I don't see how my arguments are bad. I have provided a very clear definition of a persistent world required for an mmo. Noone is debating that definition (yet) and I have shown how this applies to TOR repeatedly.
The world stays there when you log off.
Players affect the world.
Gameplay events continue in the world while I am not there.
That's all there is to it. If anyone can disprove that I'd love to see it. So far all i have seen is insults and questions. Not one single person has offered any kind of evidence that disproved what I have said.
There is a definition of it and that is pretty loose one if I have ever seen any. TOR is about as persisitant as WoW's approach to a World. In response to the OP yes up to 50. After 50 then no the game would lose its purpose and would have to be redone.
There. You know what, we have solved the problem of the lack of world persistency in mmo games. Tor did it! Lets just say all mmo have a persistent wold. So reviewers beware, there is always a persistent world in all mmos and is nonsense to say that players actions do not change the game world - we have the auction house!
SWTOR has just as much of a persistant world as any themepark game. Have you ever played a persistent world themepark? If so which one? At least then we could have something to campare and it would help explain why you don't think SWTOR is a persistant world. The definition used by the few on here arguing that it isn't persistant is applicable to every themepark starting with EQ and on to SWTOR. If the new definition of persistant = sandbox then someone get the memo written so we can pass it along and all be on the same page.
The beauty of this game is that you can have fun while soloing, due to the story and creative combat.
You can have just as much fun in a group, either doing group based content or helping each other through the regular missions and story.
You can have so much fun just grouping up with some random person while out and about. I grouped with another BH last week (I was Power Tech, he was Mercenary) and we just had a Hell of a good time running missions, and doing the heroic bosses at the ends of the bonus missions.
Plus, it's fun to get a bunch together and take down the world bosses. They drop some damn nice loot these days.
So, IMO, NO! SWTOR is a great mmorpg, and I can't wait for live.
Well, if properly translated your post could read "a great co-op RPG!" All the multiplayer stuff you love in SW:TOR could well feature in an online corpg.
Again, the only reason why it was made into the "proper" mmo is monthly subscriptions.
Imo, SW:TOR would have been as good if not a better game if it were called a co-op rpg, using a system similar to GW1 or Diablo games. But then EA couldn't ask for a monthly subscription.
That's the bottom line.
Frankly, I think with GW2 coming out, being a fully-fledged mmo with NO monthly sub, I think EA made a very costly mistake. They compromised their most attractive feature, story, by tacking on open-world mmo elements which actually detract from it (16 heroes at a quest chokepoint, oh my). At the same time the very idea that "being a proper mmo" in itself justifies a monthly sub ON TOP of the box price is on its way out. Not well played at all.
I don't see how my arguments are bad. I have provided a very clear definition of a persistent world required for an mmo. Noone is debating that definition (yet) and I have shown how this applies to TOR repeatedly.
The world stays there when you log off.
Players affect the world.
Gameplay events continue in the world while I am not there.
That's all there is to it. If anyone can disprove that I'd love to see it. So far all i have seen is insults and questions. Not one single person has offered any kind of evidence that disproved what I have said.
There is a definition of it and that is pretty loose one if I have ever seen any. TOR is about as persisitant as WoW's approach to a World. In response to the OP yes up to 50. After 50 then no the game would lose its purpose and would have to be redone.
He didn't just "make it up" he got it from wikipidia (which I know isn't really a reliable source) and this websites own definition. He has provided far more "evidence" than anyone claiming that its not a persistant world. It may not be evidence you agree with, but that's the whole issue. Going by any other definition would mean there are only sandbox mmos. Everything else is just online coop that goes dark after I log off. Have you ever played a themepark persistant world? If so which one? Why was it persistant and SWTOR isn't? I can't think of any themepark game that would qualify using the definition that some on here want to use. And i've already explained a couple of posts back why games like GW1 and D3 aren't persistant. The world doesn't go on without me being in it. Eeach area (outside of the lobby in D3 which has nothing to do with a "world" and the cities in GW1 which make up an incredibly small portion of the game) isn't there in the same way for everybody, it doesn't "form" (I know that isn't a good word to use for this, but I'm not sure of a better one) unless I zone into it nobody else is there if I don't go into it nothing is going on. Team Fortress and FPS that have levels aren't the same because the maps reset they aren't persistant by any definition. Between the time I go to bed and the time I log back into SWTOR the world doesn't "reset" each time. If I left something on the ah and it didn't sell, it is still there. If the base we captured on the pvp planet got taken over by the other side, then it switched and stays switched until my side retakes it. It doesn't "reset."
