Although it does reference what you are talking about, as you read you understand that the only requirement for a persistent world is that is continues when you log off, other players keep playing, changes happen. (Ie, your items can sell in the AH, your guild can break up, other people log in and out). You are thinking of a DYNAMIC persistent world - and I'd really stop acting all high-and-mighty when you're blatantly wrong.
Well, if properly translated your post could read "a great co-op RPG!" All the multiplayer stuff you love in SW:TOR could well feature in an online corpg.
Again, the only reason why it was made into the "proper" mmo is monthly subscriptions.
Imo, SW:TOR would have been as good if not a better game if it were called a co-op rpg, using a system similar to GW1 or Diablo games. But then EA couldn't ask for a monthly subscription.
That's the bottom line.
Frankly, I think with GW2 coming out, being a fully-fledged mmo with NO monthly sub, I think EA made a very costly mistake. They compromised their most attractive feature, story, by tacking on open-world mmo elements which actually detract from it (16 heroes at a quest chokepoint, oh my). At the same time the very idea that "being a proper mmo" in itself justifies a monthly sub ON TOP of the box price is on its way out. Not well played at all.
The highlighted part is applicable to every themepark game out there. So themeparks aren't mmos. Got it. By the definition going on around here GW2 won't be an mmo either.
Not really...
I'm not talking about themeparks but about instancing and world-persistence. The heavy story emphasis in SW:TOR yields itself naturally to instanced, lobby-based game structure such as GW1 or Diablo. Persistent world directly clashes with the way Bioware goes about in building their stories. In the end both suffer - Bioware's story suffers because it has to cope with other "heroes" on their "unique stories" occupying the same space and the persistent world itself suffers because of the illogicalities this creates.
GW2 took a different, quite the opposite way of building their story with DEs and they are from bottom-up a persistent mmo concept. For the more carefully crafted "story-experience" they choose total instancing completely divorced from the persistent part of the game. Bioware should have taken this route all the way instead of trying to stick a round peg into a square hole just in order to be able to claim a monthly subscription.
Imo, ideally SW:TOR should be a COORPG with heavy emphasis on solo and co-op play. It should feature some persistent areas, especially "world PvP" ones as well as robust competetive instanced PvP. It should be subscription free and finance itself through paid expansions and DLC. This way Bioware could be free to do what they do best, and that is awesome story. Persistent mmo gameplay just gets in their way.
However, you can't ask people for subs unless you are called a "mmo."
Good post Plink. I posted below before I read this and basically said the same thing lol.
My view has always been that if a game wants to be an MMORPG, it should really take advantage of the shared world and make that one of its primary features. If it doesn't do this, then I don't see why it should be an MMORPG.
11 pages of "it's not a sandbox, so it should be single player."
From comments like this, you'd think every other MMO was a sandbox, with TOR carrying the torch for the struggling themepark ideal..
I mean, look at all the other themeparks we've seen. All the major ones that have come out, from WoW, to EQ2, LOTRO, AOC, to Aion, and Rift... all 100% themeparks, and yet I've never seen anyone say they'd be just as good, or better, as a SP game. No, this has nothing to do with the sandbox vs themepark thing.
Because none of them have bothered to integrate a story into the game.
SWTOR brings RPG back into MMORPG. Some people seem to think that story and role-playing should only take place in a single player game, while others seem to think that your story should effect the entire world, which could only work in either a single player game or a sandbox.
I was just simplifying the 11 pages of spew for those who didn't feel like reading it all
I'd say I'd have to agree with the simplification, because that's what I pretty much took away from the first seven pages I read. Well aside from the innane bickering over definitions.
I will say, that while I am not personally interested in SWTOR from a wanting to play perspective, I am interested as a gamer in general, more specifically a fan of mmorpgs. SWTOR is attempting to bring story back into the foreground and put the RPG portion back into MMORPG. To a differing degree, GW2 is making similar attempts. Storyline focus really needs to happen in these games, especially in lieu of how horrible releases have been over the past number of years.
