Oh dear. Actually let me guess. You sit in the camp of "Anything not involved with the Star Wars films, books, cartoons that I like is not part of the Star Wars universe."?
No. I'm in the camp of "if it isn't the same time setting as the movies, it isn't Star Wars."
You and I both know that SWTOR is KOTOR - the MMO.
You are probably right.
But KOTOR and SWTOR are both set in the Star Wars universe. Weather you like it or not.
Star Wars is set space. There is no space combat in SW:TOR. Name one Star Wars movie that had zero space combat scenes. Bioware is intentionally leaving out a MAJOR part of the Star Wars universe, being the universe part.
What you will get to see of space in SW:TOR is maybe if you are lucky some reused flight paths between planets.
We don't know for sure whether there will be space combat of not, but I agree that it's not Star Wars without space combat.
Attack of the Clones was the only movie that didn't have a major space combat sequence. Even it had the fight in the asteroid belt between Obi-Wan and Jango.
Space combat is more a part of Star Wars than light sabre duels.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Star Wars is set space. There is no space combat in SW:TOR. Name one Star Wars movie that had zero space combat scenes. Bioware is intentionally leaving out a MAJOR part of the Star Wars universe, being the universe part.
What you will get to see of space in SW:TOR is maybe if you are lucky some reused flight paths between planets.
We don't know for sure whether there will be space combat of not, but I agree that it's not Star Wars without space combat.
Attack of the Clones was the only movie that didn't have a major space combat sequence. Even it had the fight in the asteroid belt between Obi-Wan and Jango.
Space combat is more a part of Star Wars than light sabre duels.
Maybe there will be as much space combat in the game as lightsaber duels. Its weather you control it, or its in the story.
I'm gonna laugh so hard when they fall flat on their face. Hilarious.
Uhm, not a good idea. If the game fails it will be hopeless for MMO devs to get a large funding.
Like it or not but this game will affect the genre a lot, fail or win. If the large sum and experienced devs can't make a successful MMO, which publishing house would dare to fund another?
They're 100% correct that most MMO's have no point and lasck substance when it comes to story's. This doesn't mead they are insulting them or will be better than them. Many players lov that mind numbing grind to the point quest contents aren't even read (most aren't worht reading).
I take this as they intend to provide the story for those that want it. Star Wars is all about story's, just look at the number of books available vs. movies for it. Fact is there are far moe people in this world that read than play MMO's.
As the devs told us, the majority of the game can be done without a single bit of help from another player. They said that the main appeal of MMOs is the experience single player with the option of being with other players. They confirmed that names, chat, and so on could all be turned off or ignored if you really, really wanted absolutely nothing to do with other people.
Gee, don't you love it when a developer - and one that's brand-new to MMOs, no less - declares what the "appeal" of the given genre is? I love that.
"Yes, yes... we know we're brand-new and this is our first foray into MMORPGs... But let *us* tell *you* what the appeal of them is... Because we know better."
And of course the "appeal" they're declaring just *happens* to describe the way they're making their game. Complete coincidence. Honest!
Actually, Presumptuous TOR Devs, I'll decide for myself what appeals to me about MMOs, if that's okay with you. I have a mind of my own and am perfectly capable of coming to my own conclusions about what does or doesn't appeal to me. I don't need any help from paid emloyees hyping up their own product.
The appeal of MMORPGs to me is to be in a shared online world first. I want to be experiencing content *with* those around me, not only "among" them, as many "solo only" types seem to prefer; be it in large groups, small groups, raids, or as a mass of people enjoying a public event. To me, the Community aspect of MMORPGs has huge appeal and is very important to me. I do not subscribe to a MMORPG to play in an environment where everyone can do everything solo and hardly ever need to interact with another player if they don't want to. I can't even believe they're pushing the ability to play almost the entire game solo as a "feature" and still call it a MMORPG with a straight face.
I know people will say "MMORPG doesn't mean "no solo", and that's true. There is a place for solo content in a MMORPG. However, when it's to the point that you can log on and play the game as a solo experience and - according to the devs themselves - almost never need to interact with other players if you don't want, then it being a MMO becomes superfluous. They could have just as well made it an offline RPG with optional online multiplayer.
