Trion aren't looking to revolutionise the genre, they're merely looking to add a few novel twists to what is already a winning formula, as demonstrated by the success of the Everquest series, World of Warcraft etc. There's nothing wrong with that, a lot of people like those kinds of games. The question is whether those twists (rifts, dynamic content, soul system etc) are interesting enough to make the game stand out from other titles just like it. That's something we won't know until release unfortunately.
With regards to marketing, RIFT is still in alpha and isn't due out until next year so they're probably holding back on the all-out hype assault until closer to release. You can only hold the attention of the masses for so long before they lose interest, so it's best to hit them right before release to maximise sales. Given the massive budget they have, it's not as though they don't have the resources for a fancy advertising campaign.
So far all I can see that's new about it are the rift system and the "soul" system (which is basically like WoW/EQ/AoC talent trees, but you can take 1 tree from 2 other classes in addition to the class you rolled).
From what i have seen and read , you are not bound to the class you rolled. Only to the calling you rolled. So if you start as a rogue assassin you dont have to use assassin and can use any 3 classes in the rogue calling , once you unlock them. (except the faction specific one.)
I personally am not enthralled by the RIFT system, because it just sounds like random spawn points for mobs with a little bit of color change for the surrounding area. I can see that getting old real quick.
The souls system is kind of interesting, but by design it seems destined to carry the same weaknesses of other games where you have subclasses and such: that being that very few out of the "endless" combinations are actually viable. I expect this problem to be exacerbated by the dev comments that they are taking a pretty much hands-off approach to class balance.
So it won't take long to get to a point where you roll 1 of 3 soul combos that are considered the best or no one plays with you...and do you really wanna hunt down that 100th rift that's just going to spawn some mobs and a miniboss again? Doesn't sound that great to me, but who knows - maybe this will turn out to be a decent alternative for a crowd that wants mechanics like WoW/EQ2/Lotro/AoC/etc, but doesn't like those franchises for whatever reason.
I also worry about the cookie cutter specs. Where almost everyone is playing a nightblade/ranger/bard because the combo is better than anything else. This is only a pvp concern of mine though. I think the system may work very well in pve. There are classes in warrior and cleric that are more dps and classes in rogue and mage that are healing. This should allow you to fit in different rolls depending on what the group needs , so long as you dont mind switching your classes around.
You may still run into situations where certain combos put out a lil more dps or heal a little better in pve. You should beable to play what you like though. So long as you surround yourself with decent players , this shouldn't be a problem. I've found that the people who insist you play a certain way or spec a certain way are people i dont normally like playing with anyway. They are the kind that leave the second something goes wrong. (example)Your group wipes because your healer went afk. Healer comes back and sez sorry my kid set the cat on fire again. While most of the group understands it wasn't a good idea to just let the cat burn, there is that person who cares about nothing but themselves. They then throw a quick tantrum and leave. This is of course the same person that insisted you change from storm caller to pyromancer because it does 534 dps instead of 532.
I don't think this game is more of the same even in the slightest. Listen, we are going to be sharing similar game mechanics throughout the Genre. Just like you can go from Halo to Call of Duty and know what the controls are, you can jump from WoW to Aion and have a fairly good idea of how to play the game. This doesn't make a game a clone of the former, the UI is simply standardized in an effort to keep the game familiar so new players don't experience a steep learning curve.
What makes Rift different are the persistent objectives which can be controlled by one of the 8 factions running throughout the world. There are 6 NPC factions, all of whom hate each other and will actively attack one another, and 2 player factions. Rifts open throughout the world in random locations. If they go unchecked or the players are defeated, the Rift expand into a foot hold. Eventually, an invasion occurs as the NPCs actually take over faction controlled land. This is a PvPvE system, and one that will put Aion's system to shame.
When a player engages in a Rift, Foot Hold, or Ward Stone invasion, they flag themselves for PvP. This is because when you capture a point or defend a point, you do so for your faction. Just as Rifts can expand and take land, so can your faction. This means that I can waltz into enemy territory and start claiming land. So, this lends itself to some intense RvR possibilities with a little PvE added like the cherry on top of an awesome sundae.
