Very funny but long article. Read it at work or leisure. Thoughts?
When TOR proves to be a major success, we'll know he was right. It was just a lot of blind hate from people who didn't even play the game, while the happy customer base will keep subscribing and growing, month after month.
..or not.
I think the best part was the comments on the bottom.
"For a game that sucks it sure is fun to play"
"Don't mistake a fun game for a good game... Checkers is fun to play but its not exactly the highest point of gaming design... and definatly not worth $60 plus $15 a month
"Don't mistake a fun game for a good game... Checkers is fun to play but its not exactly the highest point of gaming design... and definatly not worth $60 plus $15 a month"
When TOR proves to be a major success, we'll know he was right. It was just a lot of blind hate from people who didn't even play the game, while the happy customer base will keep subscribing and growing, month after month.
..or not.
Believe it or not the game is doing quite allright atm. A lot of of heavy to full servers during peak time. Very few (1-3) light servers. I think this game isn't going anytime soon. With the new patch getting added next month i think it will only get bigger.
Yeah, I was never one of the people saying the game would fail at the end of the first month, or anything like that. What I've always said, is that if it is going to have retention issues, it takes longer to really pan out. In WAR, AOC, and Rift, it took 3-6 months, to really get an objective idea of how they were doing. I think people just remember it happening faster, looking back on it.
So that's why I'm talking about "month after month," above. We'll see, but not quite yet.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Another article with a person opening that they are not biased then set up a straw man argument for Tor instead of counter valid complaints.
Pardon, I don't believe you are using the term correctly, since you dont' even bother to elucidate on the terms of the suposed "straw man" argument they are setting up... I really doubt your authenticity.
Don't worry about it, most people don't even know what straw man means.(despite a quick google search being accurately educating) I once had an argument with a person 'calling me out' for using it. In the end, the user only proved his/her own lack of understanding the term and looked the fool.
We really need separate forums for every newly launched game. There can be the anti-<MMO> one and there can be the 'what general discussion should be' one. All the lamenting can happen together where each can find solace in like minded can't-move-on-ers leaving the rest of us to actually move forward and discuss meaningful and relevant topics.
Believe it or not the game is doing quite allright atm. A lot of of heavy to full servers during peak time. Very few (1-3) light servers. I think this game isn't going anytime soon. With the new patch getting added next month i think it will only get bigger.
What will get bigger? The Imperial side? Already is in droves
The game in general will get bigger over time. Their retention rate was very good after the free month .
It was? Things seem decent on the Imperial side but can't say for sure how much is due to people sticking around or those that were playing Republic finally saying fuck it and joining the dark side.
Things seem okay but nothing worthy of absolute doom nor praise myself.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
I find the article to be very accurate, and cleverly written.
I also am laughing pretty hard at all the people in this forum who simply don't get the joke, and or are the butt of it...
Me thinks most of you doth protest faaar too much.
How could anyone not get it? Rather self explanatory really.
I don't see what was so cleverly written about it either. Was actually kind of disappointed in it besides some amusing things he mentioned like the WoW character comparisons. Nothing to write home about.
The only ones "not getting it" so far are the ones that read the OP's topic title and jumped into this thread assuming they knew what the discussion or topic was about without actually reading anything.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
I find the article to be very accurate, and cleverly written.
I also am laughing pretty hard at all the people in this forum who simply don't get the joke, and or are the butt of it...
Me thinks most of you doth protest faaar too much.
How could anyone not get it? Rather self explanatory really.
I don't see what was so cleverly written about it either. Was actually kind of disappointed in it besides some amusing things he mentioned like the WoW character comparisons. Nothing to write home about.
Clever is in the eye of the beholder, I think its clever because it covers all the points, and I enjoy his silly ranking system that ranks rankers. That is almost monty python silly.
Another article with a person opening that they are not biased then set up a straw man argument for Tor instead of counter valid complaints.
Pardon, I don't believe you are using the term correctly, since you dont' even bother to elucidate on the terms of the suposed "straw man" argument they are setting up... I really doubt your authenticity.
