The unofficial RP server is Landroval, and was so designated by community vote as far back as beta.  That said, I'm sure you'll find random pockets of it on any server, but you are more likely to run into it on Landroval.

I agree. I'm cautiously optimistic about Darkfall and mildly interested in Earthrise (though there really is little info available on it yet from what I can tell).

I'd be willing to pay higher sub rates for a true sandbox; one of these days developers might tap that market.

I'm not sure that it would fail, provided Bioware lived up to their reputation and delivered a game that was relatively stable and bug-free (something Sony/LA was unable to do in either Pre-CU or NGE).

As much as everyone around here hates the NGE (myself included, don't think I'm defending it), it is precisely the type of game that is being played by millions of MMORPG players, most of them in WoW, a few in EQ2 and LotRo.  The NGE clearly set out to emulate that style of game, and the fact that it has low subscription numbers indicates to me that the implementation was poor, not the concept.  The concept has unequivocally been proven successful by Blizzard (financially successful that is), and Bioware will most likely follow that model and do a better job of delivering and communicating.

Will it compete with WoW like they're hoping? I highly doubt it, but it will turn a profit.

Originally posted by Tzimiscechi

 

If you liked the NGE, you'll love TOR.

-rejected Bioware sales pitch....

 

 

 

Bwahahahaha.  Gets my vote for post of the year.

Originally posted by Devour

This article seems resoundingly useless in my opinion. Building cities, which require players, in a game without players, whilst players are already in other cities?

Makes sense.

Well, you know what they say opinions are like.  Thanks for the insightful commentary though.

Nice write-up.  My guardian is about to hit 35 and so far I've experienced pretty much what you described.

Originally posted by Caligulug

Jedijef. Do not let the rabbid fan bois get you down. Your review was spot on and objective. I couldn not have written it better my self.

Not at all man, I actually appreciate the debate, as well as your support.  The personal attacks are a little uncalled for (but can be responded to in kind, frankly), but other than that I'm cool.

With that, I'll bow out of the discussion before I get myself in further trouble. 

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

I think anyone who reads this (at least, i hope) would see that the review thinks anyone who players FPS games are some sort of mouth breathers (again, its on the internet), and decided to treat an entire player base with his own preconceived notions, and quite frankly dislike of that genre. I’m not even sure with this in mind that this person was even the right pick for the job, because he walked in with this notion before hand. This is where any comments about the community loose credibility. Like I said:
 

---

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

 

9 times out of 10, most people that say "This community sucks", walked in and started pissing on the drapes.

---

 

 

So I guess I think I'm a mouth-breather, since, looking over my game shelf, I see Far Cry 1 & 2, all the CoD games, all the Doom games, Half-Life 1 & 2, and many more.

Need I go on?

I get that you didn't like the review, that's totally cool, but man seriously, at least come up with something more than an assumption if you're going to spar with me.  So far what you've said lacks credibility, to be kind, and is flat out wrong, to be blunt. 

Originally posted by Steelrose

Originally posted by jedijef

Originally posted by Steelrose

Originally posted by Stradden

Originally posted by Steelrose

Well in my opinion this review is a joke as almost all reviews made in every magazine and on every major website last 5-6 years. All it does, is trying to appeal the majority of the people here, that felt to AoC hype before release, so it gets favourable feedback from the community. This review is just the reflection of the state of the AoC-forums on this website. It's a coward article hiding behind the community.

Seriously? Did someone just accuse us of writing a review to appease our community? REALLY? I mean seriously, it really doesn't matter what we write in our reviews, I guess we're just ALWAYS going to get this kind of statement. More often than not, it's "you're trying to sppease sdvertisers" now it "you're trying to appease your community". Ya know what? Reviews are just one person's opinion of a game. That's it. There's no freaking hidden agenda. Seriously. Deal with it. That seem like something I'm saying to get favorable feedback?

There's no cowardice here, friend. I hate to break it to you.

 

Your article pretends to be an objective review. It doesn't state "in my opinion, the interface is clunky and the community full of idiots..." It says let me paraphrase: the interface is clunky and the community full of idiots. Most of the things you criticise can  be criticized in almost every game, depends on what approach you have towards the game. I'm not saying AoC is a good game, the game has great atmosphere for me and otherwise it's an overhyped mess. But the reasons why I dislike it differ from yours and most of the things you dislike I actually enjoy. Review should be informative. I don't want to read your personal opinions, I want information.

