They could make scripts that mix and match variables, creating quests for the player dynamically. When a player starts a quest, for example, the game might spawn the target NPC in some semi-randomized location. The game could even randomize attributes of the NPC and the NPC's name, or select from a pool of presets. The NPC could appear to be a non-combat friendly NPC to all other players, until attacked by the player with the quest, at which point they'd be attackable, but tagged by the player who needs to kill them.
Just one example of how they could mix things up so that it would be a better fit for an open world. I'm sure its not a perfect solution, but the point is, there are other ways of doing it than the way it keeps getting done.
There are lots of problems with a system like that. It would never generate a narrative of the same quality as a specifically crafted one, and it wouldn't work with full voiceover, to name a couple. There are tons of approaches that work if you don't care at all about the quality of the writing or the presentation, but there really aren't very many ways to do it if you want a fully implemented, compelling narrative experience.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
This is the attitude that bothes me the most. that people who like tor dont see any flaws There is not a tor fan out there who hasnt said the character creater sucks ass.
There isnt a tor fan out there who has denied tor has some bugs and other issues like space game. So they do admit there are faults with tor.
The thing we all agree on but get flamed for is we had fun in tor and that none of those issues are gamebreaking or will make the game any less fun for us.
god im so tired of having to defend the fact i had fun playng a game just because some people cant handle that the majority of players loved tor and had fun playing it.
its ridiculous the amount of hate some people have for a game. tor is a very fun game to play and to me thats all that matters. i dont care if it innovates or not.
I never thought the mmorpg genre was broke. Why would i want a genre i love to change when it wasnt broken to began with. Why do we have to fix a genre i still enjoy playing i dont see it.
Innovate all u want but you better make sure the game is fun to play or no matter how much innovation gw 2 has if it isnt fun no one will play that.
The one thing all the haters forget is that all that really matters when u play a game is if u had fun and in tor i did.
Other things that matter tend to have more to do with longevity. Lots of games can be fun at first, but there are all sorts of flaws that can shorten how long a game stays fun. "Innovation" might sound like the latest empty buzz word, but it has a lot to do with keeping a game from feeling stale, almost right off the shelf, to people who have played similar games before. It's about trying to make a game that will keep up with the market, and stay fun for as long as possible.
I come to forums like this to discuss that sort of thing. I like debating the issues this genre has, and thinking about how it could be better. I don't understand people that just want to come to forums to cheer about their favorite game and make joke threads.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
They could make scripts that mix and match variables, creating quests for the player dynamically. When a player starts a quest, for example, the game might spawn the target NPC in some semi-randomized location. The game could even randomize attributes of the NPC and the NPC's name, or select from a pool of presets. The NPC could appear to be a non-combat friendly NPC to all other players, until attacked by the player with the quest, at which point they'd be attackable, but tagged by the player who needs to kill them.
Just one example of how they could mix things up so that it would be a better fit for an open world. I'm sure its not a perfect solution, but the point is, there are other ways of doing it than the way it keeps getting done.
There are lots of problems with a system like that. It would never generate a narrative of the same quality as a specifically crafted one, and it wouldn't work with full voiceover, to name a couple. There are tons of approaches that work if you don't care at all about the quality of the writing or the presentation, but there really aren't very many ways to do it if you want a fully implemented, compelling narrative experience.
Some solutions could be worked out, some compromises made, but that's part of making the transition from single-player to multi-player. To refuse to make any compromises and focus on the single-player experience to the exclusion of the multiplayer experience.. is a risky approach to making an MMO, at best.
If TOR still has over a million subs 3-6 months from now, I'll the first to admit how wrong I've been to doubt them. I won't be playing it myself, but I'll openly apologize to Bioware and their fans, before moving on to talk about how GW2 or TSW could have been better, instead
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Some solutions could be worked out, some compromises made, but that's part of making the transition from single-player to multi-player. To refuse to make any compromises and focus on the single-player experience to the exclusion of the multiplayer experience.. is a risky approach to making an MMO, at best.
If TOR still has over a million subs 3-6 months from now, I'll the first to admit how wrong I've been to doubt them. I won't be playing it myself, but I'll openly apologize to Bioware and their fans, before moving on to talk about how GW2 or TSW could have been better, instead
Maybe you can explain this to me. How, exactly, does increasing the quality of the individual character's story *necessarily* harm the multiplayer experience? Which multiplayer aspects of the game would become automatically and immediately more enjoyable as the result of removing the class stories?
I've never understood that logic, that somehow you are "harming" one aspect of a game when you improve the quality of a different aspect of the game.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
2. It has skills that can be clicked or one could spaz out on the number keys..
3. It has an "MP" mechanic, renamed for each class..
4. It has collection quests, it has activate object quests, it has waypoint quests...
5. It has an xp and level system..
6. It has skill trees..
7. It has LOS but also an auto target system..
8. It has instances..
9. It has raids..
And back to number 1, its an MMORPG..
If you prefer action games, you should look elsewhere..
If you prefer first person shooters, you should look elsewhere..
If you prefer a sandbox, you should look elsewhere..
If you prefer a space flight simulator, you should look elsewhere..
If you dislike any of the features listed above to the point you'd frequent a forum to tell us so, then you should probably look elsewhere..
MMORPG can have action mechanics, first person mechanics, sandbox mechanics, or any or all of those other things. Nor does an MMORPG imply that it must use Holy Trinity mechanics.
Yeah but to EXPECT every MMORPG to be a blend of those other genres is not really fair.. And its the sole reason why this genre is losing its identity.. because everyone wants it blended.. And now we have MMO Golf..
When Marvel vs Capcom 3 came out, you didnt hear people screaming how much they wanted to be able to click skills on a hotbar.. nor in a Call of Duty forum have I ever heard someone cry about not being able to throw down their guns and execute combos and get ring outs..
There are certain mechanics that make a genre, a genre.. Fighting games will always be fighting games and shooters will be shooters.. CAN they blend? Sure they could, but should their fans expect them to ALWAYS blend? I wouldn't think so..
When Nintendo came out with the "NEW" super Mario bro's on handheld, they could have made it a shooter, or even a role playing game.. but then it wouldn't have truly been a platformer..
I mean it's fine to want something different, but some of us enjoy what we have in our genre, thats why I play them.. Either wait for something that is more your cup of tea, or simple play something thats worth while to you..
Expecting MMORPG to = hotbar is short sighted.
There's too much variety in the "RPG" genre to have such a limited scope.
Because everything I have said thus far means that MMORPG - hotbar. Not quite my friend, not quite.. But it IS a traditional feature of the MMORPG, going back to its earlier graphical days and the HUD mechanics.. It's a feature that does not bother me so much that a developer would use such mechanics in their own product.. I don't expect all new MMORPG releases to require combo button sequences and active rolling and flipping. If they do, that's fine I will not rage at whoever enjoys such endeavors.. But I like and rather prefer the "old style" of graphical MMORPG's with clicks and "dice rolls"..
SWTOR is a step down in terms of RPG/storytelling and gameplay compared to Dragon Age 1 and Mass Effect1/2 ( i didn't play DA2 so can't comment.
This always happens when you go from single player to multiplayer unless. . . . unless the MMO developer adds quality multiplayer gameplay features that improve the game.
Bioware has not added anything multiplayer that "improves the experience" so what you get is a watered down Bioware game, in the star wars universe with decade old MMO gameplay..
joy !
You see there is a difference in taking to an MMO experience to capitalize on a different and more profitable business model than actually leveraging the hell out of the fact that you will have a massive amount of people on at one time and wrapping your design around that.
Bioware/EA did the former.
You have a point in that yes comparatively speaking it could be viewed as a bit watered down. That's comparing it to SPRPGs, as we've all seen them and played them, and know what to expect from them.
My exception here is the fact we're talking about applying this to a genre where it hasn't been applied at this level before. They have one semi-decent precursor to follow, which would be AOC. Which really had none, considering this it's not suprising that mistakes may have been made by both developers.
IMO this should be expected when applying something semi-new to an already established genre. It's essentially trying to marry two designs that have distinct differences. The risk of alienating fans of both respective genres is pretty high, much higher than the chances of actually pleasing the two IMO. Considering that it's no surprise feedback thus far has been a mixed bag.
