and we will do our best to make the game as enjoyable as possible.

Uninstalling the game and returning your rental (you didn't buy it, did you?!) = makes the game as enjoyable as possible.

Fact 1: Piracy on the PC is an enormous problem /piracy on consoles is virtually non-existent

Fact 2: There are no hardware compatibility issues with consoles

Fact 3: Console games are finished before they are shipped; not through patches

Fact 4: PC gamers are hardcore; i.e. grumpy old bastards who complain about every little thing and do so very loudly, usually after they pirated the game they are bitching about.

(Okay, so No. 4 is a bit of an exaggeration)

Conclusion: PC games are not nor will they ever be in the same league as console games. They will always be a distant second. I say this as an unapologetic PC gamer, but truth is truth.

Fact 1: You are a moron

Fact 2: You are a moron

Fact 3: You are a moron

Fact 4: You are a moron

(Okay, so No. 4 is a bit of an exaggeration. You're only 3 times the moron I said you were.)

Conclusion: You are not, nor will you ever be in the same league as intelligent people. You will always be a distant second, or perhaps a distant 5920535th. I say this as an unapologetic human being, but truth is truth.

My two pence.

This comment was edited on May 6, 08:38.

6GUN probably sucks for the PC, especially given that it's a current-gen console port and all, I doubt it'll be very good.

However, 6GUN2 (haha) might be a lot better.

The argument that PC will be an afterthought usually holds water with most development houses, e.g. those morons who made Project Snowblind (post-processing crashes the game on any computer, thanks for not patching it up, guys! Enjoy your fucking return.)

But I don't think it applies to Remedy. They made Max Payne 1 and 2, both of which were released on consoles as well as on the PC, but they were PC games first, console games second - and they played great on both systems. I have a feeling that they won't be skimping with Alan Wake, either.

Here's a mini-timeline:

1) They developed a pretty good, and innovative RTS: Kohan, that played differently from any other RTS on the market.

2) They develop Kohan II, a shitty excuse for a sequel that plays much closer to Warcraft 3 than its predecessor.

3) They develop Axis and Allies, which is Kohan II reskinned.

4) Generic FPS for $$$

Gamers with the ability to socialize do, Exitium.

What's Guild Wars then? A single player, offline, antisocial game? Boy, you are a fucking moron. The point I was trying to convey but apparently failed, not due to my own shortcomings, but because you are really stupid, is that if I wanted to play a co-op game I'd rather go with a quality title like Guild Wars instead of some nth rate bullshit like Dungeon Lords.

Crappy demo. Looks and plays like a poor ripoff combination of Rune and Dungeon Siege. I'll just be playing Guild Wars instead. Who cares about some half-assed coop in DL.

As for wikipedia, it's rubbish.

Aside from the fact it's a great forum for nutters and pseudoscientific morons to drool all over, FFS, the last time I looked at an article for genetic engineering safety (in reference to food) some dumb cunt had actually quoted Mae Won Ho proving that HIV was a CIA made virus from genetic engineering in 1953.

You challenged us to name one thing that is persistent in Guild Wars. At the close of every BWE, the devs sprang some sort of surprise on the players. Last month it was gift boxes full of gnomes, fireworks, and celebration. The month before it was an invasion of Gwen's that firebombed everyone while quoting Blade Runner. Those events happened simultaneously for everyong that was ONLINE. I missed one of those two events, so I have proof that they happened regardless of whether I (or anyone for that matter) was there or not.

Great, so there was a worldwide event in which the whole world experienced fireworks and gnomes falling from the sky in presents. I guess that makes Guild Wars a completely persistent title regardless of the fact that 100% of the game world isn't persistent with the exception of the BWE end event.

Let's lump Guild Wars in with all the other MMOs because it's an online game. Guess that would make CounterStrike and UT2004 MMOFPS. Lots of people playing it at the same time, after all - and as for persistent gameplay? Every time Valve releases a new update, everyone has to download it!

argument over, IGN said so. Thats because IGN is always is and always will be 100% correct in thier writings, in what they say and what they give out for scores... yea right. pft. nice try.

Oh sure, just ignore everything else I said to explain why Guild Wars isn't an MMORPG (like the fact that it isn't a persistent world). Nice try.

Honestly I think the whole problem is that players have only ever known one kind of MMORPG, that being the mold of Everquest, and so people automatically assume that if a game isn't just like that, well then it must not be an MMORPG. It really helps if you break it down.

Massively Multiplayer Online = Thousands of players simultaneously playing in the game world, which is persistent and generally rather large.

GW: Check.

GW doesn't have a persistent game world. Fact.

It is not an MMO.
This comment was edited on Apr 29, 22:27.

Read it and weep: http://pc.ign.com/articles/608/608675p2.html

The first thing that needs to be said is that Guild Wars is not an MMO. There's a lot of misunderstanding going around, but GW is an online RPG that blends elements from Diablo-style online multiplayer, while integrating some MMO elements. The cities and certain dungeon entrances are basically hubs, but once you exit those areas for the wide expanses of desert, rolling hills, and snowy mountains, you'll be flying solo, most of the time. You can teleport instantly back to a town, even during combat, which is nice. And you can also log off at any point. It's kind of annoying to watch yourself die as you answer the phone or go to answer the door, and GW gets rid of this. When you log back on, however, you'll be back at one of the hubs, where people mill around, doing the typical MMO thing--chatting, emoting, and trading.

Fundamentally, it comes down to a difference in an individual's own understanding of what a MMORPG, or MMO game of any type, is. By my personal definition, Guild Wars is unequivocally a MMORPG. By someone else's defintion, it may not be. So what. People are different, their opinions will be, too. I am not a 'retard', 'dumbass', or 'idiot' simply because you don't agree with me, am I? Surely we are of enough intelligence and maturity to agree to disagree.

It is certainly not so much a matter of opinion but one of fact. Calling Guild Wars an MMORPG is as inane as calling the earth flat. It doesn't matter if it is in your opinion that the earth is flat, because you fail to bring the facts into evidence of your belief. The burden of proof is upon you.

Likewise, calling Guild Wars an MMORPG just because it is your opinion that it is an MMORPG is a downright idiotic position to hold.

Do you believe everything you hear? Why not log in and check out the honor system and the "unfun" stuff. I've been nothing but happy with the "unfun" stuff they've introduced and the honor system has made PVP goal oriented. You can now do and get rewarded for doing it. No other MMORPG has any system like this for reward those that PVP.

What are DAOC and Planetside about, then?

I guess that makes 128 player games of Starsiege Tribes "massively multiplayer", then.

Hmmm. Such a child...

Well, for what it's worth, despite my rudeness, I'm not some dumb idiot who calls Guild Wars an MMORPG just because it's an online game. It's hardly massive - 8 player games can scarcely be considered massively multiplayer. Multiplayer, yes; massively, no. To state that the game is 'massively multiplayer' due to the number of people playing it is illogical, because it would imply that games like CounterStrike and Diablo II are in fact, massively multiplayer as well, which they certainly aren't.

I think we got your point within the first five insulting posts you made. Following every half-articulate argument with an insult really doesn't help convince people of your point of view you know. Just a suggestion.

Half articulate? Please tell me you're joking. It's one thing to insult me for my point of view (rude and brash as they may be) but insulting me for inarticulate posts due to the high volume of 'slanderous remarks' contained within the post is hardly an appropriate argument to use against me.

Guild Wars is not a MMORPG? Is that the same logic that the guy who said HL2 is more like MYST than a FPS used? Gimme a break, guys.

Calling Guild Wars an MMORPG is exactly like saying that HL2 is more like MYST than an FPS. Dumbass.

Guild Wars is an interesting game, but it IS NOT an MMO. BY definition an MMO would have thousands of players in one world at one time, not 8 people in a Deathmatch map.

Lets call this game what it is - a 3rd Person Unreal 2K4 mod. All they are missing is a player matching server which would make it easier to form groups.

And yes, I've PLAYED it for at least 4-6 hours already.

Are you on crack? Stop misrepresenting Guild Wars.

Guild Wars isn't an "8 player deathmatch". For one thing, there is no deathmatch in the game. There are no 1 vs 1 battles. It's always team vs team, and that's how it'll always be. Calling it a deathmatch map is a complete lie.

The game is entirely instanced, and has both PVE and PVP. PVE plays itself out the same way Diablo II and Dungeon Siege do. PVP happens in arenas, which are also fully instanced. Arenas can consist of 8v8, or 8v8v8v8, or 8v8v8v8v8v8 (Hall of Heroes).

There is no 'player matching server' but there are of course lobbies. What the hell is a player matching server, anyhow? I don't recall Ut2k4 ever having any such thing, so why knock Guild Wars for having a feature that no other game has, either? There's however in game guilds, complete with guild halls, and guild vs guild (8v8) battles. The game also has a friends list that allows you to instantly teleport to a friend if he's in a lobby that you've been to (e.g. it wont work if you are still in early PVE areas and your friend is in the latter part of the game and you want to join him ,but he can join you).

Again, don't misrepresent the game. It is not a 3rd person Unreal 2k4 mod. I don't ever recall Unreal having skills. Do you? If anything, the skill system is comparable to Magic the gathering's decks - you can only have 8 skills (or 7 skills and 1 elite skill) at any time during missions or combat areas. You can only change your skills outside of combat.