How SW:TOR is a major step BACKWARDS for MMOs

[danintexas]

What I want from an MMO - To create a character that is somewhat unique with a skill set luke UO or old SWG. I want to take said character and try to find a little hole in the virtual world I can live ro exist in.

All MMOs these days are about grinding and time sinks. This can be done via character levels or grinding for equipment. Or both.

One of the original MMOs had it so close to perfect - Ultima Online. Course these days you get a better graphical environment with a browser based game. But if someone released an MMO with the skill set and detailed world of UO with the FPS mode that only existed in EQ 1 for some reason - I would be one happy MMOer. Till then I will stick with WoW because my friends and wife play it - and all the mmos coming out including SW:TOR are just another giant time sink just this one will have lasers instead of fireballs.

 

[thevillageidiot13]

Most MMOs have unbalanced character classes, where it's clear that one or two classes are simply more desirable/dominant/powerful/helpful than the rest. Sacrifices character freedom.

Also, most MMOs, within each class, have skills which are useless and others which are the clear-cut best choice.

So, in MMOs, 95% of the time, everybody who plays the game only picks 2 out of 5 available classes, and, within each class, everybody always picks the same development tree.


MMOs have never been big on character freedom, anyways. At least SW:TOR seems to be putting an effort into changing that, and making your character more personal to the individual.

Besides, play the game before you take an epic dump on it.

 

[Russian_Assassin]

Everything you said to describe the game made me even more interested in it. I love the direction Bioware games are heading. Long live Bioware!

 

[HentMas]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Enter BioWare.

At first, everyone was so excited about SW:TOR partly because they heard so many of the original SWG Devs had moved to the project (SWG being a landmark MMO, pre-NGE, in terms of the freedom to create your own character and story, no matter how heroic OR mundane you preferred him/her to be). But as more and more info is released, TOR is revealing itself to be the exact OPPOSITE in spirit of what made SWG great in its day.

(By the by, SWG is still great for all the same old reasons. The class system is limiting, yes, but there is still a lot to do in-game besides killgrindkill. Housing, intense crafting, beast mastery, etc.)

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:

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.

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.

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.

4) "You'll get companion characters to will add spice and variety to your gameplay!" - This one actually sounded GREAT... until we found out that EVERYONE gets the same companion based on his/her class. Yes, ALL smugglers will not just have A wookiee companion (like Han!), they'll have the SAME wookiee companion. You don't even get to pick the name. SACRIFICES CHARACTER FREEDOM.

5) "You'll get your own ship, which you can use to travel or complete missions!" - Again, sounded great... until we found out that you get the same ship as everyone else in your class AND that all space missions play out like Starfox as rail- or arena-style episodes. You can't choose your ship, and you can't choose where it goes. SACRIFICES CHARACTER FREEDOM.

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.

(A bit more on what made SWG great, for a Star Wars-oriented comparison):

a) Skill choices, instead of hard classes. You could be a cook AND a bounty hunter, if you wanted. You could be a smuggler AND a medic. You could double up on combat or on crafting if you chose. You decided what you wanted your character to be able to do, and you BUILT a class around it.

b) The sheer variety of non-combat activities. Crafting (including a bajillion types), Entertaining (dancing, music, AND image designing), Housing (decorating structures, constructing player cities), Player-driven economy (if it existed, someone somewhere made it). You could play for years, really and truly playing, and never pick up a blaster.

c) Even combat had a ton of variety. Pistols, rifles, carbines, big melee weapons, small melee weapons, no melee weapons, stealth, traps, etc.

d) You didn't have to be the "hero of the galaxy." You could just be a dude living in the Star Wars universe. You could if you wanted... or you could become an economic powerhouse... or just that guy with a really, really cool house. You decided how "epic" your character was.

dude... the TL;DR version isn´t supposed to be "Shorter"????

anywhay, i dont really like your idea

but thats just me.

 

[wadark]

snipped for post length

Again, the point that I think you're overlooking is that the more character freedom you have, the more character options you have, and therefore thats more and more potential combinations that the developer then has to spend resources to try and balance, if its even possible. In the eyes of most developers, it seems, the focus is "game first". Make sure the game play works and is compelling and interesting and balanced. THEN you go in and add whatever customization options you can without breaking the game.

Quick Aside: Recently a major franchise (Mario) did revert to releasing a 2D platformer on a home console after years of 3D, and no one seemed to bothered by it.

"Two Choices is better than none" is a valid approach if you recognize that its virtually impossible for a developer to account for EVERY possible choice. Sure it would be cool if we could speak into a microphone and say exactly what we would say in a given situation and have a character respond, but the technology doesn't exist to create such intelligent AI. I would argue that given a choice between "nice, neutral, and mean" is limited, yes, but not quite as limited as basically playing a silent character in which you just click through NPC scripts with no response at all.

