I would rather have seen them design a single player game as a sequel to the KOTOR games. Or something like ME2 that has multiplayer options. Or something designed for small group co-op perhaps. The game makes a lot of sacrifices that I don't think are worth it to aim for WoW-like success on subscription profits.
It will be interesting to see how the subs go the next 6 months. I have two friends that are going to play TOR, but neither thinks they'll play it for more than a couple months or so for the single-player story. My brother, in fact, preferred playing the beta by himself. I have no idea how big of a group people like that are, however.
The difference between SWTOR and KotOR is that you get to grind and travel for dozens of hours between the cool bits.
The advantage, beyond getting to sit in front of the screen for much longer, is that you get to share the experience with friends, but limited by an inferior MMO paradigm. It's a game that would have been fantastic in 2004 - but as an MMO, it's far behind the top themepark MMOs as of 2011. Pretty much every non-singleplayer oriented feature is inferior to the same in another MMO. Combat is slower, crafting is dull, PvP is weaker, and so on.
The difference between SWTOR and KotOR is that you get to grind and travel for dozens of hours between the cool bits.
The advantage, beyond getting to sit in front of the screen for much longer, is that you get to share the experience with friends, but limited by an inferior MMO paradigm. It's a game that would have been fantastic in 2004 - but as an MMO, it's far behind the top themepark MMOs as of 2011. Pretty much every non-singleplayer oriented feature is inferior to the same in another MMO. Combat is slower, crafting is dull, PvP is weaker, and so on.
Well, in my opinion.
Funny, I thought all of the MMO features were done better than other themepark mmos to date.
I used to sit and play off line games all day long then i discovered EQ and that game spoiled my enjoyment off single play games i can never go back .Damn you EQ
weird nearly 30% said yes but not 1 single person posted on why they said yes,think trolls have hijacked the poll. To me,no it would not .simply put there is a lot of multiplayer options running side by side with the solo content. Also fact is you probably spent twice longer clearing to your objecive ifnot for players running around the area.
I voted yes, because the game could work out as a single player or CORPG game. Doesn't need the MMO part. Thats optional
weird nearly 30% said yes but not 1 single person posted on why they said yes,think trolls have hijacked the poll.
To me,no it would not .simply put there is a lot of multiplayer options running side by side with the solo content.
Also fact is you probably spent twice longer clearing to your objecive ifnot for players running around the area.
I voted yes, because the game could work out as a single player or CORPG game. Doesn't need the MMO part. ThTs optional
Actually the mmo part isn't optional. An mmorpg is an rpg that is played in a persitent world. Since this game is designed around a persistent world, then the only way to play it is in that persistent world. There is no "offline mode" or "corpg mode."
It is an MMO through and through, and that is what it will always be. No amount of misinformation on these boards can change that.
The difference between SWTOR and KotOR is that you get to grind and travel for dozens of hours between the cool bits.
The advantage, beyond getting to sit in front of the screen for much longer, is that you get to share the experience with friends, but limited by an inferior MMO paradigm. It's a game that would have been fantastic in 2004 - but as an MMO, it's far behind the top themepark MMOs as of 2011. Pretty much every non-singleplayer oriented feature is inferior to the same in another MMO. Combat is slower, crafting is dull, PvP is weaker, and so on.
Well, in my opinion.
Funny, I thought all of the MMO features were done better than other themepark mmos to date.
If that's the case, then you're sure to enjoy the game. I wish I could share your opinion, as I've been looking forward to this game for a long time.
weird nearly 30% said yes but not 1 single person posted on why they said yes,think trolls have hijacked the poll.
To me,no it would not .simply put there is a lot of multiplayer options running side by side with the solo content.
Also fact is you probably spent twice longer clearing to your objecive ifnot for players running around the area.
I voted yes, because the game could work out as a single player or CORPG game. Doesn't need the MMO part. Thats optional
Well, we should not ignore how the desire to make a game that could get WoW-like subscription profits changes how the game is designed.
Let's be honest, if you took out the multi-player and just made it Co-op or single-player, then the game would be judged to be crap compared to other RPGs out there (like Dragon Age: Origins, Skyrim, Mass Effect 2, Witcher 2, etc).
Persistent world with thousands of players all sharing the same game world. SWTOR has that.
How is it a single player RPG and not an MMORPG again?
What part of the definition of MMORPG does this game not fit?
I'll be holding my breath until I get a reasoned answer starting now...
Dude, I don't think you know what a persistent world is.
A persistent game world is one which you can change - and the changes persist. So, for example, if you drop a block of wood in a forest, when you come back, the block is still there.
In SWTOR, you can't pick up or put down anything. You can't even sit down in a chair.
First of all, you can sit in a chair now. So you can stop spreading that lie right now.
Second persistent doesn't mean that it can be changed, it means that it is still there when you log off. I think you don't know what persistent means.
Persistent means it persists, it continues, it doesn't go away. The world doesn't dissapear just because I log off. That's all it means.
Hah priceless. It is no wonder that there is such an opposition against anything and anyone that says something critical about this game. Damn haters they dont know the "facts" .
Oh I need to copy this somewhere, this will change the mmo genre: the on/off button on the server.
Hah priceless. It is no wonder that there is such an opposition against anything and anyone that says something critical about this game. Damn haters they dont know the "facts" .
In this case, it appears that they don't. But I wouldn't write all of them off so easily.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
I am confident that SWTOR will be an impressive MMO that will satisfy many people, including myself. However, i also know that if they had made Knights of the Old Republic 3 instead, it would have made a spectacular RPG that would have been GOTY material again.
The difference between SWTOR and KotOR is that you get to grind and travel for dozens of hours between the cool bits.
The advantage, beyond getting to sit in front of the screen for much longer, is that you get to share the experience with friends, but limited by an inferior MMO paradigm. It's a game that would have been fantastic in 2004 - but as an MMO, it's far behind the top themepark MMOs as of 2011. Pretty much every non-singleplayer oriented feature is inferior to the same in another MMO. Combat is slower, crafting is dull, PvP is weaker, and so on.
Hah priceless. It is no wonder that there is such an opposition against anything and anyone that says something critical about this game. Damn haters they dont know the "facts" .
In this case, it appears that they don't. But I wouldn't write all of them off so easily.
Oh really? Tell me again then what does it mean when we say "a persistent world" in an mmo then?
Bioware went to do something with SWTOR, and that was to make a traditional singleplayer RPG in online enviroment.
They largely suceeded. And should be comended for it.
Alas, not without problems...
1. They buckled under pressure and invited to many mmorpg practices, like level grind.
2. They buckled under EA (or their own) greed, and introduced subscriptions in what is generally single player rpg (online)
Why would single player fan pay monthly fee, or go trough mmo level grind. I can not imagine.
So as they say: OPERATION SUCCESSFUL - PATIENT DEAD
1 and 2 are related, as is progression-based grind (which you left out). If you are trying to get a lot of people to stay subbed and keep paying, then you have to go with skinner-box design. Or, gasp, actually spend the sub money on developing content and hire tons and tons of people, but no one actually does that (I mean, look at WoW, they don't spend much money at all on new content and the big stuff they charge you for).
They wanted sub money gravy, so they designed a product that goes after that. The only really successful model of that kind of game is WoW, so they took a lot of game design tips from there.
Hah priceless. It is no wonder that there is such an opposition against anything and anyone that says something critical about this game. Damn haters they dont know the "facts" .
In this case, it appears that they don't. But I wouldn't write all of them off so easily.
Oh really? Tell me again then what does it mean when we say "a persisten world" in an mmo then?
Geez really? I've already posted this, but here ya go...
A persistent world (PW) is a virtual world that continues to exist even after a user exits the world and that user-made changes to its state are, to some extent, permanent.[1][2] The term is frequently used in the definition of the massively multiplayer online video games and can be considered synonymous with that class of games,[3] including other narrative forms of a media franchise.
The persistence comes from maintaining and developing a single or dynamic instance state of the world in the game around the clock shared and viewed by all players. Quite unlike other types of games, the plot and events in a single permainstance world game continue to develop even while some of the players are not playing their characters. That aspect is similar to the real world where events do occur regardless if they are directly or indirectly related to a person, as they continue to happen while a person is asleep, etc. Conversely, a player's character can also influence and change a persistent world. The degree to which a character affects a world varies from game to game. Since the game does not pause or create player-accessible back-up files, a character's actions will have consequences that the player must deal with.
Hah priceless. It is no wonder that there is such an opposition against anything and anyone that says something critical about this game. Damn haters they dont know the "facts" .
In this case, it appears that they don't. But I wouldn't write all of them off so easily.
Oh really? Tell me again then what does it mean when we say "a persisten world" in an mmo then?
Geez really? I've already posted this, but here ya go...
A persistent world (PW) is a virtual world that continues to exist even after a user exits the world and that user-made changes to its state are, to some extent, permanent.[1][2] The term is frequently used in the definition of the massively multiplayer online video games and can be considered synonymous with that class of games,[3] including other narrative forms of a media franchise.
The persistence comes from maintaining and developing a single or dynamic instance state of the world in the game around the clock shared and viewed by all players. Quite unlike other types of games, the plot and events in a single permainstance world game continue to develop even while some of the players are not playing their characters. That aspect is similar to the real world where events do occur regardless if they are directly or indirectly related to a person, as they continue to happen while a person is asleep, etc. Conversely, a player's character can also influence and change a persistent world. The degree to which a character affects a world varies from game to game. Since the game does not pause or create player-accessible back-up files, a character's actions will have consequences that the player must deal with.
That is in TOR.
Ok. Even if I didnt replied to you. What changes are permanent?
yep 1-50 shouldve been offline single players game. Once you reached 50 it shouldve become a MMO with a "lobby" type structure and a LFG matching system for instanced dungeons,flashpoints and warzones.
Watch your thoughts; they become words. Watch your words; they become actions. Watch your actions; they become habits. Watch your habits; they become character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny. Lao-Tze
No multiplayer content, no economy and noone to sell my stuff to, no world pvp, no drunken Scottish rambling over vent ...
Are you for real?
Don't harass him because he thinks of the game differently to you.
I personally wish they had given us a Kotor 3, 4, 5 6 etc rather than this lifeless, bland SRPG with clumsy networking features and, as the less positive previews from beta testers show, so do many others.
Stop hating, start appreciating. Also are you suggesting that a majority of previews are negative or did I misunderstand you?
p.s. I wasn't harassing.
It's simply the most redundant question I ever read in regards to Swtor: a game that was set out from the beginning to be a MMORPG.
Yes, you were harassing him - just as you jump on anyone who expresses doubts about this game. But, meh. That's what you do, let's move on.
While the gajme might have been intended to be an mmorpg, Bioware's absolute lack of experience in MMORPG dynamics and EA intention to bring out the cheapeast possible game for the most possible money, suggests that this game would have been more playable as an SRPG.
Actually hubertgrove, you seem to be the one harassing people. The Opening Post ASKED for responses and then you got all aggressive when someone answered him in a way you didn't like because you agree with the OP.
I suggest you read the thread from the beginning again, because you're wrong.
Post #1 is the OP asking their question and presenting their poll.
Post #2 is DarkPony passive-aggressively asking "Are you for real?"
Post #4 is dubya posting an equally snarky "Is this for real?".
... and so on.
DP and dubya fired the opening volleys by immediately going on the defensive (as per usual) and passive-aggressively asking if the OP and his question "are for real". It was an obvious jab at the OP, as they contribute nothing to answering their question and, instead, address the OP's sincerity. Text-book ad hominems. They could have perfectly well answered the question without including those jabs.
hubert did not start anything. Credit for that goes to the usual suspects intolerantly "defending their mecca" against all doubt and criticism.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
The difference between SWTOR and KotOR is that you get to grind and travel for dozens of hours between the cool bits.
The advantage, beyond getting to sit in front of the screen for much longer, is that you get to share the experience with friends, but limited by an inferior MMO paradigm. It's a game that would have been fantastic in 2004 - but as an MMO, it's far behind the top themepark MMOs as of 2011. Pretty much every non-singleplayer oriented feature is inferior to the same in another MMO. Combat is slower, crafting is dull, PvP is weaker, and so on.
I'm not aware of any personal feelings about the topic.
I made it plain how I feel about the game, but I don't feel qualified to decide whether the game would be objectively better for the reasons I gave.
If it's not obvious for you what I think from what I wrote, then I can help you:
I think the game is unsatisfying as an MMO, and I have no way of knowing what it would be like as a singleplayer game. If they simply removed the MMO features from what I've seen, then the game would be incredibly boring as a singleplayer game.
If, however, they'd designed everything from the ground-up as a singleplayer game - then I think it might have been a better game for fans of singleplayer Bioware games.
No multiplayer content, no economy and noone to sell my stuff to, no world pvp, no drunken Scottish rambling over vent ...
Are you for real?
Don't harass him because he thinks of the game differently to you.
I personally wish they had given us a Kotor 3, 4, 5 6 etc rather than this lifeless, bland SRPG with clumsy networking features and, as the less positive previews from beta testers show, so do many others.
Stop hating, start appreciating. Also are you suggesting that a majority of previews are negative or did I misunderstand you?
p.s. I wasn't harassing.
It's simply the most redundant question I ever read in regards to Swtor: a game that was set out from the beginning to be a MMORPG.
Yes, you were harassing him - just as you jump on anyone who expresses doubts about this game. But, meh. That's what you do, let's move on.
While the gajme might have been intended to be an mmorpg, Bioware's absolute lack of experience in MMORPG dynamics and EA intention to bring out the cheapeast possible game for the most possible money, suggests that this game would have been more playable as an SRPG.
Actually hubertgrove, you seem to be the one harassing people. The Opening Post ASKED for responses and then you got all aggressive when someone answered him in a way you didn't like because you agree with the OP.
I suggest you read the thread from the beginning again, because you're wrong.
Post #1 is the OP asking their question and presenting their poll.
Post #2 is DarkPony passive-aggressively asking "Are you for real?"
Post #4 is dubya posting an equally snarky "Is this for real?".
... and so on.
DP and dubya fired the opening volleys by immediately going on the defensive (as per usual) and passive-aggressively asking if the OP and his question "are for real". It was an obvious jab at the OP, as they contribute nothing to answering their question and, instead, address the OP's sincerity. Text-book ad hominems. They could have perfectly well answered the question without including those jabs.
hubert did not start anything. Credit for that goes to the usual suspects intolerantly "defending their mecca" against all doubt and criticism.
If I plead guilty, will I get a carrot?
edit: p.s. I still object to the term "harassment", your honor.
If, however, they'd designed everything from the ground-up as a singleplayer game - then I think it might have been a better game for fans of singleplayer Bioware games.
I think thats implied in the OP... so your answer would be -yes-.
Comments
I would rather have seen them design a single player game as a sequel to the KOTOR games. Or something like ME2 that has multiplayer options. Or something designed for small group co-op perhaps. The game makes a lot of sacrifices that I don't think are worth it to aim for WoW-like success on subscription profits.
It will be interesting to see how the subs go the next 6 months. I have two friends that are going to play TOR, but neither thinks they'll play it for more than a couple months or so for the single-player story. My brother, in fact, preferred playing the beta by himself. I have no idea how big of a group people like that are, however.
The difference between SWTOR and KotOR is that you get to grind and travel for dozens of hours between the cool bits.
The advantage, beyond getting to sit in front of the screen for much longer, is that you get to share the experience with friends, but limited by an inferior MMO paradigm. It's a game that would have been fantastic in 2004 - but as an MMO, it's far behind the top themepark MMOs as of 2011. Pretty much every non-singleplayer oriented feature is inferior to the same in another MMO. Combat is slower, crafting is dull, PvP is weaker, and so on.
Well, in my opinion.
Funny, I thought all of the MMO features were done better than other themepark mmos to date.
Shadow's Hand Guild
Open recruitment for
The Secret World - Dragons
Planetside 2 - Terran Republic
Tera - Dragonfall Server
http://www.shadowshand.com
I used to sit and play off line games all day long then i discovered EQ and that game spoiled my enjoyment off single play games i can never go back .Damn you EQ
I voted yes, because the game could work out as a single player or CORPG game. Doesn't need the MMO part. Thats optionalPhilosophy of MMO Game Design
Actually the mmo part isn't optional. An mmorpg is an rpg that is played in a persitent world. Since this game is designed around a persistent world, then the only way to play it is in that persistent world. There is no "offline mode" or "corpg mode."
It is an MMO through and through, and that is what it will always be. No amount of misinformation on these boards can change that.
Shadow's Hand Guild
Open recruitment for
The Secret World - Dragons
Planetside 2 - Terran Republic
Tera - Dragonfall Server
http://www.shadowshand.com
If that's the case, then you're sure to enjoy the game. I wish I could share your opinion, as I've been looking forward to this game for a long time.
No, SW:ToR needs to be online, for all the reasons people before me mentioned.
I'm not a Star Wars fan, nor a Bioware fan, but this would be a completely different game if it was a SPRPG.
Well, we should not ignore how the desire to make a game that could get WoW-like subscription profits changes how the game is designed.
Let's be honest, if you took out the multi-player and just made it Co-op or single-player, then the game would be judged to be crap compared to other RPGs out there (like Dragon Age: Origins, Skyrim, Mass Effect 2, Witcher 2, etc).
Hah priceless. It is no wonder that there is such an opposition against anything and anyone that says something critical about this game. Damn haters they dont know the "facts"
.
Oh I need to copy this somewhere, this will change the mmo genre: the on/off button on the server.
No...
Bioware went to do something with SWTOR, and that was to make a traditional singleplayer RPG in online enviroment.
They largely suceeded. And should be comended for it.
Alas, not without problems...
1. They buckled under pressure and invited to many mmorpg practices, like level grind.
2. They buckled under EA (or their own) greed, and introduced subscriptions in what is generally single player rpg (online)
Why would single player fan pay monthly fee, or go trough mmo level grind. I can not imagine.
So as they say: OPERATION SUCCESSFUL - PATIENT DEAD
In this case, it appears that they don't. But I wouldn't write all of them off so easily.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
I am confident that SWTOR will be an impressive MMO that will satisfy many people, including myself. However, i also know that if they had made Knights of the Old Republic 3 instead, it would have made a spectacular RPG that would have been GOTY material again.
" Do you think SWTOR would have made a better off-line game ( poll ) "
Didn't fancy the thread topic then?
-----
The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
An offline RPG with this level of graphics wouldn't have sold 5 boxes...
I voted yes but it would have totalyl failed as a game... its dreadfull compared to some fo the sp rpgs that has come out this year LOL..
Two Worlds II, The Witcher 2, Skyrim to name a few..
Oh really? Tell me again then what does it mean when we say "a persistent world" in an mmo then?
1 and 2 are related, as is progression-based grind (which you left out). If you are trying to get a lot of people to stay subbed and keep paying, then you have to go with skinner-box design. Or, gasp, actually spend the sub money on developing content and hire tons and tons of people, but no one actually does that (I mean, look at WoW, they don't spend much money at all on new content and the big stuff they charge you for).
They wanted sub money gravy, so they designed a product that goes after that. The only really successful model of that kind of game is WoW, so they took a lot of game design tips from there.
Geez really? I've already posted this, but here ya go...
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_world
A persistent world (PW) is a virtual world that continues to exist even after a user exits the world and that user-made changes to its state are, to some extent, permanent.[1][2] The term is frequently used in the definition of the massively multiplayer online video games and can be considered synonymous with that class of games,[3] including other narrative forms of a media franchise.
The persistence comes from maintaining and developing a single or dynamic instance state of the world in the game around the clock shared and viewed by all players. Quite unlike other types of games, the plot and events in a single permainstance world game continue to develop even while some of the players are not playing their characters. That aspect is similar to the real world where events do occur regardless if they are directly or indirectly related to a person, as they continue to happen while a person is asleep, etc. Conversely, a player's character can also influence and change a persistent world. The degree to which a character affects a world varies from game to game. Since the game does not pause or create player-accessible back-up files, a character's actions will have consequences that the player must deal with.
That is in TOR.
Shadow's Hand Guild
Open recruitment for
The Secret World - Dragons
Planetside 2 - Terran Republic
Tera - Dragonfall Server
http://www.shadowshand.com
Ok. Even if I didnt replied to you. What changes are permanent?
yep 1-50 shouldve been offline single players game. Once you reached 50 it shouldve become a MMO with a "lobby" type structure and a LFG matching system for instanced dungeons,flashpoints and warzones.
Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.
Lao-Tze
I suggest you read the thread from the beginning again, because you're wrong.
Post #1 is the OP asking their question and presenting their poll.
Post #2 is DarkPony passive-aggressively asking "Are you for real?"
Post #3 is hubert calling DP out on his remark.
Post #4 is dubya posting an equally snarky "Is this for real?".
... and so on.
DP and dubya fired the opening volleys by immediately going on the defensive (as per usual) and passive-aggressively asking if the OP and his question "are for real". It was an obvious jab at the OP, as they contribute nothing to answering their question and, instead, address the OP's sincerity. Text-book ad hominems. They could have perfectly well answered the question without including those jabs.
hubert did not start anything. Credit for that goes to the usual suspects intolerantly "defending their mecca" against all doubt and criticism.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
I'm not aware of any personal feelings about the topic.
I made it plain how I feel about the game, but I don't feel qualified to decide whether the game would be objectively better for the reasons I gave.
If it's not obvious for you what I think from what I wrote, then I can help you:
I think the game is unsatisfying as an MMO, and I have no way of knowing what it would be like as a singleplayer game. If they simply removed the MMO features from what I've seen, then the game would be incredibly boring as a singleplayer game.
If, however, they'd designed everything from the ground-up as a singleplayer game - then I think it might have been a better game for fans of singleplayer Bioware games.
If I plead guilty, will I get a carrot?
edit: p.s. I still object to the term "harassment", your honor.
My brand new bloggity blog.
I think thats implied in the OP... so your answer would be -yes-.