What you are seeing is a vocal minority that is absolute in its intention to proclaim innovation as the industry's savior. This is unavoidable and occurs in literally every single genre. What these proclaimers fail to observe, however, is that the most enjoyed and successful games do not focus on being innovative, they focus on being fun. Just take a look at the industry's most renowned titles: Call of Duty, Halo, Starcraft, Diablo, World of Warcraft, etc. Change for the sake of change is unnecessary.
Each one of those games you listed came out in times when features or gameplay they had did make them stand out when they were first released. What feature / gameplay element does SWTOR that makes it stand out? Voice Overs? Not enough for it to last for more then a month.
Um....... What???? lololololol what features make mw3, halo 3, starcraft 2, WoW to be considered innovative at the time of their releases?
none of them and thats the point how long are we just going to accept more of the same year after year after year.
You don't get it, do you? I will say this again: The most successful and enjoyed games don't look to being innovative. They care about being fun because that is what matters most. Only a vocal minority is constantly searching for change which, to your misfortune, is not what sells.
cause what sells makes it automatically whats great.. gotcha, pretty sure britney spears still sells millions of records on each release...
2. You can advance in standing in any guild you choose.
3. You can just explore the world and be rewarded for doing so by finding unique dungeons.
4. The system is skill-based and doesn't lock you into any specific playstyle.
...list could go on
But anyway, nothing on that list is as important as the fact that you can choose whatever you do. At no point in the game are you railroaded into doing one thing. You can literally ignore the main quest and have a great time playing.
You can also play and never even realize that several of the guilds even exist. The entire game is about choices and that's why it's a sandbox.
1. Not sure I'd consider that actually furnishing a home, you have a set choice on what you can add, and that's it.
2. Did rise of the godslayer make AOC a sandbox?
3. You can do this in thempark MMO's as well. "Explore the world freely." Perfect example is Fallen Earth. call that a SB and see the lecture you get. I've done it.... it wasn't pretty.
4. Again Fallen Earth...
With that I'm done going off topic.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
i love tor for many many reasons , i can list them but u can just go watch pockets 3 videos ull get the hint on what i like
I love the story, vo, the companions and the interactions u have with them, the questing which somehow feels more important then normal as i cant wait to see where my story is going, i love the crafting whihc allows me to kill while companions do stuff like treasure hunt, or archelogy or what ever i want them to do
once u gtet yoru ship at least, i love that i get my own ship sure others get the same one so what, the one im in is my very own and that is amazing to me
Its star wars and i catn get enough of star wars i even enjoyed most of the pre quels 2 sucked but i liked 1 and 3,
There are things not so great but the things i love so outweight the minor things like 4 body types in characte creator that they dont bother me
So play it find out foryourself, if u dont like it your out 60 dollars which u pay for a console game anyways that u can beat in a month.
It depends on the individual.One has to try this game to actually determine whether it's for them or not.I know a couple who are pro sandbox that are enjoying ToR.For some it provides just enough change that they find they enjoy it.Id suggest waiting for a free trial if you're hesitant to shell out the cash for it as it is clearly divided on people who enjoy it and those who don't.
1. Not sure I'd consider that actually furnishing a home, you have a set choice on what you can add, and that's it.
2. Did rise of the godslayer make AOC a sandbox?
3. You can do this in thempark MMO's as well. "Explore the world freely." Perfect example is Fallen Earth. call that a SB and see the lecture you get. I've done it.... it wasn't pretty.
4. Again Fallen Earth...
With that I'm done going off topic.
In UO, you only had a set list of furniture you could place as well.
I never played Rise of the Godslayer, so no clue .
What you are seeing is a vocal minority that is absolute in its intention to proclaim innovation as the industry's savior. This is unavoidable and occurs in literally every single genre. What these proclaimers fail to observe, however, is that the most enjoyed and successful games do not focus on being innovative, they focus on being fun. Just take a look at the industry's most renowned titles: Call of Duty, Halo, Starcraft, Diablo, World of Warcraft, etc. Change for the sake of change is unnecessary.
Each one of those games you listed came out in times when features or gameplay they had did make them stand out when they were first released. What feature / gameplay element does SWTOR that makes it stand out? Voice Overs? Not enough for it to last for more then a month.
Um....... What???? lololololol what features make mw3, halo 3, starcraft 2, WoW to be considered innovative at the time of their releases?
none of them and thats the point how long are we just going to accept more of the same year after year after year.
