Thanks for posting this, it further verifies something that some liar on these forums keeps saying; he keeps claiming that SWTOR had a ton of PCs playing SWTOR at euro gamer.
The first was that the booth was surprisingly small, with Alienware laptops setup in two circles just in front of the over 18’s area. Queues were predictably long and so the demo time was quite limited (around fifteen minutes).
They obviously do not want people playing extended demos because they want to keep demos restricted to a tightly controlled area and not let players find the faults of the game.
It's really obvious Bioware is trying to keep this thing underwraps as long as possible, and it's not because they're worried about spoliers. lol.
If they were happy with the game and wanted free publicity all they would have to do is drop the NDA and let people sing TOR's praises. Except they're not happy with the game and it isn't ready to be launched this year (even though they are pushing it out the door anyway). That's why we're only 8 weeks or so away from release and they're still desperately clinging to their NDA.
You have no idea what you're talking about. 'nuff said.
Hi MaskedWeasel, were you the person who was saying there were a ton of computers at euro gamer? I think so right?
I think I remember because everytime I put up evidence to support something I am saying or use some sort of logical reasoning you inevitably respond telling me you are in the beta but can't prove it due to NDA and I am wrong and you are smarter than me. Lol.
I asked you how many actual computers there were for SWTOR in comparison to GW2. You didn't provide an answer... but apart from that, you do know that SWTOR has been to more shows than GW2, right? You also know that SWTOR has been showing their game longer than GW2 right? You also know that more people have played it, for longer amounts of time collectively, across all that time and that Eurogamer isn't one of the biggest, nor one of the most important shows, right?
Or do you just want to dismiss all that because you can't prove that wrong? lol
Actually you're wrong... Despite having a release date much further away than SWTOR, SW2 has been having longer demos and more computers at shows than SWTOR. I am not sure which has been to more shows, maybe SWTOR started going to them sooner? ArenaNet just recently started releasing information about its game...
I am not sure if more people have collectively played it or not because that would also account for beta players, and hopefully SWTOR has more, although they do not have as much as a game typically would at this stage, and judging from the preview in the OP of this thread there still seems to be a lot of bugs in SWTOR, which also supports the arguement that SWTOR does not have very many beta testers at this time. But I hope for SWTOR's sake that they have more beta testers at this time than GW2. And from that they would have more people that have collectively played SWTOR than GW2.
I'm absolutely not wrong, SWTOR has had weekend tests lasting 3 + days, plus (regular daily) gametesting, but at shows they allow people to play in some instances anywhere from 15 - 30 minutes, sometimes even longer when showing of flashpoints which could take up to 45 to an hour or longer depending on the flashpoint in question. They've been to most game shows, and some comiccons, amongst other opportunities to play such as allowing people to play the game across from conventions at hotels when the conventions were industry only -- they still allowed players to come play the game.
Guild Wars 2 is in closed alpha, therefore comparing SW:TOR's beta test count to GW2's is pointless. The current demos they've allowed people to play have been 30 minutes long. They've been to every game show EXCEPT for E3 and have stated that they did not like the philosophy of E3 because E3 is for the press, the media, and the investors, not for the fans or those who are actually going to PLAY the game.
On top of that, how many PCs did GW2 have at... say.. E3 in comparison to SWTOR. How many did they have at PAX prime? East? Eurogamer? And how many people were waiting to play SWTOR in comparison to GW2? Any numbers on that? We know people were waiting for 2+ hours for SWTOR, even at E3, even when they were allowing longer play times, even when they were having 16 plus players.
They had more people and more players. Even TotalBiscuit commented on how many people there were for this game.
Which brings me to my final point here on Eurogamer... the writer even SAID that they had warzones available for play there at the convention. A warzone requires at least 16 PCs, on top of whatever else was on the show floor, what another, 4 - 8 PCs? More? Thats at least 20+ PCs.... thats not just a handful.
ArenaNet had 5v5 PvP running in 3-4 places on the show floor, that makes 15-20 PvP computers. If you do a quick head count of a screen shot of one of the Tequatl or Shatterer fights, you can count AT LEAST 20 people. So 40+ computers? Thats still more than double the amount that SWTOR has.
Also, as stated before they had over 2000 testers prior to the mass invites that have gone out over the pasts few months, their tester base will be immense at this point, and thats not counting weekend testers.
