Unskippable: Star Wars The Old Republic

Mikodite

New member
Dec 8, 2010
211
0
0
Grand_Marquis said:
[EDIT] and the reply above mine is so incredibly right, Mikodite should start consulting for MMO developers. Seriously, the amount of naivete I see in MMO developers regarding their user base and their willingness to sit through Lore dumps is flat out depressing. No, MMO developer, spending millions of dollars on awesome cutscenes will not make your game any different or more special than any other MMO. Regardless of how cool the characters are or how well directed the scene is. All MMO players want to do is level up, they don't care. Please get over it.
I wouldn't go that far, I mean James Portnow I'm not. Though as an aspiring game developer with an interest in writing that has played MMOs in the past, it does break my heart that many of these games have a background-story section on their websites. Some soul had to take the time (and possibly get paid) to write that shit up only for it to go ignored. It also doesn't help that someone went into all the trouble to write up an overarching storyline about how the ***** Queen or whatever needs to be destroyed going unnoticed because, lets face it, who reads the flavour text that goes with your quests?

drosalion said:
Mikodite said:
drosalion said:
Mikodite said:
drosalion said:
Mikodite said:
OK, so the storyline is about these people, a Jedi, a trooper, and a smuggler, who...

DO YOU CARE? ITS AN MMO! WHO BOTHERS WITH THE 'PLOTLINE' IN AN MMO?
Thats kinda the whole point of this game.. bioware want to change the way people think about MMOs by bringing story to it.

Why shouldnt you be able to care about those things purely caus of the genre of the game?
Have you noticed that every MMORPG has some backstory or plot running in the background? It's sad, really, someone had to write all that only for the average player to ignore it, as knowledge of the backstory has no effect on the game whatsoever.

Unless the 'plotline' isn't simply flavour text to go with your fetch quest, Bioware is wasting their time.
Yeh.. and bioware are trying to change that, by delivering the story not via a textbox but by cinematic cutscenes, and giving you actual choices that can change things in the game quite dramatically as opposed to just the choice of 'doing' or 'not doing' the quest.

Quite simply - they're bringing the RPG back into the MMORPG, and frankly i cant wait for my mmo to actually start having some meaning and purpose. I just cant really see why people seem to be so against a genuine attempt to remove grind and increase immersion by giving all the things you do in an mmo purpose.. its like people WANT their mmo to be a dull borefest? But each to their own i guess.
You have no idea how badly I want you to be right.

The shit with the cutscenes and the dialogue choices sounds awesome on paper... then you realize that its not a single-player rpg, and you will have too many players skipping the cutscenes and mashing through the dialogue shit to get to the quest for they just want to get their numbers higher than all the numbers in the land and own everyone. I remember Guild Wars had cutscenes in it... and I remember most players opting to skip them.

You want the plotline to matter to the average player? Make the bloody thing player-generated. Have us celebrate the victory of Ray_the_Jedi who lead his squadmates to slaughter some Sith scum! Or how Nibi-Tibi has taken over Coresaunt and his first priority is to legalize death-sticks. Fuck, I would totally go down for taking on Lord_Boner of the Sith if it meant peaces in the galaxy for a few months in server.

Are they planning to do that? Planning politic systems where a player could run for senate, or be the hutt? Territory control between 'factions' that amount to whether the innocent get slaughtered or not, which changes the game world depending on who won? Will I see player names in the game's canon?

Someone accused me of not doing my homework. Tell me, are they doing that?
People enjoy it in a single player RPG, they can learn to enjoy it in a multiplayer MMO. We simply have no way of knowing whether or not it will be successful and we're scared of it because its something completely foreign to what we're used to. They sound awesome on paper because they have great potential to be awesome, and im not saying they definitely will work or it wont be a massive flop but theres no reason it cant work - we just need to give it a chance instead of outright dismissing it before the game is even released.

As for ur suggestions regarding a more sandboxey game, im sure they would appeal to some people but for me they sound completely uninteresting and i personally wouldnt enjoy them (regarding your specific examples, no, they're not doing those things). I do however enjoy a great bioware RPG and there are millions of other people who would agree with me as shown by the success of KOTOR, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, and all of their earlier games. A bioware RPG that i can play with thousands of other people in a persistant MMO world? Where do i put my credit card details..

