Originally posted by Creslin321 I think the problem is that you're not considering normal multiplayer games in your analysis. You are comparing MMORPGs with single player games. You forget that there are plenty of normal MULTIPLAYER RPGs as well. So I would redo your list as follows... MMO Features as I see them: Auction House - Yes, definitely and MMORPG feature. Group Quests - This is a multiplayer feature, not MMO. You can do coop in Borderlands or Diablo and do the same thing. Group Dungeons - Multiplayer again, not MMO. Once again, Borderlands/Diablo. Group Raids - This is...borderline. It could technically be done in a multiplayer game, but probably never would be. So I would call this MMO. Group PvP - Multiplayer if it's instanced. See any MOBA game. Open World Conflict (most planets on PvP servers, and specific PvP planets on all servers) - MMO. "Open World" being the operative words here. You need a persistent open world for this to happen. World Chat - MMO...but really? Chat? Guilds - Guilds, by themselves are not MMO features. Multiplayer games like FPS's have had guilds (clans) way before MMORPGs existed. HOWEVER, certain in-game systems that support guilds like guild levels and such ARE MMO features. They require some persistence to mean anything. Friend lists - No, you can have friends list in Battle.NET. Lots of players running around and visible - MMO, but this really doesn't add anything in and of itself. In fact, it was be annoying when said players all look like you and are interfering with your quest objectives.
So of your list, the only features I would consider MMO are: 1. Auction House 2. Raids 3. Open World Conflict 4. Seeing other players 5. MAYBE Guilds depending on how they are implemented.
Beyond that list, what else is needed, keeping in mind that this is a theme park game?
Well I think that "theme park" should not be as limiting as many folks seem to think it is. I'm also not a hardcore sandboxer, though I do enjoy those games from time to time. Some folks think themepark literally means WoW-clone...and it doesn't, or at least it shouldn't. IMO, themepark just means a game which is predominantly constructed of developer-created content. I think that themepark MMORPGs should strive to tie less content to the individual player and more to the world. This will greatly help them better utilize the fact that they are an MMORPG. For example, Rifts/Dynamic-Events/Public-Quests are very much MMO features while traditional quests are not. Public quests are something that everyone can participate in whenever they find it, together. They are also very "themeparky."
You still haven't described the features that would fit your definition of MMORPG. If SW:ToR clearly doesn't fit, then something else clearly does. It has a list of features that makes it an 'MMORPG'. What are those features?
For the rest of the world, Star Wars has a large number (even a massive number) of players in a persistent, shared world (or worlds as it were). Those players can all interact in person through groups or anonymously through the auction house. The game fulfills the RPG element better than most, if not all other mmorpg on the market.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I did all of my story and questing grouped up with my buddies this past weekend, so we could check out all the stories. It worked out very well actually, and we were all able to enter instances together and watch the tales unfold.
How about this theory: This game can be played as a single player game if you want it to be, but is officially an MMO. Your feelings on the game are completely subjective, and not indicative of the true definition of the game.
MMO Features as I see them:
Auction House
Group Quests
Group Dungeons
Group Raids
Group PvP
Open World Conflict (most planets on PvP servers, and specific PvP planets on all servers)
World Chat
Guilds
Friend lists
Lots of players running around and visible
Features in game that can only be done single player:
Space on rails
So what am I missing here? You think that player preferences will be to play the game solo, but how does that make it any less an MMO than most other contemporary MMOs?
I think the problem is that you're not considering normal multiplayer games in your analysis. You are comparing MMORPGs with single player games. You forget that there are plenty of normal MULTIPLAYER RPGs as well.
So I would redo your list as follows...
MMO Features as I see them:
Auction House - Yes, definitely and MMORPG feature.
Group Quests - This is a multiplayer feature, not MMO. You can do coop in Borderlands or Diablo and do the same thing.
Group Dungeons - Multiplayer again, not MMO. Once again, Borderlands/Diablo.
Group Raids - This is...borderline. It could technically be done in a multiplayer game, but probably never would be. So I would call this MMO.
Group PvP - Multiplayer if it's instanced. See any MOBA game.
Open World Conflict (most planets on PvP servers, and specific PvP planets on all servers) - MMO. "Open World" being the operative words here. You need a persistent open world for this to happen.
World Chat - MMO...but really? Chat?
Guilds - Guilds, by themselves are not MMO features. Multiplayer games like FPS's have had guilds (clans) way before MMORPGs existed. HOWEVER, certain in-game systems that support guilds like guild levels and such ARE MMO features. They require some persistence to mean anything.
Friend lists - No, you can have friends list in Battle.NET.
Lots of players running around and visible - MMO, but this really doesn't add anything in and of itself. In fact, it was be annoying when said players all look like you and are interfering with your quest objectives.
So of your list, the only features I would consider MMO are:
1. Auction House
2. Raids
3. Open World Conflict
4. Seeing other players
5. MAYBE Guilds depending on how they are implemented.
Well at least you're willing to admit now that it's a multiplayer game, massive or not.
You guys are forgetting the biggest mmo feature of all. Persistent world with thousands of players at the same time. SWTOR has that.
Open, persistent world with thousands of players. MMO. Should be the end of discussion but it won't be.
I think the problem is that you're not considering normal multiplayer games in your analysis. You are comparing MMORPGs with single player games. You forget that there are plenty of normal MULTIPLAYER RPGs as well.
So I would redo your list as follows...
MMO Features as I see them:
Auction House - Yes, definitely and MMORPG feature.
Group Quests - This is a multiplayer feature, not MMO. You can do coop in Borderlands or Diablo and do the same thing.
Group Dungeons - Multiplayer again, not MMO. Once again, Borderlands/Diablo.
Group Raids - This is...borderline. It could technically be done in a multiplayer game, but probably never would be. So I would call this MMO.
Group PvP - Multiplayer if it's instanced. See any MOBA game.
Open World Conflict (most planets on PvP servers, and specific PvP planets on all servers) - MMO. "Open World" being the operative words here. You need a persistent open world for this to happen.
World Chat - MMO...but really? Chat?
Guilds - Guilds, by themselves are not MMO features. Multiplayer games like FPS's have had guilds (clans) way before MMORPGs existed. HOWEVER, certain in-game systems that support guilds like guild levels and such ARE MMO features. They require some persistence to mean anything.
Friend lists - No, you can have friends list in Battle.NET.
Lots of players running around and visible - MMO, but this really doesn't add anything in and of itself. In fact, it was be annoying when said players all look like you and are interfering with your quest objectives.
