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

[sdream]

While perusing the great many threads complaining about the lack of this or that and how said lack is unacceptable, terrible, stupid, etc, I find myself thinking about how wow was just after launch. It's obvious to me that most people complaining about lack of said features (combat log as example) haven't played wow at launch. If they had, they'd know the combat log wasn't part of Wow on release, only coming a few months after. Most nifty features about wow were added much after launch (achievements and guild achievements as example).

 

Let's not misinform people. Combat log in WoW was at launch.

[kennn]

why on earth would you want tor (at launch) to be comparable with wow (at launch)? this makes absolutely no sense. As a gamer, i want the best new features in the games that come out. Some of you are acting like it's impossible to look at wow's ideas and integrate them into tor. This isn't the case at all. BW could simply look at what works in wow and integrate it in the launch of tor. It's not rocket science.

 

btw, auto attack = filler :: filler = auto attack. how is a filler ability not an auto-attack when it's main purpose is to use it between abilities with cooldowns? Point is, the spamming of a filler ability is essentially the same as not spamming an auto-attack. Prove me wrong.

Edited December 23, 2011 by kennn

[Kaliante]

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 here we are, at the dawn of release - no longer in the beta. So where does this game stand in the grand scheme of things? How does it compare to WoW, SWG, Rift, GW2? Lets find out.

 

Who am I? I'm some dude that led a top-US CS:S team for many years, was a part of two top-10 WoW guilds, and played in several WoW Arena Tournies (including the CGS invitational) and many many CS tournaments, including the CPL. I also had a stint working for an indie game developer several years ago. I like to think that I know what I'm talking about, and usually, I do.

 

Story

Story. Story. Story. We've heard it over and over again. Bioware has really hammered this home - much how Vincent Chase is Queens Boulevard, The Old Republic is story. And story is one of the few battles ToR wins. The voice over quality is top notch and primary class quests are mostly interesting and engaging. Some may be deterred by the incessant use of family drama as a plot device since it gets old pretty fast. With that said, don't expect Chaucer, but the writing is sufficient.

 

Unfortunately, the side quests are problematic and suffer from trivial subject matters ("blah blah click some turrets") or endless fetch questing (go to X, come back to Y, go to X again, now back to Y). This wouldn't have been a problem 10 years ago, but 2012 is almost here. WoW has moved us past the trivialities of fetch questing and now we do cool stuff like lassoing dragons, bombing runs or mind-controlling giants. ToR pretends like there hasn't been an entire generation of MMORPGs since KOTOR and suffers for it greatly. Bonus quests are an interesting touch, but more often than not, they insult the player. Here you are doing the most trivial of tasks (ex: clicking control panels - a Bioware favorite) and a bonus quest pops up that asks you to kill 30 of the same type of mob. And just like that, we're all sent back to the late 90s. Bioware has a lot to learn from Jeff Kaplan.

 

On many levels, however, the VO is a technical achievement. Ordinarily, I'd have no problem with pouring so much money into something like voice over, but the gameplay significantly suffered from it. To me, that's unforgivable.

 

Combat

The crux of a good MMORPG is solid combat. I expect combat to be fluid, responsive, and logical. ToR has a pretty good grasp of what it wants to do, but doesn't quite reach the bar set by better MMOs. First of all, the "heroic" combat Bioware preached for years and years isn't as heroic as they made it out to be. Animations are often choppy and blocking animations seem to happen at random times (as opposed to having weapons make contact). But lets face it, it's not a big deal. What is a big deal, however, is the lack of an auto-attack.

 

This quizzical gameplay choice hurts more than it helps. It means that the gamer needs to manually press 1-1-1-1-1 (or right-click like a madman) to use the regular "white attack" ability and to generate resources that one may use (in the case of the Warrior-archetypes). Not only is this boring, but it literally provides zero gameplay improvement - what is the reasoning behind no auto-attack? Who knows.

 

Stealth and cover are very underwhelming. Cover, in particular, is nigh worthless in PvP. The conical radius, the spent GCD, the fact that 4 classes can easily close range, and the fact that almost every class has a knock-back should be very clear indicators that a mechanic like cover is a terrible, terrible idea.

 

Stealth, as mentioned, is very odd. On one hand, it tries to mimic what stealth is in WoW (a fundamental mechanic of classes like rogues and feral druids), while more often than not it becomes merely a trivial escape mechanism. It needs to be fundamentally reworked - stealth should be a game mechanic, not a novelty.

 

PvE and Leveling

Admittedly, a high point of the game are the instances (known as flashpoints). Black Talon, Athiss, Hammer Station, etc. are all fairly well-designed. Mechanics are tried and true: get out of the fire, interrupt heals, kite bad stuff. This is where ToR really does feel like "WoW in space" and it's also arguably the best part of the game. As a matter of fact, the only reason I'm still playing is because I'm curious to see if the large-scale Operations will be as good as Flashpoints.

 

Leveling is fairly smooth, but the fact that the world is sharded can be distracting and does discourage grouping. Heroic 2+ man quests can be fun, but I found myself skipping them more often than not - the time invested doesn't seem worth it. During hardcore leveling periods, I also found myself skipping all VO. I don't care about your life story, I just want to get this quest out of the way. I feel somewhat guilty about it, but these are the scenarios that make me feel like side-quest VO is a swing and a miss - a very expensive miss.

 

PvP

PvP is a joke, there's not much more to say. It's an insult to any form of competitive activity. Huttball is one of the worst ideas I've ever seen implemented in an MMO: Warsong Gulch with a passable flag? Really? What irks me most is that someone actually made money coming up with such a terrible idea. Inconsistent traps, obnoxious commentators, bad layout, Huttball has it all. There are 15-year-olds that designed better Unreal Tournament maps. Sure, there may be some occasional mindless fun to be had with Huttball, but there's no real value here.

 

Alderaan is significantly better, but doesn't even compare to the wide variety of BGs present in MMOs like WoW or Rift. Ignoring WoW's trailblazing here, Rift's "Black Garden" was a particularly awesome innovation. World PvP is more or less nonexistent.

 

If ToR was Communist Russia, PvP would be human rights.

 

Companions

Companions were lauded by Bioware as being an evolutionary step as far as the genre is concerned. Unfortunately, they turned out to be glorified pets. They even have an ability pet bar just like in WoW! Some companions are interesting, some are boring. They do seem to break up the monotony of the often morose landscapes, but they are basically just pets.

 

Companion crafting is a great idea, however. Not having to worry about crafting stuff yourself is pretty neat. ToR sometimes surprises you with interesting and progressive innovations. Unfortunately, these moments are far and few in between.

 

DOA

Does The Old Republic have a chance? Not with what we see on day 1. No chance. Fanboys and fangirls may try to make a case for ToR, but the reality is that there is no case for ToR. There are many changes that need to make their way into ToR for it to be a competitor to 2nd tier MMOs, let alone giants like WoW.

 

UI mods have been requested since beta. A combat log has been requested since beta. There are absolutely no features that even begin to address the social element of the game: guild achievements, guild skill trees, etc. There's a need for competitive PvP, LFG finders, etc, etc. These shouldn't be post-release patches, this is 2012! These are basic elements of modern MMORPGs. I don' think ToR is finished.

 

The only reason ToR won't die in 6 months is "Bioware" and "Star Wars." Will these two names carry the burden for a year? Two? I doubt it. But then again, I could be wrong. http://warhammeronline.com/ is still going. Don't fool yourself though. It's dead.

 

You may berate me now, but don't forget this review 1 year down the line. ToR is dead. Long live Titan?

 

No need to berate you. PCGamer beat you to the punch with a professional review.

[dvvx]

No need to berate you. PCGamer beat you to the punch with a professional review.

 

You know what the irony here is? PCGamer also gave Age of Conan a glowing review. AoC is now free-to-play.

 

Professional or not, PCGamer was wrong then as it is now.

Edited December 23, 2011 by dvvx

[Vysse]

See you at launch... oh wait...

[Traejun]

BC, WotlK, and now Cataclysm have moved way past fetch and click. I can still remember lassoing nether-rays in BC, doing bombing runs over Hellfire, surfing on harpoons in WotlK, or dodging sharks in Cataclysm. Say what you will, but Blizzard has been seriously pushing the envelope when it comes to how questing is done.

 

Like I said, VO is a huge improvement as well, but the gameplay isn't there to justify it.

 

No, WoW has no moved past that. Questing in WoW is essentially the same now as it was in Vanilla. I played WoW from December 2004 until about 3 months ago - with a couple short brakes in between. It's the same game. The questing is the same. The dungeons are the same. The crafting is the same. The raids are the same. The only things that change are the names of the baddies and the places you visit to kill them.

 

The basic systems and mechanics have been the same for 7+ years now. Sure, there's the occasional "flavor" (i.e. vehicles), but, for the most part, it's this:

 

1. Kill 10 rats

2. Fetch 10 rat claws (which requires you to kill 30 rats because some rats don't have claws apparently)

3. Run to X, kill Y, retrieve Z

 

^that makes up 99% of WoW. So i'm not sure what game's you've been playing, but it ain't WoW.

[bignickk]

try a real pvp mmo like Dark Age of Camelot.

 

Are you kidding me right now? Dark Age of Camelot? please turn of you computer.

[Scar]

You know what the irony here is? PCGamer also gave Age of Conan a glowing review. AoC is now free-to-play.

 

Professional or not, PCGamer was wrong then as it is now.

 

And they gave WoW glowing reviews. So here they wrong there as they are now? Or are we just bringing up ones that support your argument?

Edited December 23, 2011 by Scar

[WickedDjinn]

You know what the irony here is? PCGamer also gave Age of Conan a glowing review. AoC is now free-to-play.

 

Professional or not, PCGamer was wrong then as it is now.

 

That's a strange mentality. Something can be good and not be appreciated or successful.

[Oric_Orinson]

Stopped reading after the first paragraph. I'm not swayed by elitist reviews, or their gigantic E-Peens. Your logic is deniable.

[Yoren]

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.

 

The people rambling about "PvP" in WoW (yes, with quotes) have no idea what Realm vs Realm PvP looks like. No idea at all. Nope.

 

DAoC did many things wrong or at least not very good, but man, they did have one stellar achievement, the very best solo, group and mass PvP in a MMORPG, hands down.

 

The other MMORPGS are not even close to DAoC RvR.

[dvvx]

And they gave WoW glowing reviews. So here they wrong there as they are now? Or are we just bringing up ones that support your argument?

 

My argument was that PC Gamer (much like many other professional reviews) is fallible, wrong, and inconsistent more often than not. You've only strengthened my point.

[daeseer]

I'll just say that I pretty much stopped logging into WoW months ago except my 1-day-a-week raid night. I'd log into a toon, and log back out again because there was simply nothing I wanted to do, no more of the world left for me to explore.

 

Now I have many planets that I haven't been to yet, and new classes to learn, and a wonderful story in which I can immerse myself.

 

I'm seriously contemplating cancelling my WoW subscription, for the first time since I started playing. And I tried a couple of other MMOs over the years. None ever made me think twice that I wanted to stay with WoW.

 

Bioware has something seriously interesting here, and the state of the game at launch is very polished. I think a lot of us will be sticking around for a good, long time.

 

So, OP, with your serious credentials (not that I give a rat's *** what guild you were in), the proof will be in the pudding. I predict SWTOR will have staying power, for years. You predict its demise. We shall see who is correct, and I'm pretty sure it's me.

 

You like to think you know what you're talking about. Well, I hope you're prepared for the possibility that you don't.

[Scar]

My argument was that PC Gamer (much like many other professional reviews) is fallible, wrong, and inconsistent more often than not. You've only strengthened my point.

 

No, your point was that them saying it was successful means that is wont be because the only evidence you listed was one where they liked it and it wasn't successful. You failed to say that they "could be wrong" or that they are fallible. You never allowed for them actually being right, or else you would have stated as much.

 

So no, I didn't strengthen your argument because your argument wasn't an argument: it was a statement. The statement being they were wrong with AoC and they are wrong now.

 

I brought in that they have the potential for being wrong yes, but also have the potential for being right. Thereby weakening your argument, or position of the steadfast statement.

 

I'll have to assume you didn't catch that.

[Marmerus]

No need to berate you. PCGamer beat you to the punch with a professional review.

After their Diablo 2 review I don't think they have done a sinle professional review. Lets just face it hardly anyone working on PCgamer plays any games at all and they only report stuff from other sites. Thats why they are so horrible at every game they play and has no idea about anything.

[BKDAN]

The comparison is warranted because a) they are both MMORPGs and b) Bioware/EA explicitly asserted that they are going after the prime competitor (WoW).

 

And to tell you the truth they doing good job.. WoW is old people are getting tiered of grinding same old dailies, Plus well pandas are coming.. ( i wont say anything about Pokemon fights)See wow lost me as a customer with confirmation about Pandas lol. its just shows that they are out of good ideas.. And why in the hell would i want to play panda?? lol.. And personally i like private story chambers.. it makes you fell that you not just ANOTHER paladin but that you actually matter.

[WickedDjinn]

No, your point was that them saying it was successful means that is wont be because the only evidence you listed was one where they liked it and it wasn't successful. You failed to say that they "could be wrong" or that they are fallible. You never allowed for them actually being right, or else you would have stated as much.

 

So no, I didn't strengthen your argument because your argument wasn't an argument: it was a statement. The statement being they were wrong with AoC and they are wrong now.

 

I brought in that they have the potential for being wrong yes, but also have the potential for being right. Thereby weakening your argument, or position of the steadfast statement.

 

I'll have to assume you didn't catch that.

 

There is a greater flaw in his statement to begin with. The idea that the fact that Aoc is now free to play means, in and of itself, that the game was bad all along.

[dvvx]

No, your point was that them saying it was successful means that is wont be because the only evidence you listed was one where they liked it and it wasn't successful.

 

First of all, that wasn't my point and second of all, you're just being presumptuous. My argument was that PCGamer is a terrible service to gauge video game quality. I'm correct in that assessment.

 

There is a greater flaw in his statement to begin with. The idea that the fact that Aoc is now free to play means, in and of itself, that the game was bad all along.

 

The fact that AoC is free to play now does mean, in and of itself, that the game was bad all along. If the game wouldn't have been bad all along, it wouldn't be free-to-play two years after release. It's simple cause and effect.

 

Unless a game is built on top of a micropayment model (such as League of Legends) and it goes f2p soon after release, the (correct) assessment would be that not enough people are paying for the game. Ergo, the game must not be good enough for people to be willing to pay money. Therefore, the game sucks.

Edited December 23, 2011 by dvvx

[Chris_G]

It's kind of funny, there are lots of factual statements in your review, but I draw very different conclusions.

 

I love the voice-overs and never skip past them, they are single handedly what are holding my interest through the tedium of completing quests that is basically the same in every mmo (go to x, kill y, turn in z).

 

I really like the companion system. Yes, they are fleshed out pets, but you have lots of options on which pet to use, they have personalities, and they make soloing and leveling up as a healer at least much more fun than any other game I've tried.

 

Huttball is hands down my favourite warzone. I wish there were more warzones for varieties sake, and I'm not so thrilled about lumping level 10s with level 50s in the same instance, but the maps themselves are all solid.

 

My biggest complaint is with the UI being so static and unmoddable and awkward in some ways, but luckily that isn't too hard to change and will improve soon enough so I'm not too worried about that. The current UI is functional even if it has room for improvement.

 

Overall I think this is a very engaging game and I think its going to do very well with the PvE crowd and the casuals. I agree that this game probably isn't going to hold the interest of the hard core PvP crowd for long unless they are fast in expanding the available PvP content and improving the mechanics.

 

I would give this game a solid 8.5 out of 10 at launch, which is a pretty good start in my books. I'm also impressed by how stable, smooth, and relatively problem free the launch was.

 

Thanks Bioware, this is the first mmo to give me that got-to-play feeling in years and I look forward to seeing what you can do with it.

[Mephismo]

Nothing to see here move along:D

[Scar]

First of all, that wasn't my point and second of all, you're just being presumptuous. My argument was that PCGamer is a terrible service to gauge video game quality. I'm correct in that assessment.

 

Not being presumptuous. In fact, quite the opposite. I'm dealing with exactly what you said. Not what you meant to say, or what you presumed other people would interpret what you said.

 

And you are not correct in that assessment. You're only correct for you. If your preferences don't align with their preferences, then it's your assessment. Not other people's.

[dvvx]

Not being presumptuous. In fact, quite the opposite. I'm dealing with exactly what you said. Not what you meant to say, or what you presumed other people would interpret what you said.

 

And you are not correct in that assessment. You're only correct for you. If your preferences don't align with their preferences, then it's your assessment. Not other people's.

 

Let me quote myself:

 

You know what the irony here is? PCGamer also gave Age of Conan a glowing review. AoC is now free-to-play.

 

Professional or not, PCGamer was wrong then as it is now.

 

My assesment was verbatim that "PCGamer was wrong then as it is now" - the overarching theme of my argument was the wrongness of PCGamer. Try not to twist my words around.

Edited December 23, 2011 by dvvx

[Straza]

Stop

 

 

feeding

 

 

the

 

 

troll

[daeseer]

Stop

 

 

feeding

 

 

the

 

 

troll

 

He's not a troll. He actually thinks he knows what he's talking about.

[WickedDjinn]

First of all, that wasn't my point and second of all, you're just being presumptuous. My argument was that PCGamer is a terrible service to gauge video game quality. I'm correct in that assessment.

 

 

 

The fact that AoC is free to play now does mean, in and of itself, that the game was bad all along. If the game wouldn't have been bad all along, it wouldn't be free-to-play two years after release. It's simple cause and effect.

 

Unless a game is built on top of a micropayment model (such as League of Legends) and it goes f2p soon after release, the (correct) assessment would be that not enough people are paying for the game. Ergo, the game must not be good enough for people to be willing to pay money. Therefore, the game sucks.

 

Once upon a time there was a little game called Planescape:Torment. A game that not only followed the much loved Baldurs Gate 2 style of gameplay, but sported what is arguably the best story ever written for an RPG. It is widely regarded so by critics across the board.

 

Planescape sold so poorly that no one would even think of making a follow up.

 

By your absurd logic the game was bad because no one wanted to buy it, despite being one of the best RPGs of all time.