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.
I'll just go back to my original post that started this.
""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 grace on the MMO front IMO.""
This (in yellow) is the overall point I was making. I was using 4 player groups as an example of why the content doesn't exactly lend itself to massively multi-player play.
And please pay attention to the MAY throughout that entire post. We all know what MAY means right? As well as IMO?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
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.
I'll just go back to my original post that started this.
""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 grace on the MMO front IMO.""
This is the overall point I was making and using 4 player groups as an example of why the content doesn't exactly lend itself to massively multi-player play.
And please pay attention to the MAY throughtout that entire post. We all know what MAY means right? As well as IMO?
Very true, i agree that any game is what you make out of it. The distiction i was trying to make, not sure if it got through is not that the group size is 4.Yes i agree that the maxium group size is 4 which is the exact same number as what you would find in co-op games.
I think the disticion is in that co-op game you only run into those 4 people at any one time, you can't have more with you. You can't have more then 4 going with you at any one time doing any mission or event. Taking mario party again. Can you have (regardless of group size) more then 4 people bashing boxes and jumping sharks or whatnot? no you can't. The only part of the game that adheres to this would be the instance part as it's restricted to just one group (though raids are suppose to be 8-16, 2 to 4 groups of people ideally). PvP has a minium of 8 people as it teams you up that way (assuming 8 people on your side want to instance PvP), world bosses, world PvP, and exploration kind of go without saying. You can have as many as you want with you.
The only difference from typical MMOs here is you subtracted one person from the max group size, everything else mechanic wise stays the same.
Of course this is all working under maybe. I guess that was my mistake in not sayin that. Was working under the thought that this is all hypothetical until we see it ourselves. Guess it needed to be said.
I will say i wasn't targeting wether you were right or wrong under your assumption (if it came out that way i apologize in advance) what i was trying to get at was why assuming everything else is true to MMO standards then why is subtracting one number from the standard 5 to 4 make it a co-op game, again assuming that everything else runs under the standards of MMO and the devs aren't just completely lying through their teeth and altering videos.
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.
TOR, as admitted by the devs, starts out about 60% solo / co-op on the starter worlds then to about 40% solo / co-op on the faction capitals then from there less and less and less of the game is solo or instanced or phased or single-group content.
By "end-game" just about everything except your specific class-quests in 100% open world and/or forced grouping.
Yeah.. sounds like a Co-OP RPG to me...
In fact, I'd say games like UO or SWG were ONLY multiplayer in "what the players themselvs created" becasue there really weren't any forced grouping activities.
So, that FACT being said, I'd counter to say that the "modern" MMO is MORE multiplayer and MMO then those old games.
The communtiy is more guild and friend based instead of server wide now, but it is in no way less.
MMOs of the past had "better communities" in that they were much smaller and more tight knit as people had to rely on strangers a whole lot more, so people had to be nice and MMOs were still "niche" enough they were mostly played by rather "serious" gamers who took their games seriously.
Now? Everything is more internal to a guild or group of friends and it's a lot more "me and mine" versus the world instead of the same "everyone is in this together!" it's more competitive now.
Neither is any better or worse, it's just different.
You can still find AMAZINGLY good communtiy in World of Warcraft and you will be able to do the same in TOR, but the conversation has changed - community is now your guild/your friends not the whole server.
It's like comparing the the community of a small town to a large metropolis.
It just isn't logical.
So, instead, you have these sub-communities within the larger pot that is the metropolis.
And just like real life the small town folks will still look at the metropolis community and scoff at it and say everyone is rude and dishonest etc. and people need to go back to "small town values" and the people in the metroplis will say that their sub-community within the great whole is more amazing and tight-knit then any farming town etc.
Very true, i agree that any game is what you make out of it. The distiction i was trying to make, not sure if it got through is not that the group size is 4.Yes i agree that the maxium group size is 4 which is the exact same number as what you would find in co-op games.
I think the disticion is in that co-op game you only run into those 4 people at any one time, you can't have more with you. You can't have more then 4 going with you at any one time doing any mission or event. Taking mario party again. Can you have (regardless of group size) more then 4 people bashing boxes and jumping sharks or whatnot? no you can't. The only part of the game that adheres to this would be the instance part as it's restricted to just one group (though raids are suppose to be 8-16, 2 to 4 groups of people ideally). PvP has a minium of 8 people as it teams you up that way (assuming 8 people on your side want to instance PvP), world bosses, world PvP, and exploration kind of go without saying. You can have as many as you want with you.
The only difference from typical MMOs here is you subtracted one person from the max group size, everything else mechanic wise stays the same.
Of course this is all working under maybe. I guess that was my mistake in not sayin that. Was working under the thought that this is all hypothetical until we see it ourselves. Guess it needed to be said.
I will say i wasn't targeting wether you were right or wrong under your assumption (if it came out that way i apologize in advance) what i was trying to get at was why assuming everything else is true to MMO standards then why is subtracting one number from the standard 5 to 4 make it a co-op game, again assuming that everything else runs under the standards of MMO and the devs aren't just completely lying through their teeth and altering videos.
I understand your point, the reason I used my post as I did was to showcase where the conversation you quoted had began. It very much is a huge difference to have all of these people in the same world, as well as to have so many options in who to group with. Again that goes back to my orginal point in a way, in that the MMO portion of the game will be what we the players make of it. Which is the case for all mmo's whether they force us to work together or not.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
TOR, as admitted by the devs, starts out about 60% solo / co-op on the starter worlds then to about 40% solo / co-op on the faction capitals then from there less and less and less of the game is solo or instanced or phased or single-group content.
By "end-game" just about everything except your specific class-quests in 100% open world and/or forced grouping.
Yeah.. sounds like a Co-OP RPG to me...
In fact, I'd say games like UO or SWG were ONLY multiplayer in "what the players themselvs created" becasue there really weren't any forced grouping activities.
So, that FACT being said, I'd counter to say that the "modern" MMO is MORE multiplayer and MMO then those old games.
The communtiy is more guild and friend based instead of server wide now, but it is in no way less.
MMOs of the past had "better communities" in that they were much smaller and more tight knit as people had to rely on strangers a whole lot more, so people had to be nice and MMOs were still "niche" enough they were mostly played by rather "serious" gamers who took their games seriously.
Now? Everything is more internal to a guild or group of friends and it's a lot more "me and mine" versus the world instead of the same "everyone is in this together!" it's more competitive now.
Neither is any better or worse, it's just different.
You can still find AMAZINGLY good communtiy in World of Warcraft and you will be able to do the same in TOR, but the conversation has changed - community is now your guild/your friends not the whole server.
It's like comparing the the community of a small town to a large metropolis.
It just isn't logical.
So, instead, you have these sub-communities within the larger pot that is the metropolis.
And just like real life the small town folks will still look at the metropolis community and scoff at it and say everyone is rude and dishonest etc. and people need to go back to "small town values" and the people in the metroplis will say that their sub-community within the great whole is more amazing and tight-knit then any farming town etc.
And I didn't argue against any of this. You took one little segment of my post which was only an example of a point I was making and ran with it, that's basically where I stopped debating any further point you had to make. If you wanna know how my friends and I are playing TOR here you go.
You took one little segment of my post which was only an example of a point I was making and ran with it
Then dont say stupid sh!t like "4 player groups? That's the same as a co-op game, must mean it's a CORPG DERP DERP"
I have NO tolerance for people who spread misinformation about ANY game.
The forums are like a virus... I see SO much stupid crap on these boards every day... people posting flat out lies thinking they are truth and then 6 other people run with it and link back to it and use it as some kind of "evidence" to whatever half-conceived point that are trying to make....
It's a fun game to play, the Forum Wars, but my God at times at makes me want to bash in my skull with a hammer seeing the kind of stupid sh!t people post on this site...
You took one little segment of my post which was only an example of a point I was making and ran with it
Then dont say stupid sh!t like "4 player groups? That's the same as a co-op game, must mean it's a CORPG DERP DERP"
I have NO tolerance for people who spread misinformation about ANY game.
The forums are like a virus... I see SO much stupid crap on these boards every day... people posting flat out lies thinking they are truth and then 6 other people run with it and link back to it and use it as some kind of "evidence" to whatever half-conceived point that are trying to make....
It's a fun game to play, the Forum Wars, but my God at times at makes me want to bash in my skull with a hammer seing the kind of stupid sh!t people post on this site...
I didn't say that, what I said was the mmo will be what we make of it, as the game-play itself is more focused on small groups. I also said World PVP will help (hopefully) to correct that feeling.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
It's a fun game to play, the Forum Wars, but my God at times at makes me want to bash in my skull with a hammer seing the kind of stupid sh!t people post on this site...
I didn't say that, what I said was the mmo will be what we make of it, as the game-play itself is more focused on small groups. I also said World PVP will help (hopefully) to correct that feeling.
Maybe I just need more coffee. I didn't like your tone in the original post lol. It's so hard to judge intent by a person's text alone.
Sorry to hound you so. I do really respect and enjoy what you are doing with the massive PvP server alliance/enemies initiative.
It's a fun game to play, the Forum Wars, but my God at times at makes me want to bash in my skull with a hammer seing the kind of stupid sh!t people post on this site...
I didn't say that, what I said was the mmo will be what we make of it, as the game-play itself is more focused on small groups. I also said World PVP will help (hopefully) to correct that feeling.
Maybe I just need more coffee. I didn't like your tone in the original post lol. It's so hard to judge intent by a person's text alone.
Sorry to hound you so. I do really respect and enjoy what you are doing with the massive PvP server alliance/enemies initiative.
No worries, it's early for me too, I probably got a little more heated than need be as well.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
It's a fun game to play, the Forum Wars, but my God at times at makes me want to bash in my skull with a hammer seing the kind of stupid sh!t people post on this site...
I didn't say that, what I said was the mmo will be what we make of it, as the game-play itself is more focused on small groups. I also said World PVP will help (hopefully) to correct that feeling.
Maybe I just need more coffee. I didn't like your tone in the original post lol. It's so hard to judge intent by a person's text alone.
Sorry to hound you so. I do really respect and enjoy what you are doing with the massive PvP server alliance/enemies initiative.
Off topic but does BadSpock say "Die Young and Go Bankrupt"?
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.
I'll just go back to my original post that started this.
""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 grace on the MMO front IMO.""
This is the overall point I was making and using 4 player groups as an example of why the content doesn't exactly lend itself to massively multi-player play.
And please pay attention to the MAY throughtout that entire post. We all know what MAY means right? As well as IMO?
Very true, i agree that any game is what you make out of it. The distiction i was trying to make, not sure if it got through is not that the group size is 4.Yes i agree that the maxium group size is 4 which is the exact same number as what you would find in co-op games.
I think the disticion is in that co-op game you only run into those 4 people at any one time, you can't have more with you. You can't have more then 4 going with you at any one time doing any mission or event. Taking mario party again. Can you have (regardless of group size) more then 4 people bashing boxes and jumping sharks or whatnot? no you can't. The only part of the game that adheres to this would be the instance part as it's restricted to just one group (though raids are suppose to be 8-16, 2 to 4 groups of people ideally). PvP has a minium of 8 people as it teams you up that way (assuming 8 people on your side want to instance PvP), world bosses, world PvP, and exploration kind of go without saying. You can have as many as you want with you.
The only difference from typical MMOs here is you subtracted one person from the max group size, everything else mechanic wise stays the same.
Of course this is all working under maybe. I guess that was my mistake in not sayin that. Was working under the thought that this is all hypothetical until we see it ourselves. Guess it needed to be said.
I will say i wasn't targeting wether you were right or wrong under your assumption (if it came out that way i apologize in advance) what i was trying to get at was why assuming everything else is true to MMO standards then why is subtracting one number from the standard 5 to 4 make it a co-op game, again assuming that everything else runs under the standards of MMO and the devs aren't just completely lying through their teeth and altering videos.
You know, in my opinion, group size (or grouping in general) has absolutely nothing to do with how much of an "MMO"RPG a game is. After all, there are plenty of single player games that let you play coop with your friends. I don't really see how an MMORPG really differs from those games in this regard.
To me, the "MMO-ness" of an RPG is determined by how you notice the presence of other players in the world and how much it impacts you.
If you are exploring and you notice a house of village that a player put there, that's an MMO feature.
If you go to a tavern and there are actual people there socializing, that's an MMO feature.
If you are trying to save a town alone and other players come to aid you, that's an MMO feature.
If you go into a city and there are tons of players all around going about their business, that's an MMO feature.
Even just noticing players wandering out in the wilderness while you are playing is an MMO feature.
But grouping? That's completely pre-meditated, you have to find willing people and decide to team up. I don't see the big difference between doing a dungeon with a group in an MMORPG, or doing a dungeon with a group in Borderlands (Coop RPG). The game does not need to be an MMORPG to offer this grouping experience.
Wait wait we are being civil and rational on the MMORPG.com boards....
We must stop!
Umm... you suck! Your opinion is worthless and you smell like goats!
HA!
No back to the original topic, the Tap Repeatedly impessions piece on SWTOR - I think the reviewer saw what he wanted to see.
I think I am seeing what I want to see.
I do know for a fact that the game starts out much more solo/single player RPG/ co-op and moves more and more into the open-world and group-only content as you progress.
Unfortunately I think people may try the game or play 10-30 minutes on a demo and think this is NOT a MMORPG but in reality you'll have to play for a considerable amount of time to really see what kind of game this is going to be...
Where as in a game like GW2 it's new and flashy and different right from the start, but is the game play they've showed (events and instanced PvP) all it really has to offer? Will you know right away what is in store and whether or not it has staying power?
Two different approaches IMO, and I think because of their financial models (P2P vs. B2P) I think both are going to work just fine.
TOR is a game you invest in over time and as such the P2P model "works" where as GW2 is just flat out fun and interesting but not neccessarily will give you that same drive towards seeing what lies ahead, so the B2P model works perfectly as there is no pressure to keep going.
You know, in my opinion, group size (or grouping in general) has absolutely nothing to do with how much of an "MMO"RPG a game is. After all, there are plenty of single player games that let you play coop with your friends. I don't really see how an MMORPG really differs from those games in this regard.
To me, the "MMO-ness" of an RPG is determined by how you notice the presence of other players in the world and how much it impacts you.
If you are exploring and you notice a house of village that a player put there, that's an MMO feature.
If you go to a tavern and there are actual people there socializing, that's an MMO feature.
If you are trying to save a town alone and other players come to aid you, that's an MMO feature.
If you go into a city and there are tons of players all around going about their business, that's an MMO feature.
Even just noticing players wandering out in the wilderness while you are playing is an MMO feature.