When you're essentially designing two games in one, there's going to be oversight, areas where fans of one genre or the other feel are lacking, etc.. I'm not sure that can be avoided on a realistic budget and development schedule.
I think we are both saying the same thing but I think bioware's design approach was poor in the coupling.
For example, I would have been happy with WoW @ release complexity, world design,size,depth and add in personal questlines with voiceovers and lightsabres.
What we have instead is:
a. A watered down WoW and
b. A Watered down DA / ME
For me = BLEH
----
This is why what I belive they did was ( which wow did but successfully in a different way )
How can we get gamers from as many different genres as possible to play this game and make the most dough ? well lets give each "genre" a piece of what they are used to
= watered down experience for all. Welcome to AAA MMO development.
What WoW did well was keep quite a bit of the world + RPG complexity with amazing stability and great/fun combat. That is it was good enough in both FPS style ( combat was great ) and RPG complexity to keep both gnere customers interested. This is what these companies are trying to capture and no one is close because they either cut one part short or the other, WoW did both very well.
Now SWTOR has attempted to add a 3rd piece in the personal story so you have
watered down from wow RPG complexity + world ( on rails )
Very very fluid combat ( probably best thing SWTOR has going for it tbh )
Personal story RPG watered down from bioware single player titles.
So again, they are beefing up the piece of the product they are trying to draw more poeple with, combat... which is again FPS type games/gamers.
I also want to say that I am a huge Star wars fan and have played just about every major MMO at release over the last 6-7 years or so and I am skipping TOR. Why ? because it was not deep enough in any of the aforementioned areas to keep me interested past 30.
Tried to level another character and again, I couldn't take the same areas again, in the same order with zero choice.
Some solutions could be worked out, some compromises made, but that's part of making the transition from single-player to multi-player. To refuse to make any compromises and focus on the single-player experience to the exclusion of the multiplayer experience.. is a risky approach to making an MMO, at best.
Maybe you can explain this to me. How, exactly, does increasing the quality of the individual character's story *necessarily* harm the multiplayer experience? Which multiplayer aspects of the game would become automatically and immediately more enjoyable as the result of removing the class stories?
I've never understood that logic, that somehow you are "harming" one aspect of a game when you improve the quality of a different aspect of the game.
Some players want to feel part of the gameworld, a shared gameworld, and they want the gameplay to focus on that. That means quests that acknowledge the number of people who will be doing them, and can be plausible as such, rather than making no sense in the MMO environment. That does harm the whole experience for some of us.
It comes back to Suspension of Disbelief, as has already been mentioned. You can always argue that people can believe whatever they want in a story, but its pretty widely accepted that this just isn't realistic. Writers of everything from comic books to major movies to video games do thier best to draw the viewer in, to make thier stories plausible. When they fail, its generally considered bad writing, but of course, that point varies from person to person. I think Bioware is pushing that line pretty far, making their game so single-player focused.
Maybe more importantly, I think it'd be a much better game if they used all those resources to weave a more massively multiplayer story, instead of a handful of single-player stories. The harm they do to the game also has to do with the allocation of finite resources. They used up so much of those limited development resources to craft the single-player experience, when as far as single-player experiences go, it still doesn't live up to most of their single-player games.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Well, that's not true. You could avoid having all players be a chosen one or having to kill a unique boss over and over and over again in instances (and only do it once in an open world).
It's non-functional. You could have a "kill ten soldiers" quest, but you could literally never have a "kill Captain Bob" quest. In order to have a scripted narrative that didn't clash with the number of players, it would have to be a completely generic, vague, lifeless narrative, with no characterization of any of the PCs or NPCs. At that point, why bother including one at all, because all you do by having it in the game is call attention to how poorly implemented it is. And if you no longer have scripted quests, you no longer have a themepark, because there are no rides. At that point, you have to go sandbox in order to have any kind of content at all. Themeparks don't work without scripted narratives, the ones before TOR are just easier to ignore because they are less well written, not focused on your character, and not fully voiced.
You could have "Kill the current captain of whatever regiment" quest. That guy could have a randomly generated name of "Bob Bobbard" with trillions of possible names. You could have the world actually change when you do that in a GW2 style or even go with a sort of RTS-like AI for various AI groups of enemies that governs how they move their forces, what resources they try to control, etc, etc, and moves against the them change the world and cause the AI to respond in some manner.
Is that a sandbox? Hmm, I don't think so. You can still have rides. There'd be points of significance, resources would still matter, something could be done pretty easily to guarantee something is going on there at all times. You just don't know what "ride" is at a given location, but you can guarantee there's always another ride not far away from any given character. Again, similar to GW2 (though there's certainly room for lots of improvement in their model as nice as it is).
I don't think heavy scripting is necessary for a themepark. Otherwise some tweaks to GW2 and suddenly it's not a themepark, and that seems pretty arbitrary.
Now, could you have fully detailed voice overs for everything and give lots of choices regarding specific people? Not with today's technology. TOR went another way. I am just saying that what they did isn't the only way to go, and in another 10 years you could probably have voices be automatically generated by a computer allowing a lot more options for a game with full voice-overs.
Some solutions could be worked out, some compromises made, but that's part of making the transition from single-player to multi-player. To refuse to make any compromises and focus on the single-player experience to the exclusion of the multiplayer experience.. is a risky approach to making an MMO, at best.
If TOR still has over a million subs 3-6 months from now, I'll the first to admit how wrong I've been to doubt them. I won't be playing it myself, but I'll openly apologize to Bioware and their fans, before moving on to talk about how GW2 or TSW could have been better, instead
Personally, if TOR has 5 million subs then, I don't think it means much. They are like WoW, they are polished, they have some nice innovations...and when was the last time a really polished MMO came along? Hmm, pretty much WoW, right? The market is so lacking in competition that TOR could easily grab millions of subs. It doesn't mean they have the best model.
2. It has skills that can be clicked or one could spaz out on the number keys..
3. It has an "MP" mechanic, renamed for each class..
4. It has collection quests, it has activate object quests, it has waypoint quests...
5. It has an xp and level system..
6. It has skill trees..
7. It has LOS but also an auto target system..
8. It has instances..
9. It has raids..
And back to number 1, its an MMORPG..
If you prefer action games, you should look elsewhere..
If you prefer first person shooters, you should look elsewhere..
If you prefer a sandbox, you should look elsewhere..
If you prefer a space flight simulator, you should look elsewhere..
If you dislike any of the features listed above to the point you'd frequent a forum to tell us so, then you should probably look elsewhere..
MMORPG can have action mechanics, first person mechanics, sandbox mechanics, or any or all of those other things. Nor does an MMORPG imply that it must use Holy Trinity mechanics.
Yeah but to EXPECT every MMORPG to be a blend of those other genres is not really fair.. And its the sole reason why this genre is losing its identity.. because everyone wants it blended.. And now we have MMO Golf..
When Marvel vs Capcom 3 came out, you didnt hear people screaming how much they wanted to be able to click skills on a hotbar.. nor in a Call of Duty forum have I ever heard someone cry about not being able to throw down their guns and execute combos and get ring outs..
There are certain mechanics that make a genre, a genre.. Fighting games will always be fighting games and shooters will be shooters.. CAN they blend? Sure they could, but should their fans expect them to ALWAYS blend? I wouldn't think so..
When Nintendo came out with the "NEW" super Mario bro's on handheld, they could have made it a shooter, or even a role playing game.. but then it wouldn't have truly been a platformer..
I mean it's fine to want something different, but some of us enjoy what we have in our genre, thats why I play them.. Either wait for something that is more your cup of tea, or simple play something thats worth while to you..
And you can overspecify what is necessary to be a game of a particular genre. You could require a platformer must have jumping on people's heads as an attack, or an FPS must have regenerating health, or an MMORPG must be a themepark/use HT mechanics/can't have action elements/etc.
You have overspecified what makes an MMORPG an MMORPG. I merely pointed that out. I was pointing out there are a large number of paths one can take in making an MMORPG. There's no reason for one to resemble another all that much...certainly no more than say Dragon Age: Origins resembles Skyrim or a Final Fantasy title.
Btw, if people want to play a golf MMO, then there's no reason they shouldn't play it. It might sound odd to you or me, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. It certainly doesn't hurt people who like other kinds MMOs.
Now Bob, I never said no one should enjoy a golf MMO, i was just stating that it is outside of the genre's norm and if WE (the traditionals) don't want to play it we shouldn't have to either..
I am not taking away your entitlement to do whatever you want guy, I am just saying that you guys attempt to make every game seem so "bad" because it wants to be traditional.. Some people like traditional. We heard all the same complaints during Rift launch, how it was the "same ol' same ol".. It's okay, we get your point, but you guys make it a point to say the same thing every single time a new game is launched.. I should have ignored the comment but I simply must understand what drives you guys on your political campaign against the fact that some of us find this and other games like it to be highly enjoyable?
But do not get me wrong, any developer can make whatever they want to make and slap any genre label on it.. But they and people like yourself should not get so angry when folks prefer it the traditional way..
Who the heck is saying you have to play any game? That's a total non-sequitor and has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Are people coming to your door and demanding you play MMOs that you don't want to? No? Then why even bring this up?
What's this thread about? What TOR is like. Does it make sense to discuss how it is like games like WoW then? Does it make sense to talk about how it isn't innovative in its combat mechanics? Yes and yes. This isn't a "campaign" against anything except misconceptions. I also pointed out that your list of what makes an MMORPG is simply poorly conceived...at best it is a list of what YOU like to see in an MMORPG, which is totally different and generally not helpful to people reading this thread to get an idea of what TOR is like.
So just don't act like "Doing it the WoW way" is the only way to do things and the only right way to be an MMORPG.
Edit: And if you are going to call someone a name, you might as well use the name they post with, not a generic one. There's no need to sound dismissive, Vyeth.
Some solutions could be worked out, some compromises made, but that's part of making the transition from single-player to multi-player. To refuse to make any compromises and focus on the single-player experience to the exclusion of the multiplayer experience.. is a risky approach to making an MMO, at best.
Maybe you can explain this to me. How, exactly, does increasing the quality of the individual character's story *necessarily* harm the multiplayer experience? Which multiplayer aspects of the game would become automatically and immediately more enjoyable as the result of removing the class stories?
I've never understood that logic, that somehow you are "harming" one aspect of a game when you improve the quality of a different aspect of the game.
Some players want to feel part of the gameworld, a shared gameworld, and they want the gameplay to focus on that. That means quests that acknowledge the number of people who will be doing them, and can be plausible as such, rather than making no sense in the MMO environment. That does harm the whole experience for some of us.
It comes back to Suspension of Disbelief, as has already been mentioned. You can always argue that people can believe whatever they want in a story, but its pretty widely accepted that this just isn't realistic. Writers of everything from comic books to major movies to video games do thier best to draw the viewer in, to make thier stories plausible. When they fail, its generally considered bad writing, but of course, that point varies from person to person. I think Bioware is pushing that line pretty far, making their game so single-player focused.
Maybe more importantly, I think it'd be a much better game if they used all those resources to weave a more massively multiplayer story, instead of a handful of single-player stories. The harm they do to the game also has to do with the allocation of finite resources. They used up so much of those limited development resources to craft the single-player experience, when as far as single-player experiences go, it still doesn't live up to most of their single-player games.
Great post !
Let me take a stab at an example of what you are describing.... ( a different approach )
Bioware with their "storytelling genious" says "how can we crowdsource stories", or how can we take a whole bunch of players that while doing something on their own story, somehow change/affect the stories of everyone else...
Let me give you a rudimentary example that could have been an interesting approach . . . .
1. For each mirrored "class" ( Consular-Inq, JK - Sith warrior etc etc ) results of players stories change the story of the other side.
Deeper example, I am a Jedi Knight, my job is to save some guy in some cave. I am Sith Warrior my job is to kill some guy in some cave.
1. PVE version - you can make the fight REALLY HARD for JK side if for example the SITH side has completed it more, easier ( some way to measure and count this )
or you can make if some condition exists ( Sith side did it more, faster, etc something say last 100 players ) then as JK you never get to save the guy so your quest fails and you have to go a different path on your questline...
net-net idea is that results on each side of PVE changes the path map / quests / something on the other side, even without ANY direct combat
2. PVP version - there is a chance when you go do this quest as JK, instead of NPC sith enemies, you have another player on the other side coming to kill the guy u are protecting.
( if no one is available doing quest at same time you just get NPC or whatever )
then apply 1, result of this changes questline for both of you.
That to me is an example of how to apply the fact that you have a storyline as part of a multiplayer world.
Another:
Jedi questline ( i did consular to 30 ) why not have to train someone ????? take on padawan a real person in game ???
Instead you have your own little "worm whole" questline by yourself, that no one else can change/affect at all yet its not as good as the same thing in single player RPGS....
I don't understand how they could not have thought of /implemented anything that applies storytelling to a multiplayer environment...
Personally, if TOR has 5 million subs then, I don't think it means much. They are like WoW, they are polished, they have some nice innovations...and when was the last time a really polished MMO came along? Hmm, pretty much WoW, right? The market is so lacking in competition that TOR could easily grab millions of subs. It doesn't mean they have the best model.
I'm hoping the lack of competition isn't the case anymore in 3-6 months, but its looking like it's be a bit longer than that. As far as the WoW comparison, I have to disagree, though. I don't see TOR being on the same level, anymore than some past MMOs that have come along. I think Bioware's timing is just better, mostly, because Blizzard is finally losing some ground. They seem to be marketting the game exceptionally well too, but I don't feel they back it up well, when it comes down to the lackluster gameplay.
I'm just trying to avoid getting into my personal preferences too much, in regards to TOR's model. I know that it is what it is, and feel its just too easy to get into discussions about our ideal MMO and it no longer having anything to do with TOR. Discussing TOR's potential popularity feels a little more on-topic, I guess.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
To the point many have been making about the single player storylines not being up to the level of ME/DA etc.... I agree completely.
I tested august on and was told some things ( that make the bioware games fun/different ) were in the game and they took out including the fact that now:
1. Everyone gets the same companions ( I think this was always this way, not sure )
2. You can't ever lose a companion ( this was changed at some point during beta )
3. They also said in interviews and such that your choices would really matter. Well, they don't at all ... other than I am dark 1 or 2 or whatever and now what do I wear.... You would expect if you went all dark side as a JK, in a compelling storytelling setting that you would actually switch sides or something other than an OPTIONAL visual appearance change.
To the point many have been making about the single player storylines not being up to the level of ME/DA etc.... I agree completely.
I tested august on and was told some things ( that make the bioware games fun/different ) were in the game and they took out including the fact that now:
1. Everyone gets the same companions ( I think this was always this way, not sure )
2. You can't ever lose a companion ( this was changed at some point during beta )
3. They also said in interviews and such that your choices would really matter. Well, they don't at all ... other than I am dark 1 or 2 or whatever and now what do I wear.... You would expect if you went all dark side as a JK, in a compelling storytelling setting that you would actually switch sides or something other than an OPTIONAL visual appearance change.
for #3 I really am hard pressed to wonder why they did not try and implement a "flag" system if you will much like there other games and fable. In a way they did since your reactions have effects on how your companion reacts towards you but not much else. The issue is the only NPC's in the world that are really interactive and not placed statues are the quest givers. If they populated the cities npc's that had at least simpilist forms of AI they could improve upon this system. You could go to a planet and through your time questing there say you decide to kill some respected people in a certain town well now that entire town could be against you. Even guards could attack you on site(like fable and such). It would do leaps and bounds in making the world more alive and add a lot more immersion to the story and allow your actions in the dialog to make a lasting impact.
2. It has skills that can be clicked or one could spaz out on the number keys..
3. It has an "MP" mechanic, renamed for each class..
4. It has collection quests, it has activate object quests, it has waypoint quests...
5. It has an xp and level system..
6. It has skill trees..
7. It has LOS but also an auto target system..
8. It has instances..
9. It has raids..
And back to number 1, its an MMORPG..
If you prefer action games, you should look elsewhere..
If you prefer first person shooters, you should look elsewhere..
If you prefer a sandbox, you should look elsewhere..
If you prefer a space flight simulator, you should look elsewhere..
If you dislike any of the features listed above to the point you'd frequent a forum to tell us so, then you should probably look elsewhere..
