RT-Medic-with-shotgun said:
And as fart as i know ONLY lightsabers connect. Bolts hit the lightsaber, swords and sabers hit the saber, but a monsters claw that gets blocked won't. So the part they expected more people to play got that. And the auto attack bit i still see no issue with but understand. In most hotkey MMos you spam abilities so fast that auto attacks have no chance of getting off. Why"? Because the individual attack feels worthless and unimpressive.
They could have made a new and better engine for other MMOs to go off of but they stuck with a 5 year old model. Likely at EA's request. They still follow you around, they have their own roles(similar to pets as in bear is tank, cat is dps so on). Same mechanic except they have actual classes. I expected them to innovate like they said with next gen MMO. But for innovation they substitute features such as a higher quality orchestra, LIMITED reactive combat, and AI controlled companions that AREN'T pets in any way shape or form in how they function. Instead i see WoW with an orchestra for every moment, full voice overs, and
And it looked pretty aggressive to take something out of context from a different thread, post it in this one and act like it proved something. Asking if i preferred they make a failed engine was just a smart ass thing to say.
So, in answer to my question, you expected "something" different. No idea what. Just "something". For the most part, I was in the same boat. I expected "something" different. However, despite being a disappointment to my expectations, TOR looks like it might show real promise. I just find it interesting that so many people, probably about half the people I see commenting on anything TOR, are willing to condemn the game, when all we have to go off of is some trailers and a 20 minute quest line at E3.
On the other hand, I agree. BioWare and Lucas Arts should have come up with their own design for TOR instead of ripping off WoW. But why stop with TOR? Let's hit other games too. Let's crucify Homefront for ripping off Call of Duty. Let's take down Brink cause it copies Team Fortress 2. Best of all, lets get a crusade going against WoW because it made buckets of money by ripping off Ultima Online and EverQuest...
See, the problem with condemning one game based solely on it's design, is that you must do the same with other games as well, or risk becoming a hypocrite. But when you do, perfectly great, exiting, and innovative games get shoved under the rug, simply because the engine was "a rip off". The same applies for books, movies, and music. Do you have any idea how many fantasy stories are rip-offs of Lord of the Rings? Ever notice how many movies are simply rip-offs of books or older movies? Do you know how many bands start up by ripping off the music style of another band? The answer: A lot. Many mass mediums draw heavy inspiration from older sources. The key is to judge a game based on it's own merits, leaving your own preconceptions at the door. (Go watch a few episodes of Extra Credits if you don't believe me.) I'll be perfectly happy to berate TOR for it's faults when it comes out. Until then, I'll be willing to give it a chance, and see the good things that come out of it. Not just the bad.
P.S. Perhaps I shall elaborate on my original question: Which do you think is better? A proven-successful engine that you learn little from, like WoW, or a failed engine, that serves to teach other developers fruitful lessons, like SWG? (Still waiting on an answer to that question by the way.)
P.P.S. Lightsabers connecting with claws? Really? It seems to me they tried that in the movies, and the claws didn't fare so well.
P.P.P.S. For the record, the post I originally quoted was in the same thread, a couple posts up from my original quote. SWG seemed like an obvious example, seeing as how it's a defunct Star Wars MMO. Sounds like fair game to me.
P.P.P.P.S. Thanks for the discussion. I haven't had this much fun on a forum in a long time.