In the case of SW:TOR, it's the same old stale formulaic game, with all its problems and shortcomings fully intact. They stapled a quality (but linear) single-player RPG on the side and put some duct tape on top of some of the worst aspects of the old formula...but it is what it is.
"Sure, we copied over the same horrible crafting system instead of making a better one, but don't worry...Our companion system allows you to skip the crafting all together!"
"Ok, so our mechanics actively discourage social play in the central advancement path of the game...but don't worry, we provide you with fake other players to replace the real other players you would normally have to deal with in an MMO."
I'll be putting my money down on GW2.
This. I'm not saying I'm buying GW2 but I prefer it over SWTOR for the above mentioned reasons. Singe player RPG in an MMORPG. wtf?
Neither of the two things he stated make the game any more single player then any other game. The only difference is it might make it easier for people who solo to do so, but then it also makes it easier for them to understand grouping if they so decide to group because with the companion (when they solo) they understand the role they are playing more.
More people might play healers for instance if they could actually fight the creatures but because of the required group based nature, most people avoid it because they need a group to even level up.
But in almost every case you'll want a real life player vs a companion as they will still do better then the companion. In groups you'll only want a companion if you can't find the real life person version of that class so you can play instead of having to sit at the entrance spamming LF X please help we've been looking for 2 hours.
The first one is a version of crafting, instead of you watching the crafting bar moving, your companions do it. You still need to find the scheamtic (recipe), the materials (which you or your companion can collect in the real world, or send your companion out to get them but beware this is a tatical choice because it cost you money, and can fail), still need to assign tasks to them for crafting, and you still need to take the results to the AH to sell to other players, This is no different then other games crafting except that it's timer based instead of being able to quick combine 30 of the same item.
So unless having crafting in other MMOs makes it single player then it doesn't here either because the companions don't do anything beyond sit there and make the item instead of your avatar. Another big difference is that your crafting skill actually can help you in dungeons as sometimes they can open paths in the dungeon that might otherwise be closed without it.
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.
Originally posted by whilan Neither of the two things he stated make the game any more single player then any other game. The only difference is it might make it easier for people who solo to do so, but then it also makes it easier for them to understand grouping if they so decide to group because with the companion (when they solo) they understand the role they are playing more. More people might play healers for instance if they could actually fight the creatures but because of the required group based nature, most people avoid it because they need a group to even level up. But in almost every case you'll want a real life player vs a companion as they will still do better then the companion. In groups you'll only want a companion if you can't find the real life person version of that class so you can play instead of having to sit at the entrance spamming LF X please help we've been looking for 2 hours. The first one is a version of crafting, instead of you watching the crafting bar moving, your companions do it. You still need to find the scheamtic (recipe), the materials (which you or your companion can collect in the real world, or send your companion out to get them but beware this is a tatical choice because it cost you money, and can fail), still need to assign tasks to them for crafting, and you still need to take the results to the AH to sell to other players, This is no different then other games crafting except that it's timer based instead of being able to quick combine 30 of the same item. So unless having crafting in other MMOs makes it single player then it doesn't here either because the companions don't do anything beyond sit there and make the item instead of your avatar. Another big difference is that your crafting skill actually can help you in dungeons as sometimes they can open paths in the dungeon that might otherwise be closed without it.
There are numerous other things about the game that make it actively discourage social play, beyond what I mentioned. I was just picking two highlights at random. How about having to compete for spawns and harvesting nodes? How about the lame task grind that only allows players to work together if they just happen to be at exactly the same point in the chain? There are many more. If you use the same old formulaic MMO mechanics, you are going to suffer from all the same problems...and these games becoming all about solo experiences until max level and then raiding... SW:TOR will carry on that "tradition" for better or worse.
As someone else pointed out, This is my opinion and everyone is entitled to their own. To those objecting to my generalizations about the thread...you missed the part where I said that informed people who make decisions based on more criteria would probably play GW2 OR BOTH...in other words, I understand that a legit case can be made that SW:TOR is worth playing for certain people. What I was pointing out was that everyone who has objections to GW2 seems to be extremely uninformed, or making a decision entirely based on superficial criteria like the franchise or the developer's name / past titles, and not on any comparison of the actual content or mechanics of the two games.
Neither of the two things he stated make the game any more single player then any other game. The only difference is it might make it easier for people who solo to do so, but then it also makes it easier for them to understand grouping if they so decide to group because with the companion (when they solo) they understand the role they are playing more.
More people might play healers for instance if they could actually fight the creatures but because of the required group based nature, most people avoid it because they need a group to even level up.
But in almost every case you'll want a real life player vs a companion as they will still do better then the companion. In groups you'll only want a companion if you can't find the real life person version of that class so you can play instead of having to sit at the entrance spamming LF X please help we've been looking for 2 hours.
