Originally posted by eric_w66

The one comment here that I have to wonder about is "Combat was bland and unoriginal".

Easy to say, hard to follow up with a combat system that is "flavorful and original". It's all been done before, so how can something be original when our input systems are keyboard/mouse and sometimes joystick/gamepad? Seriously? How many ways can you make a combat system with those tools? FPS vs turn based, tab targetted vs "aimed" (ala skyrim/fallen earth). What would the reviewer DO to make combat "original"?

Griping about something no one can change is a bit silly. Unless, of course, he has the next big idea that NO ONE thought of in 31 years of PC gaming.

I agree with his comment actually and there are games out there with varied types of combat gameplay so not sure where you get this idea they're all the same. I also beg to differ that it has all been done too. 31 years of pc gaming and you think it has been status quo? Are you fucking kidding?

Having said that I think his overall rating is a bit low. Least to me. Would have liked more in depth reasoning for him for his overall score.  Then again some of those other scores on the high end are ludicrous as well so suppose it evens out.

Originally posted by maskedweasel

Originally posted by Teala

Originally posted by maskedweasel

 

I don't grade games based solely on a good launch.   As for me wanting a virtual world, I play WoW, it is not a  sandbox game.    I just want a good game.   A game that launches with the basic bells and whistles.   Bioware had 8 years of work done for them on what makes a good themepark game - its called WoW.   All the work was done for them.   Bioware claimed they used WoW as their model to make their game...yet I am not seeing it.   Couldn't they have at least gave us more robust UI customizable by the players?  What about something as simple as adding more "world" to the "worlds" - no wind, no rain, no night and day cycles, no weird creepy crawlies or birds?   What about high res graphic textures, not just for cutscenes, but for the whole game(they were in beta when I was testing it), but now they are gone?   The list can get longer...and we shouldn't be making a list like this...this is basic stuff.  

So do you see my point?   I can see people being a little less critical and giving the game a 7 or 8, but a 9 score is not warranted.   If you cannot see my point, I guess we're just going to have to agree that we disagree.

But you again, miss the point,  wind, rain, night and day have no bearing on playability,  they are aesthetic.  As are high res graphic textures (which they have, but not on everything for some reason).   UI customization I agree with,  they do need better customization there,  but these are very minor, nitpicky things.

 

Would you rather have wind, rain, birds, and a moon every 4 hours... or 3 warzones to play instead of 2.  

 

In a perfect world, we could have everything in the game that we want, and infinite amounts of time to create said game without people getting frustrated it was taking too long, or investors complaining they have yet to see a return,  but this isn't a perfect world.  They've already mentioned customizable UI is incoming,  as well as AA and graphical enhancements.  

 

The foundation is rock solid, and the game is playable and enjoyable.  No game has come close to the amount of content and polish in all aspects as SWTOR has... so why shouldn't it get a high rating?  Because we can't watch the sunrise?

"The foundation is rock solid"...or not.

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=84943

Originally posted by s4ndm4n2006

"In short, SWTOR is great for Star Wars fans, but mediocre for everyone else."

I have to wholly disagree with this comment.  Although I can respect that he has his own opinion of the game, I can't say that he should make a broad statement such as this one, that seems to speak for all the other mmo players.  I say this with this to back up my opinion:  I am really far from a Star Wars fan whatsoever.  Although I enjoyed the movies at least once, I never was a big fan beyond the respectful nod to its success.  Yet in spite of this, I found SWTOR (which I played in the beta so far) to be outstanding from an MMO perspective.  It was immersive, and enjoyable for the entire 25 + hours I played over the weekend I got to play...  And when I get the chance you can rest assured that I'll be buying the game too. 

So as one of the "everyone else" group, I say that statement was an exaggerated one based on his own lack of enjoyment.

 

^^  I'm in 100% agreement with you on this one. Danny's entire comment got tossed out the window for me the second I read that last line. I am not a Star Wars fan at all, have seen each movie once just to say I have, but far from a fan of the IP. But the game has captured me in a way no other has in many, many years. 

As one of the "everyone else" group, I agree that this statement was an exaggerated one based on his own lack of enjoyment. 

Originally posted by gamer2171

Originally posted by maskedweasel

Originally posted by Teala

Originally posted by maskedweasel

 

I don't grade games based solely on a good launch.   As for me wanting a virtual world, I play WoW, it is not a  sandbox game.    I just want a good game.   A game that launches with the basic bells and whistles.   Bioware had 8 years of work done for them on what makes a good themepark game - its called WoW.   All the work was done for them.   Bioware claimed they used WoW as their model to make their game...yet I am not seeing it.   Couldn't they have at least gave us more robust UI customizable by the players?  What about something as simple as adding more "world" to the "worlds" - no wind, no rain, no night and day cycles, no weird creepy crawlies or birds?   What about high res graphic textures, not just for cutscenes, but for the whole game(they were in beta when I was testing it), but now they are gone?   The list can get longer...and we shouldn't be making a list like this...this is basic stuff.  

So do you see my point?   I can see people being a little less critical and giving the game a 7 or 8, but a 9 score is not warranted.   If you cannot see my point, I guess we're just going to have to agree that we disagree.

But you again, miss the point,  wind, rain, night and day have no bearing on playability,  they are aesthetic.  As are high res graphic textures (which they have, but not on everything for some reason).   UI customization I agree with,  they do need better customization there,  but these are very minor, nitpicky things.

 

Would you rather have wind, rain, birds, and a moon every 4 hours... or 3 warzones to play instead of 2.  

 

In a perfect world, we could have everything in the game that we want, and infinite amounts of time to create said game without people getting frustrated it was taking too long, or investors complaining they have yet to see a return,  but this isn't a perfect world.  They've already mentioned customizable UI is incoming,  as well as AA and graphical enhancements.  

 

The foundation is rock solid, and the game is playable and enjoyable.  No game has come close to the amount of content and polish in all aspects as SWTOR has... so why shouldn't it get a high rating?  Because we can't watch the sunrise?

"The foundation is rock solid"...or not.

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=84943

I have to say I'm in agreement with the weasel here. As for the attempt to sway others into to thinking the game has faults just because some believe it has delay issues, well the point that should be noted on that topic is NOT EVERYONE is seeing it. Let me explain just a bit there before you jump up and down.

I'm a telecom engineer, I work on and monitor the backbone of this wonderful thing we call the internet. I see things happen everday, the slips, the reroutes, the switches to protect, the downed equipment. Moments after a hickup happens I come read post after post on gaming forums on how a XXXX Game has bad servers configuartions, server lag, oh and UI delays like your link points to. Funny part is, I see them happen right where it really comes from - the middleman - the place between the two most of you discount as 'not possible'. 

I remember the launch of a certain game very well for this right here on these forums. 4 hours before the scheduled launch a big thunderstorm leaked water into an equipment room right smack dab in the center of the US taking out millions and millions of dollars of gear, forcing all traffic from one coast to the other to be rerouted to one or two tiny pipes for 2 days. These forums jumped up and down and complained about the game servers sucking and everything they could on the game they could think of. Truth was, they couldn't have forseen it, nor fixed it no matter how they  tried. And two days later, when the gear started to get brought back up, all the problems started to vanish, but not before the damage had been done on these forums and others like it, all from ignorance of how these games work and more importantly, how the internet works. 

Now I'm not saying the delays you see in SW:TOR are caused by the backbone, well not all of them anyway, I do see some spikes every now and then which time perfectly with a few forum biatch sessions since launch, all blamed on the game servers or game design, or whatever else had nothing to do with it in reality. What I am saying though, is look at it 100% on the big picture not just on your own personal experience. If it's game server, game design, game whatever, most likely its going to effect everyone, at least everyone on that server you're playing on. If half of your server doesn't see it, then I'll wager it's on the backbone. Maybe you and those seeing it all pipe through Buffalo then to Chicago and on to Kansas City to reach the server and there just happens to have been someone with a backhoe diggin up your fibers in Minneapolis that day and now your rerouting through Los Angeles to get there. That alone will add your infamous 0.5 second delay on your UI responsiviness. Sorry to bring the news, but hey, it is what it is.

Come on Kaocan, we all know that the only issues that matter are the ones that affect me, myself, and I.

99% of players can not experience an issue but the 1% are sure going to bitch up a storm about it.

Originally posted by BadSpock

Come on Kaocan, we all know that the only issues that matter are the ones that affect me, myself, and I.

99% of players can not experience an issue but the 1% are sure going to bitch up a storm about it.

 

 

Considering the number of people that agree..are noticing this as well. In a 176 page thread I would have to believe that it is at least 1.5% of the people having a problem.

Originally posted by Teala

Why so many 9's?  I can see more 7.5's and 8.0's, but 9's...::sigh::  That means you are saying the game is almost perfect.   I recall other high scores on this webiste for games, games that are either now dead or not doing so well, and all had way over the top scores.   What kind of message will you be sending the average gamer when you rate a game like SW:TOR that high.  It is missing basic features we find in MMO's today.   It is not as polished as people say it is.   It even has what some consider "game breaking" issues.  Yet...a 9 score.   ::shakes her head::  I am all for giving a game a good score, but I think the game should earn that score.  A 9 though.   SW:TOR is not a 9.  Not as it is right now.   It can attain a 9 if Bioware fixes what needs fixed.

To quote Robin Williams in Dead Poets Society, we're not laying pipes here! :) You don't have a "perfect model in complete working order" that makes a 10 and subtract a tenth of a point or two for every flaw or missing feature accordingly. High scoring has to be about brilliance and overall  impact, not about "a distinct lack of bugs and flaws". How boring would that be? 

Here's an example: 

I love Skyrim. It has a ton of bugs and flaws. Even stuff some people think are gamebreaking. It has a lot of areas where Bethesda has cut corners and it shows. It's missing a lot of things the developers hope the *community* will step in and provide. It's missing a lot of RPG features, even stuff the previous games in the same series had. In some ways, it's a dumbing-down of the series.

Despite all these, I would still give the game a 9.5. At least a 9. Wouldn't you?

Now, I would not give SWTOR a 9, not even an 8... But if I did love it as I loved Skyrim, and if I thought it was as brilliant in its design and implementation, I would surely give it a 9, never minding that it's missing some features from other games or has some annoying bugs - as long as it is reasonably playable. 

Originally posted by kalinis

The only thing bioware ever promised u was adding story and vo with choices and companions to the normal mmo and thats exactly what they gave u

How did they over state that ? If u didnt actually pay attention to what they were promising to bring to mmos thats your fault.

I knew exactly what i was getting maybe that is why im loving tor and have not had any oh crap they lied to me moments

Because i actually paid attention to what bioware was giving me. Hvae to say its nice to see so m any positive reviews, Of course i expected to see all the hate aimed at them also once i saw how good most of them were,

Just suprised no one has used to mmorpg staff was paid to giv those good numbers lie yet. 

Go back and look at the early intefviews Bioware did as they built the hype. They claimed they would fix what was wrong with other MMOs. They said they would not have missions that involved kill 10 of this or retrieve 5 of that. They basically said all other MMOs where broken and they would show it how it should be done.  Now looking at the game they gave us do you still believe they did not overstate?

I do not feel they "lied" I do however feel they built a hype level that they could not fullfill. Much like AMD did with the FX processor.

Originally posted by Mopar63

I do not feel they "lied" I do however feel they built a hype level that they could not fullfill. Much like AMD did with the FX processor.

 

 

 

That might be a bit harsh, even by my reckoning...

I would score the FX 3/10 in all honesty. Making it slightly better than Horse Armour....

Originally posted by Teala

Why so many 9's?  I can see more 7.5's and 8.0's, but 9's...::sigh::  That means you are saying the game is almost perfect.   I recall other high scores on this webiste for games, games that are either now dead or not doing so well, and all had way over the top scores.   What kind of message will you be sending the average gamer when you rate a game like SW:TOR that high.  It is missing basic features we find in MMO's today.   It is not as polished as people say it is.   It even has what some consider "game breaking" issues.  Yet...a 9 score.   ::shakes her head::  I am all for giving a game a good score, but I think the game should earn that score.  A 9 though.   SW:TOR is not a 9.  Not as it is right now.   It can attain a 9 if Bioware fixes what needs fixed.

 

teala, i'm with ya.  it's like, an 8 with the clear possibility of being a 9 down the road.  for me, a little more work on the spaceship part of the game, and a lil more personalization (for instance personalizing one's spaceship A La player housing) would be a great beginning and a jump to 8.5.  I'm not going to say what would push it to a nine, because i am not 100%Z sure of that myself.  maybe a lil more class differentiation, maybe even (some people will hate this) a second branch-off of the existing 8 classes (leading to 16 overall).

on a completely unrelated note your name reminds me of the]phish song by almost the same name (tela) whenever i see a post of yours i have to go and listen to phish after :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fiTORIWtHc&feature=related    <---- tela by phish

Originally posted by solarine

Originally posted by Teala

Why so many 9's?  I can see more 7.5's and 8.0's, but 9's...::sigh::  That means you are saying the game is almost perfect.   I recall other high scores on this webiste for games, games that are either now dead or not doing so well, and all had way over the top scores.   What kind of message will you be sending the average gamer when you rate a game like SW:TOR that high.  It is missing basic features we find in MMO's today.   It is not as polished as people say it is.   It even has what some consider "game breaking" issues.  Yet...a 9 score.   ::shakes her head::  I am all for giving a game a good score, but I think the game should earn that score.  A 9 though.   SW:TOR is not a 9.  Not as it is right now.   It can attain a 9 if Bioware fixes what needs fixed.

 

To quote Robin Williams in Dead Poets Society, we're not laying pipes here! :) You don't have a "perfect model in complete working order" that makes a 10 and subtract a tenth of a point or two for every flaw or missing feature accordingly. High scoring has to be about brilliance and overall  impact, not about "a distinct lack of bugs and flaws". How boring would that be? 

Here's an example: 

I love Skyrim. It has a ton of bugs and flaws. Even stuff some people think are gamebreaking. It has a lot of areas where Bethesda has cut corners and it shows. It's missing a lot of things the developers hope the *community* will step in and provide. It's missing a lot of RPG features, even stuff the previous games in the same series had. In some ways, it's a dumbing-down of the series.

Despite all these, I would still give the game a 9.5. At least a 9. Wouldn't you?

Now, I would not give SWTOR a 9, not even an 8... But if I did love it as I loved Skyrim, and if I thought it was as brilliant in its design and implementation, I would surely give it a 9, never minding that it's missing some features from other games or has some annoying bugs - as long as it is reasonably playable. 

 

Do you not see that that is what some people are saying here? If you do not have a "perfect model" then what in the world is all these scores for?

If we do not have SOMETHING to compare it to, or hold it up to, then NO review can ever mean anything, EVER.

And yes, each person will find fault with any review based on their own feelings, but we need a basis to go by. If that is a 1-10 scoring system, then anything 8 and over had better be dang close to a perfect example of that scoring system.

Otherwise, you  are saying that there is no reason or metric to score a game at all. Just take your chances buy it and see for yourself.

Originally posted by DarLorkar

Do you not see that that is what some people are saying here? If you do not have a "perfect model" then what in the world is all these scores for?

If we do not have SOMETHING to compare it to, or hold it up to, then NO review can ever mean anything, EVER.

And yes, each person will find fault with any review based on their own feelings, but we need a basis to go by. If that is a 1-10 scoring system, then anything 8 and over had better be dang close to a perfect example of that scoring system.

Otherwise, you  are saying that there is no reason or metric to score a game at all. Just take your chances buy it and see for yourself.

I'm not saying don't compare it to anything. In the end, I myself made a comparison to other games right there. :) I'm just saying that when you compare it to something, or hold it up to something, do not do it on the basis of a "lack of flaws and bugs".

After all, games don't impress us with their "lack of negatives". They do it with their positives. I'm saying the scores should reflect that. 

I'm saying: If you think a game has overwhelming positive qualities, despite its obvious flaws you should be able to give it a 9. It's a akin to a signal to your readers about said game's brilliance.  

And, hey, if a 9+ score is not a signal of brilliance, what good is it for? :)

Danny Wojcicki  wasn't  tipped by EA/BW enough well to give a false good review to a well made,  mediocre game with a  titanic budget, eonic developement time and a copy/paste game style from it's main cuncurrent, that's it.

My god, more 8's and 9's? Only one writer using the ten point range to actually provide a credible review? Whodathunk.

Originally posted by solarine

Originally posted by DarLorkar

Do you not see that that is what some people are saying here? If you do not have a "perfect model" then what in the world is all these scores for?

If we do not have SOMETHING to compare it to, or hold it up to, then NO review can ever mean anything, EVER.

And yes, each person will find fault with any review based on their own feelings, but we need a basis to go by. If that is a 1-10 scoring system, then anything 8 and over had better be dang close to a perfect example of that scoring system.

Otherwise, you  are saying that there is no reason or metric to score a game at all. Just take your chances buy it and see for yourself.

 

I'm not saying don't compare it to anything. In the end, I myself made a comparison to other games right there. :) I'm just saying that when you compare it to something, or hold it up to something, do not do it on the basis of a "lack of flaws and bugs".

After all, games don't impress us with their "lack of negatives". They do it with their positives. I'm saying the scores should reflect that. 

I'm saying: If you think a game has overwhelming positive qualities, despite its obvious flaws you should be able to give it a 9. It's a akin to a signal to your readers about said game's brilliance.  

And, hey, if a 9+ score is not a signal of brilliance, what good is it for? :)

And if we follow your "scoring system" we have no scoring system. That is the point:)

Thats what a scoring system is for..to base it off of a 1 horrible to a 10 a perfect one. For ALL things, be they games or car safety, or good food.  If because we happen to "like" this particular one of whatever, that we do not count the flaws, then the score is meaningless.

Originally posted by DarLorkar

And if we follow your "scoring system" we have no scoring system. That is the point:)

Thats what a scoring system is for..to base it off of a 1 horrible to a 10 a perfect one. For ALL things, be they games or car safety, or good food.  If because we happen to "like" this particular one of whatever, that we do not count the flaws, then the score is meaningless.

 

Fair enough, and I do understand the logic, though I still disagree with it.

I think the difference here is: I see games as more or less art, and your system, as obvious in your example, regards them as "mere products" - hence the grading that consists of subtracting points for "flaws". The high scores in my example are not about merely "liking" something, it's about claiming something is brilliant as a work of creativity. I know, it's really rating something that's by its very nature not rateable - but hey, any rating of a work of art ends up doing this, and it doesn't do it solely on the basis of its "workmanship". :)

The reason I can't agree with your rating system is that it would leave us with a 5 for Planescape: Torment and a 6 for Blade Runner! 

Well I played the beta and was bored by the end of it.  Just give it a month or two and you will be bored too.

This game is no Wow killer, no staying power.  If I were Bioware I would be embarrassed to put my name on this.

Originally posted by solarine

Originally posted by DarLorkar

And if we follow your "scoring system" we have no scoring system. That is the point:)

Thats what a scoring system is for..to base it off of a 1 horrible to a 10 a perfect one. For ALL things, be they games or car safety, or good food.  If because we happen to "like" this particular one of whatever, that we do not count the flaws, then the score is meaningless.

 

Fair enough, and I do understand the logic, though I still disagree with it.

I think the difference here is: I see games as more or less art, and your system, as obvious in your example, regards them as "mere products" - hence the grading that consists of subtracting points for "flaws". The high scores in my example are not about merely "liking" something, it's about claiming something is brilliant as a work of creativity. I know, it's really rating something that's by its very nature not rateable - but hey, any rating of a work of art ends up doing this, and it doesn't do it solely on the basis of its "workmanship". :)

The reason I can't agree with your rating system is that it would leave us with a 5 for Planescape: Torment and a 6 for Blade Runner! 

Heh, good, i will use your words:) Fair enough, and I do understand the logic, though I still disagree with it.

My main issue here and on other "reviews" is just that you really need to have a base or whatever to compare to. Or you end up,  as it seems we are heading,  that all we have are opinions, not reviews.

If every review is allowed to move or re-set the bar, then in the end how can it be a review, since it can only be compared to it's self?

Ahh well, i will let this go, at least i think i got the point i wanted across.

Originally posted by Ozmodan

Well I played the beta and was bored by the end of it.  Just give it a month or two and you will be bored too.

This game is no Wow killer, no staying power.  If I were Bioware I would be embarrassed to put my name on this.

         Wait till when people actually have to start paying $15 a month for this, they will change tunes quickly....

I'd give it about a 6.5-7..(7 being generous.)
 
ToR is a well made,polished game for the most part..
 
Its another iteration of a themepark in a big swampy stagnant pool of themepark MMOs.Does that make it a bad game? no, people will still enjoy it,but at the same time it'll turn alot of people off as they want change.
 
why I gave it a 6.5-7?

Didnt like the closed in worlds and linear paths.

The diorama feel of most mobs and the environments they were in - Mobs just standing around in groups barely showing signs of life is a big pet  peeve for me.

Very little or lazily done flora and fauna..You could also easily exchange this with robots doing menial tasks..even Anarchy Online had this much..

The lack of adjustable UI

The feeling of deadness in zones,I would look and see 140 people in my instance,but it would feel like there were no more than 20 people in my instance.I'd say reduce the amount of instancing imo..
 
Do I think this game will take off into an MMO beast? I'd be surprised honestly.I truely think it'll go the way of Rift - it'll make its splash and once the celebration is over, it'll quietly bow out and blend in with the crowded themepark group in which it belongs.