PDA

View Full Version : SWTOR is another mediocre mmorpg...



TixyLixx
26-11-2011, 10:13 PM
People will say it is one of the best mmorpgs out there and to fair it probably is, doesn't mean however that the genre is dead and has been since around 2005 and SWTOR is the best of the worst. It basically is another WoW clone and I get the sense of deja vu all over again from when I played AoC, WAR and Rift etc. They all have their fanbois defending how it's different from WoW, however the truth is it looks and plays exactly the same. The shame for Bioware is many of us got bored of that type of game with WoW and were hoping this would be something new. Many people claim the story is amazing, yet all I saw was boring cutscenes to link them kill or fetch quests and it wouldn't surprise me if the story dries up as you get to the later levels.

It just makes me angry that we had innovation from Ultima Online, Everquest, Asheron's Call, Dark age of Camelot, Star Wars Galaxies Pre CU, Planetside and EVE Online. Then WoW came along and it was a great game, it brought so much to the genre that was innovative and people just swept it aside as an Everquest clone. Yet I've played all these MMOs and while WoW borrowed a lot from Everquest, the two played vastly different. Then because WoW proved amazingly popular, all of a sudden the innovation died and ever since we've had WoW clone after WoW clone and old games being ruined by turning into WoW like EQ2 and SWG.

What is worse is MMOs seem like they're getting smaller, like they're so instanced now and linear and most can only have 100 people in one area these days. Frigging tech has gotten better, surely we should be one upping SWG in features? Instead we still haven't seen that level of depth in a character creator or the skill system or that level of seamlessness. Still we haven't seen an FPS come out to tackle more than the usual 64 players, instead they seem to be getting smaller as they're made for consoles now. It's taking Planetside 2 to come along to make me excited again, even if it is made by SOE and they have ruined Four games I used to love and lied to me.

I just play SWTOR and think to myself "I was done with this many years ago and I have no desired to play it again or I would have gone back to WoW". The funny thing is WoW is the better game, it plays a lot better and from the beta it looks a lot better atm and it has better combat and more features. With the new expansion it'll also have a Pokemon system which finally Creature Handlers from SWG Pre CU might have something to play after all these years.

It will flop and it will leave another dent in the genre because developers lack any originality these days. Sandbox games prove they're popular with GTA, Fallout 3, Skyrim, Minecraft etc. Why do we get this linear WoW cloned shit instead?

Drake Sigar
26-11-2011, 10:28 PM
I just play SWTOR and think to myself "I was done with this many years ago and I have no desired to play it again or I would have gone back to WoW".
Pretty much my thoughts. My standards were too high. I hoped Old Republic would reinvent MMOs instead of simply adding to a WoW format. I've been off MMOs for a few years now and it looks like I'm never coming back.

Nalano
26-11-2011, 10:47 PM
More or less, yeah (http://forums.riftgame.com/shard-forums/na-shards/pvp-rp/sunrest/207160-anyone-else-just-losing-interest.html#post2598500).

Reinhardt
26-11-2011, 10:53 PM
Yeah, I just gave the beta a try for a couple hours. It's WoW through and through, with a completely unnecessary amount of voice acting and video (making the size of the game something like 25GB) and the same stale gameplay and lack of imagination.

Will we ever see a polished sandbox RPG again?

Mihkel
26-11-2011, 10:55 PM
I don't understand why most devs want to imitate that shit combat model WoW has. Why couldn't they have skillbased combat like in lets say Jedi Knight 2. Wouldn't be that hard to do it I bet and it would be actually challenging, fun and fastpaced. They could even add it to PvP for instance with the level based system that Global Agenda has. Also done interesting quests instead of regular MMO fare of go there and kill shit or go there and pick shit up and bring said shit back. How about adding some actual puzzles to your dungeons you lazy bastards.

Heliocentric
26-11-2011, 10:59 PM
Called it from the first gameplay video.

Stevo
26-11-2011, 11:14 PM
I don't understand why most devs want to imitate that shit combat model WoW has. Why couldn't they have skillbased combat like in lets say Jedi Knight 2. Wouldn't be that hard to do it I bet and it would be actually challenging, fun and fastpaced. They could even add it to PvP for instance with the level based system that Global Agenda has. Also done interesting quests instead of regular MMO fare of go there and kill shit or go there and pick shit up and bring said shit back. How about adding some actual puzzles to your dungeons you lazy bastards.


But WoW has 12 million subs so that must mean everything they implement is perfect so if we copy it word for word we'll get 12 million subs too yay!

TillEulenspiegel
26-11-2011, 11:15 PM
Will we ever see a polished sandbox RPG again?
Maybe. Not AAA-polished, but better than the likes of Mortal Online and Wurm Online, surely.

This is another of those situations where you look back and wonder what might have been if MMO evolution had followed the model of Ultima Online rather than EverQuest.

QuantaCat
26-11-2011, 11:19 PM
I quite liked Star Trek Online. It was pretty good, and it had noncombat missions that werent fetch. This was, obviously, this year, not when it launched.

I havent played WoW, nor have I played SWTOR, but I never intend to. I dont want to have any more star wars stories, as they successfully killed off whatever potential they had with whatever they did after KOTOR 2. And I understand, its easy to not like Obsidian, especially from a business standpoint, as their games have always had technical flaws (though, of course, KOTOR2 was not a flaw of themselves, more of the publisher wanting to push the game, atleast that is the general consensus), but the sheer quality of work they actually made, their innovations not in gameplay, but in presenting a story in a different light and generally making it all seem worth it.. is quite unparallelled. Except by maybe the The Witcher devs.


Basically, what Im trying to say is, MMOs are seldom interesting to me. They take the most boring aspects of a RPG, and thin it to make way for thousands of players to be able to experience the same story at the same time. Which is, honestly, the worst horrible fucking thing you can do. If anything, you should make way for players to make stories of their own. Let people miss out on stuff, thats how you create the most desire to get them playing again, so they dont miss out. (to be clear, dont let them miss out because of bad marketing, but for fucks sake, dont let the xth mission be infinitely replayable by everyone ALL THE FUCKING TIME. PLAYERS make stories, not dungeon masters)

Nalano
26-11-2011, 11:21 PM
But WoW has 12 million subs so that must mean everything they implement is perfect so if we copy it word for word we'll get 12 million subs too yay!

And MW3 got ten million pre-sales so clearly people like being led by the nose!

/cry

Mihkel
26-11-2011, 11:23 PM
But WoW has 12 million subs so that must mean everything they implement is perfect so if we copy it word for word we'll get 12 million subs too yay!

Yeah man, the truth sucks. I would love if devs would do some genuinely interesting stuff. It doesn't need to be liked by everyone but just to have your own niche crowd of loyal customers who you would build your next game or expansion or whatever on. What most get wrong these days is that it's good if a game is available for everyone. It's an immensely bad thing that takes away originality and interesting things or mechanics what the product might have. "Wow this game is found pretty difficult or too complex by some idiots who didn't like our previous installments anyway so lets dumb it down so we can lose our core audience and maybe gain some of those idiots to play this piece of crap for a little while and then move to the next mediocre game herp derp." Bunch of big companies have done this shit with good franchises in recent years (Bioware, Ubisoft for instance).

Teddy Leach
26-11-2011, 11:24 PM
Anyone surprised? Really?

Mihkel
26-11-2011, 11:26 PM
Anyone surprised? Really?

Not really but I really hoped that this would be something awesome. I guess I set my expectations too high or have too high standards these days.

Nalano
26-11-2011, 11:32 PM
Not really but I really hoped that this would be something awesome. I guess I set my expectations too high or have too high standards these days.

I really hope this isn't BioWare's albatross. At $135 mil in development, they'd need over a million subs just to break even. The fact that it looks and plays exactly like a game that has burned out many people to its whole genre brings concern to me as to whether BioWare will survive this venture.

Althea
26-11-2011, 11:35 PM
I really hope this isn't BioWare's albatross. At $135 mil in development, they'd need over a million subs just to break even. The fact that it looks and plays exactly like a game that has burned out many people to its whole genre brings concern to me as to whether BioWare will survive this venture.
Of course BioWare will survive. TOR was done by just one development studio out of four (Austin; the other three are Mythic, Edmonton and Montreal), and LucasArts will likely be footing most of that bill, with EA likely taking up some of it.

It's entirely likely that if it bombs, Austin will either be cut off or merged with Mythic.

QuantaCat
26-11-2011, 11:35 PM
I really hope this isn't BioWare's albatross. At $135 mil in development, they'd need over a million subs just to break even. The fact that it looks and plays exactly like a game that has burned out many people to its whole genre brings concern to me as to whether BioWare will survive this venture.

Maybe for the best.

Mihkel
26-11-2011, 11:37 PM
I really hope this isn't BioWare's albatross. At $135 mil in development, they'd need over a million subs just to break even. The fact that it looks and plays exactly like a game that has burned out many people to its whole genre brings concern to me as to whether BioWare will survive this venture.

They probably will sadly. I mean hardcore Star Wars fans are a lot of and most of them take it up the ass regularly from every Star Wars related tripe that's out there and then you have your Bioware fanboys who'll also do the same.

TillEulenspiegel
26-11-2011, 11:41 PM
I think, to an extent, it's possible to make a game that appeals to both types of players. So the big dumb heroes can go off on quests and kill stuff, using something like the dynamic quest system in Guild Wars 2. And then the people who want to be a blacksmith or open a shop or build a town or wage PvP wars or become a smuggler can ignore the quests and go do that. Or you can join a guild and go do their quests, like in a TES game.

You wouldn't have an epic world-changing storyline where you are The Chosen One, but I wonder how many people actually care about that. If you can just be a soldier and kill evil monsters and help rebuild a village GW2 style, isn't that good too? You're making a unique impact on a living world rather than retreading the same content a million other people have already seen.

Nalano
26-11-2011, 11:41 PM
Maybe for the best.

Like all companies that have produced quality and have the potential to continue doing so, I want them to get better at what makes them good, not die for their mistakes.


I think, to an extent, it's possible to make a game that appeals to both types of players. So the big dumb heroes can go off on quests and kill stuff, using something like the dynamic quest system in Guild Wars 2. And then the people who want to be a blacksmith or open a shop or build a town or wage PvP wars can ignore the quests and go do that. Or you can join a guild and go do their quests, like in a TES game.

You wouldn't have an epic world-changing storyline where you are The Chosen One, but I wonder how many people actually care about that. If you can just be a soldier and kill evil monsters and help rebuild a village GW2 style, isn't that good too? You're making a unique impact on a living world rather than retreading the same content a million other people have already seen.

My ideal is to reshape the world in my image.

MMOs allow me - however haphazardly - to do that not through their "theme park" gameplay, but through the fact that there are real people behind the other characters, and I can affect them in ways direct and indirect.

"Daily quests" like WoW or "retake the town from the NPCs" like Tabula Rasa or Rift are not particularly fun ways for me to become invested in my world. Drama - for all its ills - is. But PvE-oriented games like WoW and, therefore, like TOR, limit drama where-ever possible.

QuantaCat
26-11-2011, 11:43 PM
Like all companies that have produced quality and have the potential to continue doing so, I want them to get better at what makes them good, not die for their mistakes.

But you forget: it's just a company. The people that make it up can and will continue on, as did Obsidian & Bioware when Black Isle imploded. Companies dont learn, people do.

Nalano
26-11-2011, 11:45 PM
But you forget: it's just a company. The people that make it up can and will continue on, as did Obsidian & Bioware when Black Isle imploded. Companies dont learn, people do.

Unless those people are Peter Molyneux and Will Wright (http://blog.games.com/2011/06/06/the-sims-will-wright-facebook-game/).

QuantaCat
26-11-2011, 11:48 PM
Unless those people are Peter Molyneux and Will Wright (http://blog.games.com/2011/06/06/the-sims-will-wright-facebook-game/).

Exactly. So there is hope enough.
Also, Im always positively surprised to see a typical obsidian game. I just wish they kept that Alien franchise, they would have made it fucking AWESOME.

TixyLixx
26-11-2011, 11:50 PM
All I want is SWG Pre CU mixed with the polish of Blizzard and I'm happy.

That or Planetside 2 to be good, it's made by SOE so even if it is good and has potential, they'll find a way to ruin it.

TillEulenspiegel
26-11-2011, 11:51 PM
"Daily quests" like WoW or "retake the town from the NPCs" like Tabula Rasa or Rift are not particularly fun ways for me to become invested in my world. Drama - for all its ills - is. But PvE-oriented games like WoW and, therefore, like TOR, limit drama where-ever possible.
I don't think random free-for-all PKing is necessary for that, though - which is the direction all recent "sandbox" MMOs have taken with respect to PvP.

I think cooperation and construction and consensual Guild vs. Guild wars are more interesting social interactions. There were coalitions of RP guilds in Ultima Online that did exactly that, and it was by far the best experience I've had in any MMO. You still had the random PKs lurking around in the world, but they were mostly irrelevant.

Nalano
26-11-2011, 11:53 PM
Exactly. So there is hope enough.

I dunno if you 're being sarcastic.


I don't think random free-for-all PKing is necessary for that, though - which is the direction all recent "sandbox" MMOs have taken with respect to PvP.

I think cooperation and construction and consensual Guild vs. Guild wars are more interesting social interactions. There were coalitions of RP guilds in Ultima Online that did exactly that, and it was by far the best experience I've had in any MMO.

AoC was fantastic fun - guild wars, mercenary guilds, epic sieges - until they nerfed PvP. And then I quit, because the only way to progress was basically WoW-style raiding.

Rift and WAR were great fun - RvR, world raids where you needed a backup crew present just to defend your crew from PvPers - until they made raiding more important than world battles. Then they were WoW with different skins.

My most cherished memories in WoW - aside from RP sessions that were almost completely divorced from standard gameplay - were PvP-centered (http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e342/jonmphy/Lanos/OzzySat.jpg).

All raiding to me was a loose band of passive-aggressive incompetents poorly masking their self-interest. PvP had much the same asshats, but camaraderie from succeeding (or losing with dignity) and bare sink-or-swim system made for the strongest connections I had with my fellow player.

And if your problem with the game is in your contempt/fear of your fellow player, such that you can't abide open gameplay with them, why the hell are you playing an MMO?

QuantaCat
26-11-2011, 11:57 PM
I dunno if you 're being sarcastic.

Well, you chose two people that couldnt be more eccentric. I doubt a molyneux or a wright is going to come out of Bioware. And if they do, what happens to the other thousand people that do, which happened to be designers as well?

Also, btw, molyneux seems like someone that has good ideas, but a horrid designer. Wright just likes to experiment, and everyone likes what he does. So if he gets out of his facebook phase again, and trust me, he will, he'll do some amazing shit again, something that is not the sims.

Mihkel
26-11-2011, 11:59 PM
I doubt a molyneux or a wright is going to come out of Bioware.

What? They're working for Bioware? Since when?

edit: Sorry I get it now.

Nalano
27-11-2011, 12:03 AM
Well, you chose two people that couldnt be more eccentric.

And haven't yet come out with something that matches their first forays in originality and design.

Drake Sigar
27-11-2011, 12:41 AM
I really hope this isn't BioWare's albatross. At $135 mil in development, they'd need over a million subs just to break even. The fact that it looks and plays exactly like a game that has burned out many people to its whole genre brings concern to me as to whether BioWare will survive this venture.
I'm going to tell you what a Bioware dev told me on their own forums - "There is no Bioware."

It was like he punched me in the gut.

Nalano
27-11-2011, 12:45 AM
I'm going to tell you what a Bioware dev told me on their own forums - "There is no Bioware."

That's kinda what I expected (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lg7MAacSPNM&feature=related) when they were bought by EA.

DarthBenedict
27-11-2011, 01:00 AM
You wouldn't have an epic world-changing storyline where you are The Chosen One, but I wonder how many people actually care about that. If you can just be a soldier and kill evil monsters and help rebuild a village GW2 style, isn't that good too? You're making a unique impact on a living world rather than retreading the same content a million other people have already seen.

A bajillion people bought Follow Captain Price Around As He Saves The World XVII, so I think people are quite happy playing games in which they are not the centre of the universe.

Wulf
27-11-2011, 06:14 AM
"if [an MMORPG] breaks any of the WoW rules, in my book that's pretty dumb." -- Zeschuk

Everyone was surprised but me. Totally saw this coming. Called it from the alpha when I saw someone playing with a UI that looked strike for strike just like the WoW raid UI. That is not the sort of thing I want to see in a modern RPG. I'm currently still playing Champions Online because it's about as detached from that as any MMORPG has been, thus far. And I'm holding out hope that Guild Wars 2 will be even much more so risky and strange.

But yeah, I knew many would waste their money on this, I knew many would come to the conclusion that it's just a WoW reskin like I was saying from the start, like I was saying back when I was being hated on for seeing something no one else saw. Sometimes it kind of sucks being right all the time, but having a low and overly cynical opinion of the games industry will usually see you through, it means that you'll never be crushingly disappointed unless they really scrape the barrel to do so.

So yeah, I predicted this. Another instance of fairly standard clairvoyance.

Nalano
27-11-2011, 06:26 AM
So yeah, I predicted this. Another instance of fairly standard clairvoyance.

Pfft. Got you beat by five months (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/forums/showthread.php?2189-SWTOR-is-another-mediocre-mmorpg...&p=62189&viewfull=1#post62189).

QuantaCat
27-11-2011, 09:48 AM
..and again two MMOs get mentioned for their innovations, and theyre both by the same company. COINCIDENCE?! I THINK NOT!

(STO & CO)

Althea
27-11-2011, 10:21 AM
But you forget: it's just a company. The people that make it up can and will continue on, as did Obsidian & Bioware when Black Isle imploded. Companies dont learn, people do.
But BioWare were never part of Interplay. Yes, Black Isle did some co-development/publishing for Baldur's Gate 1+2, and BioWare did some engine stuff for BI for IWD and PS:T, but what happened to Interplay would have had no bearing on BioWare beyond them taking on some of the staff that left. Most of the rest probably went to Obsidian, and I don't doubt that some went to Brian Fargo's inXile.

