i think most of the people will play it solo. And even those who don't, most of their /played IS solo.
Majority wins. TOR is not actually a MMO, it's a MMO only on papers.
However, you are pointing out the reason for WoW's success - that you can play it as a solo game with a chat room and AH. Personally, I do not like that but it is obvious that it qualifies as a key success factor for an MMO today.
Yep, doesn't that proove that the genre is sick? Because it's turning single player, instead of embracing absolute virtuality?
doesn't the presence of instanced spaces and other "symptoms" proove that the actual MMO parts are disappearing more and more?
I mean how can you tell that a game which best parts are infact single player-related SIGNIFY the HEALTH of a genre that's based on being massively online?
My bounty hunter is only level 15 and I'm already more attached to him than I've been to any theme park character in years. The games full of stuff I'm not fond of (heavy instancing, gear grinds), yet I don't care. The bad junk is all trumped by atmosphere and immersion.
If I weren't an old-school Star Wars fan, I'd probably not be this enthused, admittedly. But for me, it's like sugar-coated crack. I'll probably wake up in an alley a couple months from now needing rehab, but until then I'm going to enjoy the ride.
1 million people do. Please go back to that f2p crap your playing. Thank you.
Donno where you are pulling those numbers from considering that those people havn't payed yet. I am sure quite a few people will be surprised if SWTOR retains 1mil subs post honeymoon period.
i think most of the people will play it solo. And even those who don't, most of their /played IS solo.
Majority wins. TOR is not actually a MMO, it's a MMO only on papers.
However, you are pointing out the reason for WoW's success - that you can play it as a solo game with a chat room and AH. Personally, I do not like that but it is obvious that it qualifies as a key success factor for an MMO today.
Yep, doesn't that proove that the genre is sick? Because it's turning single player, instead of embracing absolute virtuality?
doesn't the presence of instanced spaces and other "symptoms" proove that the actual MMO parts are disappearing more and more?
I mean how can you tell that a game which best parts are infact single player-related SIGNIFY the HEALTH of the genre that's based on being massively online?
I love virtual worlds just as much as the next guy but these games arent designed for you or me, they are designed for masses and I'm not pissed, It's jsut a different game for people with different tastes.
i think most of the people will play it solo. And even those who don't, most of their /played IS solo.
Majority wins. TOR is not actually a MMO, it's a MMO only on papers.
However, you are pointing out the reason for WoW's success - that you can play it as a solo game with a chat room and AH. Personally, I do not like that but it is obvious that it qualifies as a key success factor for an MMO today.
Yep, doesn't that proove that the genre is sick? Because it's turning single player, instead of embracing absolute virtuality?
doesn't the presence of instanced spaces and other "symptoms" proove that the actual MMO parts are disappearing more and more?
I mean how can you tell that a game which best parts are infact single player-related SIGNIFY the HEALTH of the genre that's based on being massively online?
I love virtual worlds just as much as the next guy but these games arent designed for you or me, they are designed for masses and I'm not pissed, It's jsut a different game for people with different tastes.
that's fair but it's like saying "this bird is a great bird because it walks well", not because it can fly.
how can TOR be a great MMO if its best parts are decidedly ANTI-MMO?
1. The camera angles made in the game are horrible, the movement is jerky and not fluid at all. The char models are horrible, and are not fluid at all. The specials skills also are stuck and not fluid at all either.
2. The game has a linear function. Where is the Open world to explore ???
3. The cutscenes are boring and are there just so people don't have to read anything like the old days.
4. The mobs and npcs are static and have no movement whatsoever.
5. The quests are kill x bring x to npc etc.
6. Don't get me wrong the game is good as a buy once play for free type game but It just doesn't have that polish that you want to pay $15 a month for! So why the defending of it???
pretty much same as why anyone pays $15 a month for any other mmorpg.
WoW has millions paying monthly and let see what it has
i think most of the people will play it solo. And even those who don't, most of their /played IS solo.
Majority wins. TOR is not actually a MMO, it's a MMO only on papers.
However, you are pointing out the reason for WoW's success - that you can play it as a solo game with a chat room and AH. Personally, I do not like that but it is obvious that it qualifies as a key success factor for an MMO today.
Yep, doesn't that proove that the genre is sick? Because it's turning single player, instead of embracing absolute virtuality?
doesn't the presence of instanced spaces and other "symptoms" proove that the actual MMO parts are disappearing more and more?
I mean how can you tell that a game which best parts are infact single player-related SIGNIFY the HEALTH of the genre that's based on being massively online?
I love virtual worlds just as much as the next guy but these games arent designed for you or me, they are designed for masses and I'm not pissed, It's jsut a different game for people with different tastes.
that's fair but it's like saying "this bird is a great bird because it walks well", not because it can fly.
