I read through the article when it was released, and through the comments once those picked up later.

I have to say, I'm disappointed with Gamasutra for approving this article. While there are great points contained within, it's hidden within hyperbole, ranting, and tacky internet memes. Keep in mind Gamasutra is a website for professional game developers and designers.

 

He could have taken an unbiased analysis of the game, but instead opted to post a long negative diatribe. The fact that he posts much more eloquently within the comment section supports the idea of the article simply being click bait.

I will leave it to you to find. But, I posted his comments regarding the tone in this thread. Read that and see what he has to say.

I agree with the article.

I read this and then your sig and honestly can't tell if you are being ironic.

I will leave it to you to find. But, I posted his comments regarding the tone in this thread. Read that and see what he has to say.

I will leave it for you to find, but I mentioned that I've read the article and his replies in their entirety; even making a comment on his replies.

The article was highly unprofessional on a site dedicated to professionals. It was far more suited to someplace like kotaku.

First off, while I wasn't initially a fan of the authors tone, he did explain it in a comment ( I read further as many didn't), and it makes sense. although I still feel that there is a bit of edge there most likely due to personal disappointment...which I think we all echo at certain levels, even someone like myself who still really enjoys playing the game.

While I'm not a fan of f2p myself, I have no issues with it as a mechanic...IF DONE WELL. A good example of this would be the early f2p release of LotRO, Turbines current flagship. I haven't played LotRO in awhile now (considering taking it back up), So not sure about it's current state, but when they initially introduced f2p, it was a very good design. So I'll pull a few points out of their system that I believe Bio could have done to make a very effective f2p system, but they didn't.

the biggest was that Turbine never locked stuff away from subs like Bio is doing. all the cash shop items were available in game if you took the time. whether it was a rep grind, or a seasonal quest, it was there. you want it right away and now? cash shop is to your left. Choice was they key here...and the fact that they held true to their word and never kept anything locked from the Sub's. only thing as a sub you ever HAD to pay for to get was expansions. and before someone says you don't have to pay in SW...you do. those nifty gearset designs in the cash shop? can't get them anywhere in the game. turbine NEVER did that. you could get everything in game....it just took time. anything that is a CC "exclusive" means that a sub is locked out, period.

second biggest issue is that you could earn points. Wasn't huge, and it took massive effort to get even close to what a sub did (and theoretically it was impossible to get EVERYTHING a sub had, but you could get darn close). but the time investment to do so was HUGE. most people with a life and a 9-5 couldn't do it...but it was STILL THERE. And it didn't kill Turbine...as a matter of fact, their model (used in DDO as well) really set some industry records for f2p. they essentially woke the industry up to the IDEA that f2p was a viable alternative to a full sub environment (prior to that, f2p was relegated to dying games and smaller releases).

Plus, they had a bunch of stuff in the shop that really made you want to spend money...and not in a way that focused around cash shop exclusives (horrible way to getting peeps to spend cash). it was more like cash = QoL. don't want to farm materials for crafting? by limited craft mats in the store (bound and sold for a copper, but great for leveling a craft or crafting your own stuff). want that holiday gear? wait for the holiday, or cash shop + instant results. want to unlock a side quest area? farm the points with deeds....or insta-cash. it was really the "try or buy" option. Until bio gets the point, and gives us all that stuff in game (gotta earn it tho), then the balance is off and the CC sucks. the lock out method IMO just pisses people off, it doesn't inspire them to want to try and buy.

I will leave it for you to find, but I mentioned that I've read the article and his replies in their entirety; even making a comment on his replies.

