SWTOR Vs WoW: Blizzard gets it

[Baneswrath]

Geez people, the game has been out for like 3 months! Only ~100 days or so!!!!!

 

When have people become so impatient? You all act like Bioware cannot continue to add stuff to the game through patches and expansions!!!!!! You all act like the game that was released back in December will be the FINAL product in the coming months and years!

 

YESSSS I started a thread saying this just yesterday and within a couple of hours it was closed. People neeeeed to shut up and wait a year to complain. The game runs, people can play pvp and pve, and it has decent graphics as of now. Please shut up and go play another game if your'e so unhappy.

[Azzras]

YESSSS I started a thread saying this just yesterday and within a couple of hours it was closed. People neeeeed to shut up and wait a year to complain. The game runs, people can play pvp and pve, and it has decent graphics as of now. Please shut up and go play another game if your'e so unhappy.

 

If only it were that simple.

[Jalez]

If only it were that simple.

 

It IS that simple........if people are already giving up on this game then that means they are either new too MMORPGS in general and have no idea how they operate.....OR they have ADHD

 

Swtor has DEPTH...is playable with great graphics that run smoothly on High settings and has something to do in PvE and PvP.....and all of this will be improved upon in upcoming patches.....the game is in great shape and will be around for a long time

Edited March 27, 2012 by Jalez

[Shingara]

It IS that simple........if people are already giving up on this game then that means they are either new too MMORPGS in general and have no idea how they operate.....OR they have ADHD

 

Your forgetting the weird trend thats been going on for the last few years though, people like myself that have played multiple mmos from launch have seen it, bands of people who goto a new mmo and there favourate passtime is to slame the new game and the company that makes it.

 

Normally with wow clone and they cry about one thing then when it gets change cry about it changing, its like its a new internet sport.

[Azzras]

So?

 

Star Wars was released on May 25, 1977. And old man Lucas is still minting millions out of it. Because Star Wars was a masterpiece as an IP.

 

A good IP is a good IP.

 

There's a difference between cheap fast fiction and the timeless masterpieces. You want the cheap fast fiction; I want the timeless masterpieces.

 

Why are we even comparing a game released in 2004 with a game released in 2011 ? The very fact that we even bother comparing these two games years apart in development and technology is a testimony of how great the old game is. Even today, MMO devs are struggling to match and surpass the standard that WoW had set.

 

What the hell are you talking about?

 

I'm not comparing WoW launch to SWTOR launch.

 

I asked what NEW game has Blizzard released in the last 5 years that's not an almost complete rehash.

 

No one can answer that question.

 

And FYI:

 

The now WoW is dropping subs like Niagara Falls drops water. (Sorry, the best analogy I could come up with...lol)

[Offended]

Command & Conquer is much better than SC.

 

It has multiple world records:

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_%26_Conquer

 

From the wiki.

 

"The Command & Conquer series has been a commercial success with over 30 million Command & Conquer games sold as of 2009."

 

there are 9 major releases (not including expansion packs). average 3.3 million per title.

 

StarCraft 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarCraft

"With more than 11 million copies sold worldwide as of February 2009"

StarCraft 2

"At the time of its release, Starcraft II became the fastest selling real-time strategy game of all time, with over three million copies sold worldwide in the first month."

Beats the previous C&C record

 

"As of December 2010, the game has sold nearly 4.5 million units."

 

Starcraft has sold an estimated of 15.5 million units, from 2 releases. more than double what C&C has done.

 

If we're looking at pure sales numbers, Starcraft wins hands down.

 

If we're going to look at blizzard RTS, we have to include Warcraft 2/3/tft and DotA, to which you'd have to be a fool to think that EA did better with C&C.

[Shingara]

From the wiki.

 

"The Command & Conquer series has been a commercial success with over 30 million Command & Conquer games sold as of 2009."

 

there are 9 major releases (not including expansion packs). average 3.3 million per title.

 

StarCraft 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarCraft

"With more than 11 million copies sold worldwide as of February 2009"

StarCraft 2

"At the time of its release, Starcraft II became the fastest selling real-time strategy game of all time, with over three million copies sold worldwide in the first month."