So of your list, the only features I would consider MMO are:
1. Auction House
2. Raids
3. Open World Conflict
4. Seeing other players
5. MAYBE Guilds depending on how they are implemented.
Well at least you're willing to admit now that it's a multiplayer game, massive or not.
You guys are forgetting the biggest mmo feature of all. Persistent world with thousands of players at the same time. SWTOR has that.
Open, persistent world with thousands of players. MMO. Should be the end of discussion but it won't be.
Truth. The only thing that a game needs to make it massive is a persistent world housing a massive amount of players concurrently. But then he'll argue that we're not all actually inhabiting the same locations and therefore it isn't massive, just a set of lobbies, and what else has lobbies? Multiplayer games.
Put your pecker in a cheese grater its still a cheese grater. Maybe its an mmo because they say it is? or maybe because it has the characteristics of an MMO. Parties, open world interaction, open world pvp, pvp battlegrounds, open world bosses...blah blah etc. etc.
I classify an MMORPG based on 2 points.
1- You see a chest and some monsters guarding it. you engage in the fight and kill off all the monsters only to turn around and see another player looting your chest and telling you to kill faster next time
2- I see a group of people standing next to a vendor RPIng over what to buy and bounty hunter is insulted by "random" smuggler and then they /duel right there.
Put your pecker in a cheese grater its still a cheese grater. Maybe its an mmo because they say it is? or maybe because it has the characteristics of an MMO. Parties, open world interaction, open world pvp, pvp battlegrounds, open world bosses...blah blah etc. etc.
I classify an MMORPG based on 2 points.
1- You see a chest and some monsters guarding it. you engage in the fight and kill off all the monsters only to turn around and see another player looting your chest and telling you to kill faster next time
2- I see a group of people standing next to a vendor RPIng over what to buy and bounty hunter is insulted by "random" smuggler and then they /duel right there.
good ol fashioned gaming.
Point 1 of yours is pretty much the argument I have made over and over in this thread. Nobody really seems to accept it though. Your example is actually much better than mine (someone stealing a mob you need to kill) but the point is that other players can affect your gameplay experience even IF you are playing solo. Which means it's not a single player game at all.
2 is a good point that I haven't thought of before. I mean sure you could RP in a coop rpg if you wanted, but noone else will see it. Noone is going to happen into your scene uninvited and influence the situation.
The larger point (that you have just helped make) is that this is a persistent world with many players all sharing the same server. This is not something that you can point to a single player or coop game and say is true.
I can't think of one single coop rpg with a persitent world. I could be wrong, but if it exists, I have never seen it.
Anyways, both of your points are effects of playing a game in a persistent world. There are many other gameplay situations that that element of MMO's creates.
Lol point 2 tor has. They even have cantinas u can go in play jukeboxs and roleplay in on your own if u like.
This game is a persistant world with tons of players playing together. They may not have to group or even want to group but they can. Anytime they want.
They can even enter the other players instance in storytelling if they are of diffrent class if they want to help there freinds.
Im jus ttired of 2 arguments that have been proven wrong and as lies its pitiful people keep arguing it.
Not an mmo is a huge lie. the other is the the worlds are small . Heres and idea to all tthose that think the game worlds are small leave the starter worlds. They get much biggger from that point on .
They are lies and not someonens opinion . U dont have to like tor just stop lying about it
I've commented on this before, but TOR doesn't feel any more massive than Diablo 2. I mean the group max is 4 players. Its a MORPG not MMOPRG.
Utter rubbish . just because they have focused on a lot of the more community and social based elements, if thousands of players are available within a server instance it is an MMO.
MMOs are not just about combat and group size companies that focus on just this generallly fail , SWTOR adds that little more and as the game develops hopefully that will shine through to the ignorant. Who have just played games post WoW.
I would be surprised is any of the "Modern" MMOs could hold my attention for more than 6 months , the only ones currently are EQ2 and EvE. Others just don;t have the depth/community/content to do so. Even though some excelent MMOs/Games have been release the longevity element is required for proper community to build and I am not talking Guilds as they are a key pert of the current lack of community problem.
I tried the Beta like others this weekend and was pleasantly surprised.
________________________________________________________ Sorcery must persist, the future is the Citadel
hey i like wow. that said leave the starter worlds and i never heard anyone who did whine the worlds were to small. Prior to getting sprint at level 15 people were whining about how big dromund kaas was
I dont consider someone being able to loot my quest stuff to prove a games an mmo i expect for a game to be an mmo it has to meet the criteria the game communities and like massively and mmorpg have come up with to describe what is an mmo
Tor meets all those standards easily. Leave the starter worlds people . There are tons of places in this game to meet and role play on your own if u want , There are cantinas everywhere in th is game that ive seen. From fleet on.
The one thing roleplayers may not like is it doesnt look like u can sit down in said cantina but hope that is fixed for roleplayers sake
Its gonna have an ah and robust economy i expect as u level if just for gear that has diffrent looks then u can get from questing.
I don't understand why people keep shouting about how much stuff you can do with other players, and claiming THAT proves this game is NOT a single player game...NEWS FLASH: EVERYONE HERE KNOWS THAT...and yet, given our beta experience, it still felt very much like a BIOWARE single player experience. I only made it to level 12, but through it all, the game really didn't "encourage" me to group. I did manage to group once for a heroic, but it took a while just to make that happen.
This game, being so story driven, I thought it would encourage grouping in the story itself...again, I only made it to level 12 in the beta, so I didn't experience it all. I kept thinking dialogue would steer my character into a bigger world, but nope, it was all about my character. I figured eventually a quest giver would say something like "Look you're good no doubt, but the area I'm sending you to is extremely dangerous, you'd better recruit backup if you want to make it out alive"...and then maybe even offer suggestions on what class of group members might me helpful and why. I don't remember anything like that in quest dialogue, even though I had to go into some pretty hostile situations...those robots were kicking my butt lol.
A few people I've talked to have said that it gave them the same single-player vibe...I just think that had they adapted their story telling formula to include the obvious fact that we're not playing this game alone, it would give it that multiplayer vibe.
One of my characters went 1-26 without grouping. If u cant find groups for 2mans (which most u can solo) or 4mans, just do 20min of space combat to make the difference, not hard. This is a SP game with the option to play with friends. In no way does it force you too
I don't understand why people keep shouting about how much stuff you can do with other players, and claiming THAT proves this game is NOT a single player game...NEWS FLASH: EVERYONE HERE KNOWS THAT...and yet, given our beta experience, it still felt very much like a BIOWARE single player experience. I only made it to level 12, but through it all, the game really didn't "encourage" me to group. I did manage to group once for a heroic, but it took a while just to make that happen.