I play single player, offline RPGs to get the 'Solo Adventurer' experience. I play games like Dungeon Siege, or Neverwinter Nights (1 and 2) to have a group of myself and my chosen sidekicks. I don't have to pay a subscription fee for the "privilege". I don't see the sense in paying a subscription fee for a game that, from the way the devs are describing it, may as well be an offline single-player game with an optional muliplayer mode.
In fact, they may as well have emulated the general approach they took to their own Neverwinter Nights games: Offline, single player campaigns where the player can choose NPC companions, and that features optional multiplayer. Bingo! Gee, I'm almost describing TOR, aren't I.
That said, if they are seriously developing ToR to be *that* anti-social, then I will be staying far away from it.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
The AoC game director chimed in on this on his blog today too, interesting read. He talks a lot about the player story and how important it is to the MMO along with the story the devs tell.
Personally I am both excited and skeptical by Bioware. They make good stories, but like many here I really worry they will miss the actual MMO part.
That guy sounds like he could turn a trip to the toilet for a dump a story.
he hit the nail on the head about the world being the most important. The MAIN reason I'm going to play this game becuase of it being set in the Star Wars universe. Guild Wars sounds interesting, but I'm not excited by it because the world just seem like a lotro/wow fantasy setting, and thats boring me now.
1) story =/= lore and lore =/= story... therse are two completely different things. you can have one without the other.
2) a common dev (and movie producer) misconception is that IP is somehow crucial to a product's success... Look, Diablo became a bestseller BEFORE there was IP associated with it... and the same goes for original Star Wars movie. There was no super pre-existing IP/lore to explain the success of those. They suceeded with something else rather than what the suits feel give them a safe return for investment... "Oh yeah, ill invest in a Star Wars movie/game because even if it totally sucks the funs are gonna buy it." Those products suceeded because of awesome quality and sheer chutzpath in the face of what is "commonly known". Star Wars was pronounced a flop before it premiered because who in their right mind would go watch a nostalgic space-opera spooof.. I mean those things died in early 50s didn't they?
As the devs told us, the majority of the game can be done without a single bit of help from another player. They said that the main appeal of MMOs is the experience single player with the option of being with other players. They confirmed that names, chat, and so on could all be turned off or ignored if you really, really wanted absolutely nothing to do with other people.
Gee, don't you love it when a developer - and one that's brand-new to MMOs, no less - declares what the "appeal" of the given genre is? I love that.
"Yes, yes... we know we're brand-new and this is our first foray into MMORPGs... But let *us* tell *you* what the appeal of them is... Because we know better."
And of course the "appeal" they're declaring just *happens* to describe the way they're making their game. Complete coincidence. Honest!
Actually, Presumptuous TOR Devs, I'll decide for myself what appeals to me about MMOs, if that's okay with you. I have a mind of my own and am perfectly capable of coming to my own conclusions about what does or doesn't appeal to me. I don't need any help from paid emloyees hyping up their own product.
The appeal of MMORPGs to me is to be in a shared online world first. I want to be experiencing content *with* those around me, not only "among" them, as many "solo only" types seem to prefer; be it in large groups, small groups, raids, or as a mass of people enjoying a public event. To me, the Community aspect of MMORPGs has huge appeal and is very important to me. I do not subscribe to a MMORPG to play in an environment where everyone can do everything solo and hardly ever need to interact with another player if they don't want to. I can't even believe they're pushing the ability to play almost the entire game solo as a "feature" and still call it a MMORPG with a straight face.
I know people will say "MMORPG doesn't mean "no solo", and that's true. There is a place for solo content in a MMORPG. However, when it's to the point that you can log on and play the game as a solo experience and - according to the devs themselves - almost never need to interact with other players if you don't want, then it being a MMO becomes superfluous. They could have just as well made it an offline RPG with optional online multiplayer.
I play single player, offline RPGs to get the 'Solo Adventurer' experience. I play games like Dungeon Siege, or Neverwinter Nights (1 and 2) to have a group of myself and my chosen sidekicks. I don't have to pay a subscription fee for the "privilege". I don't see the sense in paying a subscription fee for a game that, from the way the devs are describing it, may as well be an offline single-player game with an optional muliplayer mode.
In fact, they may as well have emulated the general approach they took to their own Neverwinter Nights games: Offline, single player campaigns where the player can choose NPC companions, and that features optional multiplayer. Bingo! Gee, I'm almost describing TOR, aren't I.
That said, if they are seriously developing ToR to be *that* anti-social, then I will be staying far away from it.
