Objectivist Gamer Review

[Andryah]

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.

 

/Signed

[Niil]

What I think is funny is that pretty much no one has actually countered any of your points, except for semantics like whether an Advanced Class counts as a different class.

 

But nobody's actually addressed your points and said "No way, there's tons of customization! And the combat's interesting and deep! And the graphics are amazing! And the space combat is phenomenal!"

 

You have gotten absolutely nothing but ad hominem attacks.

 

I don't need to present an argument as to why it's not an objective review when the first paragraph of the op's article states that he doesn't like mmo's but is going to review this one. He already threw himself under the bus. But for the sake of keeping me occupied until my raid starts I'll actually debate the points of his post and ignore his bias.

 

Race specific powers is something that he complains about. It's purely cosmetic in this game. That's a design philosophy based on many years of arguing about race specific powers in mmo's unbalancing specific classes or being hard counters to specific classes in pvp. I find it perfectly acceptable that race choices do not grant advantages or disadvantages because it diversifies the population. To compare to a popular game where this is an issue, you don't have every rogue being undead, or every hunter being orc. That's a good thing.

 

Character customization is something that is widely subjective, and no one is going to say, "yep this is perfect and there's no way to improve it." I thought the customization options were okay. They're comparable to WoW and many other games I've played. I didn't think it was amazing or mind blowing by any means.

 

Arguing against the gameplay in an mmo is kinda silly. Powers, action bars, hit points, levels, etc... have been around since Everquest, and they've been used in Rifts, Shadowbane, Lineage 2, Conan, Aion, hell they've been used in old school single player computer games such as Baldur's Gate, Pools of Radiance, and other RPG's. That's sorta the staple of an rpg, let alone an mmorpg. Bioware went out of their way to make the animations look cinematic and took flack from players due to animation delay and choppy gameplay. They've been reverting or changing them since release to resolve this exact issue. It was a resounding response by the community in favor of the old paradigm of gameplay. If the op wants twitch gameplay go play an fps. This is not an fps. It is not an action console game. It's an mmorpg.

 

I'd keep going but it's actually raid time for me. I could make a giant list of the things I don't like, just as much as I could make a giant list of things I do like about swtor. The op's article is trash, it's not objective, it's not unbiased, there's nothing thought provoking or insightful in there. It's just all around bashing the mmorpg genre.

[cipher_nemo]

Op, your view of PvP is painfully lacking experience with it.

 

Granted, I get what you mean, and I too dislike many aspects of PvP in TOR, but you didn't even cover it. From reading your review you did a few warzones and that was it. Did you do Tatooine or Illum open area PvP? Did you even try to play on a PvP server where every zone is open PvP? Queuing up for PvP is just a small fraction of what you can do in PvP.

 

In terms of mechanics did you take time to understand the finer points of interrupts, resolve, etc.?

Edited February 16, 2012 by cipher_nemo

[Khelmar]

In every other mmorpg you're a soulless quest-turning machine. How you act towards other players is another thing. In the game world you're nothing.

 

Actually that is purely opinionated and is neither true nor false. Some people feel that if your character doesn't talk or you don't choose any personalized chat options for quests that they feel like they are just a soulless character. However others feel that they can get into their character just because of how they made him/her look and how the class plays. Some even get into their characters by making their own backstory and roleplaying with others. Sure in the gameworld you're just another mage or thief, but then again in TOR you're just another sith or trooper along with thousands of others. I would even say TOR limits your "uniqueness" by making everyone have the same story as everyone else with, in most cases, slight differences. Unless of course you're a sith that picked every single good option which would make you the minority on that side, but there are still a bunch of others who've no doubt done the same (even then there are only slight differences in the story). In other MMOs you can choose where to level (though only from a handful of zones) and be able to define your character that way. I personally got into my gnome mage in WoW but maybe that's just me.

[stethnorun]

Op, your view of PvP is painfully lacking experience with it.

 

Granted, I get what you mean, and I too dislike many aspects of PvP in TOR, but you didn't even cover it. From reading your review you did a few warzones and that was it. Did you do Tatooine or Illum open area PvP? Did you even try to play on a PvP server where every zone is open PvP? Queuing up for PvP is just a small fraction of what you can do in PvP.

