There's a reason why SGR is in Mass Effect and rated M and why there's no SGR in SWTOR and it's rated T. The sooner this fact is realized, the sooner something (one way or the other) will be resolved.

The only other comment I think of leaving is probably inappropriate, so I'll leave it at this.

There's a reason why SGR is in Mass Effect and rated M and why there's no SGR in SWTOR and it's rated T. The sooner this fact is realized, the sooner something (one way or the other) will be resolved.

I would imagine Mass Effect is rated M (17+) for its more realistic violence and semi-explicit sex scenes. In contrast to SWTOR's cartoon violence and fade-to-black scenes.

That said, with the explicit torture and such, I have to say that T (13+) is much too low for SWTOR. It's rated 16+ in Europe, which is more appropriate.

And characters' sexualities have no bearing on the ratings. All that matters is how explicit the content is.

There's a reason why SGR is in Mass Effect and rated M and why there's no SGR in SWTOR and it's rated T. The sooner this fact is realized, the sooner something (one way or the other) will be resolved.

"We understand that sexual themes have the potential to be of concern to consumers, which is why all such content must be disclosed during the rating process. In specific regard to your question, ESRB’s ratings criteria do not distinguish between heterosexual and same-sex content when it comes to addressing sexuality in games. "

14) Shouldn't the game be rated "M" or "18+ PEGI" if it has SGRAs coming?

Please do some light Googling before you attempt to spread information that has been routinely debunked.

http://madsabroo.tumblr.com/post/46791745275/ranty-post-about-sw-tor-romances

 

Some interesting points raised about the romances in this game, specifically the author's interpretation of "assert male independence/dominance" with male companions and characters respectively.

Good read...I agree with a lot of the issues brought up. This is one of the reasons I'm a bit excited for the Makeb 'mini' female/female romance on the Republic side ('Hey, she's not my Padawan!' ...seriously, how many times do they have to do that?)

I wonder if the SGR versions of those romances (let's assume for the sake of argument that all romance companions get SGRAs) would have the same strict independence and roles being defined by the Male Companion and a similar power dynamic being used by the Male Character.

Not sure. Obviously, any power dynamic would be free of gender inequality as both would either be male or female...perhaps the writers would feel they have more leeway in stepping outside of male/female relationship stereotypes? Or not? Would be interesting to see...

Please understand, when I make a post, it is directly to the person I am replying to unless otherwise stated (I try to point out when I am generalizing, etc). Also, I never said that "everyone who wants SGRAs" are arguing this way or another. I merely said that those who were arguing for it and using realism as their basis.

Well, you have replied with that point to Slaign and others in the thread where they have made no indication that they personally care about realism. I'm just curious why the point was made in the first place.

Like you want to invalidate what other people enjoy because they think it makes better storytelling?

 

Like how the exclusion of SGR was called unrealistic by some, and those same people go around and say they don't care for it being realistic?

 

You mean like how it's been said to those who were against SGR that their own reasons weren't perfectly valid?

 

And I agree, when you make a character and find you can't romance the companion you want, a bit of a let down. The pining away aspect for me is just my way of continuing on with the game. Why? Because it's a game. If I don't like the games mechanics and aesthetics, the story isn't going to keep me around. The stories in TOR aren't these great works of fiction. There are other MMOs with just as good stories. The only difference between them and TOR is TOR has 8 of them (that will all converge to 1 so it becomes kinda pointless now) and TOR (to my knowledge anyways) put romancing of companions into the game.

 

On that note, I have to say, getting my smuggler up to level 47, I don't see the appeal of Corso! Gaaaah. He's not getting romanced at all. Between Andronikus, Torian, Quinn, and Corso...he's last!

 

Though, I think that's why while I may be for SGRs, I'm also not the OMGWTFCANTPLAYWITHOUTIT type. Saddly, a lot of the romances are just plain forgettable, and if not forgettable they just...end. Why I think playing for the game for the romances is the worst idea.

The difference is I'm making an argument for choice and you are making an argument for the restriction of choice. You have the burden of proof in this case, because you're arguing against choice. And despite you having the burden of proof, I've provided a litany of reasons how it makes sense to open romances to everyone, and all you have is "I don't think it's good story telling practice." An argument, by the way, which is more full of holes than a termite colony.

I was never going to make that post, it wasn't planned at all. I wasn't going to talk about how it makes me feel because I feel that I have plenty of good arguments based on logic rather than emotion. But the emotion is a part of it. The fact that it's important to me is not insignificant.

When I made that post, I came here just to talk about my feeling of disappointment at not being able to go forward with the JK story with a female character, because of how much I want to personally experience Kira's romance arc. That's all. It was just going to be something like "Man, I tried to just set the issue aside and enjoy the game, and I couldn't do it."

Then I come here to make the post, and I'm faced with being told that my desires are bad story telling and I should just be fine with how things are because it's realistic, and I should be fine with an unrequited love because that actually happens. I'm being told that my disappointment is invalid or misplaced, that I should be cool with it. I'm being told what good design practices are with seemingly no regard for the feelings of those excluded by them.

That post came from a real place of serious disappointment. This game, it's almost like they had my picture on the wall and a mission statement of "Make this guy incredibly happy." This game is as close to a dream game for me as has been produced since KOTOR 1 & 2. As far as I'm concerned, it surpasses 1 & 2. That puts it firmly in the running for my favorite game ever.

But there's this one issue, and it keeps me from enjoying this game on the level of stupid mindless happiness that I could easily have otherwise. In KOTOR 1 & 2, I modded the games so I could romance the ladies with my female character. That's not an option here.

So I'm at an impasse, unable to really fully enjoy a game that should be my favorite game of all time, because of one problem. And when I come and talk about that problem, I have to validate why I should be allowed to have the choices that allow me to enjoy the game? I have to be told that I should just accept it and be happy with it because it's somehow better story telling?

You know what good story telling is? Good story telling is telling a story in a way that allows your audience to derive enjoyment. What I propose opens up that enjoyment to a wider audience, and you're claiming that's somehow bad?

You're saying you support SGR but then you turn around and go "Oh, but no, not with those characters, honey. Get your own." and it comes off like "Well that looks like a perfectly good water fountain over there... Why don't you use that one, this one is ours."

Can you seriously say that your concept of good story telling matters to you as much as the freedom to experience the content I like matters to me? Do you really believe that I should suffer in silence to preserve your sense of structure? In what world does your sense of wishy washy story telling balance against the overt joy that such a change would bring to people like me?

You as much as state openly that you don't much care for the story, but you're in here arguing for the dictation of how those of us that love it ought to enjoy it. It's just not cool.

http://madsabroo.tumblr.com/post/46791745275/ranty-post-about-sw-tor-romances

 

Some interesting points raised about the romances in this game, specifically the author's interpretation of "assert male independence/dominance" with male companions and characters respectively.

 

I wonder if the SGR versions of those romances (let's assume for the sake of argument that all romance companions get SGRAs) would have the same strict independence and roles being defined by the Male Companion and a similar power dynamic being used by the Male Character.

 

And then you'd have the more submissive/chasing themes from the female companion and character.

 

These are where you are more likely to see a shift in companion personalities.

 

Ugh, I'll have to YouTube the romances soon to give more detail and evidence to support the claims in the blog post, just so that we can have a discourse about this which doesn't into "I need SCREENSHORTS".

 

And for the record, my Smug is 27 and we're both finding Corso a little insufferable.

I notice the author doesn't mention Torian. It's been a while, but I seem to recall feeling like the femme BH more or less wears the pants. I was the first to start flirting with him, called him "kid" a lot. On the other hand, I felt like he wanted to push the relationship a bit too fast. I was like, whoa, I hardly know you and you're talking about marriage already? Also he's kind of dippy. But he's definitely respectful and appreciates a strong woman.

Well, you have replied with that point to Slaign and others in the thread where they have made no indication that they personally care about realism. I'm just curious why the point was made in the first place.

Well... Crap, you're right. Apologies... I must've had a couple other things in my head at the time I was replying. Happens when I don't fully think before I speak.

Slaign, for the sake of putting it out there, to the first of your two posts, I was originally going to reply with this:

 

Slaign, I am sorry… but it really sounds to me like you may need to re-evaluate some things if you seriously cannot play this game (or certain characters) without romancing someone, let alone certain someones.

I appreciate the thought you put into what you had to say, but I wanted to respond to this thought first because I think it's important.

The truth is, it's not about the inability to romance a character. It's about the ability being there, if I just make a certain choice at character creation, and not wanting to be forced into that choice. It's about the fact that when I make a male character, I can't connect with him, but when I create a female character, I'm taunted by the presence of a companion I want to romance, and could romance, but not with the character I want to play as.

It's not like I can't play Gears of War because Marcus doesn't get with Dom. It's about having to choose between two things already in the game that I enjoy, and that compromise putting a crimp on my enjoyment. Honestly, if these were single player stories I could power through in ten hours it wouldn't be as bad either. I could at least just run through it twice. But with the scope of this game, it just kinda sucks.