You don't get it, do you? I will say this again: The most successful and enjoyed games don't look to being innovative. They care about being fun because that is what matters most. Only a vocal minority is constantly searching for change which, to your misfortune, is not what sells.
cause what sells makes it automatically whats great.. gotcha, pretty sure britney spears still sells millions of records on each release...
Lol these games sell because they are fun, not because they are innovative.
Yep, seriously, that is my opinion. I'm not the first to say that not by a long shot, hell that description is what turned me on to Morrowind in the first place, it was dubbed the shy-mans MMO in a mag I read back then .
I don't see how TES would be considered a sandbox? Where's the sand?
you must be joking around here or obviously have no clue what a sandbox game is
To me that's like calling GTA a sandbox game, which it is frequently. I prefer the term open-ended. As to me that descibes the design a little better. Sandbox implies soem form of world building in my mind, which TES games are devoid of, as well as games like GTA.
TES by design IMO resembles a themepark environemnt a lot more than it does games like SWG or UO.
You prefer open-ended, but the rest of the world prefers to call it a sandbox. By the worldbuilding definition, Civilization is a sandbox, as is SimCity.
Anyway, I think a problem with the MMORPG crowd is that so many of us think a game has to be either SWG or UO to be a sandbox. But really, I think that a lot of us just want something not as linear and directed as what we have now.
Many games like those have what's called a "Sandbox mode", as you can freely build as you chose with no objective.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
What you are seeing is a vocal minority that is absolute in its intention to proclaim innovation as the industry's savior. This is unavoidable and occurs in literally every single genre. What these proclaimers fail to observe, however, is that the most enjoyed and successful games do not focus on being innovative, they focus on being fun. Just take a look at the industry's most renowned titles: Call of Duty, Halo, Starcraft, Diablo, World of Warcraft, etc. Change for the sake of change is unnecessary.
Each one of those games you listed came out in times when features or gameplay they had did make them stand out when they were first released. What feature / gameplay element does SWTOR that makes it stand out? Voice Overs? Not enough for it to last for more then a month.
Um....... What???? lololololol what features make mw3, halo 3, starcraft 2, WoW to be considered innovative at the time of their releases?
none of them and thats the point how long are we just going to accept more of the same year after year after year.
You don't get it, do you? I will say this again: The most successful and enjoyed games don't look to being innovative. They care about being fun because that is what matters most. Only a vocal minority is constantly searching for change which, to your misfortune, is not what sells.
cause what sells makes it automatically whats great.. gotcha, pretty sure britney spears still sells millions of records on each release...
Lol these games sell because they are fun, not because they are innovative.
What you are seeing is a vocal minority that is absolute in its intention to proclaim innovation as the industry's savior. This is unavoidable and occurs in literally every single genre. What these proclaimers fail to observe, however, is that the most enjoyed and successful games do not focus on being innovative, they focus on being fun. Just take a look at the industry's most renowned titles: Call of Duty, Halo, Starcraft, Diablo, World of Warcraft, etc. Change for the sake of change is unnecessary.
Each one of those games you listed came out in times when features or gameplay they had did make them stand out when they were first released. What feature / gameplay element does SWTOR that makes it stand out? Voice Overs? Not enough for it to last for more then a month.
Um....... What???? lololololol what features make mw3, halo 3, starcraft 2, WoW to be considered innovative at the time of their releases?
none of them and thats the point how long are we just going to accept more of the same year after year after year.
You don't get it, do you? I will say this again: The most successful and enjoyed games don't look to being innovative. They care about being fun because that is what matters most. Only a vocal minority is constantly searching for change which, to your misfortune, is not what sells.
cause what sells makes it automatically whats great.. gotcha, pretty sure britney spears still sells millions of records on each release...
Lol these games sell because they are fun, not because they are innovative.
so its wrong for people to want innovation then?
Fun and innovation are two different things. Innovation does not always = fun, infact in some cases it can suck.
Originally posted by stealthbr Originally posted by sanosukex Originally posted by stealthbr
Originally posted by Otakun
Originally posted by stealthbr What you are seeing is a vocal minority that is absolute in its intention to proclaim innovation as the industry's savior. This is unavoidable and occurs in literally every single genre. What these proclaimers fail to observe, however, is that the most enjoyed and successful games do not focus on being innovative, they focus on being fun. Just take a look at the industry's most renowned titles: Call of Duty, Halo, Starcraft, Diablo, World of Warcraft, etc. Change for the sake of change is unnecessary.