QuantaCat
27-11-2011, 10:55 AM
Details, details. My point was just that people move on, even when companies die off. Especially game companies.

Althea
27-11-2011, 11:14 AM
Yeah, but EA are not stupid enough to kill off the BioWare brand. It's too big. You've got Edmonton, arguably the premier story-based RPG studio, you've got Montreal who - I believe - provide support for Edmonton, there's Mythic with UO, DAoC, WAR and that upcoming WAR spin-off (Wrath of Heroes?), there's BioWare Austin for TOR, BioWare Ireland who I think will provide localised support for TOR and finally there's BioWare San Francisco, who most of us will know better as EA2D.

That's a lot of staff, a lot of technical knowledge and - more importantly - a lot of brand power. Slap the BioWare logo on any old piece of crap and it'll do well, even if it's not an EA product (The Witcher, for example, which surely gained some sales from the BioWare logo plastered on the box).

EA didn't close DICE after Mirror's Edge and Medal of Honor, they didn't close Danger Close after MoH either. Yeah, they made some bad decisions in the past (Westwood being a big one), but now? I don't think they'll close BioWare if TOR flops. It'd be stupid.

Bristoff
27-11-2011, 12:10 PM
I've managed to completely not care about SWTOR at all.

There was a time where I was looking forward to The Next Big MMO with hyped-up fanaticism because this might be the next awesome MMO. Coming from EVE I was desperately looking for a free-PvP MMO where stuff I did mattered, preferably in a fantasy setting and guild focused (as my guild jumped from new mmo to new mmo).

Last one we thought was supposed to be the big one was Rift. Turns out it was just more of the same, and although prettier, most of us got bored within the first two months. Now people just play LoL, TF2 or other multiplayer games while waiting for GW2 (which crucially is neither F2P or subscription-based), which we/I hope will be a decent multiplayer-pvp game.

It's funny how the mmo-industry has managed to kill any sort of enthusiasm I had about the genre. So much promise, yet so much inane drivel that gets boring within the first month and then either has to merge their 25 servers into 4, go F2P or close down. Still nobody in the industry seems to understand that this is not what players want any more. It's completely baffling.

Vexing Vision
27-11-2011, 12:24 PM
I remain tremendously excited about the Secret World.

I've never been excited about SWTOR but interested enough to see what they would pull off. But the more I hear about it - and I don't mind the combat -, the less interested I am.

Althea
27-11-2011, 12:25 PM
Still nobody in the industry seems to understand that this is not what players want any more. It's completely baffling.
When it comes to announcing new MMOs, I agree, but ones just coming up to release? I don't think any company is particularly willing to throw years of work down the drain, they're going to at least try and get some money back, even if it means going F2P within months/a year of launch.

pakoito
27-11-2011, 02:06 PM
I remain tremendously excited about the Secret World.I was too until I saw actual fight scenes in one of the trailers. No matter how much sugar you put on top, all MMO cater the same cheesy stand still and mash rotation stuff.

Nalano
27-11-2011, 05:38 PM
EA didn't close DICE after Mirror's Edge and Medal of Honor, they didn't close Danger Close after MoH either. Yeah, they made some bad decisions in the past (Westwood being a big one), but now? I don't think they'll close BioWare if TOR flops. It'd be stupid.

Mirror's Edge and MoH weren't commercial flops. Mirror's Edge sold 2 million copies. MoH sold 5 million copies and is slated for a sequel - hell, its teaser is in BF3.

Althea
27-11-2011, 05:43 PM
Mirror's Edge and MoH weren't commercial flops. Mirror's Edge sold 2 million copies. MoH sold 5 million copies and is slated for a sequel - hell, its teaser is in BF3.
Still, studios have been closed over less.

Nalano
27-11-2011, 05:55 PM
Still, studios have been closed over less.

Name one, then.

Althea
27-11-2011, 05:59 PM
Name one, then.
Kaos. Closed after Homefront and Frontlines, two not-so-great-selling-but-not-exactly-failures.

Wulf
27-11-2011, 06:07 PM
I was too until I saw actual fight scenes in one of the trailers. No matter how much sugar you put on top, all MMO cater the same cheesy stand still and mash rotation stuff.
I had a feeling that The Secret World would be pretty bad early on. It pretends to be intellectual, but once you get into the storyline, it's pretty cheesy (all the conspiracy stuff that you're absolutely not to laugh at under any circumstances), and it just has the same Saturday-morning good vs. evil battle that's in most MMOs.

Y'know, this is one of the reasons I like Guild Wars 2. It's not good vs. evil, and pretty vs. ugly, and all of those saturday morning tropes that we're far too used to. It's people fighting for survival against creatures that are forces of nature, that don't desire anything in particular, but are simply apex predators who consider the world as theirs. We are the mice, in Guild Wars 2, and the dragons are the cats. ArenaNet has stressed a number of times that their dragons aren't necessarily evil in any sense we'd attach to them, but they're there, and they want to survive.

Unfortunately their drive for survival is making that world inhospitable for everyone else. And then you have the charr, who were supposedly the bad guys in Guild Wars 1, but with all the lore revealed it now shows that Ascalon were as guilty of heinous acts in Guild Wars 1 as the charr, if not more so. And that makes the whole thing more three-dimensional, because you can't just point at someone and say that they're the shiny good guys, or they're the dirt-stained bad guys.

All of the races have had their moments of shining brilliance and unethical darkness. This is recognised by the fact that every race has a faction which is against their unification philosophies, which is against peace between the races.

It's still not perfect, but it's a step up over most the stuff out there. And it's why I still hold out hope for Guild Wars 2 over most other MMORPGs, because it's more mature than most other MMORPGs. It greys the lines. Champions Online does this too, if I'm honest, like that one mission I talked about in a comment a while back. Where a bunch of VIPER are literally holding back a guy who's trying to jump off a roof.

The mission is called 'A Mission of Gravity' and once you defeat the VIPER (who're supposed to be a rather nasty paramilitary organisation), the guy says "Thanks, I really don't know why they were holding me back.", walks to the edge of the roof, and disappears.

I just aided in a suicide that VIPER were trying to stop.

There's a lot of that in CO, actually. There are times when you feel like you're little more than super-police, and people run up to you and yell at you for your police brutality. This is a thing that happens. It's not a perfect reality, your halo is tarnished. And amidst all the cheesy Adam West humour of Champpions Online, this somehow makes it all the more disturbing, dark, and alien. There's this shiny, colourful world here, but most the time we're not allowed to feel very good about what we do.

And half of the time in CO you can tell your contacts are self-interested, egomaniacal pricks who're not particularly invested in helping anyone other than themselves. And then you read the info of the people they're sending you up against, and that makes the people you're supposed to see as villains sympathetic and worthy of empathy.

I first noticed this in CO with the Dogz, because I wanted to read their info. Now there are two factions, and one of them are Black Fang's Dogz. Black Fang is just a guy who wants to look out for his growing pack, and the Dogz are just a bunch of misfits and outcasts who had nowhere else to go. Then from Caliburn (Mr. Self-Interested Jerk) you get a mission to beat the shit out of a bunch of them. And it just makes you sit back and think... what's really going on, there?

After that, I started paying attention to more NPC dialogue and mission text, and... well, I found that this is a strong undercurrent throughout the game. Once you see it, you can't unsee it, and it was completely intentional. This is one of the things that's kept me playing Champions Online.

Versus that, in The Secret World, you have: These are the bad people, they're monsters with claws, angs and stuff. Beat them up. You're freeing the world above, you pretty, perfect people, you.

And The Old Republic? Well, that's typical Star Wars, isn't it? I can't blame it for that. You have your Jedi and you have your Sith. Obsidian managed to blur the lines with some of the characters in Knights of the Old Republic II, and some of the books have gone even further than that, but Star Wars is supposed to be an iconic good vs. evil battle for the young ones, so I can't begrudge it that.

TOR is just not something I'm going to play due to that. Same with TSW. They both embody things I don't want: WoW style play and a Saturday morning cartoon attitude to the world's politics.

Nalano
27-11-2011, 06:46 PM
Kaos. Closed after Homefront and Frontlines, two not-so-great-selling-but-not-exactly-failures.

Frontlines barely broke even and Homefront sold 1 million units - of which a significant number were discounted - while costing $25 million.

Shane
27-11-2011, 07:41 PM
Like all companies that have produced quality and have the potential to continue doing so...

Bioware and quality do not go well together.

Nalano
27-11-2011, 08:06 PM
Bioware and quality do not go well together.

Hey! Hey. We already have Wizardry to make all the snide snipes at BioWare. We don't need you too.

QuantaCat
27-11-2011, 09:38 PM
@Wulf
Well, they apparently managed to do away with all of the doubts that KOTOR2 raised about the sanctity of the Jedi, and the evilness of the sith. And now, with star wars coming out in 3D, I think we've lost all chances for anything good in the star wars universe. The books have all been written, the series have all shown they sortof drizzle after a while. Its over. Star Wars is finally over.