WoW had it's success, and others attempted to follow suit, but they didn't attempt to change anything at the core. WoW was really the first mmo that delved into a questing based game, where grinding was more hidden within the questing system. You never sat at a camp for hours upon hours in a group trying to level up in WoW. It was a nice change of pace. Others who followed should have built upon that core change and attempted to make their own changes too.
Bioware is at least attempting to add a change to the overall core of themepark mmos. Yes there's quests, classes, trinity, and whatnot. However, story could be a big player, especially in terms of replay value (playing good vs. evil), you may even see folks attempt to push some boundries of the game and attempting to remain fairly neutral (although the classing system mostly prevents that).
More on topic: Would have I preferred that Bioware made a new SPRPG in the KotOR universe? Yes, because I could play at my own pace and not have to worry about a monthly fee. However, the point is utterly moot, since they made a mmorpg. More importantly though, SWTOR and GW2 both need to succeed for very different and similar reasons. To prove that placing importance on story building in a mmo can be profitable, and to also prove that a monthly sub isn't entirely needed (GW2 unique change if successful). I would say that SWTOR and GW2 are equally important games, because with the success of either or both, the genre itself will have a chance to move forward.
I played the bata for SWTOR. I liked many features, even the voice acting if it were a solo game, loved the classes, companion's, having your own ship. I'm not a big Star wars fan, but I like the game, but not as an mmo.
Would you like it as much as a stand alone off-line game.
No, why the hell I would want it as some max 100 hours single player when I have it now with new content coming in future and thousands of other people playing, I dont understand...
If you mean single player as in a different kind of game, what's the purpose of this poll since obviously TOR is not that game, and was not ment to be. It's ment to be what it is, and stripping down half of the game certainly does not make it better.
Trivia: GW2/TSW/WoW HC fans are going to vote 'yes' by default so it kinda kills the poll anyway.
It would not have made a better offline game. Part of the point of the game is having other people in the game with you, even if it's only in global chat.
I would have liked some more instanced content though. I think the first zone of the home planet could have started instanced, just for you alone. I think some of the other areas when you're on quests outside of your personal story line could have been instanced for you alone as well, more for atmosphere than anything else. I didn't run into competition for resources or mobs, I just think there's some stuff that would look better if you couldn't see other people doing the same thing you're doing.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I think the mmo part is the main selling point for me. Looking forward to grouping up with friends.
Exactly, but you do not need a "mmo" for that. What you need is a good coorpg - like GW1, Diablo and Borderlands.
The only reason it is a "mmo" is to get you to pay subs. If they made it a coorpg you could still play with your friends and the story experience would have been much better - for all of you. But then EA wouldn't be able to charge you 15$/month. Hence the mmo.
You guys with your hangups on semantics... hilarious. MMO versus Co-Op? That's what the argument has boiled down to now? At least some of you guys are leaning away from the hardcore 'It's an SPG!' rhetaroic. Clearly single player games are just that, single player with no option to play with friends.
On topic:
No, I don't believe this would have made a better offline game. Sure the story and all that lends itself well to a great offline, single player, experience, however I prefer to play games socially, and that's exactly what this game is about. Whether it's grouping up with people I know, or finding randoms to hang out and do flashpoints or heroic quests with, the social experience is really what I'm after.
This game has so much more than just the story, and most of it benefits from being multiplayer. So offline versus online, as it applies to this game, online was the only way to go.
Because none of them have bothered to integrate a story into the game.
SWTOR brings RPG back into MMORPG. Some people seem to think that story and role-playing should only take place in a single player game, while others seem to think that your story should effect the entire world, which could only work in either a single player game or a sandbox.
This does come back to the core of the issue - what you call bringing back RPG, I call bringing down RPG. The sort of RP that works in MMOs. It's like they just hacked SP RPG elements into the MMO space, rather than working to make them fit properly. In a SP game, I wouldn't see people with the exact same companions I've got, doing the exact same single-person story I'm trying to do, and for me, things like that undermine the role-playing experience, rather than add to it.