I'm not saying TOR will be the best game ever, nor that it wont be awful, but we should atleast give it a chance. Saying it will fail when we have no basis for it or any previous game to compare it to is just stupid and childish (the 'cinematic cutscenes' in guild wars were absolutely nothing like what is in TOR, and yes ive played it). I'm HOPING for the best for TOR, because I think you and I would both agree that if it DOES work it will be amazing (you said on paper it sounds great, and theres a reason for that). Whether or not it WILL work neither of us can say right now with any more certainty beyond an outright guess.
The big problem I have with your logic is your saying that mechanics that work fine for a choose-you-own adventure book will work in a pen-n-paper campaign. At heart, that is the real difference between a Bioware RPG like Mass Effect and something like World of Warcraft.

An overarcing storyline with pretty cutscenes and choices in how you interact with an NPC sounds like an awesome idea, really. It works for WRPGs, where your choices have an effect on the game world and that, but this only works in a single player game. In a multiplayer game, for starters, the story and choices are the same... for every god dam player, and many players are smart enough to figure out that while their individual choices affect their character's path through this overarching storyline, it affects jack shit about the game world as everyone else is given the same tree to follow. At best, it just affects their build.

I also guarantee you that we aren't going to bother caring about what the NPCs think of us. I've seen games use faction systems regarding NPC groups, but this only works in a single player game as NPC input matter exponentially more than in a multiplayer game where we are more worried about what other players think of us (as in many circumstances we need PCs to help us on Quests in an MMO, whereas in a single player game we get NPCs to help us.)

That's why I mentioned the sandbox system. I mean, to relate to a past example of the choose-you-own adventure book versus the pen-paper roleplay. The former its just you and the author, deciding what path to take in their book and hoping its a result you want. The latter involves multiple people being directed by a GM of sorts. The design philosophy must change to accommodate each setting.

Now, I want to see the RPG get put back into the MMORPG as badly as the next person (I miss Anathema Online for that reason) however, this is not the solution. I mean, I don't want to pay $5-$20 a month in subscription fees and waste bandwidth connecting to a server to play a single player game. So really, either a player-driven storyline or just admit that the game is a meat-grinder like any other MMORPG... as this is the case with pnp campaigns.

If you really want to see Bioware RPG mechanics, which work fine for Mass Effect and Dragon Age, in an MMORPG I dare to ask if you really want to be playing with other people. Cuz unless I'm missing something their a waste of time.

Course, this is at the end of the day my humble opinion. It might turn out that there was more to it than that and I would owe you an apology. Or I turn out to be right and I end up screaming "I called it!" Sadly, we would have to wait and see.
 

therealjeffa

New member
Nov 15, 2010
8
0
0
Super nerd question: What's the first symbol on the door at 2:16? I don't see it in the normal Aurebesh alphabet.
 

Grand_Marquis

New member
Feb 9, 2009
137
0
0
Okay maybe I was being a teeeny bit hyperbolic :p But still, the sad truth remains that *we* as observers can see the root of this problem while these MMO developers continue to flail about with an inadequate understanding of the genre's flaws.

Mikodite said:
Course, this is at the end of the day my humble opinion. It might turn out that there was more to it than that and I would owe you an apology. Or I turn out to be right and I end up screaming "I called it!" Sadly, we would have to wait and see.
Of course that's a great side to bet on. If you win, you get the satisfaction of being right. And if you lose, you win, because we finally have a non-boring MMO.

What drosalion is missing here isn't that MMO stories suck and should be ignored by players, or that no MMO story should ever be bothered with by developers because the players who read them are an underrepresented minority. That's not what's being said here. What's being said is that current MMO stories are all written with - perhaps subconsciously - a single player game in mind. Current day MMOs, if we want to really be honest with ourselves, should be called Massively Singleplayer Online games. They're spaces where everyone plays a single player game together, sometimes even at the same time, while the REAL game is actually the metagame of players trying to one-up eachother's stats, gear, trinkets, play style, or guild cred. And from that perspective, Bioware's latest experiment in the genre is not a solution at all. There's still a narrative disconnect between the motivations of the players and the driving goals of the storyline. It might be a cool mechanic, but it's not going to fix any of the problems with these MPOs, because at the end of the day it's still an MPO; not an MMO.
 

Headbiter

New member
Nov 9, 2009
98
0
0
And all I'm hearing is that one quote from Plinkett's Star Wars-reviews:

Lightsaber, Lightsabers, more lightsaber, lightsabers, lightsabers...


