I believe my whole statement was, "I've invested the last 11 months toward playing this game." I apologize if you or he cannot understand that "investment" refers to more than just money.

I'm sorry, you don't get to question my opinions (I wasn't aware we needed a disclaimer when posting opinions) with your own opinions and then hop up on a moral high ground. I'm also really sorry if people aren't able to discern the difference between an authoritative objective article and one based on opinion. At no time did the author of the article make the claim that he's speaking the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; it was perfectly clear from the start that he was giving us his opinion. You made it round and round when you called me out for doing exactly what you do. So I guess we're done. Can I get back to having a thoughtful discussion with everyone else, please?

You're basing your impression of the WvW game on a beta weekend experience? I guess you didn't get the memo that many servers were unbalanced because they added new ones, or that there is absolutely no cohesive community to speak of yet? The WvW bits that I did get to play were fantastic, strategic, and visceral. One of the best open world PvP experiences I've ever had.

lolwut?

Oh oh, I see the confusion. Sorry. I technically only paid for four months. Apologies.

I didn't pay for a six-month subscription; I paid monthly, with my time starting on day-two of early access. Maker knows anything can happen and you might end up missing a good portion of your playtime from month to month.

I'm not subscribed, but my account is active thanks to BioWare's (EA's?) funny math. However, I don't know what having a subscription has to do with having an opinion. I've invested the last 11 months toward playing this game (I started playing as a general tester in August)--four of which I paid for the pleasure (or displeasure?). I unsubscribed a month ago, but was gifted a free month which runs out today, I believe. I waited until I was absolutely sure that my playstyle was not a priority or a foreseeable priority for this team before I made the decisio to move onto other things. I'm leaving behind characters I've developed for months, great friends, and a guild that felt like home. Given all of this, I don't know why having a subscription--or not having one--automatically entitles someone to talk about the game or automatically barres them from doing so, in the case of the latter. You're damn right that people like me, who have invested time and money in the game and want it to succeed will have something to say. You like it, that's great. Good for you. But don't disparage me because I don't.

That's the thing: there is no traditional end game in GW2. The "end game" as we know it doesn't exist. At all. Instead, those experiences traditionally referred to as "end game" were integrated into the leveling experience. I don't have to be level 80 to take part in the open world PvP or "raids." I can jump into these things as soon as my character lands in Tyria. So there's nothing to test, as it were, because there is no end game. It's an extremely difficult thing to wrap one's head around because we've been conditioned to think that there's two modes of play in an MMO. I think GW2 is delivering an experience that says, "You don't have to spend your entire game experience working toward a few dailies and dungeon raids. Your entire game experience is those things." SWTOR does it like everyone else--your 1-49 experience is inconsequential to your 50 experience. It's like flipping a switch and suddenly you're playing a completely different game. So you're right in the sense that there's nothing to test, but that's the point, I think.

To be fair, the level of quality in storytelling found in BioWare's other games is leaps and bounds above the quality found in SWTOR. Ohlen admitted this just yesterday... http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/view/videos/gameID/367/videoId/2485

You just quoted them. I think we just disagree on the level of criticism (tone) needed for a criticism to be valid. "This pie is stale, but I'll still eat it" is not praise.

You may have a point here, but I think that because the NDA was lifted for GW2 and people have had every opportunity to pick apart its workings, the comparison is a fair one. SWTOR is already having to compete with GW2--despite the latter not having launched--and the competition is fierce. This without saying anything about the very fair comparisons made in the article posted here; you may disagree with them on their merits, but the comparisons are valid--these are features that both games tout to be integral to the experience. I think the author could better explain why he thinks story gets in the way of his experience in TOR (though I sometimes feel the same), but he otherwise lays it out evenly that on these very specific points, SWTOR fails to meet or exceed what GW2 will be delivering.

Except that the quotes were not his words once you edited them. There was no hype in that article; the author compared two games against a set of features he finds to be enjoyable or necessary for his enjoyment. It turns out that the things he enjoys feature more prominently in GW2 than they do in SWTOR--the two most talked-about games of the day. If you think that falling to one side in a comparison of two games is hype, then I don't know what else to say to you.

No, I'm questioning the "swell" of hate this guy is claiming...

The hate swell on its forums? Really? Could you please provide me a link to all of this hate? I must have missed it when I was actively participating on said forum...