I don't see how my arguments are bad. I have provided a very clear definition of a persistent world required for an mmo. Noone is debating that definition (yet) and I have shown how this applies to TOR repeatedly.
The world stays there when you log off.
Players affect the world.
Gameplay events continue in the world while I am not there.
That's all there is to it. If anyone can disprove that I'd love to see it. So far all i have seen is insults and questions. Not one single person has offered any kind of evidence that disproved what I have said.
There is a definition of it and that is pretty loose one if I have ever seen any. TOR is about as persisitant as WoW's approach to a World. In response to the OP yes up to 50. After 50 then no the game would lose its purpose and would have to be redone.
There. You know what, we have solved the problem of the lack of world persistency in mmo games. Tor did it! Lets just say all mmo have a persistent wold. So reviewers beware, there is always a persistent world in all mmos and is nonsense to say that players actions do not change the game world - we have the auction house!
SWTOR has just as much of a persistant world as any themepark game. Have you ever played a persistent world themepark? If so which one? At least then we could have something to campare and it would help explain why you don't think SWTOR is a persistant world. The definition used by the few on here arguing that it isn't persistant is applicable to every themepark starting with EQ and on to SWTOR. If the new definition of persistant = sandbox then someone get the memo written so we can pass it along and all be on the same page.
Ok I will write only this and then I am out because this discussion is getting funny. Why the heck do you have to defend this game at all costs? Just say it: the game world in this game is simply not persistent.
I dont have a problem with that. I will play the game because is solid, story driven themepark. Enough for me. But ffs stop with this religion and acknowledge the game for what it is.
The beauty of this game is that you can have fun while soloing, due to the story and creative combat.
You can have just as much fun in a group, either doing group based content or helping each other through the regular missions and story.
You can have so much fun just grouping up with some random person while out and about. I grouped with another BH last week (I was Power Tech, he was Mercenary) and we just had a Hell of a good time running missions, and doing the heroic bosses at the ends of the bonus missions.
Plus, it's fun to get a bunch together and take down the world bosses. They drop some damn nice loot these days.
So, IMO, NO! SWTOR is a great mmorpg, and I can't wait for live.
Well, if properly translated your post could read "a great co-op RPG!" All the multiplayer stuff you love in SW:TOR could well feature in an online corpg.
Again, the only reason why it was made into the "proper" mmo is monthly subscriptions.
Imo, SW:TOR would have been as good if not a better game if it were called a co-op rpg, using a system similar to GW1 or Diablo games. But then EA couldn't ask for a monthly subscription.
That's the bottom line.
Frankly, I think with GW2 coming out, being a fully-fledged mmo with NO monthly sub, I think EA made a very costly mistake. They compromised their most attractive feature, story, by tacking on open-world mmo elements which actually detract from it (16 heroes at a quest chokepoint, oh my). At the same time the very idea that "being a proper mmo" in itself justifies a monthly sub ON TOP of the box price is on its way out. Not well played at all.
The highlighted part is applicable to every themepark game out there. So themeparks aren't mmos. Got it. By the definition going on around here GW2 won't be an mmo either.
I don't see how my arguments are bad. I have provided a very clear definition of a persistent world required for an mmo. Noone is debating that definition (yet) and I have shown how this applies to TOR repeatedly.
The world stays there when you log off.
Players affect the world.
Gameplay events continue in the world while I am not there.
That's all there is to it. If anyone can disprove that I'd love to see it. So far all i have seen is insults and questions. Not one single person has offered any kind of evidence that disproved what I have said.
There is a definition of it and that is pretty loose one if I have ever seen any. TOR is about as persisitant as WoW's approach to a World. In response to the OP yes up to 50. After 50 then no the game would lose its purpose and would have to be redone.
There. You know what, we have solved the problem of the lack of world persistency in mmo games. Tor did it! Lets just say all mmo have a persistent wold. So reviewers beware, there is always a persistent world in all mmos and is nonsense to say that players actions do not change the game world - we have the auction house!
SWTOR has just as much of a persistant world as any themepark game. Have you ever played a persistent world themepark? If so which one? At least then we could have something to campare and it would help explain why you don't think SWTOR is a persistant world. The definition used by the few on here arguing that it isn't persistant is applicable to every themepark starting with EQ and on to SWTOR. If the new definition of persistant = sandbox then someone get the memo written so we can pass it along and all be on the same page.