Again, not to beat a dead horse, but GW2 IS IN CLOSED ALPHA. Therefore, any arguments you have against how much more "Tested" SW:TOR is just make you look stupid.
You are so far off base on so much of what you say its almost not even worth it to argue these points, but spreading misinformation just doesn't mesh well with me.
And then you personally attack the person who's not quite well-learned enough to do a little apologetics with you, but at the same time, you're expressing exactly why your defending your game so much. By this statement you prove that you feel like your being attacked personally, and that makes you argue without really thinking through your arguments.
Anyway, best of luck to SW:TOR, but when TotalBiscuit ditches SW:TOR for GW2, the world will follow.
Guild Wars 2 is in closed alpha, therefore comparing SW:TOR's beta test count to GW2's is pointless. The current demos they've allowed people to play have been 30 minutes long. They've been to every game show EXCEPT for E3 and have stated that they did not like the philosophy of E3 because E3 is for the press, the media, and the investors, not for the fans or those who are actually going to PLAY the game.
On top of that, how many PCs did GW2 have at... say.. E3 in comparison to SWTOR. How many did they have at PAX prime? East? Eurogamer? And how many people were waiting to play SWTOR in comparison to GW2? Any numbers on that? We know people were waiting for 2+ hours for SWTOR, even at E3, even when they were allowing longer play times, even when they were having 16 plus players.
They had more people and more players. Even TotalBiscuit commented on how many people there were for this game.
Which brings me to my final point here on Eurogamer... the writer even SAID that they had warzones available for play there at the convention. A warzone requires at least 16 PCs, on top of whatever else was on the show floor, what another, 4 - 8 PCs? More? Thats at least 20+ PCs.... thats not just a handful.
ArenaNet had 5v5 PvP running in 3-4 places on the show floor, that makes 15-20 PvP computers. If you do a quick head count of a screen shot of one of the Tequatl or Shatterer fights, you can count AT LEAST 20 people. So 40+ computers? Thats still more than double the amount that SWTOR has.
Also, as stated before they had over 2000 testers prior to the mass invites that have gone out over the pasts few months, their tester base will be immense at this point, and thats not counting weekend testers.
Again, not to beat a dead horse, but GW2 IS IN CLOSED ALPHA. Therefore, any arguments you have against how much more "Tested" SW:TOR is just make you look stupid.
You are so far off base on so much of what you say its almost not even worth it to argue these points, but spreading misinformation just doesn't mesh well with me.
And then you personally attack the person who's not quite well-learned enough to do a little apologetics with you, but at the same time, you're expressing exactly why your defending your game so much. By this statement you prove that you feel like your being attacked personally, and that makes you argue without really thinking through your arguments.
Anyway, best of luck to SW:TOR, but when TotalBiscuit ditches SW:TOR for GW2, the world will follow.
P.S. He has already.
I am sure the rest of the world like me is asking WTF is TotalBiscuit?
I'm absolutely not wrong, SWTOR has had weekend tests lasting 3 + days, plus (regular daily) gametesting, but at shows they allow people to play in some instances anywhere from 15 - 30 minutes, sometimes even longer when showing of flashpoints which could take up to 45 to an hour or longer depending on the flashpoint in question. They've been to most game shows, and some comiccons, amongst other opportunities to play such as allowing people to play the game across from conventions at hotels when the conventions were industry only -- they still allowed players to come play the game.
Guild Wars 2 is in closed alpha, therefore comparing SW:TOR's beta test count to GW2's is pointless. The current demos they've allowed people to play have been 30 minutes long. They've been to every game show EXCEPT for E3 and have stated that they did not like the philosophy of E3 because E3 is for the press, the media, and the investors, not for the fans or those who are actually going to PLAY the game.
On top of that, how many PCs did GW2 have at... say.. E3 in comparison to SWTOR. How many did they have at PAX prime? East? Eurogamer? And how many people were waiting to play SWTOR in comparison to GW2? Any numbers on that? We know people were waiting for 2+ hours for SWTOR, even at E3, even when they were allowing longer play times, even when they were having 16 plus players.
They had more people and more players. Even TotalBiscuit commented on how many people there were for this game.
Which brings me to my final point here on Eurogamer... the writer even SAID that they had warzones available for play there at the convention. A warzone requires at least 16 PCs, on top of whatever else was on the show floor, what another, 4 - 8 PCs? More? Thats at least 20+ PCs.... thats not just a handful.