That sounds fancy but No, Not really. There are different types of games ...and not all birds fly. You are going stricly on what your definition of an MMO should be and unfortuantely for us, most do not agree anymore nor is it the true defintion of what an MMO is.
But it is not an mmo its more of a single player RPG with some chat thrown in.
If you do't like it, fine . But just because you are playing it solo when it can be played with people doesnt make it any less of an MMO. That statement was ludicrous at best.
i think most of the people will play it solo. And even those who don't, most of their /played IS solo.
Majority wins. TOR is not actually a MMO, it's a MMO only on papers.
By this logic, the only MMORPG on the market is everquest 1. I cant think of a single MMORPG since then that people spend more time grouped than solo levelling. Even Vangurad was a game designed to be solo friendly to the cap.
But it is not an mmo its more of a single player RPG with some chat thrown in.
If you do't like it, fine . But just because you are playing it solo when it can be played with people doesnt make it any less of an MMO. That statement was ludicrous at best.
i think most of the people will play it solo. And even those who don't, most of their /played IS solo.
Majority wins. TOR is not actually a MMO, it's a MMO only on papers.
By this logic, the only MMORPG on the market is everquest 1. I cant think of a single MMORPG since then that people spend more time grouped than solo levelling. Even Vangurad was a game designed to be solo friendly to the cap.
DDO.... originally all quests had to be done in a grp and for the higher lvl quests req a grp and there is no "solo" content. There are some X build that is suppose to be a survivalist but for the most part a very heavily grp focused game.
I think, at least early on, in AoC Godslayer one had to have a grp just for the wilderness zones.
i think most of the people will play it solo. And even those who don't, most of their /played IS solo.
Majority wins. TOR is not actually a MMO, it's a MMO only on papers.
However, you are pointing out the reason for WoW's success - that you can play it as a solo game with a chat room and AH. Personally, I do not like that but it is obvious that it qualifies as a key success factor for an MMO today.
Yep, doesn't that proove that the genre is sick? Because it's turning single player, instead of embracing absolute virtuality?
doesn't the presence of instanced spaces and other "symptoms" proove that the actual MMO parts are disappearing more and more?
I mean how can you tell that a game which best parts are infact single player-related SIGNIFY the HEALTH of the genre that's based on being massively online?
I love virtual worlds just as much as the next guy but these games arent designed for you or me, they are designed for masses and I'm not pissed, It's jsut a different game for people with different tastes.
that's fair but it's like saying "this bird is a great bird because it walks well", not because it can fly.
That sounds fancy but No, Not really. There are different types of games ...and not all birds fly. You are going stricly on what your definition of an MMO should be and unfortuantely for us, most do not agree anymore nor is it the true defintion of what an MMO is.
I see what you mean, but i can respect others' definitions until they are in EVIDENT contradiction with terms. Sooner or later you must face facts. TOR has an entertaining story but its multiplayer aspects are rarified. This is true with most themeparks and TOR took the genre to its culminating point.
You are clinging on a few aspects that still make it massive multiplayer but it's a fact that those aspects are scarce. You are asking me to respect people's delusive subjectivity, but you're not respecting empyrical facts.
What you are saying is that you have a preference for sand-box type MMOs? I respect that.
However, it does not make SWtoR less of an MMO. It just makes it an MMO that you do not have a preference for.
When it comes to SWtoR, what I do like is the abundance of group quests from very early on. WoW does not dare them anymore since they would...force people to collaborate!
The game is decent as a free to play type game. But it is not an mmo its more of a single player RPG with some chat thrown in. Who is actually willing (Be honest) to pay $15 dollars a month for a game not worth one penny???
It's as social of an MMO as you're personally willing to make it... I've been having a blast in flashpoints, warzones, heroic areas, etc.
I've been talking to people A LOT, and grouping with people A LOT, and just generally seeing them around doing stuff. That is what an MMO is about.
Don't blame the game for your own anti-social tendencies. Your one argument you posted here isn't even an argument, nor accurate.
To answer your question, though, I'll be paying the $15 monthly fee, as well as many others.
The game is decent as a free to play type game. But it is not an mmo its more of a single player RPG with some chat thrown in. Who is actually willing (Be honest) to pay $15 dollars a month for a game not worth one penny???
By guys like this, i wont be playing gw2, it could be a great game, but i dont want to play a game where the community is full of kids like our dear OP.
What you are saying is that you have a preference for sand-box type MMOs? I respect that. However, it does not make SWtoR less of an MMO. It just makes it an MMO that you do not have a preference for. When it comes to SWtoR, what I do like is the abundance of group quests from very early on. WoW does not dare them anymore since they would...force people to collaborate!
abundance??? in Beta i got to Coruscant by myself, did all side-quests, read everything. What abundance of group?
