Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

GW2 or SWTOR which one will you definitely BUY?

1356714

Comments

  • pierthpierth San Antonio, TXPosts: 1,494Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Kuppa

    Definately GW2, Im still on the fence for SWTOR. I will probably need to try SWTOR before I buy it.

    Agreed, after having watched multiple vids and read interviews on both I can't say SWTOR will be any different than the other MMOs I played and eventually tired of

  • Delerious1Delerious1 Lynnwood, WAPosts: 72Member

    I've never been able to get into Guild Wars.

    SWTOR is a surefire bet for me.

    Despite sort of disliking the first Guild Wars I have to admit the second one looks like it could be really good.  That said I'm not buying into all the hype about the dynaminc public quests or whatever.

    Sheer content, scope and polish=SWTOR.  I'd put money on that.

    Guild Wars 2=possibly superior pvp. 

    That pretty much how I view the two.

  • darker70darker70 stokePosts: 803Member Uncommon

    GW2 

    It's a given i'll pre-order asap image

    image

  • Blaze007Blaze007 OlsztynPosts: 188Member

    Originally posted by Celcius

    Originally posted by Vallador


    Originally posted by Celcius


    Originally posted by Vallador


    Originally posted by Celcius ...

    The whole pre-order and pricing circus? So what you are saying is that you think that EA pricing the standard copy of the game at the same price that GW 2 will be when it launches is going to result in a poor quality game just because EA is publishing it? Last I checked, this was a Bioware game. 

    I find that pretty amusing, especially when NC Soft does not exactly have a strong track record. But GW 2 is not an NC Soft game, it is an ArenaNet game. The same can be said about SWTOR not being an EA game.

    Dude..Just what it says: The whole pre-order and pricing circus reminded me that this is an EA game. No word about any CEs or price comparison... I have bad experience with EA games and last time I checked EA owned Bioware. And both games made by Bioware since the acquisition (ME2 and DA2) did not impress me at all. I found them both oversimplified (go figure...). 

  • UnlightUnlight Ottawa, ONPosts: 2,540Member

    Originally posted by Dromund

    Apples and Oranges.

     

    Dont see how there can be a comparison for the two.

    What they do have in common is that they are the two brightest stars on the horizon.

  • CelciusCelcius Posts: 1,039Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Vallador

    Originally posted by Celcius


    Originally posted by Vallador


    Originally posted by Celcius


    Originally posted by Vallador


    Originally posted by Celcius ...

    The whole pre-order and pricing circus? So what you are saying is that you think that EA pricing the standard copy of the game at the same price that GW 2 will be when it launches is going to result in a poor quality game just because EA is publishing it? Last I checked, this was a Bioware game. 

    I find that pretty amusing, especially when NC Soft does not exactly have a strong track record. But GW 2 is not an NC Soft game, it is an ArenaNet game. The same can be said about SWTOR not being an EA game.

    Dude..Just what it says: The whole pre-order and pricing circus reminded me that this is an EA game. No word about any CE editions or price comparison... I have bad experience with EA games and last time I checked EA owned Bioware. And both games made by Bioware since the acquisition (ME2 and DA2) did not impress me at all. I found them both oversimplified (go figure...). 

    EA owning Bioware has nothing to do with their games. If NCSoft was that way, well they would have no good games. To date there is only 2 games that I can recall which were well recieved. Do I consider NCSoft the reason for that? No. It is the developers that are responsible.

    If you don't like Bioware games, thats fine, no one is forcing you to change your opinion. Just don't staple a publishing company to a gaming company like they have a direct effect on the game. Sure, they may have release windows...but developers are given these windows long before any kind of investment is made and they have plenty of opportunity to change the game to support that. 

  • ArezonArezon Posts: 278Member Uncommon

    I preordered TOR so that's my game to play. GW2 doesn't really interest me. I only see myself giving GW2 a try if TOR ends up being really bad or friends from work decide to play it and convince me it's worth it.

    image

  • RalsarRalsar Thornton, COPosts: 304Member Uncommon

    Neither.  I've jumped on early MMO purchases before only to be left with a pile of crap.  I'll wait until after release and see how player response to the games is.

  • atticusbcatticusbc Posts: 1,079Member Uncommon

    GW2. First MMO that I'll have ever preordered.

  • AntariousAntarious Greenville, SCPosts: 2,779Member Uncommon

    Probably both.. 

  • CujoSWAoACujoSWAoA Nooo, AKPosts: 1,781Member Uncommon

    i will BUY both.

    BUYing both seems like fun.

  • UnlightUnlight Ottawa, ONPosts: 2,540Member

    Originally posted by Celcius

    Originally posted by Vallador


    Originally posted by Celcius


    Originally posted by Vallador


    Originally posted by Celcius


    Originally posted by Vallador


    Originally posted by Celcius ...

    The whole pre-order and pricing circus? So what you are saying is that you think that EA pricing the standard copy of the game at the same price that GW 2 will be when it launches is going to result in a poor quality game just because EA is publishing it? Last I checked, this was a Bioware game. 

    I find that pretty amusing, especially when NC Soft does not exactly have a strong track record. But GW 2 is not an NC Soft game, it is an ArenaNet game. The same can be said about SWTOR not being an EA game.

    Dude..Just what it says: The whole pre-order and pricing circus reminded me that this is an EA game. No word about any CE editions or price comparison... I have bad experience with EA games and last time I checked EA owned Bioware. And both games made by Bioware since the acquisition (ME2 and DA2) did not impress me at all. I found them both oversimplified (go figure...). 

    EA owning Bioware has nothing to do with their games. If NCSoft was that way, well they would have no good games. To date there is only 2 games that I can recall which were well recieved. Do I consider NCSoft the reason for that? No. It is the developers that are responsible.

    If you don't like Bioware games, thats fine, no one is forcing you to change your opinion. Just don't staple a publishing company to a gaming company like they have a direct effect on the game. Sure, they may have release windows...but developers are given these windows long before any kind of investment is made and they have plenty of opportunity to change the game to support that. 

    The common wisdom is that EA pressured Bioware to release Dragon Age 2 early, and ended up with a game that was far inferior to it's predecessor.  EA has a habit of doing that and have been responsible for their fair share of gutted releases.  Spore could have been spectacular had it been permitted to continue development until the game was ready for release.  And EA isn't the only publisher who does that. 

    So saying that the publisher has no effect on a game is simply incorrect.  They can have an enormous impact.  And when they do, it's almost always a negative one.

    I rarely praise publishers, but I do have to give kudos to NCSoft for apparently keeping their hands off of Guild Wars 2 and letting ANet make their game.  To me, this is a big reason as to why it looks so promising.  I rather believe that if EA was involved, it would have been released already and we'd have to content ourselves with playing half a game.  But no worries, there would be plenty of DLC for us to pay for in short order -- at the expense of fixing bugs of course.

  • TalthanysTalthanys Millersville, MDPosts: 458Member

    I will definitely buy GW2. No question. I will wait for a few months on SW:TOR and read the reviews and impressions of people playing the game, and make a decision after it launches.

    image

  • sirphobossirphobos Ames, IAPosts: 616Member Uncommon

    I will buy TOR when it comes out and I will pick up GW2 if I'm sick of TOR or have stopped playing by time GW2 comes out, reason being I only will play one MMO at a time and if I find one I like I will stick with it.

  • EvilestTwinEvilestTwin New York, NYPosts: 286Member

    GW2.  Nothing I've seen from SWTOR really excites me.   

  • MadimorgaMadimorga Atlanta, GAPosts: 1,920Member Uncommon

    As things stand right now, I might buy Guild Wars 2 even if no free trial is available right away, but SWTOR will be something I either pass on or wait to free trial.

    image

    I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.

    ~Albert Einstein

  • RinnaRinna Las Vegas, NVPosts: 389Member Uncommon

    Unless GW2 beats SWTOR out of the gate for release, I won't be playing it until I get tired of SWTOR.  The art in GW2 looks too fantastic to let it slip by though.

    No bitchers.

  • tinuelletinuelle bergenPosts: 316Member Uncommon

    I've allready pre-ordered SWTOR, so that settles this one.....

    image
  • DromundDromund Peru, INPosts: 17Member

    Originally posted by Unlight

    Originally posted by Celcius


    Originally posted by Vallador


    Originally posted by Celcius


    Originally posted by Vallador


    Originally posted by Celcius


    Originally posted by Vallador


    Originally posted by Celcius ...

    The whole pre-order and pricing circus? So what you are saying is that you think that EA pricing the standard copy of the game at the same price that GW 2 will be when it launches is going to result in a poor quality game just because EA is publishing it? Last I checked, this was a Bioware game. 

    I find that pretty amusing, especially when NC Soft does not exactly have a strong track record. But GW 2 is not an NC Soft game, it is an ArenaNet game. The same can be said about SWTOR not being an EA game.