ArenaNet had 5v5 PvP running in 3-4 places on the show floor, that makes 15-20 PvP computers. If you do a quick head count of a screen shot of one of the Tequatl or Shatterer fights, you can count AT LEAST 20 people. So 40+ computers? Thats still more than double the amount that SWTOR has.
Also, as stated before they had over 2000 testers prior to the mass invites that have gone out over the pasts few months, their tester base will be immense at this point, and thats not counting weekend testers.
Again, not to beat a dead horse, but GW2 IS IN CLOSED ALPHA. Therefore, any arguments you have against how much more "Tested" SW:TOR is just make you look stupid.
You are so far off base on so much of what you say its almost not even worth it to argue these points, but spreading misinformation just doesn't mesh well with me.
And then you personally attack the person who's not quite well-learned enough to do a little apologetics with you, but at the same time, you're expressing exactly why your defending your game so much. By this statement you prove that you feel like your being attacked personally, and that makes you argue without really thinking through your arguments.
Anyway, best of luck to SW:TOR, but when TotalBiscuit ditches SW:TOR for GW2, the world will follow.
P.S. He has already.
Is TotalBiscuit the messiah? Did I miss something???
I asked you how many actual computers there were for SWTOR in comparison to GW2. You didn't provide an answer... but apart from that, you do know that SWTOR has been to more shows than GW2, right? You also know that SWTOR has been showing their game longer than GW2 right? You also know that more people have played it, for longer amounts of time collectively, across all that time and that Eurogamer isn't one of the biggest, nor one of the most important shows, right?
Or do you just want to dismiss all that because you can't prove that wrong? lol
Actually you're wrong... Despite having a release date much further away than SWTOR, SW2 has been having longer demos and more computers at shows than SWTOR. I am not sure which has been to more shows, maybe SWTOR started going to them sooner? ArenaNet just recently started releasing information about its game...
I am not sure if more people have collectively played it or not because that would also account for beta players, and hopefully SWTOR has more, although they do not have as much as a game typically would at this stage, and judging from the preview in the OP of this thread there still seems to be a lot of bugs in SWTOR, which also supports the arguement that SWTOR does not have very many beta testers at this time. But I hope for SWTOR's sake that they have more beta testers at this time than GW2. And from that they would have more people that have collectively played SWTOR than GW2.
I'm absolutely not wrong, SWTOR has had weekend tests lasting 3 + days, plus (regular daily) gametesting, but at shows they allow people to play in some instances anywhere from 15 - 30 minutes, sometimes even longer when showing of flashpoints which could take up to 45 to an hour or longer depending on the flashpoint in question. They've been to most game shows, and some comiccons, amongst other opportunities to play such as allowing people to play the game across from conventions at hotels when the conventions were industry only -- they still allowed players to come play the game.
Guild Wars 2 is in closed alpha, therefore comparing SW:TOR's beta test count to GW2's is pointless. The current demos they've allowed people to play have been 30 minutes long. They've been to every game show EXCEPT for E3 and have stated that they did not like the philosophy of E3 because E3 is for the press, the media, and the investors, not for the fans or those who are actually going to PLAY the game.
If you had read two posts under this one you'd understand my point I was making, but you didn't, so I won't bother responding to this part.
On top of that, how many PCs did GW2 have at... say.. E3 in comparison to SWTOR. How many did they have at PAX prime? East? Eurogamer? And how many people were waiting to play SWTOR in comparison to GW2? Any numbers on that? We know people were waiting for 2+ hours for SWTOR, even at E3, even when they were allowing longer play times, even when they were having 16 plus players.
They had more people and more players. Even TotalBiscuit commented on how many people there were for this game.
How about you give some numbers here, how about at pax prime? east? gamescom?
Which brings me to my final point here on Eurogamer... the writer even SAID that they had warzones available for play there at the convention. A warzone requires at least 16 PCs, on top of whatever else was on the show floor, what another, 4 - 8 PCs? More? Thats at least 20+ PCs.... thats not just a handful.
ArenaNet had 5v5 PvP running in 3-4 places on the show floor, that makes 15-20 PvP computers. If you do a quick head count of a screen shot of one of the Tequatl or Shatterer fights, you can count AT LEAST 20 people. So 40+ computers? Thats still more than double the amount that SWTOR has.
