How SW:TOR is a major step BACKWARDS for MMOs

[Starke]

<snip because it get's unreadable after a while> (Probably because I'm more than a little fucked up on painkillers at the moment... They're not helping enough.)

Valid complaints are perfectly fine, as far as you complain about actual issues with the game itself. Complaining about a dream you had is pretty silly. We all have our own 'perfect games' in our imagination, but we also know none of those games will be released any time soon if ever.

So far as this goes, none of us have played it yet. Even the people who've played the demo at various trade shows have said (basically) that there wasn't enough of an experience to tell what to expect in the finished product. So no one (not bound by an NDA) at this point is really in a position to pass informed judgment.

If I recall correctly, I was refuting your claim that went something like "you don't have to play it". That's kind of accurate, but at the same time, for a fan, it is disappointing when a game veers off.

As far as roleplaying in videogames goes, i guess it depends what you consider roleplaying? I'll start since neither you nor OP actually bothered to explain this little detail. So for me, roleplaying is impossible within current videogames core and will remain so until we discover how to implement VR properly.

Yeah, that's a fair critisism. The term is loaded as fuck. So, here's my litmus test. Can you respond to a situation with a variety of tones independent of a moralistic approach. A game that lets you be snarky, condescending, friendly, consoling or evasive while helping someone would be more RPing than a game that lets you be lawful good stupid, neutral, or chaotic evil stupid.

Generally speaking you don't get this kind of content in MMOs at all. And I can't tell you if that's simply a failure on the part of the designers or if that's a product of the medium. Age of Conan's dialog got on my nerves to no end in spite of it being basically exactly what Bioware is talking about implementing.

I played MMOs since about UO times and RP was always based not on what your character could do within the game bounds but on those fancy lines of text you type yourself, either by using /me, :, or just by typing it in between the stars *like this*.
Even the BioWares NWN, which offered amazing possibilities for setting up near pen and paper campaigns depended mainly on typing the actions rather than performing them within the game mechanics.

If we use this as our litmus, we're basically screwed until we can consistently generate AIs that can pass a Turing test. And this kinda harkens back to my throw away line about MUDs.

I fail to see how lines of text being spoken in presumably realistic manner are immersion breaking, finally it will not be just nodding like a muppet at an NPC that spews out a book at you describing how his family got abused by big fat monsters. There will be semi-interactive dialogue between your character and the quest giver. If anything it actually adds to experience. You choose how the character reacts.
Sure it would be more awesome if you had unlimited voice over resource and ability to type in response by your own and then that being processed by the game engine into something that the NPC on the other side could understand, but we are far from that in terms of technology and i'll happily take a small improvement over none.

I'm more worried that it will be the above mentioned three pronged Bioware line of Lawful stupid, neutral, and chaotic asshole.

My biggest (and so far unvoiced) concern regarding voice-over in TOR isn't an immersion one, it's that it will hamper new content generation, and ultimately starve the game of new content.

When it comes to NPc companions, as far as i understand it works on the basic that there is a companion NPC for each of the classes, which means that there is Soldier NPC, Smuggler NPC, Consular NPC, etc. You can pick whatever you consider useful at given moment. Let's say you lack a healer for a group quest then you pick a consular NPC that will follow you and heal you, or whatever the crap they do. You need a tank you pick up the bulky Soldier NPC. If you ever played DDO you should have vague idea of how such system works.

See, this was my original impression as well. I'm going off the OP's perception, which if true would be a catastrophic decision in game design.

The indie MMOs i had in mind were Fallen Earth, Mortal Online, Darkfall. They all cater to more 'engaged' players, and all barely manage to keep floating on the surface without much hope for expanding their userbase. EVE is the only one that managed to find a niche for itself but it has to do a lot with how CCP directed the game. In it's core it's very simplistic contrary to the popular belief. Also when talking about death of a MMO i mean it stops being relevant to the scene. You can keep things going on life support, but apart from the most devout fans no one cares.

As for your final test, that can be really hard to identify. When does a game cross that threshold? Warhammer Online failed that test pretty quickly.

Indirectly you are bringing up a relevant issue for TOR though. The game will require a million active accounts to break even. Only three MMOs have achieved that so far. So the biggest concern should be, will this happen to TOR as well?

The market is free, you as customer make choices. You don't like what MMO A offers you go play MMO B or MMO C or just don't play any and go out have fun. Since i stopped playing WoW 2 years ago i haven't bothered with MMOs much because none interests me, it's that simple.

