PDA

View Full Version : SW:TOR gets caught advertising high textures that are not present in the game.



Stevo
11-01-2012, 08:28 PM
Oh dear
Hey everyone, thanks for bearing with us as we investigated the concerns raised here. After investigation, it seems that the confusion here is a combination of a UI issue that's been resolved and a feature that's working as intended, but the reason why it's 'working as intended' needs explanation

First, the UI issue. The preferences menu as it is seen on the Public Test Server for version 1.1 of the game is correct - there are only supposed to be two texture choices, 'Low' and 'High'. This replaces the original three-choice preference of Low/Medium/High because in reality, there was never supposed to be a 'Medium' choice - that was a bug

Here's where we need to explain. As many of you have noted, your character in the game world is rendered using lower resolution textures than inside of cinematic conversation scenes. This was a deliberate decision by the development team. To understand why this was done, I have to briefly talk about MMOs and their engines. In comparison to single player games and other genres of multiplayer online games, MMOs have much higher variability in the number of characters that can be potentially rendered on-screen at the same time. In MMOs, even though most of the time you'll see a relatively small number of characters on screen, there are certain situations in which many more characters will be seen. Some examples of these situations include popular gathering places in-game (in our case, the two fleets), Operations with large teams, and Warzones.

In those scenarios the client (and your PC) has to work hard to show off a lot of characters on-screen. During development and testing of The Old Republic, our priorities were to ensure the game looked great and performed well. In testing, we discovered that using our 'maximum resolution' textures on in-game characters during normal gameplay could cause severe performance issues, even on powerful PCs.

There were a variety of possible options to help improve performance, but one that was explored and ultimately implemented used what is known as a 'texture atlas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texture_atlas)'. To understand that I've got to get technical for a minute. When a character in the game is 'seen' by another character - ie, gets close to your field of view - the client has to 'draw' that character for you to see. As the character is 'drawn' for you there are a number of what are known as 'draw calls' where the client pulls information from the repository it has on your hard disk, including textures, and then renders the character. Every draw call that is made is a demand on your PC, so keeping that number of draw calls low per character is important. With our 'maximum resolution' textures a large number of draw calls are made per character, but that wasn't practical for normal gameplay, especially when a large number of characters were in one place; the number of draw calls made on your client would multiply very quickly.

The solution was to 'texture atlas' - essentially to put a number of smaller textures together into one larger texture. This reduces the number of draw calls dramatically and allows the client to render characters quicker, which improves performance dramatically. When it comes to cinematic scenes, however, characters are rendered using the higher number of draw calls and maximum resolution textures. This is because in those scenes, we have control over exactly how many characters are rendered and can ensure that the game performs well. The transition between 'atlas textured' characters (out of cinematics) and 'maximum resolution' textures (in cinematics) is mostly hidden by the transition between those two states (when the screen goes black), but obviously it's clear if you pay close attention.

In summary; yes, we had a small UI bug that unfortunately caused confusion over how the game is intended to work. The textures you're seeing in the course of normal gameplay are optimized for that mode of play. The textures you're seeing during cinematics are also optimized for that mode of play. They are higher resolution, but that's because we're able to control cinematic scenes to ensure good performance in a way we can't during normal gameplay. We understand the passion and desire for people to see the same textures you see in our cinematic scenes in the main game. Because of the performance issues that would cause for the client, that's not an immediate and easy fix; we need to ensure we're making choices that the majority of our players will be able to benefit from. Having 'atlassed textures' helps performance overall, and that's a very important goal for us.

With that said, we've heard your feedback here loud and clear. The development team is exploring options to improve the fidelity of the game, particularly for those of you with high-spec PCs. It will be a significant piece of development work and it won't be an overnight change, but we're listening and we're committed to reacting to your feedback. http://img859.imageshack.us/img859/7371/swtor2012011110050596.jpg So the devs with held information till a protest thread basically got too big to go unnoticed and they own up for not including high rez textures but that they had used them to advertise the game. F*cking disaster for them PR wise, Bioware aren't really earning a great rep as a reputable developer of an MMO when it comes to PR or Customer Support.