But as I thought about it, I realized something. For starters, I’m planning on running every class story. The other day I created all the characters that I’m going to run, including 4 Imps. Now, while on some level I do have a “cool detachment” from things, I can say with all honesty, I am going to have a hard time playing those Imp characters. Why? Because I do actually make an emotional connection with my characters and as such have a hard time “pretending” to be evil. I actually do have an emotional response to that. Watching the intro movie for the Empire does actually make me sad and I know I will run into several situations while playing my chars that I’ll go “But I don’t want to do that!” even though I have to. While RPing evil is different from RPing romance, it’s also the same. On that note, I do understand where you are coming from.

 

And of course, I’ll be honest... I have very little desire to RP a romance. That opens wounds for me, thus something I wish to steer clear of. But please note, it’s not the reason behind my wanting things the way I’m arguing for. It’s the reason why I’m able to have the “cool detachment”.

I have to say, thank you for really taking the time to think about what I said. For finding a way to relate to it on some level. That's really impressive. Most people just barrel right past that stage to the "Gotta prove my point" stage.

Story telling is a big part of my life. It's where I find my joy. I love to write, and I love to read. I love serial fiction from TV, to comics, to books, to movies. I connect to stories on a level that brings me a great deal of joy. I will honestly cry at certain spots in Harry Potter books. Hell, I've shed a tear to moments that unfold on a single page of a comic book. I invest.

So yea, it's important to me. Knowing that there's a bit of story that I know I'd love immensely, but I have to make a choice to reduce my satisfaction with the rest of the story to get to it, that really does bother me.

And it's not that I'm just enjoying a story either. I'm a part of it, that's the spirit of the game. In games like this, I can't help but invest myself into the characters I create. I can't help but want to identify with them. I'm a straight male that identifies more strongly with female characters, and that puts me in a place where my choices are restricted in a way that I feel is frankly unfair.

All I want is to get the same level of enjoyment out of this game as I would if I identified with male characters, and I don't think that's unreasonable.

-----------------------------

 

Now, allow me to better define where I’m coming from, which will require going into a topic I previously considered off-topic, but I feel is important for my position.

(I’m only quoting the first part of your post for space reasons, not because it’s the only part I’m replying to)

 

The point that you make, the fact that it is “your story” (in reference to the individual players) is actually a big point of contention for me with this game’s story mechanics. Everyone is playing their own personal story, in which they are the “hero” and the whole story revolves around them… except that we’re playing in an MMO? That at certain points you have to group up with others to complete certain content? Of which some of these people are your alternate universe twins? Huh??

 

IMHO, they did a bad job at this for it being an MMO. It really has the feeling to me of a single player game that has multiple story arcs for you to play… that they happened to make into an MMO.

 

Because of this, and because of the following point, I am actually willing to concede to Companions being herosexual. After all, in all fairness, many of the classes do not have enough companions that could be romancable for them to open up all possibilities.

You do seem to get the good reasons for opening up companion romances to everyone. Mainly that they created a lineup of romantic interests, and that we should have unfettered access to those options. That there aren't enough romance options to restrict them and still cater to as wide a variety of tastes as possible.

But I think you seem to have trouble grasping what's become a core concept of any MMO with a story that you interact with personally, and that is that your character is a hero, and often THE hero. It's not just this game. When you play WoW, and you kill the Lich King, you are the guy who killed the Lich King. Or at the very least your raid group is the group that killed the Lich King. There can't be a million people who all killed the Lich King.

Unless an MMO is one of the few that are based on the idea of a persistent world with no quests, just a bunch of players making their own way and their own stories, they are all pretty much based on that concept. Farmer Joe doesn't lose his shovel 100 times a day and spend his whole life asking adventurers to recover it. When you do a quest, your character is the one that did that quest. The other players in the world are a gameplay consideration, not a story one.

Which brings me to...

However, all content outside of the player class story arc is really shared content. This should not be lumped into the it’s “your story” pile as then we are further taking a SP orientated MMO (story wise) and making it even more so. (The point of an MMO shouldn’t be just for the chat channel….) I honestly believe that the shared content area should be pre-set for each NPC: OGR, SGR, or BGR. Why? Because this is where the individual stories merge, and quite frankly should (definitely) not be “your story”. As such, not everyone is going to straight, gay, or bi. But opportunities should be equally spread for all fairness.

Then how do you explain that there are thousands of people who are Black Bisectors? In that public quest, are communications breaking down constantly, the senator forgetting the alliance the last player forges, and the systems he repaired now broken again?

In an MMO where you interact directly with the story, you just have to accept that those other players aren't canon. If you go through a mission with 3 other players and all of you are different classes, you can make that work, but beyond that, you're pretty boned without an alternate universe theory.

It being "your story" is the only way it can work. There is no other explanation that holds up.

One thing to note about the “your story” thing (and again, this is in reference to all individual players, not a comment aimed at you, Slaign), if you are playing a game for the story and to make it into (truly) “your story”, then you should not be looking at MMOs. Those are what Single Player games should be about. MMOs should be about an overarching story line, and “our” role in it.

 

I hope this helps clarify a few things about my stance on the issue.

I do respect your opinion, so don't take this as an angry rebuttal... But frankly, who are you to say what an MMO should be? Single player games aren't all about making my story. Gears of War is about Delta Squad, it's not my story at all. In fact, I'd say MMOs as a genre offer a lot more in the way of making the story personally your own.

BioWare used the MMO format to deliver a great story driven game, and I appreciate that. I also enjoy the concept of games like EVE Online where it's more about a universe where the players are less heroes and more inhabitants, making their way in the universe with and against one another. I don't see why there shouldn't be room for both.

I notice the author doesn't mention Torian. It's been a while, but I seem to recall feeling like the femme BH more or less wears the pants. I was the first to start flirting with him, called him "kid" a lot. On the other hand, I felt like he wanted to push the relationship a bit too fast. I was like, whoa, I hardly know you and you're talking about marriage already? Also he's kind of dippy. But he's definitely respectful and appreciates a strong woman.

IIRC, marriage and that happens relatively early in Mandalorian society, around 16 years or so. I believe Torian is supposed to be 18, so he "should" be married off by now, but of course his personal standing in his clan somewhat hindered that.

I suppose in his clan, a powerful Mandalorian would have their pick and the whole "having different relationships with different people for different reasons" might be a foreign concept to him.

Of course it's possible the author of that blog post hasn't played the BH line, you could always ask her. Torian being the exception could be down to his culture or his youth, but I suspect that that would be more of a respect based on battle prowess (the mark of a Mandalorian) rather than something that is gender based.

I notice the author doesn't mention Torian. It's been a while, but I seem to recall feeling like the femme BH more or less wears the pants. I was the first to start flirting with him, called him "kid" a lot. On the other hand, I felt like he wanted to push the relationship a bit too fast. I was like, whoa, I hardly know you and you're talking about marriage already? Also he's kind of dippy. But he's definitely respectful and appreciates a strong woman.

Agreed. My only 50 is a Bounty Hunter. (See, I was able to do it once! I wanted to romance Mako but I powered through with a female BH anyway and romanced Torian instead. I just can't bring myself to do it again.)

I suppose that's the nice thing about Mandalorians, right? They seem to value strength, and I've seen plenty of their women on the front lines. I don't think Torian would respect you if you weren't strong enough to take control.

I didn't read the article that was linked about the dynamics of the relationships in this game, because I don't want to be spoiled any more than I have to be. But I did want to mention that I don't think it's necessarily bad for female characters to have a "traditional" style relationship. Plenty of women out there prefer that kind of relationship.

I mean sure, our female characters are warriors and heroes, but maybe they like to go back to their romantic interest and drop the weight of the world for awhile and just be taken care of?

Of course, I would say that ought to be a choice of how the player plays it, but the whole game is a little lacking in truly broad changes in characterization. Also, there's a right and a wrong way to do that. I can't really speak to the specifics, because I haven't read the article or played all the romances.

IIRC, marriage and that happens relatively early in Mandalorian society, around 16 years or so. I believe Torian is supposed to be 18, so he "should" be married off by now, but of course his personal standing in his clan somewhat hindered that.

Interesting perspective, I'm not expert on Mandalorian culture and expectations.

Of course it's possible the author of that blog post hasn't played the BH line, you could always ask her. Torian being the exception could be down to his culture or his youth, but I suspect that that would be more of a respect based on battle prowess (the mark of a Mandalorian) rather than something that is gender based.

I was not suggesting his motivations where gender based, just that he doesn't really seem to fit in with the male dominance theme as with some other classes. It always struck me as how he said all he is looking for is "someone who is a better shot than I am".

I mean sure, our female characters are warriors and heroes, but maybe they like to go back to their romantic interest and drop the weight of the world for awhile and just be taken care of?

The problem is that, because the romance dialogues are so limited (if you're not hitting the [Flirt] option, you're either apathetic to your potential partner or actively eating their entrails) that the traditional romance seems to be pretty much the only option. This goes back to the earlier conversation that every female-PC romance ends in the "marriage+babies" assumption and that not accepting that puts an end to the relationship. I'm also a little bit annoyed that it's always the male companions that are doing the proposal, but I guess when you're flying through space at light speed with a giant Wookie for a friend, there's really only so much "disbelief" you can suspend.

With the companion SGRAs, at least, can we have the PC being the one to suggest kids? That way you can have them if you want and if you don't you get all that free time, cash and chocolate to yourself (and your partner).

Interesting perspective, I'm not expert on Mandalorian culture and expectations.

 

I was not suggesting his motivations where gender based, just that he doesn't really seem to fit in with the male dominance theme as with some other classes. It always struck me as how he said all he is looking for is "someone who is a better shot than I am".

I know nothing about Mandos, but I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that they marry comparatively early. And as to gender-based assumptions, I just threw that in before someone came along and tried to twist my post to mean that the other male companions, being that they come from different cultures to Torian, must then inherently have different expectations of women and we shouldn't be complaining about that because then we're not respecting their culture wherein they're allowed to assume pregnancy as the default position.

Or something.

The problem is that, because the romance dialogues are so limited (if you're not hitting the [Flirt] option, you're either apathetic to your potential partner or actively eating their entrails) that the traditional romance seems to be pretty much the only option. This goes back to the earlier conversation that every female-PC romance ends in the "marriage+babies" assumption and that not accepting that puts an end to the relationship. I'm also a little bit annoyed that it's always the male companions that are doing the proposal, but I guess when you're flying through space at light speed with a giant Wookie for a friend, there's really only so much "disbelief" you can suspend.

 

With the companion SGRAs, at least, can we have the PC being the one to suggest kids? That way you can have them if you want and if you don't you get all that free time, cash and chocolate to yourself (and your partner).

Yea I totally agree. Like I said it should be at the behest of the player how the relationship dynamic plays out. It would be a lot better, in my opinion, if once you "confirmed" the relationship you got a range of dialogue choices for that relationship. Like in the Mass Effect series, you would have a moment in time where you and your crew mate commit to a relationship, and then future discussions with them are dialogue trees where it's always a part of the relationship.

Still, like I said, that's a general shortcoming of the game. Our options are pretty limited when it comes to really defining our characters' personalities. It would certainly be nice to have more control, but barring that there should be a wide variety in how the different relationships in the game play out.

As someone who never wants kids, and looks dubiously at the prospect of marriage, I'm totally with you on the annoyance factor of that being the assumed end goal of a relationship.

I'm also a little bit annoyed that it's always the male companions that are doing the proposal

Well, there is one exception....I'll spoiler tag it just in case.

Well, there is one exception....I'll spoiler tag it just in case.

 

 

Kaliyo essentially proposes to the male agent, in her completely non-romantic kind of way.

Well, she is the exception in many things.

Well, there is one exception....I'll spoiler tag it just in case.

 

 

Kaliyo essentially proposes to the male agent, in her completely non-romantic kind of way.

female SW can beat Quinn to the punch I believe.

But I think you seem to have trouble grasping what's become a core concept of any MMO with a story that you interact with personally, and that is that your character is a hero, and often THE hero. It's not just this game. When you play WoW, and you kill the Lich King, you are the guy who killed the Lich King. Or at the very least your raid group is the group that killed the Lich King. There can't be a million people who all killed the Lich King.

 

Unless an MMO is one of the few that are based on the idea of a persistent world with no quests, just a bunch of players making their own way and their own stories, they are all pretty much based on that concept. Farmer Joe doesn't lose his shovel 100 times a day and spend his whole life asking adventurers to recover it. When you do a quest, your character is the one that did that quest. The other players in the world are a gameplay consideration, not a story one.

 

Which brings me to...

 

 

Then how do you explain that there are thousands of people who are Black Bisectors? In that public quest, are communications breaking down constantly, the senator forgetting the alliance the last player forges, and the systems he repaired now broken again?

 

In an MMO where you interact directly with the story, you just have to accept that those other players aren't canon. If you go through a mission with 3 other players and all of you are different classes, you can make that work, but beyond that, you're pretty boned without an alternate universe theory.

 

It being "your story" is the only way it can work. There is no other explanation that holds up.

I think I can sum up a general response to this as such (and mind you, this does apply to more than just BW/EA): they didn't do it right.