    Dude..Just what it says: The whole pre-order and pricing circus reminded me that this is an EA game. No word about any CE editions or price comparison... I have bad experience with EA games and last time I checked EA owned Bioware. And both games made by Bioware since the acquisition (ME2 and DA2) did not impress me at all. I found them both oversimplified (go figure...). 

    EA owning Bioware has nothing to do with their games. If NCSoft was that way, well they would have no good games. To date there is only 2 games that I can recall which were well recieved. Do I consider NCSoft the reason for that? No. It is the developers that are responsible.

    If you don't like Bioware games, thats fine, no one is forcing you to change your opinion. Just don't staple a publishing company to a gaming company like they have a direct effect on the game. Sure, they may have release windows...but developers are given these windows long before any kind of investment is made and they have plenty of opportunity to change the game to support that. 

    The common wisdom is that EA pressured Bioware to release Dragon Age 2 early, and ended up with a game that was far inferior to it's predecessor.  EA has a habit of doing that and have been responsible for their fair share of gutted releases.  Spore could have been spectacular had it been permitted to continue development until the game was ready for release.  And EA isn't the only publisher who does that. 

    So saying that the publisher has no effect on a game is simply incorrect.  They can have an enormous impact.  And when they do, it's almost always a negative one.

    I rarely praise publishers, but I do have to give kudos to NCSoft for apparently keeping their hands off of Guild Wars 2 and letting ANet make their game.  To me, this is a big reason as to why it looks so promising.  I rather believe that if EA was involved, it would have been released already and we'd have to content ourselves with playing half a game.  But no worries, there would be plenty of DLC for us to pay for in short order -- at the expense of fixing bugs of course.

    Actually it's common knowledge that the game was rushed. This was already admitted. Hopefully it's a mistake they learn from. But I dont see how this is relevant considering how long SWTOR has been in development. I dont think polish or content will be an issue with SWTOR.

  • CelciusCelcius Posts: 1,039Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Unlight

    Originally posted by Celcius


    Originally posted by Vallador


    Originally posted by Celcius


    Originally posted by Vallador


    Originally posted by Celcius


    Originally posted by Vallador


    Originally posted by Celcius ...

    The whole pre-order and pricing circus? So what you are saying is that you think that EA pricing the standard copy of the game at the same price that GW 2 will be when it launches is going to result in a poor quality game just because EA is publishing it? Last I checked, this was a Bioware game. 

    I find that pretty amusing, especially when NC Soft does not exactly have a strong track record. But GW 2 is not an NC Soft game, it is an ArenaNet game. The same can be said about SWTOR not being an EA game.

    Dude..Just what it says: The whole pre-order and pricing circus reminded me that this is an EA game. No word about any CE editions or price comparison... I have bad experience with EA games and last time I checked EA owned Bioware. And both games made by Bioware since the acquisition (ME2 and DA2) did not impress me at all. I found them both oversimplified (go figure...). 

    EA owning Bioware has nothing to do with their games. If NCSoft was that way, well they would have no good games. To date there is only 2 games that I can recall which were well recieved. Do I consider NCSoft the reason for that? No. It is the developers that are responsible.

    If you don't like Bioware games, thats fine, no one is forcing you to change your opinion. Just don't staple a publishing company to a gaming company like they have a direct effect on the game. Sure, they may have release windows...but developers are given these windows long before any kind of investment is made and they have plenty of opportunity to change the game to support that. 

    The common wisdom is that EA pressured Bioware to release Dragon Age 2 early, and ended up with a game that was far inferior to it's predecessor.  EA has a habit of doing that and have been responsible for their fair share of gutted releases.  Spore could have been spectacular had it been permitted to continue development until the game was ready for release.  And EA isn't the only publisher who does that. 

    So saying that the publisher has no effect on a game is simply incorrect.  They can have an enormous impact.  And when they do, it's almost always a negative one.

    I rarely praise publishers, but I do have to give kudos to NCSoft for apparently keeping their hands off of Guild Wars 2 and letting ANet make their game.  To me, this is a big reason as to why it looks so promising.  I rather believe that if EA was involved, it would have been released already and we'd have to content ourselves with playing half a game.  But no worries, there would be plenty of DLC for us to pay for in short order -- at the expense of fixing bugs of course.

    I would love to see some proof for this "common wisdom" that EA pressured Bioware to release Dragon Age 2 early. Also, Dragon Age 2 was well recieved..just not as popular as previous Bioware games. It sold a few million and was a pretty large success. Just because you didn't like it does not mean other people did not. 

