I'm not sure what qualifies you to be an "analyst", common sense doesn't appear to be among the requirements though.
Analyst Calls The Old Republic a "WoW Clone"
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yeah and is the Bioware studio in Austin somehow NOT owned by EA? Yeah, that's what I thought . .AnythingOutstanding said:I'd love to see where you got that info.
As far as I know, the BioWare that made Dragon Age 2 is based in Edmenton. Where as this BioWare is based in Austin Texas.
Something tells me that you got this info straight out of your ass.
Regardless of where the actual studios are located it doesn't change the direction that Bioware has taken as a company. Reusing the same dungeon for the entire game didn't happen because it was made in one part of the world or another it happened because of laziness and a lack of standards. That would of never happened back in the days of KOTOR before Bioware was just another EA drone.
My point is that Bioware that made all those really good games many moons ago is no longer around. It has been replaced by just another EA drone with a shiny Bioware name tag. Everything that Bioware has done lately reeks of EA meddling and this upcoming MMO will be no different.
Heh, ya learn something new everyday lolCM156 said:
With all due respect Ultima Online and Everquest had nothing in common except being fantasy based. Everquest is based off text based DIKUmud. Ultima Online had very different goals as gear wasn't the driving factor.thethingthatlurks said:
Ultima Online was about training dragons for PKing everyone while naked and taking all their stuff.
Given that is is an analyst of a financial advisory company speaking, I'm not sure he's talking in terms of game-elements, but rather, market segments, trying to answer the basic question : Is this MMO going to clash with WoW in terms of subscriber-base?
The answer is, for a MMO, going to be "Yes" a lot of the time. Not many people will play 2 MMOs, and a lot of people have already invested a lot of time with WoW.
From a business point of view, going up against WoW doesn't have a good track record, but I hope that this can get enough people playing to work out.
I'll be waiting for Guild Wars 2 before getting back into MMOs, but I'm still tempted to give TOR a trial.
The answer is, for a MMO, going to be "Yes" a lot of the time. Not many people will play 2 MMOs, and a lot of people have already invested a lot of time with WoW.
From a business point of view, going up against WoW doesn't have a good track record, but I hope that this can get enough people playing to work out.
I'll be waiting for Guild Wars 2 before getting back into MMOs, but I'm still tempted to give TOR a trial.
Not quiet true.Lacsapix said:
WoW cloned Everquest etc. very successfully. After that followed a heap of WoW clones because - guess what - other companies wanted a successfull MMO as well, and creating an MMO isn't a cheap endeavour. What Developers forget is that their games to be a viable alternative to WoW - because anyone who likes playing WoW isn't likely to change to another subscription based MMO.
Thats the main reason that WAR didn't do too well - it was too similar to WoW.
However, there are several great MMOs that distinguished themselfs in NOT following WoW:
Guild wars, which isn't an MMORPG per se according to ArenaNet.
DDO, applying classic D&D rules and a highly challenging questsystem.
EvE online, Sandbox in space with a unique skillsystem.
etc.
Recent changes to WoW have cost them quite a few subscribers - and if this trend should continue, might lead to WoW shutting down in the comming years.
Having only watched a few videos of TOR it did look like "WoW in SPACE" to me, but the videos I saw where only basic run-through's of quests.
Even the one video I saw with the dialog tree's didn't look like it added anything new. I am sure that had the player picked different dialogs they could of ended up on a completely different quest. It's just hard to show the major world changes in 5-10 min videos.
I do not believe TOR will light the world on fire, but I give it the chance to impress. I will just have to wait till beta.
Even the one video I saw with the dialog tree's didn't look like it added anything new. I am sure that had the player picked different dialogs they could of ended up on a completely different quest. It's just hard to show the major world changes in 5-10 min videos.
I do not believe TOR will light the world on fire, but I give it the chance to impress. I will just have to wait till beta.
Godamnit people.
MMO is not WoW. WoW is MMO. Not, MMO is WoW. And TOR looks exactly like WoW with different skins. Dont defend TOR by stating that all MMOs are like WoW. Because MMO is not WoW.
And NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO before anyone starts. All FPS are not the same because they have people shooting at eachother.
When I look at the TOR and think "hmm. that looks kinda like wow" Bioware should respond "But on this game, we have [insert lazy bioware choice-wheel]" on which I respond "thats horrible! I spit on your choice-wheel!" and leave that crap to the fanboys that are trying to stab me for I do not know the geniousness of the choice-wheel that spins around and spins around. Where will it stop? Where will it stop? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. For that is the wheel of choice. It never lands where you expect it to.
MMO is not WoW. WoW is MMO. Not, MMO is WoW. And TOR looks exactly like WoW with different skins. Dont defend TOR by stating that all MMOs are like WoW. Because MMO is not WoW.
And NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO before anyone starts. All FPS are not the same because they have people shooting at eachother.
When I look at the TOR and think "hmm. that looks kinda like wow" Bioware should respond "But on this game, we have [insert lazy bioware choice-wheel]" on which I respond "thats horrible! I spit on your choice-wheel!" and leave that crap to the fanboys that are trying to stab me for I do not know the geniousness of the choice-wheel that spins around and spins around. Where will it stop? Where will it stop? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. For that is the wheel of choice. It never lands where you expect it to.
True dat, although that hasn't stopped people from making the fallacious claim that they are nothing but clones, as they are all MMOs with vaguely similar settings.tehroc said:
what he said...Zac Smith said:
tired of people calling every other MMO coming out a WoW clone.. i do play WoW... but MAN there's alot of difference between MMO's
I wouldn't call it a World of Warcraft clone from what I've seen. I would call it pretty shitty, though
Those would be? because so far BioWare Austin hasn't made any promises as far as I am aware, only told us about features that are in the game.RT-Medic-with-shotgun said:
Don't get me wrong, this could well be a terrible game, a stagnant wow clone with a Ip that been though the mill so many times it isn't even a pale imitation of it's self.
I haven't seen enough evidence one way or another so far.
As a long time beta player of this game, I can't say details, but I will say this: it's a bit unfair to call it a WoW clone. I hate WoW, I love TOR. Yes, it unfortunately takes many mechanical elements of WoW (especially in combat), however, the story, writing, voice acting and quests are so, so much better. For instance, no main or secondary quests are "Kill 20 walruses and bring me 5 walrus hearts...because...uh...I use them to make a healing stew, so that makes the quest more important to you as a player, right? Right?"
I can see where hes coming from. I've been suspicious of the entire game ever since I saw that lame 80's rail shooter they put into the game. It was such a blatent case of laziness it wasn't even funny. From that point on I wasn't interested in seeing how many more corners they cut everywhere else in the game. Now people are proving me right.
I must say what the gentleman says makes little sense, and this coming from someone who never played WoW. It's so bad I don't think playing WoW is necessary to debunk this (if I point to something as new that does exist in WoW, let me know and I'll edit this post).
First off the article itself describes three new features: the fully voice acting of NPC's, the good\evil conversation system, and the fact you have a NPC party (tell me if I'm wrong, I don't think WoW has that last one either). Now he can complain that the conversation systems feels tacked on, but don't really understand how it being tacked on would differ from it being fully integrated into the game. Do the conversation choices affect the gameplay? If the same thing happens no matter what, then perhaps he has a point, but I don't see that as happening. I remember in one demo you have the option to kill someone or let them live. Whether or not it is reminiscent of stuff Bioware has done in the past is irrelevant to the point of whether it is different from WoW. You know, I haven't heard many people complain about how Mass Effect 3 will have that "same nice\nasty" mechanic Bioware has done a million times before. Not to mention, it's freakin' STAR WARS, everything in that universe is always broken down into light side dark side, if you find a writer that is really nuanced then MAYBE you get the "grey" option a la Jolee Bindo.
Now there are other things beyond what is in that article that I know is different from WoW. For one, you get your own customizable ship. If you are light side or dark side it looks totally different as well. Sure, WoW has griffons, but that isn't the same thing.
