Originally posted by MMO.Maverick Personally I actually think that their E3 presentation sucked, and in this I agree with the OP. Regarding the presentation that is, not the game. Battlefield 3 showed an amazing piece of gameplay, Skyrim astonished me with the realisation that what I saw would actually be crammed in a console that is 7 years old. However, a number of decisions made and things shown made me shake my head: why the hell turn the visuals and effects down for the livestream, better to just blame any stutterings on the livestream when they happen but leave the visuals be. Tuning the AI down, another dubious decision, I'd have wanted to showcase how NPC behaviour would be different from other MMO's like other demos have shown. Having the people showcasing just stand around or noob players doing it, right... do it right or don't do it at all, get some people who know what they're doing and show them in action in all its glory, switching skills and even weapons on the fly, strafing, jumping among a mob horde and spreading mayhem with all kinds of spells and so on. All thes things together generate a sort of 'meh' feeling, unnecessarily. Anyway, that's how I saw it, I'm sure that there'll be people that disagree with me
You are right, the demo sucked, cant believe some one will disagree!
"Torquemada... do not implore him for compassion. Torquemada... do not beg him for forgiveness. Torquemada... do not ask him for mercy. Let's face it, you can't Torquemada anything!"
Personally I actually think that their E3 presentation sucked, and in this I agree with the OP. Regarding the presentation that is, not the game. Battlefield 3 showed an amazing piece of gameplay, Skyrim astonished me with the realisation that what I saw would actually be crammed in a console that is 7 years old.
However, a number of decisions made and things shown made me shake my head: why the hell turn the visuals and effects down for the livestream, better to just blame any stutterings on the livestream when they happen but leave the visuals be. Tuning the AI down, another dubious decision, I'd have wanted to showcase how NPC behaviour would be different from other MMO's like other demos have shown. Having the people showcasing just stand around or noob players doing it, right... do it right or don't do it at all, get some people who know what they're doing and show them in action in all its glory, switching skills and even weapons on the fly, strafing, jumping among a mob horde and spreading mayhem with all kinds of spells and so on. All thes things together generate a sort of 'meh' feeling, unnecessarily.
Anyway, that's how I saw it, I'm sure that there'll be people that disagree with me
You are right, the demo sucked, cant believe some one will disagree!
to all the flame boys out there if this game sucks dont buy it simple :P.......... i sure other people will buy it puts the flame shield on
Yet another basher. Let's compare the graphics again to some other games.
GW2
TOR
TERA
Seems to me, TOR is holding it's own as these shots of them are from and old build and they are even better now.
Here's why I love screenshot comparisons. Without reading a single line in the post about which game the author prefers, you can tell just by looking at the choice of screenshots.
The selected shots will always bias toward the game the poster favors and be the best in overall quality and clarity.
In this case, it would obviously be TOR. The GW2 shots are blurry and lower quality. The TERA screenshots are also lower quality and have visible artifacts from jpg compression, not to mention being notably smaller which doesn't help either.
The TOR shots, however, are nice, crisp and clean.
It's not like there aren't much better quality shots readily available online for all 3 games. I think I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen people demonstrate which game they like the looks of better by using equal quality screenshots for each one, so it's at least a fair comparison.
Yes, i pulled those pics, but really not in any order or anything like that. You can go to the screenshot section on this site itself and pull pics of each game. Does any of those pics look better than the other, not really. My assertion is that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. My point of even posting pics was to show that TOR's artstyle is on par with any game that is out or coming out.
Ok, since my pic selection was looked upon as being biased. Here are just some random pics.
Tera
GW2
TOR
Now i do know that TOR's pics are not from the latest build and are much better now. As for the other two, not sure where they are in the game development, as i am not keeping up with them.
Remember, these are pics from this site that anyone can get.
Ok, since my pic selection was looked upon as being biased. Here are just some random pics.
Tera
GW2
TOR
Now i do know that TOR's pics are not from the latest build and are much better now. As for the other two, not sure where they are in the game development, as i am not keeping up with them.
Remember, these are pics from this site that anyone can get.
To be honest, none of them look bad to me. Graphics wise they are all up to par imo. It is not as if there are any Darkfall stick puppets amongst them, or bland, uninspiring surroundings.
Graphics are not going to be the factor which will determine the 'winner' between these games.
You're correct. I just posted these because of course we keep getting the TOR artstyle is so cartoony post and such. Was just a nice random way to show that way of thinking just doesn't hold water.
I already know from what facts of the game they've released that ToR is not my cup of tea... however in saying that I know I will be buying it and at least playing the first month if only because I tend to buy every AAA MMO to come out just for the sake of trying it out.
Overall I think Bioware is playing it far too safe. I too think they have focused far too much on the storyline and the game suffers for it. In an MMO the player should be writing his / her own story... not just playing through one.
Overall the Star Wars IP just screams SANDBOX MMO. I don't know... but I have a feeling that if they were to make a SW MMO more in lines to how EVE Online works that people would flock to it. I want to LIVE in the Star Wars universe... not merely take part in a theme park roller-coaster ride where I know the start AND the end even before I even get started.
My Star Wars MMO would be
- Sandbox
- Dynamic Character development based on player choices
- No "Good" or "Evil" just different mindsets / goals
- One character can be many things if worked on (Level up through skill usage)
- Unlocking Force abilities is a commitment and hard
- Jedi's can fall to the dark side and vis-versa
- Open world PvP no safe zones anywhere (harsh penalties in some areas due to security Ex: Killing someone in a major city / town the law will be after you)
- Action based FPS / TPS combat / controls
- Space and Planetary content
- Being able to fly your ship down to the atmosphere of a planet and land with no loading screen
- At launch have all major sectors / cities / systems in the game (Because it wouldn't be Star Wars without all that)
- Fully realized planets and cities (Nothing condensed)
- The ability to walk around in your ship at any time
- Everything in the game crafted by players
- Play how you want, do what you want at any time.
- Clans or "businesses" can take over planets / sectors and fight for control over the universe (to an extent)
- Player made buildings to increase industry / production (Creation of clan cities)
Those are just some ideas.... the idea being that people could live in the Star Wars universe and have as much freedom as possible to do what they want when.
I've been playing that for nearly 20 years. It's called Star Wars rpg.
