I agree with this and also hope they change their minds. While the devs may feel quick passes are reasonably available, limiting their access to those that can use the security vendors is rather cheap and definitely annoying. The problem isn't that the fleet passes are not a somewhat reasonable substitute, it is that, as the above poster pointed out, you are attaching a core game mechanic to an unnecessary add on. To top it off, that add on costs either: 15 dollars or the risk of not accessing your account because your phone stopped working (I will not get the free app now because my phone is unstable, I plan to get a new one soon, and I don't want to deal with the headache of unlocking my account when something inevitably goes wrong). So, if BW decides to use this system I suggest they fix the broken security key app, or better, provide access to fleet passes at more than just the security vendor.

Yes and no. Qyzen and most of my Companions act this way. However when I attack another enemy he will stop staring at my CC and attack that one. Also, he tends to attack anyone that attacks him if he isn't doing anything. The problem I have found is that if I'm in a group and the mobs are attacking one of the other players/companions and I am busy healing, Qyzen is pretty much useless until he is either attacked, I attack, or I tell him to attack. this does get annoying. It would be nice if he knew to attack non-CC'd mobs that are attacking anyone in the group rather than just me or him.

I agree. I would hope that the devs never step in and mandate how rolling on loot works. And I also agree it would take a great deal of noise for them to decide to regulate this. It would be nice it they added a loot option that did restrict rolls on non-class items (though I have no idea how hard this would be) so that a group could easily manage the looting rules. This would also help limit debate on looting early on so a group isn't out a player half way through a quest. Still, right now we have to maintain discussion about this and at the very least discussing these questions in the game will help to keep the community healthy (hopefully).

It is interesting that this debate still exists, I have also found it interesting observing how different people go about this idea in practice. On one hand I have found that the vast majority of people I play with adhere to the "greed unless this character I am playing can use it" idea. This has even been extended to items for their class that are below their current stats. Though people in this camp even tend to split between greed/pass, as in pass for non-class items, greed for low class items, and need for something you can use right now. But ultimately the reality of the issue that it is a question of societal/community responsibility vs government/developer control. In other words, the unspoken rule of greed/pass on non-class items is one of community preference. People can act against it, and their is no overt punishment. As such the rule is managed by the community as a whole. If the vast majority of the community shun this practice, those that do it will be ignored, kicked, and otherwise avoided by most people. They are welcome to do otherwise, and even form their own community within the game that adheres to their same ideals. This could be even more easily managed by giving the community option to prevent people from rolling need on non-class items (key word there is option). On the other hand the government (aka the developers) could step in and set up rules that the community adheres to, especially if it becomes a major issue. I doubt they would do this as it restricts people's game play, but it could happen. Still, at the end of the day we are dependent upon self regulation. This gives everyone the freedom to act upon this issue as they see fit. So, as it stands, you are free to select need for everything, but then you must be willing to accept the consequences of your actions. So no complaining if you get kicked, ignored, or that you can't find a group because the vast majority of people have placed you on their "will not play with" list.

I'm curious, are you dubbing light/dark side points irrelevant or the value of engaging story and moral questions in video games as irrelevant? If it's the latter, I disagree, but fine. If it is the former, then yea, you totally missed the OP's point.

Why? Why should a game not have good story? This sounds like the argument from extremists that books should not have fiction stories, let alone any that are engaging. Granted I would guess that you mean that a game should not sacrifice gameplay for story, but whatever the POV, it is a dangerous slope to say that a game can't be anything more than a game. As far as his moral question, I think that there is more of a dilemma than you are willing to admit. Yea, you destroy a weapon that could kill innocent people, including kids, but how many innocent people, including kids are imprisoned and likely to die under the empire's incarceration? Or here's one, the Republic has a massive weapon that can turn the tides overnight, ending the war, but in the process countless innocent lives will be loss with the use of the weapon. Do you use the weapon, sacrificing innocents to save those that may someday be killed by an extended war, or destroy the weapon, saving the innocent, but risking those that will later die because the Empire continues to attack? (And yes, this is a reference to WWII). Needless to say, moral questions are rarely as easy as you make them out to be, and they are almost never black and white.

I love the reference to Extra Credits. What a great show. I also appreciate that you bring up the major draw of story in games, even an MMO, to have impact upon the player. I just dinged 50 this weekend and I can tell you that much of the game has given me pause for thought. My Jedi Consular is a good guy with a capital G, he will always save the lives of those, even those in the Empire, if he is able, in an attempt to find a peaceful accord. The two major ideas that I have been wondering about recently, brought about by Bioware are: Here I am running around randomly killing Mobs for XP. I actually jump into fights. How is that right? How is that the Jedi Way? How is that good? And now I find myself trying to actively avoid fighting and only attacking when attacked during general questing. The second has SPOILERS!!!!!! So yes, thank you Bioware for an interesting, engaging, and though provoking experience.

I have said this before, but I really liked the DA2 story. I know, you were stuck in one area, it wasn't very epic, and you didn't save the world. However, I saw the story as a character piece. A discovery into the difficulties, racism, and conflicts of a city and how one can impact them. I feel you spent more time developing your relationship with your companions and even your own character in the game than in DA:O. I know this is a matter of opinion, but for me, the idea of basing a game around local events of an only moderately epic, and focusing on people rather than events was very unique and something more games should try. Unfortunately it seems the people really want to save the world and kill dragons. Too bad.

Then you didn't play Skyrim, or Fallout 3, or good god, New Vegas. Heck, FFXIII had a console killing bug on the PS3 that ate my system in less than a week. If you haven't encountered more bugs, then you are very lucky, or a late adopter.

Yea, I figured that we were on the same page just looking at it differently. The other thing is, that I think the things that you are suggesting here are on a different level than what the OP was implying. How the combat system works and engages the player is far more difficult to research than, does it play with a cooldown and activation system similar to other MMOs. You were looking for the former, and indeed it will be difficult to know this ahead of time. I feel the OP was looking for the later. And of course it is difficult to get unbiased info from game journalists or the devs. But heck, why even bother. I figured dev videos and interviews would say far more implicitly than listening to the marketing. I figure for the basics such as graphics, overall combat system, class and race options, etc, there was more than enough info (Kotaku had an entire video on the character creator from Beta). This is again limited to the generalities. Unfortunately for the more complex, engaging, or unintentional aspects of a game, we sometimes just hope for the best,...or wait to buy. Not to beat a dead horse, but who knew Skyrim would be broken (especially for ps3) before release, but dang if I didn't want that game, so I took the risk...and kinda got screwed.

Thank you, I appreciate the compliment. However, the person you responded to has a good point, and I have to say he is right, and by association, so are you. Yes, my problem was tone, however, your information was accurate (though I kinda disagree with the instancing comment as well as the stand and kill comment). One of the things I have failed to comment on, because I have been critical, is that this would be a good review for a single player gamer. The only addendum I would add is that I feel much of your criticism comes from the fact that it is an MMO. To clarify, many of the problems you have with the game could be non issues for a single player gamer. Someone that has never played an MMO my find the combat system new and engaging. The standard MMO crafting system far outshines almost anything I have played gear wise for a single player game (minus of course Skyrim). Essentially I'm saying that for a single player gamer, this is the most user friendly entry into MMOs I have seen/heard of. But again, this in no way negates what you said.