The next thing that really stands out to me is the ability to create your own class combination. There are four callings to choose from, each with 8 souls (classes) to build into your character. You can have three souls active at one time. You can choose to specialize in one soul, or mix the abilities of three together. There are multiple ways to set your character apart from others, as there are multiple ways to customize your class. The beauty of this is that there are no real permanent choices. You can instantly change from one build to another with a click of a button. Brilliant.
There are a number of other features, including the crafting system, which sets Rift apart from the others. For me, Rift is the game that I am looking forward to. I am looking forward to this because it is so radically different from some of the other games that are coming out.
Best thing about RIFT to me was the skill customization system. It felt like a well evolved version of the traditional talent-tree system. Also, the rift invasions do seem cool, but could be spotty depending on frequency of occurance.
Worst thing about RIFT was I was running around Generica, fighting token-unded, gathering standard-questitems, and following the newbie-area line ride as efficently as possible. Everything was meh, and the story hooks just never sank in for me.
Granted, this is ~20-25 min of gameplay with a fresh Defiant Reaver character.
Lets Push Things Forward
I knew I would live to design games at age 7, issue 5 of Nintendo Power.
Support games with subs when you believe in their potential, even in spite of their flaws.
... people dont want another WoW, they want a Quality Fantasy Based MMO.
Another WoW would be a Quality Fantasy Based MMO. I've seen most MMOs after WoW become more like WoW, even if they didn't initially intend to. I believe there are more people out there that do want another WoW than you think.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Rift might be more traditional than TOR, TERA and GW2 but nothing wrong with that. It is perfect that the genre see,s to be making more varied games and that means we need something close to EQ and Wow around too, and Rift do have some good things.
For one thing they have several actually experienced devs and a nice budget, something we havn't seen that often the last few years.
And you can't compare the Rift hype with what Warhammer had, WAR had more hype than GW2 have today, and so did AoC for that matter. WARs beta testers swore that it would be the "Wow killer" so many people seems to believe in and that it was the best thing since sliced bread.
While Rift has some really interested people and a certain hype it isn't that huge, at least not now. You just can't check the score on the hype meeter, you have to check how many players that actually voted too.
I think Rift will make a nice addition to the current MMO line and be able to run 300-500K players, maybe a lot more of CATA sucks and Blizzards next MMO takes a long time before release. It wont get as many players as TOR and GW2, Bioware and Arenanet just have more fans than Trion.
What game currently on the market has all of these things?
1. Dynamic Content that changes the game world encouraging players to interact with it.
2. World PVP. True world PVP not instanced garbage like arena or battlegrounds but spontaneous world PVP. Rift is reported to being very in favor of this.
3. Challenging game content without watered down hard modes. Some reviews of the game so far have stated even low level instances are quite challenging without all tank and spank bosses
4. Ability to mix and max classes within your archetype to design and play the class you want to play.
5. Emphasis on world exploration. MMOS should have a big open world. No current MMOs have a big open world anymore. WoW is just a lobby game and EQ is to outdated.
This is what I'm looking for in a game and so far i haven’t found any game that has all of them. WoW is what comes closest and that is pretty much just a lobby game now with a non existent open world.
Rift isn't trying to redesign the genre instead they are trying(atleast it looks like) to bring something back to the genre thath as gone missing over the last few years. In my opinion MMOs have lost that massive feeling and this is why I love to play them so much. There have been other games that have come out recently that have brought some of this or tried to bring all of it but ultimately have lacked polish or only had some of the features.
I'm not making this thread to troll or start any kind of flame wars. I'm just a little confused about what makes this game so special compared to all the other great games in the works. To me, although I'll admit I'm not the most informed person about this game, it just seems like more of the same. It's the same trinity dps/heal/tank combat with the same system of ordering your hotkeys properly to kill. It's the same two factions against each other, without the ability for any grey area(you can't party or guild people of the other faction -- basically just kill them). The skill tree (I don't remember what they actually call it) looks like it was lifted directly from WoW. The most impressive thing I can see is the graphics, but to be fair, they do look really good. What am I missing?
