Originally posted by Matticus75

Originally posted by Icewhite

Here's the thing: We're not a typical MMO audience, not by a long shot.

You gather a few hundred jaded and embittered people into one small room, and they're going to complain a lot, about just about anything you can imagine.

The epitome of mediocrity and the engine of complacency, surley an encouragment of innovation by the whip is your agreement

 

Im sure those "complainers" in the US on or around 1776 were nothing more than barbarian heathens, and one of the two slaves in the Roman empire feeling the lash of the whip stating "This is unacceptable, something as to be done" as oppsed to "Shut up, or we will be beat harder" is nothing more than a fool who thinks the same old thing is absolute truth

 

Conformity gives comfort, it makes the "monsters" and fear go away, Conformity is safe and at times feels just, it can be good.

 

But it strangles growth and innovation, that is the real reason why we see complaints. If enlightment is lacking in the complainers do you think complacency will make a better game? or is it the requirement that they be stupid and dumb to enjoy it? And to state that you wish something better is hersey?

 

Did he just compare a post addressing critics of a video game to the American revolution?

Originally posted by ropenice

Originally posted by Matticus75

Originally posted by Icewhite

Here's the thing: We're not a typical MMO audience, not by a long shot.

You gather a few hundred jaded and embittered people into one small room, and they're going to complain a lot, about just about anything you can imagine.

The epitome of mediocrity and the engine of complacency, surley an encouragment of innovation by the whip is your agreement

 

Im sure those "complainers" in the US on or around 1776 were nothing more than barbarian heathens, and one of the two slaves in the Roman empire feeling the lash of the whip stating "This is unacceptable, something as to be done" as oppsed to "Shut up, or we will be beat harder" is nothing more than a fool who thinks the same old thing is absolute truth

 

Conformity gives comfort, it makes the "monsters" and fear go away, Conformity is safe and at times feels just, it can be good.

 

But it strangles growth and innovation, that is the real reason why we see complaints. If enlightment is lacking in the complainers do you think complacency will make a better game? or is it the requirement that they be stupid and dumb to enjoy it? And to state that you wish something better is hersey?

 

Did he just compare a post addressing critics of a video game to the American revolution?

lol Yeah, he did. Ah. The American revolution, also known as the first American Civil War by some historians, since the war was fought between a nation and a mere "de facto" nation.

He just reinforces OPs point, because it was a senseless war. All the Whigs just really needed to shut up and stop their crying. That way, some people might not have died.

Edit: 'twas baseless, as relevant to OPs post.

First let me say that I am not for or against SWTOR, just an unbiased observer.

Second I am biased against EA (not bioware) as EA has ruined every MMO they touch.  I don't mean this in a content or mechanics kind of way, I mean it in a finaincial way.  They quite literally pull the plug on MMO's way way too early.

Just making an observation, but these defenses have been made about every MMO out there recently.  They were made by rift, for example.  Is it a failure? No, no MMO that is running with sibscribers is a failure.  Is it a monster MMO.  Not by a long shot.

The chances are against SWTOR being a monolithic beast.  If we look at MMO history and in specific EA MMO history.  Does it need to be a monolithic beast? Nope, not at all.  But you can count on a severly crippled development team if it doesn't get the subs it needs.

Which is ultimately the problem with these new mmo's.  They have MONSTER MMO teams during development, plan on having a certain size budget during live, don't get that budget, have severe dev cuts, try desperately to form a new plan as subs walk out the door, realize way to late what they should have done all along, and eventually settle on a much smaller sub base than planned, having no real budget to make expansions and only making small patches to fix key bugs, then the eventual early sunset.

^That, ladies and gentleman is why people criticize MMO's more than other games.  We need the concept of monolithic MMO's to die before any real MMO future can occur.  This is also why people criticize the WoW formula and people who copy it.  Because it means they are copying the monolithic formula.  I think those jaded people will only be happy when WoW finally come drastically down in subs and there is a nice distribution of players among many differing niche MMO's.  Then the concept of "if you don't like it don't play it" will really mean something.  What do you say right now to the person who is not a sandboxer but doesn't like the WoW formula?   You say, dude you are ****ed.  Because they are.

Originally posted by Matticus75

The epitome of mediocrity and the engine of complacency, surley an encouragment of innovation by the whip is your agreement

And negativity can only feed on negativity.--E. Kubler-Ross.

All negativity is an illusion created by the limited mind to protect and defend itself.--A Wauters.

We aren't really going to play aphorism wars and try to disguise it as wisdom, are we?

One always looking for flaws leaves too little time for construction.--L. Korns

The mind that is too ready at contempt and reprobation is, I may say, as a clenched fist that can give blows, but is shut up from receiving and holding ought that is precious.--G. Elliot

Originally posted by Narcin1

Originally posted by 8BitAvatar

I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish with this post OP, but there's this thing called a difference of opinion.

The people who criticize TOR have just as much a right to do it than the people who literally trip over themselves to take every opportunity to lick the backside of Bioware and heap praise on the game.

Just because you think there can be clever counter arguments to criticism doesn't magically make them go away.

Not everyone sees the game in the same light. We all have different tastes and preferences in our MMOs.

My advice to anyone is to play the game yourself and judge it on your own merits.

Leave it at that.

***

And SW:TOR is a WoW clone, just like it's an EQ/DikuMUD clone.

I included that last part for the people who get all grumpy and stomp their feet when past games (before WoW) aren't mentioned when MMO clones are discussed.

 

You and Rutaq need to learn how to read, apparently. Read his post again, if you can. Once you do, if you do, you'll notice your post pales in comparison seeing as it is redundant. You're combatting a point OP never made.

As for Rutaq, OP has already replied to your post in his original post.

 

I do not want to have to spell it out for you two trolls, you can go back and review on your own. I will say this though: the reason OP posted this was because of critics like you. No, not because you don't like the game, but rather because you have a lack of "base." You have no true foundation for your arguements. You post your replies without truly understanding your arguement.

Hooked on phonics and the internet should do the trick. Other than that, Novice forever.

  Read the post you quoted, and your response.  'critics' (that must be the opposite of 'fanboi' I guess)  some veiled personal insults, blah blah blah.  You are debating the quality of the person posting and not the post, spiteful and pointless.

Anyway RE OP Post, If people dont like the game and want to discuss why on a mmorg forum they can, they are not all ranting lunitic critic/sandbox fanboi nutters who are novices.  Some do rant ofc and should be ignored, but a lot of points are valid including some points you try to refute. To me it looks like a good game if you want to continue playing this kind of style of themepark, many don't.  I think it looks unexciting and a boring rehash of what we have seen in the last decade, I want a fully immersive world, not cutscenes and end-game, but If I was a Star Wars fan then I would love it and I understand others will love this game.  Not a problem there as far as I am concerned The game does what it says on the packet well, no need  to rant really.

Originally posted by gaugemew

 

^That, ladies and gentleman is why people criticize MMO's more than other games.  We need the concept of monolithic MMO's to die before any real MMO future can occur.  This is also why people criticize the WoW formula and people who copy it.  Because it means they are copying the monolithic formula.  I think those jaded people will only be happy when WoW finally come drastically down in subs and there is a nice distribution of players among many differing niche MMO's.  Then the concept of "if you don't like it don't play it" will really mean something.  What do you say right now to the person who is not a sandboxer but doesn't like the WoW formula?   You say, dude you are ****ed.  Because they are.

What makes you think that people who leave WOW will go to a niche MMO? If these jaded people are waiting for that to happen they're in for a big disapointment. 

Originally posted by maskedweasel

We have 2 and a half weeks until early access,  and the "critics" sure are coming out of everywhere - literally new accounts created daily - to come here and give detailed "reviews"  telling us how terrible TOR is.   

 

Lets take a few minutes out of our day to take a look back in TORs development , and view the 'history of hate',  with some of the most frequent gripes about the game:

 

 

1)  Its a NOT an MMO!:

Remember those days?  When people saw that TOR would have voiceovers, cutscenes, thought the game wouldn't be multiplayer, or have some very light grouping?   And here we are today with servers packed on the stress test weekend,  queues lasting minutes, to half hours, to hours,  and you can't be logged in for more than 5 minutes without seeing some type of grouping dialog.

 

 

2)  Its not SWG, or a Sandbox!:

 

This we've been hearing forever,  and people were somehow surprised when they had a chance to play recently, that BioWare - who is known for their STORYtelling, who outlined the entire project through years of updates, tradeshows, and in depth explanations - would create something completely different than what made them popular in the first place.   Somehow, this very small subset believes because of this,  SWTOR won't do well or have lasting appeal....  don't they think highly of themselves?      The MMO world does not, nor has ever, revolved around sandbox gameplay, and nothing coming up on the horizon will change that.  

 

 

3)  Theres no Third Faction,  PvP will suck!:

 

Somehow at some point, people got it in their head that in order for PvP to be balanced,  there is a need for a third faction a la DAOC,  but,  3 factions has nothing to do with balance.  In fact, it has never been proven that 3 factions is any more balanced than 5 factions,  8 factions,  or 15 factions.   2 faction PvP has been happening for years, and sure, it gets unbalanced sometimes,  but adding a 3rd faction doesn't mean everything will suddenly become balanced.

 

4) Its a WoW clone with Voice Acting!:

 

People have always complained that the game is a WoW clone with  ...   or its WoW (in space).  People like to pretend that if they use the acronym WoW, that it doesn't matter that its usually trailed by a caveat that denotes a prime difference to what WoW is.        Its WoW with Voice Acting,    Its WoW with an alignment system and choices.  Its a WoW clone with Companions that craft for you.  Its a WoW clone without an auto attack.    

 

 

 

5)  The Graphics are terrible!  

 

As the game progressed and people started seeing more of the game,  we started hearing more and more about how "terrible" the graphics were.  Some people would blame it on the "stylized" art direction (though its just an art direction, nothing is really stylized here).  But graphically something seemed amiss here.  The idea behind the art direction and graphics in general, was scalability.  Strangely enough, as optimization of the graphics engine came into play and things started looking much better,  we started hearing about how games from 2004 looked better.   How backwards is that?  As the game progressed, people believed it looked WORSE?   

 

Luckily we had one fan take it upon themself to respond  and his response was glorious.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OskRij8AYaU&feature=related

 

6)  Its Childish and simple!

 

It seems all of the "critics" now would like to complain about how  "childish"  and "simple"  SWTOR is, most likely due to its traditional nature.   However,  these criticisms are unfounded and from people with only a topical sense of the game.  Sadly, these same people are likely those that played WoW for 6 years.   

 

However,  to accentuate the point of simplicity,  by something being simple, you would believe that to be synonymous with being "easy"  is that correct?    To further portray it as such, you would go as far to call it childish.. but you see,  even in some of the older videos we have seen MMO players,  people who actually play MMOs often, that are not children, still get wiped on SWTORs content.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVOOnjXdDeI

 

We also have a number of accounts from critics complaining that the group content is too tough, and that you need a specific balance to beat even the low level flashpoints.   Can we make up our minds?  Is it too easy, or is it too tough?  Can't we leave it at,  the game has content that is challenging and some content that isn't?

 

 

These are, of course,  just a few of the many criticisms,  mostly unbalanced and/or baseless from those who can't just muster up the courage and say:  "SWTOR isn't a bad game,  its just NOT for ME."  Because thats really what the problem is.

 

Its not to say that SWTOR is a perfect game,  it has its share of issues, such as a non-customizable UI,  and lackluster character creation, space combat, and housing,   but these are issues that will likely be optimized in time,  and they don't stop SWTOR from being a great game worthy of the BioWare,  Star Wars,  and MMO community.  

 

 

Well said. I don't think the game is perfect either but it isn't crappy by a long shot. It's a far better game than SWG ever was and I look forward to playing it on release day. 

Originally posted by Bladestrom

 

  Read the post you quoted, and your response.  'critics' (that must be the opposite of 'fanboi' I guess)  some veiled personal insults, blah blah blah.  You are debating the quality of the person posting and not the post, spiteful and pointless.

 

Anyway RE OP Post, If people dont like the game and want to discuss why on a mmorg forum they can, they are not all ranting lunitic critic/sandbox fanboi nutters who are novices.  Some do rant ofc and should be ignored, but a lot of points are valid including some points you try to refute. To me it looks like a good game if you want to continue playing this kind of style of themepark, many don't.  I think it looks unexciting and a boring rehash of what we have seen in the last decade, I want a fully immersive world, not cutscenes and end-game, but If I was a Star Wars fan then I would love it and I understand others will love this game.  Not a problem there as far as I am concerned The game does what it says on the packet well, no need  to rant really.

 

Just want to make sure I'm clear on this and that you read my post and not the post you thought I wrote.

What you're saying is,  if people want to portray their opinions, even while being blissfully wrong in the process, thats okay, and that, in turn leads to some kind of revolution in the end.

So for them to say:  The graphics are worse than a game from the 90s.... while being proven wrong that graphically the game is far superior than even games from recent years,  that their opinions should be taken with the same respect and importance than the person that states simply:  "This art style just isn't appealing for me.  I think they could have created a more realistic art style and the game would have been far superior than what we have now".  (sure I flowered it up,  but you get the point,  adding some constructive in that criticism and the troll disposition fades away)

Likewise,  the game "Not being an MMO"  is, again, as wrong as they come as you literally can log in to find hundreds if not thousands of players on your world, conversing in the chatspace,  and in this situation,  your holding your entire definition based on a semantic argument....  but at the end of the day when SWTOR isn't an MMO,  hardly any MMOs are.

And what about the sanbox fans?  Its okay for them to be angry at BioWare... who said they were going to create a themepark, because it isn't a sandbox game  when we've had countless other MMOs breeze by with no sandbox elements, especially in recent years,  without even a peep about how they should be sandbox titles instead.  Does BioWare have to be held to a different standard simply because SWTOR is actually popular and those others go by unscathed?  In that respect, is it ever okay to create a game that isn't a sandbox?   Why is it that BioWare isn't allowed to create their game without hearing widespread criticism,  yet,  RIFT got a pass on its development?

How about being a WoW clone except it has all of these features that WoW doesn't have.... but... its still a WoW CLONE.  I beleive this to be a case of seeing a game for ONLY its similarities,  and dismissing everything else they specifically state as being different.

Listen I could keep going with each of my original points,  but let me summarize,  if you have issues with the game,  its alright.  The companions aren't for you,  you don't like the art style,  you are looking for MORE grouping,  you don't like 2 factions,  you want FPS style gameplay,   I mean you can easily make thousands of valid arguments why you don't like the game,  but this is why YOU like the game.  Why are they putting this on the games failings when it is their OPINION based on what THEY don't like.   

Why is it a failing of what BioWare did?  If they "just changed" 3 things then someone else might like the game,  but others wouldn't.  Its okay to not like the game,  but your opinion isn't BioWares failing,  its your failure to enjoy something someone else created.  It happens with TV, music, and books all the time,  and pretending something has to be fundamentally broken to not like it would mean everything is broken.  (as my op stated some things are actually broken,  but those are not the "critics" issues we examine here)

Originally posted by InFaVilla

A reply to 4): 

 

Being a "clone", just means that you have the same DNA as another person who had that DNA before you did. Despite having same DNA, you can still develop into very different persons depending on the environment you grow up in. Being a clone of someone does not mean that you are exactly the same as another person, just the same DNA.

 

Therefore, it makes sense to speak of another game as a clone, if there is a lot of fundamental similarities. 

This...Spot on

Originally posted by Twohededboy

SWTOR is what it is. Some people will love and others won't. I suppose what is happening is that everyone is trying to shout over the gobs, literal gobs, of opinions being expressed on this site so they feel they have to get louder and angrier.

Well said, and true.

OP, you just nailed it. 

One of the best write-up's I've seen yet for SWTOR.  (I'm not going to be playing SWTOR, but I always appreciate a level-headed and intelligent post).

Originally posted by Sonictempal

Originally posted by InFaVilla

A reply to 4): 

 

Being a "clone", just means that you have the same DNA as another person who had that DNA before you did. Despite having same DNA, you can still develop into very different persons depending on the environment you grow up in. Being a clone of someone does not mean that you are exactly the same as another person, just the same DNA.

 

Therefore, it makes sense to speak of another game as a clone, if there is a lot of fundamental similarities. 

This...Spot on

I think this is a pretty strange argument.   Something being exactly alike.. meaning ... the DNA is exactly the same,  you look the same, and you function the same, obviously doesn't mean you will act exactly the same... but this doesn't translate to MMOs.

It would be like saying you have two WoW servers,  they look the same, they have the same mechanics,  but at the end of the day the population on each of those servers plays differently.  Some spend a lot of time in raids,  while the other spends it in open world PvP.   

SWTOR and WoW have fundamental differences.  They do not have the same DNA... literally,  as SWTOR was built on the Hero engine,  and even the basic quests, while filing into a similar style have different visual cues.    Hence,  why theres always a caveat.    The combat isn't EXACTLY like WoW.... you visuals,  the crafting, the questing and story...  I mean when you get down to it technically, each feature is different in some way.    If by "Clone" you mean that the game has the same features...   combat,  crafting,  raids and instanced and world PvP,   or if it is a clone simply because it utilizes themepark style play,  then that is unfortunate as most, if not all games would be considered just a clone of one another.

Originally posted by Slowdoves

Originally posted by InFaVilla

A reply to 4): 

 

Being a "clone", just means that you have the same DNA as another person who had that DNA before you did. Despite having same DNA, you can still develop into very different persons depending on the environment you grow up in. Being a clone of someone does not mean that you are exactly the same as another person, just the same DNA.

 

Therefore, it makes sense to speak of another game as a clone, if there is a lot of fundamental similarities. 

Just like many other MMOs before WoW! I mean really, WoW is the only MMO ever made!

Ive never understood why this is such adifficult concept for people to grasp.

Look at every single AAA MMO that came before WoW.  The closest one to WoW's skill tree system was DAoC because you assigned points over a variety of skill lines which individualized your character, or took it down a path of abilities.  But WoW's concept of a tree system was quite a bit different than DAoCs.  Now take Rift.  The skill tree system there works near identical, even the types of things you invest in are identical.  Sure, they added the 'root' abilities to spice things up, but its a very minor change.  SWG pretty much copy/pasted the system (which ironically WoW is doing away with).  These two games, instead of coming up with their own system, copied directly from WoW.  You do this with enough core gameplay systems (which Rift certainly did) you come up with a clone.  Perhaps a more apt term would be mutant, but clone works well enough.

Yes, I think SWTOR is a WoW clone.  I dont think thats necessarily a bad thing, as long as you put enough of your own spin on things.  SWTOR certainly feels a lot less like WoW than Rift because of the sci fi setting and focus on the storytellingand trying to make the quests more engaging.  And the key thing here is that Rift failed miserably with this (storytelling), because they ended up worse than WoW.  SWTOR improved on WoW (well for most people) and it has nothing to do with lore, rather presentation of it and how it relates to you.  Same thing with the crafting.  Yes, SWTOR essentially uses WoWs 'gather materials, hit combine for a guaranteed success and skill up' system.  But at least they added flair to it.

Originally posted by maskedweasel

Originally posted by Sonictempal

Originally posted by InFaVilla

A reply to 4): 

 did. Despite having same DNA, you can still develop into very different persons depending on the environment you grow up in. Being a clone of someone does not mean that you are exactly the same as another person, just the same DNA.

 

Therefore, it makes sense to speak of another game as a clone, if there is a lot of fundamental 

 

Being a "clone", just means that you have the same DNA as another person who had that DNA before you 

similarities. 

This...Spot on

I think this is a pretty strange argument.   Something being exactly alike.. meaning ... the DNA is exactly the same,  you look the same, and you function the same, obviously doesn't mean you will act exactly the same... but this doesn't translate to MMOs.

 

It would be like saying you have two WoW servers,  they look the same, they have the same mechanics,  but at the end of the day the population on each of those servers plays differently.  Some spend a lot of time in raids,  while the other spends it in open world PvP.   

 

SWTOR and WoW have fundamental differences.  They do not have the same DNA... literally,  as SWTOR was built on the Hero engine,  and even the basic quests, while filing into a similar style have different visual cues.    Hence,  why theres always a caveat.    The combat isn't EXACTLY like WoW.... you visuals,  the crafting, the questing and story...  I mean when you get down to it technically, each feature is different in some way.    If by "Clone" you mean that the game has the same features...   combat,  crafting,  raids and instanced and world PvP,   or if it is a clone simply because it utilizes themepark style play,  then that is unfortunate as most, if not all games would be considered just a clone of one another.

You don't necessarily have to look the same. You will look similar and almost identical if you've lived similar lives, but if the lives are different enough (such as one being obese while the other one being of normal weight) there can be substantial differences in looks. 

As for "functioning the same": what is that supposed to mean? For instance the risk for contracting several diseases is strongly dependant on how the life is lived. 

Calling a game a "clone" is a way, through hyperbole, to complain about how similar the games are. Specially the MMORPG genre is plagued by that disease. Just look at the Adventure genre: The Metroid Prime series, the Castlevania series and the Zelda series sure share some similarities, but the differences are so huge that it would be ridiculous to bring up the term "clone" in that context; all of them are high quality by the way. 

I had gotten the beta thanks to a fellow who showed me how to get into one last week ehre on the forums, and to be honest, I understand the people that have been playing for a while in betas and seen the graphics overhaul and see that its been drastic.

How ever I got into the game on Friday, as soon as I was out of char creation (which was horrible) and into the game, I saw the boxy art work, you know like when you see a circle, its not really a circle you see like edges to it so its liek hexagon lol, any how I over looked it, the lighting on the char made it all shiny. The water was....... lol ok lets not go there. The barrel roll to hide behind an object, no mater how far the object is, its still only one barrel roll to it, I thought that was not right. Trees/grass/landscape was soo unappealing, I actually got stuck at a point on a mushroom while i was running, yes a mushroom stopped me from going any further. So any how the graphics are so so, like the video shown in OPs post, its soo negitive because all the graphics its put against are ither medium or toned down to make tor look better.

The Story was awesome, I got past the graphics I liked the story for The Imperial Agent, it kept me going until, I was level 13 and had to take a break, so I PVP'd, Huttball is AWESOME! but I ended up in a team that did not knwo how to pass ever, so I just ended up with alot of kills decent exp. I mean I like good stories, but I just feel we are in the 2010s and graphics do mean alot these days.

I build my system just for the graphical enjoyment of this era. Don't get me wrong, I will be playign the game since alot of my buddies are also, But I do not see my self sticking around along with my friends.

Couldn't agree with you more OP. I think a lot of people who are disappointed with TOR's overall direction are just grasping at straws looking for ANYTHING to complain about at this point...

Originally posted by InFaVilla

Originally posted by maskedweasel

 

 

You don't necessarily have to look the same. You will look similar and almost identical if you've lived similar lives, but if the lives are different enough (such as one being obese while the other one being of normal weight) there can be substantial differences in looks. 

 

As for "functioning the same": what is that supposed to mean? For instance the risk for contracting several diseases is strongly dependant on how the life is lived. 

 

Calling a game a "clone" is a way, through hyperbole, to complain about how similar the games are. Specially the MMORPG genre is plagued by that disease. Just look at the Adventure genre: The Metroid Prime series, the Castlevania series and the Zelda series sure share some similarities, but the differences are so huge that it would be ridiculous to bring up the term "clone" in that context; all of them are high quality by the way. 

So, the question is, where does the term "clone" apply?  Is it the combat?  Even if there are differences-  perhaps you may have missed it,  but Borderlands has the exact same control scheme as Modern Warfare 2... yet you wouldn't expect it to be a clone of eachother,  even if they have many similarities in gameplay and focus.

Likewise with the adventure genre (which is somewhat more diverse than other genres)  you could look at games like Devil May Cry,  and compare it to a game like Prototype, or God of War, and see many similarities,  yet they don't suffer the same "clone" label MMOs do.

So wheres the line?  Does a game have to be strikingly different in every way to not be called a clone?   Most games can be broken down to their many similarities of their predecessors,  and mostly accepted as a "clone" only when you dismiss any differences.    My point is,  by adding a caveat of differences signifies that there are differences apart from whatever similarities one might see.   For example, we are both people,  but we are not the same,  but at the end of the day we might as well just be clones with exceptions in our appearance, attitudes, and experiences.

So, again, where does the term clone apply?  It applies when focusing on negativity, and nothing more.  Its a way to denegrate what BioWare has created simply because its not what you (not personally) want.  A feature can have similarities, and those can be pinpointed and discussed,  a blanket clone statement cannot, and is used derogatorily.

Even more interesting than the critics are people like you who are so invested in the success of this game, that you have to write long posts about people who don't care for it.

What I have read here, especially in the "have you changed your mind" thread, are mostly level-headed and reasonable posts both for and against the game. It's ok if people don't like your little game, I assure you. You can rest assured that you have played it and love it.  Other people do not have to agree.

By the way, your entire post is what is called a Straw Man Argument, and anyone with half a brain can see right through it.

Originally posted by maskedweasel

Originally posted by InFaVilla

Originally posted by maskedweasel

... 

So, the question is, where does the term "clone" apply?  Is it the combat?  Even if there are differences-  perhaps you may have missed it,  but Borderlands has the exact same control scheme as Modern Warfare 2... yet you wouldn't expect it to be a clone of eachother,  even if they have many similarities in gameplay and focus.

 

Likewise with the adventure genre (which is somewhat more diverse than other genres)  you could look at games like Devil May Cry,  and compare it to a game like Prototype, or God of War, and see many similarities,  yet they don't suffer the same "clone" label MMOs do.

 

So wheres the line?  Does a game have to be strikingly different in every way to not be called a clone?   Most games can be broken down to their many similarities of their predecessors,  and mostly accepted as a "clone" only when you dismiss any differences.    My point is,  by adding a caveat of differences signifies that there are differences apart from whatever similarities one might see.   For example, we are both people,  but we are not the same,  but at the end of the day we might as well just be clones with exceptions in our appearance, attitudes, and experiences.

 

So, again, where does the term clone apply?  It applies when focusing on negativity, and nothing more.  Its a way to denegrate what BioWare has created simply because its not what you (not personally) want.  A feature can have similarities, and those can be pinpointed and discussed,  a blanket clone statement cannot, and is used derogatorily.

This conversation is a bit silly :).  The word "clone" has been used in reference to video games since the 80's.  It does not mean that same thing as it does when you talk about a clone of a living being.  For reference, see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_clone

Here is the definition on that wikipedia page, I think it's a good one:

A video game clone is a video game or game series which is very similar to or heavily inspired by a previous popular game or game series. Some video game genres are founded by such archetypal games that all subsequent similar games are thought of as derivatives.

The term is sometimes derogatory, implying a lack of originality, however clones can be anything from a pure "ripoff", to a legitimate derivative or improvement on the original or even a homage.