Thoughts on GameSpy's Article on SWTOR

[Dezzi]

Not Sure how to reply to that article? The bottom line is those GW2 fans are in for a shock. They have self hyped the game to be the second coming of all MMO's much like the poeple who self hyped this game until they had a chance to play it and TOR never could live up to their expectations.

 

there will be people like we have/had that that proclaim I hate Wow but they keep posting it lacks features of Wow so it's fail. and when BW adds those features they don't mind coming here and telling us why this game fails.

 

So I wish them well because these people you can never please and most of the reason why the current be all end all Wow killer will fail to them is because it lacks some type of PVP/endgame which is the only reason they play these MMO's.

They don't care about the journey or the story what really they want is a better Wow.

 

How is it hype to compare the strengths and weaknesses of two games? Could it possibly be because you find no fault in SWTOR at all? I find that hard to believe, so I'm again at a loss as to where this article can be taken as anything but a comparative look between two games weighed against a set of features and support.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Dezzi

[Dext]

Game spy has been hard on mmos in the past. I did not even know game spy was around now days.

[CelCawdro]

Guild Wars 2 has nothing but a pretty veil on already-tired mechanics. A soon as people see through the veil, they'll realize that GW2 is just as typical as every other MMO out there. And they'll be on to the Next Big Thing, as always.

 

I've only seen people that are relatively new to the MMO scene be impressed by the Guild Wars 2 Beta. Veterans of the genre can see right through the fancy wrapping paper on the same present we've been getting year after year.

[Dezzi]

Guild Wars 2 has nothing but a pretty veil on already-tired mechanics. A soon as people see through the veil, they'll realize that GW2 is just as typical as every other MMO out there. And they'll be on to the Next Big Thing, as always.

 

I've only seen people that are relatively new to the MMO scene be impressed by the Guild Wars 2 Beta. Veterans of the genre can see right through the fancy wrapping paper on the same present we've been getting year after year.

 

How would you define "veterans of the genre?" I'm will to bet the time-frame begins with your first MMO.

[Kharnis]

How is it hype to compare the strengths and weaknesses of two games? Could it possibly be because you find no fault in SWTOR at all? I find that hard to believe, so I'm again at a loss as to where this article can be taken as anything but a comparative look between two games weighed against a set of features and support.

 

It isn't hype to compare the strengths and weaknesses of the two games. It is hype, however, when all you do is compare the strengths of one game (GW2) to the weaknesses of the other (TOR), but not vice versa.

[wutru]

inb4 Riot calls you a sheep. i linked two gamebreaker links, and this one, and i get called a sheep and a hater from fanboys. go figure.

[Trenter]

I think the core question here is, and I'm sorry if this will seem like a time travel 7-8 months back in time, but:

 

How much is NCSoft and ArenaNet paying this Leif Johnson character?...

Edited June 20, 2012 by Trenter

[Fox_McCloud]

Not Sure how to reply to that article? The bottom line is those GW2 fans are in for a shock. They have self hyped the game to be the second coming of all MMO's much like the poeple who self hyped this game until they had a chance to play it and TOR never could live up to their expectations.

 

I think a fair difference might be that GW2 has beta weekends that are available to the public with no NDA at all. Most players have already poured lots of playtime into GW2 and the reviews are still coming out positive in almost every respect.

 

It doesn't appear that there are any smoke and mirrors here, it looks like this game is actually delivering.

[CelCawdro]

How would you define "veterans of the genre?" I'm will to bet the time-frame begins with your first MMO.

 

As a baseline, I would say those that started with EQ2 or classic WoW (and I started well before either), but I'm sure there are many who took the effort to gain familiarity with the genre and its history that started with it later. But you're just looking for a semantic argument, so I'll bid you adieu unless you wish to talk about what I actually asserted.

[Dext]

How is it hype to compare the strengths and weaknesses of two games? Could it possibly be because you find no fault in SWTOR at all? I find that hard to believe, so I'm again at a loss as to where this article can be taken as anything but a comparative look between two games weighed against a set of features and support.

 

It is hard to put the two side by side. One is out the other is not. The hype for TOR was just as big as it is for GW2 now. Wait and see what it looks like when it has been out for the same time as TOR then put the two side by side. The big thing is SW2 well be free to play and we have to see what the MT store really looks like over time. It could come down to pay to win.

[Dezzi]

It isn't hype to compare the strengths and weaknesses of the two games. It is hype, however, when all you do is compare the strengths of one game (GW2) to the weaknesses of the other (TOR), but not vice versa.

 

I direct you to the first definition of "hype" here. You may have a point on the first and third definitions, but the other two definitions include the caveat that hype comes with a fair bit of "exaggerated claims" and is "deliberately misleading." The article in question is neither.