MMORPG can have action mechanics, first person mechanics, sandbox mechanics, or any or all of those other things. Nor does an MMORPG imply that it must use Holy Trinity mechanics.
Yeah but to EXPECT every MMORPG to be a blend of those other genres is not really fair.. And its the sole reason why this genre is losing its identity.. because everyone wants it blended.. And now we have MMO Golf..
When Marvel vs Capcom 3 came out, you didnt hear people screaming how much they wanted to be able to click skills on a hotbar.. nor in a Call of Duty forum have I ever heard someone cry about not being able to throw down their guns and execute combos and get ring outs..
There are certain mechanics that make a genre, a genre.. Fighting games will always be fighting games and shooters will be shooters.. CAN they blend? Sure they could, but should their fans expect them to ALWAYS blend? I wouldn't think so..
When Nintendo came out with the "NEW" super Mario bro's on handheld, they could have made it a shooter, or even a role playing game.. but then it wouldn't have truly been a platformer..
I mean it's fine to want something different, but some of us enjoy what we have in our genre, thats why I play them.. Either wait for something that is more your cup of tea, or simple play something thats worth while to you..
And you can overspecify what is necessary to be a game of a particular genre. You could require a platformer must have jumping on people's heads as an attack, or an FPS must have regenerating health, or an MMORPG must be a themepark/use HT mechanics/can't have action elements/etc.
You have overspecified what makes an MMORPG an MMORPG. I merely pointed that out. I was pointing out there are a large number of paths one can take in making an MMORPG. There's no reason for one to resemble another all that much...certainly no more than say Dragon Age: Origins resembles Skyrim or a Final Fantasy title.
Btw, if people want to play a golf MMO, then there's no reason they shouldn't play it. It might sound odd to you or me, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. It certainly doesn't hurt people who like other kinds MMOs.
Now Bob, I never said no one should enjoy a golf MMO, i was just stating that it is outside of the genre's norm and if WE (the traditionals) don't want to play it we shouldn't have to either..
I am not taking away your entitlement to do whatever you want guy, I am just saying that you guys attempt to make every game seem so "bad" because it wants to be traditional.. Some people like traditional. We heard all the same complaints during Rift launch, how it was the "same ol' same ol".. It's okay, we get your point, but you guys make it a point to say the same thing every single time a new game is launched.. I should have ignored the comment but I simply must understand what drives you guys on your political campaign against the fact that some of us find this and other games like it to be highly enjoyable?
But do not get me wrong, any developer can make whatever they want to make and slap any genre label on it.. But they and people like yourself should not get so angry when folks prefer it the traditional way..
Who the heck is saying you have to play any game? That's a total non-sequitor and has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Are people coming to your door and demanding you play MMOs that you don't want to? No? Then why even bring this up?
What's this thread about? What TOR is like. Does it make sense to discuss how it is like games like WoW then? Does it make sense to talk about how it isn't innovative in its combat mechanics? Yes and yes. This isn't a "campaign" against anything except misconceptions. I also pointed out that your list of what makes an MMORPG is simply poorly conceived...at best it is a list of what YOU like to see in an MMORPG, which is totally different and generally not helpful to people reading this thread to get an idea of what TOR is like.
So just don't act like "Doing it the WoW way" is the only way to do things and the only right way to be an MMORPG.
Edit: And if you are going to call someone a name, you might as well use the name they post with, not a generic one. There's no need to sound dismissive, Vyeth.
Well if there is one thing you should have taken from my list is that it does little if anything different at all.. If you hate it for those reasons, then you should not play it. That was my statement. Did I expect to get into a forum rumble over it? Not really, but then again who would disagree with me on the fact that there are some things which haven't changed in the industry for years? That must make it 'traditional'. And while "WoW" may be your only reference to what an MMO is, it is not for me. Sure, they al have some things in common, but to me that is what makes it a traditional MMORPG and that is why I like it.
And from what I read over these forums over and over again is how it is "just like WoW".. Why is that such a problem?
Edit: And you really didn't even have to respond to the name 'Bob'.. I don't know you and as far as I am concerned your 'forum' name is just as generic as the rest of us. So no need to take it personal, even if you felt attacked by the name, I simply just applied an anonymous name to an anonymous figure. If you'd prefer I'd just call you John as in John Doe. And I am quite sure you understand the usage of that right?
Even guards could attack you on site(like fable and such). It would do leaps and bounds in making the world more alive and add a lot more immersion to the story and allow your actions in the dialog to make a lasting impact.
I think it would tend to make "bad guy" a much harder role to live with than "good guy".
MMOs with realistic penalties don't really do all that well. Lots of people like to PK. Few of them want to see any consequence from it.
I actually find Evil in MMOs a rather hollow role; regardless of your Nefarious and Dastardly actions, nothing bad ever happens to you because of it.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Even guards could attack you on site(like fable and such). It would do leaps and bounds in making the world more alive and add a lot more immersion to the story and allow your actions in the dialog to make a lasting impact.
I think i would tend to make "bad guy" a much harder role to live with than "good guy".
MMOs with realistic penalties don't really do all that well. Lots of people like to PK. Few of them want to see any consequence from it.
true but even pvp mmos such as lineage 2 have in a pretty harsh system for pkers now. i really don't see it being a problem that dark side would be more of a challenge in some respecs it would also make it a hell of a lot more fun. MMO's in general are very very simple in the first place. Guess maybe we'll have to wait for the next gen MMO's to come out to expect a system like this...
I've been a beta tester for SWTOR for four months and will add this:
1.) Based on my experience I will definately be playing SWTOR as my main MMO. Why? Because I haven't had fun or enjoyed an MMO in a while. LOTRO (my former MMO) has turned into a money grab/customer abuse festival and has, for three years, given players the same grind to do repeatedly. Star Wars has none of that and is fun.
2.) I have seen improvements from build to build. In testing the current release candidate the performance issues some have noted in this thread are gone.
3.) I disagree about the "kill ten rats" thing. The voice-overs and conversations drastically change the same ol, same ol. In addition, because of this system a single quest can have three to four different ways to complete it and different outcomes. This isn't something seen in a lot of MMOs (any that I am aware of anyway).
4.) There is a massive amount of content at launch and, like most MMOs, judgement should really be reserved for after the first major patches, content updates and expansions. I think Bioware will do just fine here.
5.) The comments about the limited classes is complete horse-pucky. There are eight classes per side (the advanced classes are the real class, not the starter classes), with three different trees of specialization. There is plenty of variety at launch.
6.) Many of my LOTRO kin were in the weekend tests (I was the only long term). Just about my entire kin is jumping ship and moving to SWTOR on launch. Why? Because they all had a ton of fun. What is interesting, is one of those members is an abosulte LOTR lore junkie and not at all into Star Wars and even he is jumping into SWTOR because of the absolute fun he had on beta weekends. This speaks volumes for what Bioware has created.
Others are entitled to their opinions, but my observation on the SWTOR testing forums is that more players favor the game than dislike it. Heck, a poll was done during this time and with over 3,000 responses more than 2,800 said they will definately play and a little over 200 said they wouldn't. Bioware making a game that 90% of MMO players want to play is a big hit in my book.
In the end, all that matters is people having fun - and that is what Bioware has brought back to a grind-obessessed MMO space that players are down right sick to death of. I wish SWTOR the best of success.
SW:TOR brings you aspects of Single Player RPG's such as Mass Effect and Dragon Age (voice work, 'followers' and dialogue choices) but left out others (Engaging combat being the biggest). That sounds awesome still, until you see the MMO part of the game is, to be completely honest, lackluster. The only content they have in the game aside from a cut down version of Story driven content that you see in Mass Effect of Dragon Age is the same kind of content MMORPG's have had for the last decade.
I've played the beta, I got off the first planet thinking things would get better. They did, but it was still a very poor showing imo. What they have done is try to combine elements from other games and mashed them together. The Story doesn't tie in with the setting (Everyone looks similar, on the same similar quests with the same similar companions.) and you are constantly reminded that you are in an MMO and doing the exact same thing as everyone else. It's almost as if the Story and MMO aspects of the game are having a punch-out with each other, they are both trying to grab your attention at the expense of each other. Other secondary elements of story driven games that help mesh the game world together (Attention to details, food on tables.. things lying amongst rubble.. people talking about recent events and dialogue changing dependant upon your own progress.. all those small things we think we don't notice when playing games like Skyrim and Fallout) and enhance the story are completely missing aside from the music itself which was quite good imo.
At the end of the day I got the impression the game didn't know what it wanted to be, a traditional MMO.. or a single player story driven RPG. They dropped the ball when making the game somewhere. It's like picking up WoW and adding in a large story line for each class that has a few dialogue options here and there that might make a slight difference. After you look past that.. the rest of the game got nothing more from me than a 'meh' feeling. I've been there, I've done it.. Why do I want to play a new game that plays the exact same as the last 5 I've tried?
If the game was not Star Wars and was not made by Bioware this would have been a novelty at best. It would have been overlooked by the huge majority or flat out dismissed and would ultimately not have been a big deal at all. From what I have experienced personally, RIFT nailed the traditional MMORPG feel better than SWTOR is. And the worst part about it for me is that the one thing SWTOR does differently doesn't play as well as a Single Player RPG does and it doesn't add anything to the MMO part of the MMORPG.
You would think after a decade of content and a few hundred million to throw at a game someone somewhere would come up with something a bit more exciting than patching in a storyline to an MMO.
I can't help but think if they should have approached the design from the opposite end. Rather than try import elements of games like ME, Skyrim and DA into an MMO they should have tried to import the MMO into ME, Skyrim and DA (But in the Star Wars universe of course!)
3.) I disagree about the "kill ten rats" thing. The voice-overs and conversations drastically change the same ol, same ol. In addition, because of this system a single quest can have three to four different ways to complete it and different outcomes. This isn't something seen in a lot of MMOs (any that I am aware of anyway).
I wish the game to do well also with couple changes here and there but this one point sort of gets to me. Yes i have not gotten far into the story but in the starter planets a lot of the quests are the same generic stuff you get in any other MMO but with a few choices and some flashy dialog. They are polishing a "turd" if you will and in the end it's still a turd. Ill give you an example In the sith warrior starter area you do a quest to help this guy kill a large worm thing and retireve its brain. Now the assistant tells you the guy is crazy and wants you to give her the brain instead to set the master up and have him put away. So you got off to a very generic looking dungeon kill the worm to get the brain. Now honestly this quest wouldn't be bad if your choice had any effect on the game at all but once it's done no matter which way you go the assistant will go back to her table and the master continues to do what he was doing.
This is no differn't than any other MMO were you do quests for villages or towns like finding a dead family member who wandered out in some cave or helping a couple of npcs pass love notes, at the end of the day it has no effect on the actual world and it's just a way to level up and get new skills to move on to the next area. It's more of the same with a polish of VO.
Granted later on I watched some videos and saw some interesting quest dialog but without having and real impact on your characters perception in the world other than some gear and your companion yelling at you nothing you choose matters. Now I know thats fine for a lot of people and most seem to be enjoying it just fine. Just think little more could have been brought to the table in regards of the choice based questing and hopefully in this it will be expanded upon to add more lasting effects.
3.) I disagree about the "kill ten rats" thing. The voice-overs and conversations drastically change the same ol, same ol. In addition, because of this system a single quest can have three to four different ways to complete it and different outcomes. This isn't something seen in a lot of MMOs (any that I am aware of anyway).
I wish the game to do well also with couple changes here and there but this one point sort of gets to me. Yes i have not gotten far into the story but in the starter planets a lot of the quests are the same generic stuff you get in any other MMO but with a few choices and some flashy dialog. They are polishing a "turd" if you will and in the end it's still a turd. Ill give you an example In the sith warrior starter area you do a quest to help this guy kill a large worm thing and retireve its brain. Now the assistant tells you the guy is crazy and wants you to give her the brain instead to set the master up and have him put away. So you got off to a very generic looking dungeon kill the worm to get the brain. Now honestly this quest wouldn't be bad if your choice had any effect on the game at all but once it's done no matter which way you go the assistant will go back to her table and the master continues to do what he was doing.
This is no differn't than any other MMO were you do quests for villages or towns like finding a dead family member who wandered out in some cave or helping a couple of npcs pass love notes, at the end of the day it has no effect on the actual world and it's just a way to level up and get new skills to move on to the next area. It's more of the same with a polish of VO.
Granted later on I watched some videos and saw some interesting quest dialog but without having and real impact on your characters perception in the world other than some gear and your companion yelling at you nothing you choose matters. Now I know thats fine for a lot of people and most seem to be enjoying it just fine. Just think little more could have been brought to the table in regards of the choice based questing and hopefully in this it will be expanded upon to add more lasting effects.
That quest was quite bizarre on a Dark Side and Light Side level.
Is setting the guy up light side because he's doing dark side research? Is it light side because he's incompetent? Is it light side because he's actually doing legitimate research and you are stopping him? These questions aren't answered and honestly without that and possibly with an answer light or dark there could potentially go either way.
It bugged me when I did it. (It also bugged me when as a Inquisitor complimenting your "teacher" at the end was Light Side. Eh, telling the guy who just got a whole bunch of people killed "nice work" is light and no other option is? There are some oddities to be sure)
It's true you don't get to see the effect of your actions much. Heck, in the instanced areas where you get things done, you can't go back and see the changes to NPCs either because it'll turn red.
Some solutions could be worked out, some compromises made, but that's part of making the transition from single-player to multi-player. To refuse to make any compromises and focus on the single-player experience to the exclusion of the multiplayer experience.. is a risky approach to making an MMO, at best.
If TOR still has over a million subs 3-6 months from now, I'll the first to admit how wrong I've been to doubt them. I won't be playing it myself, but I'll openly apologize to Bioware and their fans, before moving on to talk about how GW2 or TSW could have been better, instead
Personally, if TOR has 5 million subs then, I don't think it means much. They are like WoW, they are polished, they have some nice innovations...and when was the last time a really polished MMO came along? Hmm, pretty much WoW, right? The market is so lacking in competition that TOR could easily grab millions of subs. It doesn't mean they have the best model.
That depends on what you mean by "best." If you're talking about best in terms of how well it fits your personal tastes, there is no point in using the word in conversation with other people, because everybody has different taste. If you mean best as in most commercially viable, it's entirely possible that it will end up being the best currently existing model.
Originally posted by Drachasor
You could have "Kill the current captain of whatever regiment" quest. That guy could have a randomly generated name of "Bob Bobbard" with trillions of possible names. You could have the world actually change when you do that in a GW2 style or even go with a sort of RTS-like AI for various AI groups of enemies that governs how they move their forces, what resources they try to control, etc, etc, and moves against the them change the world and cause the AI to respond in some manner.
Is that a sandbox? Hmm, I don't think so. You can still have rides. There'd be points of significance, resources would still matter, something could be done pretty easily to guarantee something is going on there at all times. You just don't know what "ride" is at a given location, but you can guarantee there's always another ride not far away from any given character. Again, similar to GW2 (though there's certainly room for lots of improvement in their model as nice as it is).
I don't think heavy scripting is necessary for a themepark. Otherwise some tweaks to GW2 and suddenly it's not a themepark, and that seems pretty arbitrary.
Now, could you have fully detailed voice overs for everything and give lots of choices regarding specific people? Not with today's technology. TOR went another way. I am just saying that what they did isn't the only way to go, and in another 10 years you could probably have voices be automatically generated by a computer allowing a lot more options for a game with full voice-overs.
Is it the only way to go in making a quality MMO? No. Is it the only way to go in making a quality narrative driven RPG, with today's technology? I would have to say yes. And if a company wants to carve out a large, solid niche for itself, it needs to have a hook. TOR's hook is being the first MMO that offers a highly polished, well implemented narrative driven RPG experience.
Originally posted by Vhaln
Originally posted by CazNeerg
Originally posted by Vhaln
Some solutions could be worked out, some compromises made, but that's part of making the transition from single-player to multi-player. To refuse to make any compromises and focus on the single-player experience to the exclusion of the multiplayer experience.. is a risky approach to making an MMO, at best.
Maybe you can explain this to me. How, exactly, does increasing the quality of the individual character's story *necessarily* harm the multiplayer experience? Which multiplayer aspects of the game would become automatically and immediately more enjoyable as the result of removing the class stories?
