Bioware is NOT making this game. Mythic Entertainment, formerly makers of Warhammer Online, are in charge of development. Bioware's dev team in Austin, TX is focused on Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age 2.
When did Mythic open up offices in Austin? Curious as one of the rants the Mythic guys have is that some of them have b3en moved to Austion to work on ToR. Since we have EA, Bioware and Mythic all saying that Bioware is making the game in Austin, and people from Mythic lamenting their coworkers are moving to Austin to work on ToR, why we should take your word for it? Honestly curious on this one. The article you linked explained how they booted out one of Mythic's heads and put Bioware in charge of keeping an eye on them. Not sure how you equate that out to it being a Mythic game(particularly when all the leads for all the elements of ToR are guys that have been credited with multiple Bioware games- no Mythic experience though).
Reading over this particular rant he doesn't say anything specific about ToR's problems, he says the game 'is a joke'- when coming from a Mythic employee I have to take that as *staggering* praise honestly- and that what they are proudest about is the 'sound'(the entire game's story voice acted/scripted out which they have made no qualms about claiming is their most distinctive feature). If the guys at Mythic think that ToR plays terribly, honestly, that makes me a lot more interested in the game.
This poster spends a lot of time talking about the failure of WAR and trying to blame management on its' failure. You know what the failure of WAR was? That it played out
exactly how Mythic wanted it to. The game is entriely focused around PvP and all game elements are centered as such. Reality check- most people in MMOs don't care about PvP and most of those that do don't want anything resembling a balanced experience. Look at the twinks in WoW- they outnumber Mythic's most popular MMO ever, sad but true.
But an audio book accomplishes the same thing. This is a game. If the audio is the best thing going for it, then the game itself will be a huge disappointmment.
When you compare two games from a like genre, how do you explain the differences? For me, I try and start with the things that they do much better or much worse then the other. A highly in depth storyline that makes 1-max level enjoyable.... in a MMO? I'd take that.
Everyone needs to wait until we get some more footage and some reviewers get some more in-depth hands on to even TRY to pass judgment on this game.
More then any other genre, MMOs are not something you want to turn to reviewers for.
Warhammer got an 84, it was terrible-
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/warhammer-online-age-of-reckoning/critic-reviews
Wrath of the Lich King got a 91- millions of users quit due to how bad it is-
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/world-of-warcraft-wrath-of-the-lich-king
Even The Sime Online, the poorest MMO ever made by a longshot got a 70-
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/the-sims-online/critic-reviews
There are many reasons why, but you can't reasonable do a proper review on a MMO, in order to properly evaluate it you should normally have a thousand hours or more into the game. Terrible leveling but awe inspiring end game? I'd take that any day over great leveling and no end game when looking at MMOs. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have it good all the way around, but the overwhelming majority of MMO players time is spent on end game content and very rarely do reviewers come close to reaching that point in the game before they release a review for simple real world reasons(if I run a site or print publication I can't have my guy spending two and a half months writing a review for a game that came out months ago).