[DarthKhaos]

So you like exploration and expansive worlds. Me too. GW2 provides the same--arguably better--expansive, living worlds, yet you make no comment about it. Why?

Because if I'm playing GW2 I'd be talking about it on GW2's Official Forums... BAZINGA!

How or why do you expect me to talk about a game I have never played? ~smh~

[Dezzi]

As a baseline, I would say those that started with EQ2 or classic WoW (and I started well before either), but I'm sure there are many who took the effort to gain familiarity with the genre and its history that started with it later. But you're just looking for a semantic argument, so I'll bid you adieu unless you wish to talk about what I actually asserted.

 

We can't have an objective discussion about why I like and what you like. It will ultimately boil down to personal preferences.

 

Your only assertion is that GW2 is a thinly-veiled traditional MMO. I disagree emphatically and have found the game experience to be quite different than a "traditional" MMO. That isn't to say GW2 doesn't have traditional elements--as there is an expectation of certain features and content--but the overall experience has been extremely refreshing and feels new.

[Dezzi]

Because if I'm playing GW2 I'd be talking about it on GW2's Official Forums... BAZINGA!

How or why do you expect me to talk about a game I have never played? ~smh~

 

If you haven't played it, why are you comment about it at all? Your opinions of the game are informed necessarily by what you've heard from others.

[CelCawdro]

I direct you to the first definition of "hype" here. You may have a point on the first and third definitions, but the other two definitions include the caveat that hype comes with a fair bit of "exaggerated claims" and is "deliberately misleading." The article in question is neither.

 

Again with the semantics. And the article in question clearly exists only in incite flame wars and to gain hits on the page - it seems that's what gaming journalism has devolved into in recent years. I'm sure we'll be seeing "Ten Places That 'Titan' Succeeded Where 'Guild Wars 2' Failed" soon enough.

 

It's all about the Next Big Thing.

Edited June 20, 2012 by CelCawdro

[Jedi_Wannabe]

I disagree with many of the points made about SWTOR.

I've been here since early Access. Been following the game for years before launch. SWTOR delivers what it promises.

Also, I don't see where the "Hype Train" derailed months after launch. The hype was built up by people who had no idea what SWTOR was going to be about, and as a result, derailed at launch.

Dropping subs? Duh. Everyone expected subs to drop after launch, that's how it goes. As much as I like this game, I didn't expect 1.3 million subs this long after launch. But then, I didn't expect 2 million to try the game and 1.7 million of them to subscribe as early as they did.

People were crying that SWTOR sybs would drop like WAR or AOC, but SWTOR started much stronger than either of those games and has lost subs at a much slower pace. 400,000 subs lost in just a few months seems like a lot, and it would be a lot for a game with under low subs like WAR or AOC. WAR had 800,000 at it's best but dropped to 300,000 within the first 6 months. Most MMOs never reach 1 million subs, and would be thrilled to have SWTOR's 1.3 million subs 6 months after launch.

SWTOR is the second most layed MMO in the west, and no amount of "this next MMO will be the greatest" articles will change that.

Sure, the forums are afire with complaints, but over 1 million people are happily playing and subscribing to the game as it is.

[wutru]

Because if I'm playing GW2 I'd be talking about it on GW2's Official Forums... BAZINGA!

How or why do you expect me to talk about a game I have never played? ~smh~

 

This thread is about comparisons though. GW2 and Swtor. Hence the article.

[Kharnis]

I direct you to the first definition of "hype" here. You may have a point on the first and third definitions, but the other two definitions include the caveat that hype comes with a fair bit of "exaggerated claims" and is "deliberately misleading." The article in question is neither.

 

So, just to be clear, then. You don't think that ignoring any weaknesses GW2 has while playing up the strengths, while playing up the weaknesses of TOR and ignoring the strengths, is not hype? You sincerely believe that ignoring weaknesses of GW2 while ignoring strengths of TOR doesn't fall under the definitions of "exaggerated claims" or "deliberately misleading?"

[Izorii]

Its acurate both of the articles had good points in them, many of the ponts on the older article were flagged up by beta players. I just wonder if in a years time we will be seeing "Why Elder scrolls online is much better than GW2". When a game is being released its easy to imagine its going to tick every box, once it is we are lucky if it ticks half the boxes and we are lucky if the dev team even acknowledge the short commings.

[Dezzi]

It is hard to put the two side by side. One is out the other is not. The hype for TOR was just as big as it is for GW2 now. Wait and see what it looks like when it has been out for the same time as TOR then put the two side by side. The big thing is SW2 well be free to play and we have to see what the MT store really looks like over time. It could come down to pay to win.

 

It is hard, I'll give you that. Both games claim to offer the MMO community something new and different; for the most part, both games do just that. Where one falls short, however, is that it fails to deliver the rest of the experience in addition to its non-traditional features. I think that, in essence, is what the article is about.

