We have 2 and a half weeks until early access, and the "critics" sure are coming out of everywhere - literally new accounts created daily - to come here and give detailed "reviews" telling us how terrible TOR is.
Lets take a few minutes out of our day to take a look back in TORs development , and view the 'history of hate', with some of the most frequent gripes about the game:
1) Its a NOT an MMO!:
Remember those days? When people saw that TOR would have voiceovers, cutscenes, thought the game wouldn't be multiplayer, or have some very light grouping? And here we are today with servers packed on the stress test weekend, queues lasting minutes, to half hours, to hours, and you can't be logged in for more than 5 minutes without seeing some type of grouping dialog.
2) Its not SWG, or a Sandbox!:
This we've been hearing forever, and people were somehow surprised when they had a chance to play recently, that BioWare - who is known for their STORYtelling, who outlined the entire project through years of updates, tradeshows, and in depth explanations - would create something completely different than what made them popular in the first place. Somehow, this very small subset believes because of this, SWTOR won't do well or have lasting appeal.... don't they think highly of themselves? The MMO world does not, nor has ever, revolved around sandbox gameplay, and nothing coming up on the horizon will change that.
3) Theres no Third Faction, PvP will suck!:
Somehow at some point, people got it in their head that in order for PvP to be balanced, there is a need for a third faction a la DAOC, but, 3 factions has nothing to do with balance. In fact, it has never been proven that 3 factions is any more balanced than 5 factions, 8 factions, or 15 factions. 2 faction PvP has been happening for years, and sure, it gets unbalanced sometimes, but adding a 3rd faction doesn't mean everything will suddenly become balanced.
4) Its a WoW clone with Voice Acting!:
People have always complained that the game is a WoW clone with ... or its WoW (in space). People like to pretend that if they use the acronym WoW, that it doesn't matter that its usually trailed by a caveat that denotes a prime difference to what WoW is. Its WoW with Voice Acting, Its WoW with an alignment system and choices. Its a WoW clone with Companions that craft for you. Its a WoW clone without an auto attack.
5) The Graphics are terrible!
As the game progressed and people started seeing more of the game, we started hearing more and more about how "terrible" the graphics were. Some people would blame it on the "stylized" art direction (though its just an art direction, nothing is really stylized here). But graphically something seemed amiss here. The idea behind the art direction and graphics in general, was scalability. Strangely enough, as optimization of the graphics engine came into play and things started looking much better, we started hearing about how games from 2004 looked better. How backwards is that? As the game progressed, people believed it looked WORSE?
Luckily we had one fan take it upon themself to respond and his response was glorious.
It seems all of the "critics" now would like to complain about how "childish" and "simple" SWTOR is, most likely due to its traditional nature. However, these criticisms are unfounded and from people with only a topical sense of the game. Sadly, these same people are likely those that played WoW for 6 years.
However, to accentuate the point of simplicity, by something being simple, you would believe that to be synonymous with being "easy" is that correct? To further portray it as such, you would go as far to call it childish.. but you see, even in some of the older videos we have seen MMO players, people who actually play MMOs often, that are not children, still get wiped on SWTORs content. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVOOnjXdDeI
We also have a number of accounts from critics complaining that the group content is too tough, and that you need a specific balance to beat even the low level flashpoints. Can we make up our minds? Is it too easy, or is it too tough? Can't we leave it at, the game has content that is challenging and some content that isn't?
These are, of course, just a few of the many criticisms, mostly unbalanced and/or baseless from those who can't just muster up the courage and say: "SWTOR isn't a bad game, its just NOT for ME." Because thats really what the problem is.
Its not to say that SWTOR is a perfect game, it has its share of issues, such as a non-customizable UI, and lackluster character creation, space combat, and housing, but these are issues that will likely be optimized in time, and they don't stop SWTOR from being a great game worthy of the BioWare, Star Wars, and MMO community.
Well said. I don't think the game is perfect either but it isn't crappy by a long shot. It's a far better game than SWG ever was and I look forward to playing it on release day.
Read the post you quoted, and your response. 'critics' (that must be the opposite of 'fanboi' I guess) some veiled personal insults, blah blah blah. You are debating the quality of the person posting and not the post, spiteful and pointless.
Anyway RE OP Post, If people dont like the game and want to discuss why on a mmorg forum they can, they are not all ranting lunitic critic/sandbox fanboi nutters who are novices. Some do rant ofc and should be ignored, but a lot of points are valid including some points you try to refute. To me it looks like a good game if you want to continue playing this kind of style of themepark, many don't. I think it looks unexciting and a boring rehash of what we have seen in the last decade, I want a fully immersive world, not cutscenes and end-game, but If I was a Star Wars fan then I would love it and I understand others will love this game. Not a problem there as far as I am concerned The game does what it says on the packet well, no need to rant really.
Just want to make sure I'm clear on this and that you read my post and not the post you thought I wrote.
What you're saying is, if people want to portray their opinions, even while being blissfully wrong in the process, thats okay, and that, in turn leads to some kind of revolution in the end.
So for them to say: The graphics are worse than a game from the 90s.... while being proven wrong that graphically the game is far superior than even games from recent years, that their opinions should be taken with the same respect and importance than the person that states simply: "This art style just isn't appealing for me. I think they could have created a more realistic art style and the game would have been far superior than what we have now". (sure I flowered it up, but you get the point, adding some constructive in that criticism and the troll disposition fades away)
Likewise, the game "Not being an MMO" is, again, as wrong as they come as you literally can log in to find hundreds if not thousands of players on your world, conversing in the chatspace, and in this situation, your holding your entire definition based on a semantic argument.... but at the end of the day when SWTOR isn't an MMO, hardly any MMOs are.
And what about the sanbox fans? Its okay for them to be angry at BioWare... who said they were going to create a themepark, because it isn't a sandbox game when we've had countless other MMOs breeze by with no sandbox elements, especially in recent years, without even a peep about how they should be sandbox titles instead. Does BioWare have to be held to a different standard simply because SWTOR is actually popular and those others go by unscathed? In that respect, is it ever okay to create a game that isn't a sandbox? Why is it that BioWare isn't allowed to create their game without hearing widespread criticism, yet, RIFT got a pass on its development?
How about being a WoW clone except it has all of these features that WoW doesn't have.... but... its still a WoW CLONE. I beleive this to be a case of seeing a game for ONLY its similarities, and dismissing everything else they specifically state as being different.