Each one of those games you listed came out in times when features or gameplay they had did make them stand out when they were first released. What feature / gameplay element does SWTOR that makes it stand out? Voice Overs? Not enough for it to last for more then a month. Um....... What???? lololololol what features make mw3, halo 3, starcraft 2, WoW to be considered innovative at the time of their releases? none of them and thats the point how long are we just going to accept more of the same year after year after year.
You don't get it, do you? I will say this again: The most successful and enjoyed games don't look to being innovative. They care about being fun because that is what matters most. Only a vocal minority is constantly searching for change which, to your misfortune, is not what sells.
Negative.
Now series live on their strengths, but what made the Modern Warfare series a smash? Well one, they brought an innovative way to host player matches to the genre. What else? Well it's a shooter and iron sights had been toyed with, a great mechanic. But how can people utilize it? Well they innovated a circular style multiplayer map as opposed to corridor or box crafted maps. They've ran it into the ground by the time MW3 came around, but it's an innovation that made the series what it is today.
MMOs need to strive for innovation, because TOR would be sunk already if Star Wars wasn't the IP attached to it.
EA knows that brand names makes a big difference, that's why they released that they were shopping around for established IPs for BioWare's freshmen entry into the genre.
The best game series innovate.
Look at what God of War brought to the slasher. Look at what Shadow of the Colossus did for every boss fight in any platform / adventure game. Look at all the mechanics Anarchy Online brought to the MMO genre, to be refined by FFXI and WoW. Now are in every game.
It's okay to borrow from what works.
But if you're not innovating, you deserve valid criticisms.
TOR's only touted feature is the one they worked the hardest on, a liner story with voice acted scenes. They did alright doing so.
But real content (in the case of the previously mentioned title; the lack there of) is what's going to push the MMO genre.
RIFT brought one element as well.
This game brought one..
SWTOR will be apart of the progress, but only minutely. As a Star Wars game, it's probably aces. As a MMO it's a baby step, and since about 2006-2008 we've been waiting for a title to add these lil' ones into something bigger.
I don't care if it's a themepark game. I say it sucks, because it's the same themepark with renamed rides.
Doesn't matter tho'. Hollywood has figured out with Harry Potter and Twilight that they don't need real movie making skills, they just need something that panders to the majority of the mindless mongoloids out there.
SWTOR's innovation is basically showing that the same applies to a paper thin mmorpg model, and now the industry will cling to it.
I used to play MMOs like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee.
Just cause Skyrim is an RPG doesn't mean it plays the same as other RPGs. Final Fantasy is an RPG but it doesn't play like Skyrim.
Out of all the RPG's out there IMO Skyrim, Oblivion and Morrowind are the closest single-player games you'll get to a themepark MMO experience. Sure they play differently in terms of combat, and options to the player ( stealing, killing, jail, etc). In a round about way though TES games are basically the shy mans MMO. All IMO of course...
umm what?! seriously? closest to maybe sandbox but not themepark
Yep, seriously, that is my opinion. I'm not the first to say that not by a long shot, hell that desciption is what turned me on to Morrowind in the first place, it was dubbed the shy-mans MMO in a mag I read back then .
I don't see how TES would be considered a sandbox? Where's the sand?
its a sandbox.
Sandbox = non-linear gameplay
its all what sandbox means.
Many "sandbox fans" would disagree due to the fact that all you're doing is questing, the same types of quests we have in MMO's, there are just more of them and you get to pick and choose a bit.
I don't care what sandbox "fans" think, thats the official definition of it.
What you are seeing is a vocal minority that is absolute in its intention to proclaim innovation as the industry's savior. This is unavoidable and occurs in literally every single genre. What these proclaimers fail to observe, however, is that the most enjoyed and successful games do not focus on being innovative, they focus on being fun. Just take a look at the industry's most renowned titles: Call of Duty, Halo, Starcraft, Diablo, World of Warcraft, etc. Change for the sake of change is unnecessary.
Each one of those games you listed came out in times when features or gameplay they had did make them stand out when they were first released. What feature / gameplay element does SWTOR that makes it stand out? Voice Overs? Not enough for it to last for more then a month.
Um....... What???? lololololol what features make mw3, halo 3, starcraft 2, WoW to be considered innovative at the time of their releases?
none of them and thats the point how long are we just going to accept more of the same year after year after year.