There's a counterargument here, that all your friends are playing MMO A WoW, so why would you go to another MMO where you don't have friends? In this sense the MMO market is much much more complex than most genres.

The market is very simple thing, it operates on basics of supply and demand.

In theory. In practice every economic thinker has learned that there are individual subtleties that make this concept much more complex in application. In the MMO market, the term to remember is "brand loyalty".

There apparently is very low demand for what many of so called 'hardcore' players want.

In general this is explicit in the term "hardcore". So, technically correct.

When you are a big company you want to make big money.

In general, it would be simpler to say, when you're a business you want to make money. It doesn't matter how big or small you are, you want money, and if you've got money, you want more.

Big money means having as broad target as possible so you pick the features that will appeal to majority of people, especially if they worked fine for you till now.

Sort of. You economics are fine right up to this sentence. But, here you've taken a misstep. So let's sort this out.

As a business you want to make money. To make money you need to spend it on development. When you spend money on development you expect a return, and if the developers want to something experimental that might not sell? Well, that's bad.

So we kind of get where you were going, but you've made the Bobby Kotick fallacy. That is to say, the only thing that will sell is what has sold before. In general game development this isn't a serious flaw. People ***** and moan about it, but MW2 still sells like hotcakes. In MMOs this is a fatal design flaw.

MMOs engender brand loyalty in a way that no other game genre even approaches. An MMO requires a massive investment of time and money, (~$15 a month, and often hundreds of hours of playtime (and in many cases a daily commitment of time to keep up to snuff.)) All of these ensure that when you are picking up an MMO, it is really more subject to comparative advantage than most games, even 40 - 100 hour RPGs.

Where I'm going is hardcore MMOs don't fail because there aren't enough players who would buy them. Rather MMOs (hardcore or not) tend to fail because huge chunks of their potential player base are already invested in WoW or EVE Online to the point where departing them to pick up a new game would represent a serious loss on their (time) investment.

I'll give you a simple example from the 'most popular' MMO on the market - WoW. At some point they realized that only about 5-10% of player base is 'hardcore' enough to get to the last tiers, and majority doesn't even finish the entry tier raid instances.
So they changed things, removed attunements, allowed buying epics for tokens that you can obtain through 5man content, added 10man mode to raid instances, eventually added LFG tool for raids that automatically teamed you with people and teleported to the instance. All this so more than just 5%-10% would see what the whole deal is about. They gladly risked the moaning of those 5% so that the remaining 90% would be grateful. See how it works?

Actually yes. However, the 5% that was "hardcore" enough to finish them in the first place could indicate a fundamental design failure on the part of Blizzard, with how to address and operate raids. The original design outline for WoW was to reduce "downtime" between "doing cool stuff" and "doing more cool stuff".

Initially the raids and epic rewards were supposed to reward those players who were the true elites of the game. In practice this got lost along the way and it became content that was exclusive to the hardcore.

Shifting it to be more accessible was an acknowledgment that creating content for 5% of the market just doesn't make sense. And even then, Blizzard apparently didn't notice until the Wrath of the Lich King sales figures started trickling in.

None of this addresses the issue of MMOs that aren't WoW, however.

 

[Quad08]

Meh, I'm going to try the game out regardless. Heck, I'll probably have fun with it too

And isn't that what really matters?

It's not about that at all. Dastardly is pointing out what he believes are faults or hinders in what so many praise as perfect, and he makes good points because it's not the game I'm looking for it seems. I'll have to wait and do my own research before deciding.

I really think you misunderstand what I'm saying here, and I'll try to be more clear.

I read the opening post. I acknowledge that user does not like the way that The Old Republic is headed. And I really don't care. I'm going to purchase it and probably have fun playing it.

If TOR doesn't look like your kind of game, I have no issue with that because isn't having fun with the games you buy the most important thing? If you're not going to have fun playing TOR, then don't buy it, or like you said, do a little research into it. Maybe it'll surprise you

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

snip

Come on, Starke. Keep to the current argument. If you really feel like going on another Bioware rant, make another thread. Even you would admit that this guy's points are more than a little shaky, so why go on a tangent when the source material is short on any credibility?

 

[Starke]

snip

Come on, Starke. Keep to the current argument. If you really feel like going on another Bioware rant, make another thread. Even you would admit that this guy's points are more than a little shaky, so why go on a tangent when the source material is short on any credibility?

