I have been playing MMOs for many years and seldom if ever do I join guilds. Guilds are more hassle, drama, and trouble than they are worth.

I never seem to have any trouble finding groups, and if I ever get to a point in any game where I would actually need the support of a guild to move forward or to play content, that's my cue to move on to another game.

"Guild functionality" is fine for them as wants it, but it means squat to me.

Heh, thanks for the preview.... but this looks every bit as boring (and exasperating) as the original Myst games. But for all you Myst fans, more power to ya. :)

Originally posted by precious328

The voice work was an innovative touch to gaming. However, SWTOR isn't a MMORPG. It's a gigantic KoTOR Co'op game that you have to pay monthly for. Bottom line.

 

Comments like this baffle me. How is SWTOR any different from WoW or LotRO in MMO terms? You group up occasionally in all of these games but most of the content is completed solo. I've actually done far more grouping with other players in SWTOR than I ever did in WoW, LotRO, STO, CoX, or Rift -- but then, these are probably not MMORPGs either, right?

OP:

Well, I must admit I am in a quandary.

I really enjoy playing SWTOR, but I also think your review -- and in particular your criticisms of this game -- are entirely fair, valid, and spot on. You did a very good job reviewing this game.

The thing is, if one happens to be an "MMORPG" player who is VERY interested in the RPG (as I am), the MMO of choice is SWTOR. There's very little else out there. Even LotRO, with all its good "epic storyline" intentions, did not make me feel like a distinct character the way that SWTOR has done.

In fact, for all its limitations, the "RPG" of the SWTOR "MMORPG" blows the "RPG" of most other ""MMORPGs" right off the map. WoW's and Rift's "RPG" content is abysmal, imo. All these games offer on the RPG front is a whole lotta boring lore and very little sense of an individual's story/character progression beyond leveling.

As for the "MMO" part of SWTOR, though, I'd say Rift, LotRO, WoW, AoC, STO, CoX, etc., all handle the "MMO" part much better.

I still think GW1 has done the best job of merging a story-based RPG with some MMO elements, but since the GW1 platform was not persistent, it is not an MMO. I am hopeful that GW2 will (finally!) be able to offer generous helpings of both MMO goodness and RPG richness -- two great tastes that will go great together eventually, assuming some MMORPG developer finally figures out how to do it.

Obviously, this is a SWTOR-bashing thread so I won't be staying here long, but saying a game needs to fail is just illogical.

I have no interest, for example, in EVE, but I wish neither for it to succeed nor for it to fail. If it succeeds, it's because a sufficient number of players like and enjoy it, and who am I to wish otherwise? More power to them. And if it fails, so be it.

It just strikes me as juvenile sour grapes to wish something to fail simply because it does not appeal to you personally -- but then, I suppose, that is the very essence of 90% of the anti-SWTOR comments I have read on these forums. (I'll grant that SWTOR has its issues, a number of which have been validly and reasonably pointed out by fans and critics alike.)

I cannot imagine enjoying a game like EVE, but I wish its developers and players well. In a few months, I suppose, the ragers will have moved on from SWTOR to their next target, but the absurdity of these kinds of comments (and threads) never ceases to amaze me.

SWTOR's "innovations" are simply significant improvements upon features I've encountered and liked in other MMOs: a focus on storytelling, voicework,  and cutscenes (LotRO, GW1), the use of companions (GW1, DDO, STO, MMO pet classes), and a sci-fi setting (STO, etc.).

I'd say that Bioware has really raised the bar in all of these areas. SWTOR is still lacking in UI and various in-game features we've come to expect, but I think they'll get there eventually.

I hope the game does well -- or at least well enough for it to thrive and be economically profitable for Bioware. I don't care whether it "beats WoW" or not, there is enough in this game that's new here to keep me interested for a long while.

SWTOR wove together several elements that I have appreciated and enjoyed in other MMOs into a single game. I recognize that SWTOR is not for everyone, but it sure fits my playstyle really well, and I love the voicework, Star Wars setting, and companion system in particular.

It'll be interesting to see how and whether Bioware can keep adding content for this game that matches the quality I've seen thus far. If it's all to be raid content and PvP stuff, I'll probably unsubscribe once I've maxxed out my various characters (this will take me quite a while, though!), but if the new content includes more of the solo and small-group friendly content I've seen thus far, I'll be subscribing to SWTOR for quite some time.

I suspect that GW2 or Diablo 3 may ultimately draw me off from SWTOR, but it's hard to imagine ever going back to past games I've played (LotRO, STO, GW1, and AoC) after playing SWTOR. I *may* go back to WoW at some point, though.Assuming Bioware keeps adding solid content and improving the game in other ways, SWTOR will be my MMO of choice at least until GW2 or Diablo is released.

I am actually looking forward to late January when that first "free month" runs out for all those people that got the game at release and are unhappy with it, since they will -- finally! -- move on to something else and take their unhappiness with them. Then we'll see how things look in terms of player populations. That'll be the real test, imo: what the (re)subscription numbers look like come February/March.

I am very interested in playing SWTOR, but I probably won't start it till February or March at the soonest -- I simply do not like dealing with "new game furor" and I am perfectly content to wait till (1) the box price drops, (2) server populations thin out or at least spread out more, (3) game glitches get resolved, and (4) the queues go away.

In the meantime I am quite content ... in Azeroth.

Another entertaining interview. I'm liking this game more and more.

Is anyone else getting a Firefly/Malcolm Reynolds vibe here from Buck? It's very refreshing. This is not a Firefly MMO, of course, but it's looking like it might be the next best thing. :)

Very well done, all around. This kind of creativity makes me want to play this game even more.

Originally posted by Nadia

what I dont like about 4.3

 

with Cata, all under level 60 outdoor heroic quests were changed to solo player

with 4.3, the same was done for BC / LK content  -- there are no more heroic outdoor quests

http://www.wowwiki.com/Patch_4.3.0

 

the only heroic quests under level 80 you will find in dungeons now

WOW was never hard, but removing more challenge reduces the fun

 

Strangely enough, this was, imo, the BEST thing about patch 4.3.

Maybe you haven't been in Outland or Northrend lately? There's virtually NO ONE around. Obtaining one group quest after another in these zones -- only to have to abandon them later because there were 0 to 2 other players in your zone -- is a major drag. Outland and Northrend are a whole lot less frustrating now.

I think MMO devs need to learn that, over time, lower-level zones and dungeons become, for all intents and purposes, single-player zones. Blizzard, at least, understands this. And that's OK. It's just how it is. Changing quest requirements to reflect that reality is simply common sense.

Personally, I'd like to see similar adjustments for the low-level dungeons. Even with LFG, the wait to find groups is becoming longer and longer and the odds of landing in a "fail group" when you finally find one are on the rise.

Originally posted by CujoSWAoA

God I hate holidays in MMORPGs.

[snip]

They're a goofy distraction from a game's real meat.

 

I totally agree with you. I hated them in LotRO, WoW, GW1, etc. Fortunately, you can get away from the holiday stupidness for the most part just by avoiding the "social hubs" as much as possible. I like holiday stuff in real life, I really do, but it's just a nuisance in MMOs. If Blizz et al. offered "Holiday-Free" servers as an option, I'd definitely go for that.

Good list, OP! :-)

I also consider chat -- of virtually any kind -- to be a major immersion breaker (which is why I usually turn all chat channels off ASAP), as are stupid avatar names and stupid armors (which generally look stupider and stupider the more you level up, what with all the spikes, swirly bits, and sparkly sparkles). Kudos to any MMO (such as LotRO) that offer workarounds for those of us that like simple, realistic armors.

1. The cape thing matters not to me. I usually "hide" the stupid things anyways. Likewise for tabards.

2. I have people to talk to in RL. I have always found guild chat extremely distracting. It's one of the many reasons I shun guilds nowadays.

3 and 4. A guild bank is nice, but it's NOT worth the hassle of being in a guild, imo. Ditto for guild housing.

5. The lack of endgame is definitely a bummer, but it's not that hard to just unsubscribe and find another game once you max out your character(s). Smart MMO devs are gonna figure out one day how many subscribers they lose by not offering solo-oriented endgame options.

I gravitated toward MMOs (WoW first, then later others) because I have always enjoyed SPRPGs. To a large extent, many MMOs can be played and enjoyed as SPRPGs that just happen to have other players running around in their respective virtual worlds.

For many of us primarily SPRPG players, MMOs provide a welcome "fix" between releases of our favorite single-player RPG games: Mass Effect, Dragon Age, The Witcher, etc.

So, yeah. To that extent I would agree with the OP.  There's a lot of overlap of interest among your readers.

HOWEVER, I think mmorpg.com's coverage should focus only MMO/CORPGs  that all have a massively multiplayer component. (I define "massively" as "lots of players in the same game world with the potential for grouping with one another.") In other words, I think you should cover ONLY multiplayer games that are accessible to large ("massive") numbers of players online. This umbrella would comfortably include games such as Diablo 3, Guild Wars 1, STO, DDO, Neverwinter, etc., (which you already cover anyway) even though many of these games are predominantly instances and/or played as SPRPGs, with only MMO "lobbies" or staging areas.

I do NOT think mmorpg.com should start covering strictly single-player games such as The Witcher, etc., unless and until these games offer online multiplayer CORPG-type content of the type I just described (something ME3 may be planning???).

As a primarily solo player, I enjoy playing MMOs because:

-- With a live player population, the MMO worlds feel MORE real than SPRPGs. It's the same principle behind getting a cup of coffee at Starbucks as opposed to being on some iolated mountaintop. One can enjoy having people around quite apart from actually grouping with them for quests. A lot of the dopey "Then go play Mass Effect" comments are from people who just don't get this.

-- I like having an active economy/market for crafting, selling, and buying goods. This is not possible in an SPRPG.

--I like grouping with other players -- VERY -- occasionally and when I feel like it, not because the game requires it of me. This is also not possible in a SPRPG.

In short, while I used to be actively involved in grouping in MMOs (WoW and LotRO), I never do so any more. It's too much of a hassle, and it doesn't generally work with my schedule.

All 5 of your reasons resonate with me, OP, though I would modify #2 somewhat. I don't care about embarrassing deaths, but I do hate "being the noob" on first runs through missions and quests. One of the things I really love about GW1 is that it gives soloers like me the option -- using heroes/henchmen -- of "testing the waters" of a given instance, dungeon, or mission before attempting it with other players, should I want or need to do that. I like having that option.

I also love the way GW "holds your place" while you're questing (no respawns and/or automatic log-offs to worry about), which is very handy if, like me, you're a parent in real life and sometimes get called away from the computer to do other things. I wish more MMOs worked that way.

Oops. I meant to say that "AoC has one of the most tedious tutorial/beginner areas of any game I've ever tried." 

I recently attempted AoC and FE, based on reviews that advocated I try them now, that they were much improved. Well, I was unimpressed with either one. AoC has one of the most 

One game I expected to see listed here that wasn't: STO. Now that's a game that has markedly improved of late. But maybe you're waiting till it goes F2P before you re-review it. :)

It's nice to see someone -- finally -- talk about meaningful endgame content for solo players. I hope it's good.

I'm very sick of the crap that greets players at the end of most MMOs: "... Welcome, player, to the max-level raid or rep grind phase of our game, aka the endgame".

I had to sit through Thor this summer because my kids insisted, but that pretty much did me in.

I am bored by comic book heroes generally (the new Batman movies being the only exception), and I think the superhero MMOs are pretty lame as well. I just don't get the appeal of wonky costumes and "special powers". After all, when there are 185,000 OTHER superheroes flying around wearing fluorescent spandex, no one is really very "super."