Good read weasel, I am hoping for two additional fixes to the game from my experience. I am hoping that the recent mob AI upgrade is pretty good. Too many mobs would stand there and shoot. The second one is ranged vs melee in pvp. Ranged was pretty much crushing melee the last time I played. 

Originally posted by catlana

Good read weasel, I am hoping for two additional fixes to the game from my experience. I am hoping that the recent mob AI upgrade is pretty good. Too many mobs would stand there and shoot. The second one is ranged vs melee in pvp. Ranged was pretty much crushing melee the last time I played. 

I completely agree with the mob AI.  I didn't find melee to ranged to be too out of balance.  As a consular Sage I could outheal and outrun most ranged characters, keeping myself alive,  but Sith Marauders were more than a thorn in my side,  they were the only class that could consistently throw a wrench in my well oiled machine.

I died more to marauders than any other class easy,   every time I would knock them away, they would jump right back on me,  they attack so much faster then my heals can allow, and no amount of LOS will help.  

Can't really speak to other classes though,  every inquisitor I fought in PvP went ranged,  with only a few Imperial Agents going stealth/melee,  which is wasted on a consular sage who can shield themselves from the first crit attack and knock them back once they're revealed making it very tough to take me down at melee range once they have no stealth and no surprise.    I think that class definitely needs a melee buff, and for them to remove positional attacks completely (just give crit bonus for backstab if you actually get them in the back).  

I heard some of that was supposed to change, but haven't revisited it to check for myself.

Extremely cogent and well written review thank you so much for posting it.

This review has at least one major flaw. The one I will point out is that you wrote "final score" when you are really just using the "average score".  The only time when the "average score" is of interest is when all categories are equally important, which is rarely the case. Since you used the "average score" and wrote "final score" instead of writing "average score", it shows a fundamental lack of understanding in scoring mechanics. 

Originally posted by InFaVilla

This review has at least one major flaw. The one I will point out is that you wrote "final score" when you are really just using the "average score".  The only time when the "average score" is of interest is when all categories are equally important, which is rarely the case. Since you used the "average score" and wrote "final score" instead of writing "average score", it shows a fundamental lack of understanding in scoring mechanics. 

 

 

I didn't average the totals,  that is my final score.  I gave the game an 8.2,  weighing the options between what I've played before, and how I felt it all matched up.   The game as a total feels like an 8.2 to me  in the state it was in when I played it,  not an 8.5, not a 9.0 or a 10,  but it didn't feel like a 7.5 either.  

The complete package was:  8.0 easy for the A+ content even if a lot of the mechanics are traditional.  the game to me, was fun, and enjoyable, and it is a definite buy in my book for anyone interested in Star Wars, MMOs, or BioWare storytelling.  It had its flaws during my few months of beta time,  and is currently still a work in progress. 

Originally posted by maskedweasel

Originally posted by InFaVilla

This review has at least one major flaw. The one I will point out is that you wrote "final score" when you are really just using the "average score".  The only time when the "average score" is of interest is when all categories are equally important, which is rarely the case. Since you used the "average score" and wrote "final score" instead of writing "average score", it shows a fundamental lack of understanding in scoring mechanics. 

 

 

I didn't average the totals,  that is my final score.  I gave the game an 8.2,  weighing the options between what I've played before, and how I felt it all matched up.   The game as a total feels like an 8.2 to me  in the state it was in when I played it,  not an 8.5, not a 9.0 or a 10,  but it didn't feel like a 7.5 either.  

 

The complete package was:  8.0 easy for the A+ content even if a lot of the mechanics are traditional.  the game to me, was fun, and enjoyable, and it is a definite buy in my book for anyone interested in Star Wars, MMOs, or BioWare storytelling.  It had its flaws during my few months of beta time,  and is currently still a work in progress. 

It is unlikely that the final score exactly matches the average score, but okay, let me assume you are being honest. A new question arises: in the final score why did you abandon the scoring in half and whole intergers that you had implicated to use through the previous scoring when you could have used the same scoring "steps" for both?

Maybe that was a coincidence too? The scores you felt they deserved were actually 8, 8,  7.5, 8, 8, 8, 9, 8.5 and 9, and not 0.1 nor 0.2  above/below those scores?

Anyhow, your review was enjoyable to read; however, since it is a review that chose to use scores, scoring systematically does matter.  Maybe next time you should consider to just write a review without any scores at all? Those work fine.

Originally posted by InFaVilla

Originally posted by maskedweasel

Originally posted by InFaVilla

This review has at least one major flaw. The one I will point out is that you wrote "final score" when you are really just using the "average score".  The only time when the "average score" is of interest is when all categories are equally important, which is rarely the case. Since you used the "average score" and wrote "final score" instead of writing "average score", it shows a fundamental lack of understanding in scoring mechanics. 

 

 

I didn't average the totals,  that is my final score.  I gave the game an 8.2,  weighing the options between what I've played before, and how I felt it all matched up.   The game as a total feels like an 8.2 to me  in the state it was in when I played it,  not an 8.5, not a 9.0 or a 10,  but it didn't feel like a 7.5 either.  

 

The complete package was:  8.0 easy for the A+ content even if a lot of the mechanics are traditional.  the game to me, was fun, and enjoyable, and it is a definite buy in my book for anyone interested in Star Wars, MMOs, or BioWare storytelling.  It had its flaws during my few months of beta time,  and is currently still a work in progress. 

 

It is unlikely that the final score exactly matches the average score, but okay, let me assume you are being honest. A new question arises: in the final score why did you abandon the scoring in half and whole intergers that you had implicated to use through the previous scoring when you could have used the same scoring "steps" for both?

Maybe that was a coincidence too? The scores you felt they deserved were actually 8, 8,  7.5, 8, 8, 8, 9, 8.5 and 9, and not 0.1 nor 0.2  above/below those scores?

Anyhow, your review was enjoyable to read; however, since it is a review that chose to use scores, scoring systematically does matter.  Maybe next time you should consider to just write a review without any scores at all? Those work fine.

I see what you're saying.  To be completely honest with you the reason I gave the game an 8.2 is because, my COMPLETE and FINAL review of the released game I anticipate to be an 8.5.   I think its almost there,  I don't believe the game will reach a 9 for me,  but I think it deserves more than an 8.    

To me, ratings are

 5 - 7 : Game needs work, or is a very niche title:  

7 - 8  : Game is good :  

8 - 9   : Great Game:

9 - 10 :This game is Perfect:

I have yet to rate a game at a perfect 10, and I don't rate on a curve.  I think this is a great game, but its far from perfect.  At launch I anticipate it being an 8.5 easy granted they get the final bugs worked out and work on the UI and balancing, which is a given.  I don't see them implementing new space combat, adding new races, adding a lot of new PvP content, or anything that would make me think this game is a 9+ score, but it is definitely one of the top MMOs I've ever played.

Nice review, pretty much mirrors my experience / views with the beta.

It looks like this will be one of the smoothest MMO launces as well...like you said, a few 'quirks' but no glaring problems that I saw.

Originally posted by InFaVilla

Originally posted by maskedweasel

Originally posted by InFaVilla

This review has at least one major flaw. The one I will point out is that you wrote "final score" when you are really just using the "average score".  The only time when the "average score" is of interest is when all categories are equally important, which is rarely the case. Since you used the "average score" and wrote "final score" instead of writing "average score", it shows a fundamental lack of understanding in scoring mechanics. 

 

 

I didn't average the totals,  that is my final score.  I gave the game an 8.2,  weighing the options between what I've played before, and how I felt it all matched up.   The game as a total feels like an 8.2 to me  in the state it was in when I played it,  not an 8.5, not a 9.0 or a 10,  but it didn't feel like a 7.5 either.  

 

The complete package was:  8.0 easy for the A+ content even if a lot of the mechanics are traditional.  the game to me, was fun, and enjoyable, and it is a definite buy in my book for anyone interested in Star Wars, MMOs, or BioWare storytelling.  It had its flaws during my few months of beta time,  and is currently still a work in progress. 

 

It is unlikely that the final score exactly matches the average score, but okay, let me assume you are being honest. A new question arises: in the final score why did you abandon the scoring in half and whole intergers that you had implicated to use through the previous scoring when you could have used the same scoring "steps" for both?

Maybe that was a coincidence too? The scores you felt they deserved were actually 8, 8,  7.5, 8, 8, 8, 9, 8.5 and 9, and not 0.1 nor 0.2  above/below those scores?

Anyhow, your review was enjoyable to read; however, since it is a review that chose to use scores, scoring systematically does matter.  Maybe next time you should consider to just write a review without any scores at all? Those work fine.

Git of ma weasels back!

*stomps hoof*

Originally posted by Supersoups

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

Originally posted by Supersoups

Originally posted by jadedlevir

Originally posted by Supersoups

Originally posted by Vinterkrig

 

 

If you have heard it millions of times before and if you clearly didn't care what answer the guy/girl gave or wanted to remove an answer because it doesn't match your opinion, then why in the name of God did you ask for an example in the first place?

 

I asked this question for oneeevry simple reason 'you can not define meaningful or real pvp' since it differs from person to person. The guy i originally quoted just shrugged off PVP as meaningless only because he didn't like it. I thought i amde it quite clear already.

Except that still misses the fact that you can define "meaningful pvp" if you look at it in terms of the game world impact and not at it from the purely subjective personal enjoyment point of view.

No one is going to say that one form of pvp is more "important" to the individual than another because that is totally down to the individuals personal taste. But when people cite "meaningful pvp" they mean in terms of the game and it's impact upon the game, not in terms of their own enjoyment factor.

That being the case, looking at it in terms of the game world, pvp that impacts upon the game world, the games economy and the players within the game world is clearly more "meaningful and important" to said game world than instanced pvp which provides nothing but a personal/arbitrary "score".

Originally posted by jadedlevir

Originally posted by Supersoups

Originally posted by Vinterkrig

Pretty high pvp score considering the boring generic battlegrounds in the game and no real reason for open pvp

Give me example of any MMO which has a REAL reason for PVP. And if you mentione a FFA full loot sandbox as an example i am going to laugh.

Territory control, resoure competition, any permanent changeability of the world that would give control to one set of players over another, ect.  That's what creates player conflict between different groups of players, and would be a reason to go to war or battle them, not just for points to buy gear later on.

As for examples: eve, darkfall, mortal online, dominus (soon), archage(eventually). Hell, even tera(a pretty carebear themepark by themepark standards) has more reason to pvp then this game.

yes, some of these are ffa full loot, so laugh, doens't mean you know what your talking about

 

edit: I have no problems with instanced pvp, but the guy you quoted has a point. And it's why I doubt there will be much open world pvp in this game.

at least bunnyhopper and this guy get it, no need for me to say anything more, they've replied correctly 

I'd give world design a 10 in many places.  Funny thing is, you kinda have to pause and take a look around to process everything you're seeing.  Like when you first get to Taris and do some missions in the North, you have to stop, look around, and realize, "This is all Hugh Jass space debris!  And over here is a toppled over building 'ala 'Fist of the North Star'!".  It didn't have that feeling of "random space junk textures" like, say, Force Unleashed; each set piece told a story, via a huge trench a ship created before slamming up against a mountain, or a correllian corvette sized ship in 2-3 separate pieces in different areas of the zone...

On the other hand, I really wish there were day/night cycles, particularly if they cycled at different rates.

cant believe the OP gave the graphics a score of 8... wow really an 8.. what would you give age of conan a 20 ?

The graphics in the game are bad and thats just that.. no the art style on some of the planets are pretty cool and on some of the larger worlds the design is pretty good as well... but the graphics do not merit a score of 8.. i would say a belwo average 4 maybe adn thats just because of the character faces are actually half decent...

but each to their own..

Originally posted by Vinterkrig

Originally posted by jadedlevir

Originally posted by Supersoups

Originally posted by Vinterkrig

Pretty high pvp score considering the boring generic battlegrounds in the game and no real reason for open pvp

Give me example of any MMO which has a REAL reason for PVP. And if you mentione a FFA full loot sandbox as an example i am going to laugh.

Territory control, resoure competition, any permanent changeability of the world that would give control to one set of players over another, ect.  That's what creates player conflict between different groups of players, and would be a reason to go to war or battle them, not just for points to buy gear later on.

As for examples: eve, darkfall, mortal online, dominus (soon), archage(eventually). Hell, even tera(a pretty carebear themepark by themepark standards) has more reason to pvp then this game.

yes, some of these are ffa full loot, so laugh, doens't mean you know what your talking about

 

edit: I have no problems with instanced pvp, but the guy you quoted has a point. And it's why I doubt there will be much open world pvp in this game.

 

at least bunnyhopper and this guy get it, no need for me to say anything more, they've replied correctly 

Open world PvP in SWTOR will have special materials needed for crafting special items.  You can control areas specifically, and change the world by occupying that territory indefinitely.  You do get access to specific vendors,  get buffs for your entire faction,  and advance the over arching story all at the same time.   

Last I checked,  those are the same reasons you PvP in other games,  territory control,  special resources,  special items,  oh, but most importantly,  PvP should be fun....   which I find the PvP in SWTOR to be,  so,  that in a nutshell is why SWTOR received the score it did.  Its fun,  I enjoyed it,  it wasn't just mashing buttons,  the level designs usually allowed for strategy apart from the skills you used,  I DID do some open world PvP as I was on a PvP server,  but not very often,  and no,  at the time rewards were not implemented in the areas where I fought...  doesn't mean it wasn't still fun for me though.

Originally posted by Caldrin

cant believe the OP gave the graphics a score of 8... wow really an 8.. what would you give age of conan a 20 ?

 

The graphics in the game are bad and thats just that.. no the art style on some of the planets are pretty cool and on some of the larger worlds the design is pretty good as well... but the graphics do not merit a score of 8.. i would say a belwo average 4 maybe adn thats just because of the character faces are actually half decent...

 

but each to their own..

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/332980/SWTOR-A-quick-look-back-on-critics.html

Indeed, to each their own,  but I have a feeling you haven't seen many side by side comparisons lately, so there you go in my link above.  

Biased review, really 8's and 9's ? I'm suprised you didn't give everything a 10.

Originally posted by SaintViktor

Biased review, really 8's and 9's ? I'm suprised you didn't give everything a 10.

Coming from an extremely biased GW2 fan / troll. How am I not surprised at your comments? 

Originally posted by catlana

Originally posted by SaintViktor

Biased review, really 8's and 9's ? I'm suprised you didn't give everything a 10.

Coming from an extremely biased GW2 fan / troll. How am I not surprised at your comments? 

Coming from an extremely biased SW:TOR fanboy. Therefore I am not surprised by your hypocritical comment which reeks of intolerance towards opinions that oppose yours.

Originally posted by SaintViktor

Biased review, really 8's and 9's ? I'm suprised you didn't give everything a 10.

W..why would I give everything a 10.. nothing was perfect?  I did give one item under an 8,  but,  why would I give anything a sub par rating when nothing was sub par, except for, the inability to change the UI.  Nothing was severely gamebreaking.. so that rules out anything under a 5.  Nothing had bugs that wouldn't allow me to progress,  nor did I have to worry about server stability or severe lag.  

Plus,  I was able to test a lot more of the game than,  well,  you did,  and found it to be a lot of fun.  I found the story to be enjoyable for most classes.  All core features were above average,  and some features were a lot of fun (at least initially), and/or are categorical to SWTOR.

Any unbiased review would likely come up to the same conclusion to be honest.  By unbiased I mean looking at the game for how well done it is and not basing their facts on just what they are tired of this minute.