Saying the majority of the game can be done solo does not make it an anti-social game nor does it mean there isn't more than enough group content . It means nothing more than you won't get stuck throughout the game because everything you have left in your quests requires help and you don't want to sit around another hour hoping that you can get a group formed. Forming groups for low and mid level content is easy when a game is new but not so much so 6 months later.
Fact is, most of the time I'm in a game I am alone or with 1-2 friends. I group regularly for 6 mans and raids but that by no way represents the "majority" of my time. I may be unique to the average player but I doubt it.
We really don't know how good the game will be till it's released. I certainly don't think that Bioware not putting out an MMO makes them unqulified to know what MMO gamers want. The stage for MMO's has been set with plenty of failures and a few successes. All you need to do is to look to those. Blizzards first MMO was hit, they seemed to know what gamers wanted when they never released a prior MMO and that game has FAR more single player content than group content.
If a player wants to rely on grouped social content there is DDO and that's free.
Saying the majority of the game can be done solo does not make it an anti-social game nor does it mean there isn't more than enough group content . It means nothing more than you won't get stuck throughout the game because everything you have left in your quests requires help and you don't want to sit around another hour hoping that you can get a group formed. Forming groups for low and mid level content is easy when a game is new but not so much so 6 months later.
Given the way this game's solo class campaign is going to divide the population - I think it might be very hard to get full groups. Even at release.
Fact is, most of the time I'm in a game I am alone or with 1-2 friends. I group regularly for 6 mans and raids but that by no way represents the "majority" of my time. I may be unique to the average player but I doubt it.
Are you and your friends all going to be playing the same class?
We really don't know how good the game will be till it's released. I certainly don't think that Bioware not putting out an MMO makes them unqulified to know what MMO gamers want.
It doesn't help. Even established MMO devs can't seem to capture the lightning more than once.
The stage for MMO's has been set with plenty of failures and a few successes. All you need to do is to look to those. Blizzards first MMO was hit, they seemed to know what gamers wanted when they never released a prior MMO and that game has FAR more single player content than group content.
But SWTOR is going to have FAR, far, more solo content than WoW does.
If a player wants to rely on grouped social content there is DDO and that's free.
It's no-sub. That's not the same as free.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
As the devs told us, the majority of the game can be done without a single bit of help from another player. They said that the main appeal of MMOs is the experience single player with the option of being with other players. They confirmed that names, chat, and so on could all be turned off or ignored if you really, really wanted absolutely nothing to do with other people.
Saying the majority of the game can be done solo does not make it an anti-social game nor does it mean there isn't more than enough group content . It means nothing more than you won't get stuck throughout the game because everything you have left in your quests requires help and you don't want to sit around another hour hoping that you can get a group formed. Forming groups for low and mid level content is easy when a game is new but not so much so 6 months later.
Read the part I highlighted in red in Scochien's post... They are promoting the ability to play solo *above* grouping. They are citing the ability to play solo as the "main appeal of MMOs". Their words.. Not mine. I am merely pointing out how ass-backwards I believe that mentality is.
And seriously... They're absolutely putting the emphasis on solo-play with NPC companions. How prominent do you think group content is going to be in that light? It's the exact reverse of older MMOs where players complained it was too group-centric with solo play taking a back seat.
Sure you "could" solo in a group-centric MMO... but the game is very decidedly designed around group play and grouping is the path of least resistance. Conversely, from all accounts I've seen, you *can* group in TOR, but it's most decidedly designed around solo play and so, soloing with NPC sidekicks would be the path of least resistance. Group play seems to be an "option", while solo play is being touted as a "feature". That's the difference.
Also, in all the articles or other hype I've read or seen about this game, the solo-play and solo story aspects have, by far, taken center stage with group content being almost a side-note. If there is more in-depth information of how developed or how relevant group content is going to be, then I've missed it and would love to see it for myself.
To argue that group play is a significant focus of this game is disingenuous, IMO. They are, for all intents and purposes, taking their single player KoTOR games and putting them online.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
As the devs told us, the majority of the game can be done without a single bit of help from another player. They said that the main appeal of MMOs is the experience single player with the option of being with other players. They confirmed that names, chat, and so on could all be turned off or ignored if you really, really wanted absolutely nothing to do with other people.