As it should be, SWTOR has been to lots of shows, comic cons (that gw2 wasn't at) for more years than GW2 has, leading up to a launch at the end of the year. Its not a question of SWTOR vs GW2, its a question of comparison on testing on show floors. 20+ for SWTOR is much more than a handful, especially as the demo they are showing is likely pretty outdated with the amount of changes going on to get ready for release.
Also, as stated before they had over 2000 testers prior to the mass invites that have gone out over the pasts few months, their tester base will be immense at this point, and thats not counting weekend testers.
Again, not to beat a dead horse, but GW2 IS IN CLOSED ALPHA. Therefore, any arguments you have against how much more "Tested" SW:TOR is just make you look stupid.
You completely missed the point of the response fanny, you think I'm talking about GW2 vs SWTOR... I'm not.. get over it
You are so far off base on so much of what you say its almost not even worth it to argue these points, but spreading misinformation just doesn't mesh well with me.
And then you personally attack the person who's not quite well-learned enough to do a little apologetics with you, but at the same time, you're expressing exactly why your defending your game so much. By this statement you prove that you feel like your being attacked personally, and that makes you argue without really thinking through your arguments.
No, I explain it very well. Misinformation doesn't mesh with me anymore. If you say something is one way, but its absolutely contrary, I'll point it out, and if I have to go as far as to find information to back it up, I can. For what I can't post, I'll just wait until the NDA drops.
Anyway, best of luck to SW:TOR, but when TotalBiscuit ditches SW:TOR for GW2, the world will follow.
P.S. He has already.
Do you really think I care what Totalbiscuit does? Take a step back and read my above post, do you really think what this guy does bothers me in the slightest? Did I even mention his name? Does this somehow make some kind of point for you that I'm just missing here, like this is some kind of nail in some kind of coffin, teaching me something that actually makes a difference in my life? He's had minutes with SWTOR, I've been in beta for weeks, I don't care what anyone else is going to do, I know what I'm going to do.
Hey, I have nothing against Totalbiscuit, but what he says or does has no sway on me, no matter if he says he likes GW2 more, or if he likes eating watermelon slices with tacos.
None of them are as good as the Mighty Behemoth that is Tomato anyway.
Tomatos are fruits, they are... DISQUALIFIED! Fruit battles are the week AFTER this week
I'm sick and tired of the same old fruits and veggies we've always had, farmers today suck, they never innovate.
/Agree, the veggies tasted a lot better in 2002.
Somehow you guys ALWAYS manage to underestimate the power of nostalgia. Sure, I have fond memories of visiting pumpkin patches and picking out my very own gourd to take home back in 2002. It was great fun. But if I am to view the subject objectively, I simply must admit that veggies have come a long way in the past decade. Their colors are more vibrant, flavors more savory, and they stay fresh longer. You can't objectively deny the results of modern growth hormone technology.
"he comes to the conclusion this is a game for people who still enjoy and want more of the WoW-esque formula."
Which to me would be just like saying BF3 is a game for people who like the battlefield-esque formula.
Right.
This has been a common recurring theme from most that play SWTOR, it seems, as reported, again.
Bottom-line is that this will be a fun cooperative rpg (not massively-multiplayer).
But just as BF3 will probably be a fun cooperative shooter, it will get old in a couple of months, but I still dont have to pay $15/month to play it.
I'll play SWTOR, and probably as yet another transitional themepark rpg, from the writing of most short-term reviews. It does seem demeaning to the mmorpg moniker to call them, these types of games, an mmorpg, since its a CORPG.
But time will tell. Though time has told us the same time after time, over the past several years,
While i still hold firm that the combat looks closer to COH which it might and people aren't familer with it so they relate to the next closest thing they do know (which is WoW) but assuming that it's exactly like WoW combat. In every way shape and form.
I'm still okay with that because i don't focus (oddly enough) on the combat in MMOs, they are a means to an end in my opinion. I focus on the world, the equipment i have and the story of the world (assuming it can grab me, which they rarely do) Combat is practically on the bottom of the list of stuff i worry about. Plus i don't care for dodging and getting out of the way of stuff all the time or recticle combat. So i get nothing out of Tera or GW2 combat. But like i said combat is the lowest thing on my list so it's not a big factor.
As for questing? I actually like this mechanic if done well. Better then grinding for years like i did in EQ, least here you have some kind of story to make it a bit better, and Bioware is looking to make it even better.
What i need personally is a really good story in a world i can share with my friends. The cool thing here is that we (my friends) can be apart of each others stories. So i'm thrilled regardless of combat.