But grouping? That's completely pre-meditated, you have to find willing people and decide to team up. I don't see the big difference between doing a dungeon with a group in an MMORPG, or doing a dungeon with a group in Borderlands (Coop RPG). The game does not need to be an MMORPG to offer this grouping experience.
A very important distinction to make, especially in the case of TOR, you have your content (dev made) that's your video-game, then you have the community, that's your MMO.
WIth the Video-game segment, the quality here varies of course, but all in all it's about playing a pre-written experience, with pre-determined numbers. That goes for any MMO
The MMO is something else entirely, this is largely dependant on the players themselves as to how this portion of the experience will pan out. This also goes for all MMO's
If the players communicate, build bonds and friendships, it will create a lasting experience for those who take part. If not TOR will join the trend in MMO land today, small games all struggling for a piece of the quarterly pie.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Wait wait we are being civil and rational on the MMORPG.com boards....
We must stop!
Umm... you suck! Your opinion is worthless and you smell like goats!
HA!
No back to the original topic, the Tap Repeatedly impessions piece on SWTOR - I think the reviewer saw what he wanted to see.
I think I am seeing what I want to see.
I do know for a fact that the game starts out much more solo/single player RPG/ co-op and moves more and more into the open-world and group-only content as you progress.
Unfortunately I think people may try the game or play 10-30 minutes on a demo and think this is NOT a MMORPG but in reality you'll have to play for a considerable amount of time to really see what kind of game this is going to be...
Where as in a game like GW2 it's new and flashy and different right from the start, but is the game play they've showed (events and instanced PvP) all it really has to offer? Will you know right away what is in store and whether or not it has staying power?
Too different approaches IMO, and I think because of their financial models (P2P vs. B2P) I think both are going to work just fine.
Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of Elderberries!
I mean, you have a point. GW2's true test is going to be open beta or release when everyone has a chance to see if it has longevity. I do think the concepts of GW2 sound awesome, I feel like dynamic events are much more conducive to "MMO" behavior than quests, which are basically single player. But we'll have to wait until it's out to judge whether these concepts really work as so many of us hope they will.
The MMO is something else entirely, this is largely dependant on the players themselves as to how this portion of the experience will pan out. This also goes for all MMO's
If the players communicate, build bonds and friendships, it will create a lasting experience for those who take part. If not TOR will join the trend in MMO land today, small games all struggling for a piece of the quarterly pie.
I think this is true of any MMORPG though isn't it?
I mean, you have a point. GW2's true test is going to be open beta or release when everyone has a chance to see if it has longevity. I do think the concepts of GW2 sound awesome, I feel like dynamic events are much more conducive to "MMO" behavior than quests, which are basically single player. But we'll have to wait until it's out to judge whether these concepts really work as so many of us hope they will.
I agree 100% 110% even!
I also believe completely and totally that TOR is going to get people to really invest in their character due to the story and companions, the two real big "new/different" that the game is doing.
Those two things really create longevity.
Well, unless you are the type of player that doesn't care about story and characters and just wants to get to the end-game and get phat loots.
But as long as the game isn't buggy or terribly unbalanced (more then any other MMO at release) it will do JUST fine and people will be playing it for a long, long time.
I wanted SW:TOR to succeed but I came to the conclusion it won't be for me. This isn't a final desicion though, I'll try everything to get my hands on this game without paying for it so I experience it for myself but the previews, featurelist, developer info and youtube video's all bring stuff to my attention who already irritate me.
I'm not a GW2 fanboy but I have been spoiled and cursed by the single fact that I was able to play this game... for several hours. I guess I have experienced about 120 to 160 minutes of own GW2 gamplay by now. Both low & high level. The thing is since my first experience with GW2, at the world premiere @ Gamescom 2010... I'm unable to enjoy ANY OF THE CURRENT MMO's.
There were so much things I hate about MMO's, who I (like lot of other people) qualified under the term GRIND. But what's GRIND really? To me it's not just mindlesly killing 1000 of the same mobs, doing boring quests (just a layer to hide grind) and walking from A to B back to A and ... whell I don't have to explain it all do I? That's also GRIND and there are so many things wrong with how MMO's work these days... WHY THE HELL DID WE ACCEPT KILL STEALING? WHY THE HELL DID WE ACCEPT TRASH LOOT? WHY THE HELL?!? Guild Wars 2 echo'd my concerns with MMO's and made me even realise allot more flaws that plague current MMO's. I knew the flaws were there, but after following GW2 dev blogs and playing the game... I see more clearly than before. I knew some things were wrong, I just didn't knew there was a better way... I almost gave up on the genre as a whole. But GW2 showed me answers to these questions. They show how it can be done better.
Am I brainwashed by GW2? I don't know, but this is how I see this now. This is how I FEEL. I'm sorry but there isn't any clearer indication for me than the fact that I don't enjoy current MMO's at all. I couldn't care less if I will be called a fanboy or whatnot. I'm way more, and way longer, a SW nerd-fanboy than how i'm a Guild Wars fan. But I also love MMO's and for me, only the way GW2 is approching it will do. I still love Star Wars, but not this SW:TOR MMO.
The reason I'm posting this is because I feel that the editor at Tap Repeatedly was very honest in sharing his own feeling. A feeling I'm also experiencing for the last 15? months. It's rediculous how people bash his oppinion over here. I'm not saying everyone will feel the same way I do after having played GW2, clearly not everyone will. But it's not a LIE, some people won't be able to go back once you have played GW2... I'm one of them.
I wanted SW:TOR to succeed but I came to the conclusion it won't be for me. This isn't a final desicion though, I'll try everything to get my hands on this game without paying for it so I experience it for myself but the previews, featurelist, developer info and youtube video's all bring stuff to my attention who already irritate me.
I'm not a GW2 fanboy but I have been spoiled and cursed by the single fact that I was able to play this game... for several hours. I guess I have experienced about 120 to 160 minutes of own GW2 gamplay by now. Both low & high level. The thing is since my first experience with GW2, at the world premiere @ Gamescom 2010... I'm unable to enjoy ANY OF THE CURRENT MMO's.
There were so much things I hate about MMO's, who I (like lot of other people) qualified under the term GRIND. But what's GRIND really? To me it's not just mindlesly killing 1000 of the same mobs, doing boring quests (just a layer to hide grind) and walking from A to B back to A and ... whell I don't have to explain it all do I? That's also GRIND and there are so many things wrong with how MMO's work these days... WHY THE HELL DID WE ACCEPT KILL STEALING? WHY THE HELL DID WE ACCEPT TRASH LOOT? WHY THE HELL?!? Guild Wars 2 echo'd my concerns with MMO's and made me even realise allot more flaws that plague current MMO's. I knew the flaws were there, but after following GW2 dev blogs and playing the game... I see more clearly than before. I knew some things were wrong, I just didn't knew there was a better way... I almost gave up on the genre as a whole. But GW2 showed me answers to these questions. They show how it can be done better.
Am I brainwashed by GW2? I don't know, but this is how I see this now. This is how I FEEL. I'm sorry but there isn't any clearer indication for me than the fact that I don't enjoy current MMO's at all. I couldn't care less if I will be called a fanboy or whatnot. I'm way more, and way longer, a SW nerd-fanboy than how i'm a Guild Wars fan. But I also love MMO's and for me, only the way GW2 is approching it will do. I still love Star Wars, but not this SW:TOR MMO.
The reason I'm posting this is because I feel that the editor at Tap Repeatedly was very honest in sharing his own feeling. A feeling I'm also experiencing for the last 15? months. It's rediculous how people bash his oppinion over here. I'm not saying everyone will feel the same way I do after having played GW2, clearly not everyone will. But it's not a LIE, some people won't be able to go back once you have played GW2... I'm one of them.
It's funny you don't think GW2 will have any of those things you mentioned.
The MMO is something else entirely, this is largely dependant on the players themselves as to how this portion of the experience will pan out. This also goes for all MMO's
If the players communicate, build bonds and friendships, it will create a lasting experience for those who take part. If not TOR will join the trend in MMO land today, small games all struggling for a piece of the quarterly pie.
I think this is true of any MMORPG though isn't it?
Oh sh!t l2read BadSpock you said that lol
Hmmm...yes and no I think.
I mean, the responsibility to form an MMO community always falls on the players and the culture found within the game. But at the same time, the game's design can greatly influence the culture of its player base.
If a game is designed with an emphasis on features like questing and grouping via dungeon finder (or similar) then this will affect the culture. Most of the players will be "single player or coop" minded.
On the other hand, if the game is designed with features that encourage cooperation or interaction on a massive level like guilds, player cities, public quests, and open-PvP. Then most players will likely be "MMO" minded.
I wanted SW:TOR to succeed but I came to the conclusion it won't be for me. This isn't a final desicion though, I'll try everything to get my hands on this game without paying for it so I experience it for myself but the previews, featurelist, developer info and youtube video's all bring stuff to my attention who already irritate me.
I'm not a GW2 fanboy but I have been spoiled and cursed by the single fact that I was able to play this game... for several hours. I guess I have experienced about 120 to 160 minutes of own GW2 gamplay by now. Both low & high level. The thing is since my first experience with GW2, at the world premiere @ Gamescom 2010... I'm unable to enjoy ANY OF THE CURRENT MMO's.
There were so much things I hate about MMO's, who I (like lot of other people) qualified under the term GRIND. But what's GRIND really? To me it's not just mindlesly killing 1000 of the same mobs, doing boring quests (just a layer to hide grind) and walking from A to B back to A and ... whell I don't have to explain it all do I? That's also GRIND and there are so many things wrong with how MMO's work these days... WHY THE HELL DID WE ACCEPT KILL STEALING? WHY THE HELL DID WE ACCEPT TRASH LOOT? WHY THE HELL?!? Guild Wars 2 echo'd my concerns with MMO's and made me even realise allot more flaws that plague current MMO's. I knew the flaws were there, but after following GW2 dev blogs and playing the game... I see more clearly than before. I knew some things were wrong, I just didn't knew there was a better way... I almost gave up on the genre as a whole. But GW2 showed me answers to these questions. They show how it can be done better.
Am I brainwashed by GW2? I don't know, but this is how I see this now. This is how I FEEL. I'm sorry but there isn't any clearer indication for me than the fact that I don't enjoy current MMO's at all. I couldn't care less if I will be called a fanboy or whatnot. I'm way more, and way longer, a SW nerd-fanboy than how i'm a Guild Wars fan. But I also love MMO's and for me, only the way GW2 is approching it will do. I still love Star Wars, but not this SW:TOR MMO.
The reason I'm posting this is because I feel that the editor at Tap Repeatedly was very honest in sharing his own feeling. A feeling I'm also experiencing for the last 15? months. It's rediculous how people bash his oppinion over here. I'm not saying everyone will feel the same way I do after having played GW2, clearly not everyone will. But it's not a LIE, some people won't be able to go back once you have played GW2... I'm one of them.
It's funny you don't think GW2 will have any of those things you mentioned.
It's enjoyment of a game all about how you feel when you play said game? It's difficult to wite down how I feel what's wrong with MMO's, but again... it felt great to play GW2 and it sucked to play all those other MMO's (and I played allot of MMO's in the past years, there were times where I could live with how WoW did things, but that time has passed... years ago)
That's exactly why I'll try to get to play SW:ToR my own. Only the info that comes to me right now, and the vid's, don't exactly make me want to feel like "I NEED TO PLAY THIS GAME". Yet I have it with GW2...
And then there comes the fact that I can actually BUY Guild Wars 2. While SW:ToR is just an expensive rent. I don't feel I own a game when I have to resub everytime I want to check out if the game has actually improved beyond the point where I quitted it.
Anyway. I didn't came here to defend GW2 or to bash on SW:ToR. I came to post only because I see the OP article giving a valid and honest view on how he feels after having played GW2... now going to ToR. Mirroring my exact feelings of playing other MMO's after having played GW2 myself.
Comments
I'll just go back to my original post that started this.
""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 grace on the MMO front IMO.""
This (in yellow) is the overall point I was making. I was using 4 player groups as an example of why the content doesn't exactly lend itself to massively multi-player play.
And please pay attention to the MAY throughout that entire post. We all know what MAY means right? As well as IMO?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Very true, i agree that any game is what you make out of it. The distiction i was trying to make, not sure if it got through is not that the group size is 4.Yes i agree that the maxium group size is 4 which is the exact same number as what you would find in co-op games.
I think the disticion is in that co-op game you only run into those 4 people at any one time, you can't have more with you. You can't have more then 4 going with you at any one time doing any mission or event. Taking mario party again. Can you have (regardless of group size) more then 4 people bashing boxes and jumping sharks or whatnot? no you can't. The only part of the game that adheres to this would be the instance part as it's restricted to just one group (though raids are suppose to be 8-16, 2 to 4 groups of people ideally). PvP has a minium of 8 people as it teams you up that way (assuming 8 people on your side want to instance PvP), world bosses, world PvP, and exploration kind of go without saying. You can have as many as you want with you.
The only difference from typical MMOs here is you subtracted one person from the max group size, everything else mechanic wise stays the same.
Of course this is all working under maybe. I guess that was my mistake in not sayin that. Was working under the thought that this is all hypothetical until we see it ourselves. Guess it needed to be said.
I will say i wasn't targeting wether you were right or wrong under your assumption (if it came out that way i apologize in advance) what i was trying to get at was why assuming everything else is true to MMO standards then why is subtracting one number from the standard 5 to 4 make it a co-op game, again assuming that everything else runs under the standards of MMO and the devs aren't just completely lying through their teeth and altering videos.
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.
Your bias has bias.
TOR, as admitted by the devs, starts out about 60% solo / co-op on the starter worlds then to about 40% solo / co-op on the faction capitals then from there less and less and less of the game is solo or instanced or phased or single-group content.
By "end-game" just about everything except your specific class-quests in 100% open world and/or forced grouping.
Yeah.. sounds like a Co-OP RPG to me...
In fact, I'd say games like UO or SWG were ONLY multiplayer in "what the players themselvs created" becasue there really weren't any forced grouping activities.
So, that FACT being said, I'd counter to say that the "modern" MMO is MORE multiplayer and MMO then those old games.
The communtiy is more guild and friend based instead of server wide now, but it is in no way less.
MMOs of the past had "better communities" in that they were much smaller and more tight knit as people had to rely on strangers a whole lot more, so people had to be nice and MMOs were still "niche" enough they were mostly played by rather "serious" gamers who took their games seriously.
Now? Everything is more internal to a guild or group of friends and it's a lot more "me and mine" versus the world instead of the same "everyone is in this together!" it's more competitive now.
Neither is any better or worse, it's just different.
You can still find AMAZINGLY good communtiy in World of Warcraft and you will be able to do the same in TOR, but the conversation has changed - community is now your guild/your friends not the whole server.
It's like comparing the the community of a small town to a large metropolis.
It just isn't logical.
So, instead, you have these sub-communities within the larger pot that is the metropolis.
And just like real life the small town folks will still look at the metropolis community and scoff at it and say everyone is rude and dishonest etc. and people need to go back to "small town values" and the people in the metroplis will say that their sub-community within the great whole is more amazing and tight-knit then any farming town etc.
I understand your point, the reason I used my post as I did was to showcase where the conversation you quoted had began. It very much is a huge difference to have all of these people in the same world, as well as to have so many options in who to group with. Again that goes back to my orginal point in a way, in that the MMO portion of the game will be what we the players make of it. Which is the case for all mmo's whether they force us to work together or not.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
And I didn't argue against any of this. You took one little segment of my post which was only an example of a point I was making and ran with it, that's basically where I stopped debating any further point you had to make. If you wanna know how my friends and I are playing TOR here you go.
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/328287
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Then dont say stupid sh!t like "4 player groups? That's the same as a co-op game, must mean it's a CORPG DERP DERP"
I have NO tolerance for people who spread misinformation about ANY game.
The forums are like a virus... I see SO much stupid crap on these boards every day... people posting flat out lies thinking they are truth and then 6 other people run with it and link back to it and use it as some kind of "evidence" to whatever half-conceived point that are trying to make....
It's a fun game to play, the Forum Wars, but my God at times at makes me want to bash in my skull with a hammer seeing the kind of stupid sh!t people post on this site...
Hey guys, we are forgetting who the real enemy is, GW2.
In Bioware we trust!
I didn't say that, what I said was the mmo will be what we make of it, as the game-play itself is more focused on small groups. I also said World PVP will help (hopefully) to correct that feeling.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Maybe I just need more coffee. I didn't like your tone in the original post lol. It's so hard to judge intent by a person's text alone.
Sorry to hound you so. I do really respect and enjoy what you are doing with the massive PvP server alliance/enemies initiative.
GW2 punches kittens in their kitten face!
In Bioware we trust!
No worries, it's early for me too, I probably got a little more heated than need be as well.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Off topic but does BadSpock say "Die Young and Go Bankrupt"?
In Bioware we trust!
You know, in my opinion, group size (or grouping in general) has absolutely nothing to do with how much of an "MMO"RPG a game is. After all, there are plenty of single player games that let you play coop with your friends. I don't really see how an MMORPG really differs from those games in this regard.
To me, the "MMO-ness" of an RPG is determined by how you notice the presence of other players in the world and how much it impacts you.
If you are exploring and you notice a house of village that a player put there, that's an MMO feature.
If you go to a tavern and there are actual people there socializing, that's an MMO feature.
If you are trying to save a town alone and other players come to aid you, that's an MMO feature.
If you go into a city and there are tons of players all around going about their business, that's an MMO feature.
Even just noticing players wandering out in the wilderness while you are playing is an MMO feature.
But grouping? That's completely pre-meditated, you have to find willing people and decide to team up. I don't see the big difference between doing a dungeon with a group in an MMORPG, or doing a dungeon with a group in Borderlands (Coop RPG). The game does not need to be an MMORPG to offer this grouping experience.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Wait wait we are being civil and rational on the MMORPG.com boards....
We must stop!
Umm... you suck! Your opinion is worthless and you smell like goats!
HA!
No back to the original topic, the Tap Repeatedly impessions piece on SWTOR - I think the reviewer saw what he wanted to see.
I think I am seeing what I want to see.
I do know for a fact that the game starts out much more solo/single player RPG/ co-op and moves more and more into the open-world and group-only content as you progress.
Unfortunately I think people may try the game or play 10-30 minutes on a demo and think this is NOT a MMORPG but in reality you'll have to play for a considerable amount of time to really see what kind of game this is going to be...
Where as in a game like GW2 it's new and flashy and different right from the start, but is the game play they've showed (events and instanced PvP) all it really has to offer? Will you know right away what is in store and whether or not it has staying power?
Two different approaches IMO, and I think because of their financial models (P2P vs. B2P) I think both are going to work just fine.
TOR is a game you invest in over time and as such the P2P model "works" where as GW2 is just flat out fun and interesting but not neccessarily will give you that same drive towards seeing what lies ahead, so the B2P model works perfectly as there is no pressure to keep going.
I thought it was leeks.
A very important distinction to make, especially in the case of TOR, you have your content (dev made) that's your video-game, then you have the community, that's your MMO.
WIth the Video-game segment, the quality here varies of course, but all in all it's about playing a pre-written experience, with pre-determined numbers. That goes for any MMO
The MMO is something else entirely, this is largely dependant on the players themselves as to how this portion of the experience will pan out. This also goes for all MMO's
If the players communicate, build bonds and friendships, it will create a lasting experience for those who take part. If not TOR will join the trend in MMO land today, small games all struggling for a piece of the quarterly pie.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of Elderberries!
I mean, you have a point. GW2's true test is going to be open beta or release when everyone has a chance to see if it has longevity. I do think the concepts of GW2 sound awesome, I feel like dynamic events are much more conducive to "MMO" behavior than quests, which are basically single player. But we'll have to wait until it's out to judge whether these concepts really work as so many of us hope they will.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I think this is true of any MMORPG though isn't it?
Oh sh!t l2read BadSpock you said that lol
I agree 100% 110% even!
I also believe completely and totally that TOR is going to get people to really invest in their character due to the story and companions, the two real big "new/different" that the game is doing.
Those two things really create longevity.
Well, unless you are the type of player that doesn't care about story and characters and just wants to get to the end-game and get phat loots.
But as long as the game isn't buggy or terribly unbalanced (more then any other MMO at release) it will do JUST fine and people will be playing it for a long, long time.
I wanted SW:TOR to succeed but I came to the conclusion it won't be for me. This isn't a final desicion though, I'll try everything to get my hands on this game without paying for it so I experience it for myself but the previews, featurelist, developer info and youtube video's all bring stuff to my attention who already irritate me.
I'm not a GW2 fanboy but I have been spoiled and cursed by the single fact that I was able to play this game... for several hours. I guess I have experienced about 120 to 160 minutes of own GW2 gamplay by now. Both low & high level. The thing is since my first experience with GW2, at the world premiere @ Gamescom 2010... I'm unable to enjoy ANY OF THE CURRENT MMO's.
There were so much things I hate about MMO's, who I (like lot of other people) qualified under the term GRIND. But what's GRIND really? To me it's not just mindlesly killing 1000 of the same mobs, doing boring quests (just a layer to hide grind) and walking from A to B back to A and ... whell I don't have to explain it all do I? That's also GRIND and there are so many things wrong with how MMO's work these days... WHY THE HELL DID WE ACCEPT KILL STEALING? WHY THE HELL DID WE ACCEPT TRASH LOOT? WHY THE HELL?!? Guild Wars 2 echo'd my concerns with MMO's and made me even realise allot more flaws that plague current MMO's. I knew the flaws were there, but after following GW2 dev blogs and playing the game... I see more clearly than before. I knew some things were wrong, I just didn't knew there was a better way... I almost gave up on the genre as a whole. But GW2 showed me answers to these questions. They show how it can be done better.
Am I brainwashed by GW2? I don't know, but this is how I see this now. This is how I FEEL. I'm sorry but there isn't any clearer indication for me than the fact that I don't enjoy current MMO's at all. I couldn't care less if I will be called a fanboy or whatnot. I'm way more, and way longer, a SW nerd-fanboy than how i'm a Guild Wars fan. But I also love MMO's and for me, only the way GW2 is approching it will do. I still love Star Wars, but not this SW:TOR MMO.
The reason I'm posting this is because I feel that the editor at Tap Repeatedly was very honest in sharing his own feeling. A feeling I'm also experiencing for the last 15? months. It's rediculous how people bash his oppinion over here. I'm not saying everyone will feel the same way I do after having played GW2, clearly not everyone will. But it's not a LIE, some people won't be able to go back once you have played GW2... I'm one of them.
It's funny you don't think GW2 will have any of those things you mentioned.
In Bioware we trust!
Hmmm...yes and no I think.
I mean, the responsibility to form an MMO community always falls on the players and the culture found within the game. But at the same time, the game's design can greatly influence the culture of its player base.
If a game is designed with an emphasis on features like questing and grouping via dungeon finder (or similar) then this will affect the culture. Most of the players will be "single player or coop" minded.
On the other hand, if the game is designed with features that encourage cooperation or interaction on a massive level like guilds, player cities, public quests, and open-PvP. Then most players will likely be "MMO" minded.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Dude this does not look good for BW/EA.
Guild Wars 2's 50 minutes game play video:
http://n4g.com/news/592585/guild-wars-2-50-minutes-of-pure-gameplay
Everything We Know about GW2:
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/287180/page/1
Yeah a 10 min preview from a site I have never heard of...
In Bioware we trust!
It's enjoyment of a game all about how you feel when you play said game? It's difficult to wite down how I feel what's wrong with MMO's, but again... it felt great to play GW2 and it sucked to play all those other MMO's (and I played allot of MMO's in the past years, there were times where I could live with how WoW did things, but that time has passed... years ago)
That's exactly why I'll try to get to play SW:ToR my own. Only the info that comes to me right now, and the vid's, don't exactly make me want to feel like "I NEED TO PLAY THIS GAME". Yet I have it with GW2...
And then there comes the fact that I can actually BUY Guild Wars 2. While SW:ToR is just an expensive rent. I don't feel I own a game when I have to resub everytime I want to check out if the game has actually improved beyond the point where I quitted it.
Anyway. I didn't came here to defend GW2 or to bash on SW:ToR. I came to post only because I see the OP article giving a valid and honest view on how he feels after having played GW2... now going to ToR. Mirroring my exact feelings of playing other MMO's after having played GW2 myself.