Originally posted by Jakdstripper

TOR is not a sandbox.

 

end of thread.

No-one is saying that it is

Read the original post again. Like so many others in this thread, you have totally misunderstood it. I was also initially confused by the title........(what? SWTOR isnt a sandbox).........then I read the actual post and what he meant was revealed. You should try reading it too

Originally posted by Creslin321

To everyone lambasting the OP for claiming SWTOR is a sandbox game...

RTFPost

Damn you beat me to it. I was just about to say the same thing. To everyone above who is saying "but....but.....SWTOR is not a sandbox mmo"......you really need to stop replying to the title of a post and actually read its contents as well

HE IS NOT SAYING SWTOR IS A SANDBOX MMO

Originally posted by 69Cuda

Awful lot of big words to say "yes' we will have kill xx rat quests.

 

Those "big words" clearly went right over your head as that wasnt what the dev was saying at all. Ah well I suppose differing levels of intellect make the world a varied place ;)

Originally posted by boubhs

The end of free month approaches…
 

.....for the people that bought the game when it released. What about all the people that bought it after it released or have yet to start playing it? The end of the free month does not appraoch for everyone so therefore your post is a bit pointless really.

Originally posted by toddze

Originally posted by Swollen_Beef

Originally posted by toddze

 

Its a forum not an english class. Quit being grammer Nazi's. Not in every case but in some cases, English may not be someones first language.

That old gag...

Correct someone's horrid spelling and grammatical errors and you are a spelling Nazi and then the "not my first language" card gets thrown around. 

I guess spelling mistakes on a Resume are okay too. It JUST a resume. 

 

There are spelling mistakes, and there are spelling mistakes that make you look like an uneducated 'tard, Nazis or no. 

No, its a forum for discussing games its not an english class, this is a far cry from a resume, no one is applying for a job. The only reason to correct grammer and spelling errors is to belittle and downgrade the poster to make you guys feel better.

 

No. By correcting peoples spelling mistakes, "spelling nazis" (aka people with a better education) are helping them to improve themselves. The people who do not know how to spell things properly should be grateful for the free education instead of "wingeing" about it. They are gaining, not losing. If they feel belittled by this then they should just take it on the chin, accept the constructive criticism and learn to spell properly. Then no-one will ever feel the need to correct them. If I say something wrong and then get corrected, I dont get angry about it as that doesnt make any sense. I accept that I was wrong, experience a little bit of embrassment and learn from it (......until I forget the next time).

Fixing broken things is good and should not be criticised. Leaving broken things broken is really fucking stupid.

Roleplaying? Bioware does all of that for the player with their scripted story and cutscenes. They even talk on the players behalf. Oh you mean roleplay with those other players? Those other players who are all busy following Biowares story? Is there really any point in even trying to pretend to be a unique character in this game?

Originally posted by TUX426

Originally posted by Blacknd

Originally posted by TUX426

Originally posted by orsonstfu

Here is to hoping that Archeage or Guild Wars 2 will bring new hope to the the genre.
 

Yeah lol, let's hope they bring something entirely new...like...maybe elfs and wizards!

 

New?! Yeah...we have such a plethora of these types of games it makes me sick.

At least the two he listed have fundamental differences from most other fantasy types.

They aren't themeparks.

GW2 might be, idk. Its free though ;P

GW2 free?!?!   Are you serious? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Dude, you'll have more store bought sh!t in that game than any game before it. Trust me, the game will not be "free" lol!

 

Hmmm...not a themepark?! So...more like APB or Tabula Rasa? And LOL...you don't even KNOW.

 

Sorry dude...swords, ogres, orcs, magicians, dragons, horses, castles...blah blah blah...more of the same old f'king crap. I'm SICK of "fantasy" games.

You totally missed the point. What you're referring to with "fantasy being unoriginal" has absolutely nothing to do with what the OP was talking about. Whether upcoming games have swords & wizards or lazerguns & spaceships is completely and utterly irrelevant

Originally posted by Angier2758

Lvl 10 smuggler doesn't really do much btw....

 

Smells trollish.

There is clearly nothing trollish about the OP at all. You know it. Everyone else knows it. Why say such idiotic crap?

Originally posted by Zefire

One word for those who are willing to buy the game "try it before u buy it".

Ha ha ha ha ha! Love it

Why should anyone try to convince you? If you dont like the look of the game then dont buy it. Why start yet another pointless thread about a game you dont think is any good?

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by neonwire

---

Originally posted by Eliandal

---

Originally posted by neonwire

---

Originally posted by Vorthanion

There are a lot more gamers who prefer PvE over PvP, so take that as you will on how a game should be developed and if you want to have reasonable numbers of subscribers or if you're willing to go for a smaller niche game.

