Or.... not (GW2)

Before I get bitchy, I should note that PC Gamer did a pretty good cover story on GW2 in their latest issue, which they've now put online. For the rest of this week, they're publishing supplementary material online as well. Which is where today's quote comes from:

From the roles you’ll assume, to the dungeons you’ll brave, to the NPCs you’ll interact with, ArenaNet’s flexible design diminishes barriers in an effort to empower players to play how they want to play.

Unless, of course, you want to play dungeons with anything less than a full group (or, Heaven forbid, solo). Then the barrier is still there.

It may seem like I'm harping on this. This is because I am. This is a hot-button issue for me: games that promise soloability, and then ensure that an entire type of PvE gameplay is not accessible to soloers. GW2 is not the first, and they will not be the last, but it is the game I intend to purchase when it comes out, and which has managed to do most things right... except this one thing, which really, really irks me. It just makes it worse that they're trying so hard to do everything else better and yet stuck to the cliché in this case.

I won't go over again why I think this was an unnecessary move; you can look at my last post for that. But I will note that this method excludes any group size under five that does not also want a handicap. That means that if you regularly play with your SO, as I do, your group of two will encounter a major handicap, but it also means that if you regularly play with your roommate, your SO, and your roommate's SO you also have a handicap. Sure, you could get a fifth person, but that fifth person probably wouldn't be someone you're used to playing and communicating with on a regular basis, and certainly not on the same level... if for no other reason than you and your roomie and your respective SOs quite likely can all play in the same room. And when you're used to always playing with the same people, that can get extremely awkward... hardly the circumstance you want when playing something that requires coordination and communication.

But it's like this doesn't even register with most people. Instead, they say stuff like "But the people who like that sort of thing should have something they can do!" (They would, under my proposal (see last post); this is not required to be an either/or situation.) Or "But it's not like you have to play dungeons!" (What if I want to? Or what if I want the rewards from them? They are, after all, promising exclusive dungeon rewards.) Or "This is why you need to be in a good guild!" (Doesn't solve the communication issue—I don't even have a microphone and besides, it's still not the same as having them in the room with me. Doesn't solve the problem of feeling awkward with people I don't know well. Doesn't solve the problem of not liking to be in big guilds. Doesn't solve the problem of rarely meeting the activity requirements for serious raid guilds.) Etc.

And then, my favorite: "Why would you want to play an MMO if you don't want to play with other people?" My SO is another person. So would my friend Vlad be, if I could talk him into playing (and I've thought about it). That'd still only be three, so it wouldn't solve the issue, but that's not even important. The real answer is "There's a difference between enjoying the social atmosphere in an MMO sometimes and feeling I have no choice but to always team up with people even though I'm more comfortable with and find it easier to play with just my SO." I like to chat sometimes in MMOs, and I like the sort of ad hoc grouping GW2 will offer with events (I got to experience something similar in City of Heroes with Rikti Raids and Giant Monsters and such, and it works pretty well for me) and I like to trade and play the auction house and to craft and sell my goods and so forth... and none of that is available in SRPGs or even the rare co-op games. What's more, what I want to play is not "some RPG". What I want to play is "Guild Wars 2", because I think the game's setting, lore, and mechanics are interesting.

So when I see someone saying "they're trying to break down the barriers", and yet see them simultaneously saying "this is for srs teams only", I just want to slap my forehead. How do you not see the contradiction in that? And how does ANet, who has large parts of the game not require you to have a specific group size and are at least trying to make it so you also don't need a specific group makeup, not understand that this one other thing can and really should be equally flexible?