Saying the majority of the game can be done solo does not make it an anti-social game nor does it mean there isn't more than enough group content . It means nothing more than you won't get stuck throughout the game because everything you have left in your quests requires help and you don't want to sit around another hour hoping that you can get a group formed. Forming groups for low and mid level content is easy when a game is new but not so much so 6 months later.
Read the part I highlighted in red in Scochien's post... They are promoting the ability to play solo *above* grouping. They are citing the ability to play solo as the "main appeal of MMOs". Their words.. Not mine. I am merely pointing out how ass-backwards I believe that mentality is.
And seriously... They're absolutely putting the emphasis on solo-play with NPC companions. How prominent do you think group content is going to be in that light? It's the exact reverse of older MMOs where players complained it was too group-centric with solo play taking a back seat.
Sure you "could" solo in a group-centric MMO... but the game is very decidedly designed around group play and grouping is the path of least resistance. Conversely, from all accounts I've seen, you *can* group in TOR, but it's most decidedly designed around solo play and so, soloing with NPC sidekicks would be the path of least resistance. Group play seems to be an "option", while solo play is being touted as a "feature". That's the difference.
Also, in all the articles or other hype I've read or seen about this game, the solo-play and solo story aspects have, by far, taken center stage with group content being almost a side-note. If there is more in-depth information of how developed or how relevant group content is going to be, then I've missed it and would love to see it for myself.
To argue that group play is a significant focus of this game is disingenuous, IMO. They are, for all intents and purposes, taking their single player KoTOR games and putting them online.
I did read it and I for one agree with them. It's about the options. I don't want to be forced into a single player game and I don't want to be forced to group. I want the option and since I log in many times for only an hour the quality of the game for me when I'm alone is very important. I'll find groups when I have time for them but I don't sit home during the day playing MMO's for 8 hours so I don't always have time to spend trying to get a full group because by the time I've gotten one I have to log.
If they can cater towards people that have lives and play 1-2 hours a night and to those that sit home all day they will be successfull. I would think that more people fall into the first category however, but, I also think those hard core gamers that do nothing else are just as important to the game.
Gee, don't you love it when a developer - and one that's brand-new to MMOs, no less - declares what the "appeal" of the given genre is? I love that.
"Yes, yes... we know we're brand-new and this is our first foray into MMORPGs... But let *us* tell *you* what the appeal of them is... Because we know better."
And of course the "appeal" they're declaring just *happens* to describe the way they're making their game. Complete coincidence. Honest!
Actually, Presumptuous TOR Devs, I'll decide for myself what appeals to me about MMOs, if that's okay with you. I have a mind of my own and am perfectly capable of coming to my own conclusions about what does or doesn't appeal to me. I don't need any help from paid emloyees hyping up their own product.
The appeal of MMORPGs to me is to be in a shared online world first. I want to be experiencing content *with* those around me, not only "among" them, as many "solo only" types seem to prefer; be it in large groups, small groups, raids, or as a mass of people enjoying a public event. To me, the Community aspect of MMORPGs has huge appeal and is very important to me. I do not subscribe to a MMORPG to play in an environment where everyone can do everything solo and hardly ever need to interact with another player if they don't want to. I can't even believe they're pushing the ability to play almost the entire game solo as a "feature" and still call it a MMORPG with a straight face.
I know people will say "MMORPG doesn't mean "no solo", and that's true. There is a place for solo content in a MMORPG. However, when it's to the point that you can log on and play the game as a solo experience and - according to the devs themselves - almost never need to interact with other players if you don't want, then it being a MMO becomes superfluous. They could have just as well made it an offline RPG with optional online multiplayer.
I play single player, offline RPGs to get the 'Solo Adventurer' experience. I play games like Dungeon Siege, or Neverwinter Nights (1 and 2) to have a group of myself and my chosen sidekicks. I don't have to pay a subscription fee for the "privilege". I don't see the sense in paying a subscription fee for a game that, from the way the devs are describing it, may as well be an offline single-player game with an optional muliplayer mode.
In fact, they may as well have emulated the general approach they took to their own Neverwinter Nights games: Offline, single player campaigns where the player can choose NPC companions, and that features optional multiplayer. Bingo! Gee, I'm almost describing TOR, aren't I.
That said, if they are seriously developing ToR to be *that* anti-social, then I will be staying far away from it.