I can't really name a single MMO that "was about" leaving a footprint. Every MMO I've played has been roughly the same mechanically and there was no footprints. Player housing is cool, but doesn't really constitute leaving a footprint because the footprint is absolutely pointless if there's no one interacting with it. Sure your house is "there" but it doesn't DO anything with any other player really. And most of the other ideas you mentioned about leaving a footprint like custom ships, companions, etc...those certainly don't count as footprints because they vanish from the world when your character does.

You also seem to define your multiplayer experience solely on the notion of what impact you leave on the other players. By that logic, Halo would not qualify as multiplayer because there is no footprint left for the other players when you leave the game. But I won't harp too much on that because I think its really a semantic argument and I know what it is you actually mean.

Again, as far as development is concerned, it comes down to a decision of "Total player freedom at the expense of balanced combat and content" or "sacrifice some of the freedom in order to make a game that functions well and can sustain itself." As I said in my previous post, in addition to that choice, you have to take into account that customization options take up development time that could be spent making the game balanced.

So what it comes down to is whether you value the atmosphere most, or value the functionality most. It seems you value atmosphere most, which is a perfectly valid stance, but that doesn't make it the only stance. Other people may have different priorities. The developers it seems are willing to make that sacrifice in order to ensure that the game is balanceable and sustainable. If you don't agree with that or don't like it, then show your opposition by not paying for it. But don't assume that your view is going to be shared by everyone else and try to convince them that they shouldn't play the game either because its "bad".

 

[Raikov]

*mega snip*

I agree completely. I like Star Wars, and I like Bioware (at least the old on...). They gave us really epic games like Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, Neverwinter Nights (NOT the second one) and Knights Of The Old Republic.

But despite that I like these things, I wouldn't touch SW:TOR with a ten-foot laser pole. They just completely failed at realizing what made those old games so goddamn awesome.

But then again, so did Relic...

 

[Azaraxzealot]

he's just a troll

i know a LOT of people are hoping this overthrows WoW (myself included, but only so i can hope THIS one will be overthrown... watching things get huge and then watching them die is fun )

 

[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

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".

I thought I made it pretty clear that I'm unconcerned with the points Dasterdly has made, because I feel the game will be fun regardless. Therefore, you could say I disagree.

And I'd prefer if you didn't make judgments on me based on 2 posts. No need to get all annoyed just because my posts don't fit your criteria

 

[Kanlic]

The point I'm making is that this didn't USED to be the case. What you are saying is very true of recent MMOs, but older MMOs didn't have this same problem. What we are seeing isn't the result of gradual improvement of MMOs as a genre, it's quite the opposite... and it happens all the time.

Someone creates a new and exciting product, and it's risky--like MMOs were in the beginning, with that subscription fee thing. Over time, folks see it pay off, and now they want in on it. Well, now there are several reasons they don't have to put QUITE as much into making it innovative:

1) Anything newer will look shinier, so that provides some automatic momentum.
2) The audience has already been softened up to the idea of sub fees, so you don't have to be quite so feature-stuffed in order to get people "over the hump."
3) While the game-focused folks tend to innovate, the business-focused folks tend to follow and try to make more money. Once the game-focused folks broke ground on MMOs, the business-focused folks sat down and said, "Okay, how can we get the same money with less expense?" This is good business, so it makes sense they'd do it. The result, however, is they include fewer features, so there's less they have to support with personnel. Other expenses are cut, too, depending on the company.

What MMOs used to have, in the Ultima/SWG/Everquest days, is very different from what they've got now. These older games had a little something for everyone--not just the combat-and-trophy hungry folks. They were about you creating an avatar to participate in a virtual world. They had so much more potential for "emergent gameplay," which is a GOLD MINE for keeping people interested and keeping things fresh.

And yes, they had many flaws, too. They tried to fix them, but some lessons had to be learned with time. PvP has changed drastically since then, for instance. Some of the "tweaks" to the old standards are good... it's just that some of them (the ones made for business purposes) are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Well in the days of Diablo and Everquest, there is not much going on to engage the player to do much other than explore the world. Granted, Diablo was more of a dungeon crawler that had a minor story, and my time with Everquest was limited. They do however share many of the elements that modern MMO's use, such as leveling up systems with skill trees and team or guild based gameplay. Now I never got far enough into Everquest to actually join a guild, but from what I heard from a friend who was in one, they were much like warrior guilds, where people must defend themselves from attacking PvP players and congregate for missions. In this sense, you are right that there is a community aspect that helps makes the world feel a little more real. However, this is still driven more by the community than the game design, and there is no indication that TOR won't have some form of this kind of gameplay, so we'll just have to wait and see.

As for the business aspect of the MMO, simplifying mechanics so that they are more accessible to the public isn't a problem for me. It costs a ton of money to develop these massive games and even more money to keep the servers running. Anything to get more traffic through the game is the smartest way to approach this game financially. The Bioware guys are extremely talented, so I am sure they will figure out a way to make the game appealing to the hardcore crowd, even though they will be dwarfed by the casual players, which I hate to break it to you, are the target audience.

I recommend you check out this video.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1906-The-Future-of-MMOs

 

[Aratus]

I usually wont post in threads that have gotten past a few pages like this cause I dont think most people will read it, and because most of the valid counter arguments have already been made.

But really the only thing that bugged me about the post was the "SACRIFICES CHARACTER FREEDOM" at the end of each of your main points. Doing this does not help strengthen your argument, it does not make your post more fun to read (actually quite the opposite), and more importantly it comes off as you thinking that you have to keep spelling it out every line or else we'd just forget it.

We are not idiots on this forum, we can follow the basic logic of your argument without it being spelled out multiple times.

 

[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".

I thought I made it pretty clear that I'm unconcerned with the points Dasterdly has made, because I feel the game will be fun regardless. Therefore, you could say I disagree.

And I'd prefer if you didn't make judgments on me based on 2 posts. No need to get all annoyed just because my posts don't fit your criteria

We could say you disagree? We're not going to assume what you think and your post is still a low content post. The only thing that was clear is that your going to get the game regardless.

Annoyed? Bad interpretation. This hasn't become a really important argument yet for me to get aggressive.

 

[C117]

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.

Wait, isn't that ALWAYS the case in MMO's? Say that I want to play a priest in World of Warcraft. Say that I chose this class not because I wanted to sit back with Holy spec and heal the guys who get to do all the fighting, but because I wanted to be a Shadow spec priest that joins the fray and just use my healing magic from time to time to keep myself going.

I would never be allowed to do that! Because it is EXPECTED of me to heal all the other dipshits, both by the game designers AND the community! SACRIFICES CHARACTER FREEDOM!!!

 

[Nazulu]

I usually wont post in threads that have gotten past a few pages like this cause I dont think most people will read it, and because most of the valid counter arguments have already been made.

Fair enough, but I just want to let you know there are a lot of people like me that can be bothered going through most of the posts.

But really the only thing that bugged me about the post was the "SACRIFICES CHARACTER FREEDOM" at the end of each of your main points. Doing this does not help strengthen your argument, it does not make your post more fun to read (actually quite the opposite), and more importantly it comes off as you thinking that you have to keep spelling it out every line or else we'd just forget it.

We are not idiots on this forum, we can follow the basic logic of your argument without it being spelled out multiple times.

I have to disagree, this is certain tactic people use to actually strengthen their argument, it shows they have complete confidence in what they are saying. The more confident the better, we're not going to follow someone that's not sure what they're talking about are we?

You know when you watch the news on the election and you see Obama continuously repeat "Yes We Can!". He adds it to the end of every point he is making to show the that he hasn't gone of subject and really emphasize to his audience that he can do it.

 

[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

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".

I thought I made it pretty clear that I'm unconcerned with the points Dasterdly has made, because I feel the game will be fun regardless. Therefore, you could say I disagree.

And I'd prefer if you didn't make judgments on me based on 2 posts. No need to get all annoyed just because my posts don't fit your criteria

We could say you disagree? We're not going to assume what you think and your post is still a low content post. The only thing that was clear is that your going to get the game regardless.

Annoyed? Bad interpretation. This hasn't become a really important argument yet for me to get aggressive.

Well it has been fun, but I'd like to end this back and forth now if you please. Our disscusion really isn't adding anything to the overall debate and we both seem to be firm in our beliefs so I'd prefer to end this on a respectful note.

Have a good one, perhaps we'll talk again

 

[HellspawnCandy]

I still think having swg devs in SW:TOR is sketchy. They don't seem to learn quite well with what to do and what not to do. Let's face it too, SWG at the start wasn't that amazing. Yeah the choices on your classes were neat, but the game was still pretty repetitive and not really fun. (Pre-Nge of course)

 

[Corkydog]

Okayyy, fine. But it'll still be a good game, I couldn't care less how you classify it's genre.

 

[Deguasser]

These just seem to be small complaints to you, I really don't mind these things at all, I'm playing a game to play a game, not to be a "new person" online.