This game, being so story driven, I thought it would encourage grouping in the story itself...again, I only made it to level 12 in the beta, so I didn't experience it all. I kept thinking dialogue would steer my character into a bigger world, but nope, it was all about my character. I figured eventually a quest giver would say something like "Look you're good no doubt, but the area I'm sending you to is extremely dangerous, you'd better recruit backup if you want to make it out alive"...and then maybe even offer suggestions on what class of group members might me helpful and why. I don't remember anything like that in quest dialogue, even though I had to go into some pretty hostile situations...those robots were kicking my butt lol.
A few people I've talked to have said that it gave them the same single-player vibe...I just think that had they adapted their story telling formula to include the obvious fact that we're not playing this game alone, it would give it that multiplayer vibe.
You didn't level high enough and it sounds like you didn't take the opportunity to do the first flashpoint en route to your 2nd world. If you had, you would have seen the Social Points, which you earn doing group cut scenes.
There is really nothing different about this MMO with respect to how the "tutorial" portion is handled as a mostly solo experience. Heck, even in WOW you don't qualify to do the first instance until level 12 or so from what I remember. Here you can do it at level 9.
The main difference here is that the class story lines and other quests do their best to make you feel unique and special and are so engaging that they do it well. It feels like you're alone and special--just like you do in single player games--but this is just an illusion that is not so prominent as you level.
Initially you're getting mostly class-specific quests that you're following constantly since you're levelling very quickly and can do the next step in the chain right away. Later on the time between steps in the class quest chain become much longer due to the need to level to have a chance to complete them. From that point on you'll be spending a proportionately much longer period of time doing the same quests as everyone else and the quantity of quests that you need to group for also increase. You spend the first 10 levels in the starter planet and get 2 "heroic" group quests there. This number becomes 4 or 5 in the 2nd planet, 8+ in the third, and so on. The opportunities and need to group increase gradually just like they should.
Unlike other MMOs BW has also taken the approach of rewarding you for grouping (social points) rather than penalizing you for not doing so. Positive vs. negative reinforcement is generally a better way of doing things.
Also... this game is different in that everyone begins the game as DPS and this actually continues for the first few levels after choosing an advanced class role. You really and truly can not "main heal" a group until level 16 or so and neither can tanks hold aggro worth crap til then. I found this to be very different than other MMOs I've played recently and many people are confused by this when faced with their first long instance at level 10. People looking for healers or tanks at that point just tells me that BW hasn't done a good enough job of making people aware that this first FP is just a DPS fest.
But don't worry, when you're in your 20s and up, the traditional MMO group roles are well-defined and needed and it keeps being that way.
One last thing... many of you talk as if "single player" and "MMO" are mutually exclusive terms. Well, stay tuned for the new world order BW has just created by giving you the single player fix inside an MMO by clever use of extremely well-written story lines.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
we are upset because people are saiying it is a sngle player game with tacked on multiplayer with tons of lobies.
We dont have an issue with u thinking it felt like a bioware single player game at least i dont. It isnt a singe player game though. its an mmo in every sense of the word
We have an issue with those telling us this game isnt an mmo .That is kotor 3 wiht mulitplayer and That it doesnt belong on the list of mmorpgs.
Sure it had that same feeling u get playing a bioware single player rpg only u could do it with others in a huge world .
Sure it has some elements that make people say its a wow clone. So what the game and all its parts is something special and fun and enjoyable to me
That and the fact taht u can play it in huge worlds with thousands of other players is amazing. Im sorry but this is an mmo and my problem and others is with those saying it isnt.
we are upset because people are saiying it is a sngle player game with tacked on multiplayer with tons of lobies.
We dont have an issue with u thinking it felt like a bioware single player game at least i dont. It isnt a singe player game though. its an mmo in every sense of the word
We have an issue with those telling us this game isnt an mmo .That is kotor 3 wiht mulitplayer and That it doesnt belong on the list of mmorpgs.
Sure it had that same feeling u get playing a bioware single player rpg only u could do it with others in a huge world .
Sure it has some elements that make people say its a wow clone. So what the game and all its parts is something special and fun and enjoyable to me
That and the fact taht u can play it in huge worlds with thousands of other players is amazing. Im sorry but this is an mmo and my problem and others is with those saying it isnt.
Most people aren't arguing that it's a single player game though, you just see it that way. I, for example, argued that many (but not all) of the multiplayer features in SWTOR could easily be done in a regular multiplayer RPG. But then I got a bunch of responses to my post saying something like:
"OMG SWTOR is not single player R U dumb???"
I never said it was single player. If anything, I just said that I felt it didn't utilize its persistent world enough, and may have been better off being single player.
I think the problem is that you're not considering normal multiplayer games in your analysis. You are comparing MMORPGs with single player games. You forget that there are plenty of normal MULTIPLAYER RPGs as well.
So I would redo your list as follows...
MMO Features as I see them:
Auction House - Yes, definitely and MMORPG feature.
Group Quests - This is a multiplayer feature, not MMO. You can do coop in Borderlands or Diablo and do the same thing.
Group Dungeons - Multiplayer again, not MMO. Once again, Borderlands/Diablo.
Group Raids - This is...borderline. It could technically be done in a multiplayer game, but probably never would be. So I would call this MMO.
Group PvP - Multiplayer if it's instanced. See any MOBA game.
Open World Conflict (most planets on PvP servers, and specific PvP planets on all servers) - MMO. "Open World" being the operative words here. You need a persistent open world for this to happen.
World Chat - MMO...but really? Chat?
Guilds - Guilds, by themselves are not MMO features. Multiplayer games like FPS's have had guilds (clans) way before MMORPGs existed. HOWEVER, certain in-game systems that support guilds like guild levels and such ARE MMO features. They require some persistence to mean anything.
Friend lists - No, you can have friends list in Battle.NET.
Lots of players running around and visible - MMO, but this really doesn't add anything in and of itself. In fact, it was be annoying when said players all look like you and are interfering with your quest objectives.
So of your list, the only features I would consider MMO are:
1. Auction House
2. Raids
3. Open World Conflict
4. Seeing other players
5. MAYBE Guilds depending on how they are implemented.
Beyond that list, what else is needed, keeping in mind that this is a theme park game?
Well I think that "theme park" should not be as limiting as many folks seem to think it is. I'm also not a hardcore sandboxer, though I do enjoy those games from time to time. Some folks think themepark literally means WoW-clone...and it doesn't, or at least it shouldn't. IMO, themepark just means a game which is predominantly constructed of developer-created content.
I think that themepark MMORPGs should strive to tie less content to the individual player and more to the world. This will greatly help them better utilize the fact that they are an MMORPG.
