A Tale of Two Games: ToR and WoW - Review!

[wezzan]

Again, we're trying to have a civil/rational discussion.

 

To all the people saying I'm a WoW fanboy, I haven't played WoW for more than a year and now (I guess) I'll be waiting for GW2

 

one simple queustion do you even like GW1?

[Kalysta]

And yet another WoW Fanboi decides to try and prove to the world that ToR won't survive...

 

I am endlessly saddened by how WoW seems to have become the "gold standard" for MMO innovation. There are far better games out there that no one plays simply because they're too busy being stuck in the WoW Fanboi mindset (it's not wow? It has to suck!), and therefore go into any new MMO purposely looking for flaws.

 

Here's the joy of the computer age. We have things called "patches". Unlike the days of video game cartridges and pre-widespread internet use, we can fix and tweak and add more content to games AFTER launch.

 

WoW has had 10+ years of expansions and new content and patches put into it to make it the game it is today. And still it has crappy graphics, little storyline, and it seems that the developers' answer to "game balance" is knee-jerk nerfs that ruin the game more than make it more fair. So, if you think ToR sucks so bad, go back to wow. We'll all be grateful for one less person in a queue line.

[Sykologist]

First of all, I was making an analogy, not a comparison. Whereas you may not be able to compare apples to oranges, you can certainly make analogous arguments that relate the two. The analogy also holds water. Why? Because it clearly displays the fact that new products need to be competitive in present-day markets, not in age-old markets and economic contexts of long-ago. This is why ToR should be compared with WoW today, not a decade ago.

 

Second of all, Pong was meant to show the slippery slope you're arguing. A more appropriate example would be UO. Should we compare ToR to UO? Of course not, UO was launched in 1999. Could we compare ToR to some MUDs from the mid-90s? Again, that's just silly.

 

'Good' is not biased or subjective. Take a class on ethics (people that say 'good' is subjective always get a good laugh). But I digress: 'good', as far as a video game is concerned, means that it fulfills certain gameplay requirements, a vast amount of people enjoy it, critics find it favorable, and it's usually financially successful. ToR doesn't meet alarmingly many gameplay requirements (my review was essentially about the gameplay).

 

However, in the context of 'Good' it is based on opinion. WoW is a "good" game to you. To another it's "bad" No one needs a class on ethics to know that. Your gameplay requirements are also subjective. Your gameplay requirements might not meet another persons gameplay requirements. That is why there are games such as "Hello Kitty Online" and "Farmville." Those particular games meet those whom play its gameplay requirements.

 

And yes, the comparison of ToR to WoW at launch is appropriate. However, if you truly wanted to be not biased or subjective, you would've brought up the flaws in WoW, which were ironically neglected completely from your posts.

[BloatedGuppy]

Please quote me anywhere where I backed myself with mere opinion. Here, I assume you're going to be fair. Ex: if I say the UI sucks, that's not an opinion - it's a fact. I can go into the details of why it sucks, but lets be fair.

 

God, do I need to? Your entire post history in this thread? That you can't tell the difference between "a fact" and "your opinion" is both A) alarming and B) evidence that continuing this line of the discussion is pretty much pointless.

 

First of all, I was making an analogy, not a comparison. Whereas you may not be able to compare apples to oranges, you can certainly make analogous arguments that relate the two. The analogy also holds water. Why? Because it clearly displays the fact that new products need to be competitive in present-day markets, not in age-old markets and economic contexts of long-ago. This is why ToR should be compared with WoW today, not a decade ago.

 

Your analogy was terrible. Your car does not accumulate new features every year you drive it, it actually wears down and declines in value. Following your logic, every new MMO would need to wrap in every feature of all preceding MMOs in order to stay competitive. The cost to develop a MMO would grow exponentially with every release. It's been pointed out to you time and time again why expecting a full feature set in a newly released MMO is foolish.

Edited December 20, 2011 by BloatedGuppy

[Githadys]

basically we have three camps:

 

those from a WoW background

 

those from a star wars/console gaming background but with little MMO experience

 

those from an MMO background that doesnt relate to WoW

 

those from a WoW background and expect WoW game features are going to be disappointed with TOR.. these features are:

 

dungeon finder

dual spec

cross server system

macros

add-on/mod system

customizable UI

 

thing is.. these things are systems, NOT content.. two very different things. obviously, TOR isnt going to have a game plus 3 expansions worth of content.. thats unrealistic.. and frankly not the OPs point from my standpoint.. this kind of content can be added in with patches.