Honestly, it looks like the next Warhammer to me. I remember the hype for that game being so high. It won all these awards and was heralded as the WoW-killer and all that stuff. The dev team seemed really excited about it and the players did too, even though to me it looked like more of the same. The most unique thing about it that I can see is the Rift system -- which isn't even all that unique. Warhammer has PQs which are kind of similar and GW2 has a dynamic event system that appears to be very similar too.
Most people on these forums, it would seem, are fed up with the same game being released every year with a new, shinier skin, and yet this appears to be just that and the crowds can't get enough. What gives? Are people really just getting bored with WoW, Aion, LotRO, WAR and so on and looking for the next version of them to kill some time? Do people really just want the same game made over and over? I guess I'm just unlike most gamers out there today. I'm the kind of guy that doesn't see the reasoning behind buying the newest COD, when it's more or less exactly the same as the last one except for a few tweaks. Yet, still, it sells 20+ million copies per installment and players keep buying them. I guess I'm just from the school of thinking where variety is a good thing. I long for the days of old where every game had a unique feel to it. I remember the first five years or so of my MMOing where I'd find a new game and it was this whole exciting experience because it was so new and fresh to me. I played those games for years on end. Now all I see is games that, for lack of a better term, are WoW Clones. It's really frustrating, actually. I don't know if the players are to blame for reinforcing the developers' idea that recreating the same game is a good idea, or if the developers are to blame for being so greedy and looking for a piece of the WoW pie. You can't out-WoW WoW, people. Try something else.
This isn't a sandbox vs themepark debate either. I've played both types of games and enjoyed them both. If I'm honest I'd say I prefer sandbox but themepark can suit me just fine, although usually for not as long.
All I'm looking for is a little variety. Thankfully it seems like I'll get some this next year with games like GW2, Tera, possibly an Elder Scrolls mmo and a few others.
I really don't know why I even made this post. I guess it was just to rant a little and get some stuff off my chest. I will say that I haven't written this game off completely, however, and if you can enlighten me as to what makes this game seem so special and different, I'll be more than happy to give it a shot when it's out. So far though, all I've seen is more of the same.
tl;dr version:
This game seems like yet another version of WoW, WAR, LotRO, Aion and so on. Aside from the "rifts" is there anything at all that makes this game unique or is it just more of the same? What are your thoughts on the genre tending to repeat itself every year instead of truly innovating and promoting more variety?
Every single mmorpg since EQ1(at least 3D mmorpg) have been more of the same but they have all had their little twists. If you really can't handle mmorpg being more of the same then i suggest you take up knitting.
Every single mmorpg since EQ1(at least 3D mmorpg) have been more of the same but they have all had their little twists. If you really can't handle mmorpg being more of the same then i suggest you take up knitting.
That's not true. Darkfall is not the same, Mortal is not the same, Eve is not the same. There are a few games that have gone the other way, more sandbox I guess.
I'm reading what a lot of you are saying and I get the feeling that many people are looking forward to Rift but aren't really excited about it. I'm not necessarily saying that a new WoW would be a bad thing, it definitely wouldn't be for most people. For me it wouldn't be great because I considered WoW to be boring as all hell. I played it to level 60 before the first expansion, did some raids and other end game stuff and quit shortly after TBC came out. I'm not trying to knock Rift or say that it will either fail or be a bad game. From what I can see, it will be a stand up game, just not the type I'm really looking forward to. I just saw the hype meter for it, and after having watched a few of the interviews and videos throughout the past month or two I couldn't see why the hype was so high.
The only thing I fear about Rift is that if it is very successful it will only inspire more dev teams to try to make a game that is a rehash of other games. I prefer going into a game and having a new experience. For me, learning how to play the game properly is a major part of the fun and when I start one up and know almost everything already I lose interest very quickly.
And as far as Tera and GW2 being different - they are. Tera is different at least in its aim-based combat and GW2 is different in many ways, whether it be the static leveling times, the individualised story with instanced home towns, the newer twists on combat and overall grouping, or what have you. Deny it if you want, but the game does have some new ideas that I'm looking forward to since they will freshen the gameplay up a little bit, in my mind anyway.
Again, I'm not trolling or saying the game is going to be bad or fail, I was just trying to get an idea of what has people so hyped for the game. I think I've gotten a little insight now thanks to this thread.
Thanks to everyone who responded and shed a little light on the subject for me.
Every game is more of the same since the atari 2600 days... sheesh... just give me my eye candy graphics and animations, and enough different types of loot to make even the most ardent loot Diablo loot wh0rez jealous, and maybe gameplay hybridization of Hellgate's 3rd/1st person fps/rpg elements and i'll be quite happy.
I'm not always focused on getting information about that game, but I watch a video or read an article once in a while. But if it is well done, has no item shop, enough starting zones and stuff, then why not? *shrugs*
I believe the mmo market has still room for good fantasy MMOs (and plenty of) so it really doesn't matter if one looks like the other. For now I have my eyes on Rift, GW2 and TERA and a few other Asian ones which promise quality and fun. The more games succeed the better. Many people haven't played an MMO for quite some time and I hope everyone finds what he needs, next year is very promising
Every single mmorpg since EQ1(at least 3D mmorpg) have been more of the same but they have all had their little twists. If you really can't handle mmorpg being more of the same then i suggest you take up knitting.
That's not true. Darkfall is not the same, Mortal is not the same, Eve is not the same. There are a few games that have gone the other way, more sandbox I guess.
I'm reading what a lot of you are saying and I get the feeling that many people are looking forward to Rift but aren't really excited about it. I'm not necessarily saying that a new WoW would be a bad thing, it definitely wouldn't be for most people. For me it wouldn't be great because I considered WoW to be boring as all hell. I played it to level 60 before the first expansion, did some raids and other end game stuff and quit shortly after TBC came out. I'm not trying to knock Rift or say that it will either fail or be a bad game. From what I can see, it will be a stand up game, just not the type I'm really looking forward to. I just saw the hype meter for it, and after having watched a few of the interviews and videos throughout the past month or two I couldn't see why the hype was so high.
The only thing I fear about Rift is that if it is very successful it will only inspire more dev teams to try to make a game that is a rehash of other games. I prefer going into a game and having a new experience. For me, learning how to play the game properly is a major part of the fun and when I start one up and know almost everything already I lose interest very quickly.
And as far as Tera and GW2 being different - they are. Tera is different at least in its aim-based combat and GW2 is different in many ways, whether it be the static leveling times, the individualised story with instanced home towns, the newer twists on combat and overall grouping, or what have you. Deny it if you want, but the game does have some new ideas that I'm looking forward to since they will freshen the gameplay up a little bit, in my mind anyway.
Again, I'm not trolling or saying the game is going to be bad or fail, I was just trying to get an idea of what has people so hyped for the game. I think I've gotten a little insight now thanks to this thread.
Thanks to everyone who responded and shed a little light on the subject for me.
Actually, from your post, I'm pretty sure you missed the point entirely. You claim that Tera and GW2 are different, but, as many people have point out very clearly...no, they really aren't. None of the things you list for them drastically alter the game anymore than the class system for Rift does which is looking to be more dynamic than the existing skill systems.
List out all of the features of any particular MMORPG...and I mean all of the features. Now list out all of the features of Tera or GW2 or SWTOR or Rift. You'll find there is a less than 10% difference between any of them.
I've read all kinds of people getting thrilled by GW2 having a "dynamic" quest system...you'd think that there was magic in the programming the way some people describe it. However, the description is pretty much just an incremental upgrade to the in-world instancing that I saw in WoW Wrath almost 2 years ago (which I'm sure Blizzard stole from somewhere else)...it's just adding a condition to which of the next in-world instancing it will load based on how well your character succeeds. Will it really change what you do in game? Of course not. It may add to replayability since you can go to the same zone and potentially have a different experience...but that can just as easily (and, imho, more effectively) be accomplished by having more zones with entirely different story arcs. From this stand point, I see GW2 as being substantially overhyped more so than this game...
That said, I still have high hopes for GW2, but no more than for Rift. Maybe I'm just a jaded gamer, but I've seen these wondrous stories for far too many games that turned out to be substantially less than promised...
Every single mmorpg since EQ1(at least 3D mmorpg) have been more of the same but they have all had their little twists. If you really can't handle mmorpg being more of the same then i suggest you take up knitting.
That's not true. Darkfall is not the same, Mortal is not the same, Eve is not the same. There are a few games that have gone the other way, more sandbox I guess.
I'm reading what a lot of you are saying and I get the feeling that many people are looking forward to Rift but aren't really excited about it. I'm not necessarily saying that a new WoW would be a bad thing, it definitely wouldn't be for most people. For me it wouldn't be great because I considered WoW to be boring as all hell. I played it to level 60 before the first expansion, did some raids and other end game stuff and quit shortly after TBC came out. I'm not trying to knock Rift or say that it will either fail or be a bad game. From what I can see, it will be a stand up game, just not the type I'm really looking forward to. I just saw the hype meter for it, and after having watched a few of the interviews and videos throughout the past month or two I couldn't see why the hype was so high.
The only thing I fear about Rift is that if it is very successful it will only inspire more dev teams to try to make a game that is a rehash of other games. I prefer going into a game and having a new experience. For me, learning how to play the game properly is a major part of the fun and when I start one up and know almost everything already I lose interest very quickly.
And as far as Tera and GW2 being different - they are. Tera is different at least in its aim-based combat and GW2 is different in many ways, whether it be the static leveling times, the individualised story with instanced home towns, the newer twists on combat and overall grouping, or what have you. Deny it if you want, but the game does have some new ideas that I'm looking forward to since they will freshen the gameplay up a little bit, in my mind anyway.
Again, I'm not trolling or saying the game is going to be bad or fail, I was just trying to get an idea of what has people so hyped for the game. I think I've gotten a little insight now thanks to this thread.
Thanks to everyone who responded and shed a little light on the subject for me.
Actually, from your post, I'm pretty sure you missed the point entirely. You claim that Tera and GW2 are different, but, as many people have point out very clearly...no, they really aren't. None of the things you list for them drastically alter the game anymore than the class system for Rift does which is looking to be more dynamic than the existing skill systems.
List out all of the features of any particular MMORPG...and I mean all of the features. Now list out all of the features of Tera or GW2 or SWTOR or Rift. You'll find there is a less than 10% difference between any of them.
I've read all kinds of people getting thrilled by GW2 having a "dynamic" quest system...you'd think that there was magic in the programming the way some people describe it. However, the description is pretty much just an incremental upgrade to the in-world instancing that I saw in WoW Wrath almost 2 years ago (which I'm sure Blizzard stole from somewhere else)...it's just adding a condition to which of the next in-world instancing it will load based on how well your character succeeds. Will it really change what you do in game? Of course not. It may add to replayability since you can go to the same zone and potentially have a different experience...but that can just as easily (and, imho, more effectively) be accomplished by having more zones with entirely different story arcs. From this stand point, I see GW2 as being substantially overhyped more so than this game...
That said, I still have high hopes for GW2, but no more than for Rift. Maybe I'm just a jaded gamer, but I've seen these wondrous stories for far too many games that turned out to be substantially less than promised...
TERA is different. It goes as far as an MMO can away from the traditional roots of a fantasy non-sandbox game from an aim-based system to a deep and advanced political system, but still being able to maintain the very basic concept a non-sandbox MMO steps on (levels, classes, skills). That is still probably not enough to convince someone that it's a different MMO, but we can all see what happens when someone goes over the edge trying to revolutionalize the genre (see MO, DF etc.). With that being said, TERA is probably the only high budget and quality MMO that is trying to strive away from the typicals and until a company rises with the guts, the money and the skills to make something entirely new, the above is as close as a difference you can get.
Every single mmorpg since EQ1(at least 3D mmorpg) have been more of the same but they have all had their little twists. If you really can't handle mmorpg being more of the same then i suggest you take up knitting.
That's not true. Darkfall is not the same, Mortal is not the same, Eve is not the same. There are a few games that have gone the other way, more sandbox I guess.
I'm reading what a lot of you are saying and I get the feeling that many people are looking forward to Rift but aren't really excited about it. I'm not necessarily saying that a new WoW would be a bad thing, it definitely wouldn't be for most people. For me it wouldn't be great because I considered WoW to be boring as all hell. I played it to level 60 before the first expansion, did some raids and other end game stuff and quit shortly after TBC came out. I'm not trying to knock Rift or say that it will either fail or be a bad game. From what I can see, it will be a stand up game, just not the type I'm really looking forward to. I just saw the hype meter for it, and after having watched a few of the interviews and videos throughout the past month or two I couldn't see why the hype was so high.
The only thing I fear about Rift is that if it is very successful it will only inspire more dev teams to try to make a game that is a rehash of other games. I prefer going into a game and having a new experience. For me, learning how to play the game properly is a major part of the fun and when I start one up and know almost everything already I lose interest very quickly.
And as far as Tera and GW2 being different - they are. Tera is different at least in its aim-based combat and GW2 is different in many ways, whether it be the static leveling times, the individualised story with instanced home towns, the newer twists on combat and overall grouping, or what have you. Deny it if you want, but the game does have some new ideas that I'm looking forward to since they will freshen the gameplay up a little bit, in my mind anyway.
Again, I'm not trolling or saying the game is going to be bad or fail, I was just trying to get an idea of what has people so hyped for the game. I think I've gotten a little insight now thanks to this thread.
Thanks to everyone who responded and shed a little light on the subject for me.
Actually, from your post, I'm pretty sure you missed the point entirely. You claim that Tera and GW2 are different, but, as many people have point out very clearly...no, they really aren't. None of the things you list for them drastically alter the game anymore than the class system for Rift does which is looking to be more dynamic than the existing skill systems.
List out all of the features of any particular MMORPG...and I mean all of the features. Now list out all of the features of Tera or GW2 or SWTOR or Rift. You'll find there is a less than 10% difference between any of them.
I've read all kinds of people getting thrilled by GW2 having a "dynamic" quest system...you'd think that there was magic in the programming the way some people describe it. However, the description is pretty much just an incremental upgrade to the in-world instancing that I saw in WoW Wrath almost 2 years ago (which I'm sure Blizzard stole from somewhere else)...it's just adding a condition to which of the next in-world instancing it will load based on how well your character succeeds. Will it really change what you do in game? Of course not. It may add to replayability since you can go to the same zone and potentially have a different experience...but that can just as easily (and, imho, more effectively) be accomplished by having more zones with entirely different story arcs. From this stand point, I see GW2 as being substantially overhyped more so than this game...
That said, I still have high hopes for GW2, but no more than for Rift. Maybe I'm just a jaded gamer, but I've seen these wondrous stories for far too many games that turned out to be substantially less than promised...
TERA is different. It goes as far as an MMO can away from the traditional roots of a fantasy non-sandbox game from an aim-based system to a deep and advanced political system, but still being able to maintain the very basic concept a non-sandbox MMO steps on (levels, classes, skills). That is still probably not enough to convince someone that it's a different MMO, but we can all see what happens when someone goes over the edge trying to revolutionalize the genre (see MO, DF etc.). With that being said, TERA is probably the only high budget and quality MMO that is trying to strive away from the typicals and until a company rises with the guts, the money and the skills to make something entirely new, the above is as close as a difference you can get.
Maybe you missed the part when he said "List out all of the features of any particular MMORPG...and I mean all of the features. Now list out all of the features of Tera or GW2 or SWTOR or Rift. You'll find there is a less than 10% difference between any of them."
You said "we can all see what happens when someone goes over the edge trying to revolutionalize the genre (see MO, DF etc.)" Show me a Developer that spent 50 million on a revolutionary game like MO and DF. Oh wait, there isnt one. Now if MO and DFO were big budget games, you would have a point. They werent, you dont.
I cant help but ask, are you George Bush Jr? Revolutionalize? Dont forget strategery :P
I think it's more of the same, but it's a nice blend of old school EQ (setting and art style, some mechanics), WoW (skill system, most mechanics, blend of hardcore PvE and faction based PvP), and even Warhammer Online (dynamic quest system is similar to public quests, but dynamic). It also looks to be fairly polished, even in it's current Alpha state. Definitely going to keep an eye on this one.