For example, Rifts/Dynamic-Events/Public-Quests are very much MMO features while traditional quests are not. Public quests are something that everyone can participate in whenever they find it, together. They are also very "themeparky."
You still haven't described the features that would fit your definition of MMORPG. If SW:ToR clearly doesn't fit, then something else clearly does. It has a list of features that makes it an 'MMORPG'. What are those features?
For the rest of the world, Star Wars has a large number (even a massive number) of players in a persistent, shared world (or worlds as it were). Those players can all interact in person through groups or anonymously through the auction house. The game fulfills the RPG element better than most, if not all other mmorpg on the market.
I NEVER said SWTOR was not an MMORPG. Maybe you are confusing my post with someone else's. There is a tendency to group all opposing arguments into one giant supervillian pseudo-persona.
I am only saying that the "WoW-model" with its quest-based leveling is not conducive to a persistent world, and thus is not a very good feature for an MMO. AND I actually DID give you an example of a feature that would help make a themepark game more "MMO" like. Specifically, quests that are tied to the world instead of the player (i.e. public quests).
TBH, the biggest annoyance I had with SWTOR is the fact that all of the things that annoyed me from WoW are still there and unfixed in SWTOR. It's still annoying to find a group for that ONE quest NPC because you have to find someone who is on the quest or is magnanimous enough to help you. It's still annoying that grouping is counterproductive in "collect 10 rat tails" type quests. It's still annoying that it's difficult to group while doing quests because you need to find someone willing to group that is doing the same thing you are.
This is my problem. The quest-based model basically pushes an MMORPG in the direction of an SPRPG because of how much it discourages interplayer interaction.
2-4 man groups? (2 + 2 pets or 4 players). If you consider that an MMORPG then dump Diablo 2 and every other game into the MMORPG category.
Unfortunately the people who argue that SWTOR is a MMORPG also argue that Guild Wars is... And from my GW experience, you stand in a town (chat room) with lots of other players, but the second you leave you're stuck alone or with a very limited number of others.
SWTOR is only different because it opens up the quest grind areas to more people, everything else seems extremely limited and aimed at playing by yourself or with 1-3 others at most.
THIS IS NOT A BAD THING! I would much rather play a game and do EVERYTHING with 2-3 good close friends, than be required to maintain a 40-50+ player guild and organize raid times on a damn schedule!
Originally posted by Creslin321 I think the problem is that you're not considering normal multiplayer games in your analysis. You are comparing MMORPGs with single player games. You forget that there are plenty of normal MULTIPLAYER RPGs as well. So I would redo your list as follows... MMO Features as I see them: Auction House - Yes, definitely and MMORPG feature. Group Quests - This is a multiplayer feature, not MMO. You can do coop in Borderlands or Diablo and do the same thing. Group Dungeons - Multiplayer again, not MMO. Once again, Borderlands/Diablo. Group Raids - This is...borderline. It could technically be done in a multiplayer game, but probably never would be. So I would call this MMO. Group PvP - Multiplayer if it's instanced. See any MOBA game. Open World Conflict (most planets on PvP servers, and specific PvP planets on all servers) - MMO. "Open World" being the operative words here. You need a persistent open world for this to happen. World Chat - MMO...but really? Chat? Guilds - Guilds, by themselves are not MMO features. Multiplayer games like FPS's have had guilds (clans) way before MMORPGs existed. HOWEVER, certain in-game systems that support guilds like guild levels and such ARE MMO features. They require some persistence to mean anything. Friend lists - No, you can have friends list in Battle.NET. Lots of players running around and visible - MMO, but this really doesn't add anything in and of itself. In fact, it was be annoying when said players all look like you and are interfering with your quest objectives.
So of your list, the only features I would consider MMO are: 1. Auction House 2. Raids 3. Open World Conflict 4. Seeing other players 5. MAYBE Guilds depending on how they are implemented.
Beyond that list, what else is needed, keeping in mind that this is a theme park game?
Well I think that "theme park" should not be as limiting as many folks seem to think it is. I'm also not a hardcore sandboxer, though I do enjoy those games from time to time. Some folks think themepark literally means WoW-clone...and it doesn't, or at least it shouldn't. IMO, themepark just means a game which is predominantly constructed of developer-created content. I think that themepark MMORPGs should strive to tie less content to the individual player and more to the world. This will greatly help them better utilize the fact that they are an MMORPG. For example, Rifts/Dynamic-Events/Public-Quests are very much MMO features while traditional quests are not. Public quests are something that everyone can participate in whenever they find it, together. They are also very "themeparky."
You still haven't described the features that would fit your definition of MMORPG. If SW:ToR clearly doesn't fit, then something else clearly does. It has a list of features that makes it an 'MMORPG'. What are those features?
For the rest of the world, Star Wars has a large number (even a massive number) of players in a persistent, shared world (or worlds as it were). Those players can all interact in person through groups or anonymously through the auction house. The game fulfills the RPG element better than most, if not all other mmorpg on the market.
I NEVER said SWTOR was not an MMORPG. Maybe you are confusing my post with someone else's. There is a tendency to group all opposing arguments into one giant supervillian pseudo-persona. I am only saying that the "WoW-model" with its quest-based leveling is not conducive to a persistent world, and thus is not a very good feature for an MMO. AND I actually DID give you an example of a feature that would help make a themepark game more "MMO" like. Specifically, quests that are tied to the world instead of the player (i.e. public quests). TBH, the biggest annoyance I had with SWTOR is the fact that all of the things that annoyed me from WoW are still there and unfixed in SWTOR. It's still annoying to find a group for that ONE quest NPC because you have to find someone who is on the quest or is magnanimous enough to help you. It's still annoying that grouping is counterproductive in "collect 10 rat tails" type quests. It's still annoying that it's difficult to group while doing quests because you need to find someone willing to group that is doing the same thing you are. This is my problem. The quest-based model basically pushes an MMORPG in the direction of an SPRPG because of how much it discourages interplayer interaction.
It's your forum avatar. I want to poke it in the eyes behind those glasses. I think it is an instinct to argue with it. My apologies.
** edit ** I do not want to poke you in the eye. Just your forum avatar. I don't really know why to be honest.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I don't understand why people keep shouting about how much stuff you can do with other players, and claiming THAT proves this game is NOT a single player game...NEWS FLASH: EVERYONE HERE KNOWS THAT...and yet, given our beta experience, it still felt very much like a BIOWARE single player experience. I only made it to level 12, but through it all, the game really didn't "encourage" me to group. I did manage to group once for a heroic, but it took a while just to make that happen.