I'm just saying that to call TOR an MMO, and a good one, is like saying that pizza is good because it tastes like hot dog.
TOR is a good MMO becaus it's not MMO, it's good because you play it mostly solo. That is not an opinion, it's fact. This way you're killing the aspects that truly belong to it, massivity, multiplayer, persistancy. TOR has entirely no sense of persistancy, there's not a system that gives life to its world, economy, politics, military.
i think most of the people will play it solo. And even those who don't, most of their /played IS solo.
Majority wins. TOR is not actually a MMO, it's a MMO only on papers.
However, you are pointing out the reason for WoW's success - that you can play it as a solo game with a chat room and AH. Personally, I do not like that but it is obvious that it qualifies as a key success factor for an MMO today.
Yep, doesn't that proove that the genre is sick? Because it's turning single player, instead of embracing absolute virtuality?
doesn't the presence of instanced spaces and other "symptoms" proove that the actual MMO parts are disappearing more and more?
I mean how can you tell that a game which best parts are infact single player-related SIGNIFY the HEALTH of the genre that's based on being massively online?
I love virtual worlds just as much as the next guy but these games arent designed for you or me, they are designed for masses and I'm not pissed, It's jsut a different game for people with different tastes.
that's fair but it's like saying "this bird is a great bird because it walks well", not because it can fly.
That sounds fancy but No, Not really. There are different types of games ...and not all birds fly. You are going stricly on what your definition of an MMO should be and unfortuantely for us, most do not agree anymore nor is it the true defintion of what an MMO is.
I see what you mean, but i can respect others' definitions until they are in EVIDENT contradiction with terms. Sooner or later you must face facts. TOR has an entertaining story but its multiplayer aspects are rarified. This is true with most themeparks and TOR took the genre to its culminating point.
You are clinging on a few aspects that still make it massive multiplayer but it's a fact that those aspects are scarce. You are asking me to respect people's delusive subjectivity, but you're not respecting empyrical facts.
I'm not asking you to respect anything, your opinion is your own. Im telling you that it IS an MMO regardless of what you say. You can crusade as much as you want about certain aspects that are not in the game, but you flat out say it is NOT an MMO, you are dead wrong ...because that is yor OWN definition of an MMO and not what an MMO truely is. As much as you want to dress it up with fancy words or a fancy quote does not change that FACT that it IS an MMO. The rest of the game and it's aspects however is highly debatable up to and including how good the game really is.
What you are saying is that you have a preference for sand-box type MMOs? I respect that. However, it does not make SWtoR less of an MMO. It just makes it an MMO that you do not have a preference for. When it comes to SWtoR, what I do like is the abundance of group quests from very early on. WoW does not dare them anymore since they would...force people to collaborate!
abundance??? in Beta i got to Coruscant by myself, did all side-quests, read everything. What abundance of group?
I'm just saying that to call TOR an MMO, and a good one, is like saying that pizza is good because it tastes like hot dog.
Again ...that makes absolutely no sense. You should quit with analogy's.
Comments
1 million people do. Please go back to that f2p crap your playing. Thank you.
Fine, we'll compromise. I'll get my way & you'll find a way to be okay with that.
Yep, doesn't that proove that the genre is sick? Because it's turning single player, instead of embracing absolute virtuality?
doesn't the presence of instanced spaces and other "symptoms" proove that the actual MMO parts are disappearing more and more?
I mean how can you tell that a game which best parts are infact single player-related SIGNIFY the HEALTH of a genre that's based on being massively online?
the best blog of the net
I'll pay for it.
My bounty hunter is only level 15 and I'm already more attached to him than I've been to any theme park character in years. The games full of stuff I'm not fond of (heavy instancing, gear grinds), yet I don't care. The bad junk is all trumped by atmosphere and immersion.
If I weren't an old-school Star Wars fan, I'd probably not be this enthused, admittedly. But for me, it's like sugar-coated crack. I'll probably wake up in an alley a couple months from now needing rehab, but until then I'm going to enjoy the ride.
Playing: FFXIV, EVE
Donno where you are pulling those numbers from considering that those people havn't payed yet. I am sure quite a few people will be surprised if SWTOR retains 1mil subs post honeymoon period.
I love virtual worlds just as much as the next guy but these games arent designed for you or me, they are designed for masses and I'm not pissed, It's jsut a different game for people with different tastes.
that's fair but it's like saying "this bird is a great bird because it walks well", not because it can fly.
how can TOR be a great MMO if its best parts are decidedly ANTI-MMO?
Isn't that harmful for the whole genre?
the best blog of the net
Maybe MMORPG can make a seperate forum (like the veteren's refuge for SWG) for the hate threads for this.