Still I feel from what i've seen (for some reason when i try to find videos i can't express it) that the combat looks closer to CoH but maybe thats just me.
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.
Combat isn't a WoW-clone by any means. No auto-attack, fluid animations, actual collision between things, slower pace and bigger health pool, cover system are just a few of the nuances brought in by Bioware. Yes, it ain't revolutionary but it didn't pretend it to be.
To be honest I believe action combat still doesn't fit MMOs and in fact GW2 is going to be a lot more SWTOR-alike then TERA. Most MMOs with a true action combat failed, and there is a reason for that. There's still room for innovation and additions in good ol' TAB combat in my opinion.
While i still hold firm that the combat looks closer to COH which it might and people aren't familer with it so they relate to the next closest thing they do know (which is WoW) but assuming that it's exactly like WoW combat. In every way shape and form.
I'm still okay with that because i don't focus (oddly enough) on the combat in MMOs, they are a means to an end in my opinion. I focus on the world, the equipment i have and the story of the world (assuming it can grab me, which they rarely do) Combat is practically on the bottom of the list of stuff i worry about. Plus i don't care for dodging and getting out of the way of stuff all the time or recticle combat. So i get nothing out of Tera or GW2 combat. But like i said combat is the lowest thing on my list so it's not a big factor.
As for questing? I actually like this mechanic if done well. Better then grinding for years like i did in EQ, least here you have some kind of story to make it a bit better, and Bioware is looking to make it even better.
What i need personally is a really good story in a world i can share with my friends. The cool thing here is that we (my friends) can be apart of each others stories. So i'm thrilled regardless of combat.
Still I feel from what i've seen (for some reason when i try to find videos i can't express it) that the combat looks closer to CoH but maybe thats just me.
I agree with you.
If it was all about combat mechanics, I'd be playing DCUO (or even CO) rather than the game I am playing: CoH.
"he comes to the conclusion this is a game for people who still enjoy and want more of the WoW-esque formula."
Which to me would be just like saying BF3 is a game for people who like the battlefield-esque formula.
Right.
This has been a common recurring theme from most that play SWTOR, it seems, as reported, again.
Bottom-line is that this will be a fun cooperative rpg (not massively-multiplayer).
But just as BF3 will probably be a fun cooperative shooter, it will get old in a couple of months, but I still dont have to pay $15/month to play it.
I'll play SWTOR, and probably as yet another transitional themepark rpg, from the writing of most short-term reviews. It does seem demeaning to the mmorpg moniker to call them, these types of games, an mmorpg, since its a CORPG.
But time will tell. Though time has told us the same time after time, over the past several years,
Sadly that may be the case, the only MMO to it may be what the players themselves create. Regular group size is four people, that is basically your standard co-op size. Raids are what 6 people or is it more? PVP (world PVP) may be this games only saving gace on the MMO front IMO.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
"he comes to the conclusion this is a game for people who still enjoy and want more of the WoW-esque formula."
Which to me would be just like saying BF3 is a game for people who like the battlefield-esque formula.
Right.
This has been a common recurring theme from most that play SWTOR, it seems, as reported, again.
Oh that they love it? How many reviews have you read? One? Two?
Bottom-line is that this will be a fun cooperative rpg (not massively-multiplayer).
WRONG there is no other way to say it other then to say WRONG as often and as loud as possible. It's not a many of opinion it's just a matter of you being 100% truly and totally WRONG. Accept it.
But just as BF3 will probably be a fun cooperative shooter, it will get old in a couple of months, but I still dont have to pay $15/month to play it.
LOL have you ever played BF2? I still play it regularly because it is a WHOLE lot more fun (IMO) then CoD.
I'll play SWTOR, and probably as yet another transitional themepark rpg, from the writing of most short-term reviews. It does seem demeaning to the mmorpg moniker to call them, these types of games, an mmorpg, since its a CORPG.
Again you are WRONG in every possible way, but that's ok you are still voting for TOR with your wallet so HAHA for being one of us "sheeple."
But time will tell. Though time has told us the same time after time, over the past several years,
Yes, because it is totally fair and in the same ballpark (hell in the same galaxy) to compare BIOWARE and STAR WARS to Mythic and Funcom and Trion and the IP's of Warhammer, Age of Conan, and a brand new generic fantasy IP
People on this site make me want to bash in my skull with a hammer while crying in the corner of the shower screaming WHY GOD WHY?!?!