Short Answer: I didn't realize standing was necessary for posting on these boards.
Long Answer: First; because I'm fucked up on legally prescribed barbiturates, probably not legally competent to operate heavy machinery, and still sick as shit. It's not that I have nothing better to do, it's that I quite literally have nothing else to do at the moment.

Second; because while the original argument is flawed, there are some legitimate points being raised by it... badly. And even in my currently impaired state, I believe I can contribute to the discussion in a more constructive way.

 

[Starke]

I say give it a chance. No one here has likely played it yet, and even if people have, you can't completely trust what others say since everyone's different. I recently gave a MMO a try and now I'm in love with it. Anythings possible. ^-^

Out of curiosity, which one?

 

[Starke]

(For TL;DR, skip to the bolded section)

.

As perhaps the reigning king of TLR on "The Escapist" I read all of that and will respond. I just hope I remember it all.

I'm going after one piece of your post, I'll try to remember to get to the rest of it later.

Simply put, the technology does not exist for a game to spontaneously generate unique epic content for millions of players at the same time, it would be nice of course, but it's simply not possible to do.

I'm not sure the technology doesn't exist so much as the methods to apply the tech don't exist. Generally speaking, you'd only need to procedurally generate for a thousand or two at a time, not millions. Ignoring that only three MMOs have over a million subscribers, it would be quite easy to shard this down to about a thousand players per instance. If they're all operating in the same game environment, then that's more manageable. Still pretty terrifying in all its prospects, but manageable.

That said, the original design documents for Far Cry 2 defined it as an emergent sandbox from start to finish. That isn't what we got, but I wonder how much of that was dictated by technical limitations, and how much was time constraints.

Indeed I'll also argue that in most PnP RPGs you don't see that either as most GMs plan out adventures beforehand and the players have a lot of freedom, but still act within the contraints of the scenario.

This is actually a very good point. I've run 3 separate P&P campaigns over the years. Only one of them was a true sandbox, the other pair were disguised railroads, and yet, I tend to forget this. For players who've never run a campaign I kind of wonder if they realize that most of their campaigns are as scripted as they are.

Some GMs ad-lib everything all the time, but that's far from being the norm. Indeed you'll notice a lot of Adventure modules out there, and they are a mainstay of a lot of the gaming that takes place, and to be frank while there might be some differances in the specifics and how certain thigns are done or in what order, one group's adventure through say "Desert Of Desolation" is going to cover much the same ground as another. Oh sure one group might have had a clever idea that eluded most others, or another group might fail some rolls and get massively sidetracked due to traps, another might negotiate with the dervishes, while others might say "Your god is dead, we've come to loot your vault!" and just kill everyone in the place. It's stil fundementally the same adventure though.

I think I inserted the break too early. That said, I still have an open question. To players, who've never run a game, can you really tell when a competent GM is railroading you versus a true sandbox.

Now, that said, it becomes much more apparent in a computer RPG when you can replay the experience multiple times and determine exactly how much of this is scripted vs. emergent.

While MMOs by their nature can't give the same range of options or be anywhere near as reactive as a real GM, they do a passable job given their limitations. This is also incidently why I think MMOs will never entirely replace PnP RPGs (at least until someone develops much better VR technology, or AI GMs who spontaneously generate content as needed). They have reduced the market as you've probably seen, but like many other things that have cut back on PnP RPGs they haven't actually killed it.

The irony is we have seen some pretty interesting pieces to the puzzle for this. STALKER's alife and Oblivion's (homicidal) Radiance AI for instance, have both been attempts to create autonomous (and frequently suicidal) NPCs. I have hope we'll get there, and I don't think we're that far off of it, honestly.

As far as the other aspects of the game goes, I do tend to think that the reveals on the space elements, and the NPC companions were a big let down.

With the Space elements I can sort of understand since to have dynamic play in space would basically involve desigining a whole sperate game. Sort of like stacking Anarchy Online and EVE on top of each other or whatever. That's cool, and I'd like to see someone do that, but we're basically talking about them developing two entirely differant, but linked MMOs. The time, development, and manpower would be huge, especially if they are only charging a fee for it being one game. There are practical concerns here, and I can appreciate them.

Except, you mentioned Star Trek Online in the next paragraph, which does exactly this. The space and ground sequences are both a little skeletal, but the game balances both aspects of gameplay, which makes the space reveal even more bizarrely limited.

such are my thoughts.

