Originally posted by heartless

Originally posted by wasim470

Originally posted by heartless

Originally posted by Piiritus

Oh my, GW2 fanbois spitting poison again. Honestly, GW2 community must have the biggest ratio of trolls and social inadequates if they are so eager to hate everything that is not their beloved GW2.

Yes, because everyone who disagrees with your point of view is GW2 fanboy that's out to sabotage your game.

haha it feels like GW2 is taking over WOWs bad name :P.

 

or is it some ppl who just need to blame some Big game....... hummm

All the cool kids hate popular things.

justin bieber is popular, thank god i'm a cool kid :P

Originally posted by FredomSekerZ

Originally posted by cinos

Originally posted by FredomSekerZ

The OP's main complaint is that the same is too single player-ish. Fair enoug, but, can i know 1 themepark mmorpg nowadays that isn't? Almost every single of them is either full solo or co-op at best.

I myself am getting sick and tired of this happening, but TSW isn't even worse than all others.

The problem being that they are charging a sub for a (based on the review) predominantly better single player experience.

You defending that point by basically saying "well every themepark mmo is like that" doesn't change the fact that maybe these games should be sold like every other single player/coop game and simply follow the standard B2P model.

What does this have to do with the paymen model? I myself think that B2P fits these themeparks, because they're just "play for 3 months, finish content, get bored and move on", but i don't mind paying a sub either.

Anyway, this is actually kind of funny. There was a thread in general talking about how people played mmos solo because they just want to be surrounded by others, but don't want to interact or be force to group. So, like all other games, TSW allows you to play just like that, but now it's too much of an SP? *facepalm*

In case people didn't know, you can group up with others which, since they're PQ's, they auto update if you're on the same tier, and give rewards to all. Everyone keeps saying that being social in mmos isn't about forced grouping or depending on others, and you have that. I wonder what would happen if an mmos actually as forced grouping.

Oh, and i still can't think of any themeparks from nowadays that's any different. If the OP means a more sandboxy approach to mmos, i agree, but everyone as always known this isn't one.

The question. The answer.

If what the op says is accurate then this game would have done better as a B2P game. I'm still struggling to understand why Funcom think it's a good idea to go Sub + Cash Shop, and even have the balls to charge a higher rate sub (for the uk) then the standard.

This game would have been an amazing B2P, and would have garnered far less criticisms, since when you pay a sub you typically expect to get a better mmo experience. If the single player experience is better then it should be B2P.

Originally posted by cinos

Originally posted by FredomSekerZ

Originally posted by cinos

Originally posted by FredomSekerZ

The OP's main complaint is that the same is too single player-ish. Fair enoug, but, can i know 1 themepark mmorpg nowadays that isn't? Almost every single of them is either full solo or co-op at best.

I myself am getting sick and tired of this happening, but TSW isn't even worse than all others.

The problem being that they are charging a sub for a (based on the review) predominantly better single player experience.

You defending that point by basically saying "well every themepark mmo is like that" doesn't change the fact that maybe these games should be sold like every other single player/coop game and simply follow the standard B2P model.

What does this have to do with the paymen model? I myself think that B2P fits these themeparks, because they're just "play for 3 months, finish content, get bored and move on", but i don't mind paying a sub either.

Anyway, this is actually kind of funny. There was a thread in general talking about how people played mmos solo because they just want to be surrounded by others, but don't want to interact or be force to group. So, like all other games, TSW allows you to play just like that, but now it's too much of an SP? *facepalm*

In case people didn't know, you can group up with others which, since they're PQ's, they auto update if you're on the same tier, and give rewards to all. Everyone keeps saying that being social in mmos isn't about forced grouping or depending on others, and you have that. I wonder what would happen if an mmos actually as forced grouping.

Oh, and i still can't think of any themeparks from nowadays that's any different. If the OP means a more sandboxy approach to mmos, i agree, but everyone as always known this isn't one.

The question. The answer.

If what the op says is accurate then this game would have done better as a B2P game. I'm still struggling to understand why Funcom think it's a good idea to go Sub + Cash Shop, and even have the balls to charge a higher rate sub (for the uk) then the standard.

This game would have been an amazing B2P, and would have garnered far less criticisms, since when you pay a sub you typically expect to get a better mmo experience. If the single player experience is better then it should be B2P.

Yea, if it were "Buy to Play" the average score on both sides would have been a full point higher, maybe. Then again, maybe the singleplayer score may have only bumped from 7 to 8?

Say it before and I'll it again.. this game has potential as did AoC BUT these guys can't seem to execute what they have on Paper to An mmo playstyle.. Its very obvious if you play this game over a long period of time you will see that it would be so much better if its release as a single player game..

Also as the poster have stated, the skill wheel seems cool at first but you get to realize that the optional decks are already known by the dev's and once person found what's best most will gravitate towards that..
Being so close to release I would say that they are rushing this out the door, hoping the make a quick return before the 2 heavyweights {GW2 & Mists} hit..

I see this going the FtP Route much sooner than I originally taught.. Plus I wouldn't be surprise if they didn't already have that in place, just not revealed yet (hint: they have a lifetime sub option)..

Originally posted by aesperus

Originally posted by Mage_Francis

Originally posted by Fadedbomb 

~~~[Skill System]~~~ (MMO-Score: 6, SinglePlayer Score: 7)

TSW's take on "classes" is to use an Open-Purchasable skill wheel that allows you to unlock EVERYTHING but only mix & match certain skills. The problem here is that, when you begin, it seems awesome & completely original. However, a month or two in you realize that the developers have already pre-thought out all of the possibly good combinations & only made X number of actual combinations worth doing. This leads you to a sort of "psuedo sick" feeling when you realize its not as open as they claim it is. If you don't believe me you'll understand if you purchase retail & play for about a month or two. Don't say I didn't warn you :).

This couldn't be more vague or misleading.  A good portion of the wheel was closed for most of the cloased beta and the decks don't evenn have the best combo's of skills available.  Hell most of the skills weren't even balanced or working properly because the game was in beta.  

 

Why would someone even put together a review on a unfinished product?  

2 things:

1) We have full access to the skill wheel. Myself and some of my buds managed to even unlock a few of the 50 AP elites on it. What he says about the PvP system is most definitely true from what I saw. Even just over the weekend.

2) The game is going live next friday. I'm really sick of people using the excuse 'it's beta!' or 'it's not finished yet!' on a game that doesn't have time to make any significant changes at this point. We've seen the game. We've played it. Most of the issues people have with it are not going to change for launch. This includes the skill wheel.

This isn't to say that skills need to be rebalanced quite a bit in certain areas, but Funcom hasn't said anything of a major revamp of skills for release. We're going to see the same cookie-cutter roles as we've been seeing already, for sure.

 

I'm speaking on the fact that the op said dev's had pre-thought out path's through the talent trees.  What do you think those decks are for? Most of the people that I know that completed decks just did so for the unlockable outfits, and after that modified some of the skill choices to make them actually viable.  I mean blood magic is relatively new to the release I know for a fact there are several abilities not functioning as intended.  I know the game releases in a few days, but what you experienced on the cbt or bwe's does not exactly reflect the build they will have on release or a patch they could put up shortly after.  This is balance and unlike other features or assests it doesn't take much to fix or update.  Your assuming a lot and Funcom is not going to let you know every detail of every change they make before launch.

TSW is a single player if you wanto play it like one but i really doubt that you will be able to solo easily after Kingsmouth. The mobs get tougher and i have to take help of my friend several times.

When people say it is a single player MMO...well play with a friend, ask in chat for a partner, why play alone? days of forced grouping are gone. If that is what you are looking for well then there are still few games out there which force players to group up.

I play mostly with my friend and we still get out ass handed to us several time in areas like Egypt. I recommend partying up for the game, otherwise it is upto players if they want to solo.

Originally posted by Mage_Francis

Originally posted by aesperus

Originally posted by Mage_Francis

Originally posted by Fadedbomb 

~~~[Skill System]~~~ (MMO-Score: 6, SinglePlayer Score: 7)

TSW's take on "classes" is to use an Open-Purchasable skill wheel that allows you to unlock EVERYTHING but only mix & match certain skills. The problem here is that, when you begin, it seems awesome & completely original. However, a month or two in you realize that the developers have already pre-thought out all of the possibly good combinations & only made X number of actual combinations worth doing. This leads you to a sort of "psuedo sick" feeling when you realize its not as open as they claim it is. If you don't believe me you'll understand if you purchase retail & play for about a month or two. Don't say I didn't warn you :).

This couldn't be more vague or misleading.  A good portion of the wheel was closed for most of the cloased beta and the decks don't evenn have the best combo's of skills available.  Hell most of the skills weren't even balanced or working properly because the game was in beta.  

 

Why would someone even put together a review on a unfinished product?  

2 things:

1) We have full access to the skill wheel. Myself and some of my buds managed to even unlock a few of the 50 AP elites on it. What he says about the PvP system is most definitely true from what I saw. Even just over the weekend.

2) The game is going live next friday. I'm really sick of people using the excuse 'it's beta!' or 'it's not finished yet!' on a game that doesn't have time to make any significant changes at this point. We've seen the game. We've played it. Most of the issues people have with it are not going to change for launch. This includes the skill wheel.

This isn't to say that skills need to be rebalanced quite a bit in certain areas, but Funcom hasn't said anything of a major revamp of skills for release. We're going to see the same cookie-cutter roles as we've been seeing already, for sure.

 

I'm speaking on the fact that the op said dev's had pre-thought out path's through the talent trees.  What do you think those decks are for? Most of the people that I know that completed decks just did so for the unlockable outfits, and after that modified some of the skill choices to make them actually viable.  I mean blood magic is relatively new to the release I know for a fact there are several abilities not functioning as intended.  I know the game releases in a few days, but what you experienced on the cbt or bwe's does not exactly reflect the build they will have on release or a patch they could put up shortly after.  This is balance and unlike other features or assests it doesn't take much to fix or update.  Your assuming a lot and Funcom is not going to let you know every detail of every change they make before launch.

One thing for sure here :) TSW = *the red words* , other than that it could have been a good game.

 

Thank you Funcom.......

The same people bashing TSW week after week. Don't worry, they will be in game with everyone else.

I love some of these arguments:

 

"The character models suck!  The animations suck!  The PvP sucks!  It's a single-player game!    But it would be a much better game if it was free!"

 

How the hell would the character models or the pvp or ANYTHING improve if the game was free? or buy-to-play? or if Funcom actually paid YOU to play it?   All the problems would be the same fracking problems.

 

Personally, i prefer the traditional subscription model of MMOs, i won't deny that.  But when I look at (for example) Guild Wars 2 and i see bland zerg-tastic PvE, at no point do i ever think "oh boy, these fights would be so much more interesting if the game only had a sub!  And the story would be so much more compelling if only i was paying a sub for this!"  

 

Seriously, wtf difference does the payment model have to do with the hard-coded features of the game?  IF you hate the character animations, the combat, the single-player story, etc, etc, etc, guess what, none of these things will be any different if/when the game is free.  

 

These types of arguments just make it sound like you actually like the game and want to play it but are somehow hoping that by trashing it, you'll guilt Funcom into giving it to you for free. 

Originally posted by arieste

I love some of these arguments:

 

"The character models suck!  The animations suck!  The PvP sucks!  It's a single-player game!    But it would be a much better game if it was free!"

 

How the hell would the character models or the pvp or ANYTHING improve if the game was free? or buy-to-play? or if Funcom actually paid YOU to play it?   All the problems would be the same fracking problems.

 

Personally, i prefer the traditional subscription model of MMOs, i won't deny that.  But when I look at (for example) Guild Wars 2 and i see bland zerg-tastic PvE, at no point do i ever think "oh boy, these fights would be so much more interesting if the game only had a sub!  And the story would be so much more compelling if only i was paying a sub for this!"  

 

Seriously, wtf difference does the payment model have to the hard-coded features of the game?  IF you hate the character animations, the combat, the single-player story, etc, etc, etc, guess what, none of these things will be any different if/when the game is free.  

 

These types of arguments just make it sound like you actually like the game and want to play it but are somehow hoping that by trashing it, you'll guilt Funcom into giving it to you for free. 

I think you just sent a lot of brains in over drive with your logic and they are about to crash ;)

"This game is bad..i don't want to play it but hey if it is free i will play it.."...doh!!

*slams head on desk*

Originally posted by Sameer1979

Originally posted by arieste

I love some of these arguments:

 

"The character models suck!  The animations suck!  The PvP sucks!  It's a single-player game!    But it would be a much better game if it was free!"

 

How the hell would the character models or the pvp or ANYTHING improve if the game was free? or buy-to-play? or if Funcom actually paid YOU to play it?   All the problems would be the same fracking problems.

 

Personally, i prefer the traditional subscription model of MMOs, i won't deny that.  But when I look at (for example) Guild Wars 2 and i see bland zerg-tastic PvE, at no point do i ever think "oh boy, these fights would be so much more interesting if the game only had a sub!  And the story would be so much more compelling if only i was paying a sub for this!"  

 

Seriously, wtf difference does the payment model have to the hard-coded features of the game?  IF you hate the character animations, the combat, the single-player story, etc, etc, etc, guess what, none of these things will be any different if/when the game is free.  

 

These types of arguments just make it sound like you actually like the game and want to play it but are somehow hoping that by trashing it, you'll guilt Funcom into giving it to you for free. 

I think you just sent a lot of brains in over drive with your logic and they are about to crash ;)

"This game is bad..i don't want to play it but hey if it is free i will play it.."...doh!!

*slams head on desk*

I personally still don't get this mentality. I've also seen lots of people who love GW2 but wouldn't touch it if it as a sub fee. At the same time, i've seen comments from players who hate SWTOR, TERA and TSW too, but would buy it in a heart beat if it was B2P.

I just don't get it. If a game feels like a single player to you, or you don't like the mechanics, how does pay less money make it more fun. I can understand the nice element of not having to pay a sub, really i do, but the lack of them doesn't make a game different in any shape or form.

Many people just say "I'll play  for (1,2, 3) months then drop it." How is not having a sub going to stop you from doing it? You'll still run out of content eventually.

Originally posted by arieste

I love some of these arguments:

 

"The character models suck!  The animations suck!  The PvP sucks!  It's a single-player game!    But it would be a much better game if it was free!"

 

How the hell would the character models or the pvp or ANYTHING improve if the game was free? or buy-to-play? or if Funcom actually paid YOU to play it?   All the problems would be the same fracking problems.

 

Personally, i prefer the traditional subscription model of MMOs, i won't deny that.  But when I look at (for example) Guild Wars 2 and i see bland zerg-tastic PvE, at no point do i ever think "oh boy, these fights would be so much more interesting if the game only had a sub!  And the story would be so much more compelling if only i was paying a sub for this!"  

 

Seriously, wtf difference does the payment model have to do with the hard-coded features of the game?  IF you hate the character animations, the combat, the single-player story, etc, etc, etc, guess what, none of these things will be any different if/when the game is free.  

 

These types of arguments just make it sound like you actually like the game and want to play it but are somehow hoping that by trashing it, you'll guilt Funcom into giving it to you for free. 

Its not that the features will change. Its that you lower the barrier of entry. Everyone of us has a certain idea of what they want to pay for stuff. What is happening now with MMOs is that many are going f2p, many quality ones. I cannot justify paying full price and a sub for a game that is, to me, the same or less than some of the f2p options.

Originally posted by Kuppa

 I cannot justify paying full price and a sub for a game that is, to me, the same or less than some of the f2p options.

If it's the same or less as what you can get free, then why do you want to play it more than whatever game you're comparing it to?  And if you don't want to play it, why do you want it to be cheaper?

 

I don't understand this.  For example,  I do no want to play WoW because I'm already gettting a better game elsewhere.  IF tomorrow Blizzard sent me a lifetime sub to WoW.. it would change absolutely nothing.  I still wouldn't like WoW and i still woulnd't want to play it because i am already getting a better game elsewhere.   The cost doesn't change the fact that i don't like the game or want to play it.

 

Originally posted by arieste

Originally posted by Kuppa

 I cannot justify paying full price and a sub for a game that is, to me, the same or less than some of the f2p options.

If it's the same or less as what you can get free, then why do you want to play it more than whatever game you're comparing it to?  And if you don't want to play it, why do you want it to be cheaper?

 

I don't understand this.  For example,  I do no want to play WoW because I'm already gettting a better game elsewhere.  IF tomorrow Blizzard sent me a lifetime sub to WoW.. it would change absolutely nothing.  I still wouldn't like WoW and i still woulnd't want to play it because i am already getting a better game elsewhere.   The cost doesn't change the fact that i don't like the game or want to play it.

Are you really that dense?

Most of the people here are giving realistic reviews and feedback. We're not saying the game sucks - we're saying it's not worth $50+$15/30/45 more to play for 3 months.

If you don't get how the increased cost for the game has an impact on whether it is worth playing then I have some $12 Big Macs to sell you :P

Originally posted by arieste

Originally posted by Kuppa

 I cannot justify paying full price and a sub for a game that is, to me, the same or less than some of the f2p options.

If it's the same or less as what you can get free, then why do you want to play it more than whatever game you're comparing it to?  And if you don't want to play it, why do you want it to be cheaper?

 

I don't understand this.  For example,  I do no want to play WoW because I'm already gettting a better game elsewhere.  IF tomorrow Blizzard sent me a lifetime sub to WoW.. it would change absolutely nothing.  I still wouldn't like WoW and i still woulnd't want to play it because i am already getting a better game elsewhere.   The cost doesn't change the fact that i don't like the game or want to play it.

 

The premise is that I would play it if it were more reasonably priced. I would love a 60 inch lcd tv but if its overpriced I wont buy it, unless I really really want it. This is the case with some MMOs that have subs for me. They look ok, but I would only play them if they were reasonably priced.

BTW if the cost is not influencing your decisions on what you purchase, you might be ricth idk, then you probably wont understand.

The F2P argument is always amusing.  For failed P2P games that are on life support, a conversion to F2P can often mean increased developer attention and new content to satisfy the increase in player base (see DDO), but when talking about TSW or SW:TOR, it's a silly comment to make.  F2P means you might log in for awhile when bored or when in between games, but because you never liked the game in the first place, you're never going to stay long term.

Originally posted by Kuppa

The premise is that I would play it if it were more reasonably priced. I would love a 60 inch lcd tv but if its overpriced I wont buy it, unless I really really want it. This is the case with some MMOs that have subs for me. They look ok, but I would only play them if they were reasonably priced.

BTW if the cost is not influencing your decisions on what you purchase, you might be ricth idk, then you probably wont understand.

Cost influences what i BUY, cost doesn't influence what i LIKE.

 

Regardless of how much it costs, I think a 60 inch TV is awesome.  Therefore, if i could afford it, i would buy it.  If i can't afford, my opinion will be: "it's an awesome TV, but i can't afford it."

Regardless of how much it costs, I think WoW sucks.  Therefore, even if i could afford it, i wouldn't buy it.  my opinion will be: "WoW sucks, regardless of how much it costs". 

 

I don't see too many people posting:  "TSW is awesome, but i can't afford it." 

 

The folks above are saying that they don't like the game because of bad pvp, because of bad animations, because of a myriad of other factiors.  To be clear: they DO NOT like it.  Yet they are saying it would be a better game and they would like it if it cost less.  This is the part that i don't get.   If you hate big screen TVs and never watch TV at all, then regardless of how cheap that 60 inch TV gets, you're not going to like it - you might buy to decorate your house or to use for guest, but it's not going to change whether you like it.   

 

If someone says "good/awesome/decent game, but costs too much", I have no problem.  Valid criticism.  Probably true.  It's saying that it sucks but would be better if cheaper that is incongruent for me.

Originally posted by Fadedbomb

So essentially I promised a long & drawn out review of TSW a couple months back after the NDA dropped (which it has), however after reading around the forum since then I've concluded that people have pretty much already made up their minds by now (as with SWTOR, and TERA). So I won't bother with a long-winded approach.

 

Therefore, a short summary:

~~~[Gameplay]~~~ (MMO-Score: 5, SinglePlayer Score: 9)

When TSW is played as a "Single Player game with Online/Coop elements" it really shines, but as an "MMO" it falls flat. I've been in the beta for the past 3 months and I've seen rises & falls up until last week. All I can say here is that, again, the single-player storyline is AMAZING, but when you start trying to team up for everything you see glaring potholes all throughout the journey that simply doesn't work well as an MMO, or quite simply falls on its face. I won't even delve the combat animations, sounds, and effects all of which are sub-par for such a highly funded project.

 

~~~[Skill System]~~~ (MMO-Score: 6, SinglePlayer Score: 7)

TSW's take on "classes" is to use an Open-Purchasable skill wheel that allows you to unlock EVERYTHING but only mix & match certain skills. The problem here is that, when you begin, it seems awesome & completely original. However, a month or two in you realize that the developers have already pre-thought out all of the possibly good combinations & only made X number of actual combinations worth doing. This leads you to a sort of "psuedo sick" feeling when you realize its not as open as they claim it is. If you don't believe me you'll understand if you purchase retail & play for about a month or two. Don't say I didn't warn you :).

 

~~~[Leveling]~~~ (MMO-Score: 5, SinglePlayer Score: 6)

What can I say here? Very linear by design, and once you leave the first area of Egypt you might start asking yourself "What am I actually doing this for?". I found that I was going back through from BlueMountains all the way to Transylvania rushing missions as fast as possible to get X number of AP an hour on about month 3 as I had already experienced ALL the content from Egypt to Kingsmouth, but at the time Transylvania hadn't been completed (the zones past the first village area). Some more content may have been added but the linear system is still there. Sorry if you disagree, but it's pretty much a more open-ended SWTOR in terms of leveling where you can go back to repeat quests after X amount of time, but that's about as far as it goes. 

Grinding missions, instances, and certain named mobs gets VERY boring after awhile, and I doubt their version of "Massive Battlegrounds" will keep you interested for very long without more linear content to drive you.

 

ps: Linear being Solomon's Isle (3 zones) -> Egypt (2 zones) -> Transylvania''s 3 zones all from easiest to hardest in terms of difficulty & progression. This is how its designed, and demanding others play differently because you refuse to admit to yourself that its almost, if not completely, as linear as SWTOR is a little "off key".

 

~~~[PvP]~~~ (MMO-Score: 4)

I have nothing other than to say more of the same Battlegrounds nonsense. Coming from a UO, DAOC, Shadowbane, EQ-Zek, SWG background I wasn't impressed whatsoever. Flavour of the Month builds are rampant & you see all of the top killers in each area have the same build, more than most. 

 

 

Overall:

MMO: 5

SinglePlayer Game: 7.3 (PVP omitted for obvious reasons)

 

 

I enjoyed the storyline & the quests more than I have in any online game in the past, however if you're going to do such a fantastic job on the Story aspect of an MMO make sure its done in a way that doesn't make you feel like you're playing a SinglePlayer RPG like Mass Effect. 

 

As an MMO, I believe Funcom dropped the ball...again. I'm just not sure why they're in the MMO market when they're clearly more suited towards SinglePlayer RPGs. 

 

 

I brought up similar issues with SWTOR a month or so before its release, and although I gave it a MUCH lower average score than TSW I was told I didn't know what I was talking about or I was just "another hater". Please understand that I give every product I test a fair chance, but in the end I feel I always represent the product for what it IS and what it is NOT. 

 

Thank you for reading :)!

think you posted this review for a different game. I have a gripe with every single one of your points, and no, I am not going to waste peoples time with biased reviews. The game does not play like a single-player game UNLESS YOU PLAY IT THAT WAY. Every single MMO can be played very much like a single-player game .. depends on how you want to experience the game :) can you do things by yourself? absolutely. Can you effective do hardcore quests/investigative quests? doubtful, but maybe. Can you run the many dungeons and roleplaying/immersive experience by yourself? absolutely not. To each his own, have fun wherever you may go.

The op is living in the past. (Coming from a UO, DAOC, Shadowbane, EQ-Zek, SWG)

My first and most favorite was/is EQ but I have come to realize I will never recapture that feeling. And if I try to with every new MMO it will just taint the new MMO and I wont enjoy it.

 

In the drug world its referred to as chasing the dragons tail, trying to get the first feeling of euphoria back. It never happens no matter what new drug you try.

Originally posted by arieste

Originally posted by Kuppa

The premise is that I would play it if it were more reasonably priced. I would love a 60 inch lcd tv but if its overpriced I wont buy it, unless I really really want it. This is the case with some MMOs that have subs for me. They look ok, but I would only play them if they were reasonably priced.

BTW if the cost is not influencing your decisions on what you purchase, you might be ricth idk, then you probably wont understand.

Cost influences what i BUY, cost doesn't influence what i LIKE.

 

Regardless of how much it costs, I think a 60 inch TV is awesome.  Therefore, if i could afford it, i would buy it.  If i can't afford, my opinion will be: "it's an awesome TV, but i can't afford it."

Regardless of how much it costs, I think WoW sucks.  Therefore, even if i could afford it, i wouldn't buy it.  my opinion will be: "WoW sucks, regardless of how much it costs". 

 

I don't see too many people posting:  "TSW is awesome, but i can't afford it." 

 

The folks above are saying that they don't like the game because of bad pvp, because of bad animations, because of a myriad of other factiors.  To be clear: they DO NOT like it.  Yet they are saying it would be a better game and they would like it if it cost less.  This is the part that i don't get.   If you hate big screen TVs and never watch TV at all, then regardless of how cheap that 60 inch TV gets, you're not going to like it - you might buy to decorate your house or to use for guest, but it's not going to change whether you like it.   

 

If someone says "good/awesome/decent game, but costs too much", I have no problem.  Valid criticism.  Probably true.  It's saying that it sucks but would be better if cheaper that is incongruent for me.

The thing you are missing is that saying the game sucks but I would play it if it were f2p does not mean you like it more because of f2p. You see, some are saying "TSW is awesome, but I cant afford it". Others, like me, are saying "TSW is ok, but its too expensive for what it is". Do you understand? Its not changing how much you like the game because its f2p is saying the games price is too high.