Enough with the fucking lightsabers!
 

John Funk

U.N. Owen Was Him?
Dec 20, 2005
20,364
0
0
Sofus said:
I don't understand why people are complaining. The cinematic is awesome, and far better than what we have seen in any other mmo as of yet. Yes Blizzard did a few, but they were honestly not all that great.

But yeah... lets all complain about both getting quality and quantity, we should (according to some people here) demand that every mmo ends up as star trek online... repetetive, boring, underdeveloped text based waste of time.

If BioWare manages to make this an interesting mmo, even giants such as Blizzard will be forced to add voiceovers in future mmo's.
And that would be a disaster. Do you know how much voice acting costs? It's easily one of the most expensive and time consuming parts of development.
 

TheMadPunter

Helium Voice
Nov 2, 2010
32
0
0
GeorgW said:
I was never that great on Star Wars canon, but a few things...
The Jedi did have lightning, and the sith had black light sabres, and then changed it to red. Not sure how far back this was though.
Also, how come the empire ships look exactly like they do later on? And I thought the Jedi only got clones after the second movie?
WTF is up with the continuity of this game???
Oh, and good episode! I just figured I should ask given that someone around here have to know.
The black lightsabers showed dandruff, so they swapped them for red.

I don't know where exactly the "more lightsabers!" trend came from. Star Wars used to be about more complex themes (pre 1998, I mean), but then it became all about the spectacle. This is a 12-year-old's idea of badassery; the most badass Jedi by far is still Obi-Wan, who on several occasions fought opponenets far more heavily armed than he was. ONE lightsaber, and the skill to use it, wins over some schmuck with a bunch of lightsabers - a "gaggle" of lightsabers, if you will.
 

Kinguendo

New member
Apr 10, 2009
4,267
0
0
Hagi said:
Darth Revan: A master should only train a single apprentice at a time, because it is inevitable that his apprentices will gang up on him even though individually they weren't yet strong enough to rival the original master. Meaning that with every cycle the masters would become weaker.

Darth Bane & the Rule of Two: There should only be 2 Sith period. One Master, one apprentice. Not just one apprentice per master, but only 2 Sith in the entire universe. That's the rule of two. "Two there should be; no more, no less. One to embody power, the other to crave it."

I mean Revan restarted the Sith Academy on Korriban.... how does that match with the Rule of Two?

Darth Bane created the Rule of Two. He was inspired by Darth Revan. Just like planes were inspired by birds, doesn't mean planes are birds....
You lying little... how did you think you could lie to me and get away with it? You are intentionally leaving out important facts just to support your wrongness.

Here is an excerpt from the Sith Holocron from Revan to Bane:

"True power can come only to those who embrace the transformation. There can be no compromise. Mercy, compassion, loyalty: all these things will prevent you from claiming what is rightfully yours. Those who follow the dark side must cast aside these conceits. Those who do not?those who try to walk the path of moderation?will fail, dragged down by their own weakness. Those who accept the power of the dark side must also accept the challenge of holding on to it. By its very nature the dark side invites rivalry and strife. This is the greatest strength of the Sith: it culls the weak from our order. Yet this rivalry can also be our greatest weakness. The strong must be careful lest they be overwhelmed by the ambitions of those working beneath them in concert. Any master who instructs more than one apprentice in the ways of the dark side is a fool. In time, the apprentices will unite their strengths and overthrow the master. It is inevitable; axiomatic. That is why each Master must have only one student."

- Directly from Darth Bane: Path of Destruction.

The Sith Academy trained Sith... not Masters and Apprentices! You dont even... your arguments are constructed to convince people who dont know anything about Star Wars!

Another quote from Revan to Bane:

"This is also the reason there can only be one Dark Lord. The Sith must be ruled by a single leader: the very embodiment of the strength and power of the dark side. If the leader grows weak another must rise to seize the mantle. The strong rule; the weak are meant to serve. This is the way it must be. My time here is ended. Take what I have taught you and use it well."

- Directly from Darth Bane: Path of Destruction.
 

Kinguendo

New member
Apr 10, 2009
4,267
0
0
Quaxar said:
Hagi said:
Darth Revan: A master should only train a single apprentice at a time, because it is inevitable that his apprentices will gang up on him even though individually they weren't yet strong enough to rival the original master. Meaning that with every cycle the masters would become weaker.