I've never understood that logic, that somehow you are "harming" one aspect of a game when you improve the quality of a different aspect of the game.
Some players want to feel part of the gameworld, a shared gameworld, and they want the gameplay to focus on that. That means quests that acknowledge the number of people who will be doing them, and can be plausible as such, rather than making no sense in the MMO environment. That does harm the whole experience for some of us.
It comes back to Suspension of Disbelief, as has already been mentioned. You can always argue that people can believe whatever they want in a story, but its pretty widely accepted that this just isn't realistic. Writers of everything from comic books to major movies to video games do thier best to draw the viewer in, to make thier stories plausible. When they fail, its generally considered bad writing, but of course, that point varies from person to person. I think Bioware is pushing that line pretty far, making their game so single-player focused.
Maybe more importantly, I think it'd be a much better game if they used all those resources to weave a more massively multiplayer story, instead of a handful of single-player stories. The harm they do to the game also has to do with the allocation of finite resources. They used up so much of those limited development resources to craft the single-player experience, when as far as single-player experiences go, it still doesn't live up to most of their single-player games.
Just to clarify, you do realize that by the standard you are articulating here, pretty much every themepark MMO, including WoW, fails just as much as TOR does? It's more a criticism of the genre these games are a part of than it is a criticism of this particular game. Other themeparks don't have stories that are any "more multiplayer," their "single player" nature is just implemented through bad writing and text boxes, which makes it easier to ignore.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
The VO only camouflage the kill ten rats quests, but after a while (depends on each player) everybody will skip it, trust me, so we will get those innovative kill ten rats from every bad crap mmo out of there
Just to clarify, you do realize that by the standard you are articulating here, pretty much every themepark MMO, including WoW, fails just as much as TOR does? It's more a criticism of the genre these games are a part of than it is a criticism of this particular game. Other themeparks don't have stories that are any "more multiplayer," their "single player" nature is just implemented through bad writing and text boxes, which makes it easier to ignore.
Yes, but only TOR focuses on those stories to such an extreme, that they've neglected the game on almost every other level. Combat and animations, character customization and race diversity, immersive map design and detailing, roleplaying fluff, day/night cycles, etc, etc - all these things that most other major MMOs put more effort into, so that their implausible quest stories aren't the entire focus of the game.
Even with all the resources at their disposal, they still had to make choices on how to spend it, and they clearly chose to spend an inordinate percentage of it on creating stories that don't make any sense.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Yes, but only TOR focuses on those stories to such an extreme, that they've neglected the game on almost every other level. Combat and animations, character customization and race diversity, immersive map design and detailing, roleplaying fluff, day/night cycles, etc, etc - all these things that most other major MMOs put more effort into, so that their implausible quest stories aren't the entire focus of the game.
Even with all the resources at their disposal, they still had to make choices on how to spend it, and they clearly chose to spend an inordinate percentage of it on creating stories that don't make any sense.
You're relying on a fundamentally flawed assumption here; that their design decisions were driven solely by their available funds. It's entirely possible that every one of the "MMO elements" in the game is how it is because that is how they want it to be, not because money that could have been spent there was spent somewhere else. In fact, given BioWare's track record, that is almost certainly the case. This is not a company that has *ever* focused on innovative or compelling gameplay, their goal with gameplay has always been to make sure it is solid and functional so that it doesn't distract from the core of their games; the story.
So far, and there is no offense intended here, I'm just trying to give an accurate description, all of your issues with the game are consistent with my theory presented in the OP. Every one of them is something that can be applied to all themepark games, all BioWare games, or both. You are offering reasons why you think the very concept of a story-driven themepark is bad, not reasons to believe that TOR is a poorly constructed specimen of a story-driven themepark.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
Comments
There are lots of problems with a system like that. It would never generate a narrative of the same quality as a specifically crafted one, and it wouldn't work with full voiceover, to name a couple. There are tons of approaches that work if you don't care at all about the quality of the writing or the presentation, but there really aren't very many ways to do it if you want a fully implemented, compelling narrative experience.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
Other things that matter tend to have more to do with longevity. Lots of games can be fun at first, but there are all sorts of flaws that can shorten how long a game stays fun. "Innovation" might sound like the latest empty buzz word, but it has a lot to do with keeping a game from feeling stale, almost right off the shelf, to people who have played similar games before. It's about trying to make a game that will keep up with the market, and stay fun for as long as possible.
I come to forums like this to discuss that sort of thing. I like debating the issues this genre has, and thinking about how it could be better. I don't understand people that just want to come to forums to cheer about their favorite game and make joke threads.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Some solutions could be worked out, some compromises made, but that's part of making the transition from single-player to multi-player. To refuse to make any compromises and focus on the single-player experience to the exclusion of the multiplayer experience.. is a risky approach to making an MMO, at best.
If TOR still has over a million subs 3-6 months from now, I'll the first to admit how wrong I've been to doubt them. I won't be playing it myself, but I'll openly apologize to Bioware and their fans, before moving on to talk about how GW2 or TSW could have been better, instead
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Maybe you can explain this to me. How, exactly, does increasing the quality of the individual character's story *necessarily* harm the multiplayer experience? Which multiplayer aspects of the game would become automatically and immediately more enjoyable as the result of removing the class stories?
I've never understood that logic, that somehow you are "harming" one aspect of a game when you improve the quality of a different aspect of the game.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
Because everything I have said thus far means that MMORPG - hotbar. Not quite my friend, not quite.. But it IS a traditional feature of the MMORPG, going back to its earlier graphical days and the HUD mechanics.. It's a feature that does not bother me so much that a developer would use such mechanics in their own product.. I don't expect all new MMORPG releases to require combo button sequences and active rolling and flipping. If they do, that's fine I will not rage at whoever enjoys such endeavors.. But I like and rather prefer the "old style" of graphical MMORPG's with clicks and "dice rolls"..
I think we are both saying the same thing but I think bioware's design approach was poor in the coupling.
For example, I would have been happy with WoW @ release complexity, world design,size,depth and add in personal questlines with voiceovers and lightsabres.
What we have instead is:
a. A watered down WoW and
b. A Watered down DA / ME
For me = BLEH
----
This is why what I belive they did was ( which wow did but successfully in a different way )
How can we get gamers from as many different genres as possible to play this game and make the most dough ? well lets give each "genre" a piece of what they are used to
= watered down experience for all. Welcome to AAA MMO development.
What WoW did well was keep quite a bit of the world + RPG complexity with amazing stability and great/fun combat. That is it was good enough in both FPS style ( combat was great ) and RPG complexity to keep both gnere customers interested. This is what these companies are trying to capture and no one is close because they either cut one part short or the other, WoW did both very well.
Now SWTOR has attempted to add a 3rd piece in the personal story so you have
watered down from wow RPG complexity + world ( on rails )
Very very fluid combat ( probably best thing SWTOR has going for it tbh )
Personal story RPG watered down from bioware single player titles.
So again, they are beefing up the piece of the product they are trying to draw more poeple with, combat... which is again FPS type games/gamers.
I also want to say that I am a huge Star wars fan and have played just about every major MMO at release over the last 6-7 years or so and I am skipping TOR. Why ? because it was not deep enough in any of the aforementioned areas to keep me interested past 30.
Tried to level another character and again, I couldn't take the same areas again, in the same order with zero choice.
Some players want to feel part of the gameworld, a shared gameworld, and they want the gameplay to focus on that. That means quests that acknowledge the number of people who will be doing them, and can be plausible as such, rather than making no sense in the MMO environment. That does harm the whole experience for some of us.
It comes back to Suspension of Disbelief, as has already been mentioned. You can always argue that people can believe whatever they want in a story, but its pretty widely accepted that this just isn't realistic. Writers of everything from comic books to major movies to video games do thier best to draw the viewer in, to make thier stories plausible. When they fail, its generally considered bad writing, but of course, that point varies from person to person. I think Bioware is pushing that line pretty far, making their game so single-player focused.