This is why mmo's will always be inferior and infinitely less rewarding than traditional rpg. We aren't hard core roleplayers either. We set the stories up with equal balance of story telling and action in the fast paced movie style.
The freedom and unlimited imagination pnp rpg's bring will never be matched. Most gamers these days however lack the patience, intelligence, imagination and commitment to meeting with real people because they can't pull themselves away from their pc/console/smart phone/*insert instant-gratification technology*.
For a true sandbox open world game you would need several developers working together to produce a multi-faceted game but todays development costs prohibit this. The gaming insdustry is big business now and lacks the imagination and drive it once did. I am sure TOR is a work of love for Bioware but they are restricted by self-imposed design and gameplay limitations to fit the game into a marketed framework. All we see now is templated gameplay and a gimmick layer on top. Then we are marketed that gimmick as the games big differential.
Forever gone are the days of a game like Asheron's Call with monthly updates and a game world at launch larger than any modern mmo's world after a lifetime of expansions.
Perhaps the only way to get a true mmorpg made is to have a truly uber development engine that includes all tools needed. Obviously none exists to allow a game like this yet. Perhaps the next great evolution of game development will come but not likely before further hardware standards and fibre to every household.
Other gaming standards will have to change too. There will never be a true sandbox mmo with the current client/server structure. Everyone asks why sandbox games seem to be dead and it isn't that there isn't a desire for them but is because companies market toward the current tech limitations which favors themepark limitations. The only way to make truly epic games is to consolidate all aspects of developement, distribution, and maintenance into one infrastructure with one standard ... and this is called The Cloud (zero client side gaming).
Cloud gaming will not evolve until ISP's offer fibre level internet and developers jump on board with vision. I think we will see these games you want at some point but only when this arrives. Bandwidth is needed on top of industry consolidation because the next true persistant worlds will allow players to never have to log out. Part of AI and world dynamic will be generated by players even when not actively playing but still will have tools ported to different platforms like pads and phones. Automated tools in the hands of the players will assist in fleshing out the world. It will basically be 3D gaming through social networking.
We are likely 5 to 10 years out for the tech to even reach this level and further still if developers are too shortsighted to jump on the concept.
You're correct. I just posted these because of course we keep getting the TOR artstyle is so cartoony post and such. Was just a nice random way to show that way of thinking just doesn't hold water.
The characters are cartoony though. :V
Don't be so sensitive, and take it as an insult, even if somebody else means it as an insult!
Accept it as it SHOULD be meant, which is as a commentary on the art style, rather than graphics quality.
So far as the 'cartoony is used to suggest something is for younger people' thing... c'mon, we're playing GAMES.
We should be armored and bulletproof to accusations that something we like is for kids. Be manly! Be proud!
We like games! We like things that have a cartoony style! Adults are allowed to do this, you know!
(edit: So far as the pictures go, and the state of the games, Tera is a released game, most of the screenshots are from open beta at least, or even released product... SW:ToR is in closed beta, and most of the latest screenshots are from that. GW2 is still in pre-alpha, and most of the screenshots you've used are from at least a year before NOW (where it's still pre-alpha). So I think it's kind of hypocritical when SW:ToR fans who were like 'Graphics weren't great, but they got lots better! (Which is true)' bash GW2 for THEIR year old pre-alpha screenshots. )
You're correct. I just posted these because of course we keep getting the TOR artstyle is so cartoony post and such. Was just a nice random way to show that way of thinking just doesn't hold water.
The characters are cartoony though. :V
Don't be so sensitive, and take it as an insult, even if somebody else means it as an insult!
Accept it as it SHOULD be meant, which is as a commentary on the art style, rather than graphics quality.
So far as the 'cartoony is used to suggest something is for younger people' thing... c'mon, we're playing GAMES.
We should be armored and bulletproof to accusations that something we like is for kids. Be manly! Be proud!
We like games! We like things that have a cartoony style! Adults are allowed to do this, you know!
(edit: So far as the pictures go, and the state of the games, Tera is a released game, most of the screenshots are from open beta at least, or even released product... SW:ToR is in closed beta, and most of the latest screenshots are from that. GW2 is still in pre-alpha, and most of the screenshots you've used are from at least a year before NOW (where it's still pre-alpha). So I think it's kind of hypocritical when SW:ToR fans who were like 'Graphics weren't great, but they got lots better! (Which is true)' bash GW2 for THEIR year old pre-alpha screenshots. )
Heh. Well said.
For the record though, I think the art style for all three is consistent with cartoons just like pretty much every MMO I've played. I don't think that's a bad thing, and I don't understand the distinction folks are trying to make. I get that there are degrees of cartoonishness, but that's a bit too fine a line to be drawing if you ask me.
(edit: So far as the pictures go, and the state of the games, Tera is a released game, most of the screenshots are from open beta at least, or even released product... SW:ToR is in closed beta, and most of the latest screenshots are from that. GW2 is still in pre-alpha, and most of the screenshots you've used are from at least a year before NOW (where it's still pre-alpha). So I think it's kind of hypocritical when SW:ToR fans who were like 'Graphics weren't great, but they got lots better! (Which is true)' bash GW2 for THEIR year old pre-alpha screenshots. )
I think it's for a more valid reason than the one you give: they're pointing out to those who're adulating TERA and GW2 graphics and criticizing SWTOR graphics, that the differences in graphical quality between those 3 aren't as large as some might think/hope.
Which is a valid argument, after all those who fawn over GW2 and TERA graphics and criticize TOR graphics do this based on the currently available screenshots, no matter in what stage those graphics are.
Personally, I think it's a matter of personal taste, nothing more to it than that.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
I think it's for a more valid reason than the one you give: they're pointing out to those who're adulating TERA and GW2 graphics and criticizing SWTOR graphics, that the differences in graphical quality between those 3 aren't as large as some might think/hope.
Which is a valid argument, after all those who fawn over GW2 and TERA graphics and criticize TOR graphics do this based on the currently available screenshots, no matter in what stage those graphics are.
Personally, I think it's a matter of personal taste, nothing more to it than that.
While SOME SW:ToR fans are being reasonable and nice and just defending their game, some are just 'Rawr, SW:ToR art is the best, art from GW2 sucks! God, it sucks! How bad it is! I can't believe people like that game!' (I could point to a few people in this very thread, but I won't. )
That applies to each and every fandom. ... and there are SW:ToR fans who are guilty of putting their game's art on a pedestal while (and this is the bad part) simultaneously bashing other art to try and make their own game seem better.