Well, at least screaming that until my skull caves in and I die a horrible death (or knock myself unconscience, but then I'd wake up eventually and know people like you still exist and start the process all over again.)
Sadly that may be the case, the only MMO to it may be what the players themselves create. Regular group size is four people, that is basically your standard co-op size. Raids are what 6 people or is it more? PVP (world PVP) may be this games only saving gace on the MMO front IMO.
OMG so adding ONE more person to a group like WoW or RIFT turns a game from a regular co-op group size (4) and into a MMORPG? (5)
LAWLAWLAWLAWLWALALWLALWLALWLAWLAWL
Raid are 8/16 and open world PvP is going to be... hundreds.
Instanced PvP is up to like 20 on 20.
Yep, you are right though.. obviously... this is just a co-op RPG not a MMORPG... I mean, it's not like they have 17+ massive open worlds where hundreds/thousands of players occupy the same spaces....
Oh wait. The game "has" instancing... so it must be a CORPG.
Sadly that may be the case, the only MMO to it may be what the players themselves create. Regular group size is four people, that is basically your standard co-op size. Raids are what 6 people or is it more? PVP (world PVP) may be this games only saving gace on the MMO front IMO.
OMG so adding ONE more person to a group like WoW or RIFT turns a game from a regular co-op group size (4) and into a MMORPG? (5)
LAWLAWLAWLAWLWALALWLALWLALWLAWLAWL
Raid are 8/16 and open world PvP is going to be... hundreds.
Instanced PvP is up to like 20 on 20.
Yep, you are right though.. obviously... this is just a co-op RPG not a MMORPG... I mean, it's not like they have 17+ massive open worlds where hundreds/thousands of players occupy the same spaces....
Oh wait. The game "has" instancing... so it must be a CORPG.
Just one question what does WOW or Rift have to do with what I said? My MMO experience doesn't come from games like that, if you can't see a stark difference in the multiplayer elements of games like WOW, RIFT, etc.. Compared to DAOC, SWG or UO, I really don't know what to say. Step back and realize not everyone uses WOW or Rift as a point of reference when discussing MMO's.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I solo'd more in SWG and UO then I ever solo'd in WoW.
You are the one that (laughably) said that TOR having 4 player groups meant the game was a CORPG because 4 players is the standard co-op size.
ROFL, it is more comparable to a co-op rpg than something like pre-cu SWG, that was my point. I solo'd a bunch in SWG myself, your point is?
The question becomes what typically makes a game a co-op? is it the amount of poeple in a game or the number in a group size? why does subtracting one group member make it a co-op rpg? If you want, any quest that does not take place in some instance (which they stated was about 15% of the game total) could be taken on by more then 4 people if they wanted. Plus while in the open world your likely to continue to run into other people doing quests and on PvP servers attacking each other. I suppose you could say in the instance part of the game that part is co-op but that is one part of the game. you have world pvp which is mass amounts, instance pvp which is at least 2 groups worth (more then 5 which would make it enough to be equal to other MMOs in people size).
I suppose you could agrue that subtracting one from the group size is similar to say mario party amounts which had 4 controllers, but there you only ran into your 4 friends. That was the maxium you could ever run into at any one time. Never more then what was there. Co-op games tend to be smaler in numbers (not sure i've seen more then 10 people in a single instance) where here you could walk into a city and see hundreds of people. Naturally you won't directly interact with these hundreds at the same time but you can if you wanted get those 100 people to walk off into the world with you and take on some major big guy and take him down (world bosses) which as far as i'm aware you can't do in a co-op as they tend to be much smaller (note the number was figurative you could have 200 or 300 if you wanted).
But if you want to say that reducing the maxium group size makes it a co-op go ahead. I'll just simply say i disagree largely with that point.
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.
I solo'd more in SWG and UO then I ever solo'd in WoW.
You are the one that (laughably) said that TOR having 4 player groups meant the game was a CORPG because 4 players is the standard co-op size.
ROFL, it is more comparable to a co-op rpg than something like pre-cu SWG, that was my point. I solo'd a bunch in SWG myself, your point is?
No, no it is NOT more comparable to a co-op RPG is the point you are missing.
Pre-CU SWG the largest group activities I ever participating in were 5-6 person hunting parties on Endor or 20-30 person PvP.