Maybe more importantly, I think it'd be a much better game if they used all those resources to weave a more massively multiplayer story, instead of a handful of single-player stories. The harm they do to the game also has to do with the allocation of finite resources. They used up so much of those limited development resources to craft the single-player experience, when as far as single-player experiences go, it still doesn't live up to most of their single-player games.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
You could have "Kill the current captain of whatever regiment" quest. That guy could have a randomly generated name of "Bob Bobbard" with trillions of possible names. You could have the world actually change when you do that in a GW2 style or even go with a sort of RTS-like AI for various AI groups of enemies that governs how they move their forces, what resources they try to control, etc, etc, and moves against the them change the world and cause the AI to respond in some manner.
Is that a sandbox? Hmm, I don't think so. You can still have rides. There'd be points of significance, resources would still matter, something could be done pretty easily to guarantee something is going on there at all times. You just don't know what "ride" is at a given location, but you can guarantee there's always another ride not far away from any given character. Again, similar to GW2 (though there's certainly room for lots of improvement in their model as nice as it is).
I don't think heavy scripting is necessary for a themepark. Otherwise some tweaks to GW2 and suddenly it's not a themepark, and that seems pretty arbitrary.
Now, could you have fully detailed voice overs for everything and give lots of choices regarding specific people? Not with today's technology. TOR went another way. I am just saying that what they did isn't the only way to go, and in another 10 years you could probably have voices be automatically generated by a computer allowing a lot more options for a game with full voice-overs.
Personally, if TOR has 5 million subs then, I don't think it means much. They are like WoW, they are polished, they have some nice innovations...and when was the last time a really polished MMO came along? Hmm, pretty much WoW, right? The market is so lacking in competition that TOR could easily grab millions of subs. It doesn't mean they have the best model.
Who the heck is saying you have to play any game? That's a total non-sequitor and has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Are people coming to your door and demanding you play MMOs that you don't want to? No? Then why even bring this up?
What's this thread about? What TOR is like. Does it make sense to discuss how it is like games like WoW then? Does it make sense to talk about how it isn't innovative in its combat mechanics? Yes and yes. This isn't a "campaign" against anything except misconceptions. I also pointed out that your list of what makes an MMORPG is simply poorly conceived...at best it is a list of what YOU like to see in an MMORPG, which is totally different and generally not helpful to people reading this thread to get an idea of what TOR is like.
So just don't act like "Doing it the WoW way" is the only way to do things and the only right way to be an MMORPG.
Edit: And if you are going to call someone a name, you might as well use the name they post with, not a generic one. There's no need to sound dismissive, Vyeth.
Great post !
Let me take a stab at an example of what you are describing.... ( a different approach )
Bioware with their "storytelling genious" says "how can we crowdsource stories", or how can we take a whole bunch of players that while doing something on their own story, somehow change/affect the stories of everyone else...
Let me give you a rudimentary example that could have been an interesting approach . . . .
1. For each mirrored "class" ( Consular-Inq, JK - Sith warrior etc etc ) results of players stories change the story of the other side.
Deeper example, I am a Jedi Knight, my job is to save some guy in some cave. I am Sith Warrior my job is to kill some guy in some cave.
1. PVE version - you can make the fight REALLY HARD for JK side if for example the SITH side has completed it more, easier ( some way to measure and count this )
or you can make if some condition exists ( Sith side did it more, faster, etc something say last 100 players ) then as JK you never get to save the guy so your quest fails and you have to go a different path on your questline...
net-net idea is that results on each side of PVE changes the path map / quests / something on the other side, even without ANY direct combat
2. PVP version - there is a chance when you go do this quest as JK, instead of NPC sith enemies, you have another player on the other side coming to kill the guy u are protecting.
( if no one is available doing quest at same time you just get NPC or whatever )
then apply 1, result of this changes questline for both of you.
That to me is an example of how to apply the fact that you have a storyline as part of a multiplayer world.
Another:
Jedi questline ( i did consular to 30 ) why not have to train someone ????? take on padawan a real person in game ???
Instead you have your own little "worm whole" questline by yourself, that no one else can change/affect at all yet its not as good as the same thing in single player RPGS....
I don't understand how they could not have thought of /implemented anything that applies storytelling to a multiplayer environment...
I'm hoping the lack of competition isn't the case anymore in 3-6 months, but its looking like it's be a bit longer than that. As far as the WoW comparison, I have to disagree, though. I don't see TOR being on the same level, anymore than some past MMOs that have come along. I think Bioware's timing is just better, mostly, because Blizzard is finally losing some ground. They seem to be marketting the game exceptionally well too, but I don't feel they back it up well, when it comes down to the lackluster gameplay.
I'm just trying to avoid getting into my personal preferences too much, in regards to TOR's model. I know that it is what it is, and feel its just too easy to get into discussions about our ideal MMO and it no longer having anything to do with TOR. Discussing TOR's potential popularity feels a little more on-topic, I guess.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
To the point many have been making about the single player storylines not being up to the level of ME/DA etc.... I agree completely.
I tested august on and was told some things ( that make the bioware games fun/different ) were in the game and they took out including the fact that now:
1. Everyone gets the same companions ( I think this was always this way, not sure )
2. You can't ever lose a companion ( this was changed at some point during beta )
3. They also said in interviews and such that your choices would really matter. Well, they don't at all ... other than I am dark 1 or 2 or whatever and now what do I wear.... You would expect if you went all dark side as a JK, in a compelling storytelling setting that you would actually switch sides or something other than an OPTIONAL visual appearance change.
for #3 I really am hard pressed to wonder why they did not try and implement a "flag" system if you will much like there other games and fable. In a way they did since your reactions have effects on how your companion reacts towards you but not much else. The issue is the only NPC's in the world that are really interactive and not placed statues are the quest givers. If they populated the cities npc's that had at least simpilist forms of AI they could improve upon this system. You could go to a planet and through your time questing there say you decide to kill some respected people in a certain town well now that entire town could be against you. Even guards could attack you on site(like fable and such). It would do leaps and bounds in making the world more alive and add a lot more immersion to the story and allow your actions in the dialog to make a lasting impact.
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/339443/Video-FollowUp-Guide-For-Enhancing-Graphics-and-Performance-in-SWTORSorry-still-Nvidia-Only.html
Well if there is one thing you should have taken from my list is that it does little if anything different at all.. If you hate it for those reasons, then you should not play it. That was my statement. Did I expect to get into a forum rumble over it? Not really, but then again who would disagree with me on the fact that there are some things which haven't changed in the industry for years? That must make it 'traditional'. And while "WoW" may be your only reference to what an MMO is, it is not for me. Sure, they al have some things in common, but to me that is what makes it a traditional MMORPG and that is why I like it.
And from what I read over these forums over and over again is how it is "just like WoW".. Why is that such a problem?
Edit: And you really didn't even have to respond to the name 'Bob'.. I don't know you and as far as I am concerned your 'forum' name is just as generic as the rest of us. So no need to take it personal, even if you felt attacked by the name, I simply just applied an anonymous name to an anonymous figure. If you'd prefer I'd just call you John as in John Doe. And I am quite sure you understand the usage of that right?
I think it would tend to make "bad guy" a much harder role to live with than "good guy".
MMOs with realistic penalties don't really do all that well. Lots of people like to PK. Few of them want to see any consequence from it.
I actually find Evil in MMOs a rather hollow role; regardless of your Nefarious and Dastardly actions, nothing bad ever happens to you because of it.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
true but even pvp mmos such as lineage 2 have in a pretty harsh system for pkers now. i really don't see it being a problem that dark side would be more of a challenge in some respecs it would also make it a hell of a lot more fun. MMO's in general are very very simple in the first place. Guess maybe we'll have to wait for the next gen MMO's to come out to expect a system like this...
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/339443/Video-FollowUp-Guide-For-Enhancing-Graphics-and-Performance-in-SWTORSorry-still-Nvidia-Only.html
I've been a beta tester for SWTOR for four months and will add this:
1.) Based on my experience I will definately be playing SWTOR as my main MMO. Why? Because I haven't had fun or enjoyed an MMO in a while. LOTRO (my former MMO) has turned into a money grab/customer abuse festival and has, for three years, given players the same grind to do repeatedly. Star Wars has none of that and is fun.
2.) I have seen improvements from build to build. In testing the current release candidate the performance issues some have noted in this thread are gone.