Those are the fans I was directing my comment against.
Like I've said before, and will say again, the SW:ToR graphics are a lot better than they used to be. I don't think SW:ToR fans have anything to be ashamed of, and shouldn't have any need to overcompensate. Just be proud of your art, and don't feel inferior to anybody. :V
The whole reason I pointed out which stage each game in was, by the way, was specifically because the person I was replying to (In another post) said 'I don't know what stage of development each game is in, unlike SW:ToR'. So I pointed out to him where the games were at. Then, after I pointed out the stage the game was in, I thought I would just sneak in a quick waggle of my finger at those who simultaneously defend SW:ToR graphics for improving, while bashing other games that are in early stages.
Originally posted by JarodD
Heh. Well said.
For the record though, I think the art style for all three is consistent with cartoons just like pretty much every MMO I've played. I don't think that's a bad thing, and I don't understand the distinction folks are trying to make. I get that there are degrees of cartoonishness, but that's a bit too fine a line to be drawing if you ask me.
Well, Tera and GW2 both are more like an Asian cartoon style. Which are still cartoons, but people tend to refer to them as 'anime' to help differentiate. There is a difference in style, though I suppose not everybody can appreciate how/why there's a difference.
The methods of simplifying the characters to a stylized design is a bit different in each case though.
Still simplified/idealized.
Also, there's games like Conan that go for a more realism style.
Yes, i pulled those pics, but really not in any order or anything like that. You can go to the screenshot section on this site itself and pull pics of each game. Does any of those pics look better than the other, not really. My assertion is that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. My point of even posting pics was to show that TOR's artstyle is on par with any game that is out or coming out.
Fair enough...
But I would still be willing to bet that you were more selective with which TOR shots you chose than you were with the others, perhaps without even realizing it..
It's nothing personal... just a trend I notice on here and find irksome anytime someone posts screenshots for comparison. The ones for the game they favor are almost always better looking shots, more interesting looking, better overall quality, etc.. meanwhile, the other games' shots are usually very drab, lower quality, etc.
I mean here's two of many TERA shots I found within 30 seconds of reading your post that easily are much better quality and a more "equal" comparison to your TOR shots in terms of image quality. They're also better at demonstrating the overall graphics quality of the game overall (I'm talking graphics quality, not art style... there's a difference)
Not bashing you or anything. Just sayin'... I notice that a lot in posts similar to yours.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Ok, since my pic selection was looked upon as being biased. Here are just some random pics.
Tera
GW2
TOR
Now i do know that TOR's pics are not from the latest build and are much better now. As for the other two, not sure where they are in the game development, as i am not keeping up with them.
Remember, these are pics from this site that anyone can get.
That's much better
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Just like you're bashing any reviewer or game blogger who has any kind of criticism of SWTOR?
Lol. Not really, it may seem like I do, but only because the number of heavily biased gutfeeling commenting, often ignoring common sense or a balanced viewpoint, is (far) more often seen among the people/bloggers who have a thing against SWTOR. Among those you'll find the people who make uninformed comments about the game, or who're seeking out any negative comment they can find and elevate it to gospel.
Most obvious example I found the whole quoting of an anonymous blogger, some people instant-believed him and practically jumped enthusiastically on the whole '300 million dollar budget' statement of an anonymous blogger. Why? Very simple. Some people want to hate or dislike SWTOR, and then seek the negative arguments that fit that best while, and this is the most important part where I find common sense and reason is abandoned, ignoring all other positive arguments that are stated.
This is another example: SWTOR haters jump enthusiastically on a negative blog article, not even a handson report, and elevate it immediately to the status of gospel and the Truth.
It isn't the fact that they only mention a negative review that I reply on, it's the fact that they ignore all other reviews that are more positive, which is the majority, and also ignore that it wasn't a real preview or handson report, but just sort of a 'daily column' blog, the guy didn't even play SWTOR.
Like I said in other posts, I think even in this thread, if you want to do it right, take both positive and negative reviews altogether and get the picture from that, negative as well as positive reviews and handson reports both have their merit and value, as long as they're based on solid facts or personal experiences, not just gut feeling sensationalism
For the rest, I'm perfectly fine with reviewers and handson reports being negative about a game I'm interested in, after all we don't have all the same tastes and gaming preferences. But don't give me gut feelings, everyone has them often based on a lot of air and colored emotions, give me solid reports and actual handson impressions and descriptions.
edit: lol, Fanbot's post got removed? That's quick
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
About the Asian and the Western ART Direction. The Asian style beside if its anime or whatever seem to work better with lighting while they tend to have cheap polys, textures, and so on, they do anything to make cheapness flaws overlooked and they often get it done. They get really atmorspheric vistas with their low settings - ok, some do not but that be even by f2p standards bad games.
Western games need overly advanced engines to get the same done and even in AoC be many dungeons for example that simply be "ugly" bcs of the bad lighting.
"Torquemada... do not implore him for compassion. Torquemada... do not beg him for forgiveness. Torquemada... do not ask him for mercy. Let's face it, you can't Torquemada anything!"
I love how most of the people who come to the forum and bash TOR are the ones who will play GW2. The best part is, even after all the interviews, live demos, and revealed content about the game, they STILL can only pick on the graphics to bash.
Untrue. I think the artwork looks pretty good. If I was to nitpick a point, it wouldn't be art-related. But aside from the IP itself and maybe the musical score, nothing else is all that appealing.
I might yet pick it up because I'd be interested in running through it once. But I see it as a futuristic version of Dragon Age. Once I've run through it once, my interest will wane. I frankly don't believe that the storylines will be that different from one another to warrant additional playthroughs if the gameplay itself isn't that engaging. To me, story DOES NOT trump gameplay. Ever. And the gameplay just looks rather bland. In some cases (on-rail space shooter), it looks downright lame. The newness factor might justify the box price, but not a subscription.
So, the graphics look good. The rest of the game looks so-so. If nothing else has my interest when it releases, I'll probably try it.
Ok, since my pic selection was looked upon as being biased. Here are just some random pics.
Tera
GW2
TOR
Now i do know that TOR's pics are not from the latest build and are much better now. As for the other two, not sure where they are in the game development, as i am not keeping up with them.