 

however, the systems above most certainly could have been added for launch if they wanted.. if a game studio like Trion can do so with rift, a huge studio with 4 years of development time and a huge budget can as well.

 

because these features are not in the game, the players in this demographic will just go back to WoW.

 

now you can say GOOD. LET THEM LEAVE! unfortunately, they make up the majority of the MMO market.. so unless you want this game to be F2P in 6 months, you are going to have to face facts that these features NEED to be in the game.

 

the other two demographics mentioned will most likely like the game. heck I LOVE THE GAME! however, can bioware get enough subs from those other demographics to compete with the juggernaut? im not convinced.

 

but ill enjoy it while it lasts.. and even if the game does go F2P.. as long as there is a decent community in the game and bioware continues to add content.. ill still stick around..

 

that being said.. this game could EASILY have been so much more than that, and i think thats what frustrates me, and probably the OP as well.

 

This, I came from a wow background, and most of the stuff I can do without I am keeping a open mind about SWTOR, and to be honest, I love this game, and I will continue to play for a good long time.

[Sylentmana]

LOL. OP confuses his opinions with facts. Most of us enjoy the game. If you go around looking for everything that's wrong with the game, then you will find it.

 

It doesn't matter though. GW2 will win in the end. Why, you ask? Because it's free so people can play it and still afford to play SWTOR and/or WoW.

[KSheriff]

I played WoW from launch. I played it extensively. I currently have 12 lvl 85 characters, and I've raided with most of them at one point or another throughout WoWs history.

 

WoW is fun, I'll give it that, but all to often all other MMOs are compared to it as if every other MMO should include features that exist in it. ToR is not WoW, and I never want it to be.

 

Before I played the beta, I was on the fence about ToR. I'm currently having more fun playing than I've EVER had in WoW. After the beta weekend, I cancelled my WoW account, as I have no desire to play for the time being. I'm not saying I'll never go back to WoW, but I'm going to give SWToR a fair shake.

 

Negative, and very obviously biased reviews don't help anyone. All it does is discourage people from trying the game if they go out looking for reviews. It's the problem with reviews in general, as they're completely subjective, and it very rare to find any objective material in them at all.

 

Be absolutely honest, WoW was utter trash in comparison to ToR at release.

 

There are a lot of conveniences that exist in WoW now, that do not exist in ToR, but WoW has been around for 7 years. Expecting everything that WoW is, in the release of a new product is ridiculous.

[dvvx]

God, do I need to? Your entire post history in this thread? That you can't tell the difference between "a fact" and "your opinion" is both A) alarming and B) evidence that continuing this line of the discussion is pretty much pointless.

I guess you enjoy meta-discussions. Moving on.

 

 

Your analogy was terrible. Your car does not accumulate new features every year you drive it, it actually wears down and declines in value. Following your logic, every new MMO would need to wrap in every feature of all preceding MMOs in order to stay competitive. The cost to develop a MMO would grow exponentially with every release. It's been pointed out to you time and time again why expecting a full feature set in a newly released MMO is foolish.

No, the analogy wasn't terrible. The analogy wasn't saying that CAR==MMO, the analogy was saying (here we go again), that new products need to be competitive with current products in the current economic context, not competitive in old markets. If ToR had launched in 2004 alongside WoW, I guarantee ToR would come out on top, but hey, we're not in 2004, we're in 2012, and ToR is a very very sad product.

 

You don't like WoW? Fine, lets compare it with Rift. Rift had achievements, a much much better UI, more focused PvP, etc.

[RazeOUTERHAVEN]

WoW is sooooo 2004. (aka, it's s***y)

[Bobinator]

Sure is Blizzard Fanboy Gestapo in here...

[Nylonica]

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. For ToR, unfortunately, mostly the worst. This isn't my first review - I reviewed the game during the beta several times, but I was shunned by incredulous and overzealous fans. After all, it was "just" a beta.

 

Well aren't they young and ignorant - The time to complain about things IS IN BETA - that is where there is still a change it gets changed.

 

If enough adults had complained about the unreadable font size in the game we might actually had got a useable interface.

 

Oh well, there is always wow i suppose.

[BloatedGuppy]

I guess you enjoy meta-discussions. Moving on.

Called out, no rebuttal, topic evaded. Would including a dictionary definition of "opinion" and "fact" have helped?

 

No, the analogy wasn't terrible. The analogy wasn't saying that CAR==MMO, the analogy was saying (here we go again), that new products need to be competitive with current products in the current economic context, not competitive in old markets. If ToR had launched in 2004 alongside WoW, I guarantee ToR would come out on top, but hey, we're not in 2004, we're in 2012, and ToR is a very very sad product.

