You could be absolutely right about the amount of voice acting. I don't have any statistics to back up what I was saying. I'm basing the amount of acting on my play throughs of each of those games, so maybe it just seemed like more to me. The Mass Effect games, for example, had people talking everywhere, all the time. Just seemed like significantly more. I admit that could be my perception though. As for the costs of those games, I was basing that on articles on IGN and Yahoo that said if BW did spend $200 mil it means it's by far the most expensive video game ever made (which by default says those others were significantly less). Edit: I was definitely wrong in my perceptions. I just read that TOR had roughly 10 times the amount of voice work that KOTOR had. I didn't find anything about ME, but that's enough to suggest it's significantly more than any single player venture.

I'm not denying the cost of the game (because I don't know one way or the other). I am, however, wondering if we aren't putting too much emphasis on the cost of voiceovers. ME1, ME2, KOTOR, KOTOR2, Fallout 3, Oblivion, Skyrim, and many more games have every bit as many (if not significantly more) voice-overs, and many of them with very famous people doing the work, from Liam Neeson to Patrick Stewart. Yet none of those games boast a cost anywhere near that much. So I doubt the $200 million mark, but even if it was that much, I don't see how voice-overs were what put it there.

Perfectly fine opinion to have on an MMO, but "getting one up on the next guy" has never been - and will never be - why I play an MMO. I actually find the game incredibly fun, and I don't think that just because it's Star Wars. There are plenty of Star Wars games I don't like. And I don't say that as an MMO player. There are plenty of MMOs I really enjoy and plenty I don't. I say it because, when I'm playing, I'm enjoying myself. You obviously aren't, and that's fine. Most of the complaints about this game are valid. Most of the compliments about this game are valid. Opinions vary and most people think their own personal opinion is either the majority or just plain "right." I've yet to see someone say, "I LOVE everything about this game, yet I think it's going to fail!" And I've never seen someone say, "I hate this game, but it'll be a huge success."

I'd say there are a number of possible explanations. Perhaps they underestimated the speed with which players would reach 50 and thought they'd have more time getting more end-game content implemented. Perhaps they overestimated the draw of playing alts. Perhaps they were absolutely correct and the majority of players are still quietly enjoying the process, both on original characters and alts (realistically, our information on this is purely anecdotal). Perhaps this game isn't really meant to entertain the standard end-game crowd, but they knew they would have to add some aspects just for PR purposes. Perhaps there are scores of people that genuinely love the end game content (again, we don't have the information to know). I could go on and on, but there are really dozens of perfectly reasonable explanation for why the end game is what it is. Personally, I think it's a combination of factors, but probably mostly that they want the journey to be fun for casual players, which is largely what we've got. A game that is very fun for people that level slowly.

I'm not saying don't call them out on it. I'm saying I've never - not once - seen a positive outcome from using those words, because most people incorrectly define those terms anyway. Saying, "That's a straw man" will invariably result in a debate over the definition of a straw man. Instead, just point out that nobody actually made the point they're arguing against. Again, this is just what I've seen. I've never seen the words "Straw Man" used that didn't derail. I have, however, seen a point dropped because someone said, "please show me where I said what you're claiming."

I agree it's grossly inaccurate. It basically leaves out the entire grouping community. If you take what this claims is the most populated server and assume EVERY server is that populated, the entire total would be less than 150,000 people playing this game now. Even the "this game is dying" crowd isn't claiming the game dropped from 2 million subs to 100,000.

OP: I'm not entirely sure your question was actually a question. I suspect it was just a set-up to an opinion, but just in case it was a genuine question, I'll give my opinion. More people are saying this game is bad because of a few reasons. More people are playing it, so there will naturally be more people complaining. Star Wars is an IP that people are very passionate about, so their disappointment is going to be a little more impassioned. The anticipation of this game was quite high and many folks (justified or not) had very high expectations. Many people came to the game from WoW, and have many expectations that are directly related to WoW, some thinking it should be different, others thinking it should be the same. Those are just the first few I thought of. There are dozens of other reasons as well, but like I mentioned, I'm not entirely sure you actually wanted an answer to your question. On a side note, I'd like to give some advice to some of the folks posting here. This advice comes purely from my anecdotal experience, so feel free to ignore it if you've had different results. Here's a list of words and phrases that - in my experience - never help to move a debate forward: "Logical Fallacy." "Straw Man." "Ad hominem." "Red Herring." "Fact!" (it gets even worse when put in quotation marks or followed by the word "your") "lol" (especially when preceding or following a statement that disagrees with another statement, i.e. "lol that's ridiculous.") There are more, but I'll stop there. Your experiences may be different, but I've never seen those phrases (whether appropriately used or not) do anything but derail and inflame a debate. Just some friendly advice from someone that spends too much time lurking forums.

I love this game. It's pretty much everything I expected it to be. That said, if you can weed through the overly dramatic predictions and hateful tone, most of the "naysayers" make some good criticisms that Bioware would do well to consider.

After participating more than I should have in the whole Need For Companion debate that ran on for a few hundred pages, I've come to a few conclusions. 1. The game mechanic (leaving out any community standards) suggests you should roll need for companions. There is only Need, Greed (with a money sign), and Pass. Need is the only one - purely from a game mechanics standpoint - that applies. 2. The majority of the community is against doing this, as they seem to place a higher value on the PC, no matter what the damage output, etc. 3. Bioware has acknowledge that the game mechanics don't make this clear, so they'll eventually be adding a mechanic that makes it clear. That mechanic will be Player Character > Companion > Credits. 4. At present, there is only one way to guarantee there will be no drama in regards to this issue, and that is to communicate your intentions with your group, no matter which side of the debate you're on. That's the only way you can truly eliminate loot drama at this time.

Fleet population is a terrible way to measure overall population. Social areas always have a significant drop a few months after launch. People have made friends, joined guilds, found regular groups. In short, they're out playing the game. They don't need the fleet like they used to. That said, I have no doubt some server populations are dropping (particularly the light servers people were joining at launch to avoid the queues). But a /who check in fleet isn't going to give you any reliable info about the population.

One of my good friends, when he heard about this, immediately said, "He made a galaxy far, far away close enough to reach out and touch." I think that sums it up pretty well. As an artist, writer, and all around tool for Star Wars, I'm really saddened by this news. Some other statements since his passing: George Lucas: ""Ralph McQuarrie was the first person I hired to help me envision Star Wars. His genial contribution, in the form of unequaled production paintings, propelled and inspired all of the cast and crew of the original Star Wars trilogy. When words could not convey my ideas, I could always point to one of Ralph's fabulous illustrations and say, 'Do it like this.'" On his website (I love this): "There's no doubt in our hearts that centuries from now amazing spaceships will soar, future cities will rise and someone, somewhere will say... that looks like something Ralph McQuarrie painted." RIP, Ralph.

This is a bit inconsistent. You say that the Republic should not get purple, then use Mace (who was Republic) as your example. Remember, alignment and faction are two separate things. Lore shows that Republic can use purple because the only person in any film to use purple was Republic.

If you're leveling purely solo, I agree with you. You pretty much have to run all the side-quests to complete the game. I used to argue otherwise, but I wasn't factoring in how often I play with my wife. However, if you play with even one other person, the entire game changes. With my wife, we rolled up characters, did class quests and heroics and only did side-quests until we were level appropriate for the next planet, then we just moved on. On the next play through, we skipped the quests we'd already done and did the quests we skipped on the first play through. That meant the only real repeating content was the heroics. The class quests and side quests were entirely new each time. It actually worked out wonderfully, as we experienced almost entirely new quests with each play through, doing two republic and two imperials. I can't think of another MMO at launch where you could play through to max level 4 different times, experiencing this much new content from level 1 to max on each play through. This also (IMO) is a strong argument against the "this game is a single player game" crowd. I discovered that if you play with at least one other person, this game quadruples in it's fun and replayability. That said, if you're playing 100% solo, I agree. They need new leveling paths. I'd personally rather see new leveling paths 1-50 in the first expansion, instead of new leveling post 50 with a raised level cap.

