Objectivist Gamer Review

[stethnorun]

http://objectivistgamer.com/?p=890

 

My take on this game.

[Sizzurps]

It's a masterful Onion-esque review.

 

"Another aspect that can really damage immersion is the fact that, aside from mini-story Flashpoints, there is no instancing. What this means is that when the server population is low, everything runs pretty well, but when things get crowded, you can actually find yourself waiting in line to kill certain numbers of people or certain bosses."

 

 

Are you referring to "sharding?" SWTOR is sharded BIG time.

 

 

"I purposefully picked a PvE (player vs enemy) server (as opposed to a PvP server) because I assumed they would be more like me in temperament. Aside from people dog-piling on me whenever I mentioned WoW, they all seemed like a pleasant enough lot. "

 

 

PvE = Player versus Environment.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Sizzurps

[Hakkology]

Some points are a little bit off the chart, but its a great review. Even the developers should read and get some pointers about the current state of their game.

 

Thanks for sharing it.

[Sunstarr]

"I played Star Wars: Galaxies for around two years..."

 

'Nuff said.

 

Bias noted.

[Tirfin]

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.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Tirfin

[skorpius]

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.

 

Well Said.

[stethnorun]

"I played Star Wars: Galaxies for around two years..."

 

'Nuff said.

 

Bias noted.

 

Hah. If anything Galaxies biased me in favor of TOR. Galaxies was flawed, flawed, flawed.

[stethnorun]

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.

 

Well I did say at the top that I'm not an MMO kinda guy. Also, why would I bias my review of a game by getting all excited for it before it launches? I go into most games somewhat ignorant. I want to judge them with fresh eyes unspoiled by "expectations".

[Tuscad]

Hah. If anything Galaxies biased me in favor of TOR. Galaxies was flawed, flawed, flawed.

 

I wish I had the chance to play Galaxies.

[chrisftw]

"I played Star Wars: Galaxies for around two years..."

 

'Nuff said.

 

Bias noted.

 

yeah soon as i saw that i stopped reading.

 

moving on

[stethnorun]

I wish I had the chance to play Galaxies.

 

It was a game with VERY high ambitions but very shoddy execution. It did some things well, but most things poorly. Still, I credit the devs for shooting high, even if they missed.

[stethnorun]

yeah soon as i saw that i stopped reading.

 

moving on

 

Hehe, then you are a very close-minded person. In that whole (long) review, you picked that one thing out and said "to hell with everything else!"? Seems like a silly way to absorb information and thoughts of others.

[Morlaak]

Well, as the author already said, it was more of a rant with some justified critics along with, from my point of view, extremely nitpicky ones than a review itself.

 

Starting from the point that he wrote "but in terms of gameplay, you have your choice of four options: melee Jedi/Sith, ranged Jedi/Sith, Smuggler/Agent, and Trooper/Bounty Hunter" I already knew that the review was probably not going to be serious enough.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Morlaak

[stethnorun]

Well, as the author already said, it was more of a rant with some justified critics along with, from my point of view, extremely nitpicky ones than a review itself.

 

That's probably fair. It was really a critique of all Everquest/WoW/TOR MMOs as seen through the eyes of a single-player gamer. I can understand if an MMO fan would find nothing to relate to in my opinion, since we play games for different reasons.

[Mashy]

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.

 

^^What he said!

[inseeisyou]

http://objectivistgamer.com/?p=890

 

My take on this game.

 

Careful... this user is a known troll on the Civ 5 2K forums...

[Jazhara]

For emphasis I'm going to quote Tirfin.

 

Especially the first paragraph.

 

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.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Jazhara

[Cerion]

I didn't even bother reading when I saw the title of the blog site. Either the author intends it to appeal to Randroids, or it is a bastardization of the word objective -- in which case anyone professing to be objective rarely is. So in either event, not interested.

[Trebarian]

I agree with what you stated in the first section that the review was a rant. Your several valid points were unfortunately overshadowed by your overt negativity, making the review not very objective at all. I'm curious to know to what level did you play on your characters?

[Reico]

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.

 

 

And the OP gets crushed.

[Tirfin]

Well I did say at the top that I'm not an MMO kinda guy. Also, why would I bias my review of a game by getting all excited for it before it launches? I go into most games somewhat ignorant. I want to judge them with fresh eyes unspoiled by "expectations".

 

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.

[stethnorun]

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 to a certain extent, I judge all games by all games. Obviously they can't all compete with each other in all (or even a lot) of categories, but, at least where they focus their attention, they should be able to excel. No, I was NEVER expecting this game to play like Assassin's Creed or Rainbow Six, but that wasn't really my point. My point was, in terms of combat gameplay, it doesn't really do anything in a unique or interesting way. It's simply copying a formula that was stale in the late 90's, much less the 2010's.

 

I will admit that innovation is probably the main thing that gets me excited, as a gamer. And in that regard, I'm probably in the minority. As evidenced by how popular Call of Duty and Star Craft is, most gamers prefer the familiar. To that end, TOR is VERY familiar, thus, I can see why most enjoy it. Truth be told, I enjoy playing TOR with my girlfriend since there are so few co-op games to choose from.

Edited February 15, 2012 by stethnorun

[stethnorun]

You do make a good point that I probably harped too much on "what could have been". I'll agree with that.

[mangarrage]

hey look another wow fanboi who thought they needed to post

 

As soon as you put that your not a fan af mmos and the fact that the game all reskinned wow, you lose so many people and your opinion, although it is your opinion becomes completely invalid to people

 

The biggest thing I had an issue with is you talk about how the mirror classes are exactly the same, well that was done completely on purpose, why you dont grasp that idk

 

In all the game sover all the years I have played, which you very obviously have not, was the outcries from people saying this class or that class is op.

 

Fact is in this game the idea was you should be completely on the same footing as your opposing class, and really with some lacking on the republic side they are

[Valenthor]

Well to a certain extent, I judge all games by all games. Obviously they can't all compete with each other in all (or even a lot) of categories, but, at least where they focus their attention, they should be able to excel. No, I was NEVER expecting this game to play like Assassin's Creed or Rainbow Six, but that wasn't really my point. My point was, in terms of combat gameplay, it doesn't really do anything in a unique or interesting way. It's simply copying a formula that was stale in the late 90's, much less the 2010's.

 

I will admit that innovation is probably the main thing that gets me excited, as a gamer. And in that regard, I'm probably in the minority. As evidenced by how popular Call of Duty and Star Craft is, most gamers prefer the familiar. To that end, TOR is VERY familiar, thus, I can see why most enjoy it. Truth be told, I enjoy playing TOR with my girlfriend since there are so few co-op games to choose from.

 

Not all innovation is positive. There are many MMOs out there with different types of gameplay, but are far less popular. No, you cannot just dismiss it as people wanting the familiar. Maybe the reason why people like it, is wait for it,...it is a better style that works/is popular and only needs small tweaks and improvements. People clamoring for innovation for the sake of innovation really have no idea what they are getting themselves into.

 

If you don't understand my point, I will refer you to Hellgate: London as an example. I would regard it as a fairly innovative MMO (think FPSer style with Diablo elements) that became a pile of poop. A lot of things sound good on paper...