Thoughts on GameSpy's Article on SWTOR

[metalgearyoda]

Hi everyone,

 

An article was posted a few days ago on gamespy dealing with their thoughts about SWTOR current state:

 

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/guild-wars-2/1225122p1.html

 

The article was a follow up from one they wrote back when the game was released, or maybe slightly before. It seems their writer was pretty spot on with concerns mentioned in Nov of 2011:

 

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/bioware-mmo-project/1212884p1.html

 

 

Do you agree with Gamespy or does SWTOR have what it takes to compete with upcoming MMORPGS? I would be curious to hear your thoughts.

 

 

Is it just me or does the author sound desperate? Almost like he is trying to convince himself that gw2 is awesome and the hate swell that is building on its forums is going to just go away?

[Mikeni]

Is it just me or does the author sound desperate? Almost like he is trying to convince himself that gw2 is awesome and the hate swell that is building on its forums is going to just go away?

 

The only person that can convince you to enjoy or not enjoy a game is yourself. So I'd say yes, he's trying really hard to convince himself that GW2 is awesome, has a better community, better storytelling, better lore, better combat, better features, more content, a more vibrant world, a richer deeper leveling system, it will wash your car, feed your baby at 4am, and get your carpets cleaned for you twice a year.

[Shingara]

The only person that can convince you to enjoy or not enjoy a game is yourself. So I'd say yes, he's trying really hard to convince himself that GW2 is awesome, has a better community, better storytelling, better lore, better combat, better features, more content, a more vibrant world, a richer deeper leveling system, it will wash your car, feed your baby at 4am, and get your carpets cleaned for you twice a year.

 

Ow i wish that were true, how many films or games have you tried because it had rave reviews from magazines, tv and friends and then you see it and think what am i watching/playing. This aint about enjoying, this is about getting or seeing it in the 1st place. Bums on seats makes money.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Shingara

[Dezzi]

I have to admit, that's pretty damning criticism. "Despite the fact that we don't feel the need to talk one-on-one with other players, it doesn't matter because it's not needed."

 

There is nothing more stinging than having a reviewer say, "My friends may not like no end-game, but I think it's so brilliant that I'll put it as my number four reason why this game is going to be better than another game." Clearly, ArenaNet's devs took a mighty body blow with that one.

 

But this? This was the worst of them all. "It'll be a problem if they can't accomplish this, but I know they will, and that leads me nicely to my final point about why this game is better." Whew. Even I felt that one, and I don't even work for ArenaNet. I don't know how the game will recover from these points, but I'm suddenly worried for the future of GW2.

 

Yeah, take what he said out of context and then completely change the character of his claims to suit your own arguments. Very good way to debate.

 

Why do the criticism have to be "damning" for them to matter to you?

 

You can claim you're just being sarcastic, but the message behind your post is clear: "SWTOR can do no wrong and the author who wrote this article is just a mean doo-doo face for hating on it." Got it.

[metalgearyoda]

Ow i wish that were true, how many films or games have you tried because it had rave reviews from magazines, tv and friends and then you see it and think what am i watching/playing. This aint about enjoying, this is about getting or seeing it in the 1st place.

 

http://mega64.com/2012/04/03/modern-game-journalism-the-movie/

 

Watch this.

[Dezzi]

Is it just me or does the author sound desperate? Almost like he is trying to convince himself that gw2 is awesome and the hate swell that is building on its forums is going to just go away?

 

The hate swell on its forums? Really? Could you please provide me a link to all of this hate? I must have missed it when I was actively participating on said forum...

Edited June 20, 2012 by Dezzi

[Mikeni]

There's hate on every MMO forum. If you say GW2's forum has ZERO hate then you're just lying to yourself.

[Kunda]

The only thing I really agree with in the article are the points about player interaction and a less static world. The reasons for this are only because they've gone with a dynamic quest system similar to Rift or Warhammer's. I personally think a lack of end game is an awful idea, but with a B2P MMO with a cash shop player retention is probably less of a priority.

[Dezzi]

There's hate on every MMO forum. If you say GW2's forum has ZERO hate then you're just lying to yourself.

 

No, I'm questioning the "swell" of hate this guy is claiming...

[Kharnis]

Yeah, take what he said out of context and then completely change the character of his claims to suit your own arguments. Very good way to debate.