We get it...you hate the game.....its the end of days.......single player with a chat window......space on rails......blah, blah, blah...
None of this is news, this is not even the hundredth time the same basic complaint has been voiced.
pretty much same as why anyone pays $15 a month for any other mmorpg.
WoW has millions paying monthly and let see what it has
linear function.check
cutscene almost none so check
static mob.check
quest to kill x .check
That sounds fancy but No, Not really. There are different types of games ...and not all birds fly. You are going stricly on what your definition of an MMO should be and unfortuantely for us, most do not agree anymore nor is it the true defintion of what an MMO is.
cough
I will gladly pay 15$ a month...to the OP of you don't think its worth that price your nuts and you should find something else to play.
There are many inferior ftp and ptp mmos out there feel free to go try them!
By this logic, the only MMORPG on the market is everquest 1. I cant think of a single MMORPG since then that people spend more time grouped than solo levelling. Even Vangurad was a game designed to be solo friendly to the cap.
I'll be paying $15. If it goes Free to Play I will uninstall it. I personally do not like the communities that Free to Play games bring.
DDO.... originally all quests had to be done in a grp and for the higher lvl quests req a grp and there is no "solo" content. There are some X build that is suppose to be a survivalist but for the most part a very heavily grp focused game.
I think, at least early on, in AoC Godslayer one had to have a grp just for the wilderness zones.
I see what you mean, but i can respect others' definitions until they are in EVIDENT contradiction with terms. Sooner or later you must face facts. TOR has an entertaining story but its multiplayer aspects are rarified. This is true with most themeparks and TOR took the genre to its culminating point.
You are clinging on a few aspects that still make it massive multiplayer but it's a fact that those aspects are scarce. You are asking me to respect people's delusive subjectivity, but you're not respecting empyrical facts.
the best blog of the net
To answer your question, me.
I won't pay $15 a month for it. I will pay roughly $78 every 6/months for it.
I have been playing OVER A YEAR already. Long time tester.
I love the game enough that after losing my level 40 main to a bug, I just rerolled and did 1-20 in one night, last night. Will be 28 tonight.
I have finished the Bounty Hunter and IA stories numerous times.
I still play BHs and IAs almost exclusively. I play Sith exclusively. Always have.
I am not bored, I am not complaining a lot, I am having fun. A lot of it.
I would pay $15 a month if that is all they offered.
I would pay by the year if they offered.
I would pay by the 3 year if they offered.
I will pay in 6 month chunks and I see at least 18 months minimum out of the live game. More likely a few years.
Alexis
*smiles*
However, it does not make SWtoR less of an MMO. It just makes it an MMO that you do not have a preference for.
When it comes to SWtoR, what I do like is the abundance of group quests from very early on. WoW does not dare them anymore since they would...force people to collaborate!
I would and am paying $15 a month for this game. It is a fun and immersive game. I plan on seeing this game through until the servers go black.
It's as social of an MMO as you're personally willing to make it... I've been having a blast in flashpoints, warzones, heroic areas, etc.
I've been talking to people A LOT, and grouping with people A LOT, and just generally seeing them around doing stuff. That is what an MMO is about.
Don't blame the game for your own anti-social tendencies. Your one argument you posted here isn't even an argument, nor accurate.
To answer your question, though, I'll be paying the $15 monthly fee, as well as many others.
By guys like this, i wont be playing gw2, it could be a great game, but i dont want to play a game where the community is full of kids like our dear OP.
abundance??? in Beta i got to Coruscant by myself, did all side-quests, read everything. What abundance of group?
I'm just saying that to call TOR an MMO, and a good one, is like saying that pizza is good because it tastes like hot dog.
TOR is a good MMO becaus it's not MMO, it's good because you play it mostly solo. That is not an opinion, it's fact. This way you're killing the aspects that truly belong to it, massivity, multiplayer, persistancy. TOR has entirely no sense of persistancy, there's not a system that gives life to its world, economy, politics, military.
the best blog of the net
I'm not asking you to respect anything, your opinion is your own. Im telling you that it IS an MMO regardless of what you say. You can crusade as much as you want about certain aspects that are not in the game, but you flat out say it is NOT an MMO, you are dead wrong ...because that is yor OWN definition of an MMO and not what an MMO truely is. As much as you want to dress it up with fancy words or a fancy quote does not change that FACT that it IS an MMO. The rest of the game and it's aspects however is highly debatable up to and including how good the game really is.
Again ...that makes absolutely no sense. You should quit with analogy's.
..depends on how quickly & often they crank out new relevant content. Varying person by person.
what if only 1 other person is playing and they still keep the game running. will you still be playing. haha.