Beats the previous C&C record

 

"As of December 2010, the game has sold nearly 4.5 million units."

 

Starcraft has sold an estimated of 15.5 million units, from 2 releases. more than double what C&C has done.

 

If we're looking at pure sales numbers, Starcraft wins hands down.

 

If we're going to look at blizzard RTS, we have to include Warcraft 2/3/tft and DotA, to which you'd have to be a fool to think that EA did better with C&C.

 

You just dont give in with the fanboy stuff do you, Westwood beat bliz for rts hands down, feel free to think they dont by all means but deluding yourself isnt healthy.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Shingara

[Offended]

What the hell are you talking about?

 

I'm not comparing WoW launch to SWTOR launch.

 

I asked what NEW game has Blizzard released in the last 5 years that's not an almost complete rehash.

 

No one can answer that question.

 

And FYI:

 

The now WoW is dropping subs like Niagara Falls drops water. (Sorry, the best analogy I could come up with...lol)

 

We did answer that question, it's quite easy.

 

0

 

They don't need to come out with multiple games every year or two like EA/Bioware has been doing to compete or set market trends.

[Offended]

You just dont give in with the fanboy stuff do you, Westwood beat bliz for rts hands down, feel free to think they dont by all means but deluding yourself isnt healthy.

 

The better RTS, C&C or Starcraft is a 14 year old debate, since StarCraft was released. What's better is how you feel about micro v.s. macro management.

 

The leaders of RTS though, are Asians (Specifically Koreans), and they will unanimously vote for SC/SC2 every time.

 

Hell they have TV stations that play SC/Sc2 matches 24hrs day, it's like soccer is to Brazil.

[Shingara]

The better RTS, C&C or Starcraft is a 14 year old debate, since StarCraft was released. What's better is how you feel about micro v.s. macro management.

 

The leaders of RTS though, are Asians (Specifically Koreans), and they will unanimously vote for SC/SC2 every time.

 

Hell they have TV stations that play SC/Sc2 matches 24hrs day, it's like soccer is to Brazil.

 

sorry is your maths bad, add what sc has sold for and estimated to have sold for 2 and see if that adds upto 30. And so what if its an esport.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Shingara

[Esproc]

Hi,

 

I play on a small server. Its easy to spot jerks and even easier to make pals. I have no need for a LFG tool. Only a jerk needs a LFG tool because they can not make friends or associates along the way.

 

John

 

SWTOR vs Blizzard: doesn't get this ...

 

This wins goes SWTOR

 

Any company that has it's hands in the pockets of another, be it Blizzard or BW, has it's say, there is no denying that input it there, and Acti/EA have a lot of fingers.

[Azzras]

From the wiki.

 

"The Command & Conquer series has been a commercial success with over 30 million Command & Conquer games sold as of 2009."

 

there are 9 major releases (not including expansion packs). average 3.3 million per title.

 

StarCraft 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarCraft

"With more than 11 million copies sold worldwide as of February 2009"

StarCraft 2

"At the time of its release, Starcraft II became the fastest selling real-time strategy game of all time, with over three million copies sold worldwide in the first month."

Beats the previous C&C record

 

"As of December 2010, the game has sold nearly 4.5 million units."

 

Starcraft has sold an estimated of 15.5 million units, from 2 releases. more than double what C&C has done.

 

If we're looking at pure sales numbers, Starcraft wins hands down.

 

If we're going to look at blizzard RTS, we have to include Warcraft 2/3/tft and DotA, to which you'd have to be a fool to think that EA did better with C&C.

 

I'm not the best at math, but 30mil > 15.5mil.

 

And based on ActiBlizz's new policy about e-sports, I'm thinking where SC is popular (Korea) is going to be a thought of the past soon.

 

While there is an interest in a professional StarCraft II scene, there are several factors that could affect the way it develops as an e-Sport. After three years of negotiations, Blizzard decided that the Korean e-Sports Players Association (KeSPA) was unwilling to cooperate with them in regards to the sharing of profits from competitive StarCraft multiplayer games. This breakdown has led to an uncertain future of KeSPA's legal ability to broadcast Blizzard's intellectual property of both StarCraft and StarCraft II without paying royalties.[75][126] Thus far, only one of the two major StarCraft broadcasters, MBC Television, has agreed to Blizzard's new terms

[dashspeed]

Warcraft has had nearly ten years of development and is still crap. I have tried playing it 3 times over the years and could not stand it for more than a couple weeks. that said, let the horse rest in piece. Quit bringing up the TOR/wow comparisons. They are getting old and annoying.

 

WoW was released in 2004.

 

2012 - 2004 = 8 years.

[Shingara]

WoW was released in 2004.

 

2012 - 2004 = 8 years.

 

Are you forgetting that a game has to be created before its released, although i would say that wow took longer then 2 years to develop.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Shingara

[Azzras]

WoW was released in 2004.

 

2012 - 2004 = 8 years.

 

I think you missed the part where the person you quoted said nearly 10 years.

[Esproc]

Original:Quote:

Originally Posted by Korrigan

Blizzard got what? To dumb down their game more and more each new expansion? Have you seen character customization in Pandaria? 6 Talents!!!

Thank you, I take SW:TOR with its complete talent trees anytime of the day. I've played WoW for over 7 years, but the route Blizzard is taking to cater to the dumb and dumber broke the deal for me.

 

I played Warcraft until about a month before star wars was released and I started playing the beta. I didn't get very far in it. tried each of the classes and was working a lot, didn't really past lvl 10 on any of them.

 

Then the release came and work was slow so i got to level my Sith Inquisitor. so here lvl 10 comes and i get to chose my advanced class/spec and i look at the talent tree.

 

The first tier talents were nearly useless. I was so disappointed in them. I leveled 3-4 lvls before applying talents because reducing 1% dmg to an ability that only did 300-400dmg was pretty useless. As i went up the madness tree I began to realize that the design choices blizzard made with the talent tree's was exactly right. You want your talent choices to mean something. to have a meaningful impact on your play style or characters abilities. Spending 1 talent to gain 1% dmg reduction is pretty boring and offers nothing to your character growth.

 

The more i moved up the maddness and lightning trees, the more I felt like the choices I had were useless. The only time you actually noticed a talent choice is if it gave you a new ability or proc. Blizzard, after 4-5 years, for WotLK finally noticed that there were dozens of talents that only very few people would pick, because they were completely useless.

 

Lets look at a supposed ideal sith sorc maddness pve build (The pvp build is nearly identical except for swapping 2 second tier talents)

http://www.torhead.com/skill-calc#201hZf0MZcrdRsMkrfz.1

 

Also, what exactly is dumbed down by the character creation process?

 

 

OK, so the ONLY time you think that a tree spec is useful is when YOU get a new ABILITY, not some mitigation.

 

Blizzard nerfed the trees to such dumb levels there were No CHOICES for what to spec in any more. There used to be choices but people like you, yes YOU, couldn't think them through. And the reason I say you, is the same reason I cut off your post, At A PRE-BUILD tell Me How To Spec Model So I Know (or may think I/they can/do) How To Spec.

 

That's why Blizzard decided to Make the Tree Choices for everyone and give you a worthless shrub of a joke. Blizzard did the tree (and soon to be shrub) Wrong.

 

So long as people build by others specs, can't think for themselves, and demand tools to show them how to play the class/es they chose, how can I, or any reasonable person, take you seriously.

 

Blizzard Failed in their allowance of tools to cater those who look up specs to decide for them what they should create (making the character their own) and then rely on tools to continue the process.

 

Hopefully BW sees this and does not open the bottle as much as Blizzard and make the same mistake as Blizzard did, as quoted by one of Blizzards Devs on the "tools" "We can't get the Djinn back in the bottle".

[lokivoid]

BW should have looked at concepts of GW2, Archeage and The Secret World instead, not a ten year old MMO oldie with Pandas.

 

why

GW2 = F2P casual crap (not even in the same market/model so its irrelevant)

Archeage = generic and dated korean grindfest

Secret world = Funcom (that alone guarantees it be a complete failure)

 

Non of those games offer any good "concepts" sorry.

[its_them]

Sorry what!. i can just lol at this, you ever heard of westwood by any chance.

 

Yeah I remember them EA killed em off.

[dashspeed]

I think you missed the part where the person you quoted said nearly 10 years.

 

Adding "nearly" to a ridiculously rounded up number has the ONLY purpose of making things feel bigger than they are.

 

What I'm saying, everybody's smart enough to do this simple calculation. No need for useless "nearly 10 years", when it clearly isn't so.

 

It's the equivalent of saying that a 16 year old is "nearly 20 years old".

[Shingara]

Adding "nearly" to a ridiculously rounded up number has the ONLY purpose of making things feel bigger than they are.

 

What I'm saying, everybody's smart enough to do this simple calculation. No need for useless "nearly 10 years", when it clearly isn't so.

 

It's the equivalent of saying that a 16 year old is "nearly 20 years old".

 

Again do you think games just pop out of a magic hat on release day or something, wow was developed before release and continued to be developed after so the release date in no way corolates with how long it has been developed.

[dashspeed]

Again do you think games just pop out of a magic hat on release day or something, wow was developed before release and continued to be developed after so the release date in no way corolates with how long it has been developed.

 

AFAIK, the game's only had major changes in patches once it was released.

[Shingara]

AFAIK, the game's only had major changes in patches once it was released.

 

so you think it was deveopled for release then ? so no alpha no beta. and patches are only a part of development, the guy said it had been developed for not its has been around since.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Shingara

[dashspeed]

so you think it was deveopled for release then ? so no alpha no beta.

 

Again, you're totally beside the point. What does "developped for release" even mean? Of course all games are developped for release.

 

I was part in the WoW beta, just so you know, and not much changed between the beta and the actual release. Just like in the BC->BC live, WotlK->Live, Cata->Live. Blizzard does almost no changes from their beta stage to the live stage, mainly because... THEY PUSH FOR RELEASE.

 

WoW was developped to what it was now through patches for 80% of the mechanics. the 20% that's left is basically stuff that's been added (or removed) through expansion sets.

 

I don't care how long it takes to develop a game from 0 to release date, what counts in MMOs is how the developers patch things up after player feedback. You really are shooting yourself in the foot if you think you can make an MMO with a few beta testers and expect it to succeed without patches or changes.... OH WAIT, that's what all the wow fanbois are saying about SWTOR, because it wasn't perfect on release, it must suck! Yikes! Thank god they weren't around in 2004, because WoW sucked so bad I actually only came back when BC was released.

[Shingara]

Again, you're totally beside the point. What does "developped for release" even mean? Of course all games are developped for release.

 

I was part in the WoW beta, just so you know, and not much changed between the beta and the actual release. Just like in the BC->BC live, WotlK->Live, Cata->Live. Blizzard does almost no changes from their beta stage to the live stage, mainly because... THEY PUSH FOR RELEASE.

 

WoW was developped to what it was now through patches for 80% of the mechanics. the 20% that's left is basically stuff that's been added (or removed) through expansion sets.

 

I don't care how long it takes to develop a game from 0 to release date, what counts in MMOs is how the developers patch things up after player feedback. You really are shooting yourself in the foot if you think you can make an MMO with a few beta testers and expect it to succeed without patches or changes.... OH WAIT, that's what all the wow fanbois are saying about SWTOR, because it wasn't perfect on release, it must suck! Yikes! Thank god they weren't around in 2004, because WoW sucked so bad I actually only came back when BC was released.

 

Really, so whats the whoo har around the forums then of what was developed for release, why wasnt 1.2 in at release. Pre release development is a very big factor. so as he didnt say it was released at and said developed your totally wrong.

[Azzras]

Adding "nearly" to a ridiculously rounded up number has the ONLY purpose of making things feel bigger than they are.

 

What I'm saying, everybody's smart enough to do this simple calculation. No need for useless "nearly 10 years", when it clearly isn't so.

 

It's the equivalent of saying that a 16 year old is "nearly 20 years old".

 

A 16 year old game is closer to 15 years, so that's how I would refer to it.

 

If you would have said an 18 year old game, then I would say it's close to 20.

 

I guess the older one gets the less years seem to matter.

 

To appease you, though...the game is 8 years OLD.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Azzras