You don't get it, do you? I will say this again: The most successful and enjoyed games don't look to being innovative. They care about being fun because that is what matters most. Only a vocal minority is constantly searching for change which, to your misfortune, is not what sells.
cause what sells makes it automatically whats great.. gotcha, pretty sure britney spears still sells millions of records on each release...
Lol these games sell because they are fun, not because they are innovative.
so its wrong for people to want innovation then?
As I said before, it is natural but unnecessary for the bigger picture. The small minorities simply are insignificant to the bigger picture.
What you are seeing is a vocal minority that is absolute in its intention to proclaim innovation as the industry's savior. This is unavoidable and occurs in literally every single genre. What these proclaimers fail to observe, however, is that the most enjoyed and successful games do not focus on being innovative, they focus on being fun. Just take a look at the industry's most renowned titles: Call of Duty, Halo, Starcraft, Diablo, World of Warcraft, etc. Change for the sake of change is unnecessary.
Each one of those games you listed came out in times when features or gameplay they had did make them stand out when they were first released. What feature / gameplay element does SWTOR that makes it stand out? Voice Overs? Not enough for it to last for more then a month.
Um....... What???? lololololol what features make mw3, halo 3, starcraft 2, WoW to be considered innovative at the time of their releases?
none of them and thats the point how long are we just going to accept more of the same year after year after year.
You don't get it, do you? I will say this again: The most successful and enjoyed games don't look to being innovative. They care about being fun because that is what matters most. Only a vocal minority is constantly searching for change which, to your misfortune, is not what sells.
cause what sells makes it automatically whats great.. gotcha, pretty sure britney spears still sells millions of records on each release...
Lol these games sell because they are fun, not because they are innovative.
so its wrong for people to want innovation then?
Fun and innovation are two different things. Innovation does not always = fun, infact in some cases it can suck.
But sometimes it can be a landmark take Minecraft as an example, or Angry birds as simple concept done right
Lol these games sell because they are fun, not because they are innovative.
so its wrong for people to want innovation then?
Fun and innovation are two different things. Innovation does not always = fun, infact in some cases it can suck.
Okay...so hold up.
Has this seriously got to the point where we are arguing AGAINST innovation?
I will concede that just radically changing things for no purpose isn't always the best idea. And you definitely SHOULD learn from and be inspired by what has occured in the past. But if no one ever innovated, we would all be playing a very graphically advanced version of Pong. Innovation is GOOD, not bad. You shouldn't be arguing against it.
I think the reason a lot of people attack SWTOR for not innovating, is because it still carries many of the PROBLEMS that WoW has without trying to change them. For example:
1. I still have to watch other players doing the exact same quests I'm doing.
2. I still can't group with my RL friends because we will almost always be different levels.
3. I still have difficulty just grouping with people I meet while questing because we are usually on different quests.
4. I still compete with players for quest MOBs....
...
THIS is why people are aggravated. These are the problems of 2004, and they still haven't been fixed.
Just cause Skyrim is an RPG doesn't mean it plays the same as other RPGs. Final Fantasy is an RPG but it doesn't play like Skyrim.
Out of all the RPG's out there IMO Skyrim, Oblivion and Morrowind are the closest single-player games you'll get to a themepark MMO experience. Sure they play differently in terms of combat, and options to the player ( stealing, killing, jail, etc). In a round about way though TES games are basically the shy mans MMO. All IMO of course...
umm what?! seriously? closest to maybe sandbox but not themepark
Yep, seriously, that is my opinion. I'm not the first to say that not by a long shot, hell that desciption is what turned me on to Morrowind in the first place, it was dubbed the shy-mans MMO in a mag I read back then .
I don't see how TES would be considered a sandbox? Where's the sand?
its a sandbox.
Sandbox = non-linear gameplay
its all what sandbox means.
Many "sandbox fans" would disagree due to the fact that all you're doing is questing, the same types of quests we have in MMO's, there are just more of them and you get to pick and choose a bit.
I don't care what sandbox "fans" think, thats the official definition of it.
Thats how its taught in game-design schools.
So with that definition, SWTOR is a sandbox. I can lvl to cap with out doing a single quest. I can do PvP and space combat and mob grinding in any order I want.
The sandbox term was around long before MMO's or game design schools.
Lol these games sell because they are fun, not because they are innovative.
so its wrong for people to want innovation then?
Fun and innovation are two different things. Innovation does not always = fun, infact in some cases it can suck.