 

I agree with you completely on this, I did not cover it. I'm not qualified to cover it since I have almost no background in it. I also don't do reviews of cars for the same reason

[Niil]

Actually, I was hired by Game-Over.com to write a SWTOR review because the other writers passed on it and my editor wanted it done. I passed on it too, originally.

 

Ah, so you were trolling. That's basically what sensationalist writing is nowadays, regardless of whether or not you were paid to do it. Actually moreso because you were paid to do it. I guess I have a rather poor impression of anyone who's job it is to write about a subject that they're incapable of actually being objective or unbiased about.

[stethnorun]

Arguing against the gameplay in an mmo is kinda silly. Powers, action bars, hit points, levels, etc... have been around since Everquest, and they've been used in Rifts, Shadowbane, Lineage 2, Conan, Aion, hell they've been used in old school single player computer games such as Baldur's Gate, Pools of Radiance, and other RPG's. That's sorta the staple of an rpg, let alone an mmorpg. Bioware went out of their way to make the animations look cinematic and took flack from players due to animation delay and choppy gameplay. They've been reverting or changing them since release to resolve this exact issue. It was a resounding response by the community in favor of the old paradigm of gameplay. If the op wants twitch gameplay go play an fps. This is not an fps. It is not an action console game. It's an mmorpg.

 

If it's such an immutable fact of all MMOs, how come D&D online is so different? Sure it's still stat-based, but it plays almost like an action game. You click to swing your sword, you hold right click to block, you only hit your quickbar here and there (unless you are a mage), etc etc. As I said in my review, the only reason people are content with decades-old gameplay is because they've conditioned themselves to think that's all it can ever be. They lack imagination (or even experience playing other MMOs).

[Pekish]

there wasn't the innovation "you" were looking for or you were expecting... there wasn't i agree anything completly re-invente but it was innovative compared to the famous MMO in many thing

 

a) Companions I dont see them in WOW or any of the other famouse MMO

b) huttball it brings a slightly new version of the usual carry the flag minigame

c) Crafting as companion skill it's somehow new and intresting even if crafting it's very badly balanced

d) Use of the off line time (even if unfortunately very limited) it's not a new idea but none of the big MMO has it (lotro, wow, etcetc) only EVE use the off line time but in a static way

 

 

I mean there is nothing revolutionary "per se" but there are MANY things that are not in WOW and it's missing lot of things that are in WOW

 

if SWTOR is WOW then all the FPS are the same too copy of the very first... every racing car is the same... every soccer game is the same...

[Tirfin]

I think he pretty much did...you just didn't like what he said.

 

A common retort to complaints about this game is "well, it's exactly what the devs said it was going to be!"

 

 

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.

[stethnorun]

Ah, so you were trolling. That's basically what sensationalist writing is nowadays, regardless of whether or not you were paid to do it. Actually moreso because you were paid to do it. I guess I have a rather poor impression of anyone who's job it is to write about a subject that they're incapable of actually being objective or unbiased about.

 

I wasn't paid, actually. Unless you count getting to play the game free for 60 days. And I absolutely am not a sensationalist. As an Objectivist, the idea of pandering to an audience (trolling is just another form of pandering), is out of the question. I wrote my honest opinion, regardless of how I thought it would be received. If that makes for a "poor impression", I'd hate to see someone who makes a good impression on you.

[cipher_nemo]

I agree with you completely on this, I did not cover it. I'm not qualified to cover it since I have almost no background in it. I also don't do reviews of cars for the same reason

 

I'm not a PvPer, but I did at least dabble in it to learn my way around and explore what TOR really has to offer. I certainly understand if you're not interested in PvP yourself, but you wrote a review of the game for the public to read and included a small blurb about how awful PvP is in TOR. If you don't want to cover PvP, you could at least say so in the article and not ever include that PvP section where you stated it's awful and only attempt if you hate life. That's not an adequate assessment.

 

Anyone can write a bunch of opinions down and publish it as an article, but very few can do this with style and brevity so that it can be useful to a wide audience. Next time if you're not really into covering some aspect in a review, don't cover it. You do it an injustice with your bias.

Edited February 16, 2012 by cipher_nemo

[stethnorun]

I'm not a PvPer, but I did at least dabble in it to learn my way around and explore what TOR really has to offer. I certainly understand if you're not interested in PvP yourself, but you wrote a review of the game for the public to read and included a small blurb about how awful PvP is in TOR. If you don't want to cover PvP, you could at least say so in the article and not ever include that PvP section where you stated it's awful and only attempt if you hate life. That's not an adequate assessment.

 

Anyone can write a bunch of opinions down and publish it as an article, but very few can do this with style and brevity so that it can be useful to a wide audience. Next time if you're not really into covering some aspect in review, don't cover it. You do it an injustice with you bias.

 

Yeah that's a fair point. Maybe I should have left it out. Mostly I just wanted to say "Yeah I hate it, but I'm not the person to come to for an opinion on this anyway." There is probably a more elegant way of accomplishing that goal than the way I chose. So, point conceded.

[cipher_nemo]

As an Objectivist, the idea of pandering to an audience (trolling is just another form of pandering), is out of the question. I wrote my honest opinion, regardless of how I thought it would be received.

 

I think you're abusing that made-up term: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28journalism%29

 

If you were truly an "objective" reviewer, you'd have an unbiased view.

 

Yeah that's a fair point. Maybe I should have left it out. Mostly I just wanted to say "Yeah I hate it, but I'm not the person to come to for an opinion on this anyway." There is probably a more elegant way of accomplishing that goal than the way I chose. So, point conceded.

 

Good deal. That's all I ask from my viewpoint.

Edited February 16, 2012 by cipher_nemo

[Khelmar]

 

a) Companions I dont see them in WOW or any of the other famouse MMO

b) huttball it brings a slightly new version of the usual carry the flag minigame

c) Crafting as companion skill it's somehow new and intresting even if crafting it's very badly balanced

d) Use of the off line time (even if unfortunately very limited) it's not a new idea but none of the big MMO has it (lotro, wow, etcetc) only EVE use the off line time but in a static way

 

a: Other mmos have them, they call them "pets." While I do like how they do have their own personalities and you can have convos with them, in a strictly gameplay sense they are "pets."

 

b: It's not new at all really. Sure it's new for MMOs to have it, but it was taken from a gamemode I first found in something called "UT2004." So yes it hasn't really been "MMOfied" before, but it's not new concept.

 

c: I agree with you here.

 

d: What do you mean by" offtime"? I know that CoH/V had a "Dayjob" system that happened in offline mode that gave you different benefits, but unless you're talking about being able to craft things while offline (which was point c) I don't really see what this is talking about.

 

On a side note: besides the word "troll" being thrown around (by me as well) the insults have been whether low. I suppose that's a plus for this thread.

[Niil]

If it's such an immutable fact of all MMOs, how come D&D online is so different? Sure it's still stat-based, but it plays almost like an action game. You click to swing your sword, you hold right click to block, you only hit your quickbar here and there (unless you are a mage), etc etc. As I said in my review, the only reason people are content with decades-old gameplay is because they've conditioned themselves to think that's all it can ever be. They lack imagination (or even experience playing other MMOs).

 

Surprisingly that's one of the few mmo's I haven't played. I have a copy of it sitting around here somewhere that I got as a freebie for going to PAX, or maybe that Lord of the Rings online. D&D online isn't exactly the most popular of online games, and the gameplay is probably a large part of why. I can say, as someone who grew up playing rpg's, if I wanted to play an action rpg style game I'd buy one. I don't, or at least I don't want to play an mmo variant of an action rpg. As an easy comparison, Bioware switched the gameplay of DA from an old school style rpg to a more action based game in DA2 and I did not enjoy it as much as I did DA1. I didn't research the game beforehand, I just presumed the gameplay would be similar, and I can say I have no intention of buying DA3 if they continue with such a game style. You can tell yourself that I believe what I believe because I'm conditioned to believe it's the only possible way it can be done, but the reality is that there are gamers who prefers this game style. We're not ignorant of how action games play. We just like this better. Your ad hominem is an attempt to dispute the validity of an opinion that you don't share. Subjective is subjective bud.