Don't worry about it, most people don't even know what straw man means.(despite a quick google search being accurately educating) I once had an argument with a person 'calling me out' for using it. In the end, the user only proved his/her own lack of understanding the term and looked the fool.
That's quite the statement.
Let's take an example here.
I create a story about TOR versus the internet. I talk about a very vocal negative reaction to the game. I then to support my theory use an example of developers from bioware talking about the Meta score... and this "unknown community". So my opponense is.. community unknown... they aren't part of the games fanbase or hoped fan base and they don't represent anything to do with the game.
This is the entire logical foundation for my premise.
What I don't have is any fact as to who they are. They are "unknown community" because I say so. I also lack any factual information from BioWare to support my claim.
Say like having a statement about still having over a million active subscribers or having continued growth and now having surpassed 2 million.
See BioWare is part of EA and EA is a traded company. So if they make any statement of subscriber numbers and its false... they are subject to issues with the FTC, their share holders and have the fun interaction with fines wich is counter productive to making profit.
This is NOT to make any comment on subscriber numbers. It is simply the point that this article contained NOTHING factual to base its self on. The mention of publicly traded was made because IF they give numbers they are most likely accurate for the reasons given. BioWare/EA have not commented.
What that comes down to...is..
How exactly again was the article not a straw man?
"To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."
Sounds pretty much like a definition of the article I just read in that link from the OP.
Of course none of this has anything to do with the realities of the game.
Just seems kind of strange to say a poster made themself look like a fool... when they seemed pretty on the mark for the article.
"To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."
Sounds pretty much like a definition of the article I just read in that link from the OP.
Of course none of this has anything to do with the realities of the game.
Just seems kind of strange to say a poster made themself look like a fool... when they seemed pretty on the mark for the article.
You are claiming that the ambiguity of the internet makes it in itself a straw man (object) because its murkey and undefined.
I hope you see how this makes it impossible to argue with anyone anymore then... since we're all anonymous unidentifyable figures.
The entire debate is over opinion statements, to assume that anyone could be 'right' or 'wrong' about things like "I think the graphics are cool" is entirely silly.
Author does not intend to refute "graphics look bad" claims, he intends to point out that they are pointless. Which I feel he does.
Very funny but long article. Read it at work or leisure. Thoughts?
Stupid article, blaming the failure of the game on dissatisfied customers. It's crap plain and simple. I loved the Baldurs Gate games, Neverwinter Nights was ok, Mass Effect is still one of my favorite series etc. So I don't hate on bioware for nothing, but with SWToR and Dragon Age 2 you see a pattern of diarrhea just blowing up in the face of everyone who supported them.
Very funny but long article. Read it at work or leisure. Thoughts?
Stupid article, blaming the failure of the game on dissatisfied customers. It's crap plain and simple. I loved the Baldurs Gate games, Neverwinter Nights was ok, Mass Effect is still one of my favorite series etc. So I don't hate on bioware for nothing, but with SWToR and Dragon Age 2 you see a pattern of diarrhea just blowing up in the face of everyone who supported them.
now I wonder if you read it...
Doesn't blame SW:TOR's failures on anyone, in fact it claims its doing well...
"The Old Republic is nowhere near a perfect game. It’s not even going to make it into my top 25 unless it makes some serious changes, and I consider the Knights games my third favorite gaming series. If you must, by that logic, it is a disappointment. But by far the professional reviewers have gotten it right, with mostly 9s, 8s, and a few logical 7s for its grading."
Stupid article, blaming the failure of the game on dissatisfied customers.
Lol...well, I'll say this much. Least unlike some others you did at least read the OP. Pretty sure you didn't read the article though.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
Another article with a person opening that they are not biased then set up a straw man argument for Tor instead of counter valid complaints.
Pardon, I don't believe you are using the term correctly, since you dont' even bother to elucidate on the terms of the suposed "straw man" argument they are setting up... I really doubt your authenticity.
Don't worry about it, most people don't even know what straw man means.(despite a quick google search being accurately educating) I once had an argument with a person 'calling me out' for using it. In the end, the user only proved his/her own lack of understanding the term and looked the fool.
