E3: Star Wars: The Old Republic

[pwnsore]

What I want to see for the smaller groups (4 people-ish) is each player getting to make their own decision independently of the others. For example, if your ship is under attack because of a passenger and the 4 of you are standing around trying to decide what to do about it, any player could decide to quickly shoot the passenger before the others could react. This way all 4 players would need to agree to spare the passenger for him to live. Another example would be the game separating the players and leaving 1 in the cockpit, who for a brief time needs to make decisions for the whole group. This way the players would actually have a reason to care about what the others do. I can imagine players actually feeling upset at one another for their in-game decisions.

 

[Saltyk]

Wait promising a beta? I thought they were already in the beat stage? I'm pretty sure this game will be released in the next couple of months, too.

Beat stage indeed. More fan wanking Lucas's meat for what will inevitably be a shitty game. Yay.

Obvious typo is obvious.

I maybe a fanboy, but I think there's plenty of reason to doubt that this game will be shitty. Actually, I'm pretty confident that it'll be pretty good. But whatever. To each his own.

 

[pwnsore]

Soo, it's warcraft in star wars?

Have faith in Bioware. They don't make bad games, and they have everything hanging on this one. Besides, a ton of people got to play it at PAX and had all good things to say about it.

 

[rsvp42]

Soo, it's warcraft in star wars?

It's an MMO with Star Wars setting, story and lore. WoW is also an MMO.

 

[Rensenhito]

Reminds me of WoW, except that all the swords are going to look the same.
Color me "meh." If it comes out and it's better than I expect it to be, I might give it a shot. Till then...
Well...
Meh.

 

[Xanthious]

The problem I'm having with this game is the more I see of it the less excited I become. First off it's becoming clearer as time goes on that this is a Star Wars world that more closely resembles the prequels and not so much the original trilogy. That makes me very sad. It looks a lot like a futuristic circus set in space quite honestly. I'm just not feel the world.

Secondly, I'm sorry but it looks and seems to play like WoW in space. The more Bioware keeps hammering how different it will be than WoW the more it keeps resembling WoW. I won't go as far as to say WoW clone just yet but it's approaching that at a pretty break neck pace.

Thirdly, I think they are totally overselling the combat. It looks like your typical MMO combat. Not that that's a bad thing but when you are out banging a drum telling people how different and engaging it's supposed to be it just makes you look like a jackass when it combat turns out to be just like every other MMO out there.


Fourthly, I just don't know how well your typical Bioware gameplay is going to translate over into the realm of MMOs. I get they want to focus on story and what not but I can very easily see this coming off as awkward and unseemly when adapted for an MMO.

Finally, this isn't the same Bioware that brought us KOTOR and KOTOR 2. This is the Bioware that was bought by EA and reused the same dungeon for the entire game in Dragon Age 2. This is the same Bioware that has chosen to "streamline" (read: dumbed down) their games lately to cater to the masses rather than keep them to the same standard as the games that made people love them to begin with. I wouldn't trust this Bioware to check my email without EA meddling and buggering things up somehow.

 

[Tentickles]

I know a few guys in the testing right now and I hear a lot more good things then bad things. Of course the game has bugs (its in testing phase) but they tell me the story is as much if not more then what they are advertising and the versatility of the classes is phenomenal.

I will be buying it and playing it for a long time. Been waiting 7 years for a Star Wars MMO (RIP SWG). It will have it's good parts and it's parts that need refining.

but arnt all MMOs like that?

 

[fundayz]

Soo, it's warcraft in star wars?

Have faith in Bioware. They don't make bad games, and they have everything hanging on this one. Besides, a ton of people got to play it at PAX and had all good things to say about it.

The team making SWTOR, BioWare Austin, was made from scratch using people already in the MMO business. The only true BioWare employees working on this game are the writters and a couple of producers and project leads.

Long story short: The only "BioWare" in the title is the logo and the writting. That's why the game is going to have top-notch storytelling with copy/pasted mechanics and gameplay from WoW and other EQ-like MMO's.

 

[pwnsore]

Soo, it's warcraft in star wars?

Have faith in Bioware. They don't make bad games, and they have everything hanging on this one. Besides, a ton of people got to play it at PAX and had all good things to say about it.