Listen I could keep going with each of my original points, but let me summarize, if you have issues with the game, its alright. The companions aren't for you, you don't like the art style, you are looking for MORE grouping, you don't like 2 factions, you want FPS style gameplay, I mean you can easily make thousands of valid arguments why you don't like the game, but this is why YOU like the game. Why are they putting this on the games failings when it is their OPINION based on what THEY don't like.
Why is it a failing of what BioWare did? If they "just changed" 3 things then someone else might like the game, but others wouldn't. Its okay to not like the game, but your opinion isn't BioWares failing, its your failure to enjoy something someone else created. It happens with TV, music, and books all the time, and pretending something has to be fundamentally broken to not like it would mean everything is broken. (as my op stated some things are actually broken, but those are not the "critics" issues we examine here)
Being a "clone", just means that you have the same DNA as another person who had that DNA before you did. Despite having same DNA, you can still develop into very different persons depending on the environment you grow up in. Being a clone of someone does not mean that you are exactly the same as another person, just the same DNA.
Therefore, it makes sense to speak of another game as a clone, if there is a lot of fundamental similarities.
SWTOR is what it is. Some people will love and others won't. I suppose what is happening is that everyone is trying to shout over the gobs, literal gobs, of opinions being expressed on this site so they feel they have to get louder and angrier.
Being a "clone", just means that you have the same DNA as another person who had that DNA before you did. Despite having same DNA, you can still develop into very different persons depending on the environment you grow up in. Being a clone of someone does not mean that you are exactly the same as another person, just the same DNA.
Therefore, it makes sense to speak of another game as a clone, if there is a lot of fundamental similarities.
This...Spot on
I think this is a pretty strange argument. Something being exactly alike.. meaning ... the DNA is exactly the same, you look the same, and you function the same, obviously doesn't mean you will act exactly the same... but this doesn't translate to MMOs.
It would be like saying you have two WoW servers, they look the same, they have the same mechanics, but at the end of the day the population on each of those servers plays differently. Some spend a lot of time in raids, while the other spends it in open world PvP.
SWTOR and WoW have fundamental differences. They do not have the same DNA... literally, as SWTOR was built on the Hero engine, and even the basic quests, while filing into a similar style have different visual cues. Hence, why theres always a caveat. The combat isn't EXACTLY like WoW.... you visuals, the crafting, the questing and story... I mean when you get down to it technically, each feature is different in some way. If by "Clone" you mean that the game has the same features... combat, crafting, raids and instanced and world PvP, or if it is a clone simply because it utilizes themepark style play, then that is unfortunate as most, if not all games would be considered just a clone of one another.
Being a "clone", just means that you have the same DNA as another person who had that DNA before you did. Despite having same DNA, you can still develop into very different persons depending on the environment you grow up in. Being a clone of someone does not mean that you are exactly the same as another person, just the same DNA.
Therefore, it makes sense to speak of another game as a clone, if there is a lot of fundamental similarities.
Just like many other MMOs before WoW! I mean really, WoW is the only MMO ever made!
Ive never understood why this is such adifficult concept for people to grasp.
Look at every single AAA MMO that came before WoW. The closest one to WoW's skill tree system was DAoC because you assigned points over a variety of skill lines which individualized your character, or took it down a path of abilities. But WoW's concept of a tree system was quite a bit different than DAoCs. Now take Rift. The skill tree system there works near identical, even the types of things you invest in are identical. Sure, they added the 'root' abilities to spice things up, but its a very minor change. SWG pretty much copy/pasted the system (which ironically WoW is doing away with). These two games, instead of coming up with their own system, copied directly from WoW. You do this with enough core gameplay systems (which Rift certainly did) you come up with a clone. Perhaps a more apt term would be mutant, but clone works well enough.
Yes, I think SWTOR is a WoW clone. I dont think thats necessarily a bad thing, as long as you put enough of your own spin on things. SWTOR certainly feels a lot less like WoW than Rift because of the sci fi setting and focus on the storytellingand trying to make the quests more engaging. And the key thing here is that Rift failed miserably with this (storytelling), because they ended up worse than WoW. SWTOR improved on WoW (well for most people) and it has nothing to do with lore, rather presentation of it and how it relates to you. Same thing with the crafting. Yes, SWTOR essentially uses WoWs 'gather materials, hit combine for a guaranteed success and skill up' system. But at least they added flair to it.
did. Despite having same DNA, you can still develop into very different persons depending on the environment you grow up in. Being a clone of someone does not mean that you are exactly the same as another person, just the same DNA.
Therefore, it makes sense to speak of another game as a clone, if there is a lot of fundamental
Being a "clone", just means that you have the same DNA as another person who had that DNA before you
similarities.
This...Spot on
I think this is a pretty strange argument. Something being exactly alike.. meaning ... the DNA is exactly the same, you look the same, and you function the same, obviously doesn't mean you will act exactly the same... but this doesn't translate to MMOs.
It would be like saying you have two WoW servers, they look the same, they have the same mechanics, but at the end of the day the population on each of those servers plays differently. Some spend a lot of time in raids, while the other spends it in open world PvP.
SWTOR and WoW have fundamental differences. They do not have the same DNA... literally, as SWTOR was built on the Hero engine, and even the basic quests, while filing into a similar style have different visual cues. Hence, why theres always a caveat. The combat isn't EXACTLY like WoW.... you visuals, the crafting, the questing and story... I mean when you get down to it technically, each feature is different in some way. If by "Clone" you mean that the game has the same features... combat, crafting, raids and instanced and world PvP, or if it is a clone simply because it utilizes themepark style play, then that is unfortunate as most, if not all games would be considered just a clone of one another.
You don't necessarily have to look the same. You will look similar and almost identical if you've lived similar lives, but if the lives are different enough (such as one being obese while the other one being of normal weight) there can be substantial differences in looks.
As for "functioning the same": what is that supposed to mean? For instance the risk for contracting several diseases is strongly dependant on how the life is lived.
Calling a game a "clone" is a way, through hyperbole, to complain about how similar the games are. Specially the MMORPG genre is plagued by that disease. Just look at the Adventure genre: The Metroid Prime series, the Castlevania series and the Zelda series sure share some similarities, but the differences are so huge that it would be ridiculous to bring up the term "clone" in that context; all of them are high quality by the way.
I had gotten the beta thanks to a fellow who showed me how to get into one last week ehre on the forums, and to be honest, I understand the people that have been playing for a while in betas and seen the graphics overhaul and see that its been drastic.