This game, being so story driven, I thought it would encourage grouping in the story itself...again, I only made it to level 12 in the beta, so I didn't experience it all. I kept thinking dialogue would steer my character into a bigger world, but nope, it was all about my character. I figured eventually a quest giver would say something like "Look you're good no doubt, but the area I'm sending you to is extremely dangerous, you'd better recruit backup if you want to make it out alive"...and then maybe even offer suggestions on what class of group members might me helpful and why. I don't remember anything like that in quest dialogue, even though I had to go into some pretty hostile situations...those robots were kicking my butt lol.
A few people I've talked to have said that it gave them the same single-player vibe...I just think that had they adapted their story telling formula to include the obvious fact that we're not playing this game alone, it would give it that multiplayer vibe.
Actually after level 12 there are heroic +4 you ahve to group up for unless you wait ttill level 20 something, and there are three flashpoints you have to group for in order to complete before you hit level 20. Also queue up for warzones and bam your grouped. The reason people are claiming that this is singleplayer with MMO features tacked on is because they only played one weekend. Like 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of other MMO's, grouping in early levels (1-10) is lightly encouraged and almost never mandated because its time to learn your class and learn about the environment.
Could you imagine forcing people to group up at level 5? Its would be frustrating, classes dont have any skills to make a group any fun and most people are learning their toon anyways. It would be a mess. So i suggest to anyone go online, look up as much as you can on MMO features you feel are lacking in SWTOR and maybe you wil surprise yourself on just how much group content is out there.
I think the problem is that you're not considering normal multiplayer games in your analysis. You are comparing MMORPGs with single player games. You forget that there are plenty of normal MULTIPLAYER RPGs as well.
So I would redo your list as follows...
MMO Features as I see them:
Auction House - Yes, definitely and MMORPG feature.
Group Quests - This is a multiplayer feature, not MMO. You can do coop in Borderlands or Diablo and do the same thing.
Group Dungeons - Multiplayer again, not MMO. Once again, Borderlands/Diablo.
Group Raids - This is...borderline. It could technically be done in a multiplayer game, but probably never would be. So I would call this MMO.
Group PvP - Multiplayer if it's instanced. See any MOBA game.
Open World Conflict (most planets on PvP servers, and specific PvP planets on all servers) - MMO. "Open World" being the operative words here. You need a persistent open world for this to happen.
World Chat - MMO...but really? Chat?
Guilds - Guilds, by themselves are not MMO features. Multiplayer games like FPS's have had guilds (clans) way before MMORPGs existed. HOWEVER, certain in-game systems that support guilds like guild levels and such ARE MMO features. They require some persistence to mean anything.
Friend lists - No, you can have friends list in Battle.NET.
Lots of players running around and visible - MMO, but this really doesn't add anything in and of itself. In fact, it was be annoying when said players all look like you and are interfering with your quest objectives.
So of your list, the only features I would consider MMO are:
1. Auction House
2. Raids
3. Open World Conflict
4. Seeing other players
5. MAYBE Guilds depending on how they are implemented.
Beyond that list, what else is needed, keeping in mind that this is a theme park game?
Well I think that "theme park" should not be as limiting as many folks seem to think it is. I'm also not a hardcore sandboxer, though I do enjoy those games from time to time. Some folks think themepark literally means WoW-clone...and it doesn't, or at least it shouldn't. IMO, themepark just means a game which is predominantly constructed of developer-created content.
I think that themepark MMORPGs should strive to tie less content to the individual player and more to the world. This will greatly help them better utilize the fact that they are an MMORPG.
For example, Rifts/Dynamic-Events/Public-Quests are very much MMO features while traditional quests are not. Public quests are something that everyone can participate in whenever they find it, together. They are also very "themeparky."
You still haven't described the features that would fit your definition of MMORPG. If SW:ToR clearly doesn't fit, then something else clearly does. It has a list of features that makes it an 'MMORPG'. What are those features?
For the rest of the world, Star Wars has a large number (even a massive number) of players in a persistent, shared world (or worlds as it were). Those players can all interact in person through groups or anonymously through the auction house. The game fulfills the RPG element better than most, if not all other mmorpg on the market.
I NEVER said SWTOR was not an MMORPG. Maybe you are confusing my post with someone else's. There is a tendency to group all opposing arguments into one giant supervillian pseudo-persona.
I am only saying that the "WoW-model" with its quest-based leveling is not conducive to a persistent world, and thus is not a very good feature for an MMO. AND I actually DID give you an example of a feature that would help make a themepark game more "MMO" like. Specifically, quests that are tied to the world instead of the player (i.e. public quests).
TBH, the biggest annoyance I had with SWTOR is the fact that all of the things that annoyed me from WoW are still there and unfixed in SWTOR. It's still annoying to find a group for that ONE quest NPC because you have to find someone who is on the quest or is magnanimous enough to help you. It's still annoying that grouping is counterproductive in "collect 10 rat tails" type quests. It's still annoying that it's difficult to group while doing quests because you need to find someone willing to group that is doing the same thing you are.
This is my problem. The quest-based model basically pushes an MMORPG in the direction of an SPRPG because of how much it discourages interplayer interaction.
It's your forum avatar. I want to poke it in the eyes behind those glasses. I think it is an instinct to argue with it. My apologies.
** edit **
I do not want to poke you in the eye. Just your forum avatar. I don't really know why to be honest.
So people are saying sw:tor is interactive story telling and not an rpg. Rofl guess there are no RPGs in existence because all have a start and a finish and regardless to what you do in the middle... It ends the same... Think people should google definitions before talking. Ultima series, crystalis, dragon warrior and breath of fire share a chamber of my heart.
Everything I say is my opinion or personal preference. You may or may not find it useful to your cause but regardless I am entitled to it.
Originally posted by DignaA lot of posts here say (or try to ) that SWtoR is not an MMORPG. "Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) is a genre of role-playing video games in which a very large number of players interact with one another within a virtual game world.
I would question if that is really the case in SW:TOR. For me it does not qualify for that.
How so not? I suppose if you want to argue semantics you could phrase it as"....number of players CAN interact with one another..." (Basically can versus do).
It does not say can, it says that they interact so I interpret this as part of the normal gameplay. And it also said a very large number. You could argue that in SW:TOR you interact sometimes with a small amount of people but the normal game play seem to be single player storyline with occasional encounters with other people.For me that does not play like an MMORPG but I guess it differs for different people.
Nice try.
Even if we go with your "interpretation" (this isn't the Bible btw, it's a video game genre, a very well defined video game genre) of "can interact" vs "DO interact" I have provided several examples of how you DO interact with other players even IF you CHOSE to play the game solo (again, your fault for playing the game solo not the games).
Here we go:
If I need to kill a unique mob for a quest, and I'm soloing, but someone else needs to kill the same mob as me and gets there a few seconds before me, he has tagged that mob first and gets to kill it first. I then have to wait for the mob to respawn and kill it after him. I just INTERACTED with that player because he is affecting the same world that I am playing in. I have to wait for the mob to respawn which slows me down.
Same as if I go for a gathering node to try to get some mats, someone can beat me to it and I can beat them to it. That is INTERACTING while soloing, because we both want to get that node. Only one of us can get it, we don't each get one as we would in a single player game.
If I am on a pvp server, and questing solo, and a JC Shadow pops out of stealth and ganks me then camps my corpse, I just INTERACTED with that player while playing solo, against my will I might add.
If I want to craft a certain blaster rifle, but am missing some of the mats, I can run to the GTN and buy one that someone else put up for auction. I am playing solo, but just interacted with that player through the purchase of his goods.
If a part of the map is densely populated with elites or otherwise tough mobs, and I am trying to solo there, someone else coming along and keeping some of the packs off my back simply by doing the same quest is helping me by making the area a little easier to move around in. I'm solo but INTERACTING with that player as we are both killing the same spawns.
Same as if he pulls a patrol that's wandering around while I'm fighting other mobs. If it was going to get me, but he kills it because he's soloing and needs those mobs as well we just INTERACTED. He just saved my but, even if he wasn't trying to save me or interact with me.
If I keep an eye on chat and see someone talking about a great talent spec they liked, which I later try out and also like, that player just INTERACTED with me. If a player walks by me while soloing and does a /salute emote, guess what? INTERACTION
These are all examples of things that can happen while I'm soloing. As you can see there are many ways to INTERACT with other players, even while playing the game solo I'm not really playing by myself. Should be pretty simple to grasp for someone who's such an expert on what is and isn't an MMORPG, these types of interactions have been in MMO's since the beginning and they are no different in SWTOR. Case closed on that one. It's not open to your interpretation.
Lets take a look at all of the many ways that this game encourages group activity shall we?
Contrary to popular (wrong) belief. It is actually much faster in this game to level while in a group with a friend or two. The quests (which are your main source of XP btw) go by so fast when you team up on them, AND you are also rewarded for participating in group conversations with social points. A Specific reward that can only be attained through grouping up to do the content. Not to mention the fact that the group conversations can be very fun when you're partnered up with a friend. Just because you choose to solo these quests doesn't mean thats the only way or even the best way to do them.
Come launch day, me and a buddy will be questing together because of the speed at which quests are completed. It really is far superior.
There are MANY Heroic group quests that are scattered throughout your leveling process. They are in such a way that there are several on each planet, and they are spread out from the beginning to the end of the planet. They are SUPER easy to find groups for because the rewards are great. On top of all that they are repeatable daily. Some of the 4+ ones are fairly difficult and require good group cooperation, especially at higher levels (which I'm sure you haven't seen).
There are 15 flashpoints. That is quite a lot for an MMO launch, and they are spread out in a way that there is always one right around your level that is worth doing. These flashpoints are fun and engaging. They have difficult but fun mechanics at higher levels, and they include group conversations. You can also do them in hard mode at level 50 for better rewards.
PvP. This should be obvious but I'm not so sure with the crowd around these forums. It is entirely group content. Instanced Warzones are quite obviously multiplayer content.
You can queue up for GROUP based instanced pvp at level 10, and start earning rewards for level cap right away. Unlike most themepark pvp reward systems where the reward points, badges, ranks, don't really mean anything until you hit 50. You can actually start saving up all of the PvP commendations and valor starting at level 10 and use them at level 50.
FFA open world PvP zones? Hello? You can attack memebers of your faction. Rewards here are rare crafting mats and a rare pvp reward item vendor with items not available elsewhere. I'd say that's pretty good encouragement to go in there if you want an item or mats from there. And it will take a group if you want to survive in a freaking FFA PvP zone.
Illum. Open world objective based massive PvP zone? Anyone home? This place is absolutely massive. You are rewarded with commendations and valor used to purchase pvp gear. Hmmm. Sounds pretty group based. Why not throw in endgame Operations (raids) for good measure. Sounds pretty single player to me. I'm sure you can solo these and do real well.
You could argue that in SW:TOR you interact sometimes with a small amount of people but the normal game play seem to be single player storyline with occasional encounters with other people.
You could argue that, but you would be wrong. Occasional encounters with other people? Laughable. There are people all over this game. Every planet. All the way. I've never seen a "dead" zone or an area where people weren't out doing stuff.
Small amount of people? Absurd. I've seen them max out a server before, and it takes a LOT of people.
The "normal" gameplay is whatever you make of it. For someone so interested in wanting to have this great multiplayer experience, it sure doesn't sound like you are concerned with anything but soloing. Which is totally optional btw.
Grouping in SWTOR is fun, rewarding, and heavily encouraged throughout the game. As I posted even if your "normal" gameplay is to play solo, you are still interacting with many other players all the time, no matter what. They are all playing in the same game world as you affecting everything around you. And they continue playing in that game world even when you are logged off.
you just described various online gaming options that require no fee and are not MMORPGs.
* SINGLE PLAYER RPGS with co-op and/or multiplayer functionality
* RTS games
* ONLINE Multiplayer games with storylines and community based options and objectives, such as Guild Wars
SWTOR is a heavily influenced single player RPG at its core, that has some elements of multiplayer gameplay.
So the main argument that TOR is not a mmorpg is that it does not feel like one. Well there is a difference between how someone personally feels about something and the reality of what it is.
Just because the game offers single player elements ( with the class story lines) and solo content does not make it less of a mmorpg. I view more options in a game as a good thing in terms of both solo and group content. I think it all comes down to certain type of people trying really hard to find reasons not to like the game and not one of them has come up with any good points to why TOR is not a mmorpg.
Comments
im so tired of the kotor 3 with multiplayer not an mmo argument. if we put some peoples ideas of an mmo to mmo only sandbox games would count.
That said there is persistant world pvp on pve servers even. As well aa open world pvp zones on 11 planets in tor.
I dont know how this guy doesnt know htis its beyond me at this point that people can continue to spout crap thats patently untrue.
its just old people and pathetic really u dont like tor fine just stop with the lies its just pathetic and makes u look bad
If you are cool looking like a loser who doesnt have a clue what your talking about keep talking.
You still haven't described the features that would fit your definition of MMORPG. If SW:ToR clearly doesn't fit, then something else clearly does. It has a list of features that makes it an 'MMORPG'. What are those features?
For the rest of the world, Star Wars has a large number (even a massive number) of players in a persistent, shared world (or worlds as it were). Those players can all interact in person through groups or anonymously through the auction house. The game fulfills the RPG element better than most, if not all other mmorpg on the market.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You guys are forgetting the biggest mmo feature of all. Persistent world with thousands of players at the same time. SWTOR has that.
Open, persistent world with thousands of players. MMO. Should be the end of discussion but it won't be.
Shadow's Hand Guild
Open recruitment for
The Secret World - Dragons
Planetside 2 - Terran Republic
Tera - Dragonfall Server
http://www.shadowshand.com
Truth. The only thing that a game needs to make it massive is a persistent world housing a massive amount of players concurrently. But then he'll argue that we're not all actually inhabiting the same locations and therefore it isn't massive, just a set of lobbies, and what else has lobbies? Multiplayer games.
Ya thats why wow isn't really an mmo they only allow 5 people in a group not the 6 EQ does.
Magic is impressive, but now Minsc leads! Swords for everyone!
Put your pecker in a cheese grater its still a cheese grater. Maybe its an mmo because they say it is? or maybe because it has the characteristics of an MMO. Parties, open world interaction, open world pvp, pvp battlegrounds, open world bosses...blah blah etc. etc.
I classify an MMORPG based on 2 points.
1- You see a chest and some monsters guarding it. you engage in the fight and kill off all the monsters only to turn around and see another player looting your chest and telling you to kill faster next time
2- I see a group of people standing next to a vendor RPIng over what to buy and bounty hunter is insulted by "random" smuggler and then they /duel right there.
good ol fashioned gaming.
Point 1 of yours is pretty much the argument I have made over and over in this thread. Nobody really seems to accept it though. Your example is actually much better than mine (someone stealing a mob you need to kill) but the point is that other players can affect your gameplay experience even IF you are playing solo. Which means it's not a single player game at all.
2 is a good point that I haven't thought of before. I mean sure you could RP in a coop rpg if you wanted, but noone else will see it. Noone is going to happen into your scene uninvited and influence the situation.
The larger point (that you have just helped make) is that this is a persistent world with many players all sharing the same server. This is not something that you can point to a single player or coop game and say is true.
I can't think of one single coop rpg with a persitent world. I could be wrong, but if it exists, I have never seen it.
Anyways, both of your points are effects of playing a game in a persistent world. There are many other gameplay situations that that element of MMO's creates.
Shadow's Hand Guild
Open recruitment for
The Secret World - Dragons
Planetside 2 - Terran Republic
Tera - Dragonfall Server
http://www.shadowshand.com
Lol point 2 tor has. They even have cantinas u can go in play jukeboxs and roleplay in on your own if u like.
This game is a persistant world with tons of players playing together. They may not have to group or even want to group but they can. Anytime they want.
They can even enter the other players instance in storytelling if they are of diffrent class if they want to help there freinds.
Im jus ttired of 2 arguments that have been proven wrong and as lies its pitiful people keep arguing it.
Not an mmo is a huge lie. the other is the the worlds are small . Heres and idea to all tthose that think the game worlds are small leave the starter worlds. They get much biggger from that point on .
They are lies and not someonens opinion . U dont have to like tor just stop lying about it
Utter rubbish . just because they have focused on a lot of the more community and social based elements, if thousands of players are available within a server instance it is an MMO.
MMOs are not just about combat and group size companies that focus on just this generallly fail , SWTOR adds that little more and as the game develops hopefully that will shine through to the ignorant. Who have just played games post WoW.
I would be surprised is any of the "Modern" MMOs could hold my attention for more than 6 months , the only ones currently are EQ2 and EvE. Others just don;t have the depth/community/content to do so. Even though some excelent MMOs/Games have been release the longevity element is required for proper community to build and I am not talking Guilds as they are a key pert of the current lack of community problem.
I tried the Beta like others this weekend and was pleasantly surprised.
________________________________________________________
Sorcery must persist, the future is the Citadel
hey i like wow. that said leave the starter worlds and i never heard anyone who did whine the worlds were to small. Prior to getting sprint at level 15 people were whining about how big dromund kaas was
I dont consider someone being able to loot my quest stuff to prove a games an mmo i expect for a game to be an mmo it has to meet the criteria the game communities and like massively and mmorpg have come up with to describe what is an mmo
Tor meets all those standards easily. Leave the starter worlds people . There are tons of places in this game to meet and role play on your own if u want , There are cantinas everywhere in th is game that ive seen. From fleet on.
The one thing roleplayers may not like is it doesnt look like u can sit down in said cantina but hope that is fixed for roleplayers sake
Its gonna have an ah and robust economy i expect as u level if just for gear that has diffrent looks then u can get from questing.
I don't understand why people keep shouting about how much stuff you can do with other players, and claiming THAT proves this game is NOT a single player game...NEWS FLASH: EVERYONE HERE KNOWS THAT...and yet, given our beta experience, it still felt very much like a BIOWARE single player experience. I only made it to level 12, but through it all, the game really didn't "encourage" me to group. I did manage to group once for a heroic, but it took a while just to make that happen.
This game, being so story driven, I thought it would encourage grouping in the story itself...again, I only made it to level 12 in the beta, so I didn't experience it all. I kept thinking dialogue would steer my character into a bigger world, but nope, it was all about my character. I figured eventually a quest giver would say something like "Look you're good no doubt, but the area I'm sending you to is extremely dangerous, you'd better recruit backup if you want to make it out alive"...and then maybe even offer suggestions on what class of group members might me helpful and why. I don't remember anything like that in quest dialogue, even though I had to go into some pretty hostile situations...those robots were kicking my butt lol.
A few people I've talked to have said that it gave them the same single-player vibe...I just think that had they adapted their story telling formula to include the obvious fact that we're not playing this game alone, it would give it that multiplayer vibe.
One of my characters went 1-26 without grouping. If u cant find groups for 2mans (which most u can solo) or 4mans, just do 20min of space combat to make the difference, not hard. This is a SP game with the option to play with friends. In no way does it force you too
You didn't level high enough and it sounds like you didn't take the opportunity to do the first flashpoint en route to your 2nd world. If you had, you would have seen the Social Points, which you earn doing group cut scenes.
There is really nothing different about this MMO with respect to how the "tutorial" portion is handled as a mostly solo experience. Heck, even in WOW you don't qualify to do the first instance until level 12 or so from what I remember. Here you can do it at level 9.
The main difference here is that the class story lines and other quests do their best to make you feel unique and special and are so engaging that they do it well. It feels like you're alone and special--just like you do in single player games--but this is just an illusion that is not so prominent as you level.