Sorry, but any time you read a review, 'in my opinion' is logically, and quite obviously, implied.  That's what a review is, information presented from a certain point of view.  If you want a straight listing of facts, I'd direct you to the product info page at Gamestop.com or something similar.  If you read a review by myself or any other writer, expect to get their personal opinions interspersed with the facts.  Its really not rocket science.

 

Simply not true. I guess that's a difference between a good review and a bad review. Good review should have no personal opinions. It should be informative and contain facts only. For exmaple it should inform me about the interface (whether it can be resized, how many bars, how is the respond-rate etc).

Who the hell cares about his personal opinion? That's what forums are about NOT REVIEWS on a website like this. Just because you and your comrades are bastardized by the maganizes that write video game reviews that includes more personal opinions than an actual facts, doesn't mean a review should have personal opinions. You indeed can critize the interface if the respond-rate is extremly slow, it can't be resized etc, but you can't say the people that play the game are neandertals. That's stupid, childish and the writer should get whipped and an instant kick off from his volunteer unpaid job position. But I guess that's what I'm gonna get very soon.

Steelrose, while I have to confess some amusement, there's really no point in debating this with you.  I can and did use the neanderthal comment, and, while some may find it crass, that is my style, and it isn't likely to change because it ruffled a few feathers (quite the contrary actually).  As for your other assertions, let me just state that every single thing you said in this post is incorrect, and leave it at that.

/salute

Originally posted by indiramourn

Originally posted by jedifef

 

 

Funcom does have experience in righting the ship and building a successful product following a less-than-stellar launch.

 

Or in other words:

"Because Funcom released AO in 2001 in a bug-ridden, early-beta state but did manage to turn it into a playable game we can expect them to do the same thing for AoC eventually."

But this is not acceptable to me as a "game development philosophy".  I refuse to support Funcom for expecting its customers to be paying beta testers.  Funcom should fail in this industry if it means tolerating this kind of game release strategy for any future games they develope.

Its not acceptable to me either, which is why I spent a good portion of the review bashing the game.  That said, the potential for a fun game is there, and I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being a good game down the road.  Their recent promotion of Craig Morrison has already begun to bear fruit, in my opinion.

Originally posted by Steelrose

Originally posted by Stradden

Originally posted by Steelrose

Well in my opinion this review is a joke as almost all reviews made in every magazine and on every major website last 5-6 years. All it does, is trying to appeal the majority of the people here, that felt to AoC hype before release, so it gets favourable feedback from the community. This review is just the reflection of the state of the AoC-forums on this website. It's a coward article hiding behind the community.

Seriously? Did someone just accuse us of writing a review to appease our community? REALLY? I mean seriously, it really doesn't matter what we write in our reviews, I guess we're just ALWAYS going to get this kind of statement. More often than not, it's "you're trying to sppease sdvertisers" now it "you're trying to appease your community". Ya know what? Reviews are just one person's opinion of a game. That's it. There's no freaking hidden agenda. Seriously. Deal with it. That seem like something I'm saying to get favorable feedback?

There's no cowardice here, friend. I hate to break it to you.

 

Your article pretends to be an objective review. It doesn't state "in my opinion, the interface is clunky and the community full of idiots..." It says let me paraphrase: the interface is clunky and the community full of idiots. Most of the things you criticise can  be criticized in almost every game, depends on what approach you have towards the game. I'm not saying AoC is a good game, the game has great atmosphere for me and otherwise it's an overhyped mess. But the reasons why I dislike it differ from yours and most of the things you dislike I actually enjoy. Review should be informative. I don't want to read your personal opinions, I want information.

Sorry, but any time you read a review, 'in my opinion' is logically, and quite obviously, implied.  That's what a review is, information presented from a certain point of view.  If you want a straight listing of facts, I'd direct you to the product info page at Gamestop.com or something similar.  If you read a review by myself or any other writer, expect to get their personal opinions interspersed with the facts.  Its really not rocket science.

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

Originally posted by Soupgoblin

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

Nice review, but what is with the constant jabs at the player base? I mean, no disrespect, but it could be you, not them, that’s the problem. I mean, shall we start including opinions on the player base of all games in official MMORPG.com Reviews? They would just about all read the same way. Do the writers here know about this thing called the internet? Its almost a pointless thing to include, as every single person will have a different experience. 9 times out of 10, most people that say "This community sucks", walked in and started pissing on the drapes.

As far as PvP consequences go, the system is on the test server. I understand you can’t review what you have not played on live. But it’s on the way, and I hope for all those that are not playing, you amend or re-review the game when it goes live.

