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.

The problems with this review are that I feel it suffers from inherent negativity that makes no attempt to critique the game for what it is (instead judging it for what it is not), and I feel the writer made no attempt to familiarize himself with what the game was prior to playing (as there was plenty of media showing the game to be a WOW styled MMO in the months leading up to release). As a result he is disappointed that the game was not something it was never shown to be. Yes, TOR is an MMO and it maintains many of the popular and common aspects of MMO gameplay. They could have made it more like DA:O, ME, or even an Elder Scrolls game. But they didn't. Sorry. Maybe it would have been more difficult to develop, maybe it would have created a limited audience by requiring a certain level of machine, or maybe they were just playing it safe. I don't know. Further, most games are derivatives of one another. You shoot stuff in FPS's, you button mash in action, and you select actions in RPGs. Sometimes they cross, but there is rarely a lot of innovation. AC has been the same game with minor tweaks for 5 years, Every FPS has essentially the same controls, and the most creativity you get in RPGs is open worlds mixed with action controls. So, as a result, I'm not really sure how this reviewer can enjoy any game. Perhaps he is just disappointed that TOR wasn't more, but it is difficult not to get, "every game that doesn't innovate is a failures" out of his "review". Overall though, I tend to match the writer in terms of gamer preference (generally single player with little online or MMO experience), and I enjoy TOR. It is fun and engaging, I don't have to play with others but I can. Heck, even PvP has a level of enjoyment for me (and I generally refuse to play against others online in any other game). But again, I didn't come to TOR expecting a different game. Sadly rants too often get lumped in with reviews. While I respect you opinion and your right to have it, I feel like this opinion on the game suffers from overt negativity that makes no attempt to meet the game half way. Perhaps a better title of the post should be, "A Review of my issues of SWTOR" since even really lousy games get nods for what they try to/do accomplish when reviewed by professional critics; something this post lacks.

Like many here, I love me some PA. I also enjoy reading the blog posts. Granted about 75% of them consist or either random rambling about something that really doesn't concern me, or some opinion about a game I will never play because, well, really, I'm not into "Barbie's Horse Ranch" or whatever Thing is that Gabe's opinion has me conflicted. On one side, as a fellow Consular, I want to tell him to get over himself, log in, and experience more of the story, cause IMO it gets better and he is missing out. I also feel like he is overreacting. Yes, the travel system is clunky and annoying, but I barely noticed the whole "go here, go back, now go here, now go there, and now useless quest phase" bit. Maybe I did it in a few sittings and he did it in one, but I never felt abused or like the game was being dragged out. Like others have said, I used the time on the fleet to catch up on stuff, buy from my skills trainer, check the market, play some PvP, and look at vendors. On the other hand, I distinctly remember thinking, *** BW, you sent me to the fleet for THAT? I can't really say Gabe is wrong cause it seems like a really weird quest piece and has no place in the game after 5+ planets of story, questing, and leveling. I really wonder what the point of these game moments are. Part of me thinks they are holdovers from BW's single player games; giving you that chance (as others have said) to catch up on everything you haven't done to play the story. Though maybe they are placeholders, or perhaps, they are meant to help you feel engaged, like you are part of the story. Instead of unrealistically saying, "Yay, you saved the jedi order! Now, go save it again." The story says, "You did a good job, now take a break." If this is the case, though, perhaps they should have thrown in a quest like, "go play PvP, enter a race, or have a drink at the bar, to relax." tl;dr: I don't think this criticism is enough to stop playing, and Gabe is missing out on some good story. But he does make a legitimate critique for a story mechanic that seems odd and useless.

Well, I tried... So that's how ignore works.

Hmm, I have avoided getting into this debate, but I think you might be missing the point. Edit for Clarification: As far as I can tell from you previous posts it seems to me that: you expected the game to come out without any bugs and perfect for the price tag and the time spent on it. However as others have pointed out that is completely unrealistic, and there are VERY GOOD and LOGICAL reasons why that is. None the less, you have to release a product and your publisher gets antsy, and eventually they say release it and you do the best you can, bugs and all. It is at this time when you actually HAVE to "cherry pick what works and what doesn't". However, the issue here is that it then takes time to FIX the bugs. It is hard, and there is a priority list, and some work on easy bugs while others work on more difficult bugs. Either way, and the end of the day, how long it takes to fix a bug depends on all sorts of issues including difficulty and development cycle. As such, to say that these issues are just an excuse is to say that the very issues that determine how long it takes to fix a bug are excuses. Thus it is an illogical argument. If they are determining factors, they are not excuses, but an important part of understanding how long and which bugs get fixed when.

Umm, did you look at the written date? 2009.

The hilarious/depressing thing about this is that it is absolutely true nearly everywhere I have looked. I don't program, but I work low level IT at a state university and I am CONSTANTLY trying to help people deal with the new systems and server developments that come out. And these are just basic things (then imagine trying to explain you your adviser why the new system doesn't work well but that he has to have it, oh and will you please sign my thesis proposal. *shudder*). Not only that, we are constantly under threat of losing our best developers and programers developing the schools tech systems because they don't want to pay. It's so bad that in my department I am the second IT tech (and I'm a freaking archaeologist by training) and my girlfriend (also an archaeologist) who is slightly more talented than me is head IT. Why? Cause no one really wants to pay for tech stuff and they take shortcuts. I get paid in tuition and a minor stipend, and all of us have more on our plate than we can handle. For crying out loud the head IT tech/developer for our college is personally responsible for creating a college wide remote desktop system by May, without any real assistance. ***? Hopefully BW and EA do less of this, but from everything I have heard about the game industry, they are no different. Too few people, with too much work, getting paid less than they deserve.

It is absolutely flabbergasting to me how many times you have had to say this both here and in the comments on the original article. I always thought reading comprehension tests in school were a pointless waste of my time (but an easy high score ). The internet makes me think we should probably spend more time on this subject. On topic, I enjoyed the read/rant as well as the following comments. Thank you.

I know I'm in the minority, but I actually kinda like the new GCD. For me, it makes gaming a bit easier and feels crisper. I know lots of people are gonna say that I don't know what I'm talking about, but here's the thing, I really don't need the toolbar to tell me what is available. I pretty much always have a good idea what skills are going to be available when the GCD ends. So the new animation allows me to completely ignore the toolbar and the slight flash makes it easier and faster for me to spam my next skill while paying attention to the action on the screen. I would also like to point out that: 1) How the UI displays skills that are out of range has not changed as far as I can tell. Last night, they had a reddish tinge, they still do today. 2) As far as I can tell by hitting skills and watching the animation over and over, there is a difference between skills that will be available and those that will not. Available skills after GCD are slightly brighter. Long CDs also seem much darker (fast travel for instance). Now, before you flame me, I play a Sage and so I cannot say how this may have broken other classes. I'll try my knight later and see if things are more difficult. I can see if you are really dependent on the UI for knowing what is available the slight subtleties in the animation may make things difficult. None the less, for me, my playstyle, and my class, I actually really like the changes.

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=193383&highlight=hotbar+global+cooldown That thread hit 101 and they made another. Took me like one minute to find.

Because many people have been complaining on the forums about how awful the hotbar GCD and CD animation was. In the previous iteration a large group were complaining that they could not tell when the GCD would end because all of the available skills were lit up under the animation and the animation itself was dark. Now they are complaining that they can't see the available skills during cooldown and the animation is too bright. Rather amusing to watch actually...