I respect your opinion but I want to see something new from MMOs. The man makes games for a living, just because he is new to MMOs doesn't mean he has no idea what his talking about. Taking the experience and knowledge from one genre and adding to another is a great thing. We've seen that from FPS, RTS, RPGs and many games in between. Don't limit anything by what you are used to. You can still get your enjoyment if you look for it.
Com'on lets get real with each other, this is a rant - and in my opinion an unwarranted and misdirected one. You're foaming at the mouth and looking for blood, pulling from anger and frustrations from other similar topics. Like I said before I do respect your opinion, everyone needs to vent but it takes an adult to see the argument at hand and take it for it's worth. If you want to have a temper tamper on the forums that's fine, but all it does is unsettle others. You have to understand that not every game is going to be made for what you feel is most important, there are other people who feel differently. You can play the game for what it is or not.
I agree with sapphen. After reading through what bioware did say, that is a really big step. Then again they do have a lot of amazing games that people can hold a guarantee too. I myself, personally have never played a bioware game. Though, people do not care anymore through the MMO genre to be "forced" to group. They want their own choice. This is the only way to attract the majority of gamer's and people a like. Honestly, that is what really needs to happen. That is why so many people flock to the World of Warcraft and Guild Wars because of this solo nature. Sure during the "end game" stuff you are forced to group to get better, but here it doesn't seem the case. With that said, most people will normally end up playing with their friends, or maybe a smal lgroup of people they meet online.
Believe it or not, this is the truth. The days where forcing to group honestly is over. Which is also why games like WoW and Guild Wars are making bank because of this. Sure Guild wars is free to play, but to buy all those character slots and new accounts... geeze. Ditto with that on WoW. Sadly to say .... Warhammer and Age of Conan were FAR from WoW clones, they did NOT give you choice. If they did, people would probably stayed with the game. People called them "zerg fests". If anything is even considerably close to a "WoW clone" , this is it. The choice to play on your own, the choice to stay strictly with your friends, the choice to become better.... or not... the choice to seek what YOU want. In warhammer, public quests and queueing for the battle scenarios is what leveled you really, it is how you got your rewards. Age of Conan had a great story for the first 20 levels, and then bombed horribly after.
I personally see The old republic going a long way. Not only is it going to attract a lot of people from this website , but literally thousands of thousands of different people from around the world, other websites and games.If bioware really does make this thing right, it will be a Mammoth. We all know that Star wars has a lot more depth to it then a lot of these other stories/games. Really, this is one of those games that you play for the story and the choices that go along with it. YES it will have all your other fun things too. The story and the ability to be immersed in it, is what they are basically saying is what they are doing different.
I'm starting to think people just listen to what they want to ear, because bioware as stated SEVERAL times that this isn't a single player game but IF you want to you can solo the game till end, but you will lack some of the content, because some of that content is GROUP based. This is just like in WoW, i soloed from 1 to 70 ALONE because i wanted to! It's all about OPTIONS wich is a good think.
Another thing, star wars universe is IMMENSE not just the 6 movies... for those who don't know go check star wars wiki.
I'm starting to think people just listen to what they want to ear, because bioware as stated SEVERAL times that this isn't a single player game but IF you want to you can solo the game till end, but you will lack some of the content, because some of that content is GROUP based. This is just like in WoW, i soloed from 1 to 70 ALONE because i wanted to! It's all about OPTIONS wich is a good think.
Another thing, star wars universe is IMMENSE not just the 6 movies... for those who don't know go check star wars wiki.
This guy just proved my point , ( in a good way. )
I 100% agree with Bioware. I too hope Bioware can infuse their single-player style gameplay into the mmorpg genre. Just watching their trailers and development journals completely blows me away with how huge it's going to be.
I 100% agree with Bioware. I too hope Bioware can infuse their single-player style gameplay into the mmorpg genre. Just watching their trailers and development journals completely blows me away with how huge it's going to be.
To everyone his own I guess.
And how many times does an in game cinematic or trailer "blows" you away I might ask?
And will it be enough to ensure a 15 dollar sub fee after watching it for the 15th time?
Perhaps read my signature and see why MMO's are a complete different beast than the games Bioware produced up until now.
The point to MMo's is having that feeling of achieving something in a world of players, not in a world of NPC prerecorded story telling.
Its embarrassing when an NPC compliments you in an MMo, the only relevant, cool and epic things come from players whispering you Grtz, mate, we did it. copyright Pilnkplonk
Comments
You are probably right.
