I personally enjoyed the first two months of gameplay at a recreational pace, playing through the storyline quests, some PVP, and some of the space missions. I just broke level 30 and am still having fun when I have the time to play.

If you are looking for a storyline-driven MMORPG, where you can do 90% of the content solo or enjoy grouping with other people, then SWTOR might be for you. You do have to keep in mind that some systems are still in their early stages of being expanded to what many people consider it "should" have been for release (UI, crafting, guild management, PVP rewards).

A decent number of people on mmorpg.com will give you the usual doom and gloom (if not flat out venemous) responses, but I personally don't mind endorsing the game. Like most things in the world, if you accept it for what it is and focus on the positive points, it can be a lot of fun. If you intend to churn through the game at a breakneck pace and are looking for a robust and well-defined end-game, SWTOR is likely not for you.

I love the Ranger concept (since I first played one in AD&D) but hate playing pet classes. Pet classes typically have ongoing balance issues compared to non-pet classes, especially when you add in PVP elements. That said, the class does sound great and I intend to give it a try (as well as the Guardian and Mesmer) on launch!

I love this implementation. It would be more realistic to offer the ability to drop a copy of an item the player has equipped to the looter, but I like the loot table idea as well. While I'm not of the camp that thinks GW2 will "save the genre", they do have some great ideas and I can't wait to see it in action.

I don't know how many people here posting have had the opportunity to play the D3 beta, but it is FUN. All of the other points about wanting to manage stat points, RMT auction house, etc mean nothing to me - playing through the beta (first 45 minutes of the game really) was an absolute blast. The latest release adjusted some skill aspects and gave a good demonstration to how runes will work - you now get to see how "customizing" your skills plays out with different runes. Do you want more damage, more range/AoE, etc? The interface for runes needs some work still, but the game is just flat out a pleasure to play.

There will still be the prestige factor of finding "uber-rare" loot and showing it off; who cases that some people will buy that look from an AH? Some people hacked their ways to obtaining it in D2 anyway, so at least here it will be from legitimately playing the game to obtain these items.

Too many embrace the dark side on this site.

Everyone knows GMs don't write English that well.

The commentary is fine and reasonably balanced; the author is clearly a casual MMO player who doesn't care for PvP - the exact same player profile who finds SWTOR to be one of the best games available right now. The score is therefore relative to the writers experience and expectations and not for those who were looking for a sandbox/PvP/etc game.

I just don't see it happening. Adding mounted combat to PVP in LOTRO would be a significant investment into the side of the game they have not been interested in investing into. I can't blame Turbine either, as the return on investment is likely just not worth it.

I never cared for DF, but always like to see an independent get some funding and the little guy make some $$$. Too bad there is a strong perception this was done through lies and falsehoods.

Dungeons should come in two flavors - open and instanced, and you should have to select that you want an instanced dungeon. Let the WOW lovers of the world play with their own five-man experience and have fun. I loved open dungeons in EQ, and had even more fun with them in DAOC. Instances are great for specific purposes, such as completing quest objectives, but they are an extremely anti-social experience. Dungeons should be fraught with mobs, "trains", and other players buffing, helping, and sometimes stealing your spawns. Give players an option - flexible design is always better.

I'm not sure why people still polarize on sandbox vs. themepark in every discussion. Of course sandbox games can be fun, it is the implementation that makes or breaks the game. Sandbox doesn't necessarily mean FFA PVP with full loot, anymore than it means that you have to be able to build your house with your bare hands to quality. It is a design umbrella, nothing more; a generalization of free-form vs. pre-destined.

Skyrim was a lot of fun, and has many sandbox qualities. There are some people who would sacrifice their combat abilities to specialize in crafting and enchanting, and they should be given that ability (and consequently be able to generate the best items in the game because of it).

The real "problem" with most sandbox games is the players. Any single person's experience is driven almost exclusively by how other people interact with them. For a person with a lot of friends/guildmates, this might be a very positive experience. For a loner trying to find their place, this could be the exact opposite.

Part of the problem isn't just the players, it is the way beta is managed by the development team as well. Most of the betas I have been invited to over the last few years have said, "Go ahead and play the game and see what doesn't work." This is very open-ended, non-focused testing and it is very easy for players to assume systems and mechanics are largely complete.

Years prior, I remember entering betas where they were conducted in phases which focused on functional testing of certain, specific aspects of the game. Sometimes this limited individuals to a certain race/class combination, sometimes a specific level range. This gave the feeling that the development team understood where certain systems were but needed dedicated feedback on other areas. This created a much more concentrated experience, and not just of the first 1-20 levels (which seems to be the common beta restriction today).

Improve the structure of your beta, and you will improve the feedback and buy-in of the players involved in it.

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by Gylfi

When was the last time you said proudly to a girl you just met at the bar "i play videogames!"

Would never do it in a million years. If they eventually find out then fine. ; )

In this brave new world, a large percentage of boys and girls around the college age all have play, or actively play, some type of video games. Whether it is MMOs, consoles, cell phone games, or just facebook games, you will find it hard-pressed to find someone in their 20s now who doesn't play something preriodically.

Should that be your pick up line? Of course not! Unless she is wearing a super mario t-shirt. :)

I played each of the previous betas in different geographical areas, this is at least the third (not including playing it with the Flagship dev team).

Originally posted by Volgore

Originally posted by Starwars001

With the hugely successful game companies like blizzard, bioware, I hope to see bethesda get into the MMO ring. 

I have a great confidence that they will make some type of successfull sandboxy game.

Hopefully Bethesda annonce something of the sort this year. 

I bet Bethesda is 10x more able to create a mmorpg than Bioware is.

Creating an MMO and knowing what "functionality" to provide, and how to implement, creates a very different dynamic than single-player games. That said, if game companies listened to what people complain most about at MMO launches (lack of guild functionality, poorly designed PVP, lack of content, more socialization aspects), and plan accordingly, I don't see why any company cannot release a halfway decent MMO.

Why is it a guild summit and not an open player summit? The equivalent of the SWTOR User Group?

Guild leaders are not the sole voice that is relevant here.

RG is a visionary, and was able to shape games from conception through to implementation better in previous years, before the MMO market turned into what it is today. Is he arrogant? He sure seems to be. At least he is the equivalent of a gaming Hall of Famer and has reasons for being so.

PVP just wasn't well-developed and was never intended as the strong-suit for the game. Adding open-world PVP was a bad idea, and the instanced games are as a fun diversion but are not intended as a core component of the game.

This IS a PVE game primarily; the Warzones and other PVP aspects are just not enough to make it anything other than that. I can imagine a huge PVP expansion in the future, but would personally (my preference) rank that behind expanded 50+ storylines for PVE, a "real"  Space flying/combat system, and additional social (non-combat) functionality.

This system quickly and effectively removes the "solo" player from the game. While many people may want that to happen, it also ensures the audience is smaller and as is the success of the game. There is nothing wrong with being a niche game though.

Only ultra-hardcore people are typically interested in these games, given the effort involved in building up characters and the possibility of starting certain aspects over from scratch.

I don't think this system is needed to make a good PVP game (land control objectives and rewards beyond silly trinkets/currency can do that effectively), but would agree that it does add a sense of danger to playing, to avoid death/being looted.

SWTOR was going to be a WOW killer.... and then it got high.

I'm still enjoying the game at a slow and steady pace, so regardless of what anyone else thinks, it is still the best MMORPG available today to me.