Wow. Just wow. You can't judge a game, let alone a MMORPG on what you have seen in pictures and videos! Even beta's don't come close! You have to play the actual, finished game to get any idea on how you like the game or not.
How SW:TOR is a major step BACKWARDS for MMOs
- Thread starter Dastardly
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No, I mentioned subscription fees. Because it is part of my personal complaint, and thus an important part of the discussion as I've framed it. And I'm not quoting you on the idea of continuously updated content, but rather the proponents of modern MMOs (whenever asked what it is that makes the games so expensive).Kanlic said:
Having a house that you can defend is a feature in several games, notably older MMOs. Ultima had homes, for instance. EQ II has it. SWG has it. It was a near-universal feature of MMOs at the beginning, because of the understanding of the ownership of virtual spaces as I've framed it earlier.
MMOs have a limited shelf-life, too. The fact remains that it is not necessary to have the massive farms of servers because, in these games, it is not NECESSARY to have the capability of millions of players to log on at once. At least not anymore. How would your gaming experience change if you could only access DOZENS of players at a time? Not much, since that's all you really interact with at a time.
These games could easily be set up so that the world-at-large is a client-side lobby in which characters move about individually while a matchmaking service groups them up with a handful of people SELECTED from thousands of players... and then that group is moved to an online arena in which the instance/dungeon/raid is played. Again, what would change about your gameplay? Not much. You wander around the world in "single-player" mode anyway until you find a handful of folks for "group content."
And without the subscription fee looming, there wouldn't need to be the same timesinks to ensure players don't grind to max level in a week. So there's no reason to worry about people hacking the client-side "lobby" in order to gain massive XP. None of this is all that different from the set-up of any of a number of online FPS games that have no subscription.
Getting a little defensive there, scooter. Just because I'm not crumbling under your waves of glorious logic isn't any reason to stick with the ad hominem tactics. My discussion centers around the ISSUE, while yours continually migrates to my intelligence and character. One of us is discussing the issue in a mature and civil manner, and one of us is riding the line of "cruising for moderation."
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. I was focusing on the issue the entire time, but you just want to focus on that little snide comment I made at the end. You still didn't address the whole subscription fee of the comment, so I am assuming you are trying to stealthily avoid that point I made. Either way, it seems that the only thing that sacrifices character freedom to you is the fact that you don't have an in-game home. I am tired of talking to you, so don't bother on responding, I don't like talking to trolls.dastardly said:
Your inability to grasp my previous explanation (that the elements which you claim REQUIRE a subscription are present in many games that do NOT have a subscription, and yet they remain successful) is not my problem. There are also several good articles online that explain the nature of healthy discussion, and the negative effect that ad hominem attacks have on that, if you care to investigate further.Kanlic said:
You'll likely find that you encounter far fewer "trolls" if you do... because the problem here isn't everyone else, it's yourself.