---

Isn't this just an opinion presented as a fact?........unless there is some kind of proof of this somewhere. I see this gets said a lot and yet I have never seen anyone back the statement up with any real evidence other than "there are more pve games than pvp games" which obviously doesnt prove anything. Hmmm

---

 
  While there's no hard evidence (that's been released that I know of)  All one needs to do is look at server populations to see that the opinion is more than just that.  Take WoW for instance.  PVP servers at Med - 41.  PVE servers at Med - 110, PVP servers at High - 19, PVE servers at high - 16.
 
  Unless their server numbers are completely skewed, and all pve servers are at the extreme low end while all pvp servers are at the extreme high end - it appears that PVE players more than double the number of pvp players (Now granted - this is only going by server type, and is hardly scientific - but I would think that if there WERE such a study - it would probably show similar results)

---

You make a good point. However is it not possible (or in fact likely) that server populations (pve vs pvp) are heavily influenced by the quality of the game design that goes into them. From what I have seen in mmo's, the pve aspect is virtually always focused on the most (which is what the OP was getting at). This is because games companies have been making single player games for years long before mmos became popular. So it's only natural that the single player side of mmos (player vs computer) is going to be a better product.......at least until games companies get

---

Look at the polls offered on this website:
http://www.mmorpg.com/features.cfm/view/polls
and scroll down to the one asking what's more important, PvE or PvP. With 13,119 votes tallied, players choose PvE as more important than PvP. Developers aren't focusing so much on PvE because they want to force players to play it, they are focusing on it because that's what a majority of players want developers to focus on.

PvE + PvE w/some PvP = 47.5%
Equal PvE & PvP = 35.7%
PvP + PvP w/some PvE = 16.8%

Not scientific, self selected participants, etc., but it jives with what developers are doing, and developers aren't doing what they're doing by accident.
 

But it still comes back to the mouldy apples vs good oranges thing. Those players have experienced the pve offerings from games companies and they have also experienced the pvp offerings. So far the pve mmos have mostly been much better quality games than the pvp games. There are also LOTS of pve focused mmos and very few pvp focused games. So of course players are going to say they prefer mmos that focus on pve, because so far most mmos that have tried to focus on pvp tend to be rather shit. If pvp in mmos was as well done as the pve then I suspect those polls would show quite different results.

Originally posted by VirusDancer

Originally posted by Loke666
...snip...

The holy trinity is one of the things, it makes PvE and PvP very different. In a balanced game mobs needs to be close to humans.

I had to laugh at this.  Not because of what you said, but rather I had to laugh because of what I thought immediately after reading this.

In PvP, people tend to think (even though they may act differently, excitement of battle and all that) that the following is the order that targets need to be taken down:

1. Healers
2. DPS
3. Tanky

Generally speaking, that is basically the same thing people tend to do in PvE too...am I right?

 

Cause...it just makes sense.

 

Now of course, mobs don't do this.  People accept that it makes sense that mobs don't do the thing that makes sense.  They have cried foul repeatedly any time it has been suggested that mobs do the thing that we do...the thing that makes sense.

 

So how about this then...instead, eh?

 

Instead of giving mobs the ability to target players by their actual threat...

 

...we give mobs the ability to Trinity!

 

Imagine that there your group is... you see the one mob healing the tank while the DPS is lighting your group up... but, but... but you're forced to whack-a-mole on the tank mob?

 

Balance!

Ha ha I quite like the sound of that. Unfortunately I suspect that the type of player who only enjoys pve and despises pvp in all forms would hate it. They just want to have a story unfold and they dont want their "progress" to be impeded by anything that resembles a challenge. Dieing to some mobs occasionally is ok for them but if they encounter an opponent that actively seeks to outwit them, then they would probably find it too distressing and would rage quit and call for all the mobs to have their intelligence removed.

Originally posted by Eliandal

Originally posted by neonwire

Originally posted by Vorthanion

There are a lot more gamers who prefer PvE over PvP, so take that as you will on how a game should be developed and if you want to have reasonable numbers of subscribers or if you're willing to go for a smaller niche game.

Isn't this just an opinion presented as a fact?........unless there is some kind of proof of this somewhere. I see this gets said a lot and yet I have never seen anyone back the statement up with any real evidence other than "there are more pve games than pvp games" which obviously doesnt prove anything. Hmmm

 

  While there's no hard evidence (that's been released that I know of)  All one needs to do is look at server populations to see that the opinion is more than just that.  Take WoW for instance.  PVP servers at Med - 41.  PVE servers at Med - 110, PVP servers at High - 19, PVE servers at high - 16.

 

  Unless their server numbers are completely skewed, and all pve servers are at the extreme low end while all pvp servers are at the extreme high end - it appears that PVE players more than double the number of pvp players (Now granted - this is only going by server type, and is hardly scientific - but I would think that if there WERE such a study - it would probably show similar results)

You make a good point. However is it not possible (or in fact likely) that server populations (pve vs pvp) are heavily influenced by the quality of the game design that goes into them. From what I have seen in mmo's, the pve aspect is virtually always focused on the most (which is what the OP was getting at). This is because games companies have been making single player games for years long before mmos became popular. So it's only natural that the single player side of mmos (player vs computer) is going to be a better product.......at least until games companies get more practiced at the multiplayer side of things anyway.

The pvp aspect of mmo's on the other hand tends to be pretty half arsed. In fact it's often little more than a pve server where the "players cant touch each other" rule is turned off.......or little arenas where teams can meet up and have a quick muck-around fight. Basicly most mmos that have a pvp option were never designed for player conflict to begin with. It's pretty disappointing really, especially considering the wealth of options in game design that become available when players are able to effect each other (and I dont just mean killing each other needlessly). I would have thought that player interaction should be the big thing that seperates mmos from single player games, and yet this generally isnt the case with the mmos we have today. Many people actually treat mmos now as online single player games. The recent article that went up about SWTOR for example talks about turning off the chat channels so that other players cant reveal spoilers about the story in the game. May as well just make a single player game with an optional online chat & co-op feature.

So yeah we have mmos offering a "well made pve server" and a "badly made pvp server". Players are naturaly going to flock to the better product.........but as the OP has pointed out, would the situation be the same if pvp servers were actually good instead of just being.....well......shit?

It's a bit like selling really mouldy horrible apples and really high quality tasty oranges, and then claiming that people prefer oranges to apples. So really peoples overall preferences cant actually be judged by the server populations of the current crop of mmos, as the quality of each is unbalanced in favour of pve. This is not because people definately prefer pve-only mmos. It is because designing and building pve mmos is closer to the way single player games work. Easier, less effort, familiar and safer.

I agree totally with the OP. It would be great to see a game that properly merges pve and pvp gameplay together in an intelligent way. That would be getting closer to what I feel an mmo should really be. I dont think it's impossible at all. I mean seriously when we live in a world where mind-controlled wheel chairs and self teaching robots are being designed, surely games companies could start making mmos that are a bit more than online co-op games.

Oops sorry for the wall of text.

Originally posted by Vorthanion

There are a lot more gamers who prefer PvE over PvP, so take that as you will on how a game should be developed and if you want to have reasonable numbers of subscribers or if you're willing to go for a smaller niche game.

Isn't this just an opinion presented as a fact?........unless there is some kind of proof of this somewhere. I see this gets said a lot and yet I have never seen anyone back the statement up with any real evidence other than "there are more pve games than pvp games" which obviously doesnt prove anything. Hmmm

As the free roaming "worlds" gradually vanish from MMO's and become ancient relics, to be replaced by the new breed of guided story telling MMO's, this is what you get. Online single player/co-op games will always have this issue. Why is this a shocking revelation to anyone?

Over the years I have come to despise the word "epic" when used in conjunction with mmos. Epic quests, Epic boss fights, Epic loot.......it all sounds quite tiresome to me and doesnt excite me at all. None of it is ever really epic anyway. How can it be if everyone has equal and easy access to it all? It seems that the word "epic" gets slapped onto anything and everything now.

I remember way back in the old days when I used to play proper roleplaying games. I enjoyed them a lot, but I always felt they were much more interesting near the beginning when everything was down to earth.......when meeting a small band of goblins in a forest was a challenge, finding a simple dagger that emanates a bit of magic was a grand treasure and a dragon wasnt something to be killed with ease but something to be feared and avoided.

Several months later I am slaying gods, travelling through time in my freshly made dragon scale armour, saving the entire world from doom and generally feeling a tad bored with it all as I look back fondly at my characters recent past. Oh look its another super duper arch demon with a billion hitpoints. Yay how interesting.

Nahh they can keep their "epic" content. I prefer to feel immersed in a believable fantasy world.

Also "the Dynamic event system doesn't sound like its the perfect system to tell stories"........this is a good thing though isnt it? The less rigid storytelling there is leaves more freedom to do what you think your character would actually do (aka roleplaying). I would much rather explore a fantasy world where stuff just happens, than have a pre-planned story told to me. I have films, books and single player games for that.

Originally posted by saker

Originally posted by Saboterr

Originally posted by Ozmodan

I don't understand the fascination with MOBA's.  Tried League of Legends and found it highly repetitive and boring.  

 

 Same as asking whats the fascination with any other game genre?

 People like it, nothing more to it. It's a competitive game genre, if you're not competitive, you won't like it.

 

He means if you're not a pvp a.d.d-riddled teen.

So anyone who likes competing with others in games is an a.d.d-riddled teen? Hmmm ok

Originally posted by Ozmodan

I don't understand the fascination with MOBA's.  Tried League of Legends and found it highly repetitive and boring.  

Yeah because mmos dont have any repetition in them do they *palm face*

I assume you're going to stop playing most games as well then, because if you feel happier by not seeing negative names then surely not actually participating in the mass slaughter of hordes of orcs and aliens will take you to unforseen levels of euphoria.

Or maybe it's just a passing epiphany to be forgotten about the next morning ;)

"We" being the collective "you"