From the second paragraph that you wrote there is no supporting evidence that you did in fact "read all". I call shenanigans. In fairness to the author you should have mentioned his poor attempt at posting sarcastically on purpose as part of that paragraph to indicate that you read the authors response. Otherwise you come off as not being objective and just another "white knight" saying that anyone pointing out something about SWTOR must be wrong when SWTOR still has much to fix. Whether you agree with the tone or not. The author wrote what I have been saying all along here on these forums as many have that want SWTOR to succeed but, are not happy with the current state of the game. It surprises me how low the bar has gotten for an acceptable product. I am also surprised that people defend a souless company that is just taking their cash and not giving them a quality product in exchange. *boggle*

From the second paragraph that you wrote there is no supporting evidence that you did in fact "read all". I call shenanigans. In fairness to the author you should have mentioned his poor attempt at posting sarcastically on purpose as part of that paragraph to indicate that you read the authors response. Otherwise you come off as not being objective and just another "white knight" saying that anyone pointing out something about SWTOR must be wrong when SWTOR still has much to fix. Whether you agree with the tone or not. The author wrote what I have been saying all along here on these forums as many have that want SWTOR to succeed but, are not happy with the current state of the game. It surprises me how low the bar has gotten for an acceptable product. I am also surprised that people defend a souless company that is just taking their cash and not giving them a quality product in exchange. *boggle*

Perhaps you have me confused for someone else. I'm only attacking the professionalism of this journalist in the context of Gamasutra. It was an extremely juvenile article which read more like a rant (and perhaps even a convoluted request for a job). I'm certainly not what you continually refer to in this thread as a White Knight, nor have I defended anything BioWare related. But writing an objective article to spur healthy conversation about the real issues at hand used to mean something. This 3 page "Feature" (not posted as an opinion piece / in the blogs section) will spark nothing but flame warring, which you and many others have fallen for.

From my very first sentence:

"I read through the article when it was released, and through the comments once those picked up later."

And from my last sentence:

"The fact that he posts much more eloquently within the comment section supports the idea of the article simply being click bait."

Both indicate I completely read through the article and replies in the comment section. Whatever tone the author intentionally took, it was inappropriate if he genuinely wished for progress to happen with this game.

Why is this article important?

No, seriously, why?

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You can hate or love the game. What you can't do is make it something it isn't. It's not GW2, it's not Tera, it's not Rift and it's not Wow. It's a different beast with its own high and low points. But at the end of the day a person's opinion about how much the game failed or not, is just that - his/her opinion. And it's of so little importance that it's kind of funny.

The only question you should be asking is whether you are still enjoying the game - or if you ever did. Don't expect a journalist to tell you whether you should like it or not. Do that yourself.

If you are, like I am, then his opinion is so uninteresting and unimportant, that the only thing it adds is a few bytes to the site's forum.

If you are not (and this will sound familiar) then you shouldn't be playing the game. Plain and simple. Why bother? Free or not, if you're not enjoying it you shouldn't be playing it. Let it "die".

Go try to find a game that you will like more.

Why bother beating what you consider a dead horse?

I will never understand some people's need to spoil the fun for everyone else.

PS: For the record, I'd say the exact same thing if his article was about how awesome the game is. Of course, I'd agree more than I do now, but still I wouldn't really care about some guy's opinion, whom I do not know nor care about.

Perhaps you have me confused for someone else. I'm only attacking the professionalism of this journalist in the context of Gamasutra. It was an extremely juvenile article which read more like a rant (and perhaps even a convoluted request for a job). I'm certainly not what you continually refer to in this thread as a White Knight, nor have I defended anything BioWare related. But writing an objective article to spur healthy conversation about the real issues at hand used to mean something. This 3 page "Feature" (not posted as an opinion piece / in the blogs section) will spark nothing but flame warring, which you and many others have fallen for.

 

From my very first sentence:

"I read through the article when it was released, and through the comments once those picked up later."

 

And from my last sentence:

"The fact that he posts much more eloquently within the comment section supports the idea of the article simply being click bait."

 

Both indicate I completely read through the article and replies in the comment section. Whatever tone the author intentionally took, it was inappropriate if he genuinely wished for progress to happen with this game.

His replay (which I posted in this thread) was a reclama. He admitted his tone, done in a jest style of "Stephen Colbert" or "John Stewart", fell short. If you say as you claim that you are being objective, then perhaps an acknowledgement of his failure in your post and a retort to his style would have helped to cement your stance as being objective. I will grant you based on your replies that you did read as you said but, I am curious why you didn't include any indication that the author did attempt to appoligize for the tone and attempt to asuage those to read his original text in a new light.

Why is this article important?

No, seriously, why?

In reply to your query, this article is important because, there are others, besides those that post on this forum, that see that SWTOR, may be in trouble. Many of us, while we post about "issues" that others would "hide", really do wish this game to succeed. The author's article merely echoed a view that is held by some on these forums. We wish the game to succeed but, on the current path that SWTOR is on, we are not confident. We still wish success for the game but, we still hold EA and BW to task to live up to what they hyped.

 

While I'm not a fan of f2p myself, I have no issues with it as a mechanic...IF DONE WELL. A good example of this would be the early f2p release of LotRO, Turbines current flagship. I haven't played LotRO in awhile now (considering taking it back up), So not sure about it's current state, but when they initially introduced f2p, it was a very good design. So I'll pull a few points out of their system that I believe Bio could have done to make a very effective f2p system, but they didn't.

 

the biggest was that Turbine never locked stuff away from subs like Bio is doing. all the cash shop items were available in game if you took the time. whether it was a rep grind, or a seasonal quest, it was there. you want it right away and now? cash shop is to your left. Choice was they key here...and the fact that they held true to their word and never kept anything locked from the Sub's. only thing as a sub you ever HAD to pay for to get was expansions. and before someone says you don't have to pay in SW...you do. those nifty gearset designs in the cash shop? can't get them anywhere in the game. turbine NEVER did that. you could get everything in game....it just took time. anything that is a CC "exclusive" means that a sub is locked out, period.

 

second biggest issue is that you could earn points. Wasn't huge, and it took massive effort to get even close to what a sub did (and theoretically it was impossible to get EVERYTHING a sub had, but you could get darn close). but the time investment to do so was HUGE. most people with a life and a 9-5 couldn't do it...but it was STILL THERE. And it didn't kill Turbine...as a matter of fact, their model (used in DDO as well) really set some industry records for f2p. they essentially woke the industry up to the IDEA that f2p was a viable alternative to a full sub environment (prior to that, f2p was relegated to dying games and smaller releases).

 

Plus, they had a bunch of stuff in the shop that really made you want to spend money...and not in a way that focused around cash shop exclusives (horrible way to getting peeps to spend cash). it was more like cash = QoL. don't want to farm materials for crafting? by limited craft mats in the store (bound and sold for a copper, but great for leveling a craft or crafting your own stuff). want that holiday gear? wait for the holiday, or cash shop + instant results. want to unlock a side quest area? farm the points with deeds....or insta-cash. it was really the "try or buy" option. Until bio gets the point, and gives us all that stuff in game (gotta earn it tho), then the balance is off and the CC sucks. the lock out method IMO just pisses people off, it doesn't inspire them to want to try and buy.

Excellent, well said post.

Sometimes I really wonder why people stick on the forums spitting on a game they should leave as they do not like it. You should stop looking for confirmations to your negative thoughts about SWTOR and do not waste your time here. Out here it's full of MMOs, and for sure there will be one that fits you perfectly.,

This

In reply to your query, this article is important because, there are others, besides those that post on this forum, that see that SWTOR, may be in trouble. Many of us, while we post about "issues" that others would "hide", really do wish this game to succeed.

And that's where you're wrong.

While I guess some people would try to hide the game's weaknesses (although, I really don't see how anyone besides Bioware or EA would profit from that), there's also a big portion of "us" that are not hiding its issues; they just don't affect us to the point of making us dislike the game. Sure, a lot of things could be different and I can guarantee you that if you ask 10 different people you'll get 10 different answers, ranging from sitting in chairs (lol) to new content.

And just like those people that try to hide its issues, I think we can safely say that a big portion of those that post about them are just doing it exactly because they want to see the game fail.

The author's article merely echoed a view that is held by some on these forums. We wish the game to succeed but, on the current path that SWTOR is on, we are not confident. We still wish success for the game but, we still hold EA and BW to task to live up to what they hyped.

That still doesn't make a journalist's opinion important, though.

