Thoughts on GameSpy's Article on SWTOR

The hate swell on its forums? Really? Could you please provide me a link to all of this hate? I must have missed it when I was actively participating on said forum...

There's hate on every MMO forum. If you say GW2's forum has ZERO hate then you're just lying to yourself.

The only thing I really agree with in the article are the points about player interaction and a less static world. The reasons for this are only because they've gone with a dynamic quest system similar to Rift or Warhammer's. I personally think a lack of end game is an awful idea, but with a B2P MMO with a cash shop player retention is probably less of a priority.

No, I'm questioning the "swell" of hate this guy is claiming...

Do please point out any post I've made where I said "SWTOR can do no wrong." Go ahead, my post history is pretty open for you to check. I'll be right here, waiting for you to actually respond to the real argument, which (I may remind you), was "How did the author hype up GW2?"

Incidentally, I can't take out of context what he said when I'm using his actual words to point out why what you think are criticisms aren't actually criticisms.

Except that the quotes were not his words once you edited them.

There was no hype in that article; the author compared two games against a set of features he finds to be enjoyable or necessary for his enjoyment. It turns out that the things he enjoys feature more prominently in GW2 than they do in SWTOR--the two most talked-about games of the day.

If you think that falling to one side in a comparison of two games is hype, then I don't know what else to say to you.

No, I don't think it does, mainly in the OPvP departement, and in the PvE department. It should, but since the major events such as the delayed and late Server Merges, fail OPvP, fail Crafting, Fail single player experience (dead at 50, Flashpoints useless, dead planets boring quests) doesn't really do players any justice but the LFG will do wonders I think. That leaves dead planets with not a huge amount of Lore (eg Coruscunt is underwhelming, no real 'city planets' with 'city things'), people already have a huge distaste for SWTOR. It's possible SWTOR can still grow, but it will take time to renew the popular opinion after such a game in such shape that it did when it launched.

If Makeb really has 20 new levels worth of content, then that would be impressive but I highly doubt that it would. That would be a important factor in the scheme of things... This supposedly impressive new planet and quests sounds good, but still most of the existing Planets also need : New Companion Quest, more Quest in General, more to do at 50, Quest and Story that is less Linear, Less Story things that are shared among all Classes (ie Legacy)). SWTOR doesn't just fail at engrossng PvE, it fails at PvP also. Ilum shouldn't be forgotted so easily (and future PvP plans), as it seems won't come to the focus until 1.4 or 1.5 at the earliest. Makeb and the level increase seems FAR too premature, it seems like the game makers could already be in desparation-mode. We'll see if they can be steadfast instead of failing to the complaints.

Scenario are good, but few. I think the number is ok considering if the following occurs : Ilum PvP revamp is feasable, Cross Server Queue's in the future, Performance for 100v100 can happen for PvP. SWTOR amazingly never launched with (or future plan) for large scale open PvP. This is the single most important and comparative feature that SWTOR will lose out on for not having. The potential was huge, but Ilum didn't just fail, it failed to be developed, in really any half-decent manner at all!

Because you can't fairly compare a game that hasn't lived up to expectations to one that hasn't yet had a chance to not live up to expectations. Gamespy has had 6 months to pick apart SWTOR and let all its issues play out. Run the comparison after GW has been out for a bit.

With GW2's lackluster reviews I wouldn't hold your breath on GW2 taking a chunk out of any MMO population. I have been in beta for GW2 and all I can say is I am massively unimpressed with the game. The only thing that will sustain GW2 is the fact that it's free to play.

Really? You still want to claim that he has no bias and isn't hyping his personal pet favourite game? Fine. Let's go over this again.

Supposed Criticism 1: "Here he very clearly states that despite being a more social game, GW2 still has trouble getting people to socialize. Unless this is a compliment? I must have missed where this was glowing praise." This would seem like a criticism, except for one thing: "it sometimes seems to discourage one-on-one chats because you just finish the kill and get on with your lives, but even at its weakest it avoids the sense of isolation that build up while in SWTOR's cinematic world." The author's own words. "It sometimes seems." "But even at its weakest it avoids." Those aren't criticisms of game mechanics. The first is a personal impression, the second is a deflection of that impression. It's not a criticism if he says, "I think that people aren't encouraged to talk to each other, but even so we're still interacting, so it doesn't matter." How am I getting that conclusion? From his very own words in the next sentence: "Even if we don't always talk to other players, we're at least interacting with them, and I think most players will agree that Guild Wars 2 gets that crucial factor right."

Supposed Criticism 2: "Oh! And here he points out that any title lacking traditional end-game is standing on shaky ground. He freely admits that more traditional players may have trouble with this aspect of GW2." He freely admits that more traditional players may have trouble with this. And yet, again from his very own article in his very own words, "I know this probably counts a downside for some of my old raiding buddies, but, at least these days, I like the idea of there being something to my MMORPGs besides rushing to the level cap and participating in scheduled raids." Saying, "I like the idea" is not a criticism. Especially when Reason 4 for Why GW2 Will Be Better is titled, "4. Guild Wars 2 Doesn't Have a Traditional Endgame." It's a reason why it's better. If something is considered better, that's not a criticism. Especially if he's going to use phrases like, "Guild Wars 2 is a casual game in the very best sense of the term," and "More than ever, the journey is more important than the destination," and "people with limited time can enjoy Guild Wars 2 without feeling like they're missing out on much." He doesn't think a lack of endgame is a problem. He thinks that's a great idea.

Supposed Criticism 3: "Here he states that the team will have to maintain consistent content updates in order to compete with the model they've chosen. That's not a good thing, is it?" Yep. He definitely states, "I do think they'll need frequent content updates to keep that model sustainable." And as you even quoted, he continues with "but I'm not that worried because..." He clearly states "This may be a problem, but I'm not worried that it will be." That's not conjecture on my part; he states it right there in his article. It even leads into his next point for why he thinks GW2 is better ("5. So Far, ArenaNet is Better at Addressing Player Concerns Than BioWare").

So, once again, I ask you: where are these supposed criticisms of the game that you claim exist and he points out?