...
How exactly again was the article not a straw man?
"To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."
Sounds pretty much like a definition of the article I just read in that link from the OP.
...
Just seems kind of strange to say a poster made themself look like a fool... when they seemed pretty on the mark for the article.
Wow, just wow...
Working in reverse order... I did not say the person in this thread was made to look like a fool. Reading comprehension is invaluable here:
"I once had an argument with a person 'calling me out' for using it. In the end, the user only proved his/her own lack of understanding the term and looked the fool."
In case it still isn't clear, the 'fool' part had nothing to do with any comments about this article.
Now about the article. As you said yourself:
"To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition(the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."
This article is not refuting a proposition, therefore by the definition you posted, can not be a straw man. This article is a soap box, an opinion, an observational piece, an editorial, an exposé(very loosely) if you will. It does not take a proposition with the sole purpose of refuting it.
...oh the irony of your post.
We really need separate forums for every newly launched game. There can be the anti-<MMO> one and there can be the 'what general discussion should be' one. All the lamenting can happen together where each can find solace in like minded can't-move-on-ers leaving the rest of us to actually move forward and discuss meaningful and relevant topics.
"To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition(the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."
This article is not refuting a proposition, therefore by the definition you posted, can not be a straw man. This article is a soap box, an opinion, an observational piece, an editorial, an exposé(very loosely) if you will. It does not take a proposition with the sole purpose of refuting it.
...oh the irony of your post.
QFT.
What I said but with better words so just QFT. heh.
This thread with some of it's posts in it are just reinforcing the article. People see SWTOR and flock to talking negatively about it, not even bothering to pay attention to the discussion or read/watch the link. 'Anti-Bioware Troll Force" (as the writer put it) sweeping into action.
We really need separate forums for every newly launched game. There can be the anti-<MMO> one and there can be the 'what general discussion should be' one. All the lamenting can happen together where each can find solace in like minded can't-move-on-ers leaving the rest of us to actually move forward and discuss meaningful and relevant topics.
"To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition(the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."
This article is not refuting a proposition, therefore by the definition you posted, can not be a straw man. This article is a soap box, an opinion, an observational piece, an editorial, an exposé(very loosely) if you will. It does not take a proposition with the sole purpose of refuting it.
...oh the irony of your post.
QFT.
What I said but with better words so just QFT. heh.
Aw shucks, thank you.
We really need separate forums for every newly launched game. There can be the anti-<MMO> one and there can be the 'what general discussion should be' one. All the lamenting can happen together where each can find solace in like minded can't-move-on-ers leaving the rest of us to actually move forward and discuss meaningful and relevant topics.
When TOR proves to be a major success, we'll know he was right. It was just a lot of blind hate from people who didn't even play the game, while the happy customer base will keep subscribing and growing, month after month. ..or not. Believe it or not the game is doing quite allright atm. A lot of of heavy to full servers during peak time. Very few (1-3) light servers. I think this game isn't going anytime soon. With the new patch getting added next month i think it will only get bigger. Wish I could play in last month.
Stupid article, blaming the failure of the game on dissatisfied customers.
Lol...well, I'll say this much. Least unlike some others you did at least read the OP. Pretty sure you didn't read the article though.
It was a long article, it had many words.
XD
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
To just say it again. The author of the article is delussional thinking that some internet hooligans who haven't played the game are giveing it bad Metacritic scores.
I rated it a 5 on metacritic after reaching level 50 on my shadow because the game sucks in general. I feel cheated by BW essentially so I voiced my feelings just like I would with any product.
Many people gave it 0's on metacritic becuase they know fanbois will rate it a 10.
The author assuming that their is some conspiracy against it is laughable at best. Sad in the least.
To just say it again. The author of the article is delussional thinking that some internet hooligans who haven't played the game are giveing it bad Metacritic scores.
I rated it a 5 on metacritic after reaching level 50 on my shadow because the game sucks in general. I feel cheated by BW essentially so I voiced my feelings just like I would with any product.
Many people gave it 0's on metacritic becuase they know fanbois will rate it a 10.
The author assuming that their is some conspiracy against it is laughable at best. Sad in the least.
I'm still waiting on a fan VIDEO review that shows and highlights how this is such a great MMO.. I can link several negative or neutral fan video reviews but only "written" fan positive reviews.. to me if you really want to try and make a point about things make a video it better illustrates your point.. to me though it really isn't possible but maybe someone will prove me wrong...
"To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."
Sounds pretty much like a definition of the article I just read in that link from the OP.
Of course none of this has anything to do with the realities of the game.
Just seems kind of strange to say a poster made themself look like a fool... when they seemed pretty on the mark for the article.
You are claiming that the ambiguity of the internet makes it in itself a straw man (object) because its murkey and undefined.
I hope you see how this makes it impossible to argue with anyone anymore then... since we're all anonymous unidentifyable figures.
The entire debate is over opinion statements, to assume that anyone could be 'right' or 'wrong' about things like "I think the graphics are cool" is entirely silly.
Author does not intend to refute "graphics look bad" claims, he intends to point out that they are pointless. Which I feel he does.
And your statment in response to his statement was a strawman argument.
Strawmanception!
Everything creates huge amounts of negativity on the internet, that's what the internet is for: Negativity, porn and lolcats.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
On one hand, it exposes some absolutely false and unjust accusations about SWTOR. Like a guy who claimed he got banned for no reason. Or folks saying that BW is in "damage control" mode because SWTOR is out-of-control failing. These are obviously untrue, and no one should believe them.
But then it lists a bunch of fairly valid criticisms against the game as well. Like the fact that it feels a lot like an SP game (yes, this can be backed up).
So what happens is guilt by association. It makes any valid criticism against the game look like it's part of this completely unjust smear campaign. It's a common tactic to try to demonize an ideology by pointing out the extreme bleeding edge of said ideology and how freaking crazy they are. This annoys me.
There are plenty of valid criticisms against this game, and I think they are probably where this crazy smear campaign started. It's okay to expose the unjust idiocies of people who lie just to try to ruin BW's reputation. But it's not okay to excuse BW of the game's shortcomings because they are being "attacked."
This article was very spot on, but really in the end why care about these people? World of Warcraft has had a negative agenda ran against it for years on the internet by everyone who feels their favorite MMO was destroyed by it. It's natural that they will carry on that hate to any other game that they feel prolongs that style of MMO. TOR is only the latest example.The MMO world has changed, these people don't like it and it's never going to change back to the way things used to be. Let them continue to cry ove their keyboards. I'll continue to play TOR.
PS: This post is not directed at the people who have brought up legitimate concerns with the game. Like the article, this was directed at those who have hated TOR from the very beginning and were never going to give it a chance in the first place.
Comments
I think the best part was the comments on the bottom.
"For a game that sucks it sure is fun to play"
"Don't mistake a fun game for a good game... Checkers is fun to play but its not exactly the highest point of gaming design... and definatly not worth $60 plus $15 a month
"Don't mistake a fun game for a good game... Checkers is fun to play but its not exactly the highest point of gaming design... and definatly not worth $60 plus $15 a month"
Yeah, I was never one of the people saying the game would fail at the end of the first month, or anything like that. What I've always said, is that if it is going to have retention issues, it takes longer to really pan out. In WAR, AOC, and Rift, it took 3-6 months, to really get an objective idea of how they were doing. I think people just remember it happening faster, looking back on it.
So that's why I'm talking about "month after month," above. We'll see, but not quite yet.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Don't worry about it, most people don't even know what straw man means.(despite a quick google search being accurately educating) I once had an argument with a person 'calling me out' for using it. In the end, the user only proved his/her own lack of understanding the term and looked the fool.
We really need separate forums for every newly launched game. There can be the anti-<MMO> one and there can be the 'what general discussion should be' one. All the lamenting can happen together where each can find solace in like minded can't-move-on-ers leaving the rest of us to actually move forward and discuss meaningful and relevant topics.
It was? Things seem decent on the Imperial side but can't say for sure how much is due to people sticking around or those that were playing Republic finally saying fuck it and joining the dark side.
Things seem okay but nothing worthy of absolute doom nor praise myself.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
How could anyone not get it? Rather self explanatory really.
I don't see what was so cleverly written about it either. Was actually kind of disappointed in it besides some amusing things he mentioned like the WoW character comparisons. Nothing to write home about.
The only ones "not getting it" so far are the ones that read the OP's topic title and jumped into this thread assuming they knew what the discussion or topic was about without actually reading anything.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
Clever is in the eye of the beholder, I think its clever because it covers all the points, and I enjoy his silly ranking system that ranks rankers. That is almost monty python silly.
[mod edit]
That's quite the statement.
Let's take an example here.
I create a story about TOR versus the internet. I talk about a very vocal negative reaction to the game. I then to support my theory use an example of developers from bioware talking about the Meta score... and this "unknown community". So my opponense is.. community unknown... they aren't part of the games fanbase or hoped fan base and they don't represent anything to do with the game.
This is the entire logical foundation for my premise.
What I don't have is any fact as to who they are. They are "unknown community" because I say so. I also lack any factual information from BioWare to support my claim.
Say like having a statement about still having over a million active subscribers or having continued growth and now having surpassed 2 million.
See BioWare is part of EA and EA is a traded company. So if they make any statement of subscriber numbers and its false... they are subject to issues with the FTC, their share holders and have the fun interaction with fines wich is counter productive to making profit.
This is NOT to make any comment on subscriber numbers. It is simply the point that this article contained NOTHING factual to base its self on. The mention of publicly traded was made because IF they give numbers they are most likely accurate for the reasons given. BioWare/EA have not commented.
What that comes down to...is..
How exactly again was the article not a straw man?
"To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."
Sounds pretty much like a definition of the article I just read in that link from the OP.
Of course none of this has anything to do with the realities of the game.
Just seems kind of strange to say a poster made themself look like a fool... when they seemed pretty on the mark for the article.
You are claiming that the ambiguity of the internet makes it in itself a straw man (object) because its murkey and undefined.
I hope you see how this makes it impossible to argue with anyone anymore then... since we're all anonymous unidentifyable figures.
The entire debate is over opinion statements, to assume that anyone could be 'right' or 'wrong' about things like "I think the graphics are cool" is entirely silly.
Author does not intend to refute "graphics look bad" claims, he intends to point out that they are pointless. Which I feel he does.
Stupid article, blaming the failure of the game on dissatisfied customers. It's crap plain and simple. I loved the Baldurs Gate games, Neverwinter Nights was ok, Mass Effect is still one of my favorite series etc. So I don't hate on bioware for nothing, but with SWToR and Dragon Age 2 you see a pattern of diarrhea just blowing up in the face of everyone who supported them.
now I wonder if you read it...
Doesn't blame SW:TOR's failures on anyone, in fact it claims its doing well...
"The Old Republic is nowhere near a perfect game. It’s not even going to make it into my top 25 unless it makes some serious changes, and I consider the Knights games my third favorite gaming series. If you must, by that logic, it is a disappointment. But by far the professional reviewers have gotten it right, with mostly 9s, 8s, and a few logical 7s for its grading."
Taken from the article.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
Wow, just wow...
Working in reverse order... I did not say the person in this thread was made to look like a fool. Reading comprehension is invaluable here:
"I once had an argument with a person 'calling me out' for using it. In the end, the user only proved his/her own lack of understanding the term and looked the fool."
In case it still isn't clear, the 'fool' part had nothing to do with any comments about this article.
Now about the article. As you said yourself:
"To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."
This article is not refuting a proposition, therefore by the definition you posted, can not be a straw man. This article is a soap box, an opinion, an observational piece, an editorial, an exposé(very loosely) if you will. It does not take a proposition with the sole purpose of refuting it.
...oh the irony of your post.
We really need separate forums for every newly launched game. There can be the anti-<MMO> one and there can be the 'what general discussion should be' one. All the lamenting can happen together where each can find solace in like minded can't-move-on-ers leaving the rest of us to actually move forward and discuss meaningful and relevant topics.
QFT.
What I said but with better words so just QFT. heh.
This thread with some of it's posts in it are just reinforcing the article. People see SWTOR and flock to talking negatively about it, not even bothering to pay attention to the discussion or read/watch the link. 'Anti-Bioware Troll Force" (as the writer put it) sweeping into action.
We really need separate forums for every newly launched game. There can be the anti-<MMO> one and there can be the 'what general discussion should be' one. All the lamenting can happen together where each can find solace in like minded can't-move-on-ers leaving the rest of us to actually move forward and discuss meaningful and relevant topics.
It was a long article, it had many words.
-----
The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
Aw shucks, thank you.
We really need separate forums for every newly launched game. There can be the anti-<MMO> one and there can be the 'what general discussion should be' one. All the lamenting can happen together where each can find solace in like minded can't-move-on-ers leaving the rest of us to actually move forward and discuss meaningful and relevant topics.
When TOR proves to be a major success, we'll know he was right. It was just a lot of blind hate from people who didn't even play the game, while the happy customer base will keep subscribing and growing, month after month.
..or not.
Believe it or not the game is doing quite allright atm. A lot of of heavy to full servers during peak time. Very few (1-3) light servers. I think this game isn't going anytime soon. With the new patch getting added next month i think it will only get bigger.
Wish I could play in last month.
XD
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
WOW, mod edit really?
To just say it again. The author of the article is delussional thinking that some internet hooligans who haven't played the game are giveing it bad Metacritic scores.
I rated it a 5 on metacritic after reaching level 50 on my shadow because the game sucks in general. I feel cheated by BW essentially so I voiced my feelings just like I would with any product.
Many people gave it 0's on metacritic becuase they know fanbois will rate it a 10.
The author assuming that their is some conspiracy against it is laughable at best. Sad in the least.
I'm still waiting on a fan VIDEO review that shows and highlights how this is such a great MMO.. I can link several negative or neutral fan video reviews but only "written" fan positive reviews.. to me if you really want to try and make a point about things make a video it better illustrates your point.. to me though it really isn't possible but maybe someone will prove me wrong...
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/339443/Video-FollowUp-Guide-For-Enhancing-Graphics-and-Performance-in-SWTORSorry-still-Nvidia-Only.html
And your statment in response to his statement was a strawman argument.
Strawmanception!
Everything creates huge amounts of negativity on the internet, that's what the internet is for: Negativity, porn and lolcats.
Glad I included "so far" in my initial retort.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
The article is...interesting.
On one hand, it exposes some absolutely false and unjust accusations about SWTOR. Like a guy who claimed he got banned for no reason. Or folks saying that BW is in "damage control" mode because SWTOR is out-of-control failing. These are obviously untrue, and no one should believe them.
But then it lists a bunch of fairly valid criticisms against the game as well. Like the fact that it feels a lot like an SP game (yes, this can be backed up).
So what happens is guilt by association. It makes any valid criticism against the game look like it's part of this completely unjust smear campaign. It's a common tactic to try to demonize an ideology by pointing out the extreme bleeding edge of said ideology and how freaking crazy they are. This annoys me.
There are plenty of valid criticisms against this game, and I think they are probably where this crazy smear campaign started. It's okay to expose the unjust idiocies of people who lie just to try to ruin BW's reputation. But it's not okay to excuse BW of the game's shortcomings because they are being "attacked."
I swear, it reminds me of politics lol.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
This article was very spot on, but really in the end why care about these people? World of Warcraft has had a negative agenda ran against it for years on the internet by everyone who feels their favorite MMO was destroyed by it. It's natural that they will carry on that hate to any other game that they feel prolongs that style of MMO. TOR is only the latest example.The MMO world has changed, these people don't like it and it's never going to change back to the way things used to be. Let them continue to cry ove their keyboards. I'll continue to play TOR.
PS: This post is not directed at the people who have brought up legitimate concerns with the game. Like the article, this was directed at those who have hated TOR from the very beginning and were never going to give it a chance in the first place.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft