User information for Bruce

Real Name
Bruce
Nickname
None given.
Email
Concealed by request - Send Mail
Description
Homepage
Signed On
February 7, 2003
Supporter
-
Total Posts
4 (Suspect)
User ID
16085
Search For:
Sort Results:
Ascending
Descending
Limit Results:
 
4 Comments. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older
8.
 
Re: Content, Content, Content.....
Jul 23, 2003, 12:07
8.
Re: Content, Content, Content..... Jul 23, 2003, 12:07
Jul 23, 2003, 12:07
 
Hopefully we will be reading about this happeneing to SWG soon. AC2 was bad but SWG is so much worse. Pretty graphics and tons of dollars for marketing hype should not be a substitute for gameplay content.

I hope these companies get the message that MMORPG players want a lot more than a pretty chat room.

144.
 
Re: Yikes...
Jun 19, 2003, 13:19
Re: Yikes... Jun 19, 2003, 13:19
Jun 19, 2003, 13:19
 
The last thing I want to do is defend SWG as I think it might be the worst game ever made. But, I think this idea of a free trial is garbage. Yes AO has it but AO is not a new game its 2 years old. If you want to try a new game pay for it otherwise wait.

The points that I think are relevant here are:

1. SOE is arrogantly overcharging.

2. They are releasing an unfinshed untested game and abusing thier SW license.

3. They are making a game for non gamers. The game design is awful. Combat is the most boring of any game I have ever played. The entire combat and character speccing system needs to be thrown out and re-developed. Basically as I stated before this game is just a glorified chat room for Star Wars Geeks.

4. This game is a complete Rip-off and it abuses its Star Wars license. It's all flash over substance. There are a lot of nice things about SWG but they are all cosmetic. The game has no subtsance.

5. They are keeping the NDA up to release so as to gouge as many people on initial sales before the word gets out how bad this game really is.

6. Buying a game like this only encourages other companies to make bad similar games. The best thing can happen here is for people to just say to no to the lies and bad quality like they did to AC2 and keep this kind of game off the market. I am sure like AC2 SOE will pay the major sites through advertising to give them good reviews. But hopefully word of mouth will kill this game.

53.
 
Re: Gaming Value
Jun 17, 2003, 18:20
53.
Re: Gaming Value Jun 17, 2003, 18:20
Jun 17, 2003, 18:20
 
I am in beta and everyone is right SWG is not ready for release but thats not the bad part.

SWG is being made for Star Wars fans not for people that play games.

If you want fun strategic combat or a complex char system look elsewhere.

SWG has the worst char speccing and combat system of any game I have ever played. It is the most boring and un-fun game I have ever played.

There are a a lot of good things about SWG but they are all cosmetic. The Gameplay is worse than awful. I wouldn't play this game if they paid me. It's that bad.

Unfortunately this game will never improve in patches as its problems are poor game design.

I am so dissapointed in this game. SWG is all about making its marketing department happy rather than attempting to make a game for people that play games.

It's a glorified pretty chat room for Star Wars Geeks and nothing more.

Unfortunately they will be successfull encouraging other companies to make subpar games like this. Not concidentally they are keeping up the NDA in hopes people won't hear how bad this game is.

To me SWG is bigger than one game its about rewarding greedy companies who don't care about making quality games.

16.
 
Re: Eh?
Feb 6, 2003, 22:33
16.
Re: Eh? Feb 6, 2003, 22:33
Feb 6, 2003, 22:33
 
The problem with SWG is Sony knows to make money all they have to do is release a stable game not a good game or a game with content. Once the game is released they can keep people waiting on content for years.

My guess is the this game will end up having nice looking characters and a nice chat system but that is all it will ever be just a glorified chat board for SWG geeks.

This comment was edited on Feb 6, 22:34.
4 Comments. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older