I just don't understand why they don't even try to get around it - like with companions, why not let us fully customize them, and even rename them? I realize that might not make much sense, but at least it'd make more sense than seeing clones of them running around everywhere.
If Bioware isn't interested in even trying to make their story fit into the MMO world, yeah, I definitely think they'd have made a much better game, if they'd just stuck to making it single-player.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
I use to love single player games, but MMOs changed that to I don't care about them anymore. I love being able to play with the masses.
Even though I love SWTOR, I don't see myself playing offline. I didn't even play The Knights of Old Republic because it was single player game. I don't even want to play Skyrim and that is getting alot of praise.
welcome to 21 st century gaming.. where single playing combines wonderfully with online gaming.
players economy, crafting, social relations, and even, if you so desire, the ability to stop the single playing road and tag along a few friends for an harder chalenge galore.
this is what a mmo is today.. and what it should be.
Because none of them have bothered to integrate a story into the game.
SWTOR brings RPG back into MMORPG. Some people seem to think that story and role-playing should only take place in a single player game, while others seem to think that your story should effect the entire world, which could only work in either a single player game or a sandbox.
This does come back to the core of the issue - what you call bringing back RPG, I call bringing down RPG. The sort of RP that works in MMOs. It's like they just hacked SP RPG elements into the MMO space, rather than working to make them fit properly. In a SP game, I wouldn't see people with the exact same companions I've got, doing the exact same single-person story I'm trying to do, and for me, things like that undermine the role-playing experience, rather than add to it.
I just don't understand why they don't even try to get around it - like with companions, why not let us fully customize them, and even rename them? I realize that might not make much sense, but at least it'd make more sense than seeing clones of them running around everywhere.
If Bioware isn't interested in even trying to make their story fit into the MMO world, yeah, I definitely think they'd have made a much better game, if they'd just stuck to making it single-player.
You can fully customize them. Link. Next argument!
Because none of them have bothered to integrate a story into the game.
SWTOR brings RPG back into MMORPG. Some people seem to think that story and role-playing should only take place in a single player game, while others seem to think that your story should effect the entire world, which could only work in either a single player game or a sandbox.
This does come back to the core of the issue - what you call bringing back RPG, I call bringing down RPG. The sort of RP that works in MMOs. It's like they just hacked SP RPG elements into the MMO space, rather than working to make them fit properly. In a SP game, I wouldn't see people with the exact same companions I've got, doing the exact same single-person story I'm trying to do, and for me, things like that undermine the role-playing experience, rather than add to it.
I just don't understand why they don't even try to get around it - like with companions, why not let us fully customize them, and even rename them? I realize that might not make much sense, but at least it'd make more sense than seeing clones of them running around everywhere.
If Bioware isn't interested in even trying to make their story fit into the MMO world, yeah, I definitely think they'd have made a much better game, if they'd just stuck to making it single-player.
You can fully customize them. Link. Next argument!
You can fully customize them. Link. Next argument!
Wait, hold on a sec, I'm a bit confused. Is this not implemented yet? Or did I not get high enough level to see it? All I saw was a quest reward that let me choose one of three skin colors. And another that gave me a choice between one of three armor sets. That still meant seeing other players with the same colors I picked, and even the ones who picked a different color didn't really look all that different. Wasn't what I'd call "fully customized" in any case. What am I missing?
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
The alien companions only have limited customization features, like gear and color. The humanoid companions have full customization features. You can make them look completely different from their default look, except in body type.
You can fully customize them. Link. Next argument!
Wait, hold on a sec, I'm a bit confused. Is this not implemented yet? Or did I not get high enough level to see it? All I saw was a quest reward that let me choose one of three skin colors. And another that gave me a choice between one of three armor sets. That still meant seeing other players with the same colors I picked, and even the ones who picked a different color didn't really look all that different. Wasn't what I'd call "fully customized" in any case. What am I missing?
It's implemented, you just didn't utilize the vendor that allows you to do it. The Companion Customization vendor allows you to pick one of 7 looks for your companion based on the kit you buy. Body type and face stays the same, I believe, but you can choose a different hair style and skin color with these kits. Doesn't sound like much, but it does make quite a bit of difference in how they look. For example, Mako went from a darker colored girl with short hair to a blonde, light-skinned girl when I changed her look. Only problem is the Companion Kits are way overpriced...12,500 credits per kit.
The alien companions only have limited customization features, like gear and color. The humanoid companions have full customization features. You can make them look completely different from their default look.
Is it a multiple choice deal, or is there a full customization screen, like we get during character creation? Because the problem with multiple choice is just that lots of other players are bound to make the same exact choices. Especially when its only three choices.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
The alien companions only have limited customization features, like gear and color. The humanoid companions have full customization features. You can make them look completely different from their default look.
Do you mean I can choose different hairstyles and colors?
Because thats not what i understand under "fully customizable". Granted I understand I wont be necessarily be able to change their gender or race, but come-one skin-color tones and a hair-do?
Bodytype would already do wonders.... it doesn't need to be boob-sliders but some variation at least past the exact same face with a different wig.
It's implemented, you just didn't utilize the vendor that allows you to do it. The Companion Customization vendor allows you to pick one of 7 looks for your companion based on the kit you buy. Body type and face stays the same, I believe, but you can choose a different hair style and skin color with these kits. Doesn't sound like much, but it does make quite a bit of difference in how they look. For example, Mako went from a darker colored girl with short hair to a blonde, light-skinned girl when I changed her look. Only problem is the Companion Kits are way overpriced...12,500 credits per kit.
Ok, I see. Wish I'd known about that vendor, so I could check it out for myself. 7 choices is much better than 3, at least - especially if the quest reward is on top of that, making it 10 different choices.. "Full customization" still sounds misleading to me, but as far as limited customization goes, that does sound much better.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Would I like it as much if it were an off-line game?
No.
Why?
Because I have been waiting for an MMORPG like this for a long time. There are plenty of story-driven single player games for me to choose from already, but the pool of appealing online games is significantly smaller.
Basically I prefer MMORPGs, so naturally I am glad this is not a single-player RPG.
Yes, but only because SPG fans can be pleased... If I headed a studio there's no way in hell I'd make an MMO. As much as I love the genre, the fans are just too picky and too quick to find fault, it's like that's all they focus on or look for, "how can I tear this game down"...
(clarification) this goes for all MMO's not just TOR.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I don't see how my arguments are bad. I have provided a very clear definition of a persistent world required for an mmo. Noone is debating that definition (yet) and I have shown how this applies to TOR repeatedly.
The world stays there when you log off.
Players affect the world.
Gameplay events continue in the world while I am not there.
That's all there is to it. If anyone can disprove that I'd love to see it. So far all i have seen is insults and questions. Not one single person has offered any kind of evidence that disproved what I have said.
Nobody disagrees with your definition -IF- and only -IF- you are able to consistently apply it to -everything- other than TOR.
If you can't, you just made up a definition (and examples) in your head for one very specific game to make it fit.
And we are questioning that your examples can be applied to other games that have persistant world features, yet we do not call them "persistant worlds" (GW, Diablo 3, Team Fortress, Stellar Impact etc was named)
What you have to do is show us a distinguishing feature that would make those games -not- persistant, but TOR persistant.
Or you would need to agree that those games feature, by your definition, a persistant world.
Its a binary choice, there is no neutral option.
Burden of proof lies on you as you made the claim that TOR is persistant, nobody needs to disporve anything.
Ball's in your court.
Yeah yeah, I drug this up from 3 pages ago, but I've been sleeping.
Those examples I gave were asked for by someone. They weren't examples of a persistent world, they were examples of how you affect the world in TOR.
I didn't "make up" my definition, I got it from wikipedia and the definition of the world persistent.