Roufuss
11-01-2012, 08:32 PM
These days, Bioware aren't really earning a great rep as a reputable developer period.

db1331
11-01-2012, 08:43 PM
Wow. That looks like some PSone era shit. I understand that as a massively multiplayer game, you want to be accessible to as massive a group of people as possible. At the same time though, I am pretty damn tired of PC games being made with people with 5-7 year old PCs in mind. If you only upgrade every 5-7 years, just get an Xbox, and stop holding back the master race. That is all.

db1331
11-01-2012, 08:44 PM
These days, Bioware aren't really earning a great rep as a reputable developer period.

This. There was a time when seeing Bioware on the box was all you needed to know to buy a game. Not so much anymore.

Kodeen
11-01-2012, 08:47 PM
I'm sorry, I have to break that up so that I can even read it:

OP updated with better formatting.

archonsod
11-01-2012, 08:52 PM
I'm starting to wonder whether it's called The Old Republic because of the era, or whether it's actually because the player base seem to spend most of their time moaning like a bunch of old women.

Kandon Arc
11-01-2012, 08:52 PM
The horror!

Smashbox
11-01-2012, 08:52 PM
This. There was a time when seeing Bioware on the box was all you needed to know to buy a game.

That's why they started renaming all their studios Bioware Somethingsomething.

Stevo
11-01-2012, 08:59 PM
Copy and paste job didn't notice that it lost the format will edit it.

Wizardry
11-01-2012, 08:59 PM
There was a time when seeing Bioware on the box was all you needed to know to buy a game.
No. That was the TSR/D&D/FR logos.

Althea
11-01-2012, 09:00 PM
That's why they started renaming all their studios Bioware Somethingsomething.
That's EA's doing because BioWare is now a division, not simply a studio. It's like EA Los Angeles - that's a division of EA made up of various studios.

Nalano
11-01-2012, 09:03 PM
This. There was a time when seeing Bioware on the box was all you needed to know to buy a game. Not so much anymore.

As with all companies, they're only as good as their latest product.

Smashbox
11-01-2012, 09:10 PM
That's EA's doing because BioWare is now a division, not simply a studio. It's like EA Los Angeles - that's a division of EA made up of various studios.

I should have specified.

That's why EA started renaming all their studios Bioware Somethingsomething.

Malawi Frontier Guard
11-01-2012, 09:13 PM
THATS IT BOWIARE

I SMASH MY CUP ON THE TABLE FROM ANGER

Are you happy now Bioware? ARE YOU HAPPY NOW??

Grizzly
11-01-2012, 09:16 PM
So ehrm... the graphics aren't that fancy. I fail to see how that is a big deal, actually. What is the fuss? I am probably missing something.

Rii
11-01-2012, 10:00 PM
Umm, juicing the grafix in situations where devs can control the performance implications exactly (i.e. cutscenes) is pretty standard practice even in games that aren't MMOs.

Racing games even have special 'photo' modes for this sort of thing: modes where the game can blow the entire rendering budget making the spray off the wheels look nice without worrying about the player making an unexpected turn into the Nietzschean abyss lurking just off-camera.

c-Row
11-01-2012, 10:09 PM
No. That was the TSR/D&D/FR logos.

If that D&D logo would be on a game set in the Eberron setting, I would definitely check it out even if it was made by BioWare.

Wizardry
11-01-2012, 10:11 PM
If that D&D logo would be on a game set in the Eberron setting, I would definitely check it out even if it was made by BioWare.
Not only am I baffled by this post, it's also completely irrelevant to everything ever written by mankind.

c-Row
11-01-2012, 10:20 PM
Not only am I baffled by this post, it's also completely irrelevant to everything ever written by mankind.

Maybe one day you will learn to accept that your opinion is yours alone and not a universal truth.

Wizardry
11-01-2012, 10:21 PM
Maybe one day you will learn to accept that your opinion is yours alone and not a universal truth.
Not only am I baffled by this post, it's also completely irrelevant to everything ever written by mankind.

Kaira-
11-01-2012, 10:24 PM
Now look what you did, Wizardry finally got stuck to infinite loop.

c-Row
11-01-2012, 10:29 PM
Now look what you did, Wizardry finally got stuck to infinite loop.

As long as he is stuck in this thread as well and doesn't bother us anywhere else, I don't see that as something bad, honestly. Alternatively, giving him a good kick sounds like a good idea, too.

Taidan
11-01-2012, 11:22 PM
Umm, juicing the grafix in situations where devs can control the performance implications exactly (i.e. cutscenes) is pretty standard practice even in games that aren't MMOs.