[stethnorun]

I think you're abusing that made-up term: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28journalism%29

 

If you were truly an "objective" reviewer, you'd have an unbiased view.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

[stethnorun]

Surprisingly that's one of the few mmo's I haven't played. I have a copy of it sitting around here somewhere that I got as a freebie for going to PAX, or maybe that Lord of the Rings online. D&D online isn't exactly the most popular of online games, and the gameplay is probably a large part of why. I can say, as someone who grew up playing rpg's, if I wanted to play an action rpg style game I'd buy one. I don't, or at least I don't want to play an mmo variant of an action rpg. As an easy comparison, Bioware switched the gameplay of DA from an old school style rpg to a more action based game in DA2 and I did not enjoy it as much as I did DA1. I didn't research the game beforehand, I just presumed the gameplay would be similar, and I can say I have no intention of buying DA3 if they continue with such a game style. You can tell yourself that I believe what I believe because I'm conditioned to believe it's the only possible way it can be done, but the reality is that there are gamers who prefers this game style. We're not ignorant of how action games play. We just like this better. Your ad hominem is an attempt to dispute the validity of an opinion that you don't share. Subjective is subjective bud.

 

I'm not saying you prefer this gameplay because you are ignorant. I'm saying that the statement "This is what an MMO HAS to be" is ignorant, because it's simply not true.

[cipher_nemo]

On a side note: besides the word "troll" being thrown around (by me as well) the insults have been whether low. I suppose that's a plus for this thread.

 

Yeah, I hate that term being thrown around so loosely. It seems whenever people disagree on a forum that term gets drug out, beaten to death, and then thrown back into the sandbox for other forum posters to use at a later date. I for one would not call you or your article "trolling".

[cipher_nemo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

 

Ah thanks, I was completely unfamiliar with that.

[Tirfin]

Good point, though I still maintain that Tirfin made some good points about my general perspective. But you are correct, people seem to agree with my main points simply by way of not addressing them. They just don't approve of the fact that I chose to focus on them and not on others.

 

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.

[Niil]

I wasn't paid, actually. Unless you count getting to play the game free for 60 days. And I absolutely am not a sensationalist. As an Objectivist, the idea of pandering to an audience (trolling is just another form of pandering), is out of the question. I wrote my honest opinion, regardless of how I thought it would be received. If that makes for a "poor impression", I'd hate to see someone who makes a good impression on you.

 

Waiting on someone to raid so I have some extra time to kill. Let me say this, the article started off well. You were going out of your comfort zone and trying something again that you had a... not positive experience with before. I can appreciate that. Then it devolved into you complaining about the genre and not about swtor in specific. And not only were you just expressing your personal dislike of this style of game, you were bashing it. There's a very distinct difference between saying, "you know, this just isn't my style of game" and writing a long rant where you trash something. In addition, there were things you said about swtor were just wrong. Bug free? There are bugs, right now, that are very high on my list of, "if this isn't fixed in a reasonable timeframe, maybe I should look at Terra or some of the other games coming out in the future instead of sticking with this game."

[cipher_nemo]

Just a heads-up, op. Your site has some broken/odd links.

 

In the alphabetical list for reviews your "D" link (http://http//objectivistgamer.com/?cat=26) gives an error, and the E and F links go to your D page.

 

I stopped there. I was just trying to get an idea of the games you reviewed and see a lot of console-first ones instead of PC-first/PC-only/MMOs. Although I did see Civ 5, PC-only.

Edited February 16, 2012 by cipher_nemo

[daeseer]

I'm not sure if you meant "objective" or "objectivist."

 

If you're an objectivist, you lost my attention immediately. But then again I don't really see how the philosophy of Ayn Rand has anything to do with an MMO review.

[mavsynchroid]

"Another aspect that can really damage immersion is the fact that, aside from mini-story Flashpoints, there is no instancing. "

 

What? A LOT of quests are instanced into story areas that only you are allowed into. Thus these mobs can only be killed by you unless you have group members.

 

I don't mean to be, well... mean, but I thought this was a terrible ignorant review.

 

You completely left out combat strategy including heat for BHs, ammo for troopers, force and focus for sith and jedi, etc.

 

Also, calling other people moron's, regardless of if they really are or not, is not really professional.

 

You have potential, but please learn more about the game before you write a review or atleast before you expect it to be taken seriously.

 

G'luck in further reviews.

[ItchyThePenguin]

Objectivist? As in Ayn Rand's philosophy?

 

Edit: Nevermind, I see that you are. Cool beans!

Edited February 16, 2012 by ItchyThePenguin