Remember, these are pics from this site that anyone can get.
That's much better
The art style of Tera will stop me from playing the game. I am tired of the "My weapon is so big it could split the world in twain" look. I never liked it to begin with and now it has been elevated to hate. Plus the detail was good, but seemed washed out. That might just be the pics though, not the game.
GW2 looks good. Well at least the character models do . . . in a manquin kind of way. The backgrounds though are all washed out. My guess is it is an artistic choice to make the characters stand out more. I've played a few games like this now and they all ended up giving me a headache. I am not sure why, physical or emotional, but I probably won't do more than check out the game, if I even do that.
The art style for Star Wars, while not exactly my taste, has a great deal of detail. The proportions have vastly improved (thankfully) and the clarity of the characters, as well as the backgrounds, match very nicely. Again, the style is not exactly the one I would have picked, but it does look good to me and if I had to choose between the three, it is the one I would go with.
"If half of what you tell me is a lie, how can I believe any of it?"
I think GW2 has the best graphics out of the three being compared. It has a nice balance of stylized graphics and realism. My only gripe is that the human faces look bad, like cheap doll heads.
TERA has high end graphics but everything is just a bit too slimy/shiny for my taste.
I really like the stylized graphics of TOR and the facial expressions are very well done. But the play-doh looking trees and rocks get on my nerves.
But they all look great and a pretty much perfect for what the devs were going for.
There have been some who dislike the game, and i totally expect that, never do i expect universal appeal. However, most of the hands-on and reviews from big sites (IGN and such) have generally been overall positive as well as general people reviews, MMO.Maverik made a compilation of this a while ago showing the over all review from both players and press types and it came across as positive with a few things negative.
Your going to get a negative review every now and then, but myself i try and look at what a game is, look at a smattering of reviews, watch a trailer, then decide if i like it.
I never take just one review and say oh this guy hated it or that guy loved it so it must be bad or good. I try and look at em all. IT's far far too easy to just assume things from one guy. get multiple estimates, see what the general public think not only of the game but of the reveiwer itself. Do the reviewers you look at seem crediable, do they seem like they got sufficient time with the thing they are analyzing. Then see what the general public thinks of the game, do they generally like it? if so what features do they like. What features don't they like and why.
Generally for this game they have been positive with a few concerns here and there. That i'm okay with.
I think the problem is greater than bioware or even mmos. I think the problem is the gaming industry. Gaming sites will naturally favor the game, especially during bad times for the industry - just to keep the flow goin.
I've heard this argument before, gamer1982o39, and the problem I have with it is that reporters and gaming sites / magazines that do such a thing will not be in business very long. The fact is reputation means something. A site that backs up a game, no matter how bad it is, will suffer in the reputation department. In other words people will stop visiting the site and after the hits get too low, the advertisers will go away too or just reduse their purchasing on that site to nominal levels. In the end, it only benefits the sites / magazines / reviewrs to be honest and give good, detailed reviews, no matter what the end product is.
"Reviewers" that do not do this end up being ridiculed like kotaku.com for writing a "review" of a game that they never played and so have no experience with, yet still sells his words as gospel. Personally, after reading this guys garbage I laughed myself silly and then wrote the website down as one to NEVER visit again.
"If half of what you tell me is a lie, how can I believe any of it?"
There have been some who dislike the game, and i totally expect that, never do i expect universal appeal. However, most of the hands-on and reviews from big sites (IGN and such) have generally been overall positive as well as general people reviews, MMO.Maverik made a compilation of this a while ago showing the over all review from both players and press types and it came across as positive with a few things negative.
Your going to get a negative review every now and then, but myself i try and look at what a game is, look at a smattering of reviews, watch a trailer, then decide if i like it.
I never take just one review and say oh this guy hated it or that guy loved it so it must be bad or good. I try and look at em all. IT's far far too easy to just assume things from one guy. get multiple estimates, see what the general public think not only of the game but of the reveiwer itself. Do the reviewers you look at seem crediable, do they seem like they got sufficient time with the thing they are analyzing. Then see what the general public thinks of the game, do they generally like it? if so what features do they like. What features don't they like and why.
Generally for this game they have been positive with a few concerns here and there. That i'm okay with.
I think the problem is greater than bioware or even mmos. I think the problem is the gaming industry. Gaming sites will naturally favor the game, especially during bad times for the industry - just to keep the flow goin.
I've heard this argument before, gamer1982o39, and the problem I have with it is that reporters and gaming sites / magazines that do such a thing will not be in business very long. The fact is reputation means something. A site that backs up a game, no matter how bad it is, will suffer in the reputation department. In other words people will stop visiting the site and after the hits get too low, the advertisers will go away too or just reduse their purchasing on that site to nominal levels. In the end, it only benefits the sites / magazines / reviewrs to be honest and give good, detailed reviews, no matter what the end product is.
"Reviewers" that do not do this end up being ridiculed like kotaku.com for writing a "review" of a game that they never played and so have no experience with, yet still sells his words as gospel. Personally, after reading this guys garbage I laughed myself silly and then wrote the website down as one to NEVER visit again.
The problem with the kotaku "review" was it was nothing more than a dignified blog post that could have been made by any one of us, masqueradng as a professional review. It was nothing more than the "reviewers" self admitted, gut reaction to what he saw, and not a hands on of the game. Now I have a gut reaction that Angelina Jolie would find me irresistible if she only gave me the chance, but that by no means makes it so.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
I think GW2 has the best graphics out of the three being compared. It has a nice balance of stylized graphics and realism. My only gripe is that the human faces look bad, like cheap doll heads.
TERA has high end graphics but everything is just a bit too slimy/shiny for my taste.
I really like the stylized graphics of TOR and the facial expressions are very well done. But the play-doh looking trees and rocks get on my nerves.
But they all look great and a pretty much perfect for what the devs were going for.
Yes, that is especially visible on female faces. Male faces seem to look much more detailed.
And, I don't want to promote GW2's environmental design, but:
There have been some who dislike the game, and i totally expect that, never do i expect universal appeal. However, most of the hands-on and reviews from big sites (IGN and such) have generally been overall positive as well as general people reviews, MMO.Maverik made a compilation of this a while ago showing the over all review from both players and press types and it came across as positive with a few things negative.
Your going to get a negative review every now and then, but myself i try and look at what a game is, look at a smattering of reviews, watch a trailer, then decide if i like it.
