Originally posted by theniffrig

Originally posted by Distopia

Well when the time comes I can assure you it's not all roses and tulips :P.

Well when that time arrives, people might be willing to listen if all the problems you might have with the game are not related to it having not reinvented the wheel for the MMO genre.

Lets put it this way I'll be playing TOR.

Originally posted by Creslin321

I think they are all fair criticisms.

You can't just excuse someone from a shortcoming because they told you it would be there ahead of time.  That would be like if you told your teacher that you weren't going to do a bibliography for your paper and then complained when you lost points because of it.

Here's a counter argument I've seen thrown around then. If these are indeed "fair criticisms", not one of the people stating them have offered any sort of viable solutions to the problems they have with the game. But then, that's a much larger point that's been made several times before, that how would you, for example, remove kill X number quests from the game? I'd say why should you be looking to remove them? Isn't that the genre to have these quests? Again, takes you forever to get around the large worlds? Why remove the travel time? Isn't that the genre?

If they keep peeling away what makes an MMO an MMO, it won't be an MMO anymore.

Originally posted by theniffrig

Originally posted by Creslin321

I think they are all fair criticisms.

You can't just excuse someone from a shortcoming because they told you it would be there ahead of time.  That would be like if you told your teacher that you weren't going to do a bibliography for your paper and then complained when you lost points because of it.

 

Here's a counter argument I've seen thrown around then. If these are indeed "fair criticisms", not one of the people stating them have offered any sort of viable solutions to the problems they have with the game. But then, that's a much larger point that's been made several times before, that how would you, for example, remove kill X number quests from the game? I'd say why should you be looking to remove them? Isn't that the genre to have these quests? Again, takes you forever to get around the large worlds? Why remove the travel time? Isn't that the genre?

If they keep peeling away what makes an MMO an MMO, it won't be an MMO anymore.

I think you are a bit confused with what critics and reviewers do. When you review something and say its bad, you DON'T have to give a "good way" of doing it, or a different solution. Should we have all profesional sports critics also be profesional athletes? 

Originally posted by theniffrig

Originally posted by Creslin321

I think they are all fair criticisms.

You can't just excuse someone from a shortcoming because they told you it would be there ahead of time.  That would be like if you told your teacher that you weren't going to do a bibliography for your paper and then complained when you lost points because of it.

 

Here's a counter argument I've seen thrown around then. If these are indeed "fair criticisms", not one of the people stating them have offered any sort of viable solutions to the problems they have with the game. But then, that's a much larger point that's been made several times before, that how would you, for example, remove kill X number quests from the game? I'd say why should you be looking to remove them? Isn't that the genre to have these quests? Again, takes you forever to get around the large worlds? Why remove the travel time? Isn't that the genre?

If they keep peeling away what makes an MMO an MMO, it won't be an MMO anymore.

Well, I don't think (p)reviewers are really required to offer advice on how to "fix" a feature they find lacking...they just have to give their professional opinion and move on.

But since you asked...

I think that the public quest concept from WAR has some merit but it was implemented poorly.  I think that if a developer took this concept and ran with it, it could be possible to improve upon the traditional questing model used in WoW and so many other MMORPGs.

Originally posted by Kuppa

Originally posted by theniffrig

Originally posted by Creslin321

I think they are all fair criticisms.

You can't just excuse someone from a shortcoming because they told you it would be there ahead of time.  That would be like if you told your teacher that you weren't going to do a bibliography for your paper and then complained when you lost points because of it.

 

Here's a counter argument I've seen thrown around then. If these are indeed "fair criticisms", not one of the people stating them have offered any sort of viable solutions to the problems they have with the game. But then, that's a much larger point that's been made several times before, that how would you, for example, remove kill X number quests from the game? I'd say why should you be looking to remove them? Isn't that the genre to have these quests? Again, takes you forever to get around the large worlds? Why remove the travel time? Isn't that the genre?

If they keep peeling away what makes an MMO an MMO, it won't be an MMO anymore.

I think you are a bit confused with what critics and reviewers do. When you review something and say its bad, you DON'T have to give a "good way" of doing it, or a different solution. Should we have all profesional sports critics also be profesional athletes? 

LOL, I agree, but bad analogy :).  I don't know how many times I remember John Madden or other sports commentators saying that the coach should have called play X when they called play Y.

I think a lot of the reviewers and many critics fail to miss the point.

We know TOR isn't perfect. There hasn't been a perfect mmo made yet, no matter who you are and what game you play now, so that should never even be included in a description or some kind of possibility.. ever. No game is ever going to be "perfect". Ever. No matter how many years they make mmos.

So now that we got that out of the way...

The real question these reviewers didn't answer, which most players want to know is.. "Is TOR more fun than anything you've played thus far?"

Through all the technical descriptions of this/that, those people rarely answer that because they are looking at things that make up the game and not like someone playing the game for fun.

Most people won't care that it has WoW type questing if it's fun. They won't care if it has WoW type UI if it's fun. They won't care if it has a lot of voice acting if it's fun. They won't care that it doesn't "redefine the genre the day it ships" (like Rift claimed) if the game is fun. Just about anyone looking at TOR is asking that question alone because the games they are playing now simply AREN'T fun or ceased to be fun for them... or else, why would they ever be looking at or discussing TOR?

The ironic thing is that that particular, most important question about the "fun" cannot be answered by the reviewers who write good articles or bad articles. They can ONLY be answered by the player who BUYS the game and boots it up and starts playing.

Originally posted by Kuppa

I think you are a bit confused with what critics and reviewers do. When you review something and say its bad, you DON'T have to give a "good way" of doing it, or a different solution. Should we have all profesional sports critics also be profesional athletes? 

While you are correct, you arn't right. You see it's a weak argument &/or opinion that's made without also giving an opinion to how you would change or fix the problems you have just stated in the first place. And you will also find sports critics are very vocal about the way "they'd have done it" when it comes to any criticisms they have. 

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Kuppa

Originally posted by theniffrig

Originally posted by Creslin321

I think they are all fair criticisms.

You can't just excuse someone from a shortcoming because they told you it would be there ahead of time.  That would be like if you told your teacher that you weren't going to do a bibliography for your paper and then complained when you lost points because of it.

 

Here's a counter argument I've seen thrown around then. If these are indeed "fair criticisms", not one of the people stating them have offered any sort of viable solutions to the problems they have with the game. But then, that's a much larger point that's been made several times before, that how would you, for example, remove kill X number quests from the game? I'd say why should you be looking to remove them? Isn't that the genre to have these quests? Again, takes you forever to get around the large worlds? Why remove the travel time? Isn't that the genre?

If they keep peeling away what makes an MMO an MMO, it won't be an MMO anymore.

I think you are a bit confused with what critics and reviewers do. When you review something and say its bad, you DON'T have to give a "good way" of doing it, or a different solution. Should we have all profesional sports critics also be profesional athletes? 

LOL, I agree, but bad analogy :).  I don't know how many times I remember John Madden or other sports commentators saying that the coach should have called play X when they called play Y.

hmmm, thats the point. They don't, because they don't have to. Just like game reviewers should not have to give solutions to gaming problems. 

Originally posted by popinjay

The ironic thing is that that particular, most important question about the "fun" cannot be answered by the reviewers who write good articles or bad articles. They can ONLY be answered by the player who BUYS the game and boots it up and starts playing.

I agree.

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Kuppa

Originally posted by theniffrig

Originally posted by Creslin321

I think they are all fair criticisms.

You can't just excuse someone from a shortcoming because they told you it would be there ahead of time.  That would be like if you told your teacher that you weren't going to do a bibliography for your paper and then complained when you lost points because of it.

 

Here's a counter argument I've seen thrown around then. If these are indeed "fair criticisms", not one of the people stating them have offered any sort of viable solutions to the problems they have with the game. But then, that's a much larger point that's been made several times before, that how would you, for example, remove kill X number quests from the game? I'd say why should you be looking to remove them? Isn't that the genre to have these quests? Again, takes you forever to get around the large worlds? Why remove the travel time? Isn't that the genre?

If they keep peeling away what makes an MMO an MMO, it won't be an MMO anymore.

I think you are a bit confused with what critics and reviewers do. When you review something and say its bad, you DON'T have to give a "good way" of doing it, or a different solution. Should we have all profesional sports critics also be profesional athletes? 

LOL, I agree, but bad analogy :).  I don't know how many times I remember John Madden or other sports commentators saying that the coach should have called play X when they called play Y.

Jay Z said it best in one of his songs.  "Everyone can tell you how to do it, but they never did it." Personally why I don't take critics/reviewers too serious.  Everyone has an opinion. Hell I make no secret of how much I hated DA2, but given the same resources, time, and misc items.  Could I have done better? lol Nope.  It's easy to tear down the work of others when you can't do it yourself.  Thats one of the main reasons I get a good musing out of Sandbox people, and doomsayers of how MMO's are now, and the ones that constantly toss around nice phrases like "WoW clone" and/or "Single Player MMO". Because I realize that A) They've probably never worked on a MMO before. B) Much like me even with funding and resources they would make something that flopped horribly.

Most of us have driven cars for more years then we can remember, but you wouldn't say that qualifies you as a Car Expert or even a Mechanic now would it? I ride FFXIV devs from time to time about the game, but at end of day.  If they came to my door and said "You have two choices.  Take the reigns on the game and steer it where I think it should go, or make an embarassing live broadcast admitting I don't know a damn thing about how to make an MMO."  Which do you think would be the smart option? I tell you now I'd be picking that embarassing live broadcast.

Originally posted by popinjay

I think a lot of the reviewers and many critics fail to miss the point.

 

We know TOR isn't perfect. There hasn't been a perfect mmo made yet, no matter who you are and what game you play now, so that should never even be included in a description or some kind of possibility.. ever. No game is ever going to be "perfect". Ever. No matter how many years they make mmos.

 

So now that we got that out of the way...

 

The real question these reviewers didn't answer, which most players want to know is.. "Is TOR more fun than anything you've played thus far?"

 

Through all the technical descriptions of this/that, those people rarely answer that because they are looking at things that make up the game and not like someone playing the game for fun.

 

 

Most people won't care that it has WoW type questing if it's fun. They won't care if it has WoW type UI if it's fun. They won't care if it has a lot of voice acting if it's fun. They won't care that it doesn't "redefine the genre the day it ships" (like Rift claimed) if the game is fun. Just about anyone looking at TOR is asking that question alone because the games they are playing now simply AREN'T fun or ceased to be fun for them... or else, why would they ever be looking at or discussing TOR?

 

 

 

The ironic thing is that that particular, most important question about the "fun" cannot be answered by the reviewers who write good articles or bad articles. They can ONLY be answered by the player who BUYS the game and boots it up and starts playing.

You write as if "fun" and the specific features of a game are completely independent of one another...they aren't.

"Fun" is completely subjective, but it is often derived from the features of a game.  I have "fun" when I do battleground PvP, some don't.  I don't have "fun" doing traditional questing, some do.

If the reviewer just tells you if they had "fun" with a game, it doesn't tell you anything really because what's fun for one person may be horrible to another.  So instead, they focus on telling you factual statements about the game's systems, and then their general (subjective) impressions of how they are implemented.

From this, you make your own determination on if the game will be "fun" for you.

Some people will find the more traditional aspects of SWTOR fun, some won't.

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Kuppa

Originally posted by theniffrig

Originally posted by Creslin321

I think they are all fair criticisms.

You can't just excuse someone from a shortcoming because they told you it would be there ahead of time.  That would be like if you told your teacher that you weren't going to do a bibliography for your paper and then complained when you lost points because of it.

 

Here's a counter argument I've seen thrown around then. If these are indeed "fair criticisms", not one of the people stating them have offered any sort of viable solutions to the problems they have with the game. But then, that's a much larger point that's been made several times before, that how would you, for example, remove kill X number quests from the game? I'd say why should you be looking to remove them? Isn't that the genre to have these quests? Again, takes you forever to get around the large worlds? Why remove the travel time? Isn't that the genre?

If they keep peeling away what makes an MMO an MMO, it won't be an MMO anymore.