I think you might be confusing your emotional reaction to the story with the actual quality of the story on those games. When I started gaming (back in the gaming stone age), story basically amounted to "Rescue the princess from that barrel-throwing gorilla!" Then, with the NES, it was a little more prevalent, in the form of a still shot with scrolling text underneath that came between levels. The first game that truly immersed me in story was Resident Evil on the PS 1. I was completely overwhelmed by the feeling that I was in that mansion. The other characters were in there with me. When a cinematic took place, it was because I entered a room, not because I finished a level. The story in that game forever changed the way I looked at gaming. I was emotionally involved. Escaping that mansion meant something to me. Recently, I went back to play it again. The story is horrifyingly awful. I think there will be several people playing TOR that will use it as the standard in exactly the way you're using the games listed above. It's really more about where you are as a gamer. There are a few exceptions, of course. A few games are just so incredibly great that it's impossible to ignore the power of the story. But usually, it's more about the gamer than the game.

I'll take it a step further and say that in a game where alignment and faction are two separate things, the "lore junkies" were wrong on this one. Creating a system that can make it impossible for a Sith to equip a red lightsaber works directly against what they were fighting for in the first place.

I've blasted through content with my Jedi that my smuggler struggled with, which is something I expected. It may just be that some classes (especially with a DPS spec) are a little tougher than others. I'm fine with that, but it might be where the problem lies with others.

I'm down for this. When the game launched, I created my smuggler rather haphazardly, just because I wanted to get a taste of the class. He basically looks like a Han Solo wannabe. But that's okay, I thought, this is just to play with the class a little bit. If I like it, I'll reroll. Well, I got into his story and kept playing. Next thing I know, he's level 29 and I'm invested. But if I had it to do over again, I'd definitely make him look quite different. I fully understand that this happened because I was an idiot and I'm not even remotely suggesting that I somehow deserve to change his appearance based on the fact that I was an idiot. I'm just saying if a barber were added, I'd be a happy smuggler.

That's fine and a perfectly reasonable opinion. It doesn't, however, have anything to do with this debate because this debate is about removing a mechanic that actually makes it impossible for a Sith to us a Red Lightsaber.

Right now, the game requires many Sith players to use a blue saber. Right now, the game does not allow many Sith players to use a red saber. How does removing that silly restriction constitute throwing "anything" out the window. The restriction was poorly implemented. If it had been faction based, I'd grant your argument. But it's not faction based. Instead, it actively prevents Sith players from using a red lightsaber. I'm glad they're removing it, for exactly the reason you seem to be against this change.

That's the argument I don't understand. This change will help your position, not hurt it. Right now, I see Jedi with red lightsabers constantly. Why? Because they can't equip a blue saber. A Jedi physically cannot equip a blue lightsaber with this restriction. And I see Sith with blue sabers because they physically cannot equip a red saber. Again, many Sith in this game cannot physically equip a red lightsaber. The current mechanic works against what you want to see in the game. This change will fix it so Sith can equip a red saber. Removing that restriction allows you to see more Jedi with blue/green sabers and more Sith with red sabers. This helps the very point you're making here. I don't understand why you're fighting against that. I'm all for giving LS/DS more meaning, but if the current implementation makes no sense from a gameplay, canon, or film tone perspective, I'm happy to see it go. Implement a LS/DS mechanic that makes sense. Having one that doesn't work - that also has a negative impact on non-force users - just because it needs something is a bad idea.

The poster you quoted specifically mentioned KOTOR 2. Are you saying a sequel to KOTOR 2 shouldn't use continuity established in KOTOR 2? But leaving that out, I still don't understand your complaint. Right now, the game mechanic makes it impossible for many Jedi to use blue sabers. Right now the game mechanic makes it impossible for many Sith to use red sabers. If your problem is that - in the movies - Jedi use blue/green and Sith use Red, why are you against this change? The game now prevents that. The coming change allows it. The change helps you get exactly what you want.

What other MMO provided you 384 enjoyable gameplay hours at launch? AoC? LOTRO? DDO? DCUO? CoH? STO? I know this isn't your intent, and I understand that "enjoyable" is subjective, but I personally think your post is a testament to the game's success as an MMO. 384 enjoyable hours from a launch puts this game in a very exclusive group of MMOs. I mean, I'll assume there are one or two out there that provided more than that, but I haven't played them. I'm curious why you think that means it failed as an MMO when - by the very numbers you gave - it provided more enjoyable gameplay hours than any MMO launch I've played.

When did Bioware say those things?

Do you really not see the difference here? "I want a feature." "I don't want you to have a feature." Do you not see the difference.

Would you want that filter to be based on whether or not those other players are good or evil, or on whether they're Republic or Empire?