There's also space battles. I don't think I need to check my sources on this one . . . fairly certain WoW has no space battles. What I know I DON'T know is whether or not WoW has ridable mounts you can take into battle with you, we know TOR will have landspeaders (or at least space segways) that you can run people over with.
All of these differences are the ones we are aware of MONTHS before release. I don't even think they are in full beta yet. I'm sure there have been things announced that I'm not aware of that have been announced as well. This guy's article seems entirely suspicious. I would hate to think the developers of my beloved Starcraft II would stoop to the level of inciting someone to write something like this, but I wouldn't rule that out. At best it is incredibly sloppy and\or lazy work, something along the lines of noticing a few similarities and then ignoring the differences.
First off the article itself describes three new features: the fully voice acting of NPC's, the good\evil conversation system, and the fact you have a NPC party (tell me if I'm wrong, I don't think WoW has that last one either). Now he can complain that the conversation systems feels tacked on, but don't really understand how it being tacked on would differ from it being fully integrated into the game. Do the conversation choices affect the gameplay? If the same thing happens no matter what, then perhaps he has a point, but I don't see that as happening. I remember in one demo you have the option to kill someone or let them live. Whether or not it is reminiscent of stuff Bioware has done in the past is irrelevant to the point of whether it is different from WoW. You know, I haven't heard many people complain about how Mass Effect 3 will have that "same nice\nasty" mechanic Bioware has done a million times before. Not to mention, it's freakin' STAR WARS, everything in that universe is always broken down into light side dark side, if you find a writer that is really nuanced then MAYBE you get the "grey" option a la Jolee Bindo.
Now there are other things beyond what is in that article that I know is different from WoW. For one, you get your own customizable ship. If you are light side or dark side it looks totally different as well. Sure, WoW has griffons, but that isn't the same thing.
There's also space battles. I don't think I need to check my sources on this one . . . fairly certain WoW has no space battles. What I know I DON'T know is whether or not WoW has ridable mounts you can take into battle with you, we know TOR will have landspeaders (or at least space segways) that you can run people over with.
All of these differences are the ones we are aware of MONTHS before release. I don't even think they are in full beta yet. I'm sure there have been things announced that I'm not aware of that have been announced as well. This guy's article seems entirely suspicious. I would hate to think the developers of my beloved Starcraft II would stoop to the level of inciting someone to write something like this, but I wouldn't rule that out. At best it is incredibly sloppy and\or lazy work, something along the lines of noticing a few similarities and then ignoring the differences.
TOR is playing it safe, which is the second reason why I'm not as excited about it as GW2 (along with the fact that TOR still has monthly fees, unlike GW2). TOR still has static combat, exponential levelling, two-factions system, DPS/Healer/Tank, and quest giving-npcs (Yeah, thats a list of all the stuff GW2 is changing. Will it work? I hope so, and it does seem successful from the demos of the game they've let people play).
TOR does have far more flexible classes than WoW-clones, as a single class can be specialized to fill almost any given role. Unfortunately, those roles are still limited to Healer/Tank/DPS (Which might be better than each class being doomed to a single role, but the improvement is not that great).
I belie they're also getting rid of auto-attack (same with GW2), in favour of quickly recharging basic abilities, and a more colourful/powerful mix of abilities to support those more basic ones (once again, the GW2 and TOR developers seem to realize the same thing: People don't like to sit and watch healthbars, they want to watch cool effects going off on the screen).
But GW2 seems to be pushing the envelope far more by allowing any class to respec their abilities outside of combat to fit any role, and since everyone is forced to have at least one healing ability, and all classes can revive, there was no need for a dedicated healer class (but you can probably equip your character to be healer-centric if you wanted to). If it works (which it reportedly does, both from their own QA dep. and the demos), GW2 might be able to eliminate the presumption that the Healer/Tank/DPS thing is necessary for a working MMO. TOR isn't exactly helping this cause when they present us with: A single class can specialize into almost any given role, those roles are of course limited to Healer/DPS/Tank, and once you have made your choice you can't take it back (And we will still be stuck with people shouting "looking for healer" in towns/cities)
Also, Arenanet have been working hard on making GW2 "a grief-free zone", with shared kills and event participation (no quests, only dynamic events. And all who participate in killing a mob or completing an event get the exact same amount of XP, with no need to form a formal party, though possible if you want to). While TOR seems as ripe an are for griefers as WoW, or any other MMORPG out there.
TOR is, as I said, playing it safe. It roots itself in stuff that works, and then expands from that with some new and possibly innovative stuff. But I don't feel like it's enough, at least not when compared to how Arenanet basically took a giant list of "everything that bugs us about MMORPGs", and then set to work on how to make a working MMORPG while changing/removing all the stuff on the list.
BTW: WOW was a Lineage-clone, with little more than a "Warcraft" skin on it. It just happened to make the very best version of the type of games we now call "WoW-clones". But that doesn't mean there aren't other ways of making MMO's (Look at EVE online. It may not be my cup of tea, but it is definitely a very different type of MMO than WoW).
TOR does have far more flexible classes than WoW-clones, as a single class can be specialized to fill almost any given role. Unfortunately, those roles are still limited to Healer/Tank/DPS (Which might be better than each class being doomed to a single role, but the improvement is not that great).
I belie they're also getting rid of auto-attack (same with GW2), in favour of quickly recharging basic abilities, and a more colourful/powerful mix of abilities to support those more basic ones (once again, the GW2 and TOR developers seem to realize the same thing: People don't like to sit and watch healthbars, they want to watch cool effects going off on the screen).
But GW2 seems to be pushing the envelope far more by allowing any class to respec their abilities outside of combat to fit any role, and since everyone is forced to have at least one healing ability, and all classes can revive, there was no need for a dedicated healer class (but you can probably equip your character to be healer-centric if you wanted to). If it works (which it reportedly does, both from their own QA dep. and the demos), GW2 might be able to eliminate the presumption that the Healer/Tank/DPS thing is necessary for a working MMO. TOR isn't exactly helping this cause when they present us with: A single class can specialize into almost any given role, those roles are of course limited to Healer/DPS/Tank, and once you have made your choice you can't take it back (And we will still be stuck with people shouting "looking for healer" in towns/cities)
Also, Arenanet have been working hard on making GW2 "a grief-free zone", with shared kills and event participation (no quests, only dynamic events. And all who participate in killing a mob or completing an event get the exact same amount of XP, with no need to form a formal party, though possible if you want to). While TOR seems as ripe an are for griefers as WoW, or any other MMORPG out there.
TOR is, as I said, playing it safe. It roots itself in stuff that works, and then expands from that with some new and possibly innovative stuff. But I don't feel like it's enough, at least not when compared to how Arenanet basically took a giant list of "everything that bugs us about MMORPGs", and then set to work on how to make a working MMORPG while changing/removing all the stuff on the list.
BTW: WOW was a Lineage-clone, with little more than a "Warcraft" skin on it. It just happened to make the very best version of the type of games we now call "WoW-clones". But that doesn't mean there aren't other ways of making MMO's (Look at EVE online. It may not be my cup of tea, but it is definitely a very different type of MMO than WoW).
Can't really make that bold a statement till its at least in the final stages of beta, and from what it seems like so far, BioWare have been constantly chopping and changing TOR along its development cycle, so who knows what the final product will look like.
If it does however end up being a 'shiny WoW clone' then its not all that disastrous, that tried and tested formula with the Star Wars theme should be sure to make it a success nonetheless.
If it does however end up being a 'shiny WoW clone' then its not all that disastrous, that tried and tested formula with the Star Wars theme should be sure to make it a success nonetheless.
Exactly. How different can you get? It's like comparing a new Metroid Prime to CoD just because they're FPSs. The Old Republic graphics are vastly improved, and they've put a decent bioware and star wars spin on it. It's probably the first MMO that I've seen in ages that looks interesting. Really, I'd just say this chap is talking out of his arse, trying to sound intelligent by using an uninformed go-to argument on something big.Lacsapix said: