I alrleady agreed with your opinion on innovation. What I'm waiting for is the aspects of TOR that you find innovative and that deserve an 8/10 innovation rating.. I mean EIGHT OUT OF TEN.. that's pretty high.. so it must be innovastive pleeeenty.
Show this to me?... and I'll shut up
Sigh..there we go again. Why would i want to show you anything when your idea of innvoation is not same as mine? i just discribed why i think SWTOR is innovative.... for you it could be doing something completely new which no MMO has done it yet. So where is your innovative MMO and why you think it is innovative? it is a simple question.
I really don't want you to shut up... i won't be able to get my entertainment out of grumbling and teeth gnashing.
Thanks for proving that SWTOR's innovation score was a clear sign that EA's been shelling out the bribes yet again.
I proved nothing.... and neither have you.
You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty -- Mahatma Gandhi
It's funny how some of you are so absolute in saying voice-overs, companions, crew skills, cinematic storytelling, etc. aren't innovative because they have been done to an EXTREMELY minute degree in other MMO's such as EQ2 or AoC and when it's about the game you idolatrize, such as Guild Wars 2, ArcheAge, or whatever, it doesn't really matter if the game's innovations have been done elsewhere. You casually remain oblivious. Way to be partial.
Oh jesus. Let's just be objective, then.
offline-derived companions, offline-derived cinematic storytelling and offline-derived voice overs make for a good massive multiplayer game?
Just... c'mon!
Look: if a reviewer or you say TOR is a good MMO because it has an awesome story tailored for EACH SINGLE player, and the game, being an MMO, MAY fail because, hello, there's no reason to play for months, no endgame, won't the reviewer look like a complete donkey's butt's bug's butt? ?
How can a MMO be good for stuff that's not at all MMO related? How can people be so stupefied as to not see how crazy MMo's got?
And when this game is around 150k - 300k subs, where will all that praise be then?
The positive reviews are indicating that it's a solid game. It certainly doesn't prove the game is for everybody, but it certainly does what it aimed to do - like it or not.
No. It's showing that EA shelled out a lot of cash to those game site "reviewers".
Or at least paying large sums of money to their advertising departments
Well at least now we know where that 130 million went
Seriously, though, I am getting the impression they're throwing around some serious money on hyping this game in every way possible. I don't know if that involves paying for reviews, or just some indirect incentives for good reviews, or what, but it's like they think maybe they can force The Sheeple Effect, if they put enough money into it.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Seriously, though, I am getting the impression they're throwing around some serious money on hyping this game in every way possible.
1. Every producers have always hyped their games. I don't know what you point is here? Business as usuall; don't tell me this is your first mmo launch too?
2. No, not in every way possible. They are not blatantly lying to customers advertising features that are not in the game or nonexistent features that would be coming shortly after launch or shortly after an expac to sell more boxes, as others did before (Funcom, Aventurine,...).
They told us a long time ago what the game was and what it wasn't.
It's funny how some of you are so absolute in saying voice-overs, companions, crew skills, cinematic storytelling, etc. aren't innovative because they have been done to an EXTREMELY minute degree in other MMO's such as EQ2 or AoC and when it's about the game you idolatrize, such as Guild Wars 2, ArcheAge, or whatever, it doesn't really matter if the game's innovations have been done elsewhere. You casually remain oblivious. Way to be partial.
Oh jesus. Let's just be objective, then.
offline-derived companions, offline-derived cinematic storytelling and offline-derived voice overs make for a good massive multiplayer game?
Just... c'mon!
Look: if a reviewer or you say TOR is a good MMO because it has an awesome story tailored for EACH SINGLE player, and the game, being an MMO, MAY fail because, hello, there's no reason to play for months, no endgame, won't the reviewer look like a complete donkey's butt's bug's butt? ?
How can a MMO be good for stuff that's not at all MMO related? How can people be so stupefied as to not see how crazy MMo's got?
You completely failed to acknowledge my point, therefore lacking objectivity, but whatever.
How can voice-overs be considered "offline-derived"? How can cinematic storytelling be considered "offline-derived"? These things make storytelling something more impactful, more relevant, more interesting, more entertaining. They make grouping that much more interesting to see how your friends react and converse with the NPC's. The social aspect is elevated, not deteriorated. Just because single-player games can have this does not mean MMO's can't. That logic makes zero sense. How can companions be considered "offline-derived"? They don't substitute a group of players. Solo quests are still meant to be soloed and group quests are still meant to be done in groups.