Racing games even have special 'photo' modes for this sort of thing: modes where the game can blow the entire rendering budget making the spray off the wheels look nice without worrying about the player making an unexpected turn into the Nietzschean abyss lurking just off-camera.

This, x1000, multiplied by "There is no story here".

SWTOR has still got the same textures it has had for quite some time now. Most of us figured out within the first few minutes that our characters look a lot better during the conversations than they do in the open world. Those of us that have taken part in very large-scale MMO gatherings (Think WoW's AQ opening, or the pre-BC gathering at the Dark Portal) can appreciate exactly why this must be.

Also, the whole thing with using lower quality textures in gameplay than in cut-scenes, in general, should not be a surprise to anybody by this point in time.

Nalano
11-01-2012, 11:31 PM
As long as he is stuck in this thread as well and doesn't bother us anywhere else, I don't see that as something bad, honestly. Alternatively, giving him a good kick sounds like a good idea, too.

Is this one of those "we gotta fight the terr'rists over there so we don't have to fight them over here" arguments?

Y'know, it doesn't actually work that way.

Rii
11-01-2012, 11:32 PM
I'm not sure it was a wise decision, though. As evidenced by the uproar, the relationship folks have with their MMO characters isn't really analogous to anything else. People don't want to see the seams.

If nothing else I don't see why the game couldn't be set to always render the player's own character at the highest LOD. A dynamic LOD system according to the number of characters on-screen would be even better...

Nalano
11-01-2012, 11:34 PM
If nothing else I don't see why the game couldn't be set to always render the player's own character at the highest LOD.

It might be too close to social commentary on how people view the world. :P

Rii
11-01-2012, 11:41 PM
In any case I would've thought a larger problem would've been the server/network loads encountered with large numbers of densely clustered players. I recall reading about some fancy new MMO tech designed to solve that problem, something about dynamically zoning the game world and varying the update rate by distance or something...

Lacero
11-01-2012, 11:41 PM
If nothing else I don't see why the game couldn't be set to always render the player's own character at the highest LOD. A dynamic LOD system according to the number of characters on-screen would be even better...First option your own character would stand out jarringly. It would look bad.LoD is already used in textures. It's called mipmapping and everything does it.That's doesn't say why they've not made the highest level higher detail.Rii: the server load is a problem for the server. this is a graphics problem for the client. Entirely different parts (subteams even) of the team.I can't use newlines it looks a mess :(

Nalano
11-01-2012, 11:55 PM
In any case I would've thought a larger problem would've been the server/network loads encountered with large numbers of densely clustered players. I recall reading about some fancy new MMO tech designed to solve that problem, something about dynamically zoning the game world and varying the update rate by distance or something...

Then you get weird shit like this (http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e342/jonmphy/2011-04-16_190147.jpg).

There were 400 people there. You can't see them, because the server shit a brick.

Rii
11-01-2012, 11:57 PM
First option your own character would stand out jarringly. It would look bad.LoD is already used in textures. It's called mipmapping and everything does it.

Yes, sorry, I was using the term in the more general sense to embrace stuff like character shadows and so on. As you can no doubt tell I'm not a professional, just a gamer more interested than most in the tech side of things.


That's doesn't say why they've not made the highest level higher detail.

For people with the PCs to handle it, exactly. Why deny them that option?

Of course pursuing that line of thought might've produced a game that doesn't look like WoW did ... in 2004.


Rii: the server load is a problem for the server. this is a graphics problem for the client. Entirely different parts (subteams even) of the team.I can't use newlines it looks a mess :(

I realise that, but what point in having the game run at 60fps if it's unplayable anyway cos the servers are dying under the load? My implicit question was whether the devs have in fact managed to address those problems such that paying attention the client-side stuff is a sensible time investment.

Taidan
12-01-2012, 01:11 AM
Then you get weird shit like this (http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e342/jonmphy/2011-04-16_190147.jpg).

There were 400 people there. You can't see them, because the server shit a brick.

I recall that malarky, that was Trion's first, disastrous attempt at creating a great World Event. I think that was a case of the game engine just plain refusing to render that many models at once, but it didn't help that the server got properly hammered too. It certainly also didn't help that they decided to run this event just once, ever, meaning that anybody who wanted to see this content was forced to become part of the problem.

SWTOR's solution is to dynamically create new "layers" when too many people are in the same zone at once. It's effectively a separate sub-server that sits under the first, with it's own mobs and stuff. It's kinda cool in that it works, from a technical standpoint, but it does often result in an annoying load when you join the party of another player who's on a different layer.