Ok I will write only this and then I am out because this discussion is getting funny. Why the heck do you have to defend this game at all costs? Just say it: the game world in this game is simply not persistent.
I dont have a problem with that. I will play the game because is solid, story driven themepark. Enough for me. But ffs stop with this religion and acknowledge the game for what it is.
That's fine, if that is what you want the new definition of an mmo to be. Please get the memo out so we can spread the word.
Edit: And I'm not definding "this" game at all costs. Everytime I see this pop up in a new themepark game (because it happens in every...single..one...I comment on it. It may not be you saying it, but someone is. Every themepark out there gets called a crpg by someone trying to be clever. It gets old. It has nothing to do with SWTOR per se, just the issue of whether or not themeparks are "real" mmos.
OmaliMMO Business CorrespondentMemberUncommonPosts: 1,177
Why do I get the feeling that this is another "I like this game, but don't want to pay the subscription fee" thread?
The beauty of this game is that you can have fun while soloing, due to the story and creative combat.
You can have just as much fun in a group, either doing group based content or helping each other through the regular missions and story.
You can have so much fun just grouping up with some random person while out and about. I grouped with another BH last week (I was Power Tech, he was Mercenary) and we just had a Hell of a good time running missions, and doing the heroic bosses at the ends of the bonus missions.
Plus, it's fun to get a bunch together and take down the world bosses. They drop some damn nice loot these days.
So, IMO, NO! SWTOR is a great mmorpg, and I can't wait for live.
Well, if properly translated your post could read "a great co-op RPG!" All the multiplayer stuff you love in SW:TOR could well feature in an online corpg.
Again, the only reason why it was made into the "proper" mmo is monthly subscriptions.
Imo, SW:TOR would have been as good if not a better game if it were called a co-op rpg, using a system similar to GW1 or Diablo games. But then EA couldn't ask for a monthly subscription.
That's the bottom line.
Frankly, I think with GW2 coming out, being a fully-fledged mmo with NO monthly sub, I think EA made a very costly mistake. They compromised their most attractive feature, story, by tacking on open-world mmo elements which actually detract from it (16 heroes at a quest chokepoint, oh my). At the same time the very idea that "being a proper mmo" in itself justifies a monthly sub ON TOP of the box price is on its way out. Not well played at all.
The same could be said of any MMORPG tne, really. I'm sorry, but it really sounds like you are reaching here.
Simple answer, yes. It has no bussiness being an MMORPG, possibly a lobby based multiplayer game like Diablo but I dont see anything in this game which is suited for a persistant world.
But same could be said about MMORPGs like AoC and many other themeparks. Themeparks is basically turning a single player game into an MMORPG, or vice versa. It is fundamentally not suited for MMORPG environment with all the instances, single player quests/storylines etc. Heck even Skyrim feels more like a persistant MMORPG world than these Themeparks.
Nicely put.From some angles, SWTOR is the diametric opposite of an MMORPG.
You are forced to play not your own story but a story pre-chosen for you.
That story is selected when you choose your character.
That story does offer you a variety of choices but the choices, it seems, are only one of three kinds. GOOD, BAD and NEUTRAL. Those decisions do NOT CHANGE the story. They just take you through it. If you wish to leave the story, you can't.
This is not a voyage of exploration into new landscapes and new varieties of experience - such as even a game like WoW is. Instead, SWTOR is a game on rails where you can't leave the shuttle bus.
In my opinion this ensures it would have been a better SPRPG than how it is being currently marketed - at a higher price - as an MMORPG.
Wow, you hit the nail right on the head. This is exactly what I've been thinking since I beta tested the game.
It's a bunch of people running around working on their own single player experiences with occasional, and I do really mean occasional, stops to group up with THREE other people (lol, three??) in order to run through an instance at which point the group disbands and the players run in separate directions again to work on their single player storyline for another 10 levels.
This is going to prove problematic in the end game when a lot of people who've had their hands held for 50 levels suddenly have to make their own experience. This is why I've always predicted a fairly massive dropoff in subs within three months unless BioWare really starts cranking out quality content very soon after release.
Will it keep me from playing? Nope. Lightsabers... 'nuff said.
Dude, I don't think you know what a persistent world is.A persistent game world is one which you can change - and the changes persist. So, for example, if you drop a block of wood in a forest, when you come back, the block is still there. In SWTOR, you can't pick up or put down anything. You can't even sit down in a chair.