I never take just one review and say oh this guy hated it or that guy loved it so it must be bad or good. I try and look at em all. IT's far far too easy to just assume things from one guy. get multiple estimates, see what the general public think not only of the game but of the reveiwer itself. Do the reviewers you look at seem crediable, do they seem like they got sufficient time with the thing they are analyzing. Then see what the general public thinks of the game, do they generally like it? if so what features do they like. What features don't they like and why.
Generally for this game they have been positive with a few concerns here and there. That i'm okay with.
I think the problem is greater than bioware or even mmos. I think the problem is the gaming industry. Gaming sites will naturally favor the game, especially during bad times for the industry - just to keep the flow goin.
I've heard this argument before, gamer1982o39, and the problem I have with it is that reporters and gaming sites / magazines that do such a thing will not be in business very long. The fact is reputation means something. A site that backs up a game, no matter how bad it is, will suffer in the reputation department. In other words people will stop visiting the site and after the hits get too low, the advertisers will go away too or just reduse their purchasing on that site to nominal levels. In the end, it only benefits the sites / magazines / reviewrs to be honest and give good, detailed reviews, no matter what the end product is.
"Reviewers" that do not do this end up being ridiculed like kotaku.com for writing a "review" of a game that they never played and so have no experience with, yet still sells his words as gospel. Personally, after reading this guys garbage I laughed myself silly and then wrote the website down as one to NEVER visit again.
The problem with the kotaku "review" was it was nothing more than a dignified blog post that could have been made by any one of us, masqueradng as a professional review. It was nothing more than the "reviewers" self admitted, gut reaction to what he saw, and not a hands on of the game. Now I have a gut reaction that Angelina Jolie would find me irresistible if she only gave me the chance, but that by no means makes it so.
Exactly and now that I know the blooger is a worthless source, I will no longer listen to him OR any place he may be published. THAT is the problem with making a bad reputation for yourself, it often comes back to bite you in the butt. Which is why I feel most legitimate companies will not allow their employees to act like this in the long run, it hurts their bottom line after all.
It's nice to see we can agree on a few more things Tardcore.
"If half of what you tell me is a lie, how can I believe any of it?"
The problem with the kotaku "review" was it was nothing more than a dignified blog post that could have been made by any one of us, masqueradng as a professional review. It was nothing more than the "reviewers" self admitted, gut reaction to what he saw, and not a hands on of the game. Now I have a gut reaction that Angelina Jolie would find me irresistible if she only gave me the chance, but that by no means makes it so.
The problem with the 'review' is that he never said it was a review.
The guy is a blogger. Writing a blog post. On his personal feelings. That's what blogs are for, after all. To reveal all your useless inner feelings to people who have no real reason to care, but somehow do anyway.
While it may be a good indication of what that guy's feelings are, and it might be something to point to if you want to say 'I feel the same way he does, but I can't write no good.', it's useless to point to as a review, because that's not what it is, or was meant to be.
... and I think the people attacking the blogger for having EMOTIONS are getting way too close to being fanboys.
Now, people can slap people around for trying to use that blogger to prove SW:ToR will fail (Unless you define fail as 'Not selling to that one particular blogger), but it's just an opinion piece, and he stated MORE than once that he didn't play the game, and this is based purely on his personal feelings and desires for Star Wars aesthetics in a game.
So people slapping around the blogger are just being weird, because they're basically attacking somebody for having an opinion on aesthetics. Yeah. That's dangerously close to fanboy territory if you ask me.
Go ahead. Look at the article again. He never calls it a review. More than once he has disclaimers that this is purely based upon his feelings about Star Wars. ... and you know what? Some people will feel the same way. Some people just won't think that SW:ToR represents what Star Wars is to them. You see those people around. That's okay though, because that's just how those people feel, and it's a personal choice. About their feelings. People who like the game shouldn't feel threatened by other people's personal opinions on matters of taste.
People who refer to it as a review are misinformed, whether it's 'Check this review out, this guy shows SW:ToR fans what's what!' or 'Gah! This reviewer sucks! His review sucks!'.
Originally posted by Foomerang
I think GW2 has the best graphics out of the three being compared. It has a nice balance of stylized graphics and realism. My only gripe is that the human faces look bad, like cheap doll heads.
For what it's worth, the human heads in that particular set of screenshots are from over a year ago. They've improved the faces since then! Thankfully.
Of course, most of the women have the same kind of pretty-little-too-smooth mannequin doll face look, but now they look like =higher class= dolls. It's also partially an art style thing, so I don't think no matter how much they improve the art, that the dollishness will go away. Which of course is not to many people's tastes.
The problem with the kotaku "review" was it was nothing more than a dignified blog post that could have been made by any one of us, masqueradng as a professional review. It was nothing more than the "reviewers" self admitted, gut reaction to what he saw, and not a hands on of the game. Now I have a gut reaction that Angelina Jolie would find me irresistible if she only gave me the chance, but that by no means makes it so.
The problem with the 'review' is that he never said it was a review.
The guy is a blogger. Writing a blog post. On his personal feelings.
While it may be a good indication of what that guy's feelings are, and it might be something to point to if you want to say 'I feel the same way he does, but I can't write no good.', it's useless to point to as a review, because that's not what it is, or was meant to be.
... and I think the people attacking the blogger for having EMOTIONS are getting way too close to being fanboys.
Now, people can slap people around for trying to use that blogger to prove SW:ToR will fail (Unless you define fail as 'Not selling to that one particular blogger), but it's just an opinion piece, and he stated MORE than once that he didn't play the game, and this is based purely on his personal feelings and desires for Star Wars aesthetics in a game.
So people slapping around the blogger are just being weird, because they're basically attacking somebody for having an opinion on aesthetics. Yeah. That's dangerously close to fanboy territory if you ask me.
Go ahead. Look at the article again. He never calls it a review. More than once he has disclaimers that this is purely based upon his feelings about Star Wars.
People who refer to it as a review are misinformed, whether it's 'Check this review out, this guy shows SW:ToR fans what's what!' or 'Gah! This reviewer sucks! His review sucks!'.