Now lets please concentrate on other SciFi Fantasy things, that have more potential.

Nalano
27-11-2011, 10:10 PM
@Wulf
Well, they apparently managed to do away with all of the doubts that KOTOR2 raised about the sanctity of the Jedi, and the evilness of the sith. And now, with star wars coming out in 3D, I think we've lost all chances for anything good in the star wars universe. The books have all been written, the series have all shown they sortof drizzle after a while. Its over. Star Wars is finally over.

Now lets please concentrate on other SciFi Fantasy things, that have more potential.

Still don't know why they didn't just do a Mass Effect MMO. They had all they needed.

QuantaCat
27-11-2011, 10:11 PM
Truly. Though I fear that if you water that experience down, you end up with nothing at all.

Althea
27-11-2011, 10:22 PM
Still don't know why they didn't just do a Mass Effect MMO. They had all they needed.
Probably because Mass Effect 2 and 3 were/are in development, and when ME1 was being made they weren't part of EA, plus by the time they were bought by EA TOR had been in development perhaps a year or so.

Lukasz
27-11-2011, 10:29 PM
Frontlines barely broke even and Homefront sold 1 million units - of which a significant number were discounted - while costing $25 million.

isn't homefront getting a sequel?

QuantaCat
27-11-2011, 10:29 PM
That and be honest, what brings more customers from the get go? Star Wars or Mass Effect?


isn't homefront getting a sequel?

Thank fucking god, homefront was horrible.

Althea
27-11-2011, 10:39 PM
isn't homefront getting a sequel?
Yes, but Kaos were closed.

Shane
28-11-2011, 04:51 AM
Hey! Hey. We already have Wizardry to make all the snide snipes at BioWare. We don't need you too.

Not really, I could wax eloquent about all the reasons Bioware's games are utter rubbish, from an objective point of view, but that would detract from the topic at hand.

Dexter
28-11-2011, 06:24 AM
Well I found it fun after a while... I was appaled by the quality of the graphics and the similarities to... certain other games at first and largely irritated through the first 10 or-so levels, but I pushed through... got to like Level20 and the story picks up a lot in that time and leaves it open to the top, you also get a ship and companions etc. If I might've had "enough time" in the Beta (like I did with WoW, LOTRO, Age of Conan, RIFT and so on...) I might not even care and leave it aside as another game cause I'm "bored" by it or experienced most of what there was to experience.

I'm also long done with waiting on another "Ultima Online" though (the only game I played for years, and one of the few among of which there also was Anarchy Online and Asheron's Call I actually subscribed to) and I figure I've paid more money for worse/less.
If it's not worth it after exploring the stories for Light and Dark side like in most SP RPGs I'll just cancel the sub and treat it as such, but compared to other MMOs and for people that liked KOTOR/KOTOR2 or Mass Effect there is actually something to look forward to in and keep playing the game other than "Endgame" and "PvP".

outoffeelinsobad
28-11-2011, 07:49 AM
I find the plot and dialogue to be uninspired. Nothing in the world looks like it has any texture except hair. The environments are destitute and boring. I'm with Wulf on this one -- wait for GW2.

Stormbane
28-11-2011, 08:26 AM
I too tried the beta weekend and found it very disappointing.

The very first thing I experienced in the game was character creation and it left me baffled. What were they thinking with those body types?

You have:


Emaciated teenager
Skinny college grad with a big head
7 foot giant with a 1 foot deep chest
Peter Griffin

Only options 2 and 3 are really viable but if you choose #2 then the #3 NPCs will tower over you and make your badass (don't ban me bro) savior-of-the-universe look like the captain of the chess team. If you pick #3 you tower above all the #2 NPCs and look like a shaved Wookie and expect to hear grunting whenever you character opens his mouth.

Nalano
28-11-2011, 08:37 AM
badass

By the gods of gaming, you are banned from this forum and the rest of the internet for 72 hours.

Here's hoping you have alternative sources of porn.

Dexter
28-11-2011, 12:45 PM
I'm with Wulf on this one -- wait for GW2.
And I'm with myself when I say, f*** GW2 xD

If anything I'm looking forward to "The Secret World" as I haven't seen anything particularly interesting about that game you all seem to praise for some reason...

Drake Sigar
28-11-2011, 12:55 PM
By the gods of gaming, you are banned from this forum and the rest of the internet for 72 hours.

Here's hoping you have alternative sources of porn.
Maybe he should be banned. Despite the blandness it's almost on par with saying 'radical', something only Jeff Bridges and Michelangelo can get away with it. You can still use 'cool' in relative safety, but 'awesome' must be used sparingly to avoid sounding like a bro.

And let's not even discuss 'hellacool'.

IDtenT
28-11-2011, 01:19 PM
I hate it when people refer to Star Wars as SciFi. There's more fantasy in it than science. The fluffiest of soft SciFi has some kind of science thing going for it. All of Star Wars screams fantasy. It's mostly a problem for me because I want more hard SciFi in my games. I want games that actually focus on some future science. *sigh*

R-F
28-11-2011, 01:50 PM
And I'm with myself when I say, f*** GW2 xD

If anything I'm looking forward to "The Secret World" as I haven't seen anything particularly interesting about that game you all seem to praise for some reason...

The Secret World put me off with it's "EXCLUSIVE FACEBOOK ITEMS!11!!!!111!" campaign. Fuck that noise in the ear.

On topic: SWTOR is a very, very, VERY good WoW clone. It's basically singleplayer with some minor multiplayer elements, though.

metalangel
28-11-2011, 01:56 PM
By the gods of gaming, you are banned from this forum and the rest of the internet for 72 hours.

Here's hoping you have alternative sources of porn.

You're banned too, for having quoted the naughty word.

Taidan
28-11-2011, 02:57 PM
On topic: SWTOR is a very, very, VERY good WoW clone. It's basically singleplayer with some minor multiplayer elements, though.

I will politely disagree on that assessment. I think it's a WoW clone alright, (it's actually more like WoW than WoW is at the moment, in a number of ways) but I personally found most of the "campaigns" to be utterly, mind-numbingly boring. I did like the Smuggler, though.

Althea
28-11-2011, 03:00 PM
I hate it when people refer to Star Wars as SciFi. There's more fantasy in it than science. The fluffiest of soft SciFi has some kind of science thing going for it. All of Star Wars screams fantasy. It's mostly a problem for me because I want more hard SciFi in my games. I want games that actually focus on some future science. *sigh*
I think some of the creators like to call it space fantasy. Sounds about right to me.

Shane
28-11-2011, 03:29 PM
Space opera?

Althea
28-11-2011, 03:32 PM
Space opera?
No. Space opera is science fiction.

Nalano
28-11-2011, 07:40 PM
No. Space opera is science fiction.

Only without the science.

jp0249107
29-11-2011, 12:22 AM
I played WoW for a while, and then got VERY bored with it. Sitting in a dungeon finder waiting for that one healer or tank to show up while looking for "LFG Healer!" in General chat while sifting through the 4chan and reddit memes made me want to throw up. I then played EVE for a bit. While it was fun, participating in real territory wars and the big battles I saw advertised required more of a time sink and putting up with internet drama than I was wanting to put in. So I'm in about the same place as everyone else. My interest perked up with SWTOR but after one video I thought "yep...WoW clone" and that was it.

I LOVE having big battles or coop-ing some bosses/dungeons with my friends and using strategy, but the games that do have those experiences require too much time or are filled with trolls (I went through so many dungeons in WoW with randoms that would drop after just ONE wipe...ugh). Planetside 2 is my last great hope. I don't even care if it's not that great, just as long as I can join a faction, jump in a transport, blow shit up, and capture territory with 200 other people who are at least passably amicable. Like Risk, but I'm one of those puny little guys getting blown up by a dice roll.

Fiyenyaa
29-11-2011, 12:40 AM
Not really, I could wax eloquent about all the reasons Bioware's games are utter rubbish, from an objective point of view, but that would detract from the topic at hand.

I guess every time I enjoy one of their games, I'm objectively wrong then?

TailSwallower
29-11-2011, 01:34 AM
I think some of the creators like to call it space fantasy. Sounds about right to me.

When I first started playing Mass Effect and it seemed like Bioware making a new KOTOR but with the serial number filed off, I would refer to the Biotics as Space Magic. Space Fantasy with Space Magic and the Normandy is the One Ship to seduce them all in.

pakoito
29-11-2011, 01:58 AM
I guess every time I enjoy one of their games, I'm objectively wrong then?You're subjectively right, you can like and enjoy whatever games you want, good or bad. I love Chaos Legion or movies like Old Schools even though I know they're objectively bad; and I don't like "El Quixote" even though it's the summum of Spanish literature.

The only way you could be wrong is by stating that the games were objectively good, which they may or may have not been. But probably they have because we, same as rpgcodex, hate cRPGs.

Nalano
29-11-2011, 02:49 AM
You're subjectively right, you can like and enjoy whatever games you want, good or bad. I love Chaos Legion or movies like Old Schools even though I know they're objectively bad; and I don't like "El Quixote" even though it's the summum of Spanish literature.