 

Why do the criticism have to be "damning" for them to matter to you?

 

You can claim you're just being sarcastic, but the message behind your post is clear: "SWTOR can do no wrong and the author who wrote this article is just a mean doo-doo face for hating on it." Got it.

 

Do please point out any post I've made where I said "SWTOR can do no wrong." Go ahead, my post history is pretty open for you to check. I'll be right here, waiting for you to actually respond to the real argument, which (I may remind you), was "How did the author hype up GW2?"

 

Incidentally, I can't take out of context what he said when I'm using his actual words to point out why what you think are criticisms aren't actually criticisms.

[Dezzi]

Do please point out any post I've made where I said "SWTOR can do no wrong." Go ahead, my post history is pretty open for you to check. I'll be right here, waiting for you to actually respond to the real argument, which (I may remind you), was "How did the author hype up GW2?"

 

Incidentally, I can't take out of context what he said when I'm using his actual words to point out why what you think are criticisms aren't actually criticisms.

 

Except that the quotes were not his words once you edited them.

 

There was no hype in that article; the author compared two games against a set of features he finds to be enjoyable or necessary for his enjoyment. It turns out that the things he enjoys feature more prominently in GW2 than they do in SWTOR--the two most talked-about games of the day.

 

If you think that falling to one side in a comparison of two games is hype, then I don't know what else to say to you.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Dezzi

[WLpride]

No, I don't think it does, mainly in the OPvP departement, and in the PvE department. It should, but since the major events such as the delayed and late Server Merges, fail OPvP, fail Crafting, Fail single player experience (dead at 50, Flashpoints useless, dead planets boring quests) doesn't really do players any justice but the LFG will do wonders I think. That leaves dead planets with not a huge amount of Lore (eg Coruscunt is underwhelming, no real 'city planets' with 'city things'), people already have a huge distaste for SWTOR. It's possible SWTOR can still grow, but it will take time to renew the popular opinion after such a game in such shape that it did when it launched.

 

If Makeb really has 20 new levels worth of content, then that would be impressive but I highly doubt that it would. That would be a important factor in the scheme of things... This supposedly impressive new planet and quests sounds good, but still most of the existing Planets also need : New Companion Quest, more Quest in General, more to do at 50, Quest and Story that is less Linear, Less Story things that are shared among all Classes (ie Legacy)). SWTOR doesn't just fail at engrossng PvE, it fails at PvP also. Ilum shouldn't be forgotted so easily (and future PvP plans), as it seems won't come to the focus until 1.4 or 1.5 at the earliest. Makeb and the level increase seems FAR too premature, it seems like the game makers could already be in desparation-mode. We'll see if they can be steadfast instead of failing to the complaints.

 

Scenario are good, but few. I think the number is ok considering if the following occurs : Ilum PvP revamp is feasable, Cross Server Queue's in the future, Performance for 100v100 can happen for PvP. SWTOR amazingly never launched with (or future plan) for large scale open PvP. This is the single most important and comparative feature that SWTOR will lose out on for not having. The potential was huge, but Ilum didn't just fail, it failed to be developed, in really any half-decent manner at all!

Edited June 20, 2012 by WLpride

[Typeslice]

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.

 

Because you can't fairly compare a game that hasn't lived up to expectations to one that hasn't yet had a chance to not live up to expectations. Gamespy has had 6 months to pick apart SWTOR and let all its issues play out. Run the comparison after GW has been out for a bit.

[Phlem]

Hi everyone,

 

An article was posted a few days ago on gamespy dealing with their thoughts about SWTOR current state:

 

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/guild-wars-2/1225122p1.html

 

The article was a follow up from one they wrote back when the game was released, or maybe slightly before. It seems their writer was pretty spot on with concerns mentioned in Nov of 2011:

 

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/bioware-mmo-project/1212884p1.html

 

Do you agree with Gamespy or does SWTOR have what it takes to compete with upcoming MMORPGS? I would be curious to hear your thoughts.

 

With GW2's lackluster reviews I wouldn't hold your breath on GW2 taking a chunk out of any MMO population. I have been in beta for GW2 and all I can say is I am massively unimpressed with the game. The only thing that will sustain GW2 is the fact that it's free to play.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Phlem

[Kharnis]

Except that the quotes were not his words once you edited them.

 

There was no hype in that article; the author compared two games against a set of features he finds to be enjoyable or necessary for his enjoyment. It turns out that the things he enjoys feature more prominently in GW2 than they do in SWTOR--the two most talked-about games of the day.

 

If you think that falling to one side in a comparison of two games is hype, then I don't know what else to say to you.

 

Really? You still want to claim that he has no bias and isn't hyping his personal pet favourite game? Fine. Let's go over this again.

 

Supposed Criticism 1: "Here he very clearly states that despite being a more social game, GW2 still has trouble getting people to socialize. Unless this is a compliment? I must have missed where this was glowing praise." This would seem like a criticism, except for one thing: "it sometimes seems to discourage one-on-one chats because you just finish the kill and get on with your lives, but even at its weakest it avoids the sense of isolation that build up while in SWTOR's cinematic world." The author's own words. "It sometimes seems." "But even at its weakest it avoids." Those aren't criticisms of game mechanics. The first is a personal impression, the second is a deflection of that impression. It's not a criticism if he says, "I think that people aren't encouraged to talk to each other, but even so we're still interacting, so it doesn't matter." How am I getting that conclusion? From his very own words in the next sentence: "Even if we don't always talk to other players, we're at least interacting with them, and I think most players will agree that Guild Wars 2 gets that crucial factor right."

 

Supposed Criticism 2: "Oh! And here he points out that any title lacking traditional end-game is standing on shaky ground. He freely admits that more traditional players may have trouble with this aspect of GW2." He freely admits that more traditional players may have trouble with this. And yet, again from his very own article in his very own words, "I know this probably counts a downside for some of my old raiding buddies, but, at least these days, I like the idea of there being something to my MMORPGs besides rushing to the level cap and participating in scheduled raids." Saying, "I like the idea" is not a criticism. Especially when Reason 4 for Why GW2 Will Be Better is titled, "4. Guild Wars 2 Doesn't Have a Traditional Endgame." It's a reason why it's better. If something is considered better, that's not a criticism. Especially if he's going to use phrases like, "Guild Wars 2 is a casual game in the very best sense of the term," and "More than ever, the journey is more important than the destination," and "people with limited time can enjoy Guild Wars 2 without feeling like they're missing out on much." He doesn't think a lack of endgame is a problem. He thinks that's a great idea.

 

Supposed Criticism 3: "Here he states that the team will have to maintain consistent content updates in order to compete with the model they've chosen. That's not a good thing, is it?" Yep. He definitely states, "I do think they'll need frequent content updates to keep that model sustainable." And as you even quoted, he continues with "but I'm not that worried because..." He clearly states "This may be a problem, but I'm not worried that it will be." That's not conjecture on my part; he states it right there in his article. It even leads into his next point for why he thinks GW2 is better ("5. So Far, ArenaNet is Better at Addressing Player Concerns Than BioWare").

 

So, once again, I ask you: where are these supposed criticisms of the game that you claim exist and he points out?

[Valkirus]

Ow i wish that were true, how many films or games have you tried because it had rave reviews from magazines, tv and friends and then you see it and think what am i watching/playing. This aint about enjoying, this is about getting or seeing it in the 1st place. Bums on seats makes money.

 

Good point. I do know of cases of movies which recieved high praises, but in my opinion once I watched them, they sucked. Same for bad reviews. After I watched them, I thought they rocked. Same goes for video games. However in this thread topic article, he made some good points about TOR's failings because I have experenced the same downfalls he mentioned. Now on his good points in reference to GW2, I cannot relate to those and at this time, have no plans on playing it.

[Dezzi]

Because you can't fairly compare a game that hasn't lived up to expectations to one that hasn't yet had a chance to not live up to expectations. Gamespy has had 6 months to pick apart SWTOR and let all its issues play out. Run the comparison after GW has been out for a bit.

 

You may have a point here, but I think that because the NDA was lifted for GW2 and people have had every opportunity to pick apart its workings, the comparison is a fair one. SWTOR is already having to compete with GW2--despite the latter not having launched--and the competition is fierce.

 

This without saying anything about the very fair comparisons made in the article posted here; you may disagree with them on their merits, but the comparisons are valid--these are features that both games tout to be integral to the experience. I think the author could better explain why he thinks story gets in the way of his experience in TOR (though I sometimes feel the same), but he otherwise lays it out evenly that on these very specific points, SWTOR fails to meet or exceed what GW2 will be delivering.

[Shingara]

You may have a point here, but I think that because the NDA was lifted for GW2 and people have had every opportunity to pick apart its workings, the comparison is a fair one. SWTOR is already having to compete with GW2--despite the latter not having launched--and the competition is fierce.

 

This without saying anything about the very fair comparisons made in the article posted here; you may disagree with them on their merits, but the comparisons are valid--these are features that both games tout to be integral to the experience. I think the author could better explain why he thinks story gets in the way of his experience in TOR (though I sometimes feel the same), but he otherwise lays it out evenly that on these very specific points, SWTOR fails to meet or exceed what GW2 will be delivering.

 

If the author states that story gets in the way of his game when it comes to swtor i do wonder if they have ever played a bioware game before.

[Dezzi]

Really? You still want to claim that he has no bias and isn't hyping his personal pet favourite game? Fine. Let's go over this again.

 

Supposed Criticism 1: "Here he very clearly states that despite being a more social game, GW2 still has trouble getting people to socialize. Unless this is a compliment? I must have missed where this was glowing praise." This would seem like a criticism, except for one thing: "it sometimes seems to discourage one-on-one chats because you just finish the kill and get on with your lives, but even at its weakest it avoids the sense of isolation that build up while in SWTOR's cinematic world." The author's own words. "It sometimes seems." "But even at its weakest it avoids." Those aren't criticisms of game mechanics. The first is a personal impression, the second is a deflection of that impression. It's not a criticism if he says, "I think that people aren't encouraged to talk to each other, but even so we're still interacting, so it doesn't matter." How am I getting that conclusion? From his very own words in the next sentence: "Even if we don't always talk to other players, we're at least interacting with them, and I think most players will agree that Guild Wars 2 gets that crucial factor right."

 

Supposed Criticism 2: "Oh! And here he points out that any title lacking traditional end-game is standing on shaky ground. He freely admits that more traditional players may have trouble with this aspect of GW2." He freely admits that more traditional players may have trouble with this. And yet, again from his very own article in his very own words, "I know this probably counts a downside for some of my old raiding buddies, but, at least these days, I like the idea of there being something to my MMORPGs besides rushing to the level cap and participating in scheduled raids." Saying, "I like the idea" is not a criticism. Especially when Reason 4 for Why GW2 Will Be Better is titled, "4. Guild Wars 2 Doesn't Have a Traditional Endgame." It's a reason why it's better. If something is considered better, that's not a criticism. Especially if he's going to use phrases like, "Guild Wars 2 is a casual game in the very best sense of the term," and "More than ever, the journey is more important than the destination," and "people with limited time can enjoy Guild Wars 2 without feeling like they're missing out on much." He doesn't think a lack of endgame is a problem. He thinks that's a great idea.

 

Supposed Criticism 3: "Here he states that the team will have to maintain consistent content updates in order to compete with the model they've chosen. That's not a good thing, is it?" Yep. He definitely states, "I do think they'll need frequent content updates to keep that model sustainable." And as you even quoted, he continues with "but I'm not that worried because..." He clearly states "This may be a problem, but I'm not worried that it will be." That's not conjecture on my part; he states it right there in his article. It even leads into his next point for why he thinks GW2 is better ("5. So Far, ArenaNet is Better at Addressing Player Concerns Than BioWare").

 

So, once again, I ask you: where are these supposed criticisms of the game that you claim exist and he points out?

 

You just quoted them.

 

I think we just disagree on the level of criticism (tone) needed for a criticism to be valid.

 

"This pie is stale, but I'll still eat it" is not praise.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Dezzi

[Typeslice]

You may have a point here, but I think that because the NDA was lifted for GW2 and people have had every opportunity to pick apart its workings, the comparison is a fair one. SWTOR is already having to compete with GW2--despite the latter not having launched--and the competition is fierce.

 

This without saying anything about the very fair comparisons made in the article posted here; you may disagree with them on their merits, but the comparisons are valid--these are features that both games tout to be integral to the experience. I think the author could better explain why he thinks story gets in the way of his experience in TOR (though I sometimes feel the same), but he otherwise lays it out evenly that on these very specific points, SWTOR fails to meet or exceed what GW2 will be delivering.

 

So - after 2 Beta weekends - people are able to fairly comment on how the lack of real endgame will impact GW2? GW2's one major flaw in it's appeal to traditional gamers can't yet be tested.

 

One thing going for GW is that they they don't have to post sub numbers =)

Edited June 20, 2012 by Typeslice

[ZudetGambeous]

After investing a significant amount of time in TOR and playing in both BWE's for GW2, both games have their pluses and minuses.

 

Character Customization: GW2 crushes swtor in every possible aspect here.

 

Story: SWTOR has a much more immersive and visual story. The cut-scene aspect of it greatly enhances the story telling. However the stories themselves are very often cliche and predictable (not all of them, so far i'm finding the IA story to be quite good, but JC, JK, and Trooper were all pretty bland to me). On the other hand, GW2 has a story that is not visually represented nearly as well, but I can't comment on the content of said story because I don't think it's fair to judge by the <25% of the story available so far.

 

The World: TOR is dull, lifeless and there are soooo many instances that I always feel like i'm in a box. The only instance of life i've seen is with republic and imperials blasting each other on Ilum... but if you kill one side the other side just keeps blasting, it's a completely static animation with no impact on the world. GW2 on the other hand has an extremely alive world. The higher the level zones you get to the more alive it seems to become. I made it to the new zone in the latest BWE and since there weren't a lot of players there pirates managed to take over 75% of the map and completely change it. Once our numbers started increasing we started changing the landscape back, opening up new vendors, merchants, changing the DE's offered, etc. But the best part was it didn't matter if there weren't enough players because there was still plenty to do solo, only a small fraction of the DE's are for "groups" the rest of them scale to the number of players quite well.

 

Cooperation: Every time I see a player in SWTOR I cringe... is he going to steal my resource node? is he going to ninja that chest i'm fighting for? is he going to tag the mob before I get there? is that group going to kill that world boss and waste the last hour my group spent preparing? Outside of ops, I live in fear of encountering another player, and that's just sad. On the slip side you gain bonuses and rewards for helping other players in GW2, there is never any penalty or discouragement for working with another player, which is exactly what I want in an MMO. If I wanted to stand around and chat i'd go join a chatroom or call my friends, what I want is other players to PLAY with.

 

Endgame. I like SWTOR's ops, I find them fun and like the coordination that goes into clearing them. I unfortunately did not make it to a high enough level to try out the dungeons in GW2, which is the only form of traditional "group" play they have so I can't comment on what that's like. I am a little hesitant about no raids in GW2, but the level scaling and the great rewards for exploring offer a lot of relevant content.

 

I probably won't continue my subscription to TOR once GW2 launches. After playing it for over 72 hours I just find it overall much more enjoyable then TOR where I just stand on the fleet for $15 a month. Once I finish up the rest of the class stories I don't see myself playing anymore just to raid once a week.

[Dezzi]

If the author states that story gets in the way of his game when it comes to swtor i do wonder if they have ever played a bioware game before.

 

To be fair, the level of quality in storytelling found in BioWare's other games is leaps and bounds above the quality found in SWTOR. Ohlen admitted this just yesterday...

 

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/view/videos/gameID/367/videoId/2485

[Nethgilne]

When objectivity appears to have been removed as early as the title, why bother reading? Next....

 

Boom. In a nutshell

[Fox_McCloud]

With GW2's lackluster reviews I wouldn't hold your breath on GW2 taking a chunk out of any MMO population. I have been in beta for GW2 and all I can say is I am massively unimpressed with the game. The only thing that will sustain GW2 is the fact that it's free to play.

 

Care to provide me with some professional reviews that basically say GW2 is lackluster? Otherwise, I will assume you are just trolling, because everything I have read are overwhelmingly positive.

 

There is no NDA and vast amounts of players have played GW2 quite a bit over the two BWEs and so far the feedback is that people are quite impressed.

[Kharnis]

You just quoted them.

 

I think we just disagree on the level of criticism (tone) needed for a criticism to be valid.

 

"This pie is stale, but I'll still eat it" is not praise.

 

Now who's twisting the author's words? He never once said, "This pie is stale." He said, "This pie isn't stale, and if you think it is, here's why you're wrong."