 

You can either agree or disagree with that assertion, but I think the article makes some pretty good comparisons.

 

As for GW2 and the F2P model, you're wrong. ArenaNet has a decade-long record to stand on when it comes to micro-transactions. To date they have not once introduced items for purchase which provide any in-game advantage at all; experience and crafting boosts are inconsequential in games where levels and items are unimportant when it comes player vs player interaction. They have a very public mission statement to this regard and you can read up on their cash shop philosophy by visiting their site.

[Dezzi]

So, just to be clear, then. You don't think that ignoring any weaknesses GW2 has while playing up the strengths, while playing up the weaknesses of TOR and ignoring the strengths, is not hype? You sincerely believe that ignoring weaknesses of GW2 while ignoring strengths of TOR doesn't fall under the definitions of "exaggerated claims" or "deliberately misleading?"

 

No, I don't think that. But then, the article in question does point out weaknesses in GW2. I guess you have your eyes covered when you read those parts.

[CelCawdro]

We can't have an objective discussion about why I like and what you like. It will ultimately boil down to personal preferences.

 

Your only assertion is that GW2 is a thinly-veiled traditional MMO. I disagree emphatically and have found the game experience to be quite different than a "traditional" MMO. That isn't to say GW2 doesn't have traditional elements--as there is an expectation of certain features and content--but the overall experience has been extremely refreshing and feels new.

 

The "random" events will feel refreshing and new the first time you do them. And the next. And cool, you didn't see that scenario before! But once you start to see events repeating, things will unravel quickly. Once the launch bubble of players is gone and you can never take out that giant golem, you will become flustered.

 

Guild Wars 2 is going to be absolutely vibrant at launch, but its system do not support a post-launch playerbase. Likewise, its combat may feel a little different, but relative to other new entries in the genre such as Tera, it is nothing new. Again, simply a veil on the EQ-vein of mechanics.

 

Quite frankly, I was looking forward to Guild Wars 2, as well, until I actually played it. As much as I tried to resist the hype, I eventually fell (I have to admit, though, that I found a little strength to resist again when they announced that they invented dryads). The game is everything is purports to be, but only on the surface.

[xandax]

Point 5 is about the biggest thing on that list that's true.

 

Guild Wars 2 is a generic MMO in many aspect (also contains some new things - it's lure lies mainly in the PvP model which appeals to many of us.

But the real kicker as I see it is how much more responsive ArenaNet appears to be compared to how Bioware handles things. It might change post-launch for ArenaNet as well, but if they build up a feeling of belonging and being connected from the user based with the developer they'll win much loyalty from their fans.

Bioware is still drawing much upon goodwill from their game-portfolio despite not really being the same company I think many of us were fond of 'back in the days' - and I suspect I'm not alone in this - am now growing disappointed in.

That's going to be the real threat towards 'mainstream' SWTOR and where ArenaNet might pull additional people over to its side ... at least for a while.

 

The other points are more 'meh'.

I don't see GW2 as different as some will claim; Role based system still exists even if not calling it trinity. Many things seems to just be a DPS race in both PvE and PvP., the 'events' are just public quests from Warhammer Online and anybody that played that know how fast they become empty etc.

But I too, will be going GW2 - if nothing else because I feel like Bioware doesn't live up to what they claimed they wanted to do and thus it's usually time I move on from a MMO where I no longer trust in the developer.

Edited June 20, 2012 by xandax

[Fox_McCloud]

I'm sure we'll be seeing "Ten Places That 'Titan' Succeeded There 'Guild Wars 2' Failed" soon enough.

 

I really would not hold out any hope for 'titan'. The old blizzard developers who made the games that made blizzard so popular (SC1, Diablo 2, WoW) are not working there anymore.

 

MMOs are a very bait and switch genre. As far as I am concerned there is a hard major progression in the genre and it goes something like this:

 

Everquest -> World of Warcraft -> Guild Wars 2.

 

Most every other MMO outside of the 'major progression' are just distractions and usually failures. The question then becomes will titan be the fourth spot? I think it will be too soon after GW2, I am guessing titan will be a distraction.

[nartiuslightlord]

How is it hype to compare the strengths and weaknesses of two games? Could it possibly be because you find no fault in SWTOR at all? I find that hard to believe, so I'm again at a loss as to where this article can be taken as anything but a comparative look between two games weighed against a set of features and support.

 

Yeah I don't care really bro. I have fun when I play. When the fun ends I go away. you can compare all day but in the end if it's fun for you then these type of articles are useless. if GW2 is fun people will play it. I actually have many issues with TOR that I would love to see resolve down the road. and if they continue to make the game less fun I will walk away from it like I have done with countless other games.