Your or my opinion is much more important because...you know...we're actually paying for it unlike a journalist who's merely echoing one side of the story and is much more likely to jump on the "love/hate" bandwagon just because it sells.

And that's where you're wrong.

While I guess some people would try to hide the game's weaknesses (although, I really don't see how anyone besides Bioware or EA would profit from that), there's also a big portion of "us" that are not hiding its issues; they just don't affect us to the point of making us dislike the game. Sure, a lot of things could be different and I can guarantee you that if you ask 10 different people you'll get 10 different answers, ranging from sitting in chairs (lol) to new content.

 

And just like those people that try to hide its issues, I think we can safely say that a big portion of those that post about them are just doing it exactly because they want to see the game fail.

There may be those that want the game to fail, I am not one of them. Nor are others that have been more vocal of late.

There are those that post here that will not admit to anything wrong with SWTOR. It may be sheer ignorance, or blinders but there are those "while knights" that will continue to make excusses for EAware no matter what. It could be an obvious verioning mistake to some basic feature getting broken. We get the "hey ... eveyone makes mistakes" excuse pretty much every time. Don't know about you but, that may fly in little league or elementary school but when you are putting a product out that people are paying for a little proffesionism is required. When we have something break or break again each patch day there IS a problem and making excuses for EAware does noone any good.

There are communitcations issues. Most if this is probably "subjective". I have resigned myself to never get a commited answer from EAware. They change their minds ( being generious here ) often, and use nebulous terms when "hyping" the future or promising delivery. If one manages their expectations that everything said may and will change and that all times are Soon!!(™), one will be happier. That may be cynical but, unfortunately that is the reality of dealing with EAware ( and gaming companies in general ).

That still doesn't make a journalist's opinion important, though.

Your or my opinion is much more important because...you know...we're actually paying for it unlike a journalist who's merely echoing one side of the story and is much more likely to jump on the "love/hate" bandwagon just because it sells.

The observations of the author summarized quike nicely my views on the game. I know there are others ( look in this thread ) that feel the same. His opinion, in that light has merrit; we players are validating it. Again, he explained his failed tone. I won't go into that again. I will leave it to you to reread.

old article is old

Says the article was written a few days ago. How's that old?

There may be those that want the game to fail, I am not one of them. Nor are others that have been more vocal of late.

 

There are those that post here that will not admit to anything wrong with SWTOR. It may be sheer ignorance, or blinders but there are those "while knights" that will continue to make excusses for EAware no matter what. It could be an obvious verioning mistake to some basic feature getting broken. We get the "hey ... eveyone makes mistakes" excuse pretty much every time. Don't know about you but, that may fly in little league or elementary school but when you are putting a product out that people are paying for a little proffesionism is required. When we have something break or break again each patch day there IS a problem and making excuses for EAware does noone any good.

Speak for yourself. You never know who you're including when you're saying "others that have been more vocal of late". There have been people who just want the game to fail, we've all seen them here. Just like the white knights, you mention.

However I will say that "white knights" actually make more sense in a game's forum than haters. It's only natural that if you like a game you want to talk about it, make suggestions or role-play. What is not natural (at least for me) is to go on a "I'm quitting because you failed to make me want to stay" campaign. That's just selfish and frankly unnecessary. EA missing your monthly payment speaks much louder than any complaining you might do in the game's forum

That being said, to say that the game doesn't have issues is like burying your head in the sand. If it didn't it wouldn't have gone F2P. The problem, however, is that everyone is trying to make the game, their game. It doesn't work that way. You get an X product and you either like it or not. Sure, making suggestions that would improve it is always important, but at the end of the day, it will never be exactly what everyone has in their head. So you can take it as it is, or leave it. If you don't like it as it is now, chances are you will never like it,

(you = anyone, don't take it personally)

There are communitcations issues. Most if this is probably "subjective". I have resigned myself to never get a commited answer from EAware. They change their minds ( being generious here ) often, and use nebulous terms when "hyping" the future or promising delivery. If one manages their expectations that everything said may and will change and that all times are Soon!!(™), one will be happier. That may be cynical but, unfortunately that is the reality of dealing with EAware ( and gaming companies in general ).

I partially agree with you on this one. There is a communication issue, although I'm mainly talking about communicating changes with players and actually seeking their help to improve the game. And I don't think it's subjective at all. It's quite obvious that the game is understaffed and it shows so much, it's beginning to hurt it.

But as for their promises, I'm always amazed with people who believe in companies' promises. I might be more of a realist or even more cynical, because I never believe something until I actually see it with my own eyes. So EA's promises don't affect me, because I never played the game for what it might one day become. I'm playing the game because I enjoy it as it is right now, warts and all.

The observations of the author summarized quike nicely my views on the game. I know there are others ( look in this thread ) that feel the same. His opinion, in that light has merrit; we players are validating it. Again, he explained his failed tone. I won't go into that again. I will leave it to you to reread.

 

Fair enough. I still don't get it, but it might have more to do with me wanting to express what I like/dislike in my own words. I don't generally like having people speak for me; especially people who might potentially be saying things for their own personal profit. But, that might just be me. I don't really trust the "pure" intentions of anyone.

Okay, was hoping someone would post another one of these reviews.

 

Here's a review of SWTOR from MMORPG.com, one of the worst anti-EA and anti-SWTOR communities out there. It's dated 1/6/2012.

 

 

Full Text Review, which the video abridges

 

 

Some interesting snippets of their review:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, I ask you: what has changed? What's been added, and not removed? The only reason any people are going back to re-review the free to play SWTOR version, is so they arn't caught going against the bandwagon of hating SWTOR. Nothing fundamental has changed this game, and most of the categories, SWTOR scores 8's and 9's in.

 

It's hip to hate. But the facts are: the game is great!

Most of what I read in that review is praise for the - wait for it - STORY. That's right. The part that EVERYONE still says is great.

What's 'changed' is that more people have finished the story(ies) and are now realizing how anemic the rest of the game is.

What's worse is this game drew in a bunch of RPG fans (KOTOR fans and/or BW fans) who are used to reaching endgame and just being done. Many of these people are, understandably, unimpressed with the MMO grind at endgame.

For the record, I don't 'hate' SWTOR. I really, really dislike their newest business moves with the cartel shop and such, but my biggest problem is that I really don't know what to do at endgame. I mean, I know what I'm supposed to do, but what I'm supposed to do doesn't interest me. And that makes the glaring issues with the game all the more obvious.

Speak for yourself. You never know who you're including when you're saying "others that have been more vocal of late". There have been people who just want the game to fail, we've all seen them here. Just like the white knights, you mention.

 

However I will say that "white knights" actually make more sense in a game's forum than haters. It's only natural that if you like a game you want to talk about it, make suggestions or role-play. What is not natural (at least for me) is to go on a "I'm quitting because you failed to make me want to stay" campaign. That's just selfish and frankly unnecessary. EA missing your monthly payment speaks much louder than any complaining you might do in the game's forum

 

That being said, to say that the game doesn't have issues is like burying your head in the sand. If it didn't it wouldn't have gone F2P. The problem, however, is that everyone is trying to make the game, their game. It doesn't work that way. You get an X product and you either like it or not. Sure, making suggestions that would improve it is always important, but at the end of the day, it will never be exactly what everyone has in their head. So you can take it as it is, or leave it. If you don't like it as it is now, chances are you will never like it,

 

(you = anyone, don't take it personally)

I didn't take issue. Thanks though.

I disagree on "white knights" view having any value at all. I do agree with the "do what I want or I quit" threats equally have no value. I also agree that voting with ones wallet is best (maybe less so in a F2P/Freemium envirionment).

 

I partially agree with you on this one. There is a communication issue, although I'm mainly talking about communicating changes with players and actually seeking their help to improve the game. And I don't thing it's subjective at all. It's quite obvious that the game is understaffed and it shows so much, it's beginning to hurt it.

 

But as for their promises, I'm always amazed with people who believe in companies' promises. I might be more of a realist or even more cynical, because I never believe something until I actually see it with my own eyes. So EA's promises don't affect me, because I never played the game for what it might one day become. I'm playing the game because I enjoy it as it is right now, warts and all.

I take the Jolee Bindo aproach.

 

Fair enough. I still don't get it, but it might have more to do with me wanting to express what I like/dislike in my own words. I don't generally like having people speak for me; especially people who might potentially be saying things for their own personal profit. But, that might just be me. I don't really trust the "pure" intentions of anyone.

Even if the author had an agenda. Call it "happy accident" that much of what he said can be supported by people who, as you say, are actually playing the game. That is why I said the players are validating his diatribe/failed sarcasm.

You're missing the entire point, These reviews coming out do not add up. Nothing has fundamentally changed since the game was released, and given that these reviews seem unduly negative in content, only because it's popular to disparage SWTOR. Read the article instead of giving a kneejerk response.

What changed? More bugs than content

His replay (which I posted in this thread) was a reclama. He admitted his tone, done in a jest style of "Stephen Colbert" or "John Stewart", fell short. If you say as you claim that you are being objective, then perhaps an acknowledgement of his failure in your post and a retort to his style would have helped to cement your stance as being objective. I will grant you based on your replies that you did read as you said but, I am curious why you didn't include any indication that the author did attempt to appoligize for the tone and attempt to asuage those to read his original text in a new light.

His reply was very clear to me as merely a way to 'save face' as a Gamasutra writer after he wrote an article that was very clearly and very obviously a click-bait as the other poster so clearly stated.

You do realise writers like him get, in part, paid for the amount of clicks their articles get.. right?

A good advice when it comes to the real world: Always follow the money. This man was motivated to write this way by money and will be willing to say anything to save face after he filled his wallet.

And being a 'public figure' as a writer for a respected website you are expected by many readers to be above this. Hence him and his article being, correctly, questioned and measured as 'of less worth' because of this. Those are the risks of being a journalist and 'blogger' and are those things that keep them apart from any other random forum schmuck like us.

PS. You ending most of your posts with is a really bad trait and makes one wonder if you are merely just 'reply-baiting' as much as the writer was click-baiting.

And that's where you're wrong.

While I guess some people would try to hide the game's weaknesses (although, I really don't see how anyone besides Bioware or EA would profit from that), there's also a big portion of "us" that are not hiding its issues; they just don't affect us to the point of making us dislike the game. Sure, a lot of things could be different and I can guarantee you that if you ask 10 different people you'll get 10 different answers, ranging from sitting in chairs (lol) to new content.

 

And just like those people that try to hide its issues, I think we can safely say that a big portion of those that post about them are just doing it exactly because they want to see the game fail.

 

 

 

That still doesn't make a journalist's opinion important, though.

Your or my opinion is much more important because...you know...we're actually paying for it unlike a journalist who's merely echoing one side of the story and is much more likely to jump on the "love/hate" bandwagon just because it sells.

I don't think we can safely say that at all, and I also think the desire to silence dissent is more wishful than realistic.

I often wonder why some folks seem to be so put off by criticism. As I have said many times, this is just a game, not a religion or political party. It's a bit odd to defend the game so desperately against even the most reasonable critique.

Growth is painful. At this point in time this game needs frank harsh criticism IMO much more than glad handing. Only by making critical changes will this game continue to thrive and remain healthy.

The author does bring up some relevant points, but you can't take this article at face value when the author classifies Operations as 20-man raids. Amateur mistake made by someone who does not fully understand everything about the game.

molehill meet mountain, mountain meet molehill

I'm sick and tired of all those fantasy setting MMORPGs and I want to wield a light saber =P

Star Wars is fantasy, maybe you meant you were tired of Tolkien/DnD theme games?

Why is this article important?

No, seriously, why?

People want other people to agree with them, so an angry article in a well-known mmo site is just what certain people want..

People want other people to agree with them, so an angry article in a well-known mmo site is just what certain people want..

Then where are all the "Great job SWTOR!" articles?