The only way you could be wrong is by stating that the games were objectively good, which they may or may have not been. But probably they have because we, same as rpgcodex, hate cRPGs.

Or, you can divorce craft from creativity and understand that there is no 'objective good' when it comes to any art form. Only mastery of craft.

And please, for the love of all that is good and holy, don't compare us with the dogmatic trolls of RPG Codex.

pakoito
29-11-2011, 03:03 AM
Or, you can divorce craft from creativity and understand that there is no 'objective good' when it comes to any art form. Only mastery of craft.I don't think of mass consume media as art; but coming to think about it, they are supposed to be created for enjoyment and they can be measured as such instead of as a sum of the individual measurable quality of their parts. But then everything is subjective and THE SYSTEM WOULD CRUMBLE.

Nalano
29-11-2011, 04:05 AM
I don't think of mass consume media as art; but coming to think about it, they are supposed to be created for enjoyment and they can be measured as such instead of as a sum of the individual measurable quality of their parts. But then everything is subjective and THE SYSTEM WOULD CRUMBLE.

You're conflating "art" with "entertainment."

Juan Carlo
29-11-2011, 04:34 AM
I have no interest in TOR, but I do hope it's a smashing success. Mainly because pc gaming as a platform needs smashing successes to stay alive. As much as people love to demonize EA I think the only worse thing than EA succeeding would be EA failing and deciding to abandon the PC altogether. So even though I think TOR looks abit crap, I hope millions of others have a ball with it.

Nalano
29-11-2011, 04:38 AM
Mainly because pc gaming as a platform needs smashing successes to stay alive.

PC gaming's currently doing fine. Better than at any point in its history.

Althea
29-11-2011, 10:20 AM
When I first started playing Mass Effect and it seemed like Bioware making a new KOTOR but with the serial number filed off, I would refer to the Biotics as Space Magic. Space Fantasy with Space Magic and the Normandy is the One Ship to seduce them all in.
Biotics were pretty much thinly veiled magic, but the rest was pretty well thought out, IIRC. Things like the Mass Effect gates/drives? I think they're based on an actual theory.

Shane
29-11-2011, 11:38 AM
^ So is the species of lesbian, blue aliens.

Althea
29-11-2011, 11:40 AM
^ So is the species of lesbian, blue aliens.
They're not lesbian. They're not female to be lesbian.

R-F
29-11-2011, 11:54 AM
I think SWTOR works best if you think of it as a singleplayer game with multiplayer elements.

Edawan
29-11-2011, 12:20 PM
They're not lesbian. They're not female to be lesbian.
Sure, lore-wise they have no gender, but you can't ignore that Bioware designed them to look exactly like human females.

Althea
29-11-2011, 12:21 PM
Sure, lore-wise they have no gender, but you can't ignore that Bioware designed them to look exactly like human females.
I'm not ignoring that ;)

Lukasz
29-11-2011, 01:08 PM
mhmmm. i am not so sure whether asari are not actually lesbian. (we assume that female member of species is the one which gives birth. which is not necessarily true for all species on our planet aka a male gives birth)

They maybe had a second gender which then died out or become female permanently. it also happened in our world. that would make all asari female even if there is no male anymore.

Althea
29-11-2011, 02:45 PM
Huh? That makes no sense. There are many species or creatures that exist without gender, and arguably many more with more fluid gender "boundaries", and they all proliferate without issue.

The Asari are shaped like our females, but it doesn't mean they are females. We might refer to them as she, but to them they might not have a sense of gender (due to them all being the same in that regard) and as such there is no female or male to them. You've got to remember that there's a lot of different species around in Mass Effect, and as such a lot of different languages. It seems to be an unspoken fact that everything is translated somehow (possibly by an omni-tool), and that may account for the inconsistencies.

Or it could just be that the writer between ME1 and ME2 changed and everything went balls up like it did.

Lukasz
29-11-2011, 03:12 PM
Huh? That makes no sense. There are many species or creatures that exist without gender, and arguably many more with more fluid gender "boundaries", and they all proliferate without issue.

The Asari are shaped like our females, but it doesn't mean they are females. We might refer to them as she, but to them they might not have a sense of gender (due to them all being the same in that regard) and as such there is no female or male to them. You've got to remember that there's a lot of different species around in Mass Effect, and as such a lot of different languages. It seems to be an unspoken fact that everything is translated somehow (possibly by an omni-tool), and that may account for the inconsistencies.

Or it could just be that the writer between ME1 and ME2 changed and everything went balls up like it did.

okay. let me rephrase that.

It is possible that Asari species had males. Yet at some point they died out or switched to female. So asari are not genderless species but one sex species. Female, which would make them lesbian.

just one of possibilities based on what we see with various organisms on our planet (some are genderless some are one sex when second sex disappeared for one reason or another)

Taidan
29-11-2011, 03:35 PM
just one of possibilities based on what we see with various organisms on our planet

I bet you almost subconsciously typed "various orgasms on our planet". ;)

Interesting, though. You've successfully argued a case for the adoption of gendered labels of sexuality in a fictional single-gendered species, and in the process enriched this particular 5-minutes of my life.

How the hell did we all get by before the widespread adoption of this internet, and the forums contained herein?

Lukasz
29-11-2011, 03:52 PM
How the hell did we all get by before the widespread adoption of this internet, and the forums contained herein?

I have no idea but sometimes I have nightmares about there being no internet.

Althea
29-11-2011, 04:22 PM
okay. let me rephrase that.

It is possible that Asari species had males. Yet at some point they died out or switched to female. So asari are not genderless species but one sex species. Female, which would make them lesbian.

just one of possibilities based on what we see with various organisms on our planet (some are genderless some are one sex when second sex disappeared for one reason or another)
It is possible, yes, but they're not female. That's the point. It's been canonically said that they are not female, and that they are a single sex species. There's no females, no males, nothing. Just one single sex, therefore they cannot be lesbians.

Males require the presence females, females require the presence of males. Get rid of one sex (which wouldn't happen anyway, as the survival of the species would cease to happen, as if two sex are created, they can reproduce with each other, but not together (i.e. heterosexual = procreation, homosexual = no possibility of a successful mating). If the species as a whole was hermaphroditic, then you'd possibly find gender, but the sex would stay constant.

Fiyenyaa
29-11-2011, 04:43 PM
Males require the presence females, females require the presence of males. Get rid of one sex (which wouldn't happen anyway, as the survival of the species would cease to happen, as if two sex are created, they can reproduce with each other, but not together (i.e. heterosexual = procreation, homosexual = no possibility of a successful mating).

Only if they don't have advanced enough technology. It's not a big leap of the imagination to envisage a species which reproduces sexually without one of the sexes due to technological replacements.

R-F
29-11-2011, 04:46 PM
So asari are homosexual?

Lukasz
29-11-2011, 04:50 PM
It is possible, yes, but they're not female. That's the point. It's been canonically said that they are not female, and that they are a single sex species. There's no females, no males, nothing. Just one single sex, therefore they cannot be lesbians.

Males require the presence females, females require the presence of males. Get rid of one sex (which wouldn't happen anyway, as the survival of the species would cease to happen, as if two sex are created, they can reproduce with each other, but not together (i.e. heterosexual = procreation, homosexual = no possibility of a successful mating). If the species as a whole was hermaphroditic, then you'd possibly find gender, but the sex would stay constant.

but it did happen on earth.
There are lesbian lizards
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico_whiptail
males died out long time ago and they reproduce without them. So what you said is wrong.

there are some kind of fish (name escapes me) where male becomes female if there is no females around (or the other way around. ) and from jurassic park we got the same thing with frogs apparently.

if they are stated to be single sex species then they are lesbian. cause their sex is female.
bacteria for example don't have sex. they are genderless species.

Flint
29-11-2011, 04:57 PM
Sure, lore-wise they have no gender, but you can't ignore that Bioware designed them to look exactly like human females.
Although it doesn't really have much to do with Bioware's visual design in itself, in-game (according to a conversation you can overhear on ME2) it would seem like Asari appear in different looks to different species(/people?), so they might appear more male-y to some.

Edawan
29-11-2011, 05:03 PM
Although it doesn't really have much to do with Bioware's visual design in itself, in-game (according to a conversation you can overhear on ME2) it would seem like Asari appear in different looks to different species(/people?), so they might appear more male-y to some.
Yeah I remember that, but then why don't they appear as a hot human male when you play a straight FemShep ?

Flint
29-11-2011, 05:06 PM
I'd assume it's because creating an entirely different model for all the countless asari in the game that'd change depending on your character's gender would've been a bit timely/wonky to develop. But yeah, as said the in-game explanation still has little to do with Bioware's own specific design choices in the matter.

Althea
29-11-2011, 05:06 PM
but it did happen on earth.
There are lesbian lizards
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico_whiptail
males died out long time ago and they reproduce without them. So what you said is wrong.

there are some kind of fish (name escapes me) where male becomes female if there is no females around (or the other way around. ) and from jurassic park we got the same thing with frogs apparently.

if they are stated to be single sex species then they are lesbian. cause their sex is female.
bacteria for example don't have sex. they are genderless species.
No, because we have given them female gender. They might not have any concept of "Asari femininity", so to *us* they seem like they're a female species. Liara says, in ME1, that "male" and "female" have no real meaning with Asari (thus shooting your "males died out a long time ago" argument squarely in the forehead) and that she isn't "strictly a woman", so despite having a physiological structure of a woman (i.e. breasts, uh... the rest of it), they do not have any sort of social construct for gender, ergo they can be considered either mono-gendered or genderless.

And even then, they're not lesbian. They don't reproduce exclusively with themselves, nor with females. Did you not notice, for example, the Asari on Ilium with her Salarian "father"? Did you not notice the bartender whose "father" was a Krogan? In terms of sexuality, we would consider them to be more along the lines of pansexual. It's entirely possible that there are "lesbian" Asari, but it doesn't mean they - as a race - are.


Although it doesn't really have much to do with Bioware's visual design in itself, in-game (according to a conversation you can overhear on ME2) it would seem like Asari appear in different looks to different species(/people?), so they might appear more male-y to some.
I would think it's less about that and more about how they have things that appeal to different races. Their head fringes might appeal to Turians, their figures to humans, skin colour to Salarians, etc.

Flint
29-11-2011, 05:12 PM
I would think it's less about that and more about how they have things that appeal to different races. Their head fringes might appeal to Turians, their figures to humans, skin colour to Salarians, etc.
I doubt, if I remember the convo correctly the people involved each comment on how the asari looks very close to their own respective species, rather than everyone just finding different things they enjoy from the asari's looks.

Lukasz
29-11-2011, 05:37 PM
No, because we have given them female gender. They might not have any concept of "Asari femininity", so to *us* they seem like they're a female species. Liara says, in ME1, that "male" and "female" have no real meaning with Asari (thus shooting your "males died out a long time ago" argument squarely in the forehead) and that she isn't "strictly a woman", so despite having a physiological structure of a woman (i.e. breasts, uh... the rest of it), they do not have any sort of social construct for gender, ergo they can be considered either mono-gendered or genderless.

And even then, they're not lesbian. They don't reproduce exclusively with themselves, nor with females. Did you not notice, for example, the Asari on Ilium with her Salarian "father"? Did you not notice the bartender whose "father" was a Krogan? In terms of sexuality, we would consider them to be more along the lines of pansexual. It's entirely possible that there are "lesbian" Asari, but it doesn't mean they - as a race - are.

@the bolded by me part. two different concepts. they are not the same.
You see... if they are one gendered species then that gender can be identified. And of course we humans would label it as female or male as we do that. Using what we understand now to understand unknown. Therefore we can label them as lesbian if they can be classified as female. Whether asari understand the concept is not actually that relevant (it is like calling ancient greeeks homosexual, bixsexual etc. while the concept would not make any sense to them)
You make a good point about pansexuality. That asari as a species can mate with male/female members of another species and as far as we know with anything else which cannot be fitted into this two categories. Yet that only happened since their first contact. Therefore it can be said they are lesbian species as through most of their history two female asari mated together.
(unless they can mate with nonsentient beings too but it seems unlikely as their reproduction is less about genetic material but something about mind sharing and stuff. If they can do that then they are pansexual blue alien Furries)

Furthermore it was never about physical shape but who bears a child. Breasts and the rest of it are not relevant cause they do not even make a person female with us, humans (even if we don't think about surgical modifications)


okay. this argument went on too long, never meant it to do so. it was silly comment of mine in regards how it can be valid to call asari a lesbian species.

kyrieee
29-11-2011, 06:10 PM
I don't get why people keep putting out MMOs that barely include any player interaction and SWTOR seems like it's taking that to an extreme. They should call it Concurrent Single Player Game or something. The only MMO I play is EVE-Online and in EVE the player interaction is the whole game. Why hasn't anyone taken any lessons from that?

Nalano
29-11-2011, 07:23 PM
I don't get why people keep putting out MMOs that barely include any player interaction and SWTOR seems like it's taking that to an extreme. They should call it Concurrent Single Player Game or something. The only MMO I play is EVE-Online and in EVE the player interaction is the whole game. Why hasn't anyone taken any lessons from that?

Because EVE never had 12 million subs.

Taidan
29-11-2011, 07:37 PM
Hey, there's always Perpetuum...

(Is that any good nowadays, by the way? It's the one bloody game that won't run on my system, for some bizarre reason.)

QuantaCat
01-12-2011, 01:39 PM
Also, why is gay or lesbian so often mentioned, but bisexual almost never is?

Skalpadda
01-12-2011, 01:45 PM
I'm not sure why you'd call the Asari lesbian or homosexual, the gender or even species of their partner doesn't seem to matter at all, so that'd make them.. omnisexual?

Althea
01-12-2011, 01:45 PM
Also, why is gay or lesbian so often mentioned, but bisexual almost never is?
That's a fair point, but I think it's half-answerable. A lot of romances in games tend to be either straight or bisexual - a truly gay romance option is quite rare.


I'm not sure why you'd call the Asari lesbian or homosexual, the gender or even species of their partner doesn't seem to matter at all, so that'd make them.. omnisexual?
The term is "pansexual".

Shane
01-12-2011, 02:23 PM
I wonder what the literal meaning of omnisexual would be.

thegooseking
01-12-2011, 02:38 PM
I wonder what the literal meaning of omnisexual would be.

It means you do it with animals and plants.

Jajusha
01-12-2011, 02:50 PM
It means you do it with animals and plants.

People always forget fungus and bacteria *sigh*

thegooseking
01-12-2011, 05:05 PM
Fungus has too high a risk of infection, and bacteria... well, also infection, but furthermore it's kind of difficult.

magnolia_fan
01-12-2011, 10:43 PM
It will flop and it will leave another dent in the genre because developers lack any originality these days. Sandbox games prove they're popular with GTA, Fallout 3, Skyrim, Minecraft etc. Why do we get this linear WoW cloned shit instead?

There's also originality in more linear experiences. Just because some games are successful for being sandboxy doesn't mean all games should be sandbox style games.

Stormbane
02-12-2011, 02:56 AM
That's a fair point, but I think it's half-answerable. A lot of romances in games tend to be either straight or bisexual - a truly gay romance option is quite rare.
That's because gay gamers are rare. It's the same reason we have more white male protagonists in games. It's just reflects the player base and not some evil conspiracy. In fact I would imagine the majority of game makers are more liberal than their peers and are therefor more tolerant of homosexuality.

Stormbane
02-12-2011, 03:06 AM
Its interesting to see the general dislike of the WoW gameplay model. Blizzard has to know that after almost 10 years people are getting tired of the same gameplay.

I wonder how all of this is affecting development of Titan. The success of Titan in the next couple years is going to determine the fate of the company between a successful well respected games company and what they are today. Blizzard are smart though, I trust they will bring enough new and retain enough familiarity in titan, billions of potential dollars depend on it after all.

I think retaining the combat gameplay of WoW (because collision based open world MMO are still not viable) and adding the best sandbox elements from EVE and Ultima coupled with full voice acting that ToR will no doubt make mandatory all with a shiny coat of Blizzard polish will make a game that could keep Blizzard on top for another decade.

Nalano
02-12-2011, 03:18 AM
In fact I would imagine the majority of game makers are more liberal than their peers and are therefor more tolerant of homosexuality.

I'm sure that game players, on the contrary, are not.

fanatic4k
02-12-2011, 03:53 AM
The fact that WoW is a too big shadow to surpass says it all :)

pakoito
02-12-2011, 03:55 AM
The fact that WoW is a too big shadow to surpass says it all :)
Fat nerd shadow, in fact.

Rii
02-12-2011, 06:45 AM
Its interesting to see the general dislike of the WoW gameplay model.

Yeah, like the 'general dislike' for the CoD gameplay model.


the next couple years is going to determine the fate of the company between a successful well respected games company and what they are today

...


In fact I would imagine the majority of game makers are more liberal than their peers and are therefor more tolerant of homosexuality.

I doubt it.

Althea
02-12-2011, 09:14 AM
That's because gay gamers are rare. It's the same reason we have more white male protagonists in games. It's just reflects the player base and not some evil conspiracy. In fact I would imagine the majority of game makers are more liberal than their peers and are therefor more tolerant of homosexuality.
Gay gamers are rare? Not likely.

BillButNotBen
02-12-2011, 11:16 AM
I know it's rarely how this business works, but I wish obviously talented people like Bioware would get the chance to attempt more varied projects. They've made a lot of great RPGs, but essentially they all seem to be riffs on the same game. They do try to make a few changes, like the shooting in Mass Effect, but in many ways Black Isle = Kotor = Jade Empire = Mass Effect = Dragon Age(not played) = SWTOR(but tacked into an MMO).

I get why their publishers would want them to keep churning out proven money makers, but I don't really buy this idea that there are great FPS studios, or great RPG studios, or great RTS studios, and that they can only produce that one kind of game. It tends to get perpetuated a lot on game blogs and things though. Many great games were made by people who'd never made a great game of that type before. Rage made goldeneye. Bungie made Myth, then made Halo. Lucasarts made Dark Forces/Jedi Knight. etc..

I'd imagine Bioware could make a pretty cool adventure game, or puzzle game or 4x game, or whatever.

Vexing Vision
02-12-2011, 11:23 AM
Gay gamers are rare? Not likely.

Rare is the wrong word, but it's definitely a minority. If games would cater to more minorities, they'd include more game mechanics that interest me (as I'm a game-mechanics minority).

All these labels...

pakoito
02-12-2011, 01:59 PM
Rare is the wrong word, but it's definitely a minority.No. No no no no nope. They play the same as straight guys. Being gay doesn't mean they have to play Sims and that stuff. They like dudes, they don't become princesses or something, and they'll stomp you in SF, CoD or Fifa.

Shane
02-12-2011, 02:03 PM
I think he meant that homosexuals being a minority amongst the general populace, are a minority among gamers too.

Althea
02-12-2011, 02:18 PM
I think he meant that homosexuals being a minority amongst the general populace, are a minority among gamers too.
Well, yes, that's a given, but we're no less of a minority in games and we don't need "special treatment". There are plenty of hetereosexual gamers who enjoy gay relationships in games (thinking of the love of M/M relationships amongst straight women here) or who aren't "creeped out" by them.

Vexing Vision
02-12-2011, 02:23 PM
No. No no no no nope. They play the same as straight guys. Being gay doesn't mean they have to play Sims and that stuff. They like dudes, they don't become princesses or something, and they'll stomp you in SF, CoD or Fifa.

Sorry if I was being unclear - I'd be strongly surprised if being gay had any major effect on games being played (addendum: "Games" not focussing on hyper-sexual content). I also certainly do not wish to make any judgement on whether the inherent sexism in games is a good or a bad thing (an issue on which I personally remain completely neutral about).

My point merely is that "Gamer interested in hawt man-elf on man-elf sex scene" is just as much a minority group as "gamer who likes turn-based strategy elements in his or her Roleplaying Games" from a biz perspective. You pick and cater to as much an audience as you can, but that will never include everyone on earth, regardless of gender, orientation or hair-colour.

Althea
02-12-2011, 02:36 PM
My point merely is that "Gamer interested in hawt man-elf on man-elf sex scene" is just as much a minority group as "gamer who likes turn-based strategy elements in his or her Roleplaying Games" from a biz perspective. You pick and cater to as much an audience as you can, but that will never include everyone on earth, regardless of gender, orientation or hair-colour.
But they're not. The popularity of the male/male paranormal romance genre is proof enough that homosexual content in games is something that can be tapped to the benefit of the game.

BioWare have come closest to catering for most tastes, but they still have a ways to go.

Vexing Vision
02-12-2011, 03:07 PM
But they're not. The popularity of the male/male paranormal romance genre is proof enough that homosexual content in games is something that can be tapped to the benefit of the game.

BioWare have come closest to catering for most tastes, but they still have a ways to go.

Yes, absolutely. Additional content is always great. But on the same side, the popularity of Witcher 2 (which is really as heterosexual as they come) shows that there's also a strong market for that.

For the record, I believe that Dragon Age: Origins did an excellent job of introducing the male-male relationship. I also believe that Dragon Age 2 and Skyrim (DA2 more, because of the greater emphasis on interaction with NPCs) do a horrible job of relationships - making everyone bisexual is boring and lazy and removing depth of the characters.

Althea
02-12-2011, 03:19 PM
But on the same side, the popularity of Witcher 2 (which is really as heterosexual as they come) shows that there's also a strong market for that.
No? It shows that people value something a bit different and/or CDProjekt's views and beliefs. I'd be worried, actually, if people bought The Witcher 1/2 because of the way women are represented in it. I won't blame CDProjekt or even Sapkowski himself for it, because it's his world that seems to have a lot of basis in the way societies behaved in the same sort of time period for us. It's probably more representative than most historical dramas/games, actually.

Mihkel
02-12-2011, 06:14 PM
I think atm Bioware shouldn't really do romance. It's all gone downhill in that respect for them (be it hetero,bi,gay or whatever). It just comes across forceful and the subplot itself with the dialogue is stupid.

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/5255/swtor2011112714240523.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/827/swtor2011112714240523.jpg/)

Nalano
02-12-2011, 06:18 PM
I think atm Bioware shouldn't really do romance. It's all gone downhill in that respect for them (be it hetero,bi,gay or whatever). It just comes across forceful and the subplot itself with the dialogue is stupid.

She looks like Barbie dress-up. Actually, they all do. Like you expect a gigantic nine-year-old to pick her up and move her arms about.

Cooper
02-12-2011, 07:29 PM
My point merely is that "Gamer interested in hawt man-elf on man-elf sex scene" is just as much a minority group as "gamer who likes turn-based strategy elements in his or her Roleplaying Games" from a biz perspective. You pick and cater to as much an audience as you can, but that will never include everyone on earth, regardless of gender, orientation or hair-colour.Not really. If a game is in any way character-driven, then it's no big feat to introduce a variety of sexualities to the characters. The same way it's not difficult to introduce a variety of genders and ethnicities to characters.

But representation (with respect to the general populace of even just the 'game playing' populace) of women and non-white characters in games is more apparent than gay characters.

That being said, this may be as much to do with the character development and dialogue of games writing; which remains poor and bypasses any kind of discussion where sexuality may be made apparent...

Drake Sigar
02-12-2011, 07:42 PM
I think atm Bioware shouldn't really do romance. It's all gone downhill in that respect for them (be it hetero,bi,gay or whatever). It just comes across forceful and the subplot itself with the dialogue is stupid.

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/5255/swtor2011112714240523.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/827/swtor2011112714240523.jpg/)
NPC: "We're under attack!"

You: "That robe really brings out your eyes."

And the award for innapropriate timing goes to...

orcane
02-12-2011, 09:14 PM
That's pretty... wat? :D

Achkas
05-12-2011, 11:58 AM
For an example of Bioware's ineptitude at showing realistic romantic relationships, see DA:Redemption and Felicia Day's "flirting" with the templar. It's totally random and forced, going from light-hearted chat to a proposition to find a bed really quickly. In Day's interviews and tweets, she talked so much about how there's "flirting" in the DLC and webseries, as if this was a selling point, that I think Bioware have developed a very 'special', out-of-touch idea of how such things work.

Although, SPOILERS FOR DA:O and WITCH-HUNT:




There was an excellent moment in Witch-Hunt, if you imported a save where you romanced Morrigan, where she quotes something you said early in the relationship, dozens of gameplay hours earlier, in an emotional conversation to try and convince you to leave her be. This was really really well done, and although the DLC was admittedly perhaps less interesting for those who did not romance Morrigan, it showed more depth to a relationship.

IDtenT
05-12-2011, 12:49 PM
Speaking of DA:O. I still hold that it's their best work so far.

Althea
05-12-2011, 12:59 PM
Speaking of DA:O. I still hold that it's their best work so far.
Why? Over-long, many, many cut corners, no great storyline, some really boring characters - I could be here all day finding faults in DA:O.

It's really not that good, it just appears like it is because it has no real competitor in the market.

Flint
05-12-2011, 01:48 PM
Why? Over-long, many, many cut corners, no great storyline, some really boring characters - I could be here all day finding faults in DA:O.

It's really not that good, it just appears like it is because it has no real competitor in the market.
Alternatively, some might find the length just the right one, no cut corners of any significance, a good storyline and great characters. It's not their best IMO but I do think it is a great game and doesn't simply "appear" to be so.

Althea
05-12-2011, 01:53 PM
Alternatively, some might find the length just the right one, no cut corners of any significance, a good storyline and great characters. It's not their best IMO but I do think it is a great game and doesn't simply "appear" to be so.
You can't not have cut corners in a game, they were either cut or they weren't.

And they were.

Ravelle
05-12-2011, 02:38 PM
If only the game didn't crash to desktop on any random time so I wouldn't have to start parts all over again, really want to start that game again but the crashes demotivated me.

Taidan
05-12-2011, 02:43 PM
You can't not have cut corners in a game, they were either cut or they weren't.

And they were.

Yeah, but weren't those particular cut corners added again later as paid DLC?

*snark*

Althea
05-12-2011, 02:49 PM
Yeah, but weren't those particular cut corners added again later as paid DLC?

*snark*
One of them was ;) But no, it was things like the skeletons/models, particularly for female characters. All were based on the same one, I believe, but poorly changed so that Elves and Dwarves had some really, really odd proportions. Dwarves had massively long arms and long legs, and they looked a bit stupid.

Flint
05-12-2011, 03:52 PM
You can't not have cut corners in a game, they were either cut or they weren't.

And they were.
Hence why I said there were none of any significance, to me in any case. I found nothing to be bothersomely missing or half-arsed in the game.

Berzee
05-12-2011, 04:47 PM
She looks like Barbie dress-up. Actually, they all do. Like you expect a gigantic nine-year-old to pick her up and move her arms about.

I would play that MMO.

Vexing Vision
05-12-2011, 06:06 PM
I would play that MMO.

I could actually link you to one, but then I'd have to ban myself for crimes against humanity.


THESE THINGS EXIST.

Berzee
05-12-2011, 06:13 PM
I could actually link you to one, but then I'd have to ban myself for crimes against humanity.


THESE THINGS EXIST.

Really? An MMO where the character creator lets you customize a nine-year-old girl (all you can see are her gigantic arms, but you can choose different bangles and such for them) and then you go through the game picking up dolls and manipulating each limb individually? REALLY, MR. VISION?

Nalano
05-12-2011, 06:14 PM
I could actually link you to one, but then I'd have to ban myself for crimes against humanity.


THESE THINGS EXIST.

This is my sadface.

:C

Vexing Vision
05-12-2011, 06:31 PM
Really? An MMO where the character creator lets you customize a nine-year-old girl (all you can see are her gigantic arms, but you can choose different bangles and such for them) and then you go through the game picking up dolls and manipulating each limp individually? REALLY, MR. VISION?

Well, yes. For a certain definition of "doll".


....


I've said too much, haven't I.

Berzee
05-12-2011, 06:41 PM
Yes; I begin to become concerned. Good day, forever.
*exits hurriedly*

Kadayi
15-12-2011, 02:51 PM
If only this guy had read your prediction: -

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/forums/showthread.php?2368-The-good-thing-about-SWTOR-early-access-is-you-can-still-get-a-refund-D

/S

jryan
27-12-2011, 06:26 PM
Well, I got a copy of this and have been playing quite a bit of it. It may be considered damning with faint praise, but it's actually not that bad of a game. It's pretty good, in fact.

Granted, they kind of had to break the forth wall to get some of the elements of the game to work, but I can look past that to enjoy what is there.

The comical forth wall busting happened when I completed the story of the first planet as a trooper and had my lieutenant busted to sergeant and put under my control... the trouble was that when I got to the space station there were a million of the guy now running around with their commanders. There may have been some mechanism to wind up with a different underling, but I am playing through as a goody two-shoes super trooper and always answer every question as super friendly as I can.

Also, after about a million years of playing MMORPGs I have finally solidified my overarching theory that if you ever want to win in PVP you need to play for the bad guys. Whether it's SWTOR, WOW, WH, COH or whatever, for some reason the PVP minded people gravitate to the dark side. It's probably because, deep in their soul, they are really bad people.

Anyway, this game is actually quite a bit of fun and isn't YET the abysmal grind that other MMORPGs have been. The focus on less missions, more reward to move the story along was a good one. The spoken cinematic quests give your character a lot more depth... even though some of the answer choices seem too narrowly focused for my tastes and it is all too easy to click the wrong response and completely blow a cohesive narrative.

For example, at one point on Cordoba I was caught in a feud between the "True Republic" and some crooked senator. I decided to side with the True Republic over the crooked senate, and forced one senator to out herself for siding with a crime syndicate to get money to "save the poor" or some such, and then wen to the second crooked senator to coerce them into giving up the goods on a crooked land deal and clicked the wrong button and had no choice but to become an accomplice and feed the True Republic bogus documents.

I'm the Sith's best friend.

My only other knock so far is that some of the team skills are not well defined in the game itself, making proper selection rather difficult without going to a third party walkthrough. As such I just took scavenging and armor and weapons smithing and crossed my finders that the smithing in this game isn't the worthless time sink it is in every other MMO.

Nalano
27-12-2011, 06:34 PM
Also, after about a million years of playing MMORPGs I have finally solidified my overarching theory that if you ever want to win in PVP you need to play for the bad guys. Whether it's SWTOR, WOW, WH, COH or whatever, for some reason the PVP minded people gravitate to the dark side. It's probably because, deep in their soul, they are really bad people.

What.

/10char

jryan
27-12-2011, 06:43 PM
What.

/10char


It's a joke.

Nalano
27-12-2011, 06:47 PM
It's a joke.

Can I assume the rest of the post is, too?

LordHuggington
27-12-2011, 06:53 PM
I just don't see myself spending time with this game. WoW has essentially killed the genre for me since every other developer largely copies the game's core concepts when they go for their piece of the MMO pie. I'm tired of the trinity of roles, failed talent trees, boss mechanics where you say, "How cute, this is the part where we stack. Ahhhh, adds are coming. Adorable!" I keep hoping for gameplay mechanics to improve, but it hasn't happened, and as such I'm back to playing single-player games in search of fun. From everything I've seen and heard about TOR, it doesn't seem the game that will shake this cynicism from me.

jryan
27-12-2011, 06:56 PM
Can I assume the rest of the post is, too?

Personally I don't go for that kind of black and white interpretation of other peoples writing, but if it keeps you from getting upset then I say go for it.

Rauten
27-12-2011, 06:58 PM
Well I can't speak about ToR, WH, CoH and all those others, but until the introduction of Blood Elves, Horde was pretty dominant in PvP. Save for a few specific servers, and later on BattleGroups, even in world PvP, despite lower population on horde side, we used to be the victors.

*Sigh* Those were the days...

Nalano
27-12-2011, 07:25 PM
Well I can't speak about ToR, WH, CoH and all those others, but until the introduction of Blood Elves, Horde was pretty dominant in PvP. Save for a few specific servers, and later on BattleGroups, even in world PvP, despite lower population on horde side, we used to be the victors.

*Sigh* Those were the days...

I'd argue that it's the lower population that did it for the Horde (to say nothing of preferable racials). What wins PvP is teamwork, and considering the BG population is held steady, pulling from a smaller pool allows more experience per player (with the same teammates, too).

Meanwhile, the Alliance got all the mouthbreathers who based their decisions on conventionally pretty toons.

Serenegoose
27-12-2011, 07:45 PM
I'd argue that it's the lower population that did it for the Horde (to say nothing of preferable racials). What wins PvP is teamwork, and considering the BG population is held steady, pulling from a smaller pool allows more experience per player (with the same teammates, too).

Meanwhile, the Alliance got all the mouthbreathers who based their decisions on conventionally pretty toons.

Excuse me. I'm a mouth breather and I based my decisions on being able to play a troll, and your generalisation that all mouth breathers just want to play conventionally pretty races is grossly offensive. Some of us want to play as races you can give huge tusks to.

Nalano
27-12-2011, 08:06 PM
Excuse me. I'm a mouth breather and I based my decisions on being able to play a troll, and your generalisation that all mouth breathers just want to play conventionally pretty races is grossly offensive. Some of us want to play as races you can give huge tusks to.

And before the belfs came 'round, the troll women were considered the prettiest hordies.

Not that it matters, 'cause I'm a flaming (http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e342/jonmphy/Lanos/GUI61307.jpg) hypocrite (http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e342/jonmphy/Lanos/OzzySat.jpg). :D

Rauten
27-12-2011, 09:07 PM
Eh, I always found the undead ladies more arousing *sound of floodgates opening; it eerily resembles someone shouting "necrophiliac!! pervert!!"*

Nalano
27-12-2011, 09:38 PM
Eh, I always found the undead ladies more arousing *sound of floodgates opening; it eerily resembles someone shouting "necrophiliac!! pervert!!"*

No, no, the true calls of "pervert!" are reserved for those who play Tauren and, now, Worgen.

Wulf
28-12-2011, 11:58 PM
In all fairness, Blizzard brought it on themselves.

No, not being nasty. But have you seen the dance that worgen women do? It's Poker Face.

So much groping. Why is there so much groping?

It's not that I mind, but it's definitely the perviest dance in the game. So saying that pervert is reserved for the worgens actually has some kind of solidity in lore. Not to mention that it's based upon Gregorian/Victorian England, and the heels of that era pretty much exemplified deviance.

THAT SAID. The Gilneans are pretty much the only interest I have in WoW.

Possibly for that reason? Though probably not.

Althea
29-12-2011, 12:04 AM
The female Night Elves use the dance from Alizée's J'en ai Marre dance, which is so jailbait-y that Pedro Behr gets a little excited.

Nalano
29-12-2011, 12:18 AM
In all fairness, Blizzard brought it on themselves.

No, not being nasty. But have you seen the dance that worgen women do? It's Poker Face.

So much groping. Why is there so much groping?

It's not that I mind, but it's definitely the perviest dance in the game. So saying that pervert is reserved for the worgens actually has some kind of solidity in lore. Not to mention that it's based upon Gregorian/Victorian England, and the heels of that era pretty much exemplified deviance.

THAT SAID. The Gilneans are pretty much the only interest I have in WoW.

Possibly for that reason? Though probably not.

Repeat after me:

Furries.

SirKicksalot
29-12-2011, 12:40 AM
In all fairness, Blizzard brought it on themselves.

No, not being nasty. But have you seen the dance that worgen women do? It's Poker Face.

So much groping. Why is there so much groping?

It's not that I mind, but it's definitely the perviest dance in the game. So saying that pervert is reserved for the worgens actually has some kind of solidity in lore. Not to mention that it's based upon Gregorian/Victorian England, and the heels of that era pretty much exemplified deviance.

THAT SAID. The Gilneans are pretty much the only interest I have in WoW.

Possibly for that reason? Though probably not.

I read this post thinking it was written by Wizardry and my head was full of fuck.