The team making SWTOR, BioWare Austin, was made from scratch using people already in the MMO business. The only true BioWare employees working on this game are the writters and a couple of producers and project leads.

Long story short: The only "BioWare" in the title is the logo and the writting. That's why the game is going to have top-notch storytelling with copy/pasted mechanics and gameplay from WoW and other EQ-like MMO's.

Still, this is Bioware's first attempt at an mmo (that they made themselves, Bioware Mythic is running a couple that they bought after release), they have sunk a massive fortune into it, and they have hyped up ridiculously. I'm sure Bioware HQ is keeping their eye on the game and making sure it lives up to expectations. If this fails, it would be completely devastating to them. (Also, it's not just Austin. I know that a handful of people working on it at Mythic)

 

[jarowdowsky]

Gotta agree with lots of other posters here. It's getting less and less interesting. Now people are playing the game and terms like 'tank' are turning up it just reminds me of Star Trek - a copy of a fantasy MMO dressed up in Star Wars clothes.

And from what I'm hear the development costs are soaring. If they really are hitting well over the 100 million dollar line then they'd surely need this to actually be a real, huge, Warcraft level success. And clearly it isn't going to be that.

 

[rsvp42]

snip

I'd say just play it, if you get the chance or they have a trial. Combat is in the traditional MMO style (similar to games like EQ, WoW, AoC, LotRO, Rift etc.), but I noticed a distinct difference in how I approached fights. Whereas modern WoW is basically a kill ,rinse, repeat sort of game for most of its combat, TOR was significantly more challenging and required players to be on their toes with how they used abilities. It's not a revolution, but it was satisfying. I've played so-called "action" combat that was visually flashier, but tactically shallower.

And from what I'm hear the development costs are soaring. If they really are hitting well over the 100 million dollar line then they'd surely need this to actually be a real, huge, Warcraft level success. And clearly it isn't going to be that.

They won't need WoW's number of subscribers to survive. They've stated that 500,000 is enough to turn a profit, and they apparently have well over a million signed up for testing. Based on what I've seen and played, I think they could easily maintain at least a million and be very profitable.

 

[adamtm]

Have faith in Bioware.

I'll keep my faith to religion, thank you very much, I'm not part of The Church Of Bioware.

I'd say just play it, if you get the chance or they have a trial. Combat is in the traditional MMO style (similar to games like EQ, WoW, AoC, LotRO, Rift etc.), but I noticed a distinct difference in how I approached fights. Whereas modern WoW is basically a kill ,rinse, repeat sort of game for most of its combat, TOR was significantly more challenging and required players to be on their toes with how they used abilities. It's not a revolution, but it was satisfying. I've played so-called "action" combat that was visually flashier, but tactically shallower.

Could it be that the feel of the combat being "challenging" stemmed from the fact that its the first time you had exposure to the game-mechanics and game yourself? I.e. the skills etc are unfamiliar. I found the combat of WoW quite challenging the first time i played it (and that was 2006 when BC launched) because of "wtf i have a cooldown on potions" for example. Today i breeze any new content in WoW because i know the mechanics. Its only when Blizz changes the mechanics significantly it becomes "hard/challenging" for a little while (like with Cata some of the core stats/Spells for Mages got changed and i needed to get used to the fact that my elitistjerks knowledge needed to be re-learned).

I also remember that one video at a gameshow (wasnt it GDC?) where first the devs played a 10-man raid and said its one of the hardest contents in the game, and then let some people from the audience play it in which they breezed through it like it was WotLK Patchwerk...

They won't need WoW's number of subscribers to survive. They've stated that 500,000 is enough to turn a profit, and they apparently have well over a million signed up for testing. Based on what I've seen and played, I think they could easily maintain at least a million and be very profitable.

Wasn't that debunked as spin for the shareholders by an analyst?

I know most of the time "common sense" is placed badly if speculating about profitability of MMOs but looking at TOR and the content it presents im VERY skeptical that 500.000 subs are all they need.

Of course i will take the 300M$ estimate by EALouse as bunk but i dont see how the development could have cost anything less than 100M$ with the voice-acting, promised content, license and development time (just an educated guess from me as a designer close to game development). Im emphasizing here that this is an estimate based on -promised- content and -promised- quality (if the promised quality lacks at release we will understand the 500k subs statement)
I think that 500.000 subs would get them their money back only if they pump in cash from other projects initially and letting it run for 10 years (which was their assumption in that statement afaik) then they might start turning a profit (at year 11).

In general i see it like this, to deliver a quality gaming experience you have to invest a certain amount of money, thats why korean f2p mmos are dime a dozen and are "profitable". They take copy-paste MMO concepts and release them with additional black hair-dye for 10$ in their stores, ie. their development cost is minimal, they can turn a profit on 50.000 subs just fine because of that.

Where is the difference between Runes Of Magic and World of Warcraft and why can one be f2p and the other one p2p? And theres hundreds of those all with a "gimmick" to not seem like they are ripping WoW off too much.
How does TOR stand out in that crowd in any way?

As much as I hate playing EVE Online and think that someone needs to be a masochist to fully enjoy it, I have a fond RESPECT for it. EVE did something new and exciting in the midst of mediocrity. For all the shitty decisions that made Darkfall Online a failure, I also respect it, at least they tried. I am skeptical about TSW too, it sounds too good to be true, but they are also trying.

I think its largely well-known on these forums how I feel towards TOR.

I want it to fail.
No, I'm not apologetic about it in any shape or form.
I want it to fail as a warning to other developers/publishers/gamers that its -NOT OK- to develop mediocre, uninspired, cardboard-cutout, clone-MMOs propped up by a gimmick and a bloated dying IP.

[sub]Disclaimer: In no way shape or form do i deny others enjoyment, excitement or anticipation for the title. Neither do i say that someone is stupid for liking the game or that the game is or will be --inherently-- bad.[/sub]

 

[fundayz]

I think that 500.000 subs would get them their money back only if they pump in cash from other projects initially and letting it run for 10 years (which was their assumption in that statement afaik) then they might start turning a profit (at year 11).

You make some good points, many of which I fully agree with, but this right here is down right BS and makes your argument lose all it's credibility.

Box sales revenue: 500 000 * 60 = 30 000 000
Annual subscription revenue: 500 000 * 15 * 11 = 82 500 000

30 mil + 80 mil = 110 million IN THE FIRST YEAR.

Even with $100m+ developing costs, SWTOR WILL be profitable within a year or two if they maintain a 500k userbase. 500k subscribers is an easy target for SWTOR even if it is just a WoW/EQ clone in Star Wars clothes.

This is why BioWare is jumping on the MMO bandwagon: it's easy money. Why try to innovate actual gameplay when all they have to do is emulate WoW's gameplay and let the Star Wars IP and their BioWare logo carry the game?

However, SWTOR doesn't just need to be profitable, it needs to be profitable in accordance to the amount invested. The $100m+ EA had to dish out to fund SWTOR could've funded multiple other projects that would have given faster and more direct profits while at the same time reducing risk(by not putting all your eggs in one basket).

This brings me to my next point: SWTOR is already outdated.

The ONLY new thing SWTOR is bringing to the table is improved storytelling. While this might be able to differentiate it other games, how long will this last? Other games on the horizon, such as GW2 and TSW, are also putting more emphasis on Story AS WELL as innovatign gameplay aspects.

When a good story becomes the norm in MMOs, which is already happening, SWTOR will be left looking as outdated as the games it's using as templates(i.e. mainly WoW).

This game is sticking to the same old boring gameplay at a time when MMOs are finally moving forward and its long-term viability will hurt because of it.

 

[rsvp42]

Could it be that the feel of the combat being "challenging" stemmed from the fact that its the first time you had exposure to the game-mechanics and game yourself? I.e. the skills etc are unfamiliar. I found the combat of WoW quite challenging the first time i played it (and that was 2006 when BC launched) because of "wtf i have a cooldown on potions" for example. Today i breeze any new content in WoW because i know the mechanics. Its only when Blizz changes the mechanics significantly it becomes "hard/challenging" for a little while (like with Cata some of the core stats/Spells for Mages got changed and i needed to get used to the fact that my elitistjerks knowledge needed to be re-learned).

I'm sure there's a certain amount of that. But I'm comparing my playtime to modern WoW leveling which has been ridiculously easy in the open world, and also to my relatively brief time with TERA at E3. Seeing as how TERA is propping itself up on the dynamism of its combat, I noticed a curious lack of actual tactics on those open-world fights. All I can tell you about my TERA rotation is that it was LMB, LMB, LMB, RMB, Spacebar, Spacebar, LMB, etc. It kind of fills in combos for you. It wasn't bad, it was just different and in the end, I preferred the tactical thinking I did while playing TOR: on-the-fly stuff like choosing who to Snipe and who to grenade to avoid getting into close combat. TOR wasn't as visually flashy, but I distinctly remember thinking in terms of what moves to use when, not in terms of button numbers or cooldown timers. It was refreshing for me. And I'll say again, it was without a doubt more challenging than WoW is. Especially the elite mobs, which were tough even for three of us in a group. Another thing was that groups of enemies attacked together. You couldn't game the system and try to carefully pull one and somehow have the rest not notice. You engage one of the group, you basically engage them all.

I also remember that one video at a gameshow (wasnt it GDC?) where first the devs played a 10-man raid and said its one of the hardest contents in the game, and then let some people from the audience play it in which they breezed through it like it was WotLK Patchwerk...

I don't think they revealed raids of any sort until this past week at E3, so I'm not sure what you're remembering. They're aware that some players are more skilled and other less so. One mechanic that Daniel Erickson mentioned in an interview is that when your group enters a story instance, the difficulty scales based on your numbers. Another thing to keep in mind are the metrics they've revealed, things like heat maps for character death. They're keeping an eye on the challenge and based on what I played, it was solid in terms of difficulty. I died more than I would if I were more experienced, but that's to be expected.

Where is the difference between Runes Of Magic and World of Warcraft and why can one be f2p and the other one p2p? And theres hundreds of those all with a "gimmick" to not seem like they are ripping WoW off too much.
How does TOR stand out in that crowd in any way?

As much as I hate playing EVE Online and think that someone needs to be a masochist to fully enjoy it, I have a fond RESPECT for it. EVE did something new and exciting in the midst of mediocrity. For all the shitty decisions that made Darkfall Online a failure, I also respect it, at least they tried. I am skeptical about TSW too, it sounds too good to be true, but they are also trying.

I think TOR stands out by being massive and having a more developed and fully-integrated story. Their whole design philosophy is based around context and meaningful story choices. That to me is a significant departure from the typical tired questing of games like WoW, Rift, LotRO, etc. Even TERA has it. It's not the sort of thing whose impact can be fully conveyed with a few videos, I think. When the entire story is presented in a way that isn't just text and quest trackers I think the end result is something more memorable and satisfying.

One could also say it stands out by being Star Wars and having a sci-fi setting, but that's inherent in the IP.

I think its largely well-known on these forums how I feel towards TOR.

I want it to fail.
No, I'm not apologetic about it in any shape or form.
I want it to fail as a warning to other developers/publishers/gamers that its -NOT OK- to develop mediocre, uninspired, cardboard-cutout, clone-MMOs propped up by a gimmick and a bloated dying IP.

[sub]Disclaimer: In no way shape or form do i deny others enjoyment, excitement or anticipation for the title. Neither do i say that someone is stupid for liking the game or that the game is or will be --inherently-- bad.[/sub]

But there are millions of people who won't see it the same way as you do. People like me that enjoy the setting and the story. People who like the classes, the way combat plays out, the way PvP is designed. People who want to call a new game home and are sick of all the high fantasy IPs with no history and little context. Random races designed by a committee and thrown into a world designed by pulling biomes out of a hat.

I'm a little confused by your disclaimer though. I realize you don't want to pass judgment on fans of the game, but

Neither do i say that someone is stupid for liking the game or that the game is or will be --inherently-- bad

kind of contradicts

its -NOT OK- to develop mediocre, uninspired, cardboard-cutout, clone-MMOs propped up by a gimmick and a bloated dying IP.

But whatever. Few games are universally beloved. WoW has had vehement haters since its inception, and has even more now. Not saying TOR will see the same success, but I should probably stop being concerned about folks that simply don't like it. I just like to be vigilant for misinformation. Fortunately, you've said nothing blatantly misinformed, which is more than I can say for some people that troll the main TOR forums.

 

[demouse]

WoW with a starwars skin, nothing new to see here folks.

 

[toquio3]

It looks like the clone wars cartoon. And it seems to have as much depth. I wish they just did more kotors.

And I cant stand themepark mmos anymore, no matter how awesome the story might be.

 

[fundayz]

I think TOR stands out by being massive and having a more developed and fully-integrated story. Their whole design philosophy is based around context and meaningful story choices. That to me is a significant departure from the typical tired questing of games like WoW, Rift, LotRO, etc. Even TERA has it. It's not the sort of thing whose impact can be fully conveyed with a few videos, I think. When the entire story is presented in a way that isn't just text and quest trackers I think the end result is something more memorable and satisfying.

One could also say it stands out by being Star Wars and having a sci-fi setting, but that's inherent in the IP.

Sorry but replacing quest text with voiced cutscenes is NOT a significant departure simply because it doesn't directly affect gameplay. The questing in SWTOR is the same old tired questing as WoW and other EQ-based MMO's, it's just got better storytelling and immersion.

Is this a good thing? Of course. Is it enough to stand out? For now it is, but there's already plenty of MMO on the horizon that are also giving story real attention in addition to actually trying to come up with something new. When those games come out SWTOR is going to look almost as outdated as WoW.

 

[adamtm]

I think that 500.000 subs would get them their money back only if they pump in cash from other projects initially and letting it run for 10 years (which was their assumption in that statement afaik) then they might start turning a profit (at year 11).

You make some good points, many of which I fully agree with, but this right here is down right BS and makes your argument lose all it's credibility.

Box sales revenue: 500 000 * 60 = 30 000 000
Annual subscription revenue: 500 000 * 15 * 11 = 82 500 000

30 mil + 80 mil = 110 million IN THE FIRST YEAR.

Even with $100m+ developing costs, SWTOR WILL be profitable within a year or two if they maintain a 500k userbase. 500k subscribers is an easy target for SWTOR even if it is just a WoW/EQ clone in Star Wars clothes.
....

You forget to substract server upkeep, marketing, distribution, etc.

500k*60$ is not pure profit, id be surprised if their box sales have more than 25% profit margin and thats rather optimistic.

Not to forget that the 15$/month need to cover updates also that need to be fully voice acted and the same quality as the launch game, else the game is going to be dead after the first 6 months.

Additionally I'd like to point out a small fact in the entertainment industry that earning as much as you invested = failure. A movie breaks even at double the investment cost, and so do games. Profit would be generated at >2*X, while X being the initial investment.

But we are speculating, i'm not an EA exec, nor do i know all the facts, but it seems unreasonable for SWTOR to be profitable at 500k subs based on the promised quality.

 

[adamtm]

I'm sure there's a certain amount of that. But I'm comparing my playtime to modern WoW leveling which has been ridiculously easy in the open world, and also to my relatively brief time with TERA at E3. Seeing as how TERA is propping itself up on the dynamism of its combat, I noticed a curious lack of actual tactics on those open-world fights. All I can tell you about my TERA rotation is that it was LMB, LMB, LMB, RMB, Spacebar, Spacebar, LMB, etc. It kind of fills in combos for you. It wasn't bad, it was just different and in the end, I preferred the tactical thinking I did while playing TOR: on-the-fly stuff like choosing who to Snipe and who to grenade to avoid getting into close combat. TOR wasn't as visually flashy, but I distinctly remember thinking in terms of what moves to use when, not in terms of button numbers or cooldown timers. It was refreshing for me. And I'll say again, it was without a doubt more challenging than WoW is. Especially the elite mobs, which were tough even for three of us in a group. Another thing was that groups of enemies attacked together. You couldn't game the system and try to carefully pull one and somehow have the rest not notice. You engage one of the group, you basically engage them all.

That is up for debate until we really get to play the game for an extensive amount of time.

I'll concede the point once reports start flowing in, or when Ensidia tells me that the content is challenging
Atm from the gameplay videos i've seen I didnt see anything i havent seen before somewhere else. Dont stand in the fire, think of enemy resistances, etc...

I don't think they revealed raids of any sort until this past week at E3, so I'm not sure what you're remembering. They're aware that some players are more skilled and other less so. One mechanic that Daniel Erickson mentioned in an interview is that when your group enters a story instance, the difficulty scales based on your numbers. Another thing to keep in mind are the metrics they've revealed, things like heat maps for character death. They're keeping an eye on the challenge and based on what I played, it was solid in terms of difficulty. I died more than I would if I were more experienced, but that's to be expected.

I might have been wrong on that one, i by the life of me cant track down the source-video im talking about, it might have been a 5man instance. But i distinctly remember an article on that. But nvm.

I think TOR stands out by being massive and having a more developed and fully-integrated story. Their whole design philosophy is based around context and meaningful story choices. That to me is a significant departure from the typical tired questing of games like WoW, Rift, LotRO, etc. Even TERA has it. It's not the sort of thing whose impact can be fully conveyed with a few videos, I think. When the entire story is presented in a way that isn't just text and quest trackers I think the end result is something more memorable and satisfying.

One could also say it stands out by being Star Wars and having a sci-fi setting, but that's inherent in the IP.

DDO has a fully integrated DM system, voice acted, some by Garry Gygax. The story-telling in that game is unlike anything I've ever experienced before, I was positively wow-ed by it. Afaik it didnt do very well, and it has one of the bigger IPs behind it as well. So did AoC.
Story-telling is a great gimmick, but its just a gimmick in a MMO. Players have proven time and time again that storytelling is the least of their worries. Look at EVE, it doesnt have any story at all, it has the worst PVE experience ive ever seen, still 300k+ hardcore subs.

But there are millions of people who won't see it the same way as you do. People like me that enjoy the setting and the story. People who like the classes, the way combat plays out, the way PvP is designed. People who want to call a new game home and are sick of all the high fantasy IPs with no history and little context. Random races designed by a committee and thrown into a world designed by pulling biomes out of a hat.

I'm a little confused by your disclaimer though. I realize you don't want to pass judgment on fans of the game, but

Neither do i say that someone is stupid for liking the game or that the game is or will be --inherently-- bad

kind of contradicts

its -NOT OK- to develop mediocre, uninspired, cardboard-cutout, clone-MMOs propped up by a gimmick and a bloated dying IP.

But whatever. Few games are universally beloved. WoW has had vehement haters since its inception, and has even more now. Not saying TOR will see the same success, but I should probably stop being concerned about folks that simply don't like it. I just like to be vigilant for misinformation. Fortunately, you've said nothing blatantly misinformed, which is more than I can say for some people that troll the main TOR forums.

Of course there will be some players that will be enjoying it, theres always -someone- that will. Theres always -someone- that says that its good, and that's his opinion, and I'm not able to prove him wrong of his opinion. TOR is objectively, mediocre, uninspired, and a clone-mmo, if someone finds that appealing, who am I to say its wrong or bad? If TOR will crush WoW and have 15 Million subs it wont change the fact of what i wrote about it. Is being mediocre and uninspired inherently bad? Bad is reserved for things that are inherently broken, unplayable, engine-wise or gameplay wise. Its rather rare that i call a game "bad".

Theres a lot of people that enjoy and are fans of Uwe Bolls movies, they positively enjoy his stuff (not in the its so bad its good sense), but does that mean its desirable for movie-makers to make low-budget, badly-acted movies propped up by IPs for the quick cash in?
Should i nod my head in agreement when Michael Bay releases another Transformers 2 and say "yes this is what the movie industry needs"?

I don't think so.

TORs success would be bad for the MMO-industry, it would signal exactly the wrong thing. Like James Camerons Avatar's success signaled to the whole movie industry that stereoscopic 3D is apparently THE SHIT now and that we should have it in every movie ever made.

If TOR succeeds we will get another 10 years of stale hotkey gameplay MMOs, possibly on licenses, but this time with voice-overs and dialogue-wheels. And while i might be wrong, my opinion is its not where this industry should be going towards.