 

You don't like WoW? Fine, lets compare it with Rift. Rift had achievements, a much much better UI, more focused PvP, etc.

The analogy was terrible, I pointed out exactly why, and you're back to beating this sad drum again. Cars do not mature and evolve and gain content and features the way a MMO does. I'm sorry you think they do. Again, this is fairly alarming. These are not complex concepts you're being asked to grasp.

 

I like WoW just fine. This has nothing to do with WoW. Your enthusiasm for WoW does not invalidate your opinions. But they remain your opinions.

[dvvx]

Well aren't they young and ignorant - The time to complain about things IS IN BETA - that is where there is still a change it gets changed.

 

If enough adults had complained about the unreadable font size in the game we might actually had got a useable interface.

 

Oh well, there is always wow i suppose.

 

I was in two beta events. Beta testers were ignored systematically. Almost everything I mention in my review had a thread with 1000+ votes on the beta forums. I'm sure I can get other beta testers to attest to this. But that's the problem. Bioware doesn't think their customers have any idea what they are talking about. Then again, I guess Metacritic is already paving the way for negative reviews.

 

Cars do not mature and evolve and gain content and features the way a MMO does. I'm sorry you think they do.

 

I never said they do. I don't think they do. You're sticking your head in the sand here. I specifically mentioned economic contexts. I'm not sure how much more clear I can be.

Edited December 20, 2011 by dvvx

[Sykologist]

I never said they do. I don't think they do. You're sticking your head in the sand here. I specifically mentioned economic contexts. I'm not sure how much more clear I can be.

 

Economic contexts... using a car analogy... in an argument about MMOs.

[thereisnotry_]

I played WoW (free to lvl 20) for a few months prior to TOR's release. My 8 year old son likes to watch me play video games before he goes to bed. Before TOR's release he always asked, "Can you play WoW?" But after a couple of weeks of that, I always said, "Sorry, WoW is so boring. Pick something else."

 

And yet, from the moment I started TOR, I've had a REALLY hard time logging off (and I've got bags under my eyes to prove it!)....

 

 

The OP is entitled to his opinion. He just isn't convincing in the least, if you ask me.

Edited December 20, 2011 by thereisnotry_

[BloatedGuppy]

I never said they do. I don't think they do. You're sticking your head in the sand here. I specifically mentioned economic contexts. I'm not sure how much more clear I can be.

 

If your goal is to discuss the economics of MMOs, perhaps you'd like to explain how a new MMO can afford to include 7 years worth of feature creep and investment in a newly released product? A product whose sales and success are still completely hypothetical as far as investors are concerned? It's estimated that to match WoW's content and feature bloat at this stage in a newly released product would cost close to 1 billion. TOR cost 1/10th that much and had EA wringing their hands.

 

Just because you WANT something doesn't make it feasible. Perhaps you feel that since WoW is here, we should never see another MMO again, as they won't share it's feature set at launch. Other people feel differently. This, apparently, makes them "fanboys".

[Valkaern]

Why do people insist on comparing games? Play both if you want to, or don't...nobody really cares.

 

I care, I thought it was a pretty good read and fairly well written, even if I personally disagree with some of the authors findings.

 

Plus it ate up 2 minutes of a 5 hour queue, win/win.

[dvvx]

If your goal is to discuss the economics of MMOs, perhaps you'd like to explain how a new MMO can afford to include 7 years worth of feature creep and investment in a newly released product? A product whose sales and success are still completely hypothetical as far as investors are concerned?

 

Oh, that's easy. This is where my car analogy really shines and you shoot yourself in the foot. New cars have ABS, GPS, fancy LED lights, etc. OMG, that's like decades of technological advancement!! How? I'm hoping you realize how ridiculous your question is.

 

It's pretty easy. WoW did all the heavy lifting for ToR. They figured out that homogenizing classes is a good idea, that PvP arenas were a huge success, that multiple-level dungeons are a good idea, that LFG/LFM systems streamline the leveling process, that achievements are fun, that a moddable UI can create a huge modder community. Rift, a studio with less money, actually implemented most of these. You're now telling me there would have been no way for Bioware to implement them? Lets be fair.

 

I don't think that ToR would have had any way to release with the same amount of CONTENT that WoW presently has (and that's where you're completely correct), but features are NOT content. I think the content in ToR is fine, it's the features, or lack thereof, I have a problem with.

[Kookus]

I never said they do. I don't think they do. You're sticking your head in the sand here. I specifically mentioned economic contexts. I'm not sure how much more clear I can be.

 

It's pretty clear that you have no idea what you're talking about, or simply don't care. The fallacy in your analogy has been explained to you multiple times, yet you continue to cling to it. BloatedGuppy has made several attempts to civilly and respectfully debate your point, despite it being constantly in motion.

 

You want to clarify? Okay: what is your purpose here? What point, specifically, are you attempting to make by participating in this increasingly-irrelevant conversation about cars and restaurants? Please, I would honestly like to know where this conversation is ultimately headed...

[Vodrin]

I was in two beta events. Beta testers were ignored systematically. Almost everything I mention in my review had a thread with 1000+ votes on the beta forums. I'm sure I can get other beta testers to attest to this. But that's the problem. Bioware doesn't think their customers have any idea what they are talking about. Then again, I guess Metacritic is already paving the way for negative reviews.

 

 

 

I never said they do. I don't think they do. You're sticking your head in the sand here. I specifically mentioned economic contexts. I'm not sure how much more clear I can be.

 

I'm always fascinated by people who don't like a game spending so much time and energy on that games forum. Look you don't like how the game turned out, and I get that. I even get being pissed enough to put a big post on the forum before going back to wow, but I don't get staying in this thread and arguing with folks who disagree with you for 42 pages. It's not something a well adjusted person does.

 

I strongly disagree with your assessment as well. What will determine if this game has a substantial population in 6 months to a year will be how well the end game content functions, and how well they are able to push out more good and bug free content. Making a functioning and meaningful reward system for world PvP would also go a long way.

 

Whether or not the UI is as polished as possible, whether they have auto attack, and whether or not they have a LFG engine are really rather inconsequential. There are as many people that hate these features as there are ones who like it. Personally I am ok with the stock UI, and I despise LFG dungeons and auto attack (a combat system with more active control is always better). In any case only time will tell the fate of this game, and the determining factors will not be the ones you listed in your OP.

[Supahhappy]

It's pretty clear that you have no idea what you're talking about, or simply don't care. The fallacy in your analogy has been explained to you multiple times, yet you continue to cling to it. BloatedGuppy has made several attempts to civilly and respectfully debate your point, despite it being constantly in motion.

 

You want to clarify? Okay: what is your purpose here? What point, specifically, are you attempting to make by participating in this increasingly-irrelevant conversation about cars and restaurants? Please, I would honestly like to know where this conversation is ultimately headed...

 

It's heading

[Englefield]

Please quote me anywhere where I backed myself with mere opinion. Here, I assume you're going to be fair. Ex: if I say the UI sucks, that's not an opinion - it's a fact. I can go into the details of why it sucks, but lets be fair.

 

But you keep saying you back up your pov with 'in-game data' and I'm yet to see any of that data. You have only regurgitated opinion. Your view on the UI for example is just an opinion. I agree that it does indeed suck, however others will disagree, but it's still just an opinion.

 

In your own mind you need to separate facts from opinions.

[Milude]

Man if you think pvp in wow is good... I have nothing to say to you until you actually try a real pvp mmo like Dark Age of Camelot.

 

This^^

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROPEICInVPY

Edited December 20, 2011 by Milude

[Kookus]

WoW did all the heavy lifting for ToR. They figured out that homogenizing classes is a good idea,

 

Classes in TOR are designed to be comparable. Any inequality is likely due to oversight, and will be corrected. This point is invalid.

 

that PvP arenas were a huge success,

 

Specific PvP content is already in-game, and more is planned. This will be an ever-evolving aspect of the game, as the developers study and understand mainstream gameplay, designing PvP content to cater directly to this sub-group. Certainly better than guesswork in the form of bland, vanilla battlegrounds, I'm sure you'd agree? Further, this falls under the label of "content", which you have conceded is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

that multiple-level dungeons are a good idea,

 

These are in-game already, and more are planned. This point is invalid, and also falls under then label of "content", which you have already conceded is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

that LFG/LFM systems streamline the leveling process,

 

The social window already allows for great freedom in finding and forming groups. This point is invalid.

 

that achievements are fun,

 

Titles are in-game already. This point is invalid.

 

that a moddable UI can create a huge modder community.

 

This has been announced as an upcoming feature. It would have been nice to have at launch, but I would prefer they spend time fixing bugs related to quest advancement and playability prior to UI enhancements. This point, however, is valid.

[Tremk]

comparing a 0.5 day old game to a 7 yr old game "review" lol