Quite frankly, it is entirely possible to have a persistent game world while at the same time keeping the feeling of everyone is contributing. One fine example is with Coruscant... in dealing with the gangs, you are told at one point that they are extremely resilient and hard to put down. Cut off the head and another takes its place. It's easily believable that way in that everyone could have killed "the" leader and there is still another for someone else to kill. The developer would just have to keep the leader as a "no name" and (for further depth) have the NPC itself pulled from a pool of potential NPCs.

Another good example would be Nar Shadda. At one point you are asked to destroy a bunch of spice(?) labs. Ok, cool. But who's to say they weren't rebuilt by the time the next person came through?

When it comes to killing prominent figures, the solution there is easy: don't. Thwart their attempt or whatever, but you don't let the player actually kill them. That way when the next person comes in, it's entirely believable that they are still alive... and trying again. For me personally, this would not ruin the game experience. And it wouldn't for anyone else, for that matter, if that's the way it was designed from the start.

It's entirely believable for me that there are that many people running around and putting effort into the war. That there are a lot of Jedi, Troopers, Sith, etc all trying to accomplish the same thing. But only if the story was written to support it. And quite frankly, if it was all supposed to be about "your story", then missions requiring the assistance of others have no place in it because the other characters aren't supposed to exist. To me, I have always considered MMOs as they are supposed to be about the group effort, otherwise they are nothing more than chat channels in game, while also having to deal with some other yahoo that's going to run past you fighting some guards in order to loot the chest/destroy the quest objective/etc. If it's "my story", then why am I having to put up with that? They shouldn't exist!

I do respect your opinion, so don't take this as an angry rebuttal... But frankly, who are you to say what an MMO should be? Single player games aren't all about making my story. Gears of War is about Delta Squad, it's not my story at all. In fact, I'd say MMOs as a genre offer a lot more in the way of making the story personally your own.

 

BioWare used the MMO format to deliver a great story driven game, and I appreciate that. I also enjoy the concept of games like EVE Online where it's more about a universe where the players are less heroes and more inhabitants, making their way in the universe with and against one another. I don't see why there shouldn't be room for both.

Eh, but on that same note (Gears of War), neither is this story. As the Trooper, yes, it's more centered around you, but as the leader of Havoc Squad. To me, that's the same thing. SP games that are more in line like what you're trying to compare I'd say are like Modern Warfare 4 or Black Ops and the like, where one minute you're playing as one person, then the next you're playing as someone different.

I do believe though that you can entirely have a universe where the players are heroes (unlike EVE), while still keeping with the group effort thing. Because really, even the heroes in the main stories (like Luke) who do end up making giant impacts on things, do not do so without the support of others. Heck, Luke would've died at so many different points if it wasn't for the help of someone else.

But... that's my opinion on it. And I realize (either because its already been said or I know someone will) that I'm probably fighting a lost cause... but I'd rather fight it then to roll over and let it be as is. *shrug*

And I'll stop here. This all helps support where I'm coming from, but discussion much more into it may be construed as derailing the thread.

I think I can sum up a general response to this as such (and mind you, this does apply to more than just BW/EA): they didn't do it right.

 

Quite frankly, it is entirely possible to have a persistent game world while at the same time keeping the feeling of everyone is contributing. One fine example is with Coruscant... in dealing with the gangs, you are told at one point that they are extremely resilient and hard to put down. Cut off the head and another takes its place. It's easily believable that way in that everyone could have killed "the" leader and there is still another for someone else to kill. The developer would just have to keep the leader as a "no name" and (for further depth) have the NPC itself pulled from a pool of potential NPCs.

 

Another good example would be Nar Shadda. At one point you are asked to destroy a bunch of spice(?) labs. Ok, cool. But who's to say they weren't rebuilt by the time the next person came through?

 

When it comes to killing prominent figures, the solution there is easy: don't. Thwart their attempt or whatever, but you don't let the player actually kill them. That way when the next person comes in, it's entirely believable that they are still alive... and trying again. For me personally, this would not ruin the game experience. And it wouldn't for anyone else, for that matter, if that's the way it was designed from the start.

 

It's entirely believable for me that there are that many people running around and putting effort into the war. That there are a lot of Jedi, Troopers, Sith, etc all trying to accomplish the same thing. But only if the story was written to support it. And quite frankly, if it was all supposed to be about "your story", then missions requiring the assistance of others have no place in it because the other characters aren't supposed to exist. To me, I have always considered MMOs as they are supposed to be about the group effort, otherwise they are nothing more than chat channels in game, while also having to deal with some other yahoo that's going to run past you fighting some guards in order to loot the chest/destroy the quest objective/etc. If it's "my story", then why am I having to put up with that? They shouldn't exist!

 

 

Eh, but on that same note (Gears of War), neither is this story. As the Trooper, yes, it's more centered around you, but as the leader of Havoc Squad. To me, that's the same thing. SP games that are more in line like what you're trying to compare I'd say are like Modern Warfare 4 or Black Ops and the like, where one minute you're playing as one person, then the next you're playing as someone different.

 

I do believe though that you can entirely have a universe where the players are heroes (unlike EVE), while still keeping with the group effort thing. Because really, even the heroes in the main stories (like Luke) who do end up making giant impacts on things, do not do so without the support of others. Heck, Luke would've died at so many different points if it wasn't for the help of someone else.

 

But... that's my opinion on it. And I realize (either because its already been said or I know someone will) that I'm probably fighting a lost cause... but I'd rather fight it then to roll over and let it be as is. *shrug*

 

And I'll stop here. This all helps support where I'm coming from, but discussion much more into it may be construed as derailing the thread.

I mean, you're totally free to your opinion that everyone is doing it wrong. I honestly think it's a bit narrow minded. When playing games a major part of the suspension of disbelief is understanding the line between gameplay and story. If you can't set aside the thousands of players running around to understand that in the story there were never that many Jedi period, I mean... I don't know what else to say. I'm sorry? It sucks that you can't reconcile the two things?

I find your view of things stiflingly limiting. You don't think our characters should have major roles because you either can't or won't accept that not every individual player needs to be accounted for in the story? Frankly, I think that would make for terrible stories. Especially in a Star Wars game. The Star Wars universe is one built almost entirely on stories about heroes. I don't want to be a moisture farmer watching the war on the holo. Hell, I don't even want to be the pilot out dogfighting TIE fighters. I want to be Luke, making the Death Star run.

At the end of the day, more power to you if you prefer games where the gameplay worlds most closely represent the story worlds. Have at it if you want to be just one in a crowd of millions in some persistent world like EVE, Second Life, or Mortal Online.

But to say that anyone who doesn't do it that way is doing it wrong? I'm sorry, but no. You are fighting a losing battle there, and I'm happy to fight on the other side. This is the way a lot of developers do things, and I find it narrow minded to dismiss it out of hand. I think most of us are perfectly capable of resolving the game world and the story world into two different headspaces, or at the very least ignoring the conflicts. Especially if doing so allows us to experience the kinds of epic stories developers like BioWare want to tell.

I want to be a hero on an epic scale, AND I want to be able to play with a big group of friends when I like. I don't think it's especially fair of you to judge that as "doing it wrong."

Anyway, you're right that this is probably veering a little far off topic. I think we get the gist of where each other stand, and I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

I mean, you're totally free to your opinion that everyone is doing it wrong. I honestly think it's a bit narrow minded. When playing games a major part of the suspension of disbelief is understanding the line between gameplay and story. If you can't set aside the thousands of players running around to understand that in the story there were never that many Jedi period, I mean... I don't know what else to say. I'm sorry? It sucks that you can't reconcile the two things?

 

I find your view of things stiflingly limiting. You don't think our characters should have major roles because you either can't or won't accept that not every individual player needs to be accounted for in the story? Frankly, I think that would make for terrible stories. Especially in a Star Wars game. The Star Wars universe is one built almost entirely on stories about heroes. I don't want to be a moisture farmer watching the war on the holo. Hell, I don't even want to be the pilot out dogfighting TIE fighters. I want to be Luke, making the Death Star run.

 

At the end of the day, more power to you if you prefer games where the gameplay worlds most closely represent the story worlds. Have at it if you want to be just one in a crowd of millions in some persistent world like EVE, Second Life, or Mortal Online.

 

But to say that anyone who doesn't do it that way is doing it wrong? I'm sorry, but no. You are fighting a losing battle there, and I'm happy to fight on the other side. This is the way a lot of developers do things, and I find it narrow minded to dismiss it out of hand. I think most of us are perfectly capable of resolving the game world and the story world into two different headspaces, or at the very least ignoring the conflicts. Especially if doing so allows us to experience the kinds of epic stories developers like BioWare want to tell.

 

I want to be a hero on an epic scale, AND I want to be able to play with a big group of friends when I like. I don't think it's especially fair of you to judge that as "doing it wrong."

 

Anyway, you're right that this is probably veering a little far off topic. I think we get the gist of where each other stand, and I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Well, if my thinking that a game that is about your own personal character's story should be single player game, while an MMO that involves many other players should be about "our" story makes me narrow minded, then I'm sorry.

But, (and trying to drag this back on topic) whether it be single player or MMO, I personally think that having NPCs out there that you can't flirt with because you are not their "type" is perfectly acceptable.

EDIT: Had to reword some stuff because I was forced to post hurriedly. Also want to add, one could almost view that as "unlockable" game content (or add to the "replayablility" factor) by playing through again as a different character.

understand that in the story there were never that many Jedi period

Sorry, forgot to comment on this part.

Huh?? If we were talking SWG I could understand that comment, by my understanding of eras where the Sith/Empire were battling each other in the Old Republic was that actually Jedi were a fairly common site on the battlefield. Not as common as soldiers, mind you, but they weren't so few that they could only fill Commander and General rolls....

EDIT: *facepalm* Another typo... Not Sith/Empire, but rather Sith-Empire & Republic.

So pining away because it’s better story-telling applies only to SGRs, eh? Or let’s say ‘mostly to SGRs’, before someone jumps in with the sophistry that they can’t romance HK-51 or Khem Val.

 

So people who are against SGRs because they think there’s something ‘wrong/sick/icky/etc’ with SGRs have perfectly valid reasons, eh? And we never did hear any argument against SGRs that didn’t ultimately boil down to ‘there’s something wrong/sick/icky/etc about SGRs’.

 

So when people said that gays weren’t in SW and therefore they shouldn’t be in SWTOR, and we argued against that -- we now have to accept a continuous stream of ‘put up with it because that’s realistic’ drivel about SGRs… in a fantasy game?

 

That’s BS.

 

I’m with you, Slaign ! Your post was brilliant.

Oooo...what a way to miss the point of that comment. *clap clap* Bravo. Yay! I'm sure you didn't do it on purpose.

Also, agree with Fury. Not that I don't want to play the hero, dont want to play the moisture farmer either. But from a RP persepctive i a group enviorment like an MMO, then those big events aren't really completed by you. They're not completed by the other players, they were completed by someone...not you.

Mind you, that's from a Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game perspective. If you ignore the whole MASSIVE MULTIPLAYER aspect of the game, or leave it to a small group, then you're right, IT TOTALLY WORKS!

BH walks up to other BH "Oh hi!" "Hi!" "So we meet again!" "Yup!" "Anything new?" "Yeah! Got married to Mako! You?" "I...got married to Mako...???" "..."

Eh, so many ways they could have done it better and open to everyone and made it work for MMO stories...but just how it goes.

I however can actually accept with how BW makes it all play out, as I'm not the one complaining it's not how I want it, but rather making suggestions and hoping.

If you can't learn to compartmentalize parts of your MMO experience, as you already do with all other aspects of life, you're likely to feel a bit confused by the fact that every other Bounty Hunter player had an experience involving the same characters as you did.

Luckily, we're more than capable to handle that compartmentalization. Except some people selectively find themselves unable to when it comes to subjects like sexuality.

I'm a straight male that identifies more strongly with female characters, and that puts me in a place where my choices are restricted in a way that I feel is frankly unfair.

Agreed. My only 50 is a Bounty Hunter. (See, I was able to do it once! I wanted to romance Mako but I powered through with a female BH anyway and romanced Torian instead. [..])

Well, neat. We have a few things in common.

I would have loved doing the romance story with Mako, but ended up settling with Torian. But in addition to him not being my type, what with him being a man, he didn't have a very engaging story. I'm hoping I'll enjoy the romance with Andronikos more, since he's introduced a bit earlier and is likely to have a more interesting story going for him.

In the end, if I have to choose between playing female or romancing a female character, I'll choose the former over the latter almost every time. I just wish, like you, that I didn't have to choose.

In the end, if I have to choose between playing female or romancing a female character, I'll choose the former over the latter almost every time. I just wish, like you, that I didn't have to choose.

Makes you wish they'd make a big patch that just changes the way they do things. That would be worth the 10-20 dollars of Makeb!

If you can't learn to compartmentalize parts of your MMO experience, as you already do with all other aspects of life, you're likely to feel a bit confused by the fact that every other Bounty Hunter player had an experience involving the same characters as you did.

To me, it's not about learning to compartmentalize... it's the fact that it is an MMO. The mere words that those 3 letters stand for should say it all.

To me, it's not about learning to compartmentalize... it's the fact that it is an MMO. The mere words that those 3 letters stand for should say it all.

With how BW made TOR, maybe that's why people forget it's an MMO? It really is that solo friendly.