I have already responded to this idea of yours that D3 and GW 1 are persistent worlds. They aren't because the world doesn't remain there when you log off. They are instanced lobby games. If I host a Diablo game and log off, the game world goes away. POOF. Gone. If I go out of the city in GW and then log off that world goes away. POOF. Gone.
These games aren't MMO's simply because of the fact that you can change the world. You change the world in every game. Again, that was me providing an example of how you could change the world in TOR, because someone else asked for examples.
If I log off of SWTOR, the game remains. The only things that don't remain persistently are the Warzones, Flashpoints, and Operations. Instances that make up a small percentage of the game world.
I am not making up examples or a definition specific to TOR. I'm not making up anything actually. This is the way these games are. If you can't see that then you can't be helped. There are MANY themepark MMO's that fit that same definition of a persistent world: Wow, aion, war, aoc, EQ, Lotro, rift, champions, dcuo, both final fantasy games, etc....
All of those games fit the persistent world definition that I have provided. All of them share a similar client/server world to TOR.
If you are saying that TOR doesn't have a persistent world, then none of these games have it. Every themepark MMO ever made could no longer be considered an MMO. That's just silly. Are you really going to claim that?
If you can't see the difference between Diablo 3, GW 1, or any corpg and a game with a persistent world like TOR on your own without having someone explain it to you, then your opinions have seriously just lost all credibility to me.
the 3d title is "would it be BETTER as offline game"
but the poll question is "would it be just as good?", so how do i answer if i believe it would have been better and that no, it's not "as good" because i believe the game is infact not good?
Comments
That IS what it means....
Even though I seriously hate people citing Wiki, it seemed the obvious choice here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_world
Although it does reference what you are talking about, as you read you understand that the only requirement for a persistent world is that is continues when you log off, other players keep playing, changes happen. (Ie, your items can sell in the AH, your guild can break up, other people log in and out). You are thinking of a DYNAMIC persistent world - and I'd really stop acting all high-and-mighty when you're blatantly wrong.
Good post Plink. I posted below before I read this and basically said the same thing lol.
My view has always been that if a game wants to be an MMORPG, it should really take advantage of the shared world and make that one of its primary features. If it doesn't do this, then I don't see why it should be an MMORPG.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I think the mmo part is the main selling point for me. Looking forward to grouping up with friends.
I'd say I'd have to agree with the simplification, because that's what I pretty much took away from the first seven pages I read. Well aside from the innane bickering over definitions.
I will say, that while I am not personally interested in SWTOR from a wanting to play perspective, I am interested as a gamer in general, more specifically a fan of mmorpgs. SWTOR is attempting to bring story back into the foreground and put the RPG portion back into MMORPG. To a differing degree, GW2 is making similar attempts. Storyline focus really needs to happen in these games, especially in lieu of how horrible releases have been over the past number of years.
WoW had it's success, and others attempted to follow suit, but they didn't attempt to change anything at the core. WoW was really the first mmo that delved into a questing based game, where grinding was more hidden within the questing system. You never sat at a camp for hours upon hours in a group trying to level up in WoW. It was a nice change of pace. Others who followed should have built upon that core change and attempted to make their own changes too.
Bioware is at least attempting to add a change to the overall core of themepark mmos. Yes there's quests, classes, trinity, and whatnot. However, story could be a big player, especially in terms of replay value (playing good vs. evil), you may even see folks attempt to push some boundries of the game and attempting to remain fairly neutral (although the classing system mostly prevents that).
More on topic: Would have I preferred that Bioware made a new SPRPG in the KotOR universe? Yes, because I could play at my own pace and not have to worry about a monthly fee. However, the point is utterly moot, since they made a mmorpg. More importantly though, SWTOR and GW2 both need to succeed for very different and similar reasons. To prove that placing importance on story building in a mmo can be profitable, and to also prove that a monthly sub isn't entirely needed (GW2 unique change if successful). I would say that SWTOR and GW2 are equally important games, because with the success of either or both, the genre itself will have a chance to move forward.
No, why the hell I would want it as some max 100 hours single player when I have it now with new content coming in future and thousands of other people playing, I dont understand...
If you mean single player as in a different kind of game, what's the purpose of this poll since obviously TOR is not that game, and was not ment to be. It's ment to be what it is, and stripping down half of the game certainly does not make it better.
Trivia: GW2/TSW/WoW HC fans are going to vote 'yes' by default so it kinda kills the poll anyway.
It would not have made a better offline game. Part of the point of the game is having other people in the game with you, even if it's only in global chat.
I would have liked some more instanced content though. I think the first zone of the home planet could have started instanced, just for you alone. I think some of the other areas when you're on quests outside of your personal story line could have been instanced for you alone as well, more for atmosphere than anything else. I didn't run into competition for resources or mobs, I just think there's some stuff that would look better if you couldn't see other people doing the same thing you're doing.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Exactly, but you do not need a "mmo" for that. What you need is a good coorpg - like GW1, Diablo and Borderlands.
The only reason it is a "mmo" is to get you to pay subs. If they made it a coorpg you could still play with your friends and the story experience would have been much better - for all of you. But then EA wouldn't be able to charge you 15$/month. Hence the mmo.
You guys with your hangups on semantics... hilarious. MMO versus Co-Op? That's what the argument has boiled down to now? At least some of you guys are leaning away from the hardcore 'It's an SPG!' rhetaroic. Clearly single player games are just that, single player with no option to play with friends.
On topic:
No, I don't believe this would have made a better offline game. Sure the story and all that lends itself well to a great offline, single player, experience, however I prefer to play games socially, and that's exactly what this game is about. Whether it's grouping up with people I know, or finding randoms to hang out and do flashpoints or heroic quests with, the social experience is really what I'm after.
This game has so much more than just the story, and most of it benefits from being multiplayer. So offline versus online, as it applies to this game, online was the only way to go.
This does come back to the core of the issue - what you call bringing back RPG, I call bringing down RPG. The sort of RP that works in MMOs. It's like they just hacked SP RPG elements into the MMO space, rather than working to make them fit properly. In a SP game, I wouldn't see people with the exact same companions I've got, doing the exact same single-person story I'm trying to do, and for me, things like that undermine the role-playing experience, rather than add to it.
I just don't understand why they don't even try to get around it - like with companions, why not let us fully customize them, and even rename them? I realize that might not make much sense, but at least it'd make more sense than seeing clones of them running around everywhere.
If Bioware isn't interested in even trying to make their story fit into the MMO world, yeah, I definitely think they'd have made a much better game, if they'd just stuck to making it single-player.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
I use to love single player games, but MMOs changed that to I don't care about them anymore. I love being able to play with the masses.
Even though I love SWTOR, I don't see myself playing offline. I didn't even play The Knights of Old Republic because it was single player game. I don't even want to play Skyrim and that is getting alot of praise.
I am an MMO gamer period.
@ the op
welcome to 21 st century gaming.. where single playing combines wonderfully with online gaming.
players economy, crafting, social relations, and even, if you so desire, the ability to stop the single playing road and tag along a few friends for an harder chalenge galore.
this is what a mmo is today.. and what it should be.
You can fully customize them. Link. Next argument!
I would wish for a KOTOR 3 with co-op.
That's all and I would be perfectly happy.
If this is "fully customizable":
then I'll eat a horse (preferably DarkPony)
Wait, hold on a sec, I'm a bit confused. Is this not implemented yet? Or did I not get high enough level to see it? All I saw was a quest reward that let me choose one of three skin colors. And another that gave me a choice between one of three armor sets. That still meant seeing other players with the same colors I picked, and even the ones who picked a different color didn't really look all that different. Wasn't what I'd call "fully customized" in any case. What am I missing?
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
I'm NOT AN HOERS!!
My brand new bloggity blog.