Okay...so hold up.
Has this seriously got to the point where we are arguing AGAINST innovation?
I will concede that just radically changing things for no purpose isn't always the best idea. And you definitely SHOULD learn from and be inspired by what has occured in the past. But if no one ever innovated, we would all be playing a very graphically advanced version of Pong. Innovation is GOOD, not bad. You shouldn't be arguing against it.
I think the reason a lot of people attack SWTOR for not innovating, is because it still carries many of the PROBLEMS that WoW has without trying to change them. For example:
1. I still have to watch other players doing the exact same quests I'm doing.
2. I still can't group with my RL friends because we will almost always be different levels.
3. I still have difficulty just grouping with people I meet while questing because we are usually on different quests.
4. I still compete with players for quest MOBs....
...
THIS is why people are aggravated. These are the problems of 2004, and they still haven't been fixed.
I would never argue against innovation, but I would argue that something does not have to be innovative to be fun
The Storylines are new and very cool but the rest of game is just plain standard themepark MMO fare.
The Companions are insteresting but they just water down the game challeneg and let everyone be a pet class and have less reason to group up,.
The game has tons of instancing that HEAVILY limits the number of players that can be together in the same zone.
The PvP is the pvp light, battle ground meaningless stuff where everyone gets ribbons and prizeseven if they lose. that you are used to in other game.
The crafting isn't even as innovative as EQ2.
All Bioware did a GREAT job for launching an MMO and in the end the game storyline is worth $ 50.00, it is well done. After you tire of the story you don't need to sunscribe you can always go back to any number of MMOs that offer the same style game play but with more mature systems and convienences.
Its meh. It has nothing really sticking out for it if you boil away the whole "Starwars" aspect but story, and that story elements are things that would bore a player after going through them so many times. A lot of players simply won't even want to care about it to even begin with, making it that much worst. I can't condemn the game but I can't recomend it either. Its one of those middle of the road games that really just doesn't stand out from the crowd.
Has this seriously got to the point where we are arguing AGAINST innovation?
I will concede that just radically changing things for no purpose isn't always the best idea. And you definitely SHOULD learn from and be inspired by what has occured in the past. But if no one ever innovated, we would all be playing a very graphically advanced version of Pong. Innovation is GOOD, not bad. You shouldn't be arguing against it.
I think the reason a lot of people attack SWTOR for not innovating, is because it still carries many of the PROBLEMS that WoW has without trying to change them. For example:
1. I still have to watch other players doing the exact same quests I'm doing.
2. I still can't group with my RL friends because we will almost always be different levels.
3. I still have difficulty just grouping with people I meet while questing because we are usually on different quests.
4. I still compete with players for quest MOBs....
...
THIS is why people are aggravated. These are the problems of 2004, and they still haven't been fixed.
I would never argue against innovation, but I would argue that something does not have to be innovative to be fun
I agree, something does not necessarily have to be innovative in order to be fun.
But in contrast, something can be "not fun" by virtue of being "not innovative."
It's all situational and greatly depends upon the specifics of the game, the history of games like it, and the specific player.
SWTOR is getting flak because most people here are veteran gamers that have been playing a very similar game concept since 2004. In short, many of us are just tired of it and that is understandable. So for many of us, the lack of innovation is directly leading to "not fun."
Of course, I am sure that there are others that are not tired of the WoW concept and are having fun...it's all relative.
What you are seeing is a vocal minority that is absolute in its intention to proclaim innovation as the industry's savior. This is unavoidable and occurs in literally every single genre. What these proclaimers fail to observe, however, is that the most enjoyed and successful games do not focus on being innovative, they focus on being fun. Just take a look at the industry's most renowned titles: Call of Duty, Halo, Starcraft, Diablo, World of Warcraft, etc. Change for the sake of change is unnecessary.
Each one of those games you listed came out in times when features or gameplay they had did make them stand out when they were first released. What feature / gameplay element does SWTOR that makes it stand out? Voice Overs? Not enough for it to last for more then a month.
Um....... What???? lololololol what features make mw3, halo 3, starcraft 2, WoW to be considered innovative at the time of their releases?
none of them and thats the point how long are we just going to accept more of the same year after year after year.
You don't get it, do you? I will say this again: The most successful and enjoyed games don't look to being innovative. They care about being fun because that is what matters most. Only a vocal minority is constantly searching for change which, to your misfortune, is not what sells.
Negative.
Now series live on their strengths, but what made the Modern Warfare series a smash? Well one, they brought an innovative way to host player matches to the genre. What else? Well it's a shooter and iron sights had been toyed with, a great mechanic. But how can people utilize it? Well they innovated a circular style multiplayer map as opposed to corridor or box crafted maps. They've ran it into the ground by the time MW3 came around, but it's an innovation that made the series what it is today.
MMOs need to strive for innovation, because TOR would be sunk already if Star Wars wasn't the IP attached to it.
EA knows that brand names makes a big difference, that's why they released that they were shopping around for established IPs for BioWare's freshmen entry into the genre.
The best game series innovate.
Look at what God of War brought to the slasher. Look at what Shadow of the Colossus did for every boss fight in any platform / adventure game. Look at all the mechanics Anarchy Online brought to the MMO genre, to be refined by FFXI and WoW. Now are in every game.
It's okay to borrow from what works.
But if you're not innovating, you deserve valid criticisms.
TOR's only touted feature is the one they worked the hardest on, a liner story with voice acted scenes. They did alright doing so.
But real content (in the case of the previously mentioned title; the lack there of) is what's going to push the MMO genre.
RIFT brought one element as well.
This game brought one..
SWTOR will be apart of the progress, but only minutely. As a Star Wars game, it's probably aces. As a MMO it's a baby step, and since about 2006-2008 we've been waiting for a title to add these lil' ones into something bigger.
I don't care if it's a themepark game. I say it sucks, because it's the same themepark with renamed rides.
Doesn't matter tho'. Hollywood has figured out with Harry Potter and Twilight that they don't need real movie making skills, they just need something that panders to the majority of the mindless mongoloids out there.
SWTOR's innovation is basically showing that the same applies to a paper thin mmorpg model, and now the industry will cling to it.
Very strong post the wholly agree with you. These ideas are really coming to a head with the release of SWTOR. It's not even just about this game, and more about mmorpg's for the past 2-3 years in general. This is probably why you see people rating the game the way they do on metacritic.
They probably don't think it's a bad game, but they don't want it to succeed in any fasion because any success sets the stage for next years iterations. If SWTOR is a success then the people who want the genre to grow have to wait that much longer.
I'd imagine that 80% of the people who play mmo's were probably introduced to the genre within the last 3-4 years, and so developers can easily milk them with re-hashed ideas, and a safe return on their investment.
all in all though this sort of discussion should probably move to the general forums where it can grow without being held down by fans who are just trying to defend SWTOR.
You're mixing concepts up. Change just for the hell of it is unnecessary. These models are still considered fun and the majority enjoys them. That is why expecting TOR to pull away from a fun and successful model is no only unrealistic but extremely illogical.
You're mixing concepts up. Change just for the hell of it is unnecessary. These models are still considered fun and the majority enjoys them. That is why expecting TOR to pull away from a fun and successful model is no only unrealisitc bur extremely illogical.
I actually think that the community by and large IS getting tired of this model. All the negativity here is just a manifestation of that. Now this does not mean that SWTOR will flop, it just means that the era may be coming to an end.
Comments
cause what sells makes it automatically whats great.. gotcha, pretty sure britney spears still sells millions of records on each release...
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/339443/Video-FollowUp-Guide-For-Enhancing-Graphics-and-Performance-in-SWTORSorry-still-Nvidia-Only.html
1. Not sure I'd consider that actually furnishing a home, you have a set choice on what you can add, and that's it.
2. Did rise of the godslayer make AOC a sandbox?
3. You can do this in thempark MMO's as well. "Explore the world freely." Perfect example is Fallen Earth. call that a SB and see the lecture you get. I've done it.... it wasn't pretty.
4. Again Fallen Earth...
With that I'm done going off topic.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
i love tor for many many reasons , i can list them but u can just go watch pockets 3 videos ull get the hint on what i like
I love the story, vo, the companions and the interactions u have with them, the questing which somehow feels more important then normal as i cant wait to see where my story is going, i love the crafting whihc allows me to kill while companions do stuff like treasure hunt, or archelogy or what ever i want them to do
once u gtet yoru ship at least, i love that i get my own ship sure others get the same one so what, the one im in is my very own and that is amazing to me
Its star wars and i catn get enough of star wars i even enjoyed most of the pre quels 2 sucked but i liked 1 and 3,
There are things not so great but the things i love so outweight the minor things like 4 body types in characte creator that they dont bother me
So play it find out foryourself, if u dont like it your out 60 dollars which u pay for a console game anyways that u can beat in a month.
In UO, you only had a set list of furniture you could place as well.
I never played Rise of the Godslayer, so no clue
.
And isn't Fallen Earth supposed to be a sandbox??? http://www.onrpg.com/MMO/Fallen-Earth/review/Fallen-Earth-Review---The-Post-Apocalyptic-Sandbox-MMO
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Each one of those games you listed came out in times when features or gameplay they had did make them stand out when they were first released. What feature / gameplay element does SWTOR that makes it stand out? Voice Overs? Not enough for it to last for more then a month.
Um....... What???? lololololol what features make mw3, halo 3, starcraft 2, WoW to be considered innovative at the time of their releases?none of them and thats the point how long are we just going to accept more of the same year after year after year.
You don't get it, do you? I will say this again: The most successful and enjoyed games don't look to being innovative. They care about being fun because that is what matters most. Only a vocal minority is constantly searching for change which, to your misfortune, is not what sells.cause what sells makes it automatically whats great.. gotcha, pretty sure britney spears still sells millions of records on each release...
Lol these games sell because they are fun, not because they are innovative.Many games like those have what's called a "Sandbox mode", as you can freely build as you chose with no objective.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I'd like to ask that you keep the what is/isn't a sandbox topic to a separate thread, as these posts are off-topic. Thanks!
so its wrong for people to want innovation then?
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/339443/Video-FollowUp-Guide-For-Enhancing-Graphics-and-Performance-in-SWTORSorry-still-Nvidia-Only.html
Fun and innovation are two different things. Innovation does not always = fun, infact in some cases it can suck.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Um....... What???? lololololol what features make mw3, halo 3, starcraft 2, WoW to be considered innovative at the time of their releases?
none of them and thats the point how long are we just going to accept more of the same year after year after year.
You don't get it, do you? I will say this again: The most successful and enjoyed games don't look to being innovative. They care about being fun because that is what matters most. Only a vocal minority is constantly searching for change which, to your misfortune, is not what sells.
Negative.
Now series live on their strengths, but what made the Modern Warfare series a smash? Well one, they brought an innovative way to host player matches to the genre. What else? Well it's a shooter and iron sights had been toyed with, a great mechanic. But how can people utilize it? Well they innovated a circular style multiplayer map as opposed to corridor or box crafted maps. They've ran it into the ground by the time MW3 came around, but it's an innovation that made the series what it is today.
MMOs need to strive for innovation, because TOR would be sunk already if Star Wars wasn't the IP attached to it.
EA knows that brand names makes a big difference, that's why they released that they were shopping around for established IPs for BioWare's freshmen entry into the genre.
The best game series innovate.
Look at what God of War brought to the slasher. Look at what Shadow of the Colossus did for every boss fight in any platform / adventure game. Look at all the mechanics Anarchy Online brought to the MMO genre, to be refined by FFXI and WoW. Now are in every game.
It's okay to borrow from what works.
But if you're not innovating, you deserve valid criticisms.
TOR's only touted feature is the one they worked the hardest on, a liner story with voice acted scenes. They did alright doing so.
But real content (in the case of the previously mentioned title; the lack there of) is what's going to push the MMO genre.
RIFT brought one element as well.
This game brought one..
SWTOR will be apart of the progress, but only minutely. As a Star Wars game, it's probably aces. As a MMO it's a baby step, and since about 2006-2008 we've been waiting for a title to add these lil' ones into something bigger.
I don't care if it's a themepark game. I say it sucks, because it's the same themepark with renamed rides.
Doesn't matter tho'. Hollywood has figured out with Harry Potter and Twilight that they don't need real movie making skills, they just need something that panders to the majority of the mindless mongoloids out there.
SWTOR's innovation is basically showing that the same applies to a paper thin mmorpg model, and now the industry will cling to it.
I used to play MMOs like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee.
I don't care what sandbox "fans" think, thats the official definition of it.
Thats how its taught in game-design schools.
Never read fourm post for a review of any game. The pepole that are happy with the game are busy playing.
Each one of those games you listed came out in times when features or gameplay they had did make them stand out when they were first released. What feature / gameplay element does SWTOR that makes it stand out? Voice Overs? Not enough for it to last for more then a month.
Um....... What???? lololololol what features make mw3, halo 3, starcraft 2, WoW to be considered innovative at the time of their releases?none of them and thats the point how long are we just going to accept more of the same year after year after year.
You don't get it, do you? I will say this again: The most successful and enjoyed games don't look to being innovative. They care about being fun because that is what matters most. Only a vocal minority is constantly searching for change which, to your misfortune, is not what sells.cause what sells makes it automatically whats great.. gotcha, pretty sure britney spears still sells millions of records on each release...
Lol these games sell because they are fun, not because they are innovative.so its wrong for people to want innovation then?
As I said before, it is natural but unnecessary for the bigger picture. The small minorities simply are insignificant to the bigger picture.But sometimes it can be a landmark take Minecraft as an example, or Angry birds as simple concept done right
Okay...so hold up.
Has this seriously got to the point where we are arguing AGAINST innovation?
I will concede that just radically changing things for no purpose isn't always the best idea. And you definitely SHOULD learn from and be inspired by what has occured in the past. But if no one ever innovated, we would all be playing a very graphically advanced version of Pong. Innovation is GOOD, not bad. You shouldn't be arguing against it.
I think the reason a lot of people attack SWTOR for not innovating, is because it still carries many of the PROBLEMS that WoW has without trying to change them. For example:
1. I still have to watch other players doing the exact same quests I'm doing.
2. I still can't group with my RL friends because we will almost always be different levels.
3. I still have difficulty just grouping with people I meet while questing because we are usually on different quests.
4. I still compete with players for quest MOBs....
...
THIS is why people are aggravated. These are the problems of 2004, and they still haven't been fixed.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Its not that bad if you like World of Starwarscraft. Its an OK game and I figure on 2-3 months before I am sick of it.
So with that definition, SWTOR is a sandbox. I can lvl to cap with out doing a single quest. I can do PvP and space combat and mob grinding in any order I want.
The sandbox term was around long before MMO's or game design schools.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
I would never argue against innovation, but I would argue that something does not have to be innovative to be fun
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
The game is good, but only Good....
The Storylines are new and very cool but the rest of game is just plain standard themepark MMO fare.
The Companions are insteresting but they just water down the game challeneg and let everyone be a pet class and have less reason to group up,.
The game has tons of instancing that HEAVILY limits the number of players that can be together in the same zone.
The PvP is the pvp light, battle ground meaningless stuff where everyone gets ribbons and prizeseven if they lose. that you are used to in other game.
The crafting isn't even as innovative as EQ2.
All Bioware did a GREAT job for launching an MMO and in the end the game storyline is worth $ 50.00, it is well done. After you tire of the story you don't need to sunscribe you can always go back to any number of MMOs that offer the same style game play but with more mature systems and convienences.
Is the game really that bad? No.
At the same time, is the game that good? No.
Its meh. It has nothing really sticking out for it if you boil away the whole "Starwars" aspect but story, and that story elements are things that would bore a player after going through them so many times. A lot of players simply won't even want to care about it to even begin with, making it that much worst. I can't condemn the game but I can't recomend it either. Its one of those middle of the road games that really just doesn't stand out from the crowd.
I agree, something does not necessarily have to be innovative in order to be fun.
But in contrast, something can be "not fun" by virtue of being "not innovative."
It's all situational and greatly depends upon the specifics of the game, the history of games like it, and the specific player.
SWTOR is getting flak because most people here are veteran gamers that have been playing a very similar game concept since 2004. In short, many of us are just tired of it and that is understandable. So for many of us, the lack of innovation is directly leading to "not fun."
Of course, I am sure that there are others that are not tired of the WoW concept and are having fun...it's all relative.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Very strong post the wholly agree with you. These ideas are really coming to a head with the release of SWTOR. It's not even just about this game, and more about mmorpg's for the past 2-3 years in general. This is probably why you see people rating the game the way they do on metacritic.
They probably don't think it's a bad game, but they don't want it to succeed in any fasion because any success sets the stage for next years iterations. If SWTOR is a success then the people who want the genre to grow have to wait that much longer.
I'd imagine that 80% of the people who play mmo's were probably introduced to the genre within the last 3-4 years, and so developers can easily milk them with re-hashed ideas, and a safe return on their investment.
all in all though this sort of discussion should probably move to the general forums where it can grow without being held down by fans who are just trying to defend SWTOR.
I actually think that the community by and large IS getting tired of this model. All the negativity here is just a manifestation of that. Now this does not mean that SWTOR will flop, it just means that the era may be coming to an end.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?