I hope I didn't shit on them.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

snip

Come on, Starke. Keep to the current argument. If you really feel like going on another Bioware rant, make another thread. Even you would admit that this guy's points are more than a little shaky, so why go on a tangent when the source material is short on any credibility?

Short Answer: I didn't realize standing was necessary for posting on these boards.
Long Answer: First; because I'm fucked up on legally prescribed barbiturates, probably not legally competent to operate heavy machinery, and still sick as shit. It's not that I have nothing better to do, it's that I quite literally have nothing else to do at the moment.

Second; because while the original argument is flawed, there are some legitimate points being raised by it... badly. And even in my currently impaired state, I believe I can contribute to the discussion in a more constructive way.

Eh, there have been worse excuses to rage on a gaming company, I suppose.

The merit in his accusations is lost on the fact that it's less of a genuine concern of gameplay decisions regarding the MMO and more about the fact that he's just ranting on Bioware games in general. This is obvious simply by the fact that his points on why the game is going to be bad comes down to Bioware's fan-pleasing formula.

Bioware made another Bioware game? Holy shit! Someone give this man a mockingly-metaphorical medal!

I dunno, I guess I don't really see much discussion value in this thread beyond yet another bash session, which nobody really wants.

 

[Starke]

I'm glad Bioware is taking SWTOR away from the usual MMO formula. SWG is horrible, WOW is horrible, Age of Conan is horrible. Why so many horrible MMO's? Because strip them down to their core and they're all the same game.

Actually you've just described three very different games. SWG is a completely open sandbox. WoW is a sandbox with a heavy action focus, and Age of Conan (in my experience) is mostly instanced questing. The only thing your missing from the list is completely instanced questing like Guild Wars. But, by the same measure, NWN and DAO are the same game.

At least we all know Bioware puts dedication into all their games by creating an epic storyline, setting, and creates lovable characters.

Which is why so many people want to fuckin' space Jack.

When was the last time a Bioware game failed?

Depends on your definition. Mass Effect 2 and DAO are pretty clearly narrative failures. Warhammer Online is a commercial failure.

When was the last time the community bitched to no end because they were completely detached?

NWN. Dragon Age Origin. Mass Effect 2.

Alternatly, by "detached" you could mean KOTOR 2 and NWN2, where forumites screamed at Bioware...

Yeah thats right, NEVER.

Funny definition of NEVER.

Bioware listens to the community and is constantly engaged. They are the ONE and ONLY developer that has YET to EVER disappoint me, and I guarantee millions can say the same.

Because as we all know millions of people can't be wrong. That's why WOW is the best MMO ever... wait... no... that's not right...

I swear if anyone uses the "Well Bioware has never made an MMO before" I will smack you.

Because EA in all its wisdom saw that they needed to protect themselves from this criticism and gave them Mythic. Bioware Mythic has released an MMO. Warhammer Online.

Plenty of game developers that have made more than one MMO and each one turned out like crap. I'm looking at you Funcom, and you SOE.

And plenty of Developers have released top notch MMOs that pulled in two million players (what TOR needs to be financially successful) on their first attempt to make an MMO: Blizzard. And no major publishing house has ever fielded an MMO that crashed and burned out of the gate.

I rest my case.

Move to strike.

 

[Swny Nerdgasm]

Really dude if you are getting your panties in such a twist over the lack of freedom in a computer game just go and play a pen and paper rpg, they will always have more freedom.

 

[Starke]

snip

Come on, Starke. Keep to the current argument. If you really feel like going on another Bioware rant, make another thread. Even you would admit that this guy's points are more than a little shaky, so why go on a tangent when the source material is short on any credibility?

Short Answer: I didn't realize standing was necessary for posting on these boards.
Long Answer: First; because I'm fucked up on legally prescribed barbiturates, probably not legally competent to operate heavy machinery, and still sick as shit. It's not that I have nothing better to do, it's that I quite literally have nothing else to do at the moment.

Second; because while the original argument is flawed, there are some legitimate points being raised by it... badly. And even in my currently impaired state, I believe I can contribute to the discussion in a more constructive way.

Eh, there have been worse excuses to rage on a gaming company, I suppose.

To be fair to you, Bioware as an entity isn't really the subject of my ire. The writers at Bioware and their publicity people get on my nerves as do fanboys who parrot off the publicists positions.

Every time someone posts blurbling platitudes about how Bioware is the best video game developer since sliced bread I want to vomit.

The merit in his accusations is lost on the fact that it's less of a genuine concern of gameplay decisions regarding the MMO and more about the fact that he's just ranting on Bioware games in general. This is obvious simply by the fact that his points on why the game is going to be bad comes down to Bioware's fan-pleasing formula.

I'm not even sure the original post was about that. I think it had more to do with the fact that it's an ARPG and not a wide open sandbox.

Bioware made another Bioware game? Holy shit! Someone give this man a mockingly-metaphorical medal!

I'll alert the media.

The Horror, the horror.

I dunno, I guess I don't really see much discussion value in this thread beyond yet another bash session, which nobody really wants.

There's potential debate on the economics of games, and how one can generate RPGs. The potential merits or flaws of MMOs in general. Will it all end up being "Bioware sucks"? Yeah, probably. But there is potential.

 

[TurtleBay]

I do see the original posters point about unique characters, and it has nothing to do with the storyline. In a lot of MMOs or even multiplayer RPGs you have this effect where there are X different character classes, Y different jobs/skills to level and Z different possible sets of gear. In this outline you end up with X time Y times Z different unique characters so you often come across combinations that are new and interesting.

In Bioware games there tends to be X classes but very few options on the gear (the gear choices are too similar) or the skills (most of them you can get almost all the skills on one character) or the professions (Bioware usually doesn't implement anything like this). So the risk may be that every level 60 Jedi will play exactly like every other level 60 Jedi. This differs from WoW in that a level 60 Paladin with enchanting profession and a two-handed axe will feel unique from a level 60 Paladin with blacksmithing professions and a sword with shield. With the WoW model the numbers of combinations is simply huge.

That being said, it is unfair to assume that aspects we don't like in older Bioware games will carry over into this game. Basically, the jury is still out.

 

[luckshot]

another aspect to consider when advertising about any game is hype overload. hype too much too early and people might get sick of hearing about it, which can lead to low sales on release. I hope that bioware wont reach this point.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I have a number of problems with the argument I have been presented and I shall address each of them in turn.

The foundation of "role playing" has been (and will always be) taking ownership of a tiny piece of a virual world--whether it was on paper, tabletop, or a computer screen. The developer/GM/etc presents you a world, usually built on a familiar IP, and you create a character that will be your eyes and hands in this world. Already, you OWN a piece of the game world, as your "you" is now a part of it.

Here I am presented with an argument of definition where it is asserted as fact that, if I partake in a role playing game, I do so because I want to take ownership of some part of it. The trouble is, this position is shaky at best. Much of my interest in RPGs of the traditional sort (i.e. pen and paper) is relegated to understanding and indeed exploiting the systems in play. This, very generally, extends into the CRPG interpretation of the same game. I don't care in the slightest why my Rogue went on a quest to slay the Shadow King, but I did like building an effective avatar. Is such a thing "ownership"? I'd think you'd be hard pressed to call it that. What's more, my "ownership" if one chooses to call it that is, often, limited at best. I can choose what my character says, or what they wear, or how they respond to a situation but the game itself still keeps me on the rails. Some especially elaborate games let you jump the narrative track a few times of course.

The problem, really, is that my ownership of my character is always contested by others. Be it other players, a dungeon master, the inherent operation of the underlying systems and sudden changes thereof. Take the game you mention more than once, SWG and consider for a moment the sudden change that allowed anyone to roll a Jedi. If I had a Jedi before this moment, suddenly his place in the world is upset on a whim. Any ownership I might have felt would certainly wane in the face of such a thing. The bottom line is, when so many different things have a direct impact upon the object that I own, how can I possibly say that I own it in the first place?

MMORPGs were the logical outgrowth of roleplaying + technology. They allowed the characters you created to step into a much larger and more populated world. The particularly good games even allowed you to leave a footprint in that virtual world (in the form of player housing). For all intents and purposes, your character, your house, your "class" or "profession," were all about YOUR choices and YOUR story.

Most of the popular MMO's on the market actually find their roots in the MUDs and MOOs of days long past. Some games allow players to have a real and notable impact on the world at large (Eve Online comes to mind) but in most places, you'd find the world would carry on even if a major guild left the server. The reason is simple enough: you might have lots of people on a server but they actually interact at significantly more limited level. The Auction House is, very generally, an interaction between two players. A raid involves a few dozen players. Quest zones are often solo affairs played in the presence of others. In the most literal sense, if a hundred veteran wow players suddenly quit the game, yes there would be an impact of sorts. Instead of "JimmyBillShaman" casting that magic enchantment you desperately want "BillyJimShaman" does it instead.

So, why is this precisely? Because most MMOs have systems in place that limit a player's ability to actually impact the game world. Groups get their private versions of raids so they don't have to wait around for something to spawn. Resources choke the landscape and respawn quickly. Any pretensions of ownership of anything save what your character is carrying or wearing is a delusion.

There are games where this is not exactly true and again, Eve Online is the one I am most familiar with. Because many of the limitations on what I can do are removed, suddenly a player can have a very real impact on the world at large. That is to say, groups of players can have an impact. Because death has a penalty, because you can freely engage in combat without the game wagging a finger (it may, in some cases, reward you with a sudden exposure to vacuum) players can actually control entire portions of space. Because resources are quite difficult to gather on a significant scale, such control lends enormous power over the market which itself has an immeasurable impact on how the game plays. When T2 gear was first introduced for example, it was fantastically expensive and as such most people opted not to carry it into battle with other players. Later, the actions of players drove the prices down to the point that T2 became the absolute standard gear for any vessel in combat.

Single-player RPGs evolved (or de-volved) long ago into more of a character "rental" than creation. Your job is to take an extant character through a strictly laid-out story. It's much more playing with action figures than being an action hero. You don't really own anything in the story.

Here is where I think I really start having problems with your argument. Sure a quibble over definition is fairly meaningless all things considered but here it becomes all too important. If I "own" a character then I might consider myself a master of it's destiny. In MOST MMO's, that destiny is all but set in stone. If I start the game as a rogue, I will forever be stuck as a rogue. I will progress through the levels in a linear fashion. I will kill countless monsters on my way to the top. When I reach the max level by climibing upon a mountain of corpses, I will simply do the same thing with large numbers of people. This is true of MOST MMOs.

Sure, Star Wars Galaxy (apparantly - i've never played it but it did always interest me) and Eve Online offer more freedom but they do so by more or less excising the story. Sure, Eve had a story arc and whatnot, but the real story was the one I participated in with other members of my various corporations.

In my view then, ownership as you define it is not even close to the standard for an MMO but rather a rare exception to what you describe as rental. Since your thesis is that "SW:TOR is a step BACKWARDS for MMOs", I'd say you've worked yourself into a corner. If I believe the garbage I've been told, it moves forward in terms of telling a coherent narrative but (potentially) backwards in terms of character and narrative agency (and even that is easily debatable depending upon what sort of interaction I can have with others in the game). Rather than go through the various listed features, I can say that it would seem that, on the balance, the game does not appear to be a step forward or backwards so much as it is a step to the side.

So, single-player RPGs were a combination of early roleplaying ideas (improving your character over time, specialization of characters, etc) and standard single-player action games. I'd argue, in fact, that that's what they are--action games, no more "roleplaying" than Mario.

This makes little sense with regards to the rest of your argument. You attempt to broadly define "roleplaying" yet again and do an incredibly messy job. Role Playing implies that I have either some control over the narrative, or some level of character agency. Depending upon who you ask, the precise ratio between the two (and indeed what even constitutes either)
will vary enormously. In order to have complete narrative agency for example, a game must be devoid of structured narrative and simply give a reactive setting. In order to have complete character agency, I must be able to accomplish anything within reasonable bounds of the laws of the universe. For example, when faced with a locked door that I need to open, I ought to be able to 1) Unlock the door with a key I found 2) Pick the lock with tools 3) Pry the door open 4) Kick the door open 5) Blow up the door 6) Find an alternate route to the same room. Most of the time, even for a simple task like the one I presented, you'll face an arbitrary limitation on what you can do.

This could go on for quite some time but very generally speaking you assert that a proper RPG must meet a very precise interpretation of narrative and character agency. Such a position is folly as your argument of definition has no ultimate arbiter of truth. Without enormous support, your perspective on what defines an RPG has no more merit than someone who believes Final Fantasy 13 is the ultimate example of roleplaying.

MMOs were, in a sense, the opposite. They took elements of video games (graphical avatars, internet connectivity, etc) and combined them with the best elements of tabletop games: character creation, self-determination, and freedom. The game had a framework in which to operate, but it also presented you the tools to make your OWN story.

And, as I have already pointed out, there are still plenty of limitations on what you can do. For example, I can do quite a lot of stuff in Eve but I cannot decide to quit flying and become a bartender in Jita. The cage is still there even in the best cases, it's just that you're given a bit more room to roam.

First and foremost, TOR is going with the same old class system as every other game. It boils down to DPS, tank, healer, support. Just with Star Wars flavoring. And within each class, two separate (talent) trees. Nothing new there. And that's where the bad news gets worse. As more details come to light, we have learned the following "features" are little more than roadblocks to the freedom MMOs once promised:

I don't want to point this out really but your argument here directly contradicts the one posted just above it. As I have already commented extensively upon this exact point, I will not do so again here.

1) "The game will be story-driven, and your choices will affect your destiny!" - Great, so that means each situation will boil down to one of three choices (aggressive, defensive, or passive, basically). You can either be a dick, a saint, or a gray blob in the middle. But what's more, it means your character is not YOUR character. It is one of a select handful of pre-made characters that you will rent. And when in these games has it ever really been the BEST idea to "mix and match," rather than go all one way or the other? SACRIFICES CHARACTER FREEDOM.

Adding a structure to a narrative inherently limits the freedom of a character in any medium. A normal book will play out the same way no matter how many times I read it. Ditto for a movie. A choose your own adventure book might offer several distinct endings and a few different paths to the end but you still work under significant limits.

The problem, when it comes to games, (at least in my view), is one of Artificial Intelligence. Simply put, we have neither the technology nor the resources to spare to create an autonomous storytelling engine, which is more or less what you'd need to allow near complete player freedom along with a semblance of structure. It should be noted that, what I mean by autonomous storytelling engine is that you would simply have a system that would play the equivalent role of DM in your game. Without such a system, only the scenarios a developer could forsee and had the time and resources to manage can possibly be included if you want a coherent narrative.

There is always the option of simply discarding the idea of a narrative altogether and simply give the player a setting in which they can act. Such a thing is common of the various Roguelikes and a few other types of games but the trouble is that because the story is being experienced, it is likely it will have little impact. Should I care about dwarf 154447 in Dwarf Fort when he made an epic stand against some nefarious set of monsters? Probably not as there is no longer anything to latch on to. Dwarf 154447 is nothing more than an object that does (more or less) my bidding.

2) "The game will be fully voice-acted." - So you can't even decide what your character says or how he/she says it. The game will be giving you a script and voice. And, due to the expense of such projects, expect the selection of voices (if there are any) to be extremely limited. It might be that your character gets no voice at all (silent protagonist syndrome) which, to me, is better than being forced into a pre-made voice. SACRIFICES CHARACTER FREEDOM.

In most CRPGs (single player or otherwise) you have one of two systems in place: Either you have no notable response beyond accept or decline or you are given a very limited set of responses. Thus it is difficult to see something as a step backwards when no game has managed to surpass the inherent limitation of the Finite State Machine.

3) "You can choose from one of these iconic professions!" - So all smugglers will be expected to behave in X way with personality Y, because that's how Han did it. All Bounty Hunters will be X, Y, and Z, because that's how Fett did it. This is exactly what the NGE did to RUIN SWG. SACRIFICES CHARACTER FREEDOM.

There is some merit to be had here but again, you do not demonstrate that this is a step backwards. It seems that you have simply demonstrated that, in this aspect, it is not moving forward.

Any ONE of these could put a game on shaky ground... but to do all of them at once? This puts SW:TOR firmly in the realm of an action/adventure game that happens to have online co-op. It's not an MMORPG. It's just a big single-player rent-a-character game for which they'll be expected a subscription fee. BioWare has a lot of strengths. It is unfortunately bringing all of the wrong strengths to this MMO.

I just chopped the last several points because they more or less said the same exact thing. But, in the end, you didn't really make a compelling case for why your definition of an RPG is correct which undermined much of your early argument. Details you added later did not demonstrate that SW:TOR represents a backward step as you simply demonstrated that, in several areas, it was doing the same thing other games are doing.

And, to be fair, I think I now want to play SWG just to see how it plays out. I've never had any luck with ANY MMO backed by Sony but you at least made a compelling case for another game. It may not be the point you wanted to make but kudos nonetheless.

 

[Therumancer]

such are my thoughts.

I hope I didn't shit on them.

You didn't until that last comment. I fail to see what the problem is with Escapist users and common courtasy nowadays. For the last few weeks it's just gotten ridiculous. Not you paticularly, in general.

At any rate, despite that I think you both greatly overestimate what technology is capable of, and also that every sandbox has borders, how broad we can make those borders is limited by what we actually have.

In an MMO, those quest lines including the NPCs and animations and such that go along with them, especially involved ones like the whole "Wrath Gate" quest line in WoW, or the recent failed attempt to retake Gnomeregan quest line involve a lot of scripting, art elements, and other things that require a human component to create, test, and run. The abillity of a game to develop things on that level, even for a few thousand players, spontaneously and without duplication is well beyond what our technology can do. That will probably not always be the case, but it is now.

As far as Star Trek Online goes, the game is not "a bit skeletal" it's a complete mess. I played the game in beta, and returned a few months after launch to see how it was shaping up. The problem being that they tried to do two diverse things within a single MMO with only the budget to do one of them well. It sort of demonstrates how you need to develop what amounts to two seperate MMOs to achieve that effect.

Now, I suppose Old Republic could in theory have done that, but it's already one of the most expensive game projects ever undertaken, and the largest in Bioware's history. Time, money, and resources are an issue, as is what the market is going to be willing to pay. Like it or not, I do not think many people would pay two or three times the current going rate for access to an MMORPG either, and that's what it would take to justify the even larger budget needed for development. You might pay it, but as it is now there are people who blanch at paying $15 a month. While not a whole lot of money, $15 is still a noticible cost, especially with a bad economy (which believe it or not, does influance how much people are going to throw into projects, and how liable they are to take risks).

 

[Nazulu]

Meh, I'm going to try the game out regardless. Heck, I'll probably have fun with it too

And isn't that what really matters?

It's not about that at all. Dastardly is pointing out what he believes are faults or hinders in what so many praise as perfect, and he makes good points because it's not the game I'm looking for it seems. I'll have to wait and do my own research before deciding.

I really think you misunderstand what I'm saying here, and I'll try to be more clear.

I read the opening post. I acknowledge that user does not like the way that The Old Republic is headed. And I really don't care. I'm going to purchase it and probably have fun playing it.

If TOR doesn't look like your kind of game, I have no issue with that because isn't having fun with the games you buy the most important thing? If you're not going to have fun playing TOR, then don't buy it, or like you said, do a little research into it. Maybe it'll surprise you

What I'm trying to say is this thread is about Dasterdly's points, agree of disagree?

I got the feeling you just come into argument threads just to say nothing but "I'm going to get the game anyway", with out adding anything useful or interesting. You put as much into your post as someone that says "well, that's just your opinion".

 

[the sighing shoe]

Not touching some of them cause A i dont remember them and im tired or b they are already pretty destabilized by others criticisms

At your argument that no one mixes and matches there choices, I can give you a list of at least 50. I know that is not even a blip on the little demographic pie chart but still. Some people do seriously consider the options that are handed to them and do in a kinda "What would i do in this moment if i where " moment. And bioware may not give the best options on what you can choose to do but hell some choice is better then none. As good of writers as they are they cant think of every possible thing any person would say and come up with a story driving response for it. If you can find someone who can by all means swoop in and steal the subscriptions for yourself.

At your star ship rant its just there all missions that involve it are optional, In fact when playing the beta there was a little switch that you could turn the travel sequences on or off at will (i kept them on cause well i actually enjoyed starfox) If you dont like it dont use it, if you want it but with more freedom go play galaxy's you can fly around all you want (though i must admit that is what i loved about galaxy's)

Companion characters: Well ok you got me you only have so many people you can choose from, but you make it sound like each class gets only one to choose from. Thats simply not true each class gets (as far as i played into it) 2 possible char's i know its not much more but heck i have barely explored the first planet. Two party members for roughly 3 hours of actual game time most of that being spent trying to break the game like a good beta tester should i think thats pretty good. Even if i cant name them oh well no one is making me use them i can simply call up my friends that also play and tag along with them having fun (though i had to make new one cause none of my actual friends got a beta key and that kinda sucked) But thats what joining guilds are for. You get involved in a player based community and you "meet" like-minded people who want to play the game for the same reasons you do.

The only problem i can see coming from it is what are they going to do after you finish the storyline... I think at that point its prolly just gonna be another WoW clone where you do raids and try and get the best stuff bla bla bla...