Actually Meowhead, I personally am bashing him for REFUSING to play even though he had a chance. He may be a "Blogger", but he is making his blogs on a gaming website. He then sells his opinion, based on nothing but some obscure "feelings", as fact while trying to also write off any criticism with the "This isn't a review" disclaimer. It's the worst form of journalism and in my opinion, this type of "Blogger" should be fired.
"If half of what you tell me is a lie, how can I believe any of it?"
Actually Meowhead, I personally am bashing him for REFUSING to play even though he had a chance. He then sells his opinion, based on nothing but some obscure "feelings", as fact while trying to also write off any criticism with the "This isn't a review" disclaimer. It's the worst form of journalism and in my opinion, this type of "Blogger" should be fired.
The man doesn't want to play the game. He looks at it, and it makes a part of him go 'Ugh. That's not the kind of Star Wars I want to have'
Which is fine. That was like... the first sentence he had, or the second. So it's hardly misleading that this is a post PURELY based off of his emotions.
His whole post was about how the appearance of the game bugs him, and how it appears to not be what he wants. You said earlier in this thing that you probably won't play GW2 because the backgrounds are too soft for you.
Kotaku has its times when it's about facts and SRS Business. ... and they do some of the better MMO review styles out there (They take a whole month to review it, 4 reviews each cataloguing what the past week was like.)
... but sometimes they just have opinion pieces. Purely opinion, and duly noted as such. The Glee fanboys were more mature when they said they didn't want to play the Glee game. Or at least, I never heard any of them ranting about it. :V
... at least stop calling it a review, or even hinting that it resembles a review, because it most clearly is not.
(edit: I dont' want to play Imagine: Babies, but if I was a blogger, I would clearly say that the whole concept of the Imagine: Stereotypical Girl Activity series of games by Ubisoft weirds me out.
... and that I refuse to play them. Does that make me a bad person?)
Comments
You are right, the demo sucked, cant believe some one will disagree!
"Torquemada... do not implore him for compassion. Torquemada... do not beg him for forgiveness. Torquemada... do not ask him for mercy. Let's face it, you can't Torquemada anything!"
MWO Music Video - What does the Mech say: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF6HYNqCDLI
Johnny Cash - The Man Comes Around: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0x2iwK0BKM
to all the flame boys out there if this game sucks dont buy it simple :P.......... i sure other people will buy it puts the flame shield on
.....
Yes, i pulled those pics, but really not in any order or anything like that. You can go to the screenshot section on this site itself and pull pics of each game. Does any of those pics look better than the other, not really. My assertion is that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. My point of even posting pics was to show that TOR's artstyle is on par with any game that is out or coming out.
Ok, since my pic selection was looked upon as being biased. Here are just some random pics.
Tera
GW2
TOR
Now i do know that TOR's pics are not from the latest build and are much better now. As for the other two, not sure where they are in the game development, as i am not keeping up with them.
Remember, these are pics from this site that anyone can get.
To be honest, none of them look bad to me. Graphics wise they are all up to par imo. It is not as if there are any Darkfall stick puppets amongst them, or bland, uninspiring surroundings.
Graphics are not going to be the factor which will determine the 'winner' between these games.
My brand new bloggity blog.
You're correct. I just posted these because of course we keep getting the TOR artstyle is so cartoony post and such. Was just a nice random way to show that way of thinking just doesn't hold water.
I've been playing that for nearly 20 years. It's called Star Wars rpg.
This is why mmo's will always be inferior and infinitely less rewarding than traditional rpg. We aren't hard core roleplayers either. We set the stories up with equal balance of story telling and action in the fast paced movie style.
The freedom and unlimited imagination pnp rpg's bring will never be matched. Most gamers these days however lack the patience, intelligence, imagination and commitment to meeting with real people because they can't pull themselves away from their pc/console/smart phone/*insert instant-gratification technology*.
For a true sandbox open world game you would need several developers working together to produce a multi-faceted game but todays development costs prohibit this. The gaming insdustry is big business now and lacks the imagination and drive it once did. I am sure TOR is a work of love for Bioware but they are restricted by self-imposed design and gameplay limitations to fit the game into a marketed framework. All we see now is templated gameplay and a gimmick layer on top. Then we are marketed that gimmick as the games big differential.
Forever gone are the days of a game like Asheron's Call with monthly updates and a game world at launch larger than any modern mmo's world after a lifetime of expansions.
Perhaps the only way to get a true mmorpg made is to have a truly uber development engine that includes all tools needed. Obviously none exists to allow a game like this yet. Perhaps the next great evolution of game development will come but not likely before further hardware standards and fibre to every household.
Other gaming standards will have to change too. There will never be a true sandbox mmo with the current client/server structure. Everyone asks why sandbox games seem to be dead and it isn't that there isn't a desire for them but is because companies market toward the current tech limitations which favors themepark limitations. The only way to make truly epic games is to consolidate all aspects of developement, distribution, and maintenance into one infrastructure with one standard ... and this is called The Cloud (zero client side gaming).
Cloud gaming will not evolve until ISP's offer fibre level internet and developers jump on board with vision. I think we will see these games you want at some point but only when this arrives. Bandwidth is needed on top of industry consolidation because the next true persistant worlds will allow players to never have to log out. Part of AI and world dynamic will be generated by players even when not actively playing but still will have tools ported to different platforms like pads and phones. Automated tools in the hands of the players will assist in fleshing out the world. It will basically be 3D gaming through social networking.
We are likely 5 to 10 years out for the tech to even reach this level and further still if developers are too shortsighted to jump on the concept.
You stay sassy!
The characters are cartoony though. :V
Don't be so sensitive, and take it as an insult, even if somebody else means it as an insult!
Accept it as it SHOULD be meant, which is as a commentary on the art style, rather than graphics quality.
So far as the 'cartoony is used to suggest something is for younger people' thing... c'mon, we're playing GAMES.
We should be armored and bulletproof to accusations that something we like is for kids. Be manly! Be proud!
We like games! We like things that have a cartoony style! Adults are allowed to do this, you know!
(edit: So far as the pictures go, and the state of the games, Tera is a released game, most of the screenshots are from open beta at least, or even released product... SW:ToR is in closed beta, and most of the latest screenshots are from that. GW2 is still in pre-alpha, and most of the screenshots you've used are from at least a year before NOW (where it's still pre-alpha). So I think it's kind of hypocritical when SW:ToR fans who were like 'Graphics weren't great, but they got lots better! (Which is true)' bash GW2 for THEIR year old pre-alpha screenshots.