Darth Bane & the Rule of Two: There should only be 2 Sith period. One Master, one apprentice. Not just one apprentice per master, but only 2 Sith in the entire universe. That's the rule of two. "Two there should be; no more, no less. One to embody power, the other to crave it."

I mean Revan restarted the Sith Academy on Korriban.... how does that match with the Rule of Two?

Darth Bane created the Rule of Two. He was inspired by Darth Revan. Just like planes were inspired by birds, doesn't mean planes are birds....
I was going to say that but it seems like the Force was stronger in you.

Also, you'd think in a Sith Empire with probably a few hundret Sith not everyone would listen to Revan's ideas.
Then you were going to be wrong... oh and what? Everyone would listen to Darth Banes ideas? You dont know what you are talking about.
 

Quaxar

New member
Sep 21, 2009
3,949
0
0
Kinguendo said:
Quaxar said:
Hagi said:
Darth Revan: A master should only train a single apprentice at a time, because it is inevitable that his apprentices will gang up on him even though individually they weren't yet strong enough to rival the original master. Meaning that with every cycle the masters would become weaker.

Darth Bane & the Rule of Two: There should only be 2 Sith period. One Master, one apprentice. Not just one apprentice per master, but only 2 Sith in the entire universe. That's the rule of two. "Two there should be; no more, no less. One to embody power, the other to crave it."

I mean Revan restarted the Sith Academy on Korriban.... how does that match with the Rule of Two?

Darth Bane created the Rule of Two. He was inspired by Darth Revan. Just like planes were inspired by birds, doesn't mean planes are birds....
I was going to say that but it seems like the Force was stronger in you.

Also, you'd think in a Sith Empire with probably a few hundret Sith not everyone would listen to Revan's ideas.
Then you were going to be wrong... oh and what? Everyone would listen to Darth Banes ideas? You dont know what you are talking about.
I was referring to the part with the <url=http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Sith_Academy_%28Korriban%29>Sith Academy. Read the link, it clearly states "force sensitive". So one could say it was more than one trainee per trainer.
Now I don't quite get the second part there because wtf Darth Bane?

Also, I kinda lost track of what actually started the discussion so I'm not going to respond to your previous post at all.
 

Hagi

New member
Apr 10, 2011
2,741
0
0
Kinguendo said:
You lying little... how did you think you could lie to me and get away with it? You are intentionally leaving out important facts just to support your wrongness.

Here is an excerpt from the Sith Holocron from Revan to Bane:

"True power can come only to those who embrace the transformation. There can be no compromise. Mercy, compassion, loyalty: all these things will prevent you from claiming what is rightfully yours. Those who follow the dark side must cast aside these conceits. Those who do not?those who try to walk the path of moderation?will fail, dragged down by their own weakness. Those who accept the power of the dark side must also accept the challenge of holding on to it. By its very nature the dark side invites rivalry and strife. This is the greatest strength of the Sith: it culls the weak from our order. Yet this rivalry can also be our greatest weakness. The strong must be careful lest they be overwhelmed by the ambitions of those working beneath them in concert. Any master who instructs more than one apprentice in the ways of the dark side is a fool. In time, the apprentices will unite their strengths and overthrow the master. It is inevitable; axiomatic. That is why each Master must have only one student."

- Directly from Darth Bane: Path of Destruction.

The Sith Academy trained Sith... not Masters and Apprentices! You dont even... your arguments are constructed to convince people who dont know anything about Star Wars!

Another quote from Revan to Bane:

"This is also the reason there can only be one Dark Lord. The Sith must be ruled by a single leader: the very embodiment of the strength and power of the dark side. If the leader grows weak another must rise to seize the mantle. The strong rule; the weak are meant to serve. This is the way it must be. My time here is ended. Take what I have taught you and use it well."

- Directly from Darth Bane: Path of Destruction.
Calling me a liar doesn't make it so....

As I said, and your quotes support.

Darth Revan: "Any master who instructs more than one apprentice in the ways of the dark side is a fool. In time, the apprentices will unite their strengths and overthrow the master. It is inevitable; axiomatic. That is why each Master must have only one student."

The Rule of Two dictates "Two there should be; no more, no less. One to embody power, the other to crave it.".

So Darth Revan thinks the Sith should have a structure as follows:
- 1 Dark Lord of the Sith.
- Countless lesser masters who each tutor only a single student.

Darth Bane and the Rule of Two think the Sith should have a structure as follows:
- 1 Dark Lord of the Sith.
- 1 Apprentice.

The Rule of Two is directly against the Sith Academy, even if you don't call the students apprentices. The Rule of Two says only 2 Sith period. Doesn't matter if they're Sith masters, apprentices or water boys. Only 2 Sith total. End of story. That's the Rule of Two.

Darth Revan, as is obvious from the KotOR games, didn't create nor even abide by this rule. He had countless lesser Sith serving him. He did however lay the foundation of this rule by stating that there should be a single leader of the Sith and that each master should only have a single apprentice.

Darth Bane took this to the next level by stating that that single leader would be the only master and that he would have only a single apprentice. Thus meaning that there's only 2 Sith at all times. And that was the Rule of Two. Created by Darth Bane, 2000 years after Revan, by taking Revan's teachings to the next level.

And please, can we leave the personal insults out of this? There's no reason to call me a liar or to imply that I'm intentionally leaving out facts just to call you, a random poster on a random internet forum, wrong.
 

Kinguendo

New member
Apr 10, 2009
4,267
0
0
Hagi said:
Calling me a liar doesn't make it so....

As I said, and your quotes support.

Darth Revan: "Any master who instructs more than one apprentice in the ways of the dark side is a fool. In time, the apprentices will unite their strengths and overthrow the master. It is inevitable; axiomatic. That is why each Master must have only one student."

The Rule of Two dictates "Two there should be; no more, no less. One to embody power, the other to crave it.".

So Darth Revan thinks the Sith should have a structure as follows:
- 1 Dark Lord of the Sith.
- Countless lesser masters who each tutor only a single student.

Darth Bane and the Rule of Two think the Sith should have a structure as follows:
- 1 Dark Lord of the Sith.
- 1 Apprentice.

The Rule of Two is directly against the Sith Academy, even if you don't call the students apprentices. The Rule of Two says only 2 Sith period. Doesn't matter if they're Sith masters, apprentices or water boys. Only 2 Sith total. End of story. That's the Rule of Two.

Darth Revan, as is obvious from the KotOR games, didn't create nor even abide by this rule. He had countless lesser Sith serving him. He did however lay the foundation of this rule by stating that there should be a single leader of the Sith and that each master should only have a single apprentice.

Darth Bane took this to the next level by stating that that single leader would be the only master and that he would have only a single apprentice. Thus meaning that there's only 2 Sith at all times. And that was the Rule of Two. Created by Darth Bane, 2000 years after Revan, by taking Revan's teachings to the next level.

And please, can we leave the personal insults out of this? There's no reason to call me a liar or to imply that I'm intentionally leaving out facts just to call you, a random poster on a random internet forum, wrong.
No, calling you a liar doesnt make it so... you lying does.

Bane had more than one Apprentice, even his Apprentices had Apprentices... and there were other Sith throughout the entire time Bane was alive. Though they were being hunted... not by Bane, but by the Jedi.

Revan, on the other hand, had only 1 Apprentice. He trained other Sith as assassins and such BUT they werent Dark Lords. He was the ruler of the Sith, there is no denying this.

It was not created by BANE! He just instituted it as a rule that the Sith would abide by at that time period... Revan created it. What you are saying is that while Revan told Bane EXACTLY how to rule as Dark Lord of the Sith, which Bane followed word for word, he didnt invent it... thats ridiculous.
 

Kinguendo

New member
Apr 10, 2009
4,267
0
0
Quaxar said:
I was referring to the part with the <url=http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Sith_Academy_%28Korriban%29>Sith Academy. Read the link, it clearly states "force sensitive". So one could say it was more than one trainee per trainer.
Now I don't quite get the second part there because wtf Darth Bane?

Also, I kinda lost track of what actually started the discussion so I'm not going to respond to your previous post at all.
A Trainer ISNT a Sith Master! And the second part was referring to you saying "why would they listen to Revan?", to that I said "so why would they listen to Darth Bane?" who is much weaker than Revan was as well as being much less competent as a leader.
 

Giddi

New member
Feb 5, 2008
77
0
0
Wait, wasn't the cowboy guy under arrest? Why didn't they take away his guns?
 

