![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Star Wars - The Old Republic Test Weekend. Anyone else playing?
- Thread starter SixFootDuo
- Start date
wrong. I played it for like a month and it feels/plays nearly identical to WoW. The only main difference is it feels more like a singleplayer game and less like a MMO.
If you've played WoW at all, there is no denying it.
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 30,004
As well as being much, much more boring & worse on all accounts I can think of (even graphics!). P.S. I hated WOW
.
Last edited:
Haters going to hate. I've played wow and I did not see any elfs, druids or anything else wow has in it in swtor. Wow has boring text quests that you just accept and pickup while swtor had a story that can pull you in. The companion system adds another level to me. Just my opinion.
So did the developers lie when they said how they would go for that "star wars feel" over any mmo/game'ism when it came down to it? Because it sounds that way.
I sitll remember all the people who fed into that "It will be different from other mmo's, it'll be something new" then they released the combat details/videos and things and people starte dto say "looks like WoW" and every fanboy jumped on them saying it would be different...
Knew it was too good to be true, GW2 seems to be the only MMO with a backbone to actually try to make an mmo that has different things then the usual mmo EQ formula that's ruled the mmo market.
It just sucks though, because I can't hle pbut think, if Bioware just dropped the whole mmo formula concept and built the game from the ground up with making it PLAY and feel like Star Wars looks int he films and things (IE real time combat, a la Jedi Knight/X-wing/Rogue squadron) and then threw in their great storylines/characters and had the best combat + best storyline, it could have been something truly different in mmo and actually kept people playing for the gameplay, which is not what most mmo people end up sticking around for.
I sitll remember all the people who fed into that "It will be different from other mmo's, it'll be something new" then they released the combat details/videos and things and people starte dto say "looks like WoW" and every fanboy jumped on them saying it would be different...
Knew it was too good to be true, GW2 seems to be the only MMO with a backbone to actually try to make an mmo that has different things then the usual mmo EQ formula that's ruled the mmo market.
It just sucks though, because I can't hle pbut think, if Bioware just dropped the whole mmo formula concept and built the game from the ground up with making it PLAY and feel like Star Wars looks int he films and things (IE real time combat, a la Jedi Knight/X-wing/Rogue squadron) and then threw in their great storylines/characters and had the best combat + best storyline, it could have been something truly different in mmo and actually kept people playing for the gameplay, which is not what most mmo people end up sticking around for.
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 30,004
Don't worry, you'll be spacebar'ing the voiceovers by level 20-25 if that and never want to listen again. A skin of spaceships does not mean it isn't boring WOW-esque gameplay. Companions are glorified pets... /care. I've been a tester since a mid-2010 beta phase and then full-time since mid-year 2011.
TheCowOfNow
Assault then RUN AWAY!
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2002
- Messages
- 4,363
1. How different can they make the MMO?
A ton of people are expecting all these new mmos to be different, what difference are you really going to make at this point? I'm all for innovation and new gameplay mechanics but its an MMORPG. There will be grinding, quests, instances (flashpoints), repetition, etc. You can try to do what EVE or Planetside 2 are doing in terms of leveling and such I suppose. You could try a MMOFPS like Tabula Rasa I guess, that went well....
2. If you're a developer, trying to make it in this world why try something risky when you've got a proven successful formula to make money?
"Why not just be a gaming idealist? Be different it for the sake of gaming!"
I'm sure their investors would be all over that. The WoW formula is successful no matter how much we all hate it. It worked. If you're making a game today and tell your investors that you're going into the MMO market to compete with WoW and you want to try to do something "different" they will probably ask you, "Well how has different gone in the past in this market" at which point you run from the room laughing hysterically.
If GW2 is crazy different and successful I'll be as happy as the rest of you. Rewind a year though and see how similar the hopes were for SWTOR. Just throwing it out there.
A ton of people are expecting all these new mmos to be different, what difference are you really going to make at this point? I'm all for innovation and new gameplay mechanics but its an MMORPG. There will be grinding, quests, instances (flashpoints), repetition, etc. You can try to do what EVE or Planetside 2 are doing in terms of leveling and such I suppose. You could try a MMOFPS like Tabula Rasa I guess, that went well....
2. If you're a developer, trying to make it in this world why try something risky when you've got a proven successful formula to make money?
"Why not just be a gaming idealist? Be different it for the sake of gaming!"
I'm sure their investors would be all over that. The WoW formula is successful no matter how much we all hate it. It worked. If you're making a game today and tell your investors that you're going into the MMO market to compete with WoW and you want to try to do something "different" they will probably ask you, "Well how has different gone in the past in this market" at which point you run from the room laughing hysterically.
If GW2 is crazy different and successful I'll be as happy as the rest of you. Rewind a year though and see how similar the hopes were for SWTOR. Just throwing it out there.
I get that you don't like it but some of us do. I'll still be buying this game and will be having fun with friends.
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 30,004
DAOC, Shadowbane, EQ1, etc. were much more in-depth and different than these modern themeparks and quite successful for their times. The MMO genre has declined significantly starting with WOW onward.
As far as point two, that's the unfortunate truth, except for the fact that many of these themepark MMO's are failing quickly and NOT making much money.
MMO's don't have to be strict rpgs as tehy have been. They don't have to be theme park style worlds that you're led from one area to another to see all the pre-definied quest chains/area's like almost all mmo's do.
Look at how much single player rpgs have changed. Go from early rpgs like Fallout/Planescape/Baldur's Gate, look at games like Skyrim, The Witcher 2, Dragon AGe, Mass Effect.
There's a great variety in here as well as innovation and bringing the genre forward.
MMo's haven't moved forward at all, it's pretty much the same basic game as EQ was when it came out. Everything about WoW was in other mmo's, from the BG's/pvp (Daoc mainly) and things.
It's even taken a step back imo, when you look at early mmo's like UO , with it's VERY different type of gameplay with a true sandbox world, open skill system, etc (which no other AAA backed game has even tried since then, and UO was successful for it's time).
Being an mmorpg doesn't mean it has to play it safe, it's just that no big publisher wants to take the chance, and it's holding back the genre from growing.
I know MA NY mmo fans that are just sick and tired of the SAME DAMN GAME over and over and over. It's like you're stuck playing bad tetris copies over and over. It's just a re-skin ont eh same basic game with a new world/characters.
MMO's aren't like other genres, they can encompass maaaaaaany other genres within itself, form mmo rts, to mmo fps, mmo space sim, etc.
The main thing that holds many people back from truly enjoying mmo's and sticking around? Gameplay. The actual combat, etc for most people is simply not fun. It's not enjoyable for many people to sit there, hit 1, 2, 3, over and over. There's no fun to combat doing it like that.
Now take a game like Call of Duty/Battlefield 3, people play thees games for the actual gameplay.
Coudl you imagine a Star Wars mmo that featured melee combat at least on part with Jedi Knight, if not better (IE severance style melee combat), fps combat that feels as fluid/well done as Battlefield 3, with vehicles that are as well done as Rogue squadron and the X-wing series with full space battles an dthings?
That is a Star wars game that people would have played for the gameplay alone, on top of Bioware being able to put in their Mass Effect style character depth, story, voice acting, etc.
Instead of taking what THEY themselves have learned with single player rpgs, they instead just said "It's an mmo, lets take the same basic generic EQ formula like WoW did and just run with it."
I liked KOTOR, it was a great rpg. However combat? To me when I think "Star wars" combat, I picture Jedi Knight/rogue squadron/x-wing, I don't think KOTOR represents what most people picture when tehy think "Star Wars" in terms of combat.
It's just not fun to play a Jedi Knight, and be STATIONARY spamming away your special abilities over and over with no ability to be dodging, blocking attacks, throwing your lightsaber (and actually having to AIM where you want it to hit), etc.
OpStar
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2004
- Messages
- 598
I've been in since April and I love it. I think it's the best MMO I've ever played and I think it feels very Star Warsy.
I assume ppl who say WoW in Space are simply tired of the genre as a whole, because complaining that an MMO has MMO gameplay is pretty silly.
For their times.
Back before people realized it isn't okay for everything to be contested and require 80 people to kill.
Those days of MMO gameplay are gone and they are never going to return. The audience is different now and they won't put up with games where you can't progress without a handbuilt holy trinity group around you 24/7.
Also I wouldn't really call Shadowbane or DAoC successful tbh, they didn't last near as long as EQ, EQ2 and WoW have lasted.
Um, no.
Battlefield servers can barely handle 64v64 and you're talking about a MMO with Battlefield gameplay with thousands of people in a persistent world and then on top of that you also want to tack on a full rogue squadron/x-wing type space combat sim?
As if.
This is a Star Wars game with Bioware style character depth, story and voice acting set in a persistent MMO world. I've leveled to 50 nine or ten times in beta now and it's immersive and fun every time even if you're playing the same story.
The combat animations are great and the combat feels Star Warsy to me, as Star Warsy as you can get in an MMO. In fact when you're fighting NPCs with sabers or vibrostaffs/swords they will literally block your attack with their saber. The combat feels much more engaging than in other MMOs where the animations between player and NPC never interact.
You're expecting these huge revolutionary changes that 1) aren't feasible in the genre and 2) would be a huge monetary risk.
So many MMOs have come and gone taking these huge gameplay risks only to be complete and utter failures. First person combat? Fail. Skill based twitch gameplay? Fail. Hardcore group oriented 100 hours a week to progresss? Fail.
Bioware isn't stupid. They took a winning formula and added their own spin. That is how you succeed. WoW copied EQ and fixed some of it's problems, added a couple of things and put the Blizzard spin on it.
TOR copies WoW and fixed some of it's problems, added a couple of things and put the Bioware spin on it.
It's fun, it's immersive, it totally feels like Star Wars and that is the most you could ask out of a KOTOR MMO~
Last edited:
I'm talking about actual combat and fludity. It's VERY possible to have an mmo fps. WWII online, Planetside, Heck Mag.
I'm not asking for allt he envirnomental destruction and high end graphics of BF3, but the fludity of the shooting/guns, etc.
Take that kind of gameplay/design for the shooting, throw in melee combat with the jedi knight/severance style, and then have the air vehicles that control as good as rogue squadron/x-wing.
That's what the dream star wars mmo would be for me, an dit IS possible.
Also don't kid yourself, almost all mmo's these days aren't true open worlds, they make use of heavy instancing so that the actual zone you are in will hold a couple hundred people max, it's not a full 2-3k populated world like mmo's use dto be. So having a zone with 200'ish people able to have full fledged combat? That is ENTIRELY possible these days, look at Joint ops and the other mmofps I mentioned.
So your talking about a mmo fps kind of like tabula rasa. You see how well that game turned out
Hungrypilot
n00b
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2011
- Messages
- 21
The NDA is still in place by the way.... this thread violates it horribly.
Maybe it turned out that way cause it wasn't that fun? You even play it?
Combat wasn't nearly as fluid or real time like BF3/CoD style, it wasn't as action oriented and more focused on generic mmorpg style game'isms which held it back.
I didn't see this my last post so:
I've been playing mmo's since UO/EQ/Ac days. I have tried most all of them that have came and gone. You kknow what I've seen first hand?
1. Most mmo's that have failed, have been GENERIC copies of the same basic formula.
2. The only mmo's that have tried new things have mostly been indie mmo's, that don't have nearly the budget to run a successful mmo, they can't market it and the game simply doesn't get enough people to survive, even if it is fun.
3. How many mmo's that have failed have been backed by a AAA publisher (IE, EA, Activision, UBisoft) that have actually tried something new?
I see this argument all the time in MMO threads, talking about how it's "smart" to use the formula that works for WoW.
Well you know what? The formula is running out. Almost anyone that plays mmo's these days is tired of it. Copying tihe WoW style of play leads to the peopel getting bored and eventually leaving, either to go back to WoW because that's what most people stick with, or to simply not play mmo's anymore.
The MMO market is RIPE for innovation, for just one single, GOOD BUDGETED game (IE not an indie) to come out with an mmo that's just vastly different from other mmo's. It hasn't really happened yet on any large scale.
Most mmo's are floundering and switching to Free to play to stay afloat. The market is over saturaed with WoW style (EQ really) mmo clones that just take that basic game design (theme park world, classes, loot focused, spam special combat, holy trinity setup) and throw their skin over it.
It's like an FPS genre with nothing but Doom clones, we need our Half Life.
OpStar
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2004
- Messages
- 598
Agree to disagree I think.
AoC, WAR, Rift - all of those games lacked any sort of thing to set them apart and TOR has that "it" factor with the immersive story and dialog options. I feel more attached to my beta character in TOR than I do for the EQ2 character I've played for 7 years~
AoC, WAR, Rift - all of those games lacked any sort of thing to set them apart and TOR has that "it" factor with the immersive story and dialog options. I feel more attached to my beta character in TOR than I do for the EQ2 character I've played for 7 years~
I did play Tablua Rasa I actually have the ce sitting on my bookshelf collecting dust. The reason I mentioned it is because you where talking about mmofps games.
Why is it that all new MMORPGs are always measured (even before they are released) in how similar they are to WoW?
One answer, "too similar to WoW" comes to mind, because who still wants to play that?. It also means your average MMO gamer will eventually go crawling back to WoW anyways, especially if the new game is deemed incomplete or unpolished; or won't want to waste their time (Why start all over there when I can already play WoW?)
In earlier years, I never felt as though one MMO was similar to another. Not once did I find AO similar to DAOC, or SWG similar to either of those. They all felt fresh and very different than any previous MMO I had played, and there was never any feeling that the game was designed specifically to appeal to a sudden market boom focused around another competing game.
One answer, "too similar to WoW" comes to mind, because who still wants to play that?. It also means your average MMO gamer will eventually go crawling back to WoW anyways, especially if the new game is deemed incomplete or unpolished; or won't want to waste their time (Why start all over there when I can already play WoW?)
In earlier years, I never felt as though one MMO was similar to another. Not once did I find AO similar to DAOC, or SWG similar to either of those. They all felt fresh and very different than any previous MMO I had played, and there was never any feeling that the game was designed specifically to appeal to a sudden market boom focused around another competing game.
The only game recently that I felt was similair to wow was rift. Playing rift felt like a wow expansion
You don't need them. Its recommended to use players in flashpoints
Your own little world/map that only you and your group can be on. No outside interference and no meeting people.
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 30,004
Opstar, daoc lasted fine.... 5-6 high sub years, 4 more now at low subset. Financial and gameplay success. Modern mmo are so dumbed down that they collapse fast. We need a return to mmo roots and your characterization of needing 80 people is incorrect. Trinity is needed even in wow and tor so not sure of your point there.
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 30,004
Good post. I hated wow so.... it's important for an mmo to NOT be like wow. Past mmo had variety while modern ones just are cookie cutter and dumbed down. That's why people are unhappy and they keep collapsing.
Instances refer to parts of the world (be it zones, dungeons, etc) where the game only allows a finite number of people.
Instances can be used in a variety of ways. From large instances/hubs (IE Guild Wars cities, EQ2 zones) to small closed instances where it's merely for you/your group, such as dungeons/raids.
That means that in that instance, only you and your group exist, there's no other real players besides your group that can be there.
Instancing is being over-done in many mmo's, to the point they are using it for the actual world (EQ2), where all the zones within taht world as merely instances.
This can lead to mmo's that feel disconnected, and not part of a huge "World" like older ones felt, such as EQ.
It also has some advantages, being that developers can instance dungeons and other things to make it more story-focused, whereas without the instance you'd have other people running in, mesing things up for your group and the story couldn't be built around your group (or just you if you are solo).
General definition would be a zone created for you or your party, however that's not what people mean when they say it in all cases....so examples are good.
Everquest 1 when it came out it was not instanced in anyway. It still had zones, where you couldn't move fluid from one area to another without hitting a zone wall and waiting for the next one to load. This is important for a point I'll make later.
In EQ1 if you entered any zone, you shared that zone with everyone else. If a "boss/named PC/whatever" spawned, it was for the entire server...there were no other places that same boss was spawning.
Anarchy Online had missions, these were created for your character. Other could join you if you had them in your group. But these zones were generated for you to run a mission....no one else could get in without your help. They still had shared dungeons however, so you'd run into a dungeon and have another 70+ people in there with you.
City of Heroes uses mission systems, they are generally predefined zones you pick up based on your characters power basis (magic, nature, tech, and mutation). But this where they use instances on general zones and this is the point I referred to back in EQ 1 description. You could have multiple instances of the same zone. Atlas Park 1, Atlas Park 2, Atlas Park 3, etc. So a boss/named/whatever spawning in one of these could be dead in another, or have been up for hours in a third. This is where the definition of instance gets a little muddled because anyone can access these zone-instances if they aren't full. In this case it's meant to serve to keep a maximum population cap on an area so it's 1) Not slow 2) Not overly crowded 3) Utilizes server resources more evenly (IE You can have a instance zone crash, but in most cases they won't all go down.
WoW when I quit didn't use open zone-instancing, but made heavy use of instances for quests/missions. However those instances were not tied directly to you having a specific quest or not, you could enter them and generate a new instance just to run it for loot. They used phasing.........I never experienced it first hand. I think it was a way so they could alter areas for people without splitting the population up. WoW suffers from performance issues when you enter the cities due to the huge amounts of people in the areas and on screen. This is what City of Heroes uses multiple open zone instances to avoid.....plus I just don't think City of Heroes has the ability to host that many people due to it's architecture.
SWTOR in my opinion does not handle zoning as well as WoW. WoW is really fluid and only has loads times when you make big leaps. SWTOR has load times on Rez/QT, leaving planets, entering small instances (black screen for a few seconds upon entering), etc...I don't think it will be addressed before retail. SWTOR also uses open zone instancing, but shares chat channels across the open zones..so you'll often group with people where you need to switch instances to meet them. This means world bosses can be up in one and dead in another, one instance can have a bugged quest and the other can work, etc. Green/Red doors in SWTOR = instance in the sense that you own it and only you or your group can enter. These are the ones where the "instance owner" (show at the top of the screen) can screw you by going AFK before it finishes and you can't leave the party and pick up a fourth to finish it...because you can't carry it over since they own it.
Different note to those who play: Flashpoints beyond the very first one you see are not like the very first one as of this writing. You don't get commendations, there's not much voice work in the actual flashpoint. And the only loot you get are from general drops. So if you are basing your open of flashpoints on the first flashpoint, right now the rest I have seen are not like the first. Think Age of Conan, Tortage is not representative of the rest of the game. This may change, but I don't consider it a valid argument for why SWTOR is awesome if Flashpoints aren't fairly consistent in their content delivery, and they are not as of this writing.
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 30,004
It means multiple copies of a zone. Population limits are unrelated.
It means multiple copies of a zone. Population limits are unrelated.
Actually, no. Population limit is extremely important, that is one fo the main reasons developers use instancing these days on non-dungeon area's.
EQ2 for example, will create new zone instances once it reaches the population cap for that zone instance.
having too many people in one area is one of the main reasons instances were created, to lessen the server load and allow the population to be handled by another server.
If there was no population to tell the server when to load x player into y zone, the whole system would fall apart. and be meaningless.
OpStar
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2004
- Messages
- 598
Not really possible with 8 ACs and multiple roles per AC.
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 30,004
What you talk describe is game design. Instancing means a copy of a zone. What makes one is individualized by game. Whether it is auto triggered by pop caps, a group entering, or set times, an instance on its own simply means a zone copy by definition.
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 30,004
You still need one to absorb damage, one to kill, one to keep the group alive. What a given toon can spec for means nothing regarding Trinity design.
Generally you can't take pure DPS into a group encounter and expect to win.
You could probably take all healers, but the fights would take ages and someone would have to shoot to not turn it into a healing circle jerk.
All tanks might win, but one or two is going to die each big fight...lots of downtime in between.
Goldentiger has the right of it....there's a sweet spot on groups and it generally involves at least 1 healer, 1 DPS, 1 tank. You can't have all of one type, but the closer you get to one of each the better off you are. 2 healers, 2 tanks. 2 healers, 2 dps...etc, not as efficient as 1, 1, 1, with one random.
And to further my point. When you have options of multiple companions, do you pick the one whose the same spec as you? Or one whose something different? IE As a healer do you pop out the healer companion? Or is it better to have a tank/DPS? As a tank do you want a tank companion? Or a healer?
OpStar
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2004
- Messages
- 598
You still need one to absorb damage, one to kill, one to keep the group alive. What a given toon can spec for means nothing regarding Trinity design.
It means you don't have to roll one of three classes to be viable. Due to the multiple specs you can roll whatever you want and still perform a primary facet of the group.
Who says you don't need tank dps healer?
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 30,004
It's exactly the same thing: tank, dps, healer... other than the lowest level stuff.