I think you are a bit confused with what critics and reviewers do. When you review something and say its bad, you DON'T have to give a "good way" of doing it, or a different solution. Should we have all profesional sports critics also be profesional athletes? 

LOL, I agree, but bad analogy :).  I don't know how many times I remember John Madden or other sports commentators saying that the coach should have called play X when they called play Y.

Reasonable enough analogy... not to go too far down the rabbit hole on this... but John Madden was a former player/coach... so he can critique.  Joe Buck is a broadcaster... so he does not and cannot.

But yeah... overall I agree as well.  A review is not required to offer solutions.

Btw... loved you in Game of Thrones ;)

---

Originally posted by Creslin321

---

Originally posted by popinjay
I think a lot of the reviewers and many critics fail to miss the point.
 
We know TOR isn't perfect. There hasn't been a perfect mmo made yet, no matter who you are and what game you play now, so that should never even be included in a description or some kind of possibility.. ever. No game is ever going to be "perfect". Ever. No matter how many years they make mmos.
 

So now that we got that out of the way...
 

The real question these reviewers didn't answer, which most players want to know is.. "Is TOR more fun than anything you've played thus far?"
 
Through all the technical descriptions of this/that, those people rarely answer that because they are looking at things that make up the game and not like someone playing the game for fun.
 
 
Most people won't care that it has WoW type questing if it's fun. They won't care if it has WoW type UI if it's fun. They won't care if it has a lot of voice acting if it's fun. They won't care that it doesn't "redefine the genre the day it ships" (like Rift claimed) if the game is fun. Just about anyone looking at TOR is asking that question alone because the games they are playing now simply AREN'T fun or ceased to be fun for them... or else, why would they ever be looking at or discussing TOR?
 
 
 
The ironic thing is that that particular, most important question about the "fun" cannot be answered by the reviewers who write good articles or bad articles. They can ONLY be answered by the player who BUYS the game and boots it up and starts playing.

---

You write as if "fun" and the specific features of a game are completely independent of one another...they aren't.
"Fun" is completely subjective, but it is often derived from the features of a game.  I have "fun" when I do battleground PvP, some don't.  I don't have "fun" doing traditional questing, some do.
If the reviewer just tells you if they had "fun" with a game, it doesn't tell you anything really because what's fun for one person may be horrible to another.  So instead, they focus on telling you factual statements about the game's systems, and then their general (subjective) impressions of how they are implemented.
From this, you make your own determination on if the game will be "fun" for you.
Some people will find the more traditional aspects of SWTOR fun, some won't.

---

Example: I think Eve is one of the most technically proficient games I've ever seen. It gives the player an immense amount of control over their gameplay. It has all types of ships, weapons and planets to visit. There is worldscale PvP that no one in the industry can match. It has tons of players that are loyal and have stayed with the company for years and made millions. That said, EvE was the most BORING game I've ever played without a doubt. It's a very GOOD game, even great in it's genre (space mmos) but it's flat out sleep inducing for me. For ME.

So having technical prowess and leading your field still only goes so far even though reviewers love EvE or hate EvE.

Fun is the most important factor above everything. You should have learned this at five years old when you were playing in the yard with nothing but some sticks and some dirt. You didn't need advanced toys to make it better.

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by Creslin321

---

Originally posted by popinjay
I think a lot of the reviewers and many critics fail to miss the point.
 
We know TOR isn't perfect. There hasn't been a perfect mmo made yet, no matter who you are and what game you play now, so that should never even be included in a description or some kind of possibility.. ever. No game is ever going to be "perfect". Ever. No matter how many years they make mmos.
 

So now that we got that out of the way...
 

The real question these reviewers didn't answer, which most players want to know is.. "Is TOR more fun than anything you've played thus far?"
 
Through all the technical descriptions of this/that, those people rarely answer that because they are looking at things that make up the game and not like someone playing the game for fun.
 
 
Most people won't care that it has WoW type questing if it's fun. They won't care if it has WoW type UI if it's fun. They won't care if it has a lot of voice acting if it's fun. They won't care that it doesn't "redefine the genre the day it ships" (like Rift claimed) if the game is fun. Just about anyone looking at TOR is asking that question alone because the games they are playing now simply AREN'T fun or ceased to be fun for them... or else, why would they ever be looking at or discussing TOR?
 
 
 
The ironic thing is that that particular, most important question about the "fun" cannot be answered by the reviewers who write good articles or bad articles. They can ONLY be answered by the player who BUYS the game and boots it up and starts playing.

---

You write as if "fun" and the specific features of a game are completely independent of one another...they aren't.
"Fun" is completely subjective, but it is often derived from the features of a game.  I have "fun" when I do battleground PvP, some don't.  I don't have "fun" doing traditional questing, some do.
If the reviewer just tells you if they had "fun" with a game, it doesn't tell you anything really because what's fun for one person may be horrible to another.  So instead, they focus on telling you factual statements about the game's systems, and then their general (subjective) impressions of how they are implemented.
From this, you make your own determination on if the game will be "fun" for you.
Some people will find the more traditional aspects of SWTOR fun, some won't.

---

And you write as if they are wholly dependant upon each other, which they most certainly aren't. Both components are important but at the end of the day, what is more "fun".. a game with more technical advances, dohickies, UIs, and whatever else but lackluster world of immersion and interest or a game with average technical features but incredible fun and involvment?

 

 

Example: I think Eve is one of the most technically proficient games I've ever seen. It gives the player an immense amount of control over their gameplay. It has all types of ships, weapons and planets to visit. There is worldscale PvP that no one in the industry can match. It has tons of players that are loyal and have stayed with the company for years and made millions. That said, EvE was the most BORING game I've ever played without a doubt. It's a very GOOD game, even great in it's genre (space mmos) but it's flat out sleep inducing for me. For ME.

 

 

So having technical prowess and leading your field still only goes so far even though reviewers love EvE or hate EvE.

 

Fun is the most important factor above everything. You should have learned this at five years old when you were playing in the yard with nothing but some sticks and some dirt. You didn't need advanced toys to make it better.

Fun is also completely arbitrary.

Say you need to decide whether to buy a game or not.  Your decision criteria is "will this game be fun for me?"  Now say the only information you have is the experiences of other people who have played the game.

They all tell you that it's super fun, so you buy the game.  Say the game turns out to be EvE and you hate it.  Now you wasted money on a game you hate and you're mad.

Wouldn't it have been nice if the people who said EvE was fun had given you more objective information like:

"It has slow combat" 

"You spend lots of time mining"

"Advancement is essentially tied to how long your account has been active"

"You can never get out of your ship"

Maybe if they had told you this information, YOU could have decided the game would not be fun for you and you wouldn't have bought it.

Considering the radio of Good to bad reviews, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the negative reviews were from people who personally didn't find the game as enjoyable as others.

Which is cool. They made their points and I'm cool with that.

I'm still gonna play the game, though.

lets tell the hidden truth about this game: its a wow clone in space period.

Every single article is just one or more peoples opinion,none of them should affect your opinion of a game.

I am waiting like i always do to try the game for myself,to be frank i can't trust anyone's word or any article to have any bit of truth in it.

IMO MOST articles are from websites,that ALWAYS rely on advertising/sponsors,so i highly doubt you ar going to read many articles that are not juiced up to look better than it should,hence why try it for yourslef,that is the BEST opinion you will ever have.

So massively is the only with both positive and negative reviews.

Does that make them a trust worthy site or bat shit nuts?

Only one request - the Bit-tech article is from April.  I understand that you want to keep things balanced, but that person wasn't playing a build equal to what the other reviewers have had a chance to poke through.  Mind you, I understand that it's still SWTOR, but keeping that review in there is like saying we are all comparing apples and don't mind the orange because it's still a fruit.

Originally posted by pedrostrik

lets tell the hidden truth about this game: its a wow clone in space period.

Its just KOTOR expanded to multiplayer, and KOTOR was released before WOW = no clone...

I feel like everyone who says SWTOR is space WOW clone has next to zero gaming knowledge or just fail to express themselves with any credibility/intelligent thought used.