And when this game is around 150k - 300k subs, where will all that praise be then?
The positive reviews are indicating that it's a solid game. It certainly doesn't prove the game is for everybody, but it certainly does what it aimed to do - like it or not.
No. It's showing that EA shelled out a lot of cash to those game site "reviewers".
Ok, so game reviews don't matter then? Is that what you're saying? I'd love to see one shred of evidence proving your suggestion. Show me evidence that EA paid off dozens of professional gaming websites, independent reviewers and thousands of gamers. I want my money!
I'm completely shocked so many people find such an average game good. On the other hand, i guess i shouldn't be.
Yes, it's a good game, that still needs to improve on some parts.
On the other hand, what's surprising is that 10m people are paying to play wow. No problem with the kids, or the parents playing with their children, but adults playing for themselves?
You see, to each their own. Fortunately we have different likes/dislikes, and so we have diversity.
I alrleady agreed with your opinion on innovation. What I'm waiting for is the aspects of TOR that you find innovative and that deserve an 8/10 innovation rating.. I mean EIGHT OUT OF TEN.. that's pretty high.. so it must be innovastive pleeeenty.
Show this to me?... and I'll shut up
Sigh..there we go again. Why would i want to show you anything when your idea of innvoation is not same as mine? i just discribed why i think SWTOR is innovative.... for you it could be doing something completely new which no MMO has done it yet. So where is your innovative MMO and why you think it is innovative? it is a simple question.
I really don't want you to shut up... i won't be able to get my entertainment out of grumbling and teeth gnashing.
Thanks for proving that SWTOR's innovation score was a clear sign that EA's been shelling out the bribes yet again.
I proved nothing.... and neither have you.
Your unwillingness to actually answer sgel's question says otherwise.
And when this game is around 150k - 300k subs, where will all that praise be then?
The positive reviews are indicating that it's a solid game. It certainly doesn't prove the game is for everybody, but it certainly does what it aimed to do - like it or not.
No. It's showing that EA shelled out a lot of cash to those game site "reviewers".
Or at least paying large sums of money to their advertising departments
Well at least now we know where that 130 million went
Seriously, though, I am getting the impression they're throwing around some serious money on hyping this game in every way possible. I don't know if that involves paying for reviews, or just some indirect incentives for good reviews, or what, but it's like they think maybe they can force The Sheeple Effect, if they put enough money into it.
Exactly. The review history of their publicly failed products that got gleaming reviews (DA2) shows this. EA throws around a ton of money to buy great reviews.
You do realize sites get paid to give good reviews basically and have incentive to give posative spin on games, often times inflating their opinion to make it look better? Not only are you making money from the publishers, but your also potentially adding to yourself extra 'publicity' by having a quote you use potentially being mentioned by the publisher.
Postative =/= good all the time. I could make a statue out of mud and you could call it 'good' (posative) but it won't be anywhere near as good as the same type of statue made of solid gold.
You spelled POSITIVE three times, two different ways and all wrong. Just FYI.
I also don't agree that most reviews are paid by the publishers. I am as much a conspiracy theorist as the next person, but I have to believe that there are sites that just do there own reviews. The biggest thing is to trust reviews from smaller site more then from large ones like IGN, Gamespot, PC Gamer, etc, and alot of these smaller sites or one time freelance reviews say alot of the same things as the big ones.
And then you have all the players that agree they enjoy the game, which to me is the real testament. You may not like the game, but I don't like cabbage. It does not mean that millions of people around the world don't either just because I think my tastes in food are a sign of everything to come.
I alrleady agreed with your opinion on innovation. What I'm waiting for is the aspects of TOR that you find innovative and that deserve an 8/10 innovation rating.. I mean EIGHT OUT OF TEN.. that's pretty high.. so it must be innovastive pleeeenty.
Show this to me?... and I'll shut up
Sigh..there we go again. Why would i want to show you anything when your idea of innvoation is not same as mine? i just discribed why i think SWTOR is innovative.... for you it could be doing something completely new which no MMO has done it yet. So where is your innovative MMO and why you think it is innovative? it is a simple question.
I really don't want you to shut up... i won't be able to get my entertainment out of grumbling and teeth gnashing.
Thanks for proving that SWTOR's innovation score was a clear sign that EA's been shelling out the bribes yet again.
I proved nothing.... and neither have you.
Your unwillingness to actually answer sgel's question says otherwise.
I will agree with this. I would like most people who claim innovation to point out more then just the voice acting for once, sure it's innovation but giving such a high score there should be something more.
It's funny how some of you are so absolute in saying voice-overs, companions, crew skills, cinematic storytelling, etc. aren't innovative because they have been done to an EXTREMELY minute degree in other MMO's such as EQ2 or AoC and when it's about the game you idolatrize, such as Guild Wars 2, ArcheAge, or whatever, it doesn't really matter if the game's innovations have been done elsewhere. You casually remain oblivious. Way to be partial.
Oh jesus. Let's just be objective, then.
offline-derived companions, offline-derived cinematic storytelling and offline-derived voice overs make for a good massive multiplayer game?
Just... c'mon!
Look: if a reviewer or you say TOR is a good MMO because it has an awesome story tailored for EACH SINGLE player, and the game, being an MMO, MAY fail because, hello, there's no reason to play for months, no endgame, won't the reviewer look like a complete donkey's butt's bug's butt? ?
How can a MMO be good for stuff that's not at all MMO related? How can people be so stupefied as to not see how crazy MMo's got?
You completely failed to acknowledge my point, therefore lacking objectivity, but whatever.
How can voice-overs be considered "offline-derived"? How can cinematic storytelling be considered "offline-derived"? These things make storytelling something more impactful, more relevant, more interesting, more entertaining. They make grouping that much more interesting to see how your friends react and converse with the NPC's. The social aspect is elevated, not deteriorated. Just because single-player games can have this does not mean MMO's can't. That logic makes zero sense. How can companions be considered "offline-derived"? They don't substitute a group of players. Solo quests are still meant to be soloed and group quests are still meant to be done in groups.
how??? How do all these things impact on sociality? Because you choose shit do instead of shit don't? Come on.
How can you make me believe that you even believe that such things(that it's fact they only belong to single player offline games) can enrich a massive online world?
MMo's need ENDGAMES, they need persistancy, PvP, politics !
You can't make a game that's good for its singleplay aspects and expect it to be succesful as MMO, it just won't work! People will leave it as they leave a classical rpg they beat once or twice. It's too obvious. And that's why the reviews can't be positive, because they gave the MMO a good vote for its non MMO elements.
heh so we can't think that our opinion is fact, we have to accept that yours is, tho.
Minority re-fart
No, you have to accept that we have an opinion as well and that not everyone thinks the game is average. For Alders to say that he can't comprehend how people think this game is good proves he can't comprehend that differing opinions exist about the same thing.
how??? How do all these things impact on sociality? Because you choose shit do instead of shit don't? Come on.
How can you make me believe that you even believe that such things(that it's fact they only belong to single player offline games) can enrich a massive online world?
MMo's need ENDGAMES, they need persistancy, PvP, politics !
You can't make a game that's good for its singleplay aspects and expect it to be succesful as MMO, it just won't work! People will leave it as they leave a classical rpg they beat once or twice. It's too obvious. And that's why the reviews can't be positive, because they gave the MMO a good vote for its non MMO elements.
SWTOR has an endgame and if you can't accept that, it's because you don't like the themepark model, not because it doesn't exist. You seem to think an MMORPG should only be judged by its aspects related to socializing, but you completely neglect the RPG portion of the acronym, which in all honesty, makes no sense at all.
Comments
I proved nothing.... and neither have you.
You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty -- Mahatma Gandhi
An innovation doesn't have to be new, only presented in a different way. {mod edit}
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Oh jesus. Let's just be objective, then.
offline-derived companions, offline-derived cinematic storytelling and offline-derived voice overs make for a good massive multiplayer game?
Just... c'mon!
Look: if a reviewer or you say TOR is a good MMO because it has an awesome story tailored for EACH SINGLE player, and the game, being an MMO, MAY fail because, hello, there's no reason to play for months, no endgame, won't the reviewer look like a complete donkey's butt's bug's butt? ?
How can a MMO be good for stuff that's not at all MMO related? How can people be so stupefied as to not see how crazy MMo's got?
the best blog of the net
Well at least now we know where that 130 million went
Seriously, though, I am getting the impression they're throwing around some serious money on hyping this game in every way possible. I don't know if that involves paying for reviews, or just some indirect incentives for good reviews, or what, but it's like they think maybe they can force The Sheeple Effect, if they put enough money into it.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
lol these blame bait threads of the game been bad and the game been good and getting really annoying...
1. Every producers have always hyped their games. I don't know what you point is here? Business as usuall; don't tell me this is your first mmo launch too?
2. No, not in every way possible. They are not blatantly lying to customers advertising features that are not in the game or nonexistent features that would be coming shortly after launch or shortly after an expac to sell more boxes, as others did before (Funcom, Aventurine,...).
They told us a long time ago what the game was and what it wasn't.
You completely failed to acknowledge my point, therefore lacking objectivity, but whatever.
How can voice-overs be considered "offline-derived"? How can cinematic storytelling be considered "offline-derived"? These things make storytelling something more impactful, more relevant, more interesting, more entertaining. They make grouping that much more interesting to see how your friends react and converse with the NPC's. The social aspect is elevated, not deteriorated. Just because single-player games can have this does not mean MMO's can't. That logic makes zero sense. How can companions be considered "offline-derived"? They don't substitute a group of players. Solo quests are still meant to be soloed and group quests are still meant to be done in groups.
Ok, so game reviews don't matter then? Is that what you're saying? I'd love to see one shred of evidence proving your suggestion. Show me evidence that EA paid off dozens of professional gaming websites, independent reviewers and thousands of gamers. I want my money!
So the game isn't for you ...I get it..
{mod edit}
I'm completely shocked so many people find such an average game good. On the other hand, i guess i shouldn't be.
I'm completely shocked so many people find their opinion to be fact. On the other hand, I guess I shouldn't be.
Yes, it's a good game, that still needs to improve on some parts.
On the other hand, what's surprising is that 10m people are paying to play wow. No problem with the kids, or the parents playing with their children, but adults playing for themselves?
You see, to each their own. Fortunately we have different likes/dislikes, and so we have diversity.
There Is Always Hope!
agreed. I'm completely shocked that those with the minority view seem to think it outweighs the 1M+ that are having a blast and disagree.
There Is Always Hope!
Your unwillingness to actually answer sgel's question says otherwise.
Exactly. The review history of their publicly failed products that got gleaming reviews (DA2) shows this. EA throws around a ton of money to buy great reviews.
You spelled POSITIVE three times, two different ways and all wrong. Just FYI.
I also don't agree that most reviews are paid by the publishers. I am as much a conspiracy theorist as the next person, but I have to believe that there are sites that just do there own reviews. The biggest thing is to trust reviews from smaller site more then from large ones like IGN, Gamespot, PC Gamer, etc, and alot of these smaller sites or one time freelance reviews say alot of the same things as the big ones.
And then you have all the players that agree they enjoy the game, which to me is the real testament. You may not like the game, but I don't like cabbage. It does not mean that millions of people around the world don't either just because I think my tastes in food are a sign of everything to come.
I will agree with this. I would like most people who claim innovation to point out more then just the voice acting for once, sure it's innovation but giving such a high score there should be something more.
how??? How do all these things impact on sociality? Because you choose shit do instead of shit don't? Come on.
How can you make me believe that you even believe that such things(that it's fact they only belong to single player offline games) can enrich a massive online world?
MMo's need ENDGAMES, they need persistancy, PvP, politics !
You can't make a game that's good for its singleplay aspects and expect it to be succesful as MMO, it just won't work! People will leave it as they leave a classical rpg they beat once or twice. It's too obvious. And that's why the reviews can't be positive, because they gave the MMO a good vote for its non MMO elements.
the best blog of the net
heh so we can't think that our opinion is fact, we have to accept that yours is, tho.
Minority re-fart
the best blog of the net
Well it has lightsabers...that counts as innovation...i suppose...
Tell me, where is yoda? I long to speak with him...
I suddenly got dizzy....
my opinion is that opinions are opinionable, not true, so an opinion can be truth.
the best blog of the net
Quick Gandalf, do Power Word in here...
No, you have to accept that we have an opinion as well and that not everyone thinks the game is average. For Alders to say that he can't comprehend how people think this game is good proves he can't comprehend that differing opinions exist about the same thing.
SWTOR has an endgame and if you can't accept that, it's because you don't like the themepark model, not because it doesn't exist. You seem to think an MMORPG should only be judged by its aspects related to socializing, but you completely neglect the RPG portion of the acronym, which in all honesty, makes no sense at all.