Initially you're getting mostly class-specific quests that you're following constantly since you're levelling very quickly and can do the next step in the chain right away. Later on the time between steps in the class quest chain become much longer due to the need to level to have a chance to complete them. From that point on you'll be spending a proportionately much longer period of time doing the same quests as everyone else and the quantity of quests that you need to group for also increase. You spend the first 10 levels in the starter planet and get 2 "heroic" group quests there. This number becomes 4 or 5 in the 2nd planet, 8+ in the third, and so on. The opportunities and need to group increase gradually just like they should.
Unlike other MMOs BW has also taken the approach of rewarding you for grouping (social points) rather than penalizing you for not doing so. Positive vs. negative reinforcement is generally a better way of doing things.
Also... this game is different in that everyone begins the game as DPS and this actually continues for the first few levels after choosing an advanced class role. You really and truly can not "main heal" a group until level 16 or so and neither can tanks hold aggro worth crap til then. I found this to be very different than other MMOs I've played recently and many people are confused by this when faced with their first long instance at level 10. People looking for healers or tanks at that point just tells me that BW hasn't done a good enough job of making people aware that this first FP is just a DPS fest.
But don't worry, when you're in your 20s and up, the traditional MMO group roles are well-defined and needed and it keeps being that way.
One last thing... many of you talk as if "single player" and "MMO" are mutually exclusive terms. Well, stay tuned for the new world order BW has just created by giving you the single player fix inside an MMO by clever use of extremely well-written story lines.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
we are upset because people are saiying it is a sngle player game with tacked on multiplayer with tons of lobies.
We dont have an issue with u thinking it felt like a bioware single player game at least i dont. It isnt a singe player game though. its an mmo in every sense of the word
We have an issue with those telling us this game isnt an mmo .That is kotor 3 wiht mulitplayer and That it doesnt belong on the list of mmorpgs.
Sure it had that same feeling u get playing a bioware single player rpg only u could do it with others in a huge world .
Sure it has some elements that make people say its a wow clone. So what the game and all its parts is something special and fun and enjoyable to me
That and the fact taht u can play it in huge worlds with thousands of other players is amazing. Im sorry but this is an mmo and my problem and others is with those saying it isnt.
Most people aren't arguing that it's a single player game though, you just see it that way. I, for example, argued that many (but not all) of the multiplayer features in SWTOR could easily be done in a regular multiplayer RPG. But then I got a bunch of responses to my post saying something like:
"OMG SWTOR is not single player R U dumb???"
I never said it was single player. If anything, I just said that I felt it didn't utilize its persistent world enough, and may have been better off being single player.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
So far, from what I can see, the arguments for it not being an mmorpg are that:
* It doesn't force you to group.
* ...
That's not a very good argument.
There's also been few, if any, examples of what would make it an mmorpg in the eyes of the people who say it isn't.
As for the people who say it doesn't feel like an mmorpg to them (for a couple of reasons), well, how can an opinion be wrong?
Personally I think BW hit the sweet spot between solo and group play. Groups are encouraged, and rewarding, but they are a choice, not a requirement.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I NEVER said SWTOR was not an MMORPG. Maybe you are confusing my post with someone else's. There is a tendency to group all opposing arguments into one giant supervillian pseudo-persona.
I am only saying that the "WoW-model" with its quest-based leveling is not conducive to a persistent world, and thus is not a very good feature for an MMO. AND I actually DID give you an example of a feature that would help make a themepark game more "MMO" like. Specifically, quests that are tied to the world instead of the player (i.e. public quests).
TBH, the biggest annoyance I had with SWTOR is the fact that all of the things that annoyed me from WoW are still there and unfixed in SWTOR. It's still annoying to find a group for that ONE quest NPC because you have to find someone who is on the quest or is magnanimous enough to help you. It's still annoying that grouping is counterproductive in "collect 10 rat tails" type quests. It's still annoying that it's difficult to group while doing quests because you need to find someone willing to group that is doing the same thing you are.
This is my problem. The quest-based model basically pushes an MMORPG in the direction of an SPRPG because of how much it discourages interplayer interaction.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Look harder. There are plenty of posts in this very thread that give other arguments. Maybe you are just selectively reading.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
It's pretty simple really...
2-4 man groups? (2 + 2 pets or 4 players). If you consider that an MMORPG then dump Diablo 2 and every other game into the MMORPG category.
Unfortunately the people who argue that SWTOR is a MMORPG also argue that Guild Wars is... And from my GW experience, you stand in a town (chat room) with lots of other players, but the second you leave you're stuck alone or with a very limited number of others.
SWTOR is only different because it opens up the quest grind areas to more people, everything else seems extremely limited and aimed at playing by yourself or with 1-3 others at most.
THIS IS NOT A BAD THING! I would much rather play a game and do EVERYTHING with 2-3 good close friends, than be required to maintain a 40-50+ player guild and organize raid times on a damn schedule!
It's your forum avatar. I want to poke it in the eyes behind those glasses. I think it is an instinct to argue with it. My apologies.
** edit **
I do not want to poke you in the eye. Just your forum avatar. I don't really know why to be honest.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Actually after level 12 there are heroic +4 you ahve to group up for unless you wait ttill level 20 something, and there are three flashpoints you have to group for in order to complete before you hit level 20. Also queue up for warzones and bam your grouped. The reason people are claiming that this is singleplayer with MMO features tacked on is because they only played one weekend. Like 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of other MMO's, grouping in early levels (1-10) is lightly encouraged and almost never mandated because its time to learn your class and learn about the environment.
Could you imagine forcing people to group up at level 5? Its would be frustrating, classes dont have any skills to make a group any fun and most people are learning their toon anyways. It would be a mess. So i suggest to anyone go online, look up as much as you can on MMO features you feel are lacking in SWTOR and maybe you wil surprise yourself on just how much group content is out there.
He can be quite infuriating
.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Everything I say is my opinion or personal preference. You may or may not find it useful to your cause but regardless I am entitled to it.
you just described various online gaming options that require no fee and are not MMORPGs.
* SINGLE PLAYER RPGS with co-op and/or multiplayer functionality
* RTS games
* ONLINE Multiplayer games with storylines and community based options and objectives, such as Guild Wars
SWTOR is a heavily influenced single player RPG at its core, that has some elements of multiplayer gameplay.
So the main argument that TOR is not a mmorpg is that it does not feel like one. Well there is a difference between how someone personally feels about something and the reality of what it is.
Just because the game offers single player elements ( with the class story lines) and solo content does not make it less of a mmorpg. I view more options in a game as a good thing in terms of both solo and group content. I think it all comes down to certain type of people trying really hard to find reasons not to like the game and not one of them has come up with any good points to why TOR is not a mmorpg.