    Hell,I would like to see any proof that EA forced a company to release a game early. Not that I don't believe you, as I know that investors have an impact on a game's time table. (Though investors does not neccessarily include EA)

    I would love to see what gave you the idea that NCSoft is keeping their hands off of Guild Wars 2 as well. SWTOR won't have paid DLC, it will have expansions just like every other MMORPG. You also are kidding yourself if you don't think Guild Wars 2 will have bugs.

  • DromundDromund Peru, INPosts: 17Member

    Originally posted by Celcius

    Originally posted by Unlight


    Originally posted by Celcius


    Originally posted by Vallador


    Originally posted by Celcius


    Originally posted by Vallador


    Originally posted by Celcius


    Originally posted by Vallador


    Originally posted by Celcius ...

    The whole pre-order and pricing circus? So what you are saying is that you think that EA pricing the standard copy of the game at the same price that GW 2 will be when it launches is going to result in a poor quality game just because EA is publishing it? Last I checked, this was a Bioware game. 

    I find that pretty amusing, especially when NC Soft does not exactly have a strong track record. But GW 2 is not an NC Soft game, it is an ArenaNet game. The same can be said about SWTOR not being an EA game.

    Dude..Just what it says: The whole pre-order and pricing circus reminded me that this is an EA game. No word about any CE editions or price comparison... I have bad experience with EA games and last time I checked EA owned Bioware. And both games made by Bioware since the acquisition (ME2 and DA2) did not impress me at all. I found them both oversimplified (go figure...). 

    EA owning Bioware has nothing to do with their games. If NCSoft was that way, well they would have no good games. To date there is only 2 games that I can recall which were well recieved. Do I consider NCSoft the reason for that? No. It is the developers that are responsible.

    If you don't like Bioware games, thats fine, no one is forcing you to change your opinion. Just don't staple a publishing company to a gaming company like they have a direct effect on the game. Sure, they may have release windows...but developers are given these windows long before any kind of investment is made and they have plenty of opportunity to change the game to support that. 

    The common wisdom is that EA pressured Bioware to release Dragon Age 2 early, and ended up with a game that was far inferior to it's predecessor.  EA has a habit of doing that and have been responsible for their fair share of gutted releases.  Spore could have been spectacular had it been permitted to continue development until the game was ready for release.  And EA isn't the only publisher who does that. 

    So saying that the publisher has no effect on a game is simply incorrect.  They can have an enormous impact.  And when they do, it's almost always a negative one.

    I rarely praise publishers, but I do have to give kudos to NCSoft for apparently keeping their hands off of Guild Wars 2 and letting ANet make their game.  To me, this is a big reason as to why it looks so promising.  I rather believe that if EA was involved, it would have been released already and we'd have to content ourselves with playing half a game.  But no worries, there would be plenty of DLC for us to pay for in short order -- at the expense of fixing bugs of course.

    I would love to see some proof for this "common wisdom" that EA pressured Bioware to release Dragon Age 2 early. Also, Dragon Age 2 was well recieved..just not as popular as previous Bioware games. It sold a few million and was a pretty large success. Just because you didn't like it does not mean other people did not. 

    Hell,I would like to see any proof that EA forced a company to release a game early. Not that I don't believe you, as I know that investors have an impact on a game's time table. (Though investors does not neccessarily include EA)

    One of the composers made a claim that the game was rushed you dont have to believe it, but I do. That aside I agree, DA2 was still a good game. And I felt it made a lot of improvements, at the same time it took a few steps back.

  • BlahTeebBlahTeeb St. Paul, MNPosts: 624Member

    Originally posted by Celcius

    I would love to see some proof for this "common wisdom" that EA pressured Bioware to release Dragon Age 2 early. Also, Dragon Age 2 was well recieved..just not as popular as previous Bioware games. It sold a few million and was a pretty large success. Just because you didn't like it does not mean other people did not. 

    Hell,I would like to see any proof that EA forced a company to release a game early. Not that I don't believe you, as I know that investors have an impact on a game's time table. (Though investors does not neccessarily include EA)

    I would love to see what gave you the idea that NCSoft is keeping their hands off of Guild Wars 2 as well. SWTOR won't have paid DLC, it will have expansions just like every other MMORPG. You also are kidding yourself if you don't think Guild Wars 2 will have bugs.

    It seems the common thought is this...

     

    EA didn't let BioWare finish it's products, that's why they release so many "small" DLC. Had the game been in development for a bit longer, most if not all of the DLC could have implemented into the game before launch.