LOL, I picture everyone throwing a stone into the Grand Canyon, only to come back and find that it has been filled. You have to ask yourself, why one would even ever want this?
weird nearly 30% said yes but not 1 single person posted on why they said yes,think trolls have hijacked the poll.
To me,no it would not .simply put there is a lot of multiplayer options running side by side with the solo content.
Also fact is you probably spent twice longer clearing to your objecive ifnot for players running around the area.
I said yes, because I'm with those that wanted a KOTOR 3, and don't consider TOR to live up to that, because it seems to have been dragged down by its MMO features. I even liked KOTOR 1 and 2 better than Mass Effect 1 and 2, but I've enjoyed all of Bioware's SP games. Maybe that makes me a troll, though
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.
The beauty of this game is that you can have fun while soloing, due to the story and creative combat.
You can have just as much fun in a group, either doing group based content or helping each other through the regular missions and story.
You can have so much fun just grouping up with some random person while out and about. I grouped with another BH last week (I was Power Tech, he was Mercenary) and we just had a Hell of a good time running missions, and doing the heroic bosses at the ends of the bonus missions.
Plus, it's fun to get a bunch together and take down the world bosses. They drop some damn nice loot these days.
So, IMO, NO! SWTOR is a great mmorpg, and I can't wait for live.
Well, if properly translated your post could read "a great co-op RPG!" All the multiplayer stuff you love in SW:TOR could well feature in an online corpg.
Again, the only reason why it was made into the "proper" mmo is monthly subscriptions.
Imo, SW:TOR would have been as good if not a better game if it were called a co-op rpg, using a system similar to GW1 or Diablo games. But then EA couldn't ask for a monthly subscription.
That's the bottom line.
Frankly, I think with GW2 coming out, being a fully-fledged mmo with NO monthly sub, I think EA made a very costly mistake. They compromised their most attractive feature, story, by tacking on open-world mmo elements which actually detract from it (16 heroes at a quest chokepoint, oh my). At the same time the very idea that "being a proper mmo" in itself justifies a monthly sub ON TOP of the box price is on its way out. Not well played at all.
The highlighted part is applicable to every themepark game out there. So themeparks aren't mmos. Got it. By the definition going on around here GW2 won't be an mmo either.
Not really...
I'm not talking about themeparks but about instancing and world-persistence. The heavy story emphasis in SW:TOR yields itself naturally to instanced, lobby-based game structure such as GW1 or Diablo. Persistent world directly clashes with the way Bioware goes about in building their stories. In the end both suffer - Bioware's story suffers because it has to cope with other "heroes" on their "unique stories" occupying the same space and the persistent world itself suffers because of the illogicalities this creates.
GW2 took a different, quite the opposite way of building their story with DEs and they are from bottom-up a persistent mmo concept. For the more carefully crafted "story-experience" they choose total instancing completely divorced from the persistent part of the game. Bioware should have taken this route all the way instead of trying to stick a round peg into a square hole just in order to be able to claim a monthly subscription.
Imo, ideally SW:TOR should be a COORPG with heavy emphasis on solo and co-op play. It should feature some persistent areas, especially "world PvP" ones as well as robust competetive instanced PvP. It should be subscription free and finance itself through paid expansions and DLC. This way Bioware could be free to do what they do best, and that is awesome story. Persistent mmo gameplay just gets in their way.
However, you can't ask people for subs unless you are called a "mmo."
As for there being no need to group up to get things done say for doing instances... have you played WoW lately? Players are hand held all the way to level 85 and luckily the content is so simple at end game as to make it a non-issue as you can learn not to stand in fire right along with all the other level 85s. Based on your argument, WoW should be a single player offline game as well since you don't need others to do anything unless you want to do BGs, dungeons, or raids. And honestly, even that area is being morphed... you already see 2 man dungeons in Rift. I fully expect NPC assisted raids, BGs, et al in the future. Not enough players to form a RBG team? NP, the game will auto-populate the necessary NPCS to fill out your group. It's been done before... the only thing stopping them from doing it in MMORPGs is the potential outcry... but the tides are shifting more and more to bots each and every day.
The same could be said of any MMORPG tne, really. I'm sorry, but it really sounds like you are reaching here.
Maybe technically, it could be said of any MMO, but TBH, I've never thought the same thing of any MMO before. Just the opposite, I've felt that even the best MMOs would make terrible SP 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.
The beauty of this game is that you can have fun while soloing, due to the story and creative combat.
You can have just as much fun in a group, either doing group based content or helping each other through the regular missions and story.
You can have so much fun just grouping up with some random person while out and about. I grouped with another BH last week (I was Power Tech, he was Mercenary) and we just had a Hell of a good time running missions, and doing the heroic bosses at the ends of the bonus missions.
Plus, it's fun to get a bunch together and take down the world bosses. They drop some damn nice loot these days.
So, IMO, NO! SWTOR is a great mmorpg, and I can't wait for live.
Well, if properly translated your post could read "a great co-op RPG!" All the multiplayer stuff you love in SW:TOR could well feature in an online corpg.
Again, the only reason why it was made into the "proper" mmo is monthly subscriptions.
Imo, SW:TOR would have been as good if not a better game if it were called a co-op rpg, using a system similar to GW1 or Diablo games. But then EA couldn't ask for a monthly subscription.
That's the bottom line.
Frankly, I think with GW2 coming out, being a fully-fledged mmo with NO monthly sub, I think EA made a very costly mistake. They compromised their most attractive feature, story, by tacking on open-world mmo elements which actually detract from it (16 heroes at a quest chokepoint, oh my). At the same time the very idea that "being a proper mmo" in itself justifies a monthly sub ON TOP of the box price is on its way out. Not well played at all.
The highlighted part is applicable to every themepark game out there. So themeparks aren't mmos. Got it. By the definition going on around here GW2 won't be an mmo either.
Not really...
I'm not talking about themeparks but about instancing and world-persistence. The heavy story emphasis in SW:TOR yields itself naturally to instanced, lobby-based game structure such as GW1 or Diablo. Persistent world actually directly clashes with the way Bioware goes about in building their stories. In the end both suffer - Bioware's story suffers because it has to cope with other "heroes" on their "unique stories" occupying the same space and the persistent world itself suffers because of the illogicalities this creates.
Imo, ideally SW:TOR should be a COORPG with heavy emphasis on solo and co-op play. It should feature some persistent areas, especially "world PvP" ones as well as robust competetive instanced PvP. It should be subscription free and finance itself through paid expansions and DLC. This way Bioware could be free to do what they do best, and that is awesome story. Persistent mmo gameplay just gets in their way.
However, you can't ask people for subs unless you are called a "mmo."
And that is indeed exactly what i experience while playing .. i keep thinking it would have done better as an corpg.
SWTOR basically strives to bring the "single player RPG experience" into the realm of MMORPGs. And it basically succeeds at doing this, but there is a PRICE it pays to do it in an MMORPG environment. Putting a single player story in a shared world has consequences. Consequences we are all familiar with from WoW awnd other themeparks, but are more severe in SWTOR because of its greater focus on story. Specifically these consequences are:
1. Competing with other players for quest objectives.
2. Seeing other players with your exact same companion, doing the same quests you were doing etc...
3. The world has to be largely static. You cause great waves in the storyline, but the world never changes because of it.
4. The world is also full of artificial barriers like the red walls that house instanced story areas for other classes. This makes the whole world feel less explorable and more artificial.
If the game was not an MMORPG (no shared world), NONE of these problems would exist. The world could actually change in response to what you do, and it could be MUCH more explorable than it is now.
Personally, I think SWTOR would have had nothing to lose and everything to gain by being an SP/MPRPG with a very well made lobby and matchmaking system. Kind of like Diablo, Borderlands, or Guild Wars. You could still do PvP battlegrounds, flashpoints, and even quest with friends. The only thing you lose is the shared world, and honestly, I don't think it brings much to the game.
When I look at why SWTOR was made as an MMORPG, the only reasons I can see are marketing. First, it allows EA to justify a sub fee. Second, it allows SWTOR to compete more directly with the MMORPG market. Many MMORPG players will be more inclined to play an MMORPG than an SP/MPRPG.
The only reason BW/EA decided to go mmo with this game is the promise of subs. Nobody said "Ooh!!! I know! Kotor would be so much better if it were a mmorpg!" No, someone said: "Make it a mmo this time or else. I want monthly subs on top of the box sales."
And it shows in the basic game structure. I'm quite sure many creatives from Bioware would be much happier if it were a single player game called KOTOR3 with some online capabilites... Heck, that's what they do best. But if you want to justify taking subs you do have to make it a mmo.
Personally, I think the greedy suits made a wrong decision. They'll sell less boxes than what they could have and sub retention is not going to be that great.
Your last sentence pretty well sums up my thoughts on this. Will the game be able to keep sub payers who have played other MMO games? Will players of single player games be willing to pay $15 a month, on top of a $60 box price, to play what is essentially a single player game with co-op options? I voted yes btw.
Really? This game sucks and Im not having fun? Im going to unsub right now. Thanks for the tip.
11 pages of "it's not a sandbox, so it should be single player."
From comments like this, you'd think every other MMO was a sandbox, with TOR carrying the torch for the struggling themepark ideal..
I mean, look at all the other themeparks we've seen. All the major ones that have come out, from WoW, to EQ2, LOTRO, AOC, to Aion, and Rift... all 100% themeparks, and yet I've never seen anyone say they'd be just as good, or better, as a SP game. No, this has nothing to do with the sandbox vs themepark thing.
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.
Originally posted by page Would you like it as much as a stand alone off-line game.
Considering it's a mmo, why would I want to play a MMO off-line? I think it would have been worse that way.
When I play off-line games like LA Noire, Arkham City and Skyrim, I don't want to play with others which is the point. I prefer a solo experience where I don't have to see /chat, talk to anyone who isn't part of the story (so they don't break my immersion) or worry about my weapons/gear getting nerfed.
I wouldn't want to have played TOR this way simply because in solo games even though they are highly immersive, there are times where you want to interact with others for that "O.M.G. Did you see THAT?!?!?!" moments that solo play simply can't give you.
So I don't think this would have been a good off-line game.
If they had made something more along the lines of "the force unleashed2", but with 8 (16 if you count the advanced ones) different classes and storylines, then sure , it would probably have been a far more heroic and enjoyable SW experience. Just taking SWTOR offline when you can't solo certain parts of the game would be rather stupid. So no because SWTOR offline = fail, yes if they had put the same effort into an awesome single Player game.
11 pages of "it's not a sandbox, so it should be single player."
Why are you trying to confuse the issue?
You are experienced enough in mmos to see that this is obvously not a "sandbox vs themepark" discussion. In fact, it has absolutely nothing to do with it.
11 pages of "it's not a sandbox, so it should be single player."
From comments like this, you'd think every other MMO was a sandbox, with TOR carrying the torch for the struggling themepark ideal..
I mean, look at all the other themeparks we've seen. All the major ones that have come out, from WoW, to EQ2, LOTRO, AOC, to Aion, and Rift... all 100% themeparks, and yet I've never seen anyone say they'd be just as good, or better, as a SP game. No, this has nothing to do with the sandbox vs themepark thing.
Because none of them have bothered to integrate a story into the game.
SWTOR brings RPG back into MMORPG. Some people seem to think that story and role-playing should only take place in a single player game, while others seem to think that your story should effect the entire world, which could only work in either a single player game or a sandbox.
I was just simplifying the 11 pages of spew for those who didn't feel like reading it all
Comments
SWTOR has just as much of a persistant world as any themepark game. Have you ever played a persistent world themepark? If so which one? At least then we could have something to campare and it would help explain why you don't think SWTOR is a persistant world. The definition used by the few on here arguing that it isn't persistant is applicable to every themepark starting with EQ and on to SWTOR. If the new definition of persistant = sandbox then someone get the memo written so we can pass it along and all be on the same page.
Well, if properly translated your post could read "a great co-op RPG!" All the multiplayer stuff you love in SW:TOR could well feature in an online corpg.
Again, the only reason why it was made into the "proper" mmo is monthly subscriptions.
Imo, SW:TOR would have been as good if not a better game if it were called a co-op rpg, using a system similar to GW1 or Diablo games. But then EA couldn't ask for a monthly subscription.
That's the bottom line.
Frankly, I think with GW2 coming out, being a fully-fledged mmo with NO monthly sub, I think EA made a very costly mistake. They compromised their most attractive feature, story, by tacking on open-world mmo elements which actually detract from it (16 heroes at a quest chokepoint, oh my). At the same time the very idea that "being a proper mmo" in itself justifies a monthly sub ON TOP of the box price is on its way out. Not well played at all.
He didn't just "make it up" he got it from wikipidia (which I know isn't really a reliable source) and this websites own definition. He has provided far more "evidence" than anyone claiming that its not a persistant world. It may not be evidence you agree with, but that's the whole issue. Going by any other definition would mean there are only sandbox mmos. Everything else is just online coop that goes dark after I log off. Have you ever played a themepark persistant world? If so which one? Why was it persistant and SWTOR isn't? I can't think of any themepark game that would qualify using the definition that some on here want to use. And i've already explained a couple of posts back why games like GW1 and D3 aren't persistant. The world doesn't go on without me being in it. Eeach area (outside of the lobby in D3 which has nothing to do with a "world" and the cities in GW1 which make up an incredibly small portion of the game) isn't there in the same way for everybody, it doesn't "form" (I know that isn't a good word to use for this, but I'm not sure of a better one) unless I zone into it nobody else is there if I don't go into it nothing is going on. Team Fortress and FPS that have levels aren't the same because the maps reset they aren't persistant by any definition. Between the time I go to bed and the time I log back into SWTOR the world doesn't "reset" each time. If I left something on the ah and it didn't sell, it is still there. If the base we captured on the pvp planet got taken over by the other side, then it switched and stays switched until my side retakes it. It doesn't "reset."
Ok I will write only this and then I am out because this discussion is getting funny. Why the heck do you have to defend this game at all costs? Just say it: the game world in this game is simply not persistent.
I dont have a problem with that. I will play the game because is solid, story driven themepark. Enough for me. But ffs stop with this religion and acknowledge the game for what it is.
The highlighted part is applicable to every themepark game out there. So themeparks aren't mmos. Got it. By the definition going on around here GW2 won't be an mmo either.
That's fine, if that is what you want the new definition of an mmo to be. Please get the memo out so we can spread the word.
Edit: And I'm not definding "this" game at all costs. Everytime I see this pop up in a new themepark game (because it happens in every...single..one...I comment on it. It may not be you saying it, but someone is. Every themepark out there gets called a crpg by someone trying to be clever. It gets old. It has nothing to do with SWTOR per se, just the issue of whether or not themeparks are "real" mmos.
Why do I get the feeling that this is another "I like this game, but don't want to pay the subscription fee" thread?
The same could be said of any MMORPG tne, really. I'm sorry, but it really sounds like you are reaching here.
BTW....your agenda is showing.
Wow, you hit the nail right on the head. This is exactly what I've been thinking since I beta tested the game.
It's a bunch of people running around working on their own single player experiences with occasional, and I do really mean occasional, stops to group up with THREE other people (lol, three??) in order to run through an instance at which point the group disbands and the players run in separate directions again to work on their single player storyline for another 10 levels.
This is going to prove problematic in the end game when a lot of people who've had their hands held for 50 levels suddenly have to make their own experience. This is why I've always predicted a fairly massive dropoff in subs within three months unless BioWare really starts cranking out quality content very soon after release.
Will it keep me from playing? Nope. Lightsabers... 'nuff said.
LOL, I picture everyone throwing a stone into the Grand Canyon, only to come back and find that it has been filled. You have to ask yourself, why one would even ever want this?
I said yes, because I'm with those that wanted a KOTOR 3, and don't consider TOR to live up to that, because it seems to have been dragged down by its MMO features. I even liked KOTOR 1 and 2 better than Mass Effect 1 and 2, but I've enjoyed all of Bioware's SP games. Maybe that makes me a troll, though
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.
Not really...
I'm not talking about themeparks but about instancing and world-persistence. The heavy story emphasis in SW:TOR yields itself naturally to instanced, lobby-based game structure such as GW1 or Diablo. Persistent world directly clashes with the way Bioware goes about in building their stories. In the end both suffer - Bioware's story suffers because it has to cope with other "heroes" on their "unique stories" occupying the same space and the persistent world itself suffers because of the illogicalities this creates.
GW2 took a different, quite the opposite way of building their story with DEs and they are from bottom-up a persistent mmo concept. For the more carefully crafted "story-experience" they choose total instancing completely divorced from the persistent part of the game. Bioware should have taken this route all the way instead of trying to stick a round peg into a square hole just in order to be able to claim a monthly subscription.
Imo, ideally SW:TOR should be a COORPG with heavy emphasis on solo and co-op play. It should feature some persistent areas, especially "world PvP" ones as well as robust competetive instanced PvP. It should be subscription free and finance itself through paid expansions and DLC. This way Bioware could be free to do what they do best, and that is awesome story. Persistent mmo gameplay just gets in their way.
However, you can't ask people for subs unless you are called a "mmo."