)
Heh. Well said.
For the record though, I think the art style for all three is consistent with cartoons just like pretty much every MMO I've played. I don't think that's a bad thing, and I don't understand the distinction folks are trying to make. I get that there are degrees of cartoonishness, but that's a bit too fine a line to be drawing if you ask me.
I think it's for a more valid reason than the one you give: they're pointing out to those who're adulating TERA and GW2 graphics and criticizing SWTOR graphics, that the differences in graphical quality between those 3 aren't as large as some might think/hope.
Which is a valid argument, after all those who fawn over GW2 and TERA graphics and criticize TOR graphics do this based on the currently available screenshots, no matter in what stage those graphics are.
Personally, I think it's a matter of personal taste, nothing more to it than that.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
While SOME SW:ToR fans are being reasonable and nice and just defending their game, some are just 'Rawr, SW:ToR art is the best, art from GW2 sucks! God, it sucks! How bad it is! I can't believe people like that game!' (I could point to a few people in this very thread, but I won't.
)
That applies to each and every fandom. ... and there are SW:ToR fans who are guilty of putting their game's art on a pedestal while (and this is the bad part) simultaneously bashing other art to try and make their own game seem better.
Those are the fans I was directing my comment against.
Like I've said before, and will say again, the SW:ToR graphics are a lot better than they used to be. I don't think SW:ToR fans have anything to be ashamed of, and shouldn't have any need to overcompensate. Just be proud of your art, and don't feel inferior to anybody. :V
The whole reason I pointed out which stage each game in was, by the way, was specifically because the person I was replying to (In another post) said 'I don't know what stage of development each game is in, unlike SW:ToR'. So I pointed out to him where the games were at. Then, after I pointed out the stage the game was in, I thought I would just sneak in a quick waggle of my finger at those who simultaneously defend SW:ToR graphics for improving, while bashing other games that are in early stages.
Well, Tera and GW2 both are more like an Asian cartoon style. Which are still cartoons, but people tend to refer to them as 'anime' to help differentiate. There is a difference in style, though I suppose not everybody can appreciate how/why there's a difference.
The methods of simplifying the characters to a stylized design is a bit different in each case though.
Still simplified/idealized.
Also, there's games like Conan that go for a more realism style.
Fair enough...
But I would still be willing to bet that you were more selective with which TOR shots you chose than you were with the others, perhaps without even realizing it..
It's nothing personal... just a trend I notice on here and find irksome anytime someone posts screenshots for comparison. The ones for the game they favor are almost always better looking shots, more interesting looking, better overall quality, etc.. meanwhile, the other games' shots are usually very drab, lower quality, etc.
I mean here's two of many TERA shots I found within 30 seconds of reading your post that easily are much better quality and a more "equal" comparison to your TOR shots in terms of image quality. They're also better at demonstrating the overall graphics quality of the game overall (I'm talking graphics quality, not art style... there's a difference)
Not bashing you or anything. Just sayin'... I notice that a lot in posts similar to yours.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
That's much better
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Lol. Not really, it may seem like I do, but only because the number of heavily biased gutfeeling commenting, often ignoring common sense or a balanced viewpoint, is (far) more often seen among the people/bloggers who have a thing against SWTOR. Among those you'll find the people who make uninformed comments about the game, or who're seeking out any negative comment they can find and elevate it to gospel.
Most obvious example I found the whole quoting of an anonymous blogger, some people instant-believed him and practically jumped enthusiastically on the whole '300 million dollar budget' statement of an anonymous blogger. Why? Very simple. Some people want to hate or dislike SWTOR, and then seek the negative arguments that fit that best while, and this is the most important part where I find common sense and reason is abandoned, ignoring all other positive arguments that are stated.
This is another example: SWTOR haters jump enthusiastically on a negative blog article, not even a handson report, and elevate it immediately to the status of gospel and the Truth.
It isn't the fact that they only mention a negative review that I reply on, it's the fact that they ignore all other reviews that are more positive, which is the majority, and also ignore that it wasn't a real preview or handson report, but just sort of a 'daily column' blog, the guy didn't even play SWTOR.
Like I said in other posts, I think even in this thread, if you want to do it right, take both positive and negative reviews altogether and get the picture from that, negative as well as positive reviews and handson reports both have their merit and value, as long as they're based on solid facts or personal experiences, not just gut feeling sensationalism
For the rest, I'm perfectly fine with reviewers and handson reports being negative about a game I'm interested in, after all we don't have all the same tastes and gaming preferences. But don't give me gut feelings, everyone has them often based on a lot of air and colored emotions, give me solid reports and actual handson impressions and descriptions.
edit: lol, Fanbot's post got removed? That's quick
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
About the Asian and the Western ART Direction.
The Asian style beside if its anime or whatever seem to work better with lighting while they tend to have cheap polys, textures, and so on, they do anything to make cheapness flaws overlooked and they often get it done.
They get really atmorspheric vistas with their low settings - ok, some do not but that be even by f2p standards bad games.
Western games need overly advanced engines to get the same done and even in AoC be many dungeons for example that simply be "ugly" bcs of the bad lighting.
"Torquemada... do not implore him for compassion. Torquemada... do not beg him for forgiveness. Torquemada... do not ask him for mercy. Let's face it, you can't Torquemada anything!"
MWO Music Video - What does the Mech say: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF6HYNqCDLI
Johnny Cash - The Man Comes Around: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0x2iwK0BKM
Untrue. I think the artwork looks pretty good. If I was to nitpick a point, it wouldn't be art-related. But aside from the IP itself and maybe the musical score, nothing else is all that appealing.
I might yet pick it up because I'd be interested in running through it once. But I see it as a futuristic version of Dragon Age. Once I've run through it once, my interest will wane. I frankly don't believe that the storylines will be that different from one another to warrant additional playthroughs if the gameplay itself isn't that engaging. To me, story DOES NOT trump gameplay. Ever. And the gameplay just looks rather bland. In some cases (on-rail space shooter), it looks downright lame. The newness factor might justify the box price, but not a subscription.
So, the graphics look good. The rest of the game looks so-so. If nothing else has my interest when it releases, I'll probably try it.
The art style of Tera will stop me from playing the game. I am tired of the "My weapon is so big it could split the world in twain" look. I never liked it to begin with and now it has been elevated to hate. Plus the detail was good, but seemed washed out. That might just be the pics though, not the game.