WoW I have been doing 20-80 person raids/BG's for 7 years.
Even RIFT has more open world large-group content.
Even back in UO days doing Factions PvP on Atlantic or mass scale FFA PvP on Siege Perilous we maybe had 20-30 people in an area at once?
I'm sorry you wanted TOR to be SWG 2.0 but I played SWG from launch until JTL and I'll let you in on a secret -
It was NEVER a good game.
The largest group activity I took part in was a server wide guild war, again your point is? What does SWG being a good game or not have to do with this?
There is a huge difference in how these games are designed, SWG, UO and DAOC were designed around players, they were the game, it was a community oriented design. RIFT, WOW and just about everything that has come after WOW have been designed around playing dev made content with a pre-determined amount of people. Apples to oranges..
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Comments
A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true...
You know, someone the other day likened MMORPG.com to 4chan.
I couldn't fathom why...
I am sure the rest of the world like me is asking WTF is TotalBiscuit?
I don't care about innovation I care about fun.
Is TotalBiscuit the messiah? Did I miss something???
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
It was TB that said that arguing over which MMO is best (Something to that effect) is idiotic.
I'd dig up the quote, but i had a few beers and apparently i forgot how to search effectively. One of you have the quote anyway, so yeah.
Somehow you guys ALWAYS manage to underestimate the power of nostalgia. Sure, I have fond memories of visiting pumpkin patches and picking out my very own gourd to take home back in 2002. It was great fun. But if I am to view the subject objectively, I simply must admit that veggies have come a long way in the past decade. Their colors are more vibrant, flavors more savory, and they stay fresh longer. You can't objectively deny the results of modern growth hormone technology.
There's some discontent in my area from the Carrots on that matter but the Veal crew are getting the upper hand.
Yeah....Thank God that never happens on this site. Whew!!!!
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
Right.
This has been a common recurring theme from most that play SWTOR, it seems, as reported, again.
Bottom-line is that this will be a fun cooperative rpg (not massively-multiplayer).
But just as BF3 will probably be a fun cooperative shooter, it will get old in a couple of months, but I still dont have to pay $15/month to play it.
I'll play SWTOR, and probably as yet another transitional themepark rpg, from the writing of most short-term reviews. It does seem demeaning to the mmorpg moniker to call them, these types of games, an mmorpg, since its a CORPG.
But time will tell. Though time has told us the same time after time, over the past several years,
While i still hold firm that the combat looks closer to COH which it might and people aren't familer with it so they relate to the next closest thing they do know (which is WoW) but assuming that it's exactly like WoW combat. In every way shape and form.
I'm still okay with that because i don't focus (oddly enough) on the combat in MMOs, they are a means to an end in my opinion. I focus on the world, the equipment i have and the story of the world (assuming it can grab me, which they rarely do) Combat is practically on the bottom of the list of stuff i worry about. Plus i don't care for dodging and getting out of the way of stuff all the time or recticle combat. So i get nothing out of Tera or GW2 combat. But like i said combat is the lowest thing on my list so it's not a big factor.
As for questing? I actually like this mechanic if done well. Better then grinding for years like i did in EQ, least here you have some kind of story to make it a bit better, and Bioware is looking to make it even better.
What i need personally is a really good story in a world i can share with my friends. The cool thing here is that we (my friends) can be apart of each others stories. So i'm thrilled regardless of combat.
Still I feel from what i've seen (for some reason when i try to find videos i can't express it) that the combat looks closer to CoH but maybe thats just me.
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.
If total biscuit ditched TOR for GW then doesn't that defeat the purpose of this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvrQDqDgf4U?
Currently Playing: SSFIV AE, SFxTekken, SWTOR, WoW. Waiting for: GW2, Resident Evil 6.
Combat isn't a WoW-clone by any means. No auto-attack, fluid animations, actual collision between things, slower pace and bigger health pool, cover system are just a few of the nuances brought in by Bioware. Yes, it ain't revolutionary but it didn't pretend it to be.
To be honest I believe action combat still doesn't fit MMOs and in fact GW2 is going to be a lot more SWTOR-alike then TERA. Most MMOs with a true action combat failed, and there is a reason for that. There's still room for innovation and additions in good ol' TAB combat in my opinion.
Executive Editor (Games) http://www.wccftech.com
I agree with you.
If it was all about combat mechanics, I'd be playing DCUO (or even CO) rather than the game I am playing: CoH.