As for there being no need to group up to get things done say for doing instances... have you played WoW lately? Players are hand held all the way to level 85 and luckily the content is so simple at end game as to make it a non-issue as you can learn not to stand in fire right along with all the other level 85s. Based on your argument, WoW should be a single player offline game as well since you don't need others to do anything unless you want to do BGs, dungeons, or raids. And honestly, even that area is being morphed... you already see 2 man dungeons in Rift. I fully expect NPC assisted raids, BGs, et al in the future. Not enough players to form a RBG team? NP, the game will auto-populate the necessary NPCS to fill out your group. It's been done before... the only thing stopping them from doing it in MMORPGs is the potential outcry... but the tides are shifting more and more to bots each and every day.
Maybe technically, it could be said of any MMO, but TBH, I've never thought the same thing of any MMO before. Just the opposite, I've felt that even the best MMOs would make terrible SP 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.
And that is indeed exactly what i experience while playing .. i keep thinking it would have done better as an corpg.
I voted yes...here's why:
SWTOR basically strives to bring the "single player RPG experience" into the realm of MMORPGs. And it basically succeeds at doing this, but there is a PRICE it pays to do it in an MMORPG environment. Putting a single player story in a shared world has consequences. Consequences we are all familiar with from WoW awnd other themeparks, but are more severe in SWTOR because of its greater focus on story. Specifically these consequences are:
1. Competing with other players for quest objectives.
2. Seeing other players with your exact same companion, doing the same quests you were doing etc...
3. The world has to be largely static. You cause great waves in the storyline, but the world never changes because of it.
4. The world is also full of artificial barriers like the red walls that house instanced story areas for other classes. This makes the whole world feel less explorable and more artificial.
If the game was not an MMORPG (no shared world), NONE of these problems would exist. The world could actually change in response to what you do, and it could be MUCH more explorable than it is now.
Personally, I think SWTOR would have had nothing to lose and everything to gain by being an SP/MPRPG with a very well made lobby and matchmaking system. Kind of like Diablo, Borderlands, or Guild Wars. You could still do PvP battlegrounds, flashpoints, and even quest with friends. The only thing you lose is the shared world, and honestly, I don't think it brings much to the game.
When I look at why SWTOR was made as an MMORPG, the only reasons I can see are marketing. First, it allows EA to justify a sub fee. Second, it allows SWTOR to compete more directly with the MMORPG market. Many MMORPG players will be more inclined to play an MMORPG than an SP/MPRPG.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
11 pages of "it's not a sandbox, so it should be single player."
Yes, but only if you selectively ignore all of the posts that actually give cogent arguments
.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
It would make a fine single player game, but by no means a better game.
Your last sentence pretty well sums up my thoughts on this. Will the game be able to keep sub payers who have played other MMO games? Will players of single player games be willing to pay $15 a month, on top of a $60 box price, to play what is essentially a single player game with co-op options? I voted yes btw.
Really? This game sucks and Im not having fun? Im going to unsub right now. Thanks for the tip.
From comments like this, you'd think every other MMO was a sandbox, with TOR carrying the torch for the struggling themepark ideal..
I mean, look at all the other themeparks we've seen. All the major ones that have come out, from WoW, to EQ2, LOTRO, AOC, to Aion, and Rift... all 100% themeparks, and yet I've never seen anyone say they'd be just as good, or better, as a SP game. No, this has nothing to do with the sandbox vs themepark thing.
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.
When I play off-line games like LA Noire, Arkham City and Skyrim, I don't want to play with others which is the point. I prefer a solo experience where I don't have to see /chat, talk to anyone who isn't part of the story (so they don't break my immersion) or worry about my weapons/gear getting nerfed.
I wouldn't want to have played TOR this way simply because in solo games even though they are highly immersive, there are times where you want to interact with others for that "O.M.G. Did you see THAT?!?!?!" moments that solo play simply can't give you.
So I don't think this would have been a good off-line game.
"TO MICHAEL!"
If they had made something more along the lines of "the force unleashed2", but with 8 (16 if you count the advanced ones) different classes and storylines, then sure , it would probably have been a far more heroic and enjoyable SW experience. Just taking SWTOR offline when you can't solo certain parts of the game would be rather stupid. So no because SWTOR offline = fail, yes if they had put the same effort into an awesome single Player game.
Why are you trying to confuse the issue?
You are experienced enough in mmos to see that this is obvously not a "sandbox vs themepark" discussion. In fact, it has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Because none of them have bothered to integrate a story into the game.
SWTOR brings RPG back into MMORPG. Some people seem to think that story and role-playing should only take place in a single player game, while others seem to think that your story should effect the entire world, which could only work in either a single player game or a sandbox.
I was just simplifying the 11 pages of spew for those who didn't feel like reading it all