The alien companions only have limited customization features, like gear and color. The humanoid companions have full customization features. You can make them look completely different from their default look, except in body type.
It's implemented, you just didn't utilize the vendor that allows you to do it. The Companion Customization vendor allows you to pick one of 7 looks for your companion based on the kit you buy. Body type and face stays the same, I believe, but you can choose a different hair style and skin color with these kits. Doesn't sound like much, but it does make quite a bit of difference in how they look. For example, Mako went from a darker colored girl with short hair to a blonde, light-skinned girl when I changed her look. Only problem is the Companion Kits are way overpriced...12,500 credits per kit.
Is it a multiple choice deal, or is there a full customization screen, like we get during character creation? Because the problem with multiple choice is just that lots of other players are bound to make the same exact choices. Especially when its only three choices.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Do you mean I can choose different hairstyles and colors?
Because thats not what i understand under "fully customizable". Granted I understand I wont be necessarily be able to change their gender or race, but come-one skin-color tones and a hair-do?
Bodytype would already do wonders.... it doesn't need to be boob-sliders but some variation at least past the exact same face with a different wig.
Ok, I see. Wish I'd known about that vendor, so I could check it out for myself. 7 choices is much better than 3, at least - especially if the quest reward is on top of that, making it 10 different choices.. "Full customization" still sounds misleading to me, but as far as limited customization goes, that does sound much better.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Would I like it as much if it were an off-line game?
No.
Why?
Because I have been waiting for an MMORPG like this for a long time. There are plenty of story-driven single player games for me to choose from already, but the pool of appealing online games is significantly smaller.
Basically I prefer MMORPGs, so naturally I am glad this is not a single-player RPG.
Yes, but only because SPG fans can be pleased... If I headed a studio there's no way in hell I'd make an MMO. As much as I love the genre, the fans are just too picky and too quick to find fault, it's like that's all they focus on or look for, "how can I tear this game down"...
(clarification) this goes for all MMO's not just TOR.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Yeah yeah, I drug this up from 3 pages ago, but I've been sleeping.
Those examples I gave were asked for by someone. They weren't examples of a persistent world, they were examples of how you affect the world in TOR.
I didn't "make up" my definition, I got it from wikipedia and the definition of the world persistent.
I have already responded to this idea of yours that D3 and GW 1 are persistent worlds. They aren't because the world doesn't remain there when you log off. They are instanced lobby games. If I host a Diablo game and log off, the game world goes away. POOF. Gone. If I go out of the city in GW and then log off that world goes away. POOF. Gone.
These games aren't MMO's simply because of the fact that you can change the world. You change the world in every game. Again, that was me providing an example of how you could change the world in TOR, because someone else asked for examples.
If I log off of SWTOR, the game remains. The only things that don't remain persistently are the Warzones, Flashpoints, and Operations. Instances that make up a small percentage of the game world.
I am not making up examples or a definition specific to TOR. I'm not making up anything actually. This is the way these games are. If you can't see that then you can't be helped. There are MANY themepark MMO's that fit that same definition of a persistent world: Wow, aion, war, aoc, EQ, Lotro, rift, champions, dcuo, both final fantasy games, etc....
All of those games fit the persistent world definition that I have provided. All of them share a similar client/server world to TOR.
If you are saying that TOR doesn't have a persistent world, then none of these games have it. Every themepark MMO ever made could no longer be considered an MMO. That's just silly. Are you really going to claim that?
If you can't see the difference between Diablo 3, GW 1, or any corpg and a game with a persistent world like TOR on your own without having someone explain it to you, then your opinions have seriously just lost all credibility to me.
Shadow's Hand Guild
Open recruitment for
The Secret World - Dragons
Planetside 2 - Terran Republic
Tera - Dragonfall Server
http://www.shadowshand.com
the 3d title is "would it be BETTER as offline game"
but the poll question is "would it be just as good?", so how do i answer if i believe it would have been better and that no, it's not "as good" because i believe the game is infact not good?
the best blog of the net