I’ve met many people who hit lvl 80 and quit”
     That is anecdotal evidence. You offered an absolute statement “GW2 didn’t keep people engaged at max level in PVE” while it may be true for people that you know it is not true for all people.

 >”of course it’s not true for all people, not everyone has hit max level”
    Your statement was “GW2 didn’t keep people engaged at max level in PVE” yet that cannot be proven with anecdotal evidence. You may have met many people that quit at max level because they didn’t find it engaging, but that doesn’t necessarily apply to all people who hit max level. The point I was trying to make is that you can’t use anecdotal evidence of a subset of players and apply it to the set of all players.

>”where is your evidence that most people do enjoy PVE at lvl 80?”
    That is the texbook definition of a argument from ignorance. You are purporting something to be true because no one can prove it to be false, but that does not make your it true. Also, I never made the claim that people did. I said “The point I was trying to make is that you can’t use anecdotal evidence of a subset of players and apply it to the set of all players.”.

 An argument from ignorance is a type of logical fallacy. You presented the argument that you were right because there was no proof to the contrary. I presented the argument  that anecdotal evidence isn’t proof of your argument..

 Interesting, seeing as your post is a wall of text; at least mine is broken up.

15 sentences without break is a wall of text IMO.

It makes it easier to read. I was making the point that it is ironic to complain about walls of text when you wrote one yourself. It would appear to me you are only trying to deflect the main points I made instead of offering a reasonable argument against them.