GW2 looks good. Well at least the character models do . . . in a manquin kind of way. The backgrounds though are all washed out. My guess is it is an artistic choice to make the characters stand out more. I've played a few games like this now and they all ended up giving me a headache. I am not sure why, physical or emotional, but I probably won't do more than check out the game, if I even do that.
The art style for Star Wars, while not exactly my taste, has a great deal of detail. The proportions have vastly improved (thankfully) and the clarity of the characters, as well as the backgrounds, match very nicely. Again, the style is not exactly the one I would have picked, but it does look good to me and if I had to choose between the three, it is the one I would go with.
"If half of what you tell me is a lie, how can I believe any of it?"
I think GW2 has the best graphics out of the three being compared. It has a nice balance of stylized graphics and realism. My only gripe is that the human faces look bad, like cheap doll heads.
TERA has high end graphics but everything is just a bit too slimy/shiny for my taste.
I really like the stylized graphics of TOR and the facial expressions are very well done. But the play-doh looking trees and rocks get on my nerves.
But they all look great and a pretty much perfect for what the devs were going for.
I've heard this argument before, gamer1982o39, and the problem I have with it is that reporters and gaming sites / magazines that do such a thing will not be in business very long. The fact is reputation means something. A site that backs up a game, no matter how bad it is, will suffer in the reputation department. In other words people will stop visiting the site and after the hits get too low, the advertisers will go away too or just reduse their purchasing on that site to nominal levels. In the end, it only benefits the sites / magazines / reviewrs to be honest and give good, detailed reviews, no matter what the end product is.
"Reviewers" that do not do this end up being ridiculed like kotaku.com for writing a "review" of a game that they never played and so have no experience with, yet still sells his words as gospel. Personally, after reading this guys garbage I laughed myself silly and then wrote the website down as one to NEVER visit again.
"If half of what you tell me is a lie, how can I believe any of it?"
The problem with the kotaku "review" was it was nothing more than a dignified blog post that could have been made by any one of us, masqueradng as a professional review. It was nothing more than the "reviewers" self admitted, gut reaction to what he saw, and not a hands on of the game. Now I have a gut reaction that Angelina Jolie would find me irresistible if she only gave me the chance, but that by no means makes it so.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
Yes, that is especially visible on female faces. Male faces seem to look much more detailed.
And, I don't want to promote GW2's environmental design, but:
Exactly and now that I know the blooger is a worthless source, I will no longer listen to him OR any place he may be published. THAT is the problem with making a bad reputation for yourself, it often comes back to bite you in the butt. Which is why I feel most legitimate companies will not allow their employees to act like this in the long run, it hurts their bottom line after all.
It's nice to see we can agree on a few more things Tardcore.
"If half of what you tell me is a lie, how can I believe any of it?"
The problem with the 'review' is that he never said it was a review.
The guy is a blogger. Writing a blog post. On his personal feelings. That's what blogs are for, after all. To reveal all your useless inner feelings to people who have no real reason to care, but somehow do anyway.
While it may be a good indication of what that guy's feelings are, and it might be something to point to if you want to say 'I feel the same way he does, but I can't write no good.', it's useless to point to as a review, because that's not what it is, or was meant to be.
... and I think the people attacking the blogger for having EMOTIONS are getting way too close to being fanboys.
Now, people can slap people around for trying to use that blogger to prove SW:ToR will fail (Unless you define fail as 'Not selling to that one particular blogger), but it's just an opinion piece, and he stated MORE than once that he didn't play the game, and this is based purely on his personal feelings and desires for Star Wars aesthetics in a game.
So people slapping around the blogger are just being weird, because they're basically attacking somebody for having an opinion on aesthetics. Yeah. That's dangerously close to fanboy territory if you ask me.
Go ahead. Look at the article again. He never calls it a review. More than once he has disclaimers that this is purely based upon his feelings about Star Wars. ... and you know what? Some people will feel the same way. Some people just won't think that SW:ToR represents what Star Wars is to them. You see those people around. That's okay though, because that's just how those people feel, and it's a personal choice. About their feelings. People who like the game shouldn't feel threatened by other people's personal opinions on matters of taste.
People who refer to it as a review are misinformed, whether it's 'Check this review out, this guy shows SW:ToR fans what's what!' or 'Gah! This reviewer sucks! His review sucks!'.
For what it's worth, the human heads in that particular set of screenshots are from over a year ago. They've improved the faces since then! Thankfully.
Of course, most of the women have the same kind of pretty-little-too-smooth mannequin doll face look, but now they look like =higher class= dolls. It's also partially an art style thing, so I don't think no matter how much they improve the art, that the dollishness will go away. Which of course is not to many people's tastes.
Actually Meowhead, I personally am bashing him for REFUSING to play even though he had a chance. He may be a "Blogger", but he is making his blogs on a gaming website. He then sells his opinion, based on nothing but some obscure "feelings", as fact while trying to also write off any criticism with the "This isn't a review" disclaimer. It's the worst form of journalism and in my opinion, this type of "Blogger" should be fired.
"If half of what you tell me is a lie, how can I believe any of it?"
The man doesn't want to play the game. He looks at it, and it makes a part of him go 'Ugh. That's not the kind of Star Wars I want to have'
Which is fine. That was like... the first sentence he had, or the second. So it's hardly misleading that this is a post PURELY based off of his emotions.
His whole post was about how the appearance of the game bugs him, and how it appears to not be what he wants. You said earlier in this thing that you probably won't play GW2 because the backgrounds are too soft for you.
Kotaku has its times when it's about facts and SRS Business. ... and they do some of the better MMO review styles out there (They take a whole month to review it, 4 reviews each cataloguing what the past week was like.)
... but sometimes they just have opinion pieces. Purely opinion, and duly noted as such. The Glee fanboys were more mature when they said they didn't want to play the Glee game. Or at least, I never heard any of them ranting about it. :V
... at least stop calling it a review, or even hinting that it resembles a review, because it most clearly is not.
(edit: I dont' want to play Imagine: Babies, but if I was a blogger, I would clearly say that the whole concept of the Imagine: Stereotypical Girl Activity series of games by Ubisoft weirds me out.
... and that I refuse to play them. Does that make me a bad person?)