    If however, their intent was to release a game, and then release DLC the very day THE GAME WAS LAUNCHED... that is also pretty bad.

     

    Either EA won't let their developers finish, or they cut some stuff out to be sold later. Later as in within days and weeks of launch.

    That is the generall consensus. I honestly don't care, I never buy DLC anyways. I'm just hoping SWTOR won't have DLC added to the monthly fee and expansion packs...

  • CelciusCelcius Posts: 1,039Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Dromund

    Originally posted by Celcius


    Originally posted by Unlight


    Originally posted by Celcius


    Originally posted by Vallador


    Originally posted by Celcius


    Originally posted by Vallador


    Originally posted by Celcius


    Originally posted by Vallador


    Originally posted by Celcius ...

    The whole pre-order and pricing circus? So what you are saying is that you think that EA pricing the standard copy of the game at the same price that GW 2 will be when it launches is going to result in a poor quality game just because EA is publishing it? Last I checked, this was a Bioware game. 

    I find that pretty amusing, especially when NC Soft does not exactly have a strong track record. But GW 2 is not an NC Soft game, it is an ArenaNet game. The same can be said about SWTOR not being an EA game.

    Dude..Just what it says: The whole pre-order and pricing circus reminded me that this is an EA game. No word about any CE editions or price comparison... I have bad experience with EA games and last time I checked EA owned Bioware. And both games made by Bioware since the acquisition (ME2 and DA2) did not impress me at all. I found them both oversimplified (go figure...). 

    EA owning Bioware has nothing to do with their games. If NCSoft was that way, well they would have no good games. To date there is only 2 games that I can recall which were well recieved. Do I consider NCSoft the reason for that? No. It is the developers that are responsible.

    If you don't like Bioware games, thats fine, no one is forcing you to change your opinion. Just don't staple a publishing company to a gaming company like they have a direct effect on the game. Sure, they may have release windows...but developers are given these windows long before any kind of investment is made and they have plenty of opportunity to change the game to support that. 

    The common wisdom is that EA pressured Bioware to release Dragon Age 2 early, and ended up with a game that was far inferior to it's predecessor.  EA has a habit of doing that and have been responsible for their fair share of gutted releases.  Spore could have been spectacular had it been permitted to continue development until the game was ready for release.  And EA isn't the only publisher who does that. 

    So saying that the publisher has no effect on a game is simply incorrect.  They can have an enormous impact.  And when they do, it's almost always a negative one.

    I rarely praise publishers, but I do have to give kudos to NCSoft for apparently keeping their hands off of Guild Wars 2 and letting ANet make their game.  To me, this is a big reason as to why it looks so promising.  I rather believe that if EA was involved, it would have been released already and we'd have to content ourselves with playing half a game.  But no worries, there would be plenty of DLC for us to pay for in short order -- at the expense of fixing bugs of course.

    I would love to see some proof for this "common wisdom" that EA pressured Bioware to release Dragon Age 2 early. Also, Dragon Age 2 was well recieved..just not as popular as previous Bioware games. It sold a few million and was a pretty large success. Just because you didn't like it does not mean other people did not. 

    Hell,I would like to see any proof that EA forced a company to release a game early. Not that I don't believe you, as I know that investors have an impact on a game's time table. (Though investors does not neccessarily include EA)

    One of the composers made a claim that the game was rushed you dont have to believe it, but I do. That aside I agree, DA2 was still a good game. And I felt it made a lot of improvements, at the same time it took a few steps back.

    I am intrigued. Do you have a link to backup your claim?

  • cali59cali59 B, NYPosts: 1,634Member

    Originally posted by Neloth

    I was excited about GW2, but after a while I felt it does actually look like a WoW clone, except for the class builds and dynamic quests. The class system looks interesting but I have doubts about the dynamic quests, Rift tried "dynamic" and it wasn't so good afterall, Rift also tried the changeable classes/souls but it's really just an alt roll in disguise. There are a few other things but all in all I will believe it when I see it and it looks like closer to 2013 before we'll see the real deal. What else not from the WoW mold does it have other than the classes and dynamic quests?

     Well, I was going to list the differences, but once I hit 60 of them I figured it was too obnoxious to post them.

    "Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true – you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007

  • ZeroxinZeroxin LondonPosts: 2,499Member Uncommon

    Definitely buying Giv Was 2 but only maybe buying SWTOR.

    This is not a game.

This discussion has been closed.