Nalano
12-01-2012, 01:19 AM
SWTOR's solution is to dynamically create new "layers" when too many people are in the same zone at once. It's effectively a separate sub-server that sits under the first, with it's own mobs and stuff. It's kinda cool in that it works, from a technical standpoint, but it does often result in an annoying load when you join the party of another player who's on a different layer.

Yeah, but AoC, APB and DDO did that, too; dividing public areas into 'shards.' It sucked. "No, I don't see you. I'm in front of the inn, too! Oh, I see, you're in Shard 3 and I'm in Shard 7. No, I can't get to where you are, the shard's full! Fuck it, I'm gonna go watch TV."

It especially sucks if world PvP is important, like in AoC.

I'll say this in Rift's favor, tho: WoW was never able to deal with 400 folks in one spot. Last time we tried that on Scarlet Crusade server - a 7 raid v 8 raid Org invasion - we killed the battlegroup.

c-Row
12-01-2012, 07:50 AM
Is this one of those "we gotta fight the terr'rists over there so we don't have to fight them over here" arguments?

No, that's a "he pisses me off, I piss him off in return" argument, and disturbingly after even supporting his original opinion.

Nalano
12-01-2012, 08:25 AM
No, that's a "he pisses me off, I piss him off in return" argument, and disturbingly after even supporting his original opinion.

As a card-carrying member of the venerable Court of Lawl, he's the closest I've ever gotten to blocking somebody, and I deal with dunderheaded zealots as a pastime.

csuzw
12-01-2012, 09:37 AM
A bigger problem than missing high res textures is that performance is terrible even with low res textures. Also the most likely congregation point in the game (Imperial/Republic Fleet) doesn't seem to have any instancing/sharding/whatever you want to call it so often it's a slide show even if you have no problems anywhere else in the game. Then even when you have very low latency and you're in a fairly unpopulated part of the game responsiveness in combat is horrible and actions don't sync properly with visual effects and the cast bar. It actually could be an ok game but there are some pretty horrible technical deficiencies which shouldn't really have made it to release in my opinion and I can't imagine they're going to be that easy to fix now.

c-Row
12-01-2012, 09:49 AM
I don't have a problem with the general look of TOR as it's consistent in itself, but not as far ahead of WOW to justify the bad performance on my old gaming rig that could run more demanding games just fine. It runs smooth again now that I got myself a new PC this week to fully enjoy Skyrim and Rage, but I don't see how TOR would need such specs.

hamster
12-01-2012, 10:00 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm guessing the issue is that all their ingame shots are cinematic quLity while they are not when actually ingame. I guess people who played the beta should know though.

Kadayi
12-01-2012, 12:23 PM
As a card-carrying member of the venerable Court of Lawl, he's the closest I've ever gotten to blocking somebody, and I deal with dunderheaded zealots as a pastime.

I blocked wizardry a while ago tbh. I'll occasionally give his posts a glance, but generally I can live vicariously through other people quoting him every now and then to get my fix.

R-F
12-01-2012, 12:35 PM
Not only am I baffled by this post, it's also completely irrelevant to everything ever written by mankind.

Not only am I baffled by this post, it's also completely irrelevant to everything ever written by mankind.


And it turned out Wizardry was a Parodybot ALL ALONG.

WHAT A TWIST! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdhhQhqi_AE)

Wizardry
12-01-2012, 04:09 PM
I don't know why people are complaining. Did you even read the post I was referring to?


If that D&D logo would be on a game set in the Eberron setting, I would definitely check it out even if it was made by BioWare.

It just makes no sense. He's saying that if a game set in Eberron was a D&D one he'd play it even if it was made by BioWare. Now, Eberron is a D&D setting anyway. Both Eberron games that have been released carry the D&D logo on the cover. Therefore I'm finding it really difficult to get any meaning whatsoever from this post. The best I can come up with is something like "I would love BioWare to make a D&D game set in Eberron." And even then it's largely irrelevant to anything talked about previously.

Taidan
12-01-2012, 05:01 PM
/back on topic

Relevant news post:

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?p=1499874#edit1499874


As stated, cinematic scenes use high resolution textures because we have control over how many characters are rendered on-screen at once. This is how the game was always intended to look in cinematics. We did not 'remove' high resolution textures - they were always in the game for use in cinematics.

With that said, thank you for all of your responses. We understand everyone's desires around this issue, and although it's not going to be an overnight fix, as mentioned we're working on addressing this. Many of the suggestions you have made are similar to potential changes the development team is investigating.

I rounded up the development team once more and had another discussion, and wanted to update you with a better timeline and some more precise details on what we're doing right now.

The first major changes will be in our next major Game Update, which will have the version number of 1.2. Those changes will bring greater visual fidelity to your character and those around you, but will still allow for good performance in situations where a lot of characters are on-screen at once. In other words, for those screenshots of your character in their best gear, you should see a marked improvement.

csuzw
12-01-2012, 05:06 PM
I quite like the 1st part of the statement as I've recently had a few cutscenes which random passers by have managed to appear in (great when they stand on top of/in the way of the person who is talking). So no it doesn't seem like they have control over how many characters appear in the cinematic bits either.

c-Row
12-01-2012, 05:17 PM
It just makes no sense. He's saying that if a game set in Eberron was a D&D one he'd play it even if it was made by BioWare. Now, Eberron is a D&D setting anyway. Both Eberron games that have been released carry the D&D logo on the cover. Therefore I'm finding it really difficult to get any meaning whatsoever from this post. The best I can come up with is something like "I would love BioWare to make a D&D game set in Eberron." And even then it's largely irrelevant to anything talked about previously.

People were ranting about how the BioWare logo was a seal of quality. You were stating that the D&D logo on a box usually stood for quality as well (which was totally irrelevant to the discussion to begin with, mind you). I was saying that if there was a D&D logo on a new Eberron game, I would even buy it if it came from BioWare, as I value both of the former high enough to not let such an opportunity pass, thereby supporting your view on the quality a D&D logo usually suggests. Then you got all pissed for no apparent reason.

Wizardry
12-01-2012, 05:36 PM
People were ranting about how the BioWare logo was a seal of quality. You were stating that the D&D logo on a box usually stood for quality as well (which was totally irrelevant to the discussion to begin with, mind you). I was saying that if there was a D&D logo on a new Eberron game, I would even buy it if it came from BioWare, as I value both of the former high enough to not let such an opportunity pass, thereby supporting your view on the quality a D&D logo usually suggests. Then you got all pissed for no apparent reason.
No. I suggested that the main reason Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate II sold the millions of copies that they did and made BioWare famous was the D&D attachment. BioWare were a relatively new company at the time and weren't well known for their previous game. Even the Interplay connection couldn't have helped that much considering Fallout sales were a whole lot less. And Knights of the Old Republic? Considering it was primarily a console game, and a lot of console gamers had no clue about Baldur's Gate, I'm sure it sold mostly off the Star Wars name.

So yeah, for a big part of BioWare's existence it wasn't the BioWare label that sold their games, it was the licenses they used. Which is exactly what I replied to originally when the following was posted:


This. There was a time when seeing Bioware on the box was all you needed to know to buy a game. Not so much anymore.

Skalpadda
12-01-2012, 05:48 PM
So yeah, for a big part of BioWare's existence it wasn't the BioWare label that sold their games, it was the licenses they used.

I'm thinking the fact that a lot of people loved the games might have had something to do with it.

Wizardry
12-01-2012, 06:10 PM
I'm thinking the fact that a lot of people loved the games might have had something to do with it.
You can only love a game after you play it.

Skalpadda
12-01-2012, 06:12 PM
You can only love a game after you play it.

Because good press and word of mouth have never led to increased sales, right?

Wizardry
12-01-2012, 06:14 PM
Because good press and word of mouth has never led to increased sales, right?
And good press and word of mouth don't often stand up to well regarded licenses. Just compare the sales of Baldur's Gate and Fallout.

Skalpadda
12-01-2012, 06:22 PM
I didn't say it was the only factor, but you were making it sound like the licences were the one major reason why the games sold, which sounds like nonsense to me. Making games a lot of people want to play and marketing them to the right audience is still the best way to sell games.

Grizzly
12-01-2012, 06:54 PM
I didn't say it was the only factor, but you were making it sound like the licences were the one major reason why the games sold, which sounds like nonsense to me. Making games a lot of people want to play (Emphasis mine - Grizzly) and marketing them to the right audience is still the best way to sell games.

Making a game Dungeons and Dragons is a sound way of attracting quite a large audience (as D&D is much more then a licence).

EDIT: The idea is that the FIFA games wouldn't have sold as well if football hadn't been a popular sport, for example.

Skalpadda
12-01-2012, 07:13 PM
Sure, I'm not in any way saying that licences don't play a big part in getting a game attention, but they also wouldn't have sold well if people hadn't enjoyed the games for what they are. There have been plenty of games with big licences that haven't done well and plenty of original IPs that have.

What I objected to was Wizardry's notion that "the main reason Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate II sold the millions of copies that they did and made BioWare famous was the D&D attachment" and "for a big part of BioWare's existence it wasn't the BioWare label that sold their games, it was the licenses they used". I think it had more to do with them being good at making games that a lot of people enjoyed.

Wizardry
12-01-2012, 07:16 PM
Sure, I'm not in any way saying that licences don't play a big part in getting a game attention, but they also wouldn't have sold well if people hadn't enjoyed the games for what they are. There have been plenty of games with big licences that haven't done well and plenty of original IPs that have.
But we aren't comparing the quality of the game with a label on the box. We are comparing one label on the box with another label on the box. Did you even read the original post I replied to?


This. There was a time when seeing Bioware on the box was all you needed to know to buy a game. Not so much anymore.

All I meant was that for a period of time it was the D&D label rather than the BioWare label that was the most important label on the box. I'm not at all playing down the positive reviews.


What I objected to was Wizardry's notion that "the main reason Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate II sold the millions of copies that they did and made BioWare famous was the D&D attachment" and "for a big part of BioWare's existence it wasn't the BioWare label that sold their games, it was the licenses they used". I think it had more to do with them being good at making games that a lot of people enjoyed.
Sure. But then you have to consider than Baldur's Gate wouldn't have been made if it weren't for the D&D license.

Skalpadda
12-01-2012, 07:31 PM
But why on earth would you assume "a time when seeing Bioware on the box was all you needed to know to buy a game" was referring to before or at the time the Baldur's Gate games came out? If people had bought the games on the strength of the D&D licence but then didn't enjoy them then surely that wouldn't have made Bioware famous?

To be absolutely clear, what I'm saying is that while the licence may have gotten them a lot of initial attention, the reason they became a big name studio was primarily because people liked their games.

Anyway, this is all off topic so I'll leave it be.

c-Row
13-01-2012, 08:12 AM
And Knights of the Old Republic? Considering it was primarily a console game, and a lot of console gamers had no clue about Baldur's Gate, I'm sure it sold mostly off the Star Wars name.

I think "being sure" is still quite an understatement in that case - the Star Wars license pretty much sells anything it's tacked on.

Taidan
13-01-2012, 11:50 AM
I quite like the 1st part of the statement as I've recently had a few cutscenes which random passers by have managed to appear in (great when they stand on top of/in the way of the person who is talking). So no it doesn't seem like they have control over how many characters appear in the cinematic bits either.

Either you're making up stories, or that's a hell of a bug. I'd report it just to be sure, because the SWTOR the rest of us are playing doesn't render players in cutscenes unless they're grouped with the person who triggers said scene. Even then, the game itself positions each player according to the script for that scene, so you should never see anybody standing on an NPC during a conversation.

csuzw
13-01-2012, 12:19 PM
It's certainly a bug and it doesn't happen regularly. The rogue players aren't actually part of the cut scene, they just appear in them as they would in normal game play, most likely they were going to talk to the same NPC I was. I never saw it while getting my Sorcerer to 50 but I've seen it a handful of times on my mid 20s Trooper.

R-F
13-01-2012, 01:12 PM
Either I've got insane or WIZARDRY IS STARTING TO MAKE SENSE.

Grizzly
13-01-2012, 01:37 PM
Wizardy has always made sense. Sometimes one simply does not get the context.

Wulf
14-01-2012, 12:51 AM
I'm starting to wonder whether it's called The Old Republic because of the era, or whether it's actually because the player base seem to spend most of their time moaning like a bunch of old women.

Because making a relatively polite and entirely reasonable complaint categorises the person or people responsible as moaners. And I'm not even touching the misogyny there, sport. :p

Funny thing is is that I agree with you. This is a very minor consideration, and nothing compared to the shenanigans that have gone on (that were very news-worthy). However, responses like this one really don't help things.

duff
14-01-2012, 06:30 AM
Choose your weapon!

582