This is from Dana Massey's new article posted today.  It's a quote that I have been saying on these and the SWTOR boards for a while now, and no one will listen.  He saw the game at E3 and had this to say:

"Bioware’s Star Wars: The Old Republic looks a heck of a lot like a cooperative single-player RPG."

This is the game everyone here is touting as the "savior of the MMO genre".  Really?  A game that looks and plays like a single player RPG is going to save MMORPG games? A game with henchmen?  This is not a troll post.  I am hoping we can have some real discussion here about what constitutes a true MMORPG, and what is just an MMOG.  In my mind, SWToR unfortunately looks like an MMOG, not an open world MMORPG where people are free to forge a memorable adventure.  It seems like it's going to be the purist most sanitary theme-park game ever concieved of, leaving little else to do than run quests and maybe chat a little. This is a true bummer in my mind.

Well I personally never said this game would save anything.

But then I never thought that MMO meant I had to group with every person... or at all.

Real life is the single largest MMO in real life... it has more unique subscribers than any exisiting MMO and most likely always will (see I said unique... multiple accounts don't count ah... wtf nm).

In real life there are many things I do by myself... yet as I meet people and make friends there are group adventures too.. tho I try to keep my real life raids to a minimum...

Yet what you seem to be saying is "If you don't want to group.. you shouldn't be in an MMO..."

This kind of thing has always confused me... as it makes absolutely no sense.

Now if you say:

"They haven't really discussed any group role (or multi group role) for this game... and I personally find that the only reason for me PERSONALLY to play..."

Then I'd think "well that's true they haven't really talked about that.. and if that's how you feel I understand..."

Other than that.. I must be completely missing what you are trying to say...

Is it even worth mentioning that the very phrase "cooperative single-player RPG" is an oxymoron?

(For the illiterate: cooperative = more than one player.)

It's 2 games in one. You can do your story arcs solo, or with a group if you choose, some you may only be able to experience alone, since it has to do with you. Same goes with other content, there will also be raids zones ect. Really from what I understand the game is going to appeal to those who wanted a KOTOR3, as well as vets of any MMO, and SWG fans (elder players we are called) How will they pull this off without making it suck? There is a lot being withheld till later, closer to launch.

Will there be instancing in the game?

James: Yes. There will be instances in the game, and it's improtant for a lot of reasons. We want to be able to do storytelling and have players experiences that aren't disrupted like they are in public areas.

Rich: But we are balancing the instanced areas with the public parts.

James: Because it's an MMO and players play MMOs because they want to feel part of a vast world with lots of other players, you can't make too heavy use of instancing, or you'll take that feeling away. That's something we're very aware of.

Rich: I actually met my first online friend when they saved me from dying. That's an experience you don't get in instances.
 

So yes, there will be public zones and instances because well, like you saw in the demo reviews you need to have an area without a lot of other players effecting the story. This isn't themeparkish, this is living an adventure. It's a little hard to wrap your head around because it's a little different from most MMOs where you really are on a themepark ride.

Unless you enjoy players who camp your mobs afk trying to get them to let you in for your turn, and no one is at the helm, or getting smart ass remarks (GTFO noob/ CM), lag, kid spam ect. Nothing like standing in line to get your turn, that to me seems more like a themepark. Ride the rollercoaster, get off, next ride.

The way instances will work in TOR is they will be steamed, so you will never know you entered one other than the player behind you not in your group will vanish thru the doorway. So everyone will be living their own adventures in the game with friends, or by themselves. There will be a player ecomomy, shops, craftibles, resources to build things or trade. To me this sounds like a much better option in MMOs than anything esle out there.

 Lil bit, it looks like Oblivion meets Knight of the Old Republic.

Originally posted by MindTrigger

...I am hoping we can have some real discussion here about what constitutes a true MMORPG, and what is just an MMOG. 

Translation: I want validation from other people who share my subjective opinion on what constitutes a "true" MMORPG (then we can collectively bash the nitwits who disagree with us).

Really? You want another semantic argument on teh internets? And this isn't a troll post?

Originally posted by hanshotfirst

Originally posted by MindTrigger

...I am hoping we can have some real discussion here about what constitutes a true MMORPG, and what is just an MMOG. 

 

Translation: I want validation from other people who share my subjective opinion on what constitutes a "true" MMORPG (then we can collectively bash the nitwits who disagree with us).

Really? You want another semantic argument on teh internets? And this isn't a troll post?

OWNDED!!!!!

But didn't Stormtroopers shoot first?

Originally posted by hanshotfirst

Originally posted by MindTrigger

...I am hoping we can have some real discussion here about what constitutes a true MMORPG, and what is just an MMOG. 

 

Translation: I want validation from other people who share my subjective opinion on what constitutes a "true" MMORPG (then we can collectively bash the nitwits who disagree with us).

Really? You want another semantic argument on teh internets? And this isn't a troll post?

Yeah most of the info is available to anyone, either these guys have never read a word of it, or they just like making troll posts disguised as a discussion thread. xD

Eh...if its more like a single player game, so what? I'll just play it like one. MMORPGs aren't the only games I play. And when I am done with most of the content. I will quit playing it, like I do single player RPGs.

However, I don't think it will be so limited as you suggest. If the game played exactly like a single player RPG where you could occasionaly have a few friends help you would not justify the monthly subscription. I don't think people would play it very long. They would chew through most the content and move on if there isnt MORE to do, like open world areas, instances, PvP, etc.

I do not see Bioware making that kind of mistake if they are choosing a similar buisness model to most other MMORPGs. Now if there is no monthly subscription, or you pay for additional content, like Guild Wars...all bets are off.

Originally posted by Doomsayer

Eh...if its more like a single player game, so what? I'll just play it like one. MMORPGs aren't the only games I play. And when I am done with most of the content. I will quit playing it, like I do single player RPGs.

However, I don't think it will be so limited as you suggest. If the game played exactly like a single player RPG where you could occasionaly have a few friends help you would not justify the monthly subscription. I don't think people would play it very long. They would chew through most the content and move on if there isnt MORE to do, like open world areas, instances, PvP, etc.

I do not see Bioware making that kind of mistake if they are choosing a similar buisness model to most other MMORPGs. Now if there is no monthly subscription, or you pay for additional content, like Guild Wars...all bets are off.

I don't know, the Single Player RPG Online with Multiplayer Hubs model does seem to make commercial sense.

Firstly, it will be much smaller than most MMOs, that means less cost to construct and maintain

Secondly, by adding a new free 'chapter' every two months and a new paid 'expansion every four or six months, you get an end-game going that actually BOOSTS revenue.

Originally posted by hubertgrove

Originally posted by Doomsayer

Eh...if its more like a single player game, so what? I'll just play it like one. MMORPGs aren't the only games I play. And when I am done with most of the content. I will quit playing it, like I do single player RPGs.

However, I don't think it will be so limited as you suggest. If the game played exactly like a single player RPG where you could occasionaly have a few friends help you would not justify the monthly subscription. I don't think people would play it very long. They would chew through most the content and move on if there isnt MORE to do, like open world areas, instances, PvP, etc.

I do not see Bioware making that kind of mistake if they are choosing a similar buisness model to most other MMORPGs. Now if there is no monthly subscription, or you pay for additional content, like Guild Wars...all bets are off.

 

I don't know, the Single Player RPG Online with Multiplayer Hubs model does seem to make commercial sense.

Firstly, it will be much smaller than most MMOs, that means less cost to construct and maintain

Secondly, by adding a new free 'chapter' every two months and a new paid 'expansion every four or six months, you get an end-game going that actually BOOSTS revenue.

Well, like I said. If they do not use a traditional business MMORPG model, all bets are off. I agree that if content upgrades were free most of the time, and substantial enough, they might be worth a monthly sub. IF they were to go this route, we will just have to wait and see if this content is worth it. I for one need more than just content to justify my monthly payment, unless that content is awesome.

I don't think they will go this route, I think there will be much more to it than a single player game that can be played in co-op mode. But its all speculation right now and of little worth. We will just have to wait and see.

Originally posted by Doomsayer

Well, like I said. If they do not use a traditional business MMORPG model, all best are off. I agree that if content upgrades were free most of the time, and substantial enough, they might be worth a monthly sub. IF they were to go this route, we will just have to wait and see if this content is worth it. I for one need more than just content to justify my monthly payment, unless that content is awesome.

I don't think they will go this route, I think there will be much more to it than a single player game that can be played in co-op mode. But its all speculation right now and of little worth. We will just have to wait and see.

Well I'll put it this way....

Electronic Arts paid over $860 MILLION for BioWare... there was no reason to pay that sum for anything other than this MMO.  That's a crazy amount of money and EA obviously thinks this is the next WoW...  and with an $860 Million+ investment this really isn't up to BioWare to be stupid (plus EA has more experience at that).

I can't see much of any chance that EA bought this to have the next guild wars... or anything other than a monthly subscription (as even microtransaction have not been proven to be a mass market).  *edit* other than in parts of asia.. and I don't see this game doing well there.. but I'm probably wrong on that too.  Western MMO's don't historicly do well in that market.. other than WoW I can think of... UO.

So even going all the way back to the OP... why would anyone think EA spent this much money to create a single player experience...  or anything other than what they hope is a massive subscriber base.

If this game doesn't do well compared to the money spent I don't really see good things for EA personally... so I think they are to do whatever they think needs to be done for this to succeed. 

I guess that's my opinion on the entire idea in general.. my first response was agitated to say the least.

*note* I am personally trying to not have any opinion on what this game will or won't be.. until I personally play it.

But going back to the original post and on the question of whether SWTOR will "save the genre," which is to say, "will it take it out of the rut pioneered by EQ followed by WoW?"

The answer is obviously no.  There's no feature that deviates much from anything that's been done before.  We've done plenty of quests.  We've done plenty of instancing and story-based gameplay, (which in my opinion Guild Wars did best).  What SWTOR does is make it nice and polished (if it isn't rushed out the door unfinished as Star Wars Galaxies--SWG was), and gives it the Star Wars intellectual property.  I'll say it will stabilize at about 500,000 subscribers.  If it's *really* slick, we may see it take a bite out of WoW, but just judging from the movies I've seen, it isn't that slick.

The original successful MMOGs had virtually no storyline, no quests, no instancing.  Those things aren't necessary to keep people playing.  It's reinforced social gameplay that keeps people playing, and in this regard SWTOR is no different from other games.

I don't think all bets are off if they deviated from this.  The sandbox model, which is what UO and SWG followed, was moderately successful.  Measured against other MMOGs, SWG was quite successful, holding a similar number of subscribers.  The problem is that it was rushed out the door unfinished.  It had a sluggish engine, and it had barely any content; the world was empty, and it was either impossible or pointless to interact with it.  It was a sandbox with no shovel or toys or anything.

IMO the Star Wars universe desperately needs a sandbox.  It needs a non-linear simulation game if it wants to be a next big thing.  The fantasy RPG MMO niche is taken, WoW has it, and will have it for a good while.  Players have played plenty of Star Wars RPGs before: they've been jedi before, they've been the hero or the sith lord and they've been the center of the story.  What the MMOG format offers is a realistic simulation of the universe, where they can be the droid merchant or the mercenary, which are potentially really fun if there's a fun reason for players to interact with each other, and if there's some actual freaking content.

Originally posted by krityc

 Lil bit, it looks like Oblivion meets Knight of the Old Republic.

Hows that now?

---

Originally posted by hanshotfirst
Is it even worth mentioning that the very phrase "cooperative single-player RPG" is an oxymoron?
(For the illiterate: cooperative = more than one player.)

---

Win.

/endthread

Sounds completely different from all the other garbage out there. Isn't this what people have been asking for? Someone with enough balls to try something new? Get away from the WoW and F2P clones?

The OP just sold me on this game. I don't think that was his intent.

I will repost what I said about this subject. Other than FFXI which does require grouping I have soloed just about every mmo I have played which includes, WOW,LOTR,AOC,Guild Wars and Warhammer Online. Making a big deal out of this being soloable is really no big deal at all. I'm not even sure why this even has to be mentioned. The Old Republic will be different and different in a good way.

Originally posted by brostyn

Sounds completely different from all the other garbage out there. Isn't this what people have been asking for? Someone with enough balls to try something new? Get away from the WoW and F2P clones?

The OP just sold me on this game. I don't think that was his intent.

lol

/win

Originally posted by Antarious

Originally posted by Doomsayer

Well, like I said. If they do not use a traditional business MMORPG model, all best are off. I agree that if content upgrades were free most of the time, and substantial enough, they might be worth a monthly sub. IF they were to go this route, we will just have to wait and see if this content is worth it. I for one need more than just content to justify my monthly payment, unless that content is awesome.

I don't think they will go this route, I think there will be much more to it than a single player game that can be played in co-op mode. But its all speculation right now and of little worth. We will just have to wait and see.

 

 

Well I'll put it this way....

 

Electronic Arts paid over $860 MILLION for BioWare... there was no reason to pay that sum for anything other than this MMO.  That's a crazy amount of money and EA obviously thinks this is the next WoW...  and with an $860 Million+ investment this really isn't up to BioWare to be stupid (plus EA has more experience at that).

 

I can't see much of any chance that EA bought this to have the next guild wars... or anything other than a monthly subscription (as even microtransaction have not been proven to be a mass market).  *edit* other than in parts of asia.. and I don't see this game doing well there.. but I'm probably wrong on that too.  Western MMO's don't historicly do well in that market.. other than WoW I can think of... UO.

 

So even going all the way back to the OP... why would anyone think EA spent this much money to create a single player experience...  or anything other than what they hope is a massive subscriber base.

 

If this game doesn't do well compared to the money spent I don't really see good things for EA personally... so I think they are to do whatever they think needs to be done for this to succeed. 

 

I guess that's my opinion on the entire idea in general.. my first response was agitated to say the least.

 

*note* I am personally trying to not have any opinion on what this game will or won't be.. until I personally play it.

Very good point, I must say. Indeed EA paid an almost ridiculous sum for Bioware. And logic dictates they want that money back, which NO WAY IN HELL happens with a single player game.

The bottom line is: a MMO pays only, if you KEEP players. And the reality is, like it or not, NO STORY, whatsoever grand and long will hold players long. First, a definite amount of MMO gamers just dont care about story anyway. No matter if Tolkien and Shakespeare themselves rose from the grave and write the stories, many will STILL skip it. Plus, most important, many MMO gamers are hardcore time players. I recall a late interview where one of the LucasArts guys said, he only played 1-2 hours a day, as some kind of example. But tbh, I dont think the majority of MMO players plays THAT casual.

So both the OP and Antarious have their points.

On the one hand, the more I think of it, the more it sounds like a single player game. Now I am kinda being "seduced by the dark side here", because the longer I think about it, the worse I expect, because simply said: everything gamers CAN solo WILL be soloed mostly. That is one of the unchanging realities of gaming. And we know what the rise of solo-friendlyness caused in the MMO world: the slow death of community as we knew it in the (good) old days. In the end, everyone solos everything, and there is no community at all left. And I seriously believe MMOs without comminites just dont live long, not on high subscription numbers at least. So: End of story.

The other reason is also valid: EA paid a hefty sum which can't not be retrieved unless many people play a MMO a LONG time. And as I said: IMVPO that can NOT be attained without classic grind, no matter how hard Bioware denies that reality. The WOW-factor: if you want that uber mount, grind faction X. Or grind quest X or Dungeon X. No matter. I can not imagine story, no matter how well and interesting would keep a gamer more than 3 - 4 months at best, given the average game time and the expected easyness of SWTOR. So the question it comes down to: does EA & Bioware realize this?

Now there are two scenarios: a) EA and Bioware are gravely mistaken and really think, story solo game can bring that kind of revenue. And it is wrong thinking. That would NEVER work. They deceive themself if they say, there is a vast potential of single players left for a solo oriented MMO. I dont think so. I cant prove it or argue over it, it is just me instinct. Who isnt hooked by something easy as WOW, wont be hooked by a story driven "MMO". Period. Or b) the game HAS an equally large part which is "grind" (in some sense), and then the game can "succeed" (monetary-wise) and Bioware is deceiving us with that "all is heroic story" balderdash. Either way, either them or we are being deceived here. Which of these is more plausible of the two alternatives I can not say, but I dont see an alternative to these two. The very idea a MMO or whatever you want to call it can keep people to a monthly subscription for YEARS with "MERELY" story is being dead wrong, mark my words. No way that brings back the money invested. I just wonder, do THEY know, heh?

I would really  be interested what you say to my analysis? Maybe I overlooked something, I really would like to hear you opinion here.

Originally posted by Stoofus

But going back to the original post and on the question of whether SWTOR will "save the genre," which is to say, "will it take it out of the rut pioneered by EQ followed by WoW?"

 

The answer is obviously no.  There's no feature that deviates much from anything that's been done before.  We've done plenty of quests.  We've done plenty of instancing and story-based gameplay, (which in my opinion Guild Wars did best).  What SWTOR does is make it nice and polished (if it isn't rushed out the door unfinished as Star Wars Galaxies--SWG was), and gives it the Star Wars intellectual property.  I'll say it will stabilize at about 500,000 subscribers.  If it's *really* slick, we may see it take a bite out of WoW, but just judging from the movies I've seen, it isn't that slick.

 

The original successful MMOGs had virtually no storyline, no quests, no instancing.  Those things aren't necessary to keep people playing.  It's reinforced social gameplay that keeps people playing, and in this regard SWTOR is no different from other games.

 

I don't think all bets are off if they deviated from this.  The sandbox model, which is what UO and SWG followed, was moderately successful.  Measured against other MMOGs, SWG was quite successful, holding a similar number of subscribers.  The problem is that it was rushed out the door unfinished.  It had a sluggish engine, and it had barely any content; the world was empty, and it was either impossible or pointless to interact with it.  It was a sandbox with no shovel or toys or anything.

 

IMO the Star Wars universe desperately needs a sandbox.  It needs a non-linear simulation game if it wants to be a next big thing.  The fantasy RPG MMO niche is taken, WoW has it, and will have it for a good while.  Players have played plenty of Star Wars RPGs before: they've been jedi before, they've been the hero or the sith lord and they've been the center of the story.  What the MMOG format offers is a realistic simulation of the universe, where they can be the droid merchant or the mercenary, which are potentially really fun if there's a fun reason for players to interact with each other, and if there's some actual freaking content.

The original MMOGs also didn't have much in the way of competition. And "successful" back then was exceeding a 100k subscription base (outside of the Asian community).

As for the sandbox "niche", it's already taken by a game called Second Life. And it's infinitely more successful than any other sandbox to precede it (including pre-CU SWG and pre-Trammel UO, combined). A (very) distant 2nd would be EVE Online.

Frankly, I don't think a Star Wars IP themed variant of either is the magical key to success, much less the "next big thing". The original SWG lost over half of its subscribers within the first month, and continued to bleed an average of 10k subs a month afterwards (and that's before the nefarious "NGE"). Two of the primary complaints (beyond bugs and balance issues) was that there wasn't much to do, and what was available was a very poor representation of the IP's universe.

Furthermore, the very IP itself (Star Wars) has *never* been about a "realistic simulation" of anything. It's an action/adventure, power-fantasy, where yes, heroes *are* the center of the story. That's its draw. That's its point. That's what I'd wager most fans expect.

Originally posted by Elikal

Originally posted by Antarious

Originally posted by Doomsayer

Well, like I said. If they do not use a traditional business MMORPG model, all best are off. I agree that if content upgrades were free most of the time, and substantial enough, they might be worth a monthly sub. IF they were to go this route, we will just have to wait and see if this content is worth it. I for one need more than just content to justify my monthly payment, unless that content is awesome.

I don't think they will go this route, I think there will be much more to it than a single player game that can be played in co-op mode. But its all speculation right now and of little worth. We will just have to wait and see.

 

 

Well I'll put it this way....

 

Electronic Arts paid over $860 MILLION for BioWare... there was no reason to pay that sum for anything other than this MMO.  That's a crazy amount of money and EA obviously thinks this is the next WoW...  and with an $860 Million+ investment this really isn't up to BioWare to be stupid (plus EA has more experience at that).

 

I can't see much of any chance that EA bought this to have the next guild wars... or anything other than a monthly subscription (as even microtransaction have not been proven to be a mass market).  *edit* other than in parts of asia.. and I don't see this game doing well there.. but I'm probably wrong on that too.  Western MMO's don't historicly do well in that market.. other than WoW I can think of... UO.

 

So even going all the way back to the OP... why would anyone think EA spent this much money to create a single player experience...  or anything other than what they hope is a massive subscriber base.

 

If this game doesn't do well compared to the money spent I don't really see good things for EA personally... so I think they are to do whatever they think needs to be done for this to succeed. 

 

I guess that's my opinion on the entire idea in general.. my first response was agitated to say the least.

 

*note* I am personally trying to not have any opinion on what this game will or won't be.. until I personally play it.

 

Very good point, I must say. Indeed EA paid an almost ridiculous sum for Bioware. And logic dictates they want that money back, which NO WAY IN HELL happens with a single player game.

The bottom line is: a MMO pays only, if you KEEP players. And the reality is, like it or not, NO STORY, whatsoever grand and long will hold players long. First, a definite amount of MMO gamers just dont care about story anyway. No matter if Tolkien and Shakespeare themselves rose from the grave and write the stories, many will STILL skip it. Plus, most important, many MMO gamers are hardcore time players. I recall a late interview where one of the LucasArts guys said, he only played 1-2 hours a day, as some kind of example. But tbh, I dont think the majority of MMO players plays THAT casual.

So both the OP and Antarious have their points.

On the one hand, the more I think of it, the more it sounds like a single player game. Now I am kinda being "seduced by the dark side here", because the longer I think about it, the worse I expect, because simply said: everything gamers CAN solo WILL be soloed mostly. That is one of the unchanging realities of gaming. And we know what the rise of solo-friendlyness caused in the MMO world: the slow death of community as we knew it in the (good) old days. In the end, everyone solos everything, and there is no community at all left. And I seriously believe MMOs without comminites just dont live long, not on high subscription numbers at least. So: End of story.

The other reason is also valid: EA paid a hefty sum which can't not be retrieved unless many people play a MMO a LONG time. And as I said: IMVPO that can NOT be attained without classic grind, no matter how hard Bioware denies that reality. The WOW-factor: if you want that uber mount, grind faction X. Or grind quest X or Dungeon X. No matter. I can not imagine story, no matter how well and interesting would keep a gamer more than 3 - 4 months at best, given the average game time and the expected easyness of SWTOR. So the question it comes down to: does EA & Bioware realize this?

Now there are two scenarios: a) EA and Bioware are gravely mistaken and really think, story solo game can bring that kind of revenue. And it is wrong thinking. That would NEVER work. They deceive themself if they say, there is a vast potential of single players left for a solo oriented MMO. I dont think so. I cant prove it or argue over it, it is just me instinct. Who isnt hooked by something easy as WOW, wont be hooked by a story driven "MMO". Period. Or b) the game HAS an equally large part which is "grind" (in some sense), and then the game can "succeed" (monetary-wise) and Bioware is deceiving us with that "all is heroic story" balderdash. Either way, either them or we are being deceived here. Which of these is more plausible of the two alternatives I can not say, but I dont see an alternative to these two. The very idea a MMO or whatever you want to call it can keep people to a monthly subscription for YEARS with "MERELY" story is being dead wrong, mark my words. No way that brings back the money invested. I just wonder, do THEY know, heh?

 

 

I would really  be interested what you say to my analysis? Maybe I overlooked something, I really would like to hear you opinion here.

Jesus, quit acting so cynical.  This game has more than JUST the story part, they've already mentioned PvP, its just the MASSIVE storry that is what they are trying to do different.  I don't care if some people don't care about story and just like to skip it over... that's because most mmo's have BORING stories.  And if someone wants absolutely nothing to do with story, no one is asking them to play TOR.

 We really don't have much information about the game at this point.  

Bioware has been emphasizing the story element because that's what is different.  If they did interviews and just said, we're doing a MMO and it has PvP and raids and instanced dungeons and exploration, people would wonder what was the point?   So right now they're hyping what makes TOR different, the story.  

We need to see how well Bioware delivers on the other elements of the MMO experience that players have come to expect before we start to say they've made any mistakes trying to develop story.

First of all, why do you need to group in an MMO? It was a mechanic introduced at some point to help with certain gameplay elements. The end result was that healer classes play fill the bar game in most games nowadays. For some it may man convenience, but I don't think that a game without the extra group windows can't work.

And then we forget why single player games are more immersive than MMOs for the most part. Thing is, you can approach MMOs from two angles. One says that the absence of other people equals absence of meaningful gameplay. This is basically what's happening when you're playing a multiplayer FPS game, or a game focused entirely on PvP, like WAR. Without enough people, the game is not fun to play. The other approach says that a game needs to be fun when played alone and the multiplayer element is a game fun enhancement. This is what is basically happening with most current PvE MMOs. You can basically solo up to max level and beyond, but if you choose to team up with others, the game becomes so much more fun.

Bioware probably have chosen the later approach. For a PvE MMO that approach makes more sense in my opinion. Take any MMO in the market today. If it is boring to play solo, aka has tons of grinding or repetitive tasks or mundane tasks etc., how does making it a common playground with others will make it any less boring? Sure, you are always given a carrot to push towards to, but if the process is what is called a "grind", won't we be better off with mechanics that would kept us interested and engaging in a single player game?

Originally posted by brostyn

Sounds completely different from all the other garbage out there. Isn't this what people have been asking for? Someone with enough balls to try something new? Get away from the WoW and F2P clones?

The OP just sold me on this game. I don't think that was his intent.

I don't give a shit what you play. My intent was discuss SWTOR's 'MMORPG' designation.  I believe some of these games are getting WAY outside of the RPG side of things and just becoming MMOG's.  They are stripping more and more out and just making it about quests.  To me, this makes the game very confined and restrictive.  As I said in the OP, the purist theme-park to date.  It's up to you to decide if this is a good thing or not.

Originally posted by hanshotfirst

Originally posted by Stoofus

But going back to the original post and on the question of whether SWTOR will "save the genre," which is to say, "will it take it out of the rut pioneered by EQ followed by WoW?"

 

The answer is obviously no.  There's no feature that deviates much from anything that's been done before.  We've done plenty of quests.  We've done plenty of instancing and story-based gameplay, (which in my opinion Guild Wars did best).  What SWTOR does is make it nice and polished (if it isn't rushed out the door unfinished as Star Wars Galaxies--SWG was), and gives it the Star Wars intellectual property.  I'll say it will stabilize at about 500,000 subscribers.  If it's *really* slick, we may see it take a bite out of WoW, but just judging from the movies I've seen, it isn't that slick.

 

The original successful MMOGs had virtually no storyline, no quests, no instancing.  Those things aren't necessary to keep people playing.  It's reinforced social gameplay that keeps people playing, and in this regard SWTOR is no different from other games.

 

I don't think all bets are off if they deviated from this.  The sandbox model, which is what UO and SWG followed, was moderately successful.  Measured against other MMOGs, SWG was quite successful, holding a similar number of subscribers.  The problem is that it was rushed out the door unfinished.  It had a sluggish engine, and it had barely any content; the world was empty, and it was either impossible or pointless to interact with it.  It was a sandbox with no shovel or toys or anything.

 

IMO the Star Wars universe desperately needs a sandbox.  It needs a non-linear simulation game if it wants to be a next big thing.  The fantasy RPG MMO niche is taken, WoW has it, and will have it for a good while.  Players have played plenty of Star Wars RPGs before: they've been jedi before, they've been the hero or the sith lord and they've been the center of the story.  What the MMOG format offers is a realistic simulation of the universe, where they can be the droid merchant or the mercenary, which are potentially really fun if there's a fun reason for players to interact with each other, and if there's some actual freaking content.

 

The original MMOGs also didn't have much in the way of competition. And "successful" back then was exceeding a 100k subscription base (outside of the Asian community).

As for the sandbox "niche", it's already taken by a game called Second Life. And it's infinitely more successful than any other sandbox to precede it (including pre-CU SWG and pre-Trammel UO, combined). A (very) distant 2nd would be EVE Online.

Frankly, I don't think a Star Wars IP themed variant of either is the magical key to success, much less the "next big thing". The original SWG lost over half of its subscribers within the first month, and continued to bleed an average of 10k subs a month afterwards (and that's before the nefarious "NGE"). Two of the primary complaints (beyond bugs and balance issues) was that there wasn't much to do, and what was available was a very poor representation of the IP's universe.

Furthermore, the very IP itself (Star Wars) has *never* been about a "realistic simulation" of anything. It's an action/adventure, power-fantasy, where yes, heroes *are* the center of the story. That's its draw. That's its point. That's what I'd wager most fans expect.

Firstly, SWG was successful even by today's standards, not just the standards back in the day, despite its flaws that you correctly listed.  And I don't know what data you're looking at, but according to MMOGchart.com, SWG grew then held rather steady before NGE/CU, and did not exhibit a net loss in subscribers until after NGE/CU.  It had about the same number of subscribers as Eve does today, which is nothing to snuff at.  Even UO held on to customers which numbered half of EQ's for quite a while, and even this was in spite of the misguided direction the game took.  In terms of the raw number of subscribers, both UO and SWG were more successful at gaining and keeping subscribers than EQ2, DAoC, and CoH/CoV.  These games were successful, in spite of UO's archaic format and poor direction, and SWG's rough edges and vacuum of content.   So what if a sandbox MMORPG like UO/SWG were to enter the market, but with WoW's level of quality?  I think it could be a massive success.

I would also disagree that SWG and UO were in the same niche as Second Life.  I think it's obvious that 2nd Life caters to totally different tastes.  Whereas it is an MMO, I wouldn't call it an MMORPG.

I also disagree that the draw of Star Wars is to be the hero at the center of the story (which in an MMO is ramming a square peg in a round hole).  IMO, the draw is the fantasy universe, which can be worked with in MMOs if it doesn't contradict the films or books.

Anyway, what I want to say is that the sandbox/nonlinear/non-EQ-clone MMORPG market is wide open.  The competition in this field right now is Darkfall, and maybe UO.  These are to say the least, not formidable.  A well known IP, with a high quality game I think could make some serious success here.

If they go the EQ-clone route, which SWTOR is, the competition is World of Warcraft.  That's a problem.