Originally posted by MosesZD

Originally posted by GMan3

Originally posted by plzignoreme

Originally posted by Cthulhu23

No they didn't.  If they did, it wouldn't have literally crashed and burned.  I think the PvP was better, and the PQ's were a nice addition to MMOs, but the game was pretty bad overall.  And the content was shit.  

TOR is a much better game, and it's not even close.  Even with all of its flaws.  

I disagree. The solo content is, without a doubt, the best of any MMOs to date. However, what's the point of playing an MMO if the best content is solo?

Why even bother going online at all (ignoring the new stupid DRMs)?

    You can disagree all you want, but Rose Colored Glasses aside, WAR did crash and burn.  Something to keep in mind though, there is no such thing as "solo", except when content can ONLY be done solo.  The word I think you want is "soloable" and it makes sense that the best content will be the content most seen, so it will always be the "soloable" content.

 As is SWTOR.   Just because the (laughable) Gamer journaliists keep palagerizing the same badly written and mis-reported figure from Joystiq doesn't make it right.   It just makes it laughable.   Not a single one of knew what a financial 'call' was and none of them caught Joystiq's error because they're not business men.   They're little boys who play games and write puff-pieces in a niche-market about how great these gaming companies are because that's where the money comes from.   And, as Upton Sinclair wrote ever so long ago:   "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

 

A call is a specific-quarter-end/year-end mandatory measurement date.   So far there have been two 'calls.'

 

The first was Decemember 31st, 2011.   That was reported in early February.   You can read it here:   http://investor.ea.com/financials.cfm  straight from the horse's mouth himself.

 

The second was March 31st, 2012.  That has NOT been reported.   And, since it's EA's fiscal year end (they're a March 31st ending company) and they have to be audited.   We won't find out until sometime in June when the audited financial statements are released and, if it's really bad news, they won't report at all because the business unit won't be 'material or significant' and won't require disclosure under GAAP.

    So what I am reading here is that you can NOT back up your claim, though I agree the game is loosing subs, just like every new game does.  On top of that you expect that you will never be able to back up your claim.  All this despite the fact that making false claims to investors is punishable by enormous fines and jail time in certain situations.  Sorry, but I won't even try to have a discussion with this kind of tinfoil hat fears.  There is simply no way to actually have a discussion after all, that is the problem with paranoia.

Originally posted by plzignoreme

Originally posted by GMan3

    You can disagree all you want, but Rose Colored Glasses aside, WAR did crash and burn.  Something to keep in mind though, there is no such thing as "solo", except when content can ONLY be done solo.  The word I think you want is "soloable" and it makes sense that the best content will be the content most seen, so it will always be the "soloable" content.

 

 You're saying that SWToR isn't crashing and burning?

 

 

I am saying it...I haven't lost one guild member since launch and I am seeing more people on my server everyday. The free weekends are bringing me more guild members and they are loving the game so far. I won't say they will stay, but they are playing non-stop right now.

Warhammer was a great concept, but the execution was horrible. I was so excited to play that game and I couldn't make it a month before I uninstalled it. I have been playing ToR since early beta and I still enjoy it.

Originally posted by GMan3

Originally posted by plzignoreme

Originally posted by GMan3

    You can disagree all you want, but Rose Colored Glasses aside, WAR did crash and burn.  Something to keep in mind though, there is no such thing as "solo", except when content can ONLY be done solo.  The word I think you want is "soloable" and it makes sense that the best content will be the content most seen, so it will always be the "soloable" content.

  You're saying that SWToR isn't crashing and burning?

 There is such a thing as solo:

 When you're given content that can be done by a single player i.e. it was designed to be done by a single player, then the challenge vanishes when it is done by more than one player and its content becomes moot at that point, because what's the point of playing through something when it's easy?

I've been playing MMOs since MUDs and there is no point in calling content group content when the content can't be challenging when in a group. 

It's analogous to only being given enough content for a level range and being overlvled for the remainder of the content.

 If you just want to have an I-win button and not concern yourself with the actual gameplay, then why not read a story, or play good old D&D with friends?

Content should be ENGAGING and CHALLENGING, or it might as well not exist at all. 

    So basically you are saying that games should FORCE teaming up.  Tell you what, you go ahead, create and fund that game out of your own pocket.  You might even make your money back, but I somehow doubt it.  Fact is players these days want the ability to play both ways, which is why most MMOs make content tha tis soloable AND content the requires team of various size.

All the games that are coming out and have come out recently are extremely solo friendly and they seem to just end up being played for a month or so and then end up with a so so population and slowly lose their way to F2P.

The whole single player game with a sub doesn't work.

Originally posted by plzignoreme

WAR is/was considered a failure by many, but I honestly didn't think it was too horrible and actually managed to hit endgame.

The thing is that WAR did a lot of stuff right with respect to making a successful MMO:

 

1. It encouraged local community interaction through public quests, which are quests that everybody can participate in in an area (like rifts in Rift, or the open events like in GW2)

 

2. Instant social interaction through remote PvP queues. I loved doing pure BGs/PvP as a means of advancement and getting my fill of the community rather than be forced to run through the boring quests and then empty PQs (public quests).

 

Of course it did lack a lot of group content and other necessary facets of a good MMO, but the aforementioned added to SWToR would make it fundamentally a better game. 

I realize they will be adding a LFD tool, albeit within the server (rather weak decision not making it across servers... hopefully that will change).

What I don't get is why they invested so much on the single player aspect of the game when people play these games to interact with other people. It's like crafting a knife with a beautiful handle, but a dull blade.

 

Have to disagree. I played WAR and it was BORING. It was nothing like the Warhammer universe. It lacked many "social" aspects. QP's were a decent idea but they certainly did not bring "community" together other then for those quests. PvP was deader then any MMO I have played. No, WAR was just a bad MMO AT LAUNCH.

As far as i'm concerned Mythic died the second EA bought them up. EA screwed up WAR and SWTOR.

Not that I'm taking any sides on this debate but you can't say swtor crashed and burned while it has 1.7 millions subs and growing(especially with their 1.2 about to hit).

I agree.

There is something missing from SWTOR.

...and say what you want about WAR PvE, the PvP element was some of the most fun i've ever had in a MMO.

Consumers have voted on WAR. I would interpret the vote as an unmitigated disaster for Mark Jacobs and company.

SWTOR....the voting is still  in progress(how do I think it will come out....on a scale of 1-10.10 being the highest....in another year it will be a 5...in 2 years a 3.5)

Originally posted by Chrisbox

Not that I'm taking any sides on this debate but you can't say swtor crashed and burned while it has 1.7 millions subs and growing(especially with their 1.2 about to hit).

Originally posted by bigsmiff

Originally posted by plzignoreme

Originally posted by GMan3

    You can disagree all you want, but Rose Colored Glasses aside, WAR did crash and burn.  Something to keep in mind though, there is no such thing as "solo", except when content can ONLY be done solo.  The word I think you want is "soloable" and it makes sense that the best content will be the content most seen, so it will always be the "soloable" content.

 

 You're saying that SWToR isn't crashing and burning?

 

 

I am saying it...I haven't lost one guild member since launch and I am seeing more people on my server everyday. The free weekends are bringing me more guild members and they are loving the game so far. I won't say they will stay, but they are playing non-stop right now.

Warhammer was a great concept, but the execution was horrible. I was so excited to play that game and I couldn't make it a month before I uninstalled it. I have been playing ToR since early beta and I still enjoy it.

So the other 75% of servers that are seeing big population drops don't exist? The thousands of posts on the official forums asking for server merges or transfers don't exist? The population trackers showing continued overall declines don't exist?

You offer evidence for just your server, but not all of them. By that VERY SAME logic WAR wasn't dying because the badlands server had a queue! The reason some servers are doing great is because the people on dying servers are either quitting or re-rolling on higher pop servers. Don't worry though! Just like WAR, eventually those low pop servers run out of people and then the high pop servers die off because of no new influx of people.

Also I'm the exact opposite. I played Warhammer from beta and 3 months after launch(My server died). The main issue with WAR was balancing, both classes and populations. The RvR mechanic needed some more fleshing out but the overall game was better than SWTOR I'd say. SWTOR on the other hand I played in beta and wasn't about to play on release. The game is just so boring, shallow, and lacks any sort of soul. I got characters to 40 and 50 in beta and did not see a single thing that made me believe it could hold me more than a month and the majority 3 months. Sorry, but I want an MMO that can hold me for a long time. I don't expect GW2 to have a years worth a content but at least I can come back and play whenever I want without a $15 barrier. If SWTOR had done the same I might have bought it, but EA and all that.

Originally posted by RefMinor

Originally posted by ktanner3

Originally posted by MosesZD

 

If this story hit my English 280 -- Creative Writing I class --  it'd have been lucky to get a 'C.'    If it had been written in a upper-division creative writing class, it'd have gotten an F and the writer probably would have been left crying when s/he got her/his paper back...

And the teacher who is handing out those grades is most likely there because he/she could never make a living as a full time writer.

Yeah, that was low, but then so is knocking a video game based on Star Wars for not being Shakesphere.

 

They would probably be a decent judge of child like stories though.

Not sure what stories you read as a child, but none of the ones I read involved be-headings or murder in cold blood.

Hmm....I think they are too different to really judge like that, now I played WAR longer than I played TOR, but that was more to do with WAR's PvP, their crafting was non-existant pretty much at launch...Where TOR had crafting set, but most of it was pretty useless in the end....PvE...WAR had the PQs....hmm...I think I would give TOR a slight advantage on general PvE...

Both had things the other did, and were designed to be different, I liked WAR more, but it was a much bigger let down, as it was the last time I ever let someone sell my the hype sandwich....Those podcasts sounded so great, and the functions that werent there but were promised very quick never happend, for a long time, if ever...

I would say TOR delivered more on what they said they would do, than WAR did...I also went into TOR just to play with some friends, and I didn't have high expectations and wouldn't of probably played otherwise, where as WAR, I had a lot higher hopes...Would of thought people that did DAoC would of had a much better RvR system in place or would of fixed it quickly.

So imo WAR > TOR as a game, TOR > WAR for what they said they were going to deliver...Even though TORs world PvP is a disaster too...Or was....I am not playing anymore.

Originally posted by plzignoreme

Originally posted by MosesZD
..

In that pile of pretentious drivel you call a post, I couldn't find an ounce of care.

Seriously, it's like nitpicking a sitcom as if it were a theorem. I feel stupider for having read that.

The next time somebody needs some kind of serious analysis done on saturday morning cartoons to maintain consistency, I'll let them know they've got a guy.

 

Are you sure you can actually feel stupider? That would be pretty impressive.

In his defense, he didn't write that pretentious drivel (oh oh I know what that means!) out of the blue.  I think he was prompted to by someone who represents that "saturday morning cartoons" has good writing.

I mean, either it's "saturday morning cartoons" or it's good writing.  Pick one, smaht one.

I agree. The PvP was much better, the classes more interesting and had cool things like PQs and defensive targets. SW:TOR is just bland and boring and would barely be playable without the single player storylines and of course the SW setting.

Warhammer didn't catch me on when I tried it out, same went for RIFT, unlike Aion which caught me on easily (can't remember why now). SWTOR I was eager to play when it was first announced back in 2006, of course it's because I'm a sci-fi and Star Wars fan. Now that I've played it for 3 months and cancelled my sub, I think I've gotten my money's worth, and the direction the devs are taking the game in which some people call it an equivalent of the "NGE".

Not having played Warhammer much, I can't say much about it, all I cay say about SWTOR is that the single player side of the game (quests) was done well, the multiplayer side of the game (pvp and some flashpoints) were poorly done and is exactly a grindfest when Bioware said it wouldn't be.

Warhammer was way funner than SWTOR.  The PVP was so much better.  Bioware totally dropped the ball with regards to the PVP in this game, it could of been epic.  Instead we are left with a broken PVP planet and three tiny WZ's which you can't even pick the one you want to play in.

If they made SWTOR like Warhammer and made world pvp a part of the game from level one up, it would of been epic.  I don't understand why they made pvp an after-thought when Jedi vs Sith is all about PVP.  SMH.

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Mythic had nothing to do with swtor. All the "real" mythic people are at pitchblack, arenanet, zenimax online etc..

The producer of Warhammer is now the producer of SWTOR

Originally posted by NagilumSadow

 

animations are smooth and acurate

Not the Warhammer I played. From a distance the animations looked like a bugs bunny cartoon with a lot of choppy movement. The animations were good up close, but the distance animations were just plain bad. And yes...I have a good computer to run it with.