The first one is a version of crafting, instead of you watching the crafting bar moving, your companions do it. You still need to find the scheamtic (recipe), the materials (which you or your companion can collect in the real world, or send your companion out to get them but beware this is a tatical choice because it cost you money, and can fail), still need to assign tasks to them for crafting, and you still need to take the results to the AH to sell to other players, This is no different then other games crafting except that it's timer based instead of being able to quick combine 30 of the same item.
So unless having crafting in other MMOs makes it single player then it doesn't here either because the companions don't do anything beyond sit there and make the item instead of your avatar. Another big difference is that your crafting skill actually can help you in dungeons as sometimes they can open paths in the dungeon that might otherwise be closed without it.
There are numerous other things about the game that make it actively discourage social play, beyond what I mentioned. I was just picking two highlights at random. How about having to compete for spawns and harvesting nodes? How about the lame task grind that only allows players to work together if they just happen to be at exactly the same point in the chain? There are many more. If you use the same old formulaic MMO mechanics, you are going to suffer from all the same problems...and these games becoming all about solo experiences until max level and then raiding... SW:TOR will carry on that "tradition" for better or worse.
As someone else pointed out, This is my opinion and everyone is entitled to their own. To those objecting to my generalizations about the thread...you missed the part where I said that informed people who make decisions based on more criteria would probably play GW2 OR BOTH...in other words, I understand that a legit case can be made that SW:TOR is worth playing for certain people. What I was pointing out was that everyone who has objections to GW2 seems to be extremely uninformed, or making a decision entirely based on superficial criteria like the franchise or the developer's name / past titles, and not on any comparison of the actual content or mechanics of the two games.
My biggest issue with GW2 is the teleportation system
The lack of a allignment system.
GW1 story was boring to me and what i watched of GW2 story it seems like it be the same
what i've seen of the community thus far asides from a few hasn't been good (yes thats a part of the actual content)
I don't care for the more action style gameplay of GW2
There are no dwarfs (in a fantasy game i want to be able to play a dwarf class)
Those are my objections to guild wars 2. All of it factual as you may or may not have noticed.
I've also seen a lot of people who say they don't want to play GW2 is because it's a high fantasy game. Again factual, as it is a high fantasy game.
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.
What I was pointing out was that everyone who has objections to GW2 seems to be extremely uninformed, or making a decision entirely based on superficial criteria like the franchise or the developer's name / past titles, and not on any comparison of the actual content or mechanics of the two games.
You keep saying "everyone" who objects. I could accept if you said "most people I see".
I made my decision based entirely on the content of GW2. It is fantasy, and I am completely sick of fantasy games right now. I would say there are a large number of people just like me (in my opinion). So perhaps you should widen your criteria.
Its funny to see that GW2 is the popular one overhere on MMORPG.com, while in the real world everything indicates that in the first month after release SW:TOR will sell much more boxes then GW2
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
Originally posted by Zenjinx Originally posted by FozzikWhat I was pointing out was that everyone who has objections to GW2 seems to be extremely uninformed, or making a decision entirely based on superficial criteria like the franchise or the developer's name / past titles, and not on any comparison of the actual content or mechanics of the two games.
You keep saying "everyone" who objects. I could accept if you said "most people I see". I made my decision based entirely on the content of GW2. It is fantasy, and I am completely sick of fantasy games right now. I would say there are a large number of people just like me (in my opinion). So perhaps you should widen your criteria.
"don't want fantasy" is a pretty superficial criteria, I'm sorry to say. It has nothing to do with the mechanics of the game or how it plays. You are certainly entitled to spend your money however you want, but I doubt your going to keep playing TOR if it turns out to suck gameplay-wise, even though it's "not fantasy". If GW2 turns out to be very popular and excellent gameplay-wise...I have a feeling you'll end up giving it a shot.
I agree with you about my statement. "Everyone" is not the right word to use, I apologize. "Most people" is more accurate.
Its funny to see that GW2 is the popular one overhere on MMORPG.com, while in the real world everything indicates that in the first month after release SW:TOR will sell much more boxes then GW2
Who cares? MMOs are based on longevity. All the initial sales in the world can't save a shitty game. I think the industry has proven that a few times now.
There are numerous other things about the game that make it actively discourage social play, beyond what I mentioned. I was just picking two highlights at random. How about having to compete for spawns and harvesting nodes? How about the lame task grind that only allows players to work together if they just happen to be at exactly the same point in the chain? There are many more. If you use the same old formulaic MMO mechanics, you are going to suffer from all the same problems...and these games becoming all about solo experiences until max level and then raiding... SW:TOR will carry on that "tradition" for better or worse.
As someone else pointed out, This is my opinion and everyone is entitled to their own. To those objecting to my generalizations about the thread...you missed the part where I said that informed people who make decisions based on more criteria would probably play GW2 OR BOTH...in other words, I understand that a legit case can be made that SW:TOR is worth playing for certain people. What I was pointing out was that everyone who has objections to GW2 seems to be extremely uninformed, or making a decision entirely based on superficial criteria like the franchise or the developer's name / past titles, and not on any comparison of the actual content or mechanics of the two games.
Any sandbox-lovers who don't want to play GW2 because it's yet another themepark are just being silly?
All those who are sick of fantasy games and are looking for sci-fi instead clearly don't know anything about MMOs?
People who don't like more action based combat and actually enjoy slower more turn-based combat are just basing themselves on superficial criteria?
Those who greatly enjoy old-school traditional MMOs where levelling was hard and you sure as hell couldn't teleport around the map are just uninformed?
Anyone excited about an MMO with a storyline that actually allows you to choose between good and evil and tempts you with hard decisions is purely being influenced by the developer's name?
Get a grip. Your chosen game isn't nearly as amazing as you pretend it is.
We are the bunny. Resistance is futile. ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\ ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o) (")("),,(")("),(")(")
Originally posted by whilan My biggest issue with GW2 is the teleportation system The lack of a allignment system. GW1 story was boring to me and what i watched of GW2 story it seems like it be the same what i've seen of the community thus far asides from a few hasn't been good (yes thats a part of the actual content) I don't care for the more action style gameplay of GW2 There are no dwarfs (in a fantasy game i want to be able to play a dwarf class) Those are my objections to guild wars 2. All of it factual as you may or may not have noticed. I've also seen a lot of people who say they don't want to play GW2 is because it's a high fantasy game. Again factual, as it is a high fantasy game.
GW2 has an alignment system of sorts. You can deal with NPCs different ways and they will react to you accordingly. You can even mix the different responses to create hybrid alignments.
SW:TOR isn't going to have fast travel to places you already visited?
Your anecdotal evidence about the community is not a fact at all...it's just an opinion. You haven't played the game, so it would be impossible to have an objective opinion on the community.
No dwarves... To each there own. I'll give you that one.
"don't want fantasy" is a pretty superficial criteria, I'm sorry to say. It has nothing to do with the mechanics of the game or how it plays. You are certainly entitled to spend your money however you want, but I doubt your going to keep playing TOR if it turns out to suck gameplay-wise, even though it's "not fantasy". If GW2 turns out to be very popular and excellent gameplay-wise...I have a feeling you'll end up giving it a shot.
I agree with you about my statement. "Everyone" is not the right word to use, I apologize. "Most people" is more accurate.
You would have a valid point, if GW2 was released. You ar guessing at mechanics, etc. Thus, making your own opinion "superficial" as it were.
If TOR "sucks". I will discontinue to play it. I will not however, play GW2. As I stated, it is a fantasy game ( this is not a superficial opinion, but a fact). I could care less how "good" it is. I won't be captivated by a few evolved game mechanics. It is not enough to drag me back to fantasy.
"don't want fantasy" is a pretty superficial criteria, I'm sorry to say. It has nothing to do with the mechanics of the game or how it plays. You are certainly entitled to spend your money however you want, but I doubt your going to keep playing TOR if it turns out to suck gameplay-wise, even though it's "not fantasy". If GW2 turns out to be very popular and excellent gameplay-wise...I have a feeling you'll end up giving it a shot.
I agree with you about my statement. "Everyone" is not the right word to use, I apologize. "Most people" is more accurate.
That's how I feel about it. I mean, I have played sci-fi MMOs, and not one of them has been any good, and it wasn't because of their atmosphere. What really differentiates them from fantasy other than looks? Nothing. Most of the MMOs on the market just aren't that captivating, and the inclusion of lasers and space ships and glowy circuit boards tells me nothing in terms of quality. It's a wait and see game, but the fact that it's not fantasy? That's not enough for me. It's shallow and risky at best to throw your money at something just because it looks different.
By the way, to one poster above, there are dwarves in the Guild Wars universe, they're just not playable. I'm not unhappy about this, because in nearly every game I've played, dwarves are always the same race with essentially the same story. ANet seems to be the only one who dared to do them differently.
Any sandbox-lovers who don't want to play GW2 because it's yet another themepark are just being silly? All those who are sick of fantasy games and are looking for sci-fi instead clearly don't know anything about MMOs? People who don't like more action based combat and actually enjoy slower more turn-based combat are just basing themselves on superficial criteria? Those who greatly enjoy old-school traditional MMOs where levelling was hard and you sure as hell couldn't teleport around the map are just uninformed? Anyone excited about an MMO with a storyline that actually allows you to choose between good and evil and tempts you with hard decisions is purely being influenced by the developer's name?
Get a grip. Your chosen game isn't nearly as amazing as you pretend it is.
There's more sandbox in GW2 than SW:TOR.
Those sick of fantasy games...I answered that one already. That's completely superficial and they would all very likely still play a good fantasy game instead of a bad sci-fi game...evidence of that is the current market.
As to people who don't like action combat...that's valid. I'll give you that one.
People who like old school MMOs when leveling was hard... *raises hand* that's me. Are you trying to say that leveling is going to be hard in SW:TOR? It's not. The difference is deeper than that, though... WHY did people like those oldschool games where leveling was hard? Because it provided situations for real social play and interdependence, and because players didn't play it to rush to endgame...they played it for the journey. GW2 will be a game designed around social play, and about playing the journey. SW:TOR is the exact opposite of oldschool MMOs in that regard. It's the same old rush solo to endgame and raid setup with gear grind and a SPRPG tacked on.
The storyline reasoning is a joke. GW2 has an alignment system too... and as far as actual hard choices... GW2 actually has a branching storyline where your choices make lasting changes you can see in your personal instance. SW:TOR's story is completely linear.
Originally posted by Zenjinx You would have a valid point, if GW2 was released. You ar guessing at mechanics, etc. Thus, making your own opinion "superficial" as it were. If TOR "sucks". I will discontinue to play it. I will not however, play GW2. As I stated, it is a fantasy game ( this is not a superficial opinion, but a fact). I could care less how "good" it is. I won't be captivated by a few evolved game mechanics. It is not enough to drag me back to fantasy.
It's not an opinion, your right. It's a superficial criteria, though...which is what I said.
We'll see where we all end up after a few months. You should probably at least keep an open mind and be willing to entertain the possibility that GW2 might even be good enough to pull you back into fantasy. Likely? No...but you never know.
Will SW:TOR be good enough on the story front to pull me in? We'll have to wait and see that too, I suppose. Not likely.
There are numerous other things about the game that make it actively discourage social play, beyond what I mentioned. I was just picking two highlights at random. How about having to compete for spawns and harvesting nodes? How about the lame task grind that only allows players to work together if they just happen to be at exactly the same point in the chain? There are many more. If you use the same old formulaic MMO mechanics, you are going to suffer from all the same problems...and these games becoming all about solo experiences until max level and then raiding... SW:TOR will carry on that "tradition" for better or worse.
As someone else pointed out, This is my opinion and everyone is entitled to their own. To those objecting to my generalizations about the thread...you missed the part where I said that informed people who make decisions based on more criteria would probably play GW2 OR BOTH...in other words, I understand that a legit case can be made that SW:TOR is worth playing for certain people. What I was pointing out was that everyone who has objections to GW2 seems to be extremely uninformed, or making a decision entirely based on superficial criteria like the franchise or the developer's name / past titles, and not on any comparison of the actual content or mechanics of the two games.
Any sandbox-lovers who don't want to play GW2 because it's yet another themepark are just being silly?
All those who are sick of fantasy games and are looking for sci-fi instead clearly don't know anything about MMOs?
People who don't like more action based combat and actually enjoy slower more turn-based combat are just basing themselves on superficial criteria?
Those who greatly enjoy old-school traditional MMOs where levelling was hard and you sure as hell couldn't teleport around the map are just uninformed?
Anyone excited about an MMO with a storyline that actually allows you to choose between good and evil and tempts you with hard decisions is purely being influenced by the developer's name?
Get a grip. Your chosen game isn't nearly as amazing as you pretend it is.
It's not that people can't come up with totally legitimate, valid reasons for preferring another game to GW2, he's saying that he believes that most people who are choosing SWTOR over GW2 are instead making the choice for misinformed and/or superficial reasons.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it."-Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Any sandbox-lovers who don't want to play GW2 because it's yet another themepark are just being silly?
All those who are sick of fantasy games and are looking for sci-fi instead clearly don't know anything about MMOs?
People who don't like more action based combat and actually enjoy slower more turn-based combat are just basing themselves on superficial criteria?
Those who greatly enjoy old-school traditional MMOs where levelling was hard and you sure as hell couldn't teleport around the map are just uninformed?
Anyone excited about an MMO with a storyline that actually allows you to choose between good and evil and tempts you with hard decisions is purely being influenced by the developer's name?
Get a grip. Your chosen game isn't nearly as amazing as you pretend it is.
There's more sandbox in GW2 than SW:TOR.
Those sick of fantasy games...I answered that one already. That's completely superficial and they would all very likely still play a good fantasy game instead of a bad sci-fi game...evidence of that is the current market.
As to people who don't like action combat...that's valid. I'll give you that one.
People who like old school MMOs when leveling was hard... *raises hand* that's me. Are you trying to say that leveling is going to be hard in SW:TOR? It's not. The difference is deeper than that, though... WHY did people like those oldschool games where leveling was hard? Because it provided situations for real social play and interdependence, and because players didn't play it to rush to endgame...they played it for the journey. GW2 will be a game designed around social play, and about playing the journey. SW:TOR is the exact opposite of oldschool MMOs in that regard. It's the same old rush solo to endgame and raid setup with gear grind and a SPRPG tacked on.
The storyline one is a joke. GW2 has an alignment system too... and as far as actual hard choices... GW2 actually has a branching storyline where your choices make lasting changes you can see in your personal instance. SW:TOR's story is completely linear.
1. You do realize that "neither" is also an option and not everyone will be playing these games? I gave you valid reasons to dislike GW2.
2. How do you know they would want a good fantasy over a bad sci-fi? Have you asked every single gamer? Maybe they won't play either, maybe they'll still play the bad sci-fi. Some people love space ships and seriously hate fireballs; if that's what they want, then that's what they want. That's not being superficial, that's just not liking fantasy.
3. GW2 does not have an alignment system. I can not be evil in GW2. Everyone in GW2 is confirmed to be a hero. In SW:ToR I can be a hero, anti-hero, villain, villain-turned-hero or the other way around.
4. SW:ToR's story will have branches just like GW2. If you know Bioware games then you'll know that you can expect at least one branch per planet and likely one branch per companion as well. With 5 companions and 10+ planets for each class that's a whole lot of branches in total. And each branch will have make lasting changes in your companions and the follow-up storyline.
We are the bunny. Resistance is futile. ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\ ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o) (")("),,(")("),(")(")
It's not an opinion, your right. It's a superficial criteria, though...which is what I said.
We'll see where we all end up after a few months. You should probably at least keep an open mind and be willing to entertain the possibility that GW2 might even be good enough to pull you back into fantasy. Likely? No...but you never know.
Will SW:TOR be good enough on the story front to pull me in? We'll have to wait and see that too, I suppose. Not likely.
Not trying to keep this debate going. However, your own reasons are just as superficial as anyone else. The fact that you only perceive anyone who choses SWTOR over GW2 as being "superficial" is a very narrow-minded view.
You can only speak for yourself here.
In a few months, If I don't like SWTOR, I will play something else, but it won't be GW2. There are many games to chose. A number of them are not fantasy and done quite well.
And further to your argument of "superficial". If we as gamers did not have an issue with what you perceive as "superficial", then we would all be still playing text based adventures for RPG and Pong for action.
I'm not really impressed by what I've heard about either games' branching paths, but Bioware has given mostly the illusion of choice in some of their other games; the endings hardly changed at all. So is TOR supposedly different? Can you be truly evil and then do entirely different content, bosses, etc. based on that? I'll believe dark/light points make a huge difference only when I see it.
Originally posted by gobla 1. You do realize that "neither" is also an option and not everyone will be playing these games? I gave you valid reasons to dislike GW2. 2. How do you know they would want a good fantasy over a bad sci-fi? Have you asked every single gamer? Maybe they won't play either, maybe they'll still play the bad sci-fi. Some people love space ships and seriously hate fireballs; if that's what they want, then that's what they want. That's not being superficial, that's just not liking fantasy. 3. GW2 does not have an alignment system. I can not be evil in GW2. Everyone in GW2 is confirmed to be a hero. In SW:ToR I can be a hero, anti-hero, villain, villain-turned-hero or the other way around. 4. SW:ToR's story will have branches just like GW2. If you know Bioware games then you'll know that you can expect at least one branch per planet and likely one branch per companion as well. With 5 companions and 10+ planets for each class that's a whole lot of branches in total. And each branch will have make lasting changes in your companions and the follow-up storyline.
1. Oh, ok...now we're arguing for neither? I thought this thread was about SW:TOR vs. GW2.
2. Again, we're talking about "most", certainly there will be exceptions. Most people want to play a good game.
3. Yes it does...it's just not a good<---->evil alignment system. You can treat NPCs differently with your responses in GW2, and their reactions to you will change accordingly. You will be able to mix and match your answers to get hybrid results, and you'll be able to change the way NPCs react to you any time you want simply by changing the way you interact with them.
4. Ok, so both games will have a branching story (if you are correct, which I'm not sure...I had heard it was totally linear). So that's not a reason to pick one over the other, is it? You claimed that anyone interested in a storyline that allows hard choices with lasting repercussions would want to play SW:TOR... both games have that.
1. Oh, ok...now we're arguing for neither? I thought this thread was about SW:TOR vs. GW2.
2. Again, we're talking about "most", certainly there will be exceptions. Most people want to play a good game.
3. Yes it does...it's just not a good<---->evil alignment system. You can treat NPCs differently with your responses in GW2, and their reactions to you will change accordingly. You will be able to mix and match your answers to get hybrid results, and you'll be able to change the way NPCs react to you any time you want simply by changing the way you interact with them.
4. Ok, so both games will have a branching story (if you are correct, which I'm not sure...I had heard it was totally linear). So that's not a reason to pick one over the other, is it? You claimed that anyone interested in a storyline that allows hard choices with lasting repercussions would want to play SW:TOR... both games have that.
When talking about hard choices and alignment I'm referring to being able say "screw that orphanage, burn it!" instead of having to choose if I'll save it by aligning myself with the order of whispers or save it by aligning with the Vigil.
Sure, having to choose between burning or saving orphanages isn't all that great. But it beats being forced to always save it, even if they give you a few options in how exactly to go about saving it.
I know that in SW:ToR I'll actually have a choice whether or not I want to turn a criminal in to the authorities or allow myself to be bribed with something fancy to help myself later on, instead of being forced to always turn the guy in. And at the end of my storyline I'll have the option of either choosing for good or evil.
In GW2 no matter what I do I know I'm going out there to save innocents and the rest of the world. When I get a quest I won't have the option to accept a bribe, that's not what heroes do. I won't have the option to betray my quest giver for easy profit, that's not what heroes do. And I certainly won't have any option to assist the dragons in destroying the world.
In one game I'm always forced to be the hero. In the other game I get an actual choice and while all the possible options are rather extreme at least the choice is there.
We are the bunny. Resistance is futile. ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\ ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o) (")("),,(")("),(")(")
In GW2 no matter what I do I know I'm going out there to save innocents and the rest of the world. When I get a quest I won't have the option to accept a bribe, that's not what heroes do. I won't have the option to betray my quest giver for easy profit, that's not what heroes do. And I certainly won't have any option to assist the dragons in destroying the world.
in GW1, both Factions and Nightfall had quests where you bribe quest npcs
ANET never said anything about GW2 players being Mr. "Do No Wrong" Hero
Comments
Neither of the two things he stated make the game any more single player then any other game. The only difference is it might make it easier for people who solo to do so, but then it also makes it easier for them to understand grouping if they so decide to group because with the companion (when they solo) they understand the role they are playing more.
More people might play healers for instance if they could actually fight the creatures but because of the required group based nature, most people avoid it because they need a group to even level up.
But in almost every case you'll want a real life player vs a companion as they will still do better then the companion. In groups you'll only want a companion if you can't find the real life person version of that class so you can play instead of having to sit at the entrance spamming LF X please help we've been looking for 2 hours.
The first one is a version of crafting, instead of you watching the crafting bar moving, your companions do it. You still need to find the scheamtic (recipe), the materials (which you or your companion can collect in the real world, or send your companion out to get them but beware this is a tatical choice because it cost you money, and can fail), still need to assign tasks to them for crafting, and you still need to take the results to the AH to sell to other players, This is no different then other games crafting except that it's timer based instead of being able to quick combine 30 of the same item.
So unless having crafting in other MMOs makes it single player then it doesn't here either because the companions don't do anything beyond sit there and make the item instead of your avatar. Another big difference is that your crafting skill actually can help you in dungeons as sometimes they can open paths in the dungeon that might otherwise be closed without it.
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.
SWTOR!
There are numerous other things about the game that make it actively discourage social play, beyond what I mentioned. I was just picking two highlights at random. How about having to compete for spawns and harvesting nodes? How about the lame task grind that only allows players to work together if they just happen to be at exactly the same point in the chain? There are many more. If you use the same old formulaic MMO mechanics, you are going to suffer from all the same problems...and these games becoming all about solo experiences until max level and then raiding... SW:TOR will carry on that "tradition" for better or worse.
As someone else pointed out, This is my opinion and everyone is entitled to their own. To those objecting to my generalizations about the thread...you missed the part where I said that informed people who make decisions based on more criteria would probably play GW2 OR BOTH...in other words, I understand that a legit case can be made that SW:TOR is worth playing for certain people. What I was pointing out was that everyone who has objections to GW2 seems to be extremely uninformed, or making a decision entirely based on superficial criteria like the franchise or the developer's name / past titles, and not on any comparison of the actual content or mechanics of the two games.
My biggest issue with GW2 is the teleportation system
The lack of a allignment system.
GW1 story was boring to me and what i watched of GW2 story it seems like it be the same
what i've seen of the community thus far asides from a few hasn't been good (yes thats a part of the actual content)
I don't care for the more action style gameplay of GW2
There are no dwarfs (in a fantasy game i want to be able to play a dwarf class)
Those are my objections to guild wars 2. All of it factual as you may or may not have noticed.
I've also seen a lot of people who say they don't want to play GW2 is because it's a high fantasy game. Again factual, as it is a high fantasy game.
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.
Neither for me, I'll be playing WoW. I'll wait a few months and see how these two are doing.
You keep saying "everyone" who objects. I could accept if you said "most people I see".
I made my decision based entirely on the content of GW2. It is fantasy, and I am completely sick of fantasy games right now. I would say there are a large number of people just like me (in my opinion). So perhaps you should widen your criteria.
Its funny to see that GW2 is the popular one overhere on MMORPG.com, while in the real world everything indicates that in the first month after release SW:TOR will sell much more boxes then GW2
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
I made my decision based entirely on the content of GW2. It is fantasy, and I am completely sick of fantasy games right now. I would say there are a large number of people just like me (in my opinion). So perhaps you should widen your criteria.
"don't want fantasy" is a pretty superficial criteria, I'm sorry to say. It has nothing to do with the mechanics of the game or how it plays. You are certainly entitled to spend your money however you want, but I doubt your going to keep playing TOR if it turns out to suck gameplay-wise, even though it's "not fantasy". If GW2 turns out to be very popular and excellent gameplay-wise...I have a feeling you'll end up giving it a shot.
I agree with you about my statement. "Everyone" is not the right word to use, I apologize. "Most people" is more accurate.
Who cares? MMOs are based on longevity. All the initial sales in the world can't save a shitty game. I think the industry has proven that a few times now.
Any sandbox-lovers who don't want to play GW2 because it's yet another themepark are just being silly?
All those who are sick of fantasy games and are looking for sci-fi instead clearly don't know anything about MMOs?
People who don't like more action based combat and actually enjoy slower more turn-based combat are just basing themselves on superficial criteria?
Those who greatly enjoy old-school traditional MMOs where levelling was hard and you sure as hell couldn't teleport around the map are just uninformed?
Anyone excited about an MMO with a storyline that actually allows you to choose between good and evil and tempts you with hard decisions is purely being influenced by the developer's name?
Get a grip. Your chosen game isn't nearly as amazing as you pretend it is.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
After i seen and played SWTOR BETA, i can say GW2. With Diablo 3 and GW2 together, i can enjoy gaming with 2 top games without paying a monthly fee.
Personally, I'm going to play Skyrim despite it not being an MMO.
If I had to chose between what the OP asks, GW 2 I guess.
SWTOR is too linear of a game for me.
GW2: I get excited when viewing gameplay vids and when Anet talks about their philosophy.
TOR: It's Star Wars. It's Bioware.
Hmmm...
GW2 has an alignment system of sorts. You can deal with NPCs different ways and they will react to you accordingly. You can even mix the different responses to create hybrid alignments.
SW:TOR isn't going to have fast travel to places you already visited?
Your anecdotal evidence about the community is not a fact at all...it's just an opinion. You haven't played the game, so it would be impossible to have an objective opinion on the community.
No dwarves... To each there own. I'll give you that one.
You would have a valid point, if GW2 was released. You ar guessing at mechanics, etc. Thus, making your own opinion "superficial" as it were.
If TOR "sucks". I will discontinue to play it. I will not however, play GW2. As I stated, it is a fantasy game ( this is not a superficial opinion, but a fact). I could care less how "good" it is. I won't be captivated by a few evolved game mechanics. It is not enough to drag me back to fantasy.
That's how I feel about it. I mean, I have played sci-fi MMOs, and not one of them has been any good, and it wasn't because of their atmosphere. What really differentiates them from fantasy other than looks? Nothing. Most of the MMOs on the market just aren't that captivating, and the inclusion of lasers and space ships and glowy circuit boards tells me nothing in terms of quality. It's a wait and see game, but the fact that it's not fantasy? That's not enough for me. It's shallow and risky at best to throw your money at something just because it looks different.
By the way, to one poster above, there are dwarves in the Guild Wars universe, they're just not playable. I'm not unhappy about this, because in nearly every game I've played, dwarves are always the same race with essentially the same story. ANet seems to be the only one who dared to do them differently.
There's more sandbox in GW2 than SW:TOR.
Those sick of fantasy games...I answered that one already. That's completely superficial and they would all very likely still play a good fantasy game instead of a bad sci-fi game...evidence of that is the current market.
As to people who don't like action combat...that's valid. I'll give you that one.
People who like old school MMOs when leveling was hard... *raises hand* that's me. Are you trying to say that leveling is going to be hard in SW:TOR? It's not. The difference is deeper than that, though... WHY did people like those oldschool games where leveling was hard? Because it provided situations for real social play and interdependence, and because players didn't play it to rush to endgame...they played it for the journey. GW2 will be a game designed around social play, and about playing the journey. SW:TOR is the exact opposite of oldschool MMOs in that regard. It's the same old rush solo to endgame and raid setup with gear grind and a SPRPG tacked on.
The storyline reasoning is a joke. GW2 has an alignment system too... and as far as actual hard choices... GW2 actually has a branching storyline where your choices make lasting changes you can see in your personal instance. SW:TOR's story is completely linear.
It's not an opinion, your right. It's a superficial criteria, though...which is what I said.
We'll see where we all end up after a few months.
You should probably at least keep an open mind and be willing to entertain the possibility that GW2 might even be good enough to pull you back into fantasy. Likely? No...but you never know.
Will SW:TOR be good enough on the story front to pull me in? We'll have to wait and see that too, I suppose. Not likely.
It's not that people can't come up with totally legitimate, valid reasons for preferring another game to GW2, he's saying that he believes that most people who are choosing SWTOR over GW2 are instead making the choice for misinformed and/or superficial reasons.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
1. You do realize that "neither" is also an option and not everyone will be playing these games? I gave you valid reasons to dislike GW2.
2. How do you know they would want a good fantasy over a bad sci-fi? Have you asked every single gamer? Maybe they won't play either, maybe they'll still play the bad sci-fi. Some people love space ships and seriously hate fireballs; if that's what they want, then that's what they want. That's not being superficial, that's just not liking fantasy.
3. GW2 does not have an alignment system. I can not be evil in GW2. Everyone in GW2 is confirmed to be a hero. In SW:ToR I can be a hero, anti-hero, villain, villain-turned-hero or the other way around.
4. SW:ToR's story will have branches just like GW2. If you know Bioware games then you'll know that you can expect at least one branch per planet and likely one branch per companion as well. With 5 companions and 10+ planets for each class that's a whole lot of branches in total. And each branch will have make lasting changes in your companions and the follow-up storyline.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
Not trying to keep this debate going. However, your own reasons are just as superficial as anyone else. The fact that you only perceive anyone who choses SWTOR over GW2 as being "superficial" is a very narrow-minded view.
You can only speak for yourself here.
In a few months, If I don't like SWTOR, I will play something else, but it won't be GW2. There are many games to chose. A number of them are not fantasy and done quite well.
And further to your argument of "superficial". If we as gamers did not have an issue with what you perceive as "superficial", then we would all be still playing text based adventures for RPG and Pong for action.
I'm not really impressed by what I've heard about either games' branching paths, but Bioware has given mostly the illusion of choice in some of their other games; the endings hardly changed at all. So is TOR supposedly different? Can you be truly evil and then do entirely different content, bosses, etc. based on that? I'll believe dark/light points make a huge difference only when I see it.
1. Oh, ok...now we're arguing for neither? I thought this thread was about SW:TOR vs. GW2.
2. Again, we're talking about "most", certainly there will be exceptions. Most people want to play a good game.
3. Yes it does...it's just not a good<---->evil alignment system. You can treat NPCs differently with your responses in GW2, and their reactions to you will change accordingly. You will be able to mix and match your answers to get hybrid results, and you'll be able to change the way NPCs react to you any time you want simply by changing the way you interact with them.
4. Ok, so both games will have a branching story (if you are correct, which I'm not sure...I had heard it was totally linear). So that's not a reason to pick one over the other, is it? You claimed that anyone interested in a storyline that allows hard choices with lasting repercussions would want to play SW:TOR... both games have that.
When talking about hard choices and alignment I'm referring to being able say "screw that orphanage, burn it!" instead of having to choose if I'll save it by aligning myself with the order of whispers or save it by aligning with the Vigil.
Sure, having to choose between burning or saving orphanages isn't all that great. But it beats being forced to always save it, even if they give you a few options in how exactly to go about saving it.
I know that in SW:ToR I'll actually have a choice whether or not I want to turn a criminal in to the authorities or allow myself to be bribed with something fancy to help myself later on, instead of being forced to always turn the guy in. And at the end of my storyline I'll have the option of either choosing for good or evil.
In GW2 no matter what I do I know I'm going out there to save innocents and the rest of the world. When I get a quest I won't have the option to accept a bribe, that's not what heroes do. I won't have the option to betray my quest giver for easy profit, that's not what heroes do. And I certainly won't have any option to assist the dragons in destroying the world.
In one game I'm always forced to be the hero. In the other game I get an actual choice and while all the possible options are rather extreme at least the choice is there.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
in GW1, both Factions and Nightfall had quests where you bribe quest npcs
ANET never said anything about GW2 players being Mr. "Do No Wrong" Hero
EQ2 fan sites