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/367/feature/5664/The-Lure-of-Star-Wars-The-Old-Republic.html
Sadly that may be the case, the only MMO to it may be what the players themselves create. Regular group size is four people, that is basically your standard co-op size. Raids are what 6 people or is it more? PVP (world PVP) may be this games only saving gace on the MMO front IMO.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
People on this site make me want to bash in my skull with a hammer while crying in the corner of the shower screaming WHY GOD WHY?!?!
Well, at least screaming that until my skull caves in and I die a horrible death (or knock myself unconscience, but then I'd wake up eventually and know people like you still exist and start the process all over again.)
OMG so adding ONE more person to a group like WoW or RIFT turns a game from a regular co-op group size (4) and into a MMORPG? (5)
LAWLAWLAWLAWLWALALWLALWLALWLAWLAWL
Raid are 8/16 and open world PvP is going to be... hundreds.
Instanced PvP is up to like 20 on 20.
Yep, you are right though.. obviously... this is just a co-op RPG not a MMORPG... I mean, it's not like they have 17+ massive open worlds where hundreds/thousands of players occupy the same spaces....
Oh wait. The game "has" instancing... so it must be a CORPG.
Just one question what does WOW or Rift have to do with what I said? My MMO experience doesn't come from games like that, if you can't see a stark difference in the multiplayer elements of games like WOW, RIFT, etc.. Compared to DAOC, SWG or UO, I really don't know what to say. Step back and realize not everyone uses WOW or Rift as a point of reference when discussing MMO's.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Son I've been playing MMOs for 13 years.
I solo'd more in SWG and UO then I ever solo'd in WoW.
You are the one that (laughably) said that TOR having 4 player groups meant the game was a CORPG because 4 players is the standard co-op size.
ROFL, it is more comparable to a co-op rpg than something like pre-cu SWG, that was my point. I solo'd a bunch in SWG myself, your point is?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
No, no it is NOT more comparable to a co-op RPG is the point you are missing.
Pre-CU SWG the largest group activities I ever participating in were 5-6 person hunting parties on Endor or 20-30 person PvP.
WoW I have been doing 20-80 person raids/BG's for 7 years.
Even RIFT has more open world large-group content.
Even back in UO days doing Factions PvP on Atlantic or mass scale FFA PvP on Siege Perilous we maybe had 20-30 people in an area at once?
I'm sorry you wanted TOR to be SWG 2.0 but I played SWG from launch until JTL and I'll let you in on a secret -
It was NEVER a good game.
*edit*
I'll clarify before I am assualted by the SWG faithful - SWG had the most POTENTIAL for greatness of any MMORPG ever conceived before or since.
It NEVER lived up to even half of that potential.
The question becomes what typically makes a game a co-op? is it the amount of poeple in a game or the number in a group size? why does subtracting one group member make it a co-op rpg? If you want, any quest that does not take place in some instance (which they stated was about 15% of the game total) could be taken on by more then 4 people if they wanted. Plus while in the open world your likely to continue to run into other people doing quests and on PvP servers attacking each other. I suppose you could say in the instance part of the game that part is co-op but that is one part of the game. you have world pvp which is mass amounts, instance pvp which is at least 2 groups worth (more then 5 which would make it enough to be equal to other MMOs in people size).
I suppose you could agrue that subtracting one from the group size is similar to say mario party amounts which had 4 controllers, but there you only ran into your 4 friends. That was the maxium you could ever run into at any one time. Never more then what was there. Co-op games tend to be smaler in numbers (not sure i've seen more then 10 people in a single instance) where here you could walk into a city and see hundreds of people. Naturally you won't directly interact with these hundreds at the same time but you can if you wanted get those 100 people to walk off into the world with you and take on some major big guy and take him down (world bosses) which as far as i'm aware you can't do in a co-op as they tend to be much smaller (note the number was figurative you could have 200 or 300 if you wanted).
But if you want to say that reducing the maxium group size makes it a co-op go ahead. I'll just simply say i disagree largely with that point.
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.
The largest group activity I took part in was a server wide guild war, again your point is? What does SWG being a good game or not have to do with this?
There is a huge difference in how these games are designed, SWG, UO and DAOC were designed around players, they were the game, it was a community oriented design. RIFT, WOW and just about everything that has come after WOW have been designed around playing dev made content with a pre-determined amount of people. Apples to oranges..
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson