Wait so are WoW graphics breath taking and amazing? Cause I don?t remember them being that good. Yes I?ll admit The Old Republic does not look great but still neither does WoW.
Analyst Calls The Old Republic a "WoW Clone"
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yeah but Eve is an open-flight space-sim sandbox, right? And DCUO is a superhero MMO. WoW is a high fantasy themepark MMO.Sean Deli said:
TOR is a themepark MMO sequel to KoTOR and KoTOR's combat was basically d20, roll-to-hit kind of stuff. Comparing it to Eve is meaningless, and comparing it to DCUO is odd because a superhero MMO has to have highly-mobile combat to fit the setting and characters. I'm not saying TOR couldn't benefit from some more dynamic combat elements, but it is a logical successor to the combat of KoTOR, if you think about it.
Wait, didn't someone provlaim the exact same thing last year? And didn't everyone go: "well no shit, Sherlock." that time as well?
This link summarizes all my feelings on both fanboys of SWTOR, that project unrealistic expectations onto the title, as well as on 'hard-hitting critics' who, after reading them for months now, 90% of the time don't do their goddamned research for their opinion pieces properly and instead project THEIR OWN elitist delusions all the while claiming they speak for the 'silent majority' or some other feeble excuse.
TL;DR
You all don't fucking know.
TL;DR
You all don't fucking know.
WoW is totally an everquest clone....Which is totally a D&D clone...Which is totally a lord of the rings interactive story with dice clone...Which is totally a legends of ye olde europe clone...
we could go back thousands of years.
Warhammer online was a WoW clone and I effing loved it, because it was Warhammer.
Aslong as the action is good and the levels are well designed and its not too repetitive and grindy then fine, I'll probs try it.
we could go back thousands of years.
Warhammer online was a WoW clone and I effing loved it, because it was Warhammer.
Aslong as the action is good and the levels are well designed and its not too repetitive and grindy then fine, I'll probs try it.
To be honest, I don't like Wow but I do like the idea of a massive, shared, online gaming experience. I also, though it's increasingly difficult in recent years, love the tone and feel of Star Wars, I spent long enough playing the damn pen and paper RPG.
Whilst I'd love to be able to give into my cynicism and assume everything coming out is going to be a cloned version of whatever sold well last year - I still think I'm within my rights to hope for something different, incredible and unexpected. Something that I'll love as much as MUDS from back in the day, something that, for me, will replicate a shared role playing experience.
So when something feels increasingly disappointing and unimaginative I can only feel disappointed. When the defence to these comments by EA is to list what sounds like a WoW feature list, when WoW terms get used when describing the demo to journalists, it all just feels like a failed chance to beat WoW. They may all turn out to be untrue and I'd love it if the game did do something incredible but right now it doesn't feel that way.
And as some people have already mentioned - the reason why these comments are important isn't because this is someone who is highlighting the game experience to gamers. Its because of the vast investment of money, time and effort into this project. This is a money man explaining possible profit problems to investors who've never played a game in their life. What matters is if they start to worry ahead of the launch.
No matter how good the experience is for some, this game is practically an industry in itself. If investors start to worry then it might be a very short lived cottage industry. So on the one hand there's the argument about whether this will be a good game on the other there's whether this is a good financial investment. Those two things aren't the same thing.
So I'm hoping for a great game, I'm disappointed with what I've seen but if people don't want to keep pumping money into the game it's not going to matter - it'll just slowly tail off.
Whilst I'd love to be able to give into my cynicism and assume everything coming out is going to be a cloned version of whatever sold well last year - I still think I'm within my rights to hope for something different, incredible and unexpected. Something that I'll love as much as MUDS from back in the day, something that, for me, will replicate a shared role playing experience.
So when something feels increasingly disappointing and unimaginative I can only feel disappointed. When the defence to these comments by EA is to list what sounds like a WoW feature list, when WoW terms get used when describing the demo to journalists, it all just feels like a failed chance to beat WoW. They may all turn out to be untrue and I'd love it if the game did do something incredible but right now it doesn't feel that way.
And as some people have already mentioned - the reason why these comments are important isn't because this is someone who is highlighting the game experience to gamers. Its because of the vast investment of money, time and effort into this project. This is a money man explaining possible profit problems to investors who've never played a game in their life. What matters is if they start to worry ahead of the launch.
No matter how good the experience is for some, this game is practically an industry in itself. If investors start to worry then it might be a very short lived cottage industry. So on the one hand there's the argument about whether this will be a good game on the other there's whether this is a good financial investment. Those two things aren't the same thing.
So I'm hoping for a great game, I'm disappointed with what I've seen but if people don't want to keep pumping money into the game it's not going to matter - it'll just slowly tail off.
Based off what Bioware has shown, it ain't blowing wind up anyone's skirt anytime soon. All the rendered video sequences in the world don't count for anything if they don't show us what the game is actually like.
Them saying that they are unable to show certain elements, that they must be experienced in "the wild" gives me the impression that it isn't even close to what they promised.
Them saying that they are unable to show certain elements, that they must be experienced in "the wild" gives me the impression that it isn't even close to what they promised.
People need to realize what it means when someone says "WoW Clone"
A generalization/stereotype starts when something is overly simplified not according to truth.
When someone says something "looks like WoW" they do not mean "it has pixels" or "it has the same UI".
The statement is an amalgam of general features that WoW has, a mental shortcut so to speak to describe a certain concept.
If I say that Mass Effect is a Gears of War clone for the single observation that both games use a cover system, i would be horribly wrong and broadly generalizing.
However if I say that Torchlight is a Diablo clone i would be ABSOLUTELY in my right to call it that, given the concept that a game like Diablo conveys.
Someone could now defend Torchlight and say, well its not really a clone because it has a more advanced crafting-system, a different art-style, a completely different story, different classes and skills and that its therefore -nothing- like Diablo.
But thats responding to a claim never made, "clone" is used differently here than in its dictionary definition, its not a claim of an "exact copy", it never was. Its a mental shortcut people use to describe a game so similar that it doesnt distinguish itself at all from the "original".
Similarly here when someone says "WoW Clone" he means that the game feels, plays, has the same design philosophy and target audience as WoW.
This isnt just about the UI, Minecraft has a hotbar, does this make it a WoW clone, certainly not.
But the amalgamation of a lot of similarities make it one.
The criteria to make a WoW clone:
-a trinity based class system
-a level system designed to separate players into tiers of content
-a quest system based on gear-dependency (i.e. you play for gear to reach a next gear-tier)
-round-based dice roll combat (no hitboxes, no skill combat)
-non-player based economy
-grouping based around the class trinity
-instanced content based on the class trinity (dungeons)
-pve raid content
-separation of leveling and end-game content (leveling -> raiding)
-direct control over one character (as opposed to squads etc.)
-trinity-based talent trees
-leveling-content-zones
-PVE combat focus
etc.
Only if those emerge -together- its a wow-clone, not if there is one or two of these. I.e. EVE online does have a sort of class-trinity (armor/shield tanks etc) and dice-roll combat, but does not fulfill any of the other criteria.
Aesthetics usually do not make people scream "WoW Clone" if these other design-related criteria do not match. I wouldn't call Allods a WoW clone for aesthetics alone.
One thing does not a wow clone make, but doesn't TOR fit most if not all of these?
PS: Fanboys apparently think that "WoW Clone" means that a game is inherently bad or something, i cant fathom why.
A generalization/stereotype starts when something is overly simplified not according to truth.
When someone says something "looks like WoW" they do not mean "it has pixels" or "it has the same UI".
The statement is an amalgam of general features that WoW has, a mental shortcut so to speak to describe a certain concept.
If I say that Mass Effect is a Gears of War clone for the single observation that both games use a cover system, i would be horribly wrong and broadly generalizing.
However if I say that Torchlight is a Diablo clone i would be ABSOLUTELY in my right to call it that, given the concept that a game like Diablo conveys.
Someone could now defend Torchlight and say, well its not really a clone because it has a more advanced crafting-system, a different art-style, a completely different story, different classes and skills and that its therefore -nothing- like Diablo.
But thats responding to a claim never made, "clone" is used differently here than in its dictionary definition, its not a claim of an "exact copy", it never was. Its a mental shortcut people use to describe a game so similar that it doesnt distinguish itself at all from the "original".
Similarly here when someone says "WoW Clone" he means that the game feels, plays, has the same design philosophy and target audience as WoW.
This isnt just about the UI, Minecraft has a hotbar, does this make it a WoW clone, certainly not.
But the amalgamation of a lot of similarities make it one.
The criteria to make a WoW clone:
-a trinity based class system
-a level system designed to separate players into tiers of content
-a quest system based on gear-dependency (i.e. you play for gear to reach a next gear-tier)
-round-based dice roll combat (no hitboxes, no skill combat)
-non-player based economy
-grouping based around the class trinity
-instanced content based on the class trinity (dungeons)
-pve raid content
-separation of leveling and end-game content (leveling -> raiding)
-direct control over one character (as opposed to squads etc.)
-trinity-based talent trees
-leveling-content-zones
-PVE combat focus
etc.
Only if those emerge -together- its a wow-clone, not if there is one or two of these. I.e. EVE online does have a sort of class-trinity (armor/shield tanks etc) and dice-roll combat, but does not fulfill any of the other criteria.
Aesthetics usually do not make people scream "WoW Clone" if these other design-related criteria do not match. I wouldn't call Allods a WoW clone for aesthetics alone.
One thing does not a wow clone make, but doesn't TOR fit most if not all of these?
PS: Fanboys apparently think that "WoW Clone" means that a game is inherently bad or something, i cant fathom why.
Er... well duh.
All SWToR is bringing to the table is being massively dubbed. Everything else was done, arguably better, elsewhere. Including the henchman mechanic, and story mode, being done a lot more slickly in Guild Wars.
In fact if we're nit picking, Age of Conan was supposed to be entirely dubbed, but they ran out of budget after the starter zone.
But hey, it'll still be fun. It's not like people can ruin anything with light sabres in it, right George?
... er, never mind.
All SWToR is bringing to the table is being massively dubbed. Everything else was done, arguably better, elsewhere. Including the henchman mechanic, and story mode, being done a lot more slickly in Guild Wars.
In fact if we're nit picking, Age of Conan was supposed to be entirely dubbed, but they ran out of budget after the starter zone.
But hey, it'll still be fun. It's not like people can ruin anything with light sabres in it, right George?
... er, never mind.
It is a massively multiplayer online role playing game. Yup, It's going to be called a WoW clone.
Allods was a great F2P WoW clone (but screwed the pooch by basically forcing people to pay with an update)
Wait ppl get paid to say the obvious? Man i need to look those jobs up and apply for them!
From what i've seen since the beginning the game reeked of WoW Clone. its claim to fame is voice acted quests...whoopty doo.
From what i've seen since the beginning the game reeked of WoW Clone. its claim to fame is voice acted quests...whoopty doo.
Although it pains me to admit it- because I've been looking forward to this for awhile- I have to agree with them. From what I've seen of the game it isn't nearly as fresh or innovative as Bioware are claiming, with most of the new features geared mainly toward people playing the game solo.
And to reply to all of the "No shit it's an MMO what do you expect" posts, the problem isn't that it's similar to WoW, the problem is that it's similar to WoW even though Bioware have been claiming from the start that it wasn't going to be.
To contrast this, if you want an MMO that genuinely seems to be doing something different look at Guild Wars 2. It's still recognizably the same MMO template, but is making radical changes to the way combat and quests work which (the developers claim) will make the experience of playing the game very different from WoW and its many clones.
And to reply to all of the "No shit it's an MMO what do you expect" posts, the problem isn't that it's similar to WoW, the problem is that it's similar to WoW even though Bioware have been claiming from the start that it wasn't going to be.
To contrast this, if you want an MMO that genuinely seems to be doing something different look at Guild Wars 2. It's still recognizably the same MMO template, but is making radical changes to the way combat and quests work which (the developers claim) will make the experience of playing the game very different from WoW and its many clones.
ugh i hate it when every new MMO is compaed to WoW seriously the game should be judged on what it does diffrently from WoW not by wat it does the same
A lot of the innovation will come in story telling rather than game play. This like dialogue options and fully voiced characters are what I believe sets it apart, I don't need to play the game to know that is something no other mmo is trying.
Its not really the Bioware that brought us Dragon Age 2 either, they made a new Austin branch just for Old Republic.Xanthious said:
AssassinJoe said:
To the OP.
I don't give a flying f***. I'm going to play it. Seems like the the 'Analyst' dosen't know much about MMOS OR Star Wars.
Why do we always get the dumb ones?