Why didn't john do this review, seems every review on this site now is done by someone else, makes it hard to gauge anything in the articles. Review from internet user #36579241 is about as useful as an official review as the 5 threads in the games forums by the same title.

 

To be brutaly honest, he was spot on about the AoC playerbase. Read the the tech forums, AoC players tend to go into "attack mode" when people ask honest questions about problems they are experiencing, I mentioned it several times in the AoC forums myself, The AoC community is infested with the "bully mentality". I believe that as long as AoC is around, other games will benefit from the fact that the worst of the worst are playing AoC, and not ganking/griefing in the others.

 

Part of my point was that this can be found anywhere. It’s the internets. And this will always be a matter of perspective. Instead of realizing this, generalizations and blanket name calling ensued.

 

Becouse someone died in PvP.

It has nothing to do with losing in PVP.  I'm currently enjoying Warhammer, and dying much more frequently than my opponents, let me assure you. 

I always take the player base into account when I review games, it is a large part of the experience of an MMO.  Its your prerogative to think that unimportant, but don't presume to know the rationale behind my decisions. Your generalization that the kind of behavior commonplace on the  AoC forums, and to some extent, in game, is excusable because 'its the internet' is no more valid than my hypothesis that it detracts from the game. 

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

Nice review, but what is with the constant jabs at the player base? I mean, no disrespect, but it could be you, not them, that’s the problem. I mean, shall we start including opinions on the player base of all games in official MMORPG.com Reviews? They would just about all read the same way. Do the writers here know about this thing called the internet? Its almost a pointless thing to include, as every single person will have a different experience. 9 times out of 10, most people that say "This community sucks", walked in and started pissing on the drapes.

The observations on the player base are just that, my observations.  Some will agree, some won't, but reviews are, by nature, opinion pieces, and I don't have any interest in watering down my perceptions to make them more palatable for folks that have thin skin.

I'd expect very little real information to come out this week.  All of the features going up on IGN, Gamespot, and Massively are basically fluff-piece re-hashes of what was said in the Bioware video.

They're being very tight-lipped, as they always are.  This announcement was purely to fan the publicity fires and get the fanboi testosterone going; there's very little of substance available to the public at this stage.

Originally posted by Nicrox

I believe that people have to be held accountable for there actions. Players who pay for a boxed mmo  ($60.00) and a month subscription ($15.00) desever answers when questions are asked.

 

While I agree with the spirit of what you're getting at here, the reality in the business world is quite different, in my opinion.

MMO companies, like any other for-profit organization, are under no impetus to be completely transparent to their customers. On the contrary, they would be extremely stupid to do so, as it would negatively affect their bottom line.  There is no contract between a player and a game service provider; the only right a player has is the right to stop paying for the service.  I understand that people feel invested due to the large amounts of time spent in various game worlds (I feel that way myself), but the reality is that they are renters, not owners, and have no rights whatsoever.

I would love it if devs, and more importantly marketing types, were more forthcoming with their information, but the reality is that telling half-truths on marketing tours and retconning past statements in light of new information is how the game is played, and that will never change.  These guys work for a living like most everyone else, and they will do what they have to do to keep the paycheck coming.

Sure its a little bit distasteful, but that's the way the business world works, and for whatever reason, a lot of mmo gamers have trouble grasping this.

The moral of the story is to take what anyone in the entertainment industry (game devs, producers, etc) says with a grain of salt. They are all trying to sell you something.  The best you can expect is to get a little bit of enjoyment out of a product while you can. 

Originally posted by Nicrox

Good review its a fair and honest review. Though I'd like too see a live interview with some tough questions asked. Maybe a few other people have some questions and Stradden can do a live interview with Smed LOL.

 

 

I would like to see this too, not only on this site, but in journalism as a whole.  The problem is the marketing types that you have to wade through to get to the people who actually work on the games and have something to say that is worth printing in a responsible article.  Smedley and other executives like him have very little to do with the game aspects of SWG; his job is to put a positive face on whatever is going on with the product and ensure that it sells through as much as possible. 

The folks that game companies trot out to do 'live interviews' are normally not designers, they are PR men who are highly trained in the art of giving answers that are, at best, evasive and at worst, untrue.  Its the same thing you see in political interviews and really any other kind of journalism.  The interviewee is normally someone with very little to gain by doing the interview, and a lot to lose (subscribers, credibility, money, whatever).  The interviewer is usually hand-cuffed prior to the 'live' interview, and informed, either by the subject or the subject's PR handlers, that certain things are off-limits and any pressing beyond those boundaries will result in the ending of the session.  Peter Moore provided lots of great soundbytes to interviewers when he was with Microsoft and now EA, but if you look closely at his many interviews, you'll see very little information actually disclosed, and that which was disclosed was very carefully selected to convey his company's message and present his product in the best possible light, not inform the reader.  That's just the way this stuff works, unfortunately.

Even if Smedley were to sit down with myself or anyone else who writes for this site, chances are that you the reader wouldn't get the answers to the hard questions you want, simply because its not in his or his company's best interest to provide them.

Originally posted by TARDISjunkie

Unfortunately, it'll never happen.  Not until the dead rise from their graves, the rivers and seas flow red with blood, cats and dogs live together...mass hysteria!  :p

In other words, its dead. Sure you'll find some isolated pockets of it here and there, but large numbers of people actively supporting it? Nope.  Games developed with it as a primary focus? Nope.  Perhaps I should've titled the article MMO RP is Dead, as I'm sure the table top variety is not, but for every MMO roleplayer like you and I, there are ten thousand 'lol u rp wut?' types filling up the servers.  SWG spoiled me, I suppose, as I now have high expectations of a roleplay community with each new game that I venture into.

Originally posted by ZodiaEclipse

I'll never claim to be a real RP'er, but I remember the immersion of SWG and I loved it. Like the Op I bascially played myself  and met and married my husband in-game. It worked so well we did it for real two years later.

I can remember being so involved in the game that I had to play at certain times because there were guild activities and hunting parties and all manner of things that I wanted to be part of. It was honestly a second part of my life that required just as much attention and upkeep as my real social life.

With the games I play now it doesn't really matter when I'm on because nobody's waiting for or expecting me. When I'm in a guild I'm just another member to bolster the roster. It's been quite a few games since I've made any friends worth remembering. My point being I've never been as 'into' a game as I was back when I started SWG (Intrepid server!) and by now I'm really starting to doubt I'll ever find a 'home' quite like the one I had there.

I know exactly what you mean. I too was heavily invested in the game as a sort of second social life, and that experience has yet to be equaled in any other community (which is both good and bad, heh).  I don't know if any mmo will ever re-capture that, simply because it seems that very few people want to play that way. 

I've tried Ryzom, as an earlier poster suggested, and the community there is reminiscent of early SWG, but for whatever reason its not the same.  It may have something to do with expectations and the oft-quoted 'it'll never be as good as your first.'

Its not all doom and gloom however, as SWG is still enjoyable enough for me to log in, as are a couple of other games currently on the market, but I do wish that someone would cater to hardcore roleplayers.  I suspect I'm not the only one who would be willing to pay premium subscription prices for something similar to what SWG used to offer.

Originally posted by Moirae

 

But there's something to be said about not having everything done for you, and simply allowing your imagination to do the work of putting it all together. Imagination can sometimes make things much more real because you aren't relying on other people to put THEIR vision on it.

That's where mmo's as roleplay environments break down, at least for me. Imagination is the lion's share of it, and the unimaginative treadmill design of the games is something I found myself having to constantly fight against. After a while, it feels more like work than fun.

Glad to hear that there is still some fun roleplay going on on Starsider, however. I still play there as well, but I've taken to spending the majority of my time collection grinding or hanging out in space. The ground game doesn't feel like Star Wars anymore.

Originally posted by SioBabble

Catering to the PvP crowd (particularly the wankers who are the duelists) is what killed SWG in the first place, as the developers continually mucked around to achieve "balance" in one on one PvP which was impossible given the nature of the professions, which were designed around a combined arms approach to combat.

The windmill that is "balance" in PvP led directly to the dumbing down of the game, first with the CU and then with the NGE as the developers kept simplifying the game in order to have a chance to "balance" the game.  The whole POINT of the original system was that no one could survive on their own in PvP, they had to have help.

The problem with duelists is that unless they always win, the game is "unbalanced" in their eyes.

I disagree. Yes, there was some tweaking of professions in order to 'balance' PVP, the nerfing of Combat Medics being an early example, but I think its a bit of stretch to say that's what killed SWG (assuming that it is in fact dead).

Sony/LucasArts executives looking longingly at WoW subscription numbers is what 'killed' SWG, if by killed you mean 'led to the NGE.'  That had very little to do with the PVP system, or lack thereof.