How ever I got into the game on Friday, as soon as I was out of char creation (which was horrible) and into the game, I saw the boxy art work, you know like when you see a circle, its not really a circle you see like edges to it so its liek hexagon lol, any how I over looked it, the lighting on the char made it all shiny. The water was....... lol ok lets not go there. The barrel roll to hide behind an object, no mater how far the object is, its still only one barrel roll to it, I thought that was not right. Trees/grass/landscape was soo unappealing, I actually got stuck at a point on a mushroom while i was running, yes a mushroom stopped me from going any further. So any how the graphics are so so, like the video shown in OPs post, its soo negitive because all the graphics its put against are ither medium or toned down to make tor look better.
The Story was awesome, I got past the graphics I liked the story for The Imperial Agent, it kept me going until, I was level 13 and had to take a break, so I PVP'd, Huttball is AWESOME! but I ended up in a team that did not knwo how to pass ever, so I just ended up with alot of kills decent exp. I mean I like good stories, but I just feel we are in the 2010s and graphics do mean alot these days.
I build my system just for the graphical enjoyment of this era. Don't get me wrong, I will be playign the game since alot of my buddies are also, But I do not see my self sticking around along with my friends.
The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true.
Couldn't agree with you more OP. I think a lot of people who are disappointed with TOR's overall direction are just grasping at straws looking for ANYTHING to complain about at this point...
You don't necessarily have to look the same. You will look similar and almost identical if you've lived similar lives, but if the lives are different enough (such as one being obese while the other one being of normal weight) there can be substantial differences in looks.
As for "functioning the same": what is that supposed to mean? For instance the risk for contracting several diseases is strongly dependant on how the life is lived.
Calling a game a "clone" is a way, through hyperbole, to complain about how similar the games are. Specially the MMORPG genre is plagued by that disease. Just look at the Adventure genre: The Metroid Prime series, the Castlevania series and the Zelda series sure share some similarities, but the differences are so huge that it would be ridiculous to bring up the term "clone" in that context; all of them are high quality by the way.
So, the question is, where does the term "clone" apply? Is it the combat? Even if there are differences- perhaps you may have missed it, but Borderlands has the exact same control scheme as Modern Warfare 2... yet you wouldn't expect it to be a clone of eachother, even if they have many similarities in gameplay and focus.
Likewise with the adventure genre (which is somewhat more diverse than other genres) you could look at games like Devil May Cry, and compare it to a game like Prototype, or God of War, and see many similarities, yet they don't suffer the same "clone" label MMOs do.
So wheres the line? Does a game have to be strikingly different in every way to not be called a clone? Most games can be broken down to their many similarities of their predecessors, and mostly accepted as a "clone" only when you dismiss any differences. My point is, by adding a caveat of differences signifies that there are differences apart from whatever similarities one might see. For example, we are both people, but we are not the same, but at the end of the day we might as well just be clones with exceptions in our appearance, attitudes, and experiences.
So, again, where does the term clone apply? It applies when focusing on negativity, and nothing more. Its a way to denegrate what BioWare has created simply because its not what you (not personally) want. A feature can have similarities, and those can be pinpointed and discussed, a blanket clone statement cannot, and is used derogatorily.
Even more interesting than the critics are people like you who are so invested in the success of this game, that you have to write long posts about people who don't care for it.
What I have read here, especially in the "have you changed your mind" thread, are mostly level-headed and reasonable posts both for and against the game. It's ok if people don't like your little game, I assure you. You can rest assured that you have played it and love it. Other people do not have to agree.
By the way, your entire post is what is called a Straw Man Argument, and anyone with half a brain can see right through it.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
So, the question is, where does the term "clone" apply? Is it the combat? Even if there are differences- perhaps you may have missed it, but Borderlands has the exact same control scheme as Modern Warfare 2... yet you wouldn't expect it to be a clone of eachother, even if they have many similarities in gameplay and focus.
Likewise with the adventure genre (which is somewhat more diverse than other genres) you could look at games like Devil May Cry, and compare it to a game like Prototype, or God of War, and see many similarities, yet they don't suffer the same "clone" label MMOs do.
So wheres the line? Does a game have to be strikingly different in every way to not be called a clone? Most games can be broken down to their many similarities of their predecessors, and mostly accepted as a "clone" only when you dismiss any differences. My point is, by adding a caveat of differences signifies that there are differences apart from whatever similarities one might see. For example, we are both people, but we are not the same, but at the end of the day we might as well just be clones with exceptions in our appearance, attitudes, and experiences.
So, again, where does the term clone apply? It applies when focusing on negativity, and nothing more. Its a way to denegrate what BioWare has created simply because its not what you (not personally) want. A feature can have similarities, and those can be pinpointed and discussed, a blanket clone statement cannot, and is used derogatorily.
This conversation is a bit silly . The word "clone" has been used in reference to video games since the 80's. It does not mean that same thing as it does when you talk about a clone of a living being. For reference, see here:
Here is the definition on that wikipedia page, I think it's a good one:
A video game clone is a video game or game series which is very similar to or heavily inspired by a previous popular game or game series. Some video game genres are founded by such archetypal games that all subsequent similar games are thought of as derivatives.
The term is sometimes derogatory, implying a lack of originality, however clones can be anything from a pure "ripoff", to a legitimate derivative or improvement on the original or even a homage.
Couldn't agree with you more OP. I think a lot of people who are disappointed with TOR's overall direction are just grasping at straws looking for ANYTHING to complain about at this point...
So is your theory that people really secretly like the game, and they are faking their dislike of TOR just for fun? Or do you think they are deluding themselves and are choosing to hate a game because they have nothing better to do?
People are allowed differening opinions. I'm sure I do many things you wouldn't enjoy such as hitting and getting hit in the face in my martial arts class, but that doesn't mean I think you are deluding yourself, or that I think you are just 'grasping at straws'. You love the game, and I think it's a sterile, boring experience. That's ok. We don't have to agree. It really shouldn't bother you if other people don't like something you like. It makes you sound insecure in your decision.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
Even more interesting that the critics, are people like you who are so invested in the success of this game, that you have to write long posts about people who don't care for it.
What I have read here, especially in the "have you changed your mind" thread, are mostly level-headed and reasonable posts both for and against the game. It's ok if people don't like your little game, I assure you. You can rest assured that you have played it and love it. Other people do not have to agree.
By the way, your entire post is what is called a Straw Man Argument, and anyone with half a brain can see right through it.
Which part is a straw man argument exactly? You fundamentally just agreed with me... yet you somehow feel you are superior because you "saw right through" my argument. People don't have to agree they played it and loved it, however, again, its not of the games failings they didn't love it. The game didn't do anything wrong... and yet we have people who have to point fingers at every little thing to justify they didn't like it.
I actually don't think you read the initial post at all... either that or you didn't comprehend the point I was making.
So, the question is, where does the term "clone" apply? Is it the combat? Even if there are differences- perhaps you may have missed it, but Borderlands has the exact same control scheme as Modern Warfare 2... yet you wouldn't expect it to be a clone of eachother, even if they have many similarities in gameplay and focus.
Likewise with the adventure genre (which is somewhat more diverse than other genres) you could look at games like Devil May Cry, and compare it to a game like Prototype, or God of War, and see many similarities, yet they don't suffer the same "clone" label MMOs do.
So wheres the line? Does a game have to be strikingly different in every way to not be called a clone? Most games can be broken down to their many similarities of their predecessors, and mostly accepted as a "clone" only when you dismiss any differences. My point is, by adding a caveat of differences signifies that there are differences apart from whatever similarities one might see. For example, we are both people, but we are not the same, but at the end of the day we might as well just be clones with exceptions in our appearance, attitudes, and experiences.
So, again, where does the term clone apply? It applies when focusing on negativity, and nothing more. Its a way to denegrate what BioWare has created simply because its not what you (not personally) want. A feature can have similarities, and those can be pinpointed and discussed, a blanket clone statement cannot, and is used derogatorily.
This conversation is a bit silly . The word "clone" has been used in reference to video games since the 80's. It does not mean that same thing as it does when you talk about a clone of a living being. For reference, see here:
Here is the definition on that wikipedia page, I think it's a good one:
A video game clone is a video game or game series which is very similar to or heavily inspired by a previous popular game or game series. Some video game genres are founded by such archetypal games that all subsequent similar games are thought of as derivatives.
The term is sometimes derogatory, implying a lack of originality, however clones can be anything from a pure "ripoff", to a legitimate derivative or improvement on the original or even a homage.
So, essentially, everything is a clone then. And somehow this is better?
Even more interesting that the critics, are people like you who are so invested in the success of this game, that you have to write long posts about people who don't care for it.
What I have read here, especially in the "have you changed your mind" thread, are mostly level-headed and reasonable posts both for and against the game. It's ok if people don't like your little game, I assure you. You can rest assured that you have played it and love it. Other people do not have to agree.
By the way, your entire post is what is called a Straw Man Argument, and anyone with half a brain can see right through it.
Which part is a straw man argument exactly? You fundamentally just agreed with me... yet you somehow feel you are superior because you "saw right through" my argument. People don't have to agree they played it and loved it, however, again, its not of the games failings they didn't love it. The game didn't do anything wrong... and yet we have people who have to point fingers at every little thing to justify they didn't like it.
I actually don't think you read the initial post at all... either that or you didn't comprehend the point I was making.
{mod edit}
{mod edit}
Do you know what a straw man argument is? It's where you present a simplified or altered version of an opposing argument in order to garner support for your own position. You reduced people's problems with SWTOR down to very simplified points that don't even scratch the surface of the well thought-out complaints I have seen posted. You did this to make your position sound better. That is a straw man argument. You even have people agreeing with you here that somehow people who don't like this game are deluding themselves, and that is just ludicrous.
Who here, other than you, has objectified the game, and then pretended that the game attacked them or "did something wrong"? What I see is a bunch of people who care about gaming in general, and they are discussing the pros and cons of SWTOR. The question you should be asking is why you are so emotionally invested in everyone loving it.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
So, the question is, where does the term "clone" apply? Is it the combat? Even if there are differences- perhaps you may have missed it, but Borderlands has the exact same control scheme as Modern Warfare 2... yet you wouldn't expect it to be a clone of eachother, even if they have many similarities in gameplay and focus.
Likewise with the adventure genre (which is somewhat more diverse than other genres) you could look at games like Devil May Cry, and compare it to a game like Prototype, or God of War, and see many similarities, yet they don't suffer the same "clone" label MMOs do.
So wheres the line? Does a game have to be strikingly different in every way to not be called a clone? Most games can be broken down to their many similarities of their predecessors, and mostly accepted as a "clone" only when you dismiss any differences. My point is, by adding a caveat of differences signifies that there are differences apart from whatever similarities one might see. For example, we are both people, but we are not the same, but at the end of the day we might as well just be clones with exceptions in our appearance, attitudes, and experiences.
So, again, where does the term clone apply? It applies when focusing on negativity, and nothing more. Its a way to denegrate what BioWare has created simply because its not what you (not personally) want. A feature can have similarities, and those can be pinpointed and discussed, a blanket clone statement cannot, and is used derogatorily.
This conversation is a bit silly . The word "clone" has been used in reference to video games since the 80's. It does not mean that same thing as it does when you talk about a clone of a living being. For reference, see here:
Here is the definition on that wikipedia page, I think it's a good one:
A video game clone is a video game or game series which is very similar to or heavily inspired by a previous popular game or game series. Some video game genres are founded by such archetypal games that all subsequent similar games are thought of as derivatives.
The term is sometimes derogatory, implying a lack of originality, however clones can be anything from a pure "ripoff", to a legitimate derivative or improvement on the original or even a homage.
So, essentially, everything is a clone then. And somehow this is better?
Hahah no no, you misunderstand.
A clone is just a game that is "similar to or heavily inspired by a previous popular game." In its time, Warcraft was considered a Dune 2 clone because they were the only RTS games in existence (the genre didn't exist). Over time though, people found that this new design paradigm (later known at RTS) provided enough depth and options for several different kind of games, and a new genre was born.
As for WoW clones, I would classify games like Rift and Aion to be WoW clones. They are just so similar to WoW in so many different ways. In addition, I don't think that the (very restrictive) WoW model provides enough depth to support a genre of games. Each WoW clone is just too similar to the last.
As for SWTOR...I wouldn't classify it as a WoW clone. I think it's basically WoW and KOTOR smashed together. The MMORPG portions of it however, are basically a WoW clone though.
You don't necessarily have to look the same. You will look similar and almost identical if you've lived similar lives, but if the lives are different enough (such as one being obese while the other one being of normal weight) there can be substantial differences in looks.
As for "functioning the same": what is that supposed to mean? For instance the risk for contracting several diseases is strongly dependant on how the life is lived.
Calling a game a "clone" is a way, through hyperbole, to complain about how similar the games are. Specially the MMORPG genre is plagued by that disease. Just look at the Adventure genre: The Metroid Prime series, the Castlevania series and the Zelda series sure share some similarities, but the differences are so huge that it would be ridiculous to bring up the term "clone" in that context; all of them are high quality by the way.
So, the question is, where does the term "clone" apply? Is it the combat? Even if there are differences- perhaps you may have missed it, but Borderlands has the exact same control scheme as Modern Warfare 2... yet you wouldn't expect it to be a clone of eachother, even if they have many similarities in gameplay and focus.
Likewise with the adventure genre (which is somewhat more diverse than other genres) you could look at games like Devil May Cry, and compare it to a game like Prototype, or God of War, and see many similarities, yet they don't suffer the same "clone" label MMOs do.
So wheres the line? Does a game have to be strikingly different in every way to not be called a clone? Most games can be broken down to their many similarities of their predecessors, and mostly accepted as a "clone" only when you dismiss any differences. My point is, by adding a caveat of differences signifies that there are differences apart from whatever similarities one might see. For example, we are both people, but we are not the same, but at the end of the day we might as well just be clones with exceptions in our appearance, attitudes, and experiences.
So, again, where does the term clone apply? It applies when focusing on negativity, and nothing more. Its a way to denegrate what BioWare has created simply because its not what you (not personally) want. A feature can have similarities, and those can be pinpointed and discussed, a blanket clone statement cannot, and is used derogatorily.
The term clone applies as a hyperbole whenever a person subjectively thinks that one game is very similar to another one. Whether or not the player enjoys the clone, is subjective.
The "line" is not necessary to precisely define if the two extremes are easy to reckognize. We can clearly point at two extremes and agree that for instance EVE Online is no WoW clone, while 4story is.
A game developer can attempt to minimize this feeling by creating a substantial difference in how the game looks and feels.
As for discussing whether one feels a game is a clone or not: you surely can by discussing the differences and similarities.
Wasn't expecting to get to play the game until January (currently in a red zone and my travel laptop barely runs eight year old games, let alone new ones), but a buddy of mine got into the beta (thanks VPN proxy companies) so I got to play the beta a fair bit this weekend. Bioware came accross with exactly what they promised, a traditional MMO based on Star Wars, and very inspired by their Knights of the Old Republic games, with tons of interactive voice acted story lines. For quite a few gamers SWTOR should be exactly what they are looking for.
Just a belated heads up: You did not have to be in a "green zone" to be part of this beta. I'm in a red zone and I was invited to the weekend beta, and played it without any problems whatsoever. You didn't need VPNs or such. Also, you'll be able to buy the game from somewhere like amazon and play it at launch. They're not ip-blocking you or anything.
As for the topic, I think the OP is dumping all the criticism into a pool to make up a clumsy dragon he can make a mockery of. This is definitely not the right way to discuss criticism. Of course the critics "can't make up their minds" because, well, they're different people, not one individual. Neither The People's Liberation Front of Judea. Everybody may have their own concerns and qualms with a game's design decisions, and treating various reservations as if they're part of a master conspiracy does not help.
And I honestly can't see the point with the "Just say it's not for me" argument. It's a childish argument. You can't discuss art and entertainment this way - you actually, physically cannot discuss it, it's a discussion-killer. It's the argument for people who do not like and cannot stand discussion that involves conflict. If you're going to go no further than "it's for me" / "it's not for me", why discuss anything at all? On the forums, of all places?
Case in point: I know the art style in SWTOR "is not for me", no discussing that, but then I can go ahead and argue it's also the "wrong" design decision where Star Wars is concerned. I don't have to "prove" I'm right, this is not physical sciences, I just have to build a sensical, detailed and if possible insightful argument. This is how criticism works in general.
Id like to point out u dont see day old accounts on here defending the game its the same people been defending it prior to this weekend and the same people stilld efending it.
Those that have played it in beta seem to enjoy themselves alot from wht i can take from chat.
That said I also get annoyed the people putting the game down dont just make 1 hater thread they make 10
A person likes it makes 1 post on how much they love the game get hijacked by the same people who have posted 10 hate threds .
Id just like to point out the people who love this game defend it yes. They dont go around making post after post after post about that love.
We dont go around creating guys for the purpose of hidng like the haters do. U can hate tor i dont have an issue with that its when u spout untruth about the game i come to its defense.
Ill admit the ui is an issue for some as is chaaracter creatot . Even i want more choices i dont need alot of choices for my guy.
Ill admit some dont like the art style i like it but some dont. Some have said they hve texture issues i havent had any but maybe its cause im more into the story then the textures. I love the scenery that i may miss that its grainy here or there or something.
Im not saying tor is perfect just its the most fun ive ever had in an mmo. The more i play the more i wanna play.
I just wanna make this message for so people know. They arent region locking tor.
U can buy tor on a us store or eu one and play it from whereever u live they will let u . u just have to deal with lag or latency u get from being so far from the servers.
They just arent gonna launch with servers in australia or china or such but u can still buy and play tor on eu or us servers.
Even more interesting that the critics, are people like you who are so invested in the success of this game, that you have to write long posts about people who don't care for it.
What I have read here, especially in the "have you changed your mind" thread, are mostly level-headed and reasonable posts both for and against the game. It's ok if people don't like your little game, I assure you. You can rest assured that you have played it and love it. Other people do not have to agree.
By the way, your entire post is what is called a Straw Man Argument, and anyone with half a brain can see right through it.
Which part is a straw man argument exactly? You fundamentally just agreed with me... yet you somehow feel you are superior because you "saw right through" my argument. People don't have to agree they played it and loved it, however, again, its not of the games failings they didn't love it. The game didn't do anything wrong... and yet we have people who have to point fingers at every little thing to justify they didn't like it.
I actually don't think you read the initial post at all... either that or you didn't comprehend the point I was making.
::incoming "I understood it and know everything" rebuttal
I like how you have to try to defuse my reply with some sort of denigrating pre-emptive strike at the end of your post. Grow up.
Do you know what a straw man argument is? It's where you present a simplified or altered version of an opposing argument in order to garner support for your own position. You reduced people's problems with SWTOR down to very simplified points that don't even scratch the surface of the well thought-out complaints I have seen posted. You did this to make your position sound better. That is a straw man argument. You even have people agreeing with you here that somehow people who don't like this game are deluding themselves, and that is just ludicrous.
Who here, other than you, has objectified the game, and then pretended that the game attacked them or "did something wrong"? What I see is a bunch of people who care about gaming in general, and they are discussing the pros and cons of SWTOR. The question you should be asking is why you are so emotionally invested in everyone loving it.
What can I say, call it a pre-emptive strike if you want, but what exactly are you trying to accomplish? You started an argument with me over my original post, where I simply pointed out some categorical flaws in arguments that I clearly represented when speaking about them. And your rebuttal was that I oversimplified the argument, which is the very same thing I was speaking about in the first place, a vast oversimplification of features, and random blanket statements with no substance.
Also, please point me to the well thought out complaints that you've seen posted. I can point you to a number of complaints that are well made, I can also point you to many that are terrible and pointless.
At the end of the day these opinions are generated and are a means to an end. They come here to give an opinion, be it a well thought out one, or not, and what follows is a discussion that results in nothing lost and nothing gained. What you should be asking yourself is, why must you post repeatedly in a thread, where the topic is specifically focused on certain critical complaints, and try to confront it with slipshod rhetoric? Does it really change anything?
You had a choice here, you could have come in to this thread and listed the articles you felt were well though out, or you could have disagreed and told me that you feel everyones points are valid, or you could have gone about your post plenty of different ways, but instead you took the low route and criticised my reasoning - which should be pretty obvious - as this is a discussion forum and the idea should be inherent in the name.
And again, you seem to think that my point for the original post was to, what, increase SWTORs profile? What other people do in SWTOR doesn't bother me unless I'm playing with them specifically, and how well the game does will not change the fact that I will be playing it until I get bored. SWTOR having recurring subs for 8 years won't change anything if I get bored playing the game after a month. (I've been playing for nearly 5 already).
The game is what it is. You don't have to like it. Nobody has to like it. That doesn't mean its the games fault, so, to reiterate my point, don't act like it is.
So, essentially, everything is a clone then. And somehow this is better?
Hahah no no, you misunderstand.
A clone is just a game that is "similar to or heavily inspired by a previous popular game." In its time, Warcraft was considered a Dune 2 clone because they were the only RTS games in existence (the genre didn't exist). Over time though, people found that this new design paradigm (later known at RTS) provided enough depth and options for several different kind of games, and a new genre was born.
As for WoW clones, I would classify games like Rift and Aion to be WoW clones. They are just so similar to WoW in so many different ways. In addition, I don't think that the (very restrictive) WoW model provides enough depth to support a genre of games. Each WoW clone is just too similar to the last.
As for SWTOR...I wouldn't classify it as a WoW clone. I think it's basically WoW and KOTOR smashed together. The MMORPG portions of it however, are basically a WoW clone though.
I think thats where the "confusion" sets in. There are portions of the game with vast similarities, and other parts that have stark differences. There is a *line* here, but it isn't defined, it is based on various opinion. While, like you said, you felt the game wasn't a clone, yet some aspect of its multiplayer were, others seem to employ the term clone as a blanket statement, and so on.
Personally I don't like the term "clone" even when speaking about similarities. Semantics, maybe, but I feel saying something is a clone diminishes what a developer is trying to accomplish.
Comments
Well said. I don't think the game is perfect either but it isn't crappy by a long shot. It's a far better game than SWG ever was and I look forward to playing it on release day.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
Just want to make sure I'm clear on this and that you read my post and not the post you thought I wrote.
What you're saying is, if people want to portray their opinions, even while being blissfully wrong in the process, thats okay, and that, in turn leads to some kind of revolution in the end.
So for them to say: The graphics are worse than a game from the 90s.... while being proven wrong that graphically the game is far superior than even games from recent years, that their opinions should be taken with the same respect and importance than the person that states simply: "This art style just isn't appealing for me. I think they could have created a more realistic art style and the game would have been far superior than what we have now". (sure I flowered it up, but you get the point, adding some constructive in that criticism and the troll disposition fades away)
Likewise, the game "Not being an MMO" is, again, as wrong as they come as you literally can log in to find hundreds if not thousands of players on your world, conversing in the chatspace, and in this situation, your holding your entire definition based on a semantic argument.... but at the end of the day when SWTOR isn't an MMO, hardly any MMOs are.
And what about the sanbox fans? Its okay for them to be angry at BioWare... who said they were going to create a themepark, because it isn't a sandbox game when we've had countless other MMOs breeze by with no sandbox elements, especially in recent years, without even a peep about how they should be sandbox titles instead. Does BioWare have to be held to a different standard simply because SWTOR is actually popular and those others go by unscathed? In that respect, is it ever okay to create a game that isn't a sandbox? Why is it that BioWare isn't allowed to create their game without hearing widespread criticism, yet, RIFT got a pass on its development?
How about being a WoW clone except it has all of these features that WoW doesn't have.... but... its still a WoW CLONE. I beleive this to be a case of seeing a game for ONLY its similarities, and dismissing everything else they specifically state as being different.
Listen I could keep going with each of my original points, but let me summarize, if you have issues with the game, its alright. The companions aren't for you, you don't like the art style, you are looking for MORE grouping, you don't like 2 factions, you want FPS style gameplay, I mean you can easily make thousands of valid arguments why you don't like the game, but this is why YOU like the game. Why are they putting this on the games failings when it is their OPINION based on what THEY don't like.
Why is it a failing of what BioWare did? If they "just changed" 3 things then someone else might like the game, but others wouldn't. Its okay to not like the game, but your opinion isn't BioWares failing, its your failure to enjoy something someone else created. It happens with TV, music, and books all the time, and pretending something has to be fundamentally broken to not like it would mean everything is broken. (as my op stated some things are actually broken, but those are not the "critics" issues we examine here)
This...Spot on
Well said, and true.
OP, you just nailed it.
One of the best write-up's I've seen yet for SWTOR. (I'm not going to be playing SWTOR, but I always appreciate a level-headed and intelligent post).
I think this is a pretty strange argument. Something being exactly alike.. meaning ... the DNA is exactly the same, you look the same, and you function the same, obviously doesn't mean you will act exactly the same... but this doesn't translate to MMOs.
It would be like saying you have two WoW servers, they look the same, they have the same mechanics, but at the end of the day the population on each of those servers plays differently. Some spend a lot of time in raids, while the other spends it in open world PvP.
SWTOR and WoW have fundamental differences. They do not have the same DNA... literally, as SWTOR was built on the Hero engine, and even the basic quests, while filing into a similar style have different visual cues. Hence, why theres always a caveat. The combat isn't EXACTLY like WoW.... you visuals, the crafting, the questing and story... I mean when you get down to it technically, each feature is different in some way. If by "Clone" you mean that the game has the same features... combat, crafting, raids and instanced and world PvP, or if it is a clone simply because it utilizes themepark style play, then that is unfortunate as most, if not all games would be considered just a clone of one another.
Ive never understood why this is such adifficult concept for people to grasp.
Look at every single AAA MMO that came before WoW. The closest one to WoW's skill tree system was DAoC because you assigned points over a variety of skill lines which individualized your character, or took it down a path of abilities. But WoW's concept of a tree system was quite a bit different than DAoCs. Now take Rift. The skill tree system there works near identical, even the types of things you invest in are identical. Sure, they added the 'root' abilities to spice things up, but its a very minor change. SWG pretty much copy/pasted the system (which ironically WoW is doing away with). These two games, instead of coming up with their own system, copied directly from WoW. You do this with enough core gameplay systems (which Rift certainly did) you come up with a clone. Perhaps a more apt term would be mutant, but clone works well enough.
Yes, I think SWTOR is a WoW clone. I dont think thats necessarily a bad thing, as long as you put enough of your own spin on things. SWTOR certainly feels a lot less like WoW than Rift because of the sci fi setting and focus on the storytellingand trying to make the quests more engaging. And the key thing here is that Rift failed miserably with this (storytelling), because they ended up worse than WoW. SWTOR improved on WoW (well for most people) and it has nothing to do with lore, rather presentation of it and how it relates to you. Same thing with the crafting. Yes, SWTOR essentially uses WoWs 'gather materials, hit combine for a guaranteed success and skill up' system. But at least they added flair to it.
You don't necessarily have to look the same. You will look similar and almost identical if you've lived similar lives, but if the lives are different enough (such as one being obese while the other one being of normal weight) there can be substantial differences in looks.
As for "functioning the same": what is that supposed to mean? For instance the risk for contracting several diseases is strongly dependant on how the life is lived.
Calling a game a "clone" is a way, through hyperbole, to complain about how similar the games are. Specially the MMORPG genre is plagued by that disease. Just look at the Adventure genre: The Metroid Prime series, the Castlevania series and the Zelda series sure share some similarities, but the differences are so huge that it would be ridiculous to bring up the term "clone" in that context; all of them are high quality by the way.
I had gotten the beta thanks to a fellow who showed me how to get into one last week ehre on the forums, and to be honest, I understand the people that have been playing for a while in betas and seen the graphics overhaul and see that its been drastic.
How ever I got into the game on Friday, as soon as I was out of char creation (which was horrible) and into the game, I saw the boxy art work, you know like when you see a circle, its not really a circle you see like edges to it so its liek hexagon lol, any how I over looked it, the lighting on the char made it all shiny. The water was....... lol ok lets not go there. The barrel roll to hide behind an object, no mater how far the object is, its still only one barrel roll to it, I thought that was not right. Trees/grass/landscape was soo unappealing, I actually got stuck at a point on a mushroom while i was running, yes a mushroom stopped me from going any further. So any how the graphics are so so, like the video shown in OPs post, its soo negitive because all the graphics its put against are ither medium or toned down to make tor look better.
The Story was awesome, I got past the graphics I liked the story for The Imperial Agent, it kept me going until, I was level 13 and had to take a break, so I PVP'd, Huttball is AWESOME! but I ended up in a team that did not knwo how to pass ever, so I just ended up with alot of kills decent exp. I mean I like good stories, but I just feel we are in the 2010s and graphics do mean alot these days.
I build my system just for the graphical enjoyment of this era. Don't get me wrong, I will be playign the game since alot of my buddies are also, But I do not see my self sticking around along with my friends.
The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true.
Carl Sagan-
Couldn't agree with you more OP. I think a lot of people who are disappointed with TOR's overall direction are just grasping at straws looking for ANYTHING to complain about at this point...
So, the question is, where does the term "clone" apply? Is it the combat? Even if there are differences- perhaps you may have missed it, but Borderlands has the exact same control scheme as Modern Warfare 2... yet you wouldn't expect it to be a clone of eachother, even if they have many similarities in gameplay and focus.
Likewise with the adventure genre (which is somewhat more diverse than other genres) you could look at games like Devil May Cry, and compare it to a game like Prototype, or God of War, and see many similarities, yet they don't suffer the same "clone" label MMOs do.
So wheres the line? Does a game have to be strikingly different in every way to not be called a clone? Most games can be broken down to their many similarities of their predecessors, and mostly accepted as a "clone" only when you dismiss any differences. My point is, by adding a caveat of differences signifies that there are differences apart from whatever similarities one might see. For example, we are both people, but we are not the same, but at the end of the day we might as well just be clones with exceptions in our appearance, attitudes, and experiences.
So, again, where does the term clone apply? It applies when focusing on negativity, and nothing more. Its a way to denegrate what BioWare has created simply because its not what you (not personally) want. A feature can have similarities, and those can be pinpointed and discussed, a blanket clone statement cannot, and is used derogatorily.
Even more interesting than the critics are people like you who are so invested in the success of this game, that you have to write long posts about people who don't care for it.
What I have read here, especially in the "have you changed your mind" thread, are mostly level-headed and reasonable posts both for and against the game. It's ok if people don't like your little game, I assure you. You can rest assured that you have played it and love it. Other people do not have to agree.
By the way, your entire post is what is called a Straw Man Argument, and anyone with half a brain can see right through it.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
This conversation is a bit silly
. The word "clone" has been used in reference to video games since the 80's. It does not mean that same thing as it does when you talk about a clone of a living being. For reference, see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_clone
Here is the definition on that wikipedia page, I think it's a good one:
A video game clone is a video game or game series which is very similar to or heavily inspired by a previous popular game or game series. Some video game genres are founded by such archetypal games that all subsequent similar games are thought of as derivatives.
The term is sometimes derogatory, implying a lack of originality, however clones can be anything from a pure "ripoff", to a legitimate derivative or improvement on the original or even a homage.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
So is your theory that people really secretly like the game, and they are faking their dislike of TOR just for fun? Or do you think they are deluding themselves and are choosing to hate a game because they have nothing better to do?
People are allowed differening opinions. I'm sure I do many things you wouldn't enjoy such as hitting and getting hit in the face in my martial arts class, but that doesn't mean I think you are deluding yourself, or that I think you are just 'grasping at straws'. You love the game, and I think it's a sterile, boring experience. That's ok. We don't have to agree. It really shouldn't bother you if other people don't like something you like. It makes you sound insecure in your decision.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
Which part is a straw man argument exactly? You fundamentally just agreed with me... yet you somehow feel you are superior because you "saw right through" my argument. People don't have to agree they played it and loved it, however, again, its not of the games failings they didn't love it. The game didn't do anything wrong... and yet we have people who have to point fingers at every little thing to justify they didn't like it.
I actually don't think you read the initial post at all... either that or you didn't comprehend the point I was making.
{mod edit}
So, essentially, everything is a clone then. And somehow this is better?
{mod edit}
Do you know what a straw man argument is? It's where you present a simplified or altered version of an opposing argument in order to garner support for your own position. You reduced people's problems with SWTOR down to very simplified points that don't even scratch the surface of the well thought-out complaints I have seen posted. You did this to make your position sound better. That is a straw man argument. You even have people agreeing with you here that somehow people who don't like this game are deluding themselves, and that is just ludicrous.
Who here, other than you, has objectified the game, and then pretended that the game attacked them or "did something wrong"? What I see is a bunch of people who care about gaming in general, and they are discussing the pros and cons of SWTOR. The question you should be asking is why you are so emotionally invested in everyone loving it.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
Hahah no no, you misunderstand.
A clone is just a game that is "similar to or heavily inspired by a previous popular game." In its time, Warcraft was considered a Dune 2 clone because they were the only RTS games in existence (the genre didn't exist). Over time though, people found that this new design paradigm (later known at RTS) provided enough depth and options for several different kind of games, and a new genre was born.
As for WoW clones, I would classify games like Rift and Aion to be WoW clones. They are just so similar to WoW in so many different ways. In addition, I don't think that the (very restrictive) WoW model provides enough depth to support a genre of games. Each WoW clone is just too similar to the last.
As for SWTOR...I wouldn't classify it as a WoW clone. I think it's basically WoW and KOTOR smashed together. The MMORPG portions of it however, are basically a WoW clone though.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
The term clone applies as a hyperbole whenever a person subjectively thinks that one game is very similar to another one. Whether or not the player enjoys the clone, is subjective.
The "line" is not necessary to precisely define if the two extremes are easy to reckognize. We can clearly point at two extremes and agree that for instance EVE Online is no WoW clone, while 4story is.
A game developer can attempt to minimize this feeling by creating a substantial difference in how the game looks and feels.
As for discussing whether one feels a game is a clone or not: you surely can by discussing the differences and similarities.
Just a belated heads up: You did not have to be in a "green zone" to be part of this beta. I'm in a red zone and I was invited to the weekend beta, and played it without any problems whatsoever. You didn't need VPNs or such. Also, you'll be able to buy the game from somewhere like amazon and play it at launch. They're not ip-blocking you or anything.
As for the topic, I think the OP is dumping all the criticism into a pool to make up a clumsy dragon he can make a mockery of. This is definitely not the right way to discuss criticism. Of course the critics "can't make up their minds" because, well, they're different people, not one individual. Neither The People's Liberation Front of Judea. Everybody may have their own concerns and qualms with a game's design decisions, and treating various reservations as if they're part of a master conspiracy does not help.
And I honestly can't see the point with the "Just say it's not for me" argument. It's a childish argument. You can't discuss art and entertainment this way - you actually, physically cannot discuss it, it's a discussion-killer. It's the argument for people who do not like and cannot stand discussion that involves conflict. If you're going to go no further than "it's for me" / "it's not for me", why discuss anything at all? On the forums, of all places?
Case in point: I know the art style in SWTOR "is not for me", no discussing that, but then I can go ahead and argue it's also the "wrong" design decision where Star Wars is concerned. I don't have to "prove" I'm right, this is not physical sciences, I just have to build a sensical, detailed and if possible insightful argument. This is how criticism works in general.
Id like to point out u dont see day old accounts on here defending the game its the same people been defending it prior to this weekend and the same people stilld efending it.
Those that have played it in beta seem to enjoy themselves alot from wht i can take from chat.
That said I also get annoyed the people putting the game down dont just make 1 hater thread they make 10
A person likes it makes 1 post on how much they love the game get hijacked by the same people who have posted 10 hate threds .
Id just like to point out the people who love this game defend it yes. They dont go around making post after post after post about that love.
We dont go around creating guys for the purpose of hidng like the haters do. U can hate tor i dont have an issue with that its when u spout untruth about the game i come to its defense.
Ill admit the ui is an issue for some as is chaaracter creatot . Even i want more choices i dont need alot of choices for my guy.
Ill admit some dont like the art style i like it but some dont. Some have said they hve texture issues i havent had any but maybe its cause im more into the story then the textures. I love the scenery that i may miss that its grainy here or there or something.
Im not saying tor is perfect just its the most fun ive ever had in an mmo. The more i play the more i wanna play.
I just wanna make this message for so people know. They arent region locking tor.
U can buy tor on a us store or eu one and play it from whereever u live they will let u . u just have to deal with lag or latency u get from being so far from the servers.
They just arent gonna launch with servers in australia or china or such but u can still buy and play tor on eu or us servers.
What can I say, call it a pre-emptive strike if you want, but what exactly are you trying to accomplish? You started an argument with me over my original post, where I simply pointed out some categorical flaws in arguments that I clearly represented when speaking about them. And your rebuttal was that I oversimplified the argument, which is the very same thing I was speaking about in the first place, a vast oversimplification of features, and random blanket statements with no substance.
Also, please point me to the well thought out complaints that you've seen posted. I can point you to a number of complaints that are well made, I can also point you to many that are terrible and pointless.
At the end of the day these opinions are generated and are a means to an end. They come here to give an opinion, be it a well thought out one, or not, and what follows is a discussion that results in nothing lost and nothing gained. What you should be asking yourself is, why must you post repeatedly in a thread, where the topic is specifically focused on certain critical complaints, and try to confront it with slipshod rhetoric? Does it really change anything?
You had a choice here, you could have come in to this thread and listed the articles you felt were well though out, or you could have disagreed and told me that you feel everyones points are valid, or you could have gone about your post plenty of different ways, but instead you took the low route and criticised my reasoning - which should be pretty obvious - as this is a discussion forum and the idea should be inherent in the name.
And again, you seem to think that my point for the original post was to, what, increase SWTORs profile? What other people do in SWTOR doesn't bother me unless I'm playing with them specifically, and how well the game does will not change the fact that I will be playing it until I get bored. SWTOR having recurring subs for 8 years won't change anything if I get bored playing the game after a month. (I've been playing for nearly 5 already).
The game is what it is. You don't have to like it. Nobody has to like it. That doesn't mean its the games fault, so, to reiterate my point, don't act like it is.
I think thats where the "confusion" sets in. There are portions of the game with vast similarities, and other parts that have stark differences. There is a *line* here, but it isn't defined, it is based on various opinion. While, like you said, you felt the game wasn't a clone, yet some aspect of its multiplayer were, others seem to employ the term clone as a blanket statement, and so on.
Personally I don't like the term "clone" even when speaking about similarities. Semantics, maybe, but I feel saying something is a clone diminishes what a developer is trying to accomplish.