Yeah, take what he said out of context and then completely change the character of his claims to suit your own arguments. Very good way to debate. Why do the criticism have to be "damning" for them to matter to you? You can claim you're just being sarcastic, but the message behind your post is clear: "SWTOR can do no wrong and the author who wrote this article is just a mean doo-doo face for hating on it." Got it.

The case can be made that Star Wars is more in the realm of high fantasy than it is in science fiction.

Sure, I'll do that for you: Here he very clearly states that despite being a more social game, GW2 still has trouble getting people to socialize. Unless this is a compliment? I must have missed where this was glowing praise. Oh! And here he points out that any title lacking traditional end-game is standing on shaky ground. He freely admits that more traditional players may have trouble with this aspect of GW2. Here he states that the team will have to maintain consistent content updates in order to compete with the model they've chosen. That's not a good thing, is it? So either you missed all of this or intentionally ignored it. I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Sorry, I didn't catch this back there. Responding now... You know what was "refreshing and new?" Discovering that the developers added even more dynamic events between the first and last beta weekends. Depending on the outcome of each event, there was a second dynamic event that played against the first. You'll also note that events are scaled, so even if I show up with a couple of people, the difficult will match. No fluster there. Not sure about your assertion about post-launch support for the playerbase as I'm not sure exactly what you're commenting on there. The combat doesn't feel different. At all. It's still pushing a button when the timer runs out. The same is true of TERA and SWTOR. It's the presentation that matters, and in this case I find combat in GW2 to be more visceral and fast-paced than it is in SWTOR. If you're trying to argue that being cookie-cutter isn't something to write home about, I'm sure you have plenty to criticize about SWTOR--a game which takes many pages out of WoW's book. I was taken in by the GW2 hype. That's just a testament to the powers of persuasion and advertising. Where GW2 succeeded for me, however, is that it ultimately delivered on my expectations--with a few things lacking, of course. SWTOR did not live up to my expectations and the pace at which the team is addressing the game's issues is not sufficient for me to justify the subscription. SWTOR doesn't support my playstyle, despite the developers' many claims to the contrary. So ultimately I'm disappointed by SWTOR and pleasantly surprised by GW2.

Correct, but then it was an argument about semantics. I guess you failed to recognize that in your first reading. You cannot prove that the article "clearly exists [to] incite flame wars and gain hits on the page." You can't. You or I cannot prove the motives of the author. What I can prove is that you have done nothing but attempt to discredit the author on the grounds that you disagree with him. Good for you; you disagree with an opinion. As to those supposed articles you read in the tea leaves of the future, if and when that happens, you can strut around like a prince. Until then, making the claim only makes you look like you're straw-grabbin'.

No, I don't think that. But then, the article in question does point out weaknesses in GW2. I guess you have your eyes covered when you read those parts.

It is hard, I'll give you that. Both games claim to offer the MMO community something new and different; for the most part, both games do just that. Where one falls short, however, is that it fails to deliver the rest of the experience in addition to its non-traditional features. I think that, in essence, is what the article is about. You can either agree or disagree with that assertion, but I think the article makes some pretty good comparisons. As for GW2 and the F2P model, you're wrong. ArenaNet has a decade-long record to stand on when it comes to micro-transactions. To date they have not once introduced items for purchase which provide any in-game advantage at all; experience and crafting boosts are inconsequential in games where levels and items are unimportant when it comes player vs player interaction. They have a very public mission statement to this regard and you can read up on their cash shop philosophy by visiting their site.

If you haven't played it, why are you comment about it at all? Your opinions of the game are informed necessarily by what you've heard from others.

We can't have an objective discussion about why I like and what you like. It will ultimately boil down to personal preferences. Your only assertion is that GW2 is a thinly-veiled traditional MMO. I disagree emphatically and have found the game experience to be quite different than a "traditional" MMO. That isn't to say GW2 doesn't have traditional elements--as there is an expectation of certain features and content--but the overall experience has been extremely refreshing and feels new.

I direct you to the first definition of "hype" here. You may have a point on the first and third definitions, but the other two definitions include the caveat that hype comes with a fair bit of "exaggerated claims" and is "deliberately misleading." The article in question is neither.

How would you define "veterans of the genre?" I'm will to bet the time-frame begins with your first MMO.