But KOTOR and SWTOR are both set in the Star Wars universe. Weather you like it or not.
We don't know for sure whether there will be space combat of not, but I agree that it's not Star Wars without space combat.
Attack of the Clones was the only movie that didn't have a major space combat sequence. Even it had the fight in the asteroid belt between Obi-Wan and Jango.
Space combat is more a part of Star Wars than light sabre duels.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
No more than a movie about the rennaisance and one about modern times are the same subject matter. Both set on Earth, right, so...
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Maybe there will be as much space combat in the game as lightsaber duels. Its weather you control it, or its in the story.
Of course. Same as KOTOR, KOTOR2, SW:TOR and the films 1 through 6. Different time periods, all in the Star Wars universe.
I'm gonna laugh so hard when they fall flat on their face. Hilarious.
If you aren't playing it - it isn't gameplay.
I won't be paying to watch cutscenes.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
we will just have to wait and see. I know its not a big deal to me.
Why?
I won't. IF it happens, that will be one more blown opportunity to create a great MMORPG for us gamers.
Nothing to cheer about.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Uhm, not a good idea. If the game fails it will be hopeless for MMO devs to get a large funding.
Like it or not but this game will affect the genre a lot, fail or win. If the large sum and experienced devs can't make a successful MMO, which publishing house would dare to fund another?
They're 100% correct that most MMO's have no point and lasck substance when it comes to story's. This doesn't mead they are insulting them or will be better than them. Many players lov that mind numbing grind to the point quest contents aren't even read (most aren't worht reading).
I take this as they intend to provide the story for those that want it. Star Wars is all about story's, just look at the number of books available vs. movies for it. Fact is there are far moe people in this world that read than play MMO's.
Gee, don't you love it when a developer - and one that's brand-new to MMOs, no less - declares what the "appeal" of the given genre is? I love that.
"Yes, yes... we know we're brand-new and this is our first foray into MMORPGs... But let *us* tell *you* what the appeal of them is... Because we know better."
And of course the "appeal" they're declaring just *happens* to describe the way they're making their game. Complete coincidence. Honest!
Actually, Presumptuous TOR Devs, I'll decide for myself what appeals to me about MMOs, if that's okay with you. I have a mind of my own and am perfectly capable of coming to my own conclusions about what does or doesn't appeal to me. I don't need any help from paid emloyees hyping up their own product.
The appeal of MMORPGs to me is to be in a shared online world first. I want to be experiencing content *with* those around me, not only "among" them, as many "solo only" types seem to prefer; be it in large groups, small groups, raids, or as a mass of people enjoying a public event. To me, the Community aspect of MMORPGs has huge appeal and is very important to me. I do not subscribe to a MMORPG to play in an environment where everyone can do everything solo and hardly ever need to interact with another player if they don't want to. I can't even believe they're pushing the ability to play almost the entire game solo as a "feature" and still call it a MMORPG with a straight face.
I know people will say "MMORPG doesn't mean "no solo", and that's true. There is a place for solo content in a MMORPG. However, when it's to the point that you can log on and play the game as a solo experience and - according to the devs themselves - almost never need to interact with other players if you don't want, then it being a MMO becomes superfluous. They could have just as well made it an offline RPG with optional online multiplayer.
I play single player, offline RPGs to get the 'Solo Adventurer' experience. I play games like Dungeon Siege, or Neverwinter Nights (1 and 2) to have a group of myself and my chosen sidekicks. I don't have to pay a subscription fee for the "privilege". I don't see the sense in paying a subscription fee for a game that, from the way the devs are describing it, may as well be an offline single-player game with an optional muliplayer mode.
In fact, they may as well have emulated the general approach they took to their own Neverwinter Nights games: Offline, single player campaigns where the player can choose NPC companions, and that features optional multiplayer. Bingo! Gee, I'm almost describing TOR, aren't I.
That said, if they are seriously developing ToR to be *that* anti-social, then I will be staying far away from it.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Very good post, Mike.
You pretty much captured my feeling on MMOs.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
1) story =/= lore and lore =/= story... therse are two completely different things. you can have one without the other.
2) a common dev (and movie producer) misconception is that IP is somehow crucial to a product's success... Look, Diablo became a bestseller BEFORE there was IP associated with it... and the same goes for original Star Wars movie. There was no super pre-existing IP/lore to explain the success of those. They suceeded with something else rather than what the suits feel give them a safe return for investment... "Oh yeah, ill invest in a Star Wars movie/game because even if it totally sucks the funs are gonna buy it." Those products suceeded because of awesome quality and sheer chutzpath in the face of what is "commonly known". Star Wars was pronounced a flop before it premiered because who in their right mind would go watch a nostalgic space-opera spooof.. I mean those things died in early 50s didn't they?
So anyway, meh...
It's no-sub. That's not the same as free.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
I respect your opinion but I want to see something new from MMOs. The man makes games for a living, just because he is new to MMOs doesn't mean he has no idea what his talking about. Taking the experience and knowledge from one genre and adding to another is a great thing. We've seen that from FPS, RTS, RPGs and many games in between. Don't limit anything by what you are used to. You can still get your enjoyment if you look for it.
Com'on lets get real with each other, this is a rant - and in my opinion an unwarranted and misdirected one. You're foaming at the mouth and looking for blood, pulling from anger and frustrations from other similar topics. Like I said before I do respect your opinion, everyone needs to vent but it takes an adult to see the argument at hand and take it for it's worth. If you want to have a temper tamper on the forums that's fine, but all it does is unsettle others. You have to understand that not every game is going to be made for what you feel is most important, there are other people who feel differently. You can play the game for what it is or not.
I agree with sapphen. After reading through what bioware did say, that is a really big step. Then again they do have a lot of amazing games that people can hold a guarantee too. I myself, personally have never played a bioware game. Though, people do not care anymore through the MMO genre to be "forced" to group. They want their own choice. This is the only way to attract the majority of gamer's and people a like. Honestly, that is what really needs to happen. That is why so many people flock to the World of Warcraft and Guild Wars because of this solo nature. Sure during the "end game" stuff you are forced to group to get better, but here it doesn't seem the case. With that said, most people will normally end up playing with their friends, or maybe a smal lgroup of people they meet online.
Believe it or not, this is the truth. The days where forcing to group honestly is over. Which is also why games like WoW and Guild Wars are making bank because of this. Sure Guild wars is free to play, but to buy all those character slots and new accounts... geeze. Ditto with that on WoW. Sadly to say .... Warhammer and Age of Conan were FAR from WoW clones, they did NOT give you choice. If they did, people would probably stayed with the game. People called them "zerg fests". If anything is even considerably close to a "WoW clone" , this is it. The choice to play on your own, the choice to stay strictly with your friends, the choice to become better.... or not... the choice to seek what YOU want. In warhammer, public quests and queueing for the battle scenarios is what leveled you really, it is how you got your rewards. Age of Conan had a great story for the first 20 levels, and then bombed horribly after.
I personally see The old republic going a long way. Not only is it going to attract a lot of people from this website , but literally thousands of thousands of different people from around the world, other websites and games.If bioware really does make this thing right, it will be a Mammoth. We all know that Star wars has a lot more depth to it then a lot of these other stories/games. Really, this is one of those games that you play for the story and the choices that go along with it. YES it will have all your other fun things too. The story and the ability to be immersed in it, is what they are basically saying is what they are doing different.
www.roxstudiodesigns.com
I'm starting to think people just listen to what they want to ear, because bioware as stated SEVERAL times that this isn't a single player game but IF you want to you can solo the game till end, but you will lack some of the content, because some of that content is GROUP based. This is just like in WoW, i soloed from 1 to 70 ALONE because i wanted to! It's all about OPTIONS wich is a good think.
Another thing, star wars universe is IMMENSE not just the 6 movies... for those who don't know go check star wars wiki.
This guy just proved my point , ( in a good way. )
www.roxstudiodesigns.com
I 100% agree with Bioware. I too hope Bioware can infuse their single-player style gameplay into the mmorpg genre. Just watching their trailers and development journals completely blows me away with how huge it's going to be.
Be water my friend.
To everyone his own I guess.
And how many times does an in game cinematic or trailer "blows" you away I might ask?
And will it be enough to ensure a 15 dollar sub fee after watching it for the 15th time?
Perhaps read my signature and see why MMO's are a complete different beast than the games Bioware produced up until now.
The point to MMo's is having that feeling of achieving something in a world of players, not in a world of NPC prerecorded story telling.
Its embarrassing when an NPC compliments you in an MMo, the only relevant, cool and epic things come from players whispering you Grtz, mate, we did it. copyright Pilnkplonk