Biodeamon

New member
Apr 11, 2011
1,652
0
0
Han Marstin...I was thinking the same thing...

also am i the only one who thinks the red faced guys faceplat looks alot the RIG's faceplate from Dead Space?
 

Monsterfurby

New member
Mar 7, 2008
871
0
0
Can some fellow Star Wars versed Forumite please explain to me how they managed to Retcon clone trooper armor into the Sith Wars era? I mean... seriously? Couldn't they come up with something... new and cool?
 

darthricardo

New member
May 7, 2010
130
0
0
Yeah, I really hate the whole "More Lightsabers = Better Fights" thing that seems to be so prevalent in star wars now. Like, how one of the main selling points for The Force Unleashed 2 was that it had, not one, but TWO lightsabers. Real original, Lucasarts.
 

Sgt_Jakeman214

New member
Jul 19, 2010
1,098
0
0
Mikodite said:
Grand_Marquis said:
[EDIT] and the reply above mine is so incredibly right, Mikodite should start consulting for MMO developers. Seriously, the amount of naivete I see in MMO developers regarding their user base and their willingness to sit through Lore dumps is flat out depressing. No, MMO developer, spending millions of dollars on awesome cutscenes will not make your game any different or more special than any other MMO. Regardless of how cool the characters are or how well directed the scene is. All MMO players want to do is level up, they don't care. Please get over it.
I wouldn't go that far, I mean James Portnow I'm not. Though as an aspiring game developer with an interest in writing that has played MMOs in the past, it does break my heart that many of these games have a background-story section on their websites. Some soul had to take the time (and possibly get paid) to write that shit up only for it to go ignored. It also doesn't help that someone went into all the trouble to write up an overarching storyline about how the ***** Queen or whatever needs to be destroyed going unnoticed because, lets face it, who reads the flavour text that goes with your quests?

drosalion said:
Mikodite said:
drosalion said:
Mikodite said:
drosalion said:
Mikodite said:
OK, so the storyline is about these people, a Jedi, a trooper, and a smuggler, who...

DO YOU CARE? ITS AN MMO! WHO BOTHERS WITH THE 'PLOTLINE' IN AN MMO?
Thats kinda the whole point of this game.. bioware want to change the way people think about MMOs by bringing story to it.

Why shouldnt you be able to care about those things purely caus of the genre of the game?
Have you noticed that every MMORPG has some backstory or plot running in the background? It's sad, really, someone had to write all that only for the average player to ignore it, as knowledge of the backstory has no effect on the game whatsoever.

Unless the 'plotline' isn't simply flavour text to go with your fetch quest, Bioware is wasting their time.
Yeh.. and bioware are trying to change that, by delivering the story not via a textbox but by cinematic cutscenes, and giving you actual choices that can change things in the game quite dramatically as opposed to just the choice of 'doing' or 'not doing' the quest.

Quite simply - they're bringing the RPG back into the MMORPG, and frankly i cant wait for my mmo to actually start having some meaning and purpose. I just cant really see why people seem to be so against a genuine attempt to remove grind and increase immersion by giving all the things you do in an mmo purpose.. its like people WANT their mmo to be a dull borefest? But each to their own i guess.
You have no idea how badly I want you to be right.

The shit with the cutscenes and the dialogue choices sounds awesome on paper... then you realize that its not a single-player rpg, and you will have too many players skipping the cutscenes and mashing through the dialogue shit to get to the quest for they just want to get their numbers higher than all the numbers in the land and own everyone. I remember Guild Wars had cutscenes in it... and I remember most players opting to skip them.

You want the plotline to matter to the average player? Make the bloody thing player-generated. Have us celebrate the victory of Ray_the_Jedi who lead his squadmates to slaughter some Sith scum! Or how Nibi-Tibi has taken over Coresaunt and his first priority is to legalize death-sticks. Fuck, I would totally go down for taking on Lord_Boner of the Sith if it meant peaces in the galaxy for a few months in server.

Are they planning to do that? Planning politic systems where a player could run for senate, or be the hutt? Territory control between 'factions' that amount to whether the innocent get slaughtered or not, which changes the game world depending on who won? Will I see player names in the game's canon?

Someone accused me of not doing my homework. Tell me, are they doing that?
People enjoy it in a single player RPG, they can learn to enjoy it in a multiplayer MMO. We simply have no way of knowing whether or not it will be successful and we're scared of it because its something completely foreign to what we're used to. They sound awesome on paper because they have great potential to be awesome, and im not saying they definitely will work or it wont be a massive flop but theres no reason it cant work - we just need to give it a chance instead of outright dismissing it before the game is even released.

As for ur suggestions regarding a more sandboxey game, im sure they would appeal to some people but for me they sound completely uninteresting and i personally wouldnt enjoy them (regarding your specific examples, no, they're not doing those things). I do however enjoy a great bioware RPG and there are millions of other people who would agree with me as shown by the success of KOTOR, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, and all of their earlier games. A bioware RPG that i can play with thousands of other people in a persistant MMO world? Where do i put my credit card details..

I'm not saying TOR will be the best game ever, nor that it wont be awful, but we should atleast give it a chance. Saying it will fail when we have no basis for it or any previous game to compare it to is just stupid and childish (the 'cinematic cutscenes' in guild wars were absolutely nothing like what is in TOR, and yes ive played it). I'm HOPING for the best for TOR, because I think you and I would both agree that if it DOES work it will be amazing (you said on paper it sounds great, and theres a reason for that). Whether or not it WILL work neither of us can say right now with any more certainty beyond an outright guess.
The big problem I have with your logic is your saying that mechanics that work fine for a choose-you-own adventure book will work in a pen-n-paper campaign. At heart, that is the real difference between a Bioware RPG like Mass Effect and something like World of Warcraft.

An overarcing storyline with pretty cutscenes and choices in how you interact with an NPC sounds like an awesome idea, really. It works for WRPGs, where your choices have an effect on the game world and that, but this only works in a single player game. In a multiplayer game, for starters, the story and choices are the same... for every god dam player, and many players are smart enough to figure out that while their individual choices affect their character's path through this overarching storyline, it affects jack shit about the game world as everyone else is given the same tree to follow. At best, it just affects their build.

I also guarantee you that we aren't going to bother caring about what the NPCs think of us. I've seen games use faction systems regarding NPC groups, but this only works in a single player game as NPC input matter exponentially more than in a multiplayer game where we are more worried about what other players think of us (as in many circumstances we need PCs to help us on Quests in an MMO, whereas in a single player game we get NPCs to help us.)

That's why I mentioned the sandbox system. I mean, to relate to a past example of the choose-you-own adventure book versus the pen-paper roleplay. The former its just you and the author, deciding what path to take in their book and hoping its a result you want. The latter involves multiple people being directed by a GM of sorts. The design philosophy must change to accommodate each setting.

Now, I want to see the RPG get put back into the MMORPG as badly as the next person (I miss Anathema Online for that reason) however, this is not the solution. I mean, I don't want to pay $5-$20 a month in subscription fees and waste bandwidth connecting to a server to play a single player game. So really, either a player-driven storyline or just admit that the game is a meat-grinder like any other MMORPG... as this is the case with pnp campaigns.

If you really want to see Bioware RPG mechanics, which work fine for Mass Effect and Dragon Age, in an MMORPG I dare to ask if you really want to be playing with other people. Cuz unless I'm missing something their a waste of time.

Course, this is at the end of the day my humble opinion. It might turn out that there was more to it than that and I would owe you an apology. Or I turn out to be right and I end up screaming "I called it!" Sadly, we would have to wait and see.
These are all very true points, and ones that I stand behind as well. MMORPG's these days are not RolePlaying Games as much as they are MMO's that you play the main role character. The story needs to matter again, the players need to be swept up and made to believe that they are the main character. In short, RPG's don't make players Roleplay anymore. Most RPG's these days could be reclassified into Action-Adventure with no trouble at all. A friend showed me WoW the other day and tried to get me into it. I turned my latop on and showed him a point and click adventure game from the Sierra days and asked him what the difference was, apart from being online and 20 years younger and hench much larger. He couldn't think of anything.

On a different note, have you ever tried EVE Online? Sure, its ship to ship combat, and has a learning curve almost as bad as Dwarf Fortress, but the players DO RP, the economy is player based and driven, the main factions serve as lower level NPC quests and which ships you can get (which can be ignored/worked around), and the players form guilds/clans/corporations/whatever and fight each other for control of the galaxy. I would get into it myself, but I just don't have the internet connection at the moment to do so.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
"You were right! Triple Lightsabers!"

"Eh...They're not cool anymore."

If it's true the guy with the most lightsabers wins, I'm grabbing a six pack.