3.) I disagree about the "kill ten rats" thing. The voice-overs and conversations drastically change the same ol, same ol. In addition, because of this system a single quest can have three to four different ways to complete it and different outcomes. This isn't something seen in a lot of MMOs (any that I am aware of anyway).
4.) There is a massive amount of content at launch and, like most MMOs, judgement should really be reserved for after the first major patches, content updates and expansions. I think Bioware will do just fine here.
5.) The comments about the limited classes is complete horse-pucky. There are eight classes per side (the advanced classes are the real class, not the starter classes), with three different trees of specialization. There is plenty of variety at launch.
6.) Many of my LOTRO kin were in the weekend tests (I was the only long term). Just about my entire kin is jumping ship and moving to SWTOR on launch. Why? Because they all had a ton of fun. What is interesting, is one of those members is an abosulte LOTR lore junkie and not at all into Star Wars and even he is jumping into SWTOR because of the absolute fun he had on beta weekends. This speaks volumes for what Bioware has created.
Others are entitled to their opinions, but my observation on the SWTOR testing forums is that more players favor the game than dislike it. Heck, a poll was done during this time and with over 3,000 responses more than 2,800 said they will definately play and a little over 200 said they wouldn't. Bioware making a game that 90% of MMO players want to play is a big hit in my book.
In the end, all that matters is people having fun - and that is what Bioware has brought back to a grind-obessessed MMO space that players are down right sick to death of. I wish SWTOR the best of success.
The bottom line, for me personally, is this;
SW:TOR brings you aspects of Single Player RPG's such as Mass Effect and Dragon Age (voice work, 'followers' and dialogue choices) but left out others (Engaging combat being the biggest). That sounds awesome still, until you see the MMO part of the game is, to be completely honest, lackluster. The only content they have in the game aside from a cut down version of Story driven content that you see in Mass Effect of Dragon Age is the same kind of content MMORPG's have had for the last decade.
I've played the beta, I got off the first planet thinking things would get better. They did, but it was still a very poor showing imo. What they have done is try to combine elements from other games and mashed them together. The Story doesn't tie in with the setting (Everyone looks similar, on the same similar quests with the same similar companions.) and you are constantly reminded that you are in an MMO and doing the exact same thing as everyone else. It's almost as if the Story and MMO aspects of the game are having a punch-out with each other, they are both trying to grab your attention at the expense of each other. Other secondary elements of story driven games that help mesh the game world together (Attention to details, food on tables.. things lying amongst rubble.. people talking about recent events and dialogue changing dependant upon your own progress.. all those small things we think we don't notice when playing games like Skyrim and Fallout) and enhance the story are completely missing aside from the music itself which was quite good imo.
At the end of the day I got the impression the game didn't know what it wanted to be, a traditional MMO.. or a single player story driven RPG. They dropped the ball when making the game somewhere. It's like picking up WoW and adding in a large story line for each class that has a few dialogue options here and there that might make a slight difference. After you look past that.. the rest of the game got nothing more from me than a 'meh' feeling. I've been there, I've done it.. Why do I want to play a new game that plays the exact same as the last 5 I've tried?
If the game was not Star Wars and was not made by Bioware this would have been a novelty at best. It would have been overlooked by the huge majority or flat out dismissed and would ultimately not have been a big deal at all. From what I have experienced personally, RIFT nailed the traditional MMORPG feel better than SWTOR is. And the worst part about it for me is that the one thing SWTOR does differently doesn't play as well as a Single Player RPG does and it doesn't add anything to the MMO part of the MMORPG.
You would think after a decade of content and a few hundred million to throw at a game someone somewhere would come up with something a bit more exciting than patching in a storyline to an MMO.
I can't help but think if they should have approached the design from the opposite end. Rather than try import elements of games like ME, Skyrim and DA into an MMO they should have tried to import the MMO into ME, Skyrim and DA (But in the Star Wars universe of course!)
I wish the game to do well also with couple changes here and there but this one point sort of gets to me. Yes i have not gotten far into the story but in the starter planets a lot of the quests are the same generic stuff you get in any other MMO but with a few choices and some flashy dialog. They are polishing a "turd" if you will and in the end it's still a turd. Ill give you an example In the sith warrior starter area you do a quest to help this guy kill a large worm thing and retireve its brain. Now the assistant tells you the guy is crazy and wants you to give her the brain instead to set the master up and have him put away. So you got off to a very generic looking dungeon kill the worm to get the brain. Now honestly this quest wouldn't be bad if your choice had any effect on the game at all but once it's done no matter which way you go the assistant will go back to her table and the master continues to do what he was doing.
This is no differn't than any other MMO were you do quests for villages or towns like finding a dead family member who wandered out in some cave or helping a couple of npcs pass love notes, at the end of the day it has no effect on the actual world and it's just a way to level up and get new skills to move on to the next area. It's more of the same with a polish of VO.
Granted later on I watched some videos and saw some interesting quest dialog but without having and real impact on your characters perception in the world other than some gear and your companion yelling at you nothing you choose matters. Now I know thats fine for a lot of people and most seem to be enjoying it just fine. Just think little more could have been brought to the table in regards of the choice based questing and hopefully in this it will be expanded upon to add more lasting effects.
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/339443/Video-FollowUp-Guide-For-Enhancing-Graphics-and-Performance-in-SWTORSorry-still-Nvidia-Only.html
That quest was quite bizarre on a Dark Side and Light Side level.
Is setting the guy up light side because he's doing dark side research? Is it light side because he's incompetent? Is it light side because he's actually doing legitimate research and you are stopping him? These questions aren't answered and honestly without that and possibly with an answer light or dark there could potentially go either way.
It bugged me when I did it. (It also bugged me when as a Inquisitor complimenting your "teacher" at the end was Light Side. Eh, telling the guy who just got a whole bunch of people killed "nice work" is light and no other option is? There are some oddities to be sure)
It's true you don't get to see the effect of your actions much. Heck, in the instanced areas where you get things done, you can't go back and see the changes to NPCs either because it'll turn red.
That depends on what you mean by "best." If you're talking about best in terms of how well it fits your personal tastes, there is no point in using the word in conversation with other people, because everybody has different taste. If you mean best as in most commercially viable, it's entirely possible that it will end up being the best currently existing model.
Is it the only way to go in making a quality MMO? No. Is it the only way to go in making a quality narrative driven RPG, with today's technology? I would have to say yes. And if a company wants to carve out a large, solid niche for itself, it needs to have a hook. TOR's hook is being the first MMO that offers a highly polished, well implemented narrative driven RPG experience.
Just to clarify, you do realize that by the standard you are articulating here, pretty much every themepark MMO, including WoW, fails just as much as TOR does? It's more a criticism of the genre these games are a part of than it is a criticism of this particular game. Other themeparks don't have stories that are any "more multiplayer," their "single player" nature is just implemented through bad writing and text boxes, which makes it easier to ignore.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
The VO only camouflage the kill ten rats quests, but after a while (depends on each player) everybody will skip it, trust me, so we will get those innovative kill ten rats from every bad crap mmo out of there
Yes, but only TOR focuses on those stories to such an extreme, that they've neglected the game on almost every other level. Combat and animations, character customization and race diversity, immersive map design and detailing, roleplaying fluff, day/night cycles, etc, etc - all these things that most other major MMOs put more effort into, so that their implausible quest stories aren't the entire focus of the game.
Even with all the resources at their disposal, they still had to make choices on how to spend it, and they clearly chose to spend an inordinate percentage of it on creating stories that don't make any sense.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
You're relying on a fundamentally flawed assumption here; that their design decisions were driven solely by their available funds. It's entirely possible that every one of the "MMO elements" in the game is how it is because that is how they want it to be, not because money that could have been spent there was spent somewhere else. In fact, given BioWare's track record, that is almost certainly the case. This is not a company that has *ever* focused on innovative or compelling gameplay, their goal with gameplay has always been to make sure it is solid and functional so that it doesn't distract from the core of their games; the story.
So far, and there is no offense intended here, I'm just trying to give an accurate description, all of your issues with the game are consistent with my theory presented in the OP. Every one of them is something that can be applied to all themepark games, all BioWare games, or both. You are offering reasons why you think the very concept of a story-driven themepark is bad, not reasons to believe that TOR is a poorly constructed specimen of a story-driven themepark.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.