Hah. Most recent post in here got deleted (although someone quoted me). Mad Bioware is mad. Sorry your game sucks. I only wanted to help make it better.

Unless a game is primarily based on the f2p system (like LoL), if the game goes f2p later in its lifecycle, the game is bad.

This argument was already brought up. It's asinine to compare a game released in 2012 with a game released in 2003. Should we also compare ToR with MUDs from the mid 90s? It's a dangerous slippery slope.

They are already ignoring consumers. Most of these features were requested during beta.

Lol, why is this even allowed?

Story is delivered through quests. Try to keep up. I could have also mentioned cooldown counters, ability alerts, etc. But I didn't. What abilities Bioware choose to ignore the GCD is a design decision, not a flaw. You need to understand their entire combat metagame to make such an assessment. I haven't done enough PvP to fully understand their metagame. In short, the lack of an auto-attack has no gameplay merit whereas putting ability X or Y on or off the GCD MAY have gameplay merit (for example, interrupts should always be off the GCD - which in ToR they are). I clearly stated that stealth should be a mechanic, not a gimmick. Right now it's a gimmick. As you mentioned, basically everyone gets it, anyway. How is it in direct conflict with the combat section? Combat has to do with combat mechanics, PvE has to do with boss mechanics (i.e. aggro management, getting out of fires). Your argument that sharding reduces lag is also iffy. I've never lagged in WoW or Rift, for example. Neither of which had sharding. Grouping while leveling can be enjoyable - something that sharding discourages. PvP is a joke. I'm not sure what you're arguing here. WoW PvP is not a joke. It's good. ToR PvP is a joke. They aren't even comparable on a macro level. The animation delays are a nuisance, although I can't notice them on my SW as I did on my IA. You seem upset I keep mentioning WoW. Maybe you should read the title of the thread. I'm not unhappy given a choice of companions. Allow me to quote myself: "Some companions are interesting, some are boring. They do seem to break up the monotony of the often morose landscapes, but they are basically just pets." And I continue: "Companion crafting is a great idea, however." I don't seem upset at all. There must be about 4000 threads about the UI. Take your pick. I also don't think UI upgrades are even that relevant in a review when so much of the core of the game is broken.

I find the forums more entertaining than the game. I run flashpoints if guildies need a tank, but I'm not going to actively be playing this trainwreck. It's not the fact that everything is better on WoW, it's just that everything is terrible on SWTOR. I can compare ToR with Rift, and ToR still comes up short. I can compare it with Warhammer and it still comes up short. WoW is just the bar right now. In all honesty, however, ToR is a very poorly-executed MMORPG no matter what you choose to compare it to. The only reason it hasn't fallen flat on it's face is because of "Bioware" and "Star Wars."

You'll only have 30 days to deal with me.

Didn't you guys hear? It destroys community.

Arenas are very balanced all things considered. Do you think the MLG would invest millions of dollars supporting an unbalanced mess of a game? That's why WoW is in the MLG but ToR will never be. "Rogue + dps caster" - what does that even mean? Mage/rogue? Spriest/rogue? Lock/rogue? Primarily due to the fact that WoW arenas were never balanced around 2v2. Second of all, even in 2v2, games are relatively balanced (apart from a few goofs with warrior mace stuns in s2/3 or hunter explosive shot doing too much magic damage in s6).

Let me quote myself: My assesment was verbatim that "PCGamer was wrong then as it is now" - the overarching theme of my argument was the wrongness of PCGamer. Try not to twist my words around.

First of all, that wasn't my point and second of all, you're just being presumptuous. My argument was that PCGamer is a terrible service to gauge video game quality. I'm correct in that assessment. The fact that AoC is free to play now does mean, in and of itself, that the game was bad all along. If the game wouldn't have been bad all along, it wouldn't be free-to-play two years after release. It's simple cause and effect. Unless a game is built on top of a micropayment model (such as League of Legends) and it goes f2p soon after release, the (correct) assessment would be that not enough people are paying for the game. Ergo, the game must not be good enough for people to be willing to pay money. Therefore, the game sucks.

My argument was that PC Gamer (much like many other professional reviews) is fallible, wrong, and inconsistent more often than not. You've only strengthened my point.

You know what the irony here is? PCGamer also gave Age of Conan a glowing review. AoC is now free-to-play. Professional or not, PCGamer was wrong then as it is now.

If you want to make this an argument on story vs. gameplay, I think you're on the losing side. It's not an opinion asserting that gameplay is paramountly more important than story (many games could be my case in point: Mario, Rayman, Sonic, Plants vs. Zombies). People would much rather play a game with good mechanics and a mediocre story rather than a game with AAA story and awful mechanics. SWTOR is dangerously grazing the latter category.

BC, WotlK, and now Cataclysm have moved way past fetch and click. I can still remember lassoing nether-rays in BC, doing bombing runs over Hellfire, surfing on harpoons in WotlK, or dodging sharks in Cataclysm. Say what you will, but Blizzard has been seriously pushing the envelope when it comes to how questing is done. Like I said, VO is a huge improvement as well, but the gameplay isn't there to justify it.

If you're referring you the no-autoattack decision, I was looking forward to it. In beta, I mostly played in IA. The autoattack problem wasn't as noticeable, but with the Sith Warrior I have on live, it's very obviously a poor game design decision. I think that it's fine you like those things, but you still have to argue your case. Why do fetch-quests and click-quests provide more gameplay value than interesting WoW-type of quests? I think the no-autoattack is an interesting debate because there's valid points to both sides and in some cases it may actually BE a good idea (like the IA) but in others (like the SW) it seems regressive.

ABS was a luxury in the 1970s. A moddable UI was a luxury in 2004. It's 2012 now. It's no longer a luxury. It's 2012 now, ABS is no longer a luxury. ToR is the equivalent of a Geo Metro and WoW is the equivalent of Mercedes. Is that what you're trying to say?

5. A combat log, UI improvements, better PvP would probably bring it up to a 6.5, but this game feels like half a game. Hence, 5/10.

Reputation grinding, pets, and honestly the space combat/ship battles are an embarrassment.

Bracketed PvP. PvE is a joke in ToR without combat logs, for example. Something that Rift (as mentioned) had.

How can you possibly say that? Rift had the best launch out of EVERY MMO EVER. Furthermore, it's tutorial quests are absolutely AMAZING. In ToR, you're not even told what stats you're looking for. There's no real question about Rift vs. ToR at launch. Rift was a lot better. It had serious PvP, it had serious PvE, a combat log (lulz), customizable UI, LFG systems, etc, etc. I'm all up for discussion if you actually back up your claims. I'm by no means a Rift fan, but come on.

Even Rift couldn't compete with WoW, and Rift was about 30x better at launch than ToR. Lets be rational here.

Which pretty much discredits this numbskull of a reviewer. It doesn't really matter either way. It's pretty clear that ToR won't even begin to compete with WoW (which is the bar) which (one would imagine) was the goal. After all, investing 100mil in a product and not expecting excellence is just goofy.

Onyxia was available day 1 in Vanilla WoW, but it's nice to know you have no idea what you're talking about.