I didn't feel like quoting the whole thing, but I will address a few parts of your response. First: the OP already acknowledged that he/she probably spent too much time on what could have been, so it sounds like it is a legitimate critique. Second: I think you are looking at my point from a different angle. It appears to me that, you see me saying, "It's exactly what the devs said it was gonna be" and I'm merely saying, it is exactly what all the media and information purported it to be. This is not to imply that you cannot be critical of it. Criticize it all you want, but don't complain that you weren't getting what you paid for when you had every opportunity to be an informed customer. So graphics, sure criticize or be happy with them, but at least take the time to watch some gameplay videos before you buy it. It is perfectly reasonable to say, "I would like/expect better graphics". It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that the game is not worth buying with the low fidelity. I'm merely suggesting that if graphics are so important then you should probably check them before you buy the game. Otherwise is like being unhappy with how your car drives without test driving it. Gameplay: Sure, you are free to be unhappy with it, and you can say that it is not your cup of tea. You can even say that it isn't innovative and that anyone telling you otherwise is wrong. My issue was the perceived comparison with other types of games and the OP's disappointment that it was an MMO with similar gameplay to WOW. I feel the media made it perfectly clear that the gameplay was going to be what it is and I for one had no other preconceived notions that it would be different. As far as whack-a-mole goes, I just haven't experienced that in either my Consular or my Knight. As for the "Your personal Star Wars saga" bit, aside from the devs being completely open about the classes, the races, and there being a decent amount out about the crafting system, there isn't much I can say. If anyone expected more, I'm sorry you feel deceived. Having played multiple BW games in the past and paying attention to info about the game I had no illusions as to the level of "personal saga" I would be getting. Besides, the SLOGAN is pure marketing speak and it is silly to use that as an equation for "getting what you pay for". Or should I now start writing letters to Coke that drinking their product does not result in "happiness" or be upset that I don't taste any Rockies in Coors beer? This issue, ultimately wasn't that the rant/review was critical, it was that the tone suggested to me that the OP expected the game to have certain features it was never attested to have. There never was the suggestion of a realistic fighting mechanic, there was never a suggestion that crafting would be as diverse as it was in SWG, the graphics were never shown to be something other than they are. You suggest that as a "new AAA title in late 2011" one should expect it to have certain features or standards. What about Skyward Sword, new game with graphics that were blown away by the PS2, Skyrim, a new game that was buggier than anything I have ever played, or Uncharted 3, with a delayed control mechanic that is inexcusable for a shooter in 2011. To expect a game to live up to standards without research is to invite disappointment. Be critical, ask for new mechanisms, by all means give the devs suggestions to improve the game. However, if you know what you want in a game, if you know what you like, research it BEFORE you drop the 60 bones on it. If you don't, then you have no one to blame but yourself when the game does not fit what you want. Also, this is NOT in any way a comment on bugs, broken PvP, or any gameplay systems that are in game and not working properly. That is a completely different issue and the devs are entirely responsible for making these aspects work as intended.

Fair enough, I appreciate the explanation on the points that I took the wrong way. I also appreciate innovation (AC was such an awesome control scheme idea) and think it is important for moving the industry forward. I think we can agree that doing a superb job executing ideas already present in games can also be a great experience. Personally, I mostly enjoy the game not because it is familiar, but for the story. In addition I have found myself in a pretty nice guild that I am excited to help with 50+ content. I am glad we both get some joy out of this game. I wish my GF would join me, but alas, I will have to satisfy myself with co-op where I can find it

And as I said, overall, I share your preferences for games. The reason I said what I did is that you criticize the game with things like "Rainbow six this is not", and were critical in chat that the game played more like WOW, than say, Skyrim. I respect that you are not a fan of WOW and the way it is set up. But this review begs the question: why purchase and play a game you have taken no time to research and then complain that it plays and looks as it has promised? This is essentially the equivalent of buying a Final Fantasy Game and then complaining that it doesn't have the Combat of God of War, the Open world or Skyrim, or the tight controls of Call of Duty. From your review you are unhappy the crafting isn't like SWG, the combat isn't uber realistic like perhaps AC or Rainbow 6, and the graphics aren't bleeding edge. But all of these factors are easily known and researched. So if you don't like them, why even play the game? I don't buy CoD, Resident Evil, or Pokemon games because I know I will not enjoy them from a gameplay and design standpoint. I don't bother writing a review that rips on them for being what they are expected to. I get that this isn't your type of game, and so some things are reasonable misrepresentation (like the instance comment, the game is way more instanced that LOTRO, and to hear others WOW). Also, to be fair, your review isn't entirely negative. And it is fair to say it does not cut the mustard in many aspects that are standard in single player games. I guess I would just ask a review to do a bit better job of critiquing the game for what is present and less time wishing for things it never attested to be.

Well written and well said.