To me, the game looks more like a world to explore instead of just a boxed off series of zones. I could be wrong, but I want to explore what's in those spires in the video or see if I can fall off the treehouse like huts or have the mess scared out of me when a Plane of Death drops on me at night when wandering thru a zone. For some reason this game reminds me of the GM events of EQ1 or of the promise of a new EQ like experience ie; Vanguard. I'm more jaded now than during my rabid following of EQ2 and VG but all this talk of extreme polish pre-beta, great art and the introduction of improved dynamic content and multi-classing is enough. Throw in extensive lore and a Forgotten Realms meets Ebberon feel and I'm good. It's still just a Fantasy game but I'm intrigued just the same.
I'm reading what a lot of you are saying and I get the feeling that many people are looking forward to Rift but aren't really excited about it.
I'm both looking forward to it and very excited about it, and I haven't felt that way about an upcoming MMO for a number of years. I think anyone that has spent a lot of time watching the videos and reading the forums regarding the MMO they're interested in feels there is a lot of differences. You're looking forward to TERA and from my perspective except for targeting it looks like more of the same, and offers nothing that excites me. But I haven't spent the time studying it as you have, and I don't think you've spent any time at all reading up on Rift.
First off I like the team involved. As someone coming from EQ1 and EQ2 I'm familiar with Scott Hartsman and loved EQ2 while he was there, and not so much since he's been gone. The team is very active with the community and keeping the information flowing to keep interest up. I like the dynamic content of the Rifts and defending the towns when the Rifts aren't closed. It's something extra to do instead of the typical questing. They've said their goal is to have so many dungeons that you can literally run each one just once and reach max level doing so. That's a ton of dungeons. I love a good dungeon crawl and the videos I've seen of them look amazing. The world looks beautiful and open and ripe for exploration.
With their team coming from every US-made MMO, it seems they've taken certain ideas from their past experiences, improved upon them, and added new ones. I just expect an MMO to be fun not necessarily 100% original, and Rift very much seems like it will be a lot of fun for me.
Well, i'm not going to go into a bitching tirade like i want to after reading OP's post and some of the responses, because its clear people just don't get it.
The point is this. People keep making the HORRRRRRIBLE mistake of assuming that games like Vanguard and AoC failed based on IP/Lore/too much pvp, too little pvp, etc etc.
Those games failed because they were released in an unpolished, unfinished state, with nowhere near the content they should have had.
Vanguard failed moreso due to a lack of polish, specifically regarding the graphics engine. I built a top of the line system 2 months before VG released and it was barely playable on my system with the settings up high. Yeah, you could turn them down, but then it looked like shit.
AoC failed due to a lack of content, once you got out of Tortage, all the voice acting stopped, you didnt have enough quests/etc to level properly without spending several levels just chain slaughtering mobs to make it through, etc.
Both of these are issues that were the result of being forced into an EARLY RELEASE.
Now, you have games like Darkfall and Mortal Online, which all the sandbox asshats tout as being innovative and fresh and "got the right idea".
And guess what, those failed because of their gameplay/features.
Sandbox PVP MMO'ers in my mind are literally = Apple/Mac Owners, they're so far down the rabbit hole of delusion they are literally incapable of reason and seeing the other side. To them it is literally "this isn't what i like/think is awesome?!!, then how could ANYBODY want to play this tripe? its obvious its going to fail".
The reality is you have this massive pie of about 20 million MMO players. At best, AT BEST 500k of those are people whose 100% ideal mmo is a fully sandbox, no holds barred pvp based game, complete with ganking and full loot rights, etc. This has been shown through multiple polls. including polls on this very website.
Now, there is a much larger portion of the MMO playerbase, about 35-40%, who prefer PVP mmo's, but more in the sense of games like DAOC and WAR. In so much as that they love PVP, but they dont like spawn camping, ganking n00bs, etc.
The rest of the pie is made up of people who prefer PVE MMO's, you can split those up into casual/core/hardcore. Hardcore typically tend to be the people who grew up on EQ1, AO, etc. Where it was much more difficult/harsh/time consuming, etc. Core are the ones who currently play games like WOW/LOTRO/etc, but spend a healthy amt of time in the game, most of which is made up of raiding if they're at the end game. Casuals are the bulk and are the typical wow non raider or light raider. They have maybe 5-10 hours a week max to play the game, and dont take it overly seriously.
Rift is targetting primarily the core gamer of the PVE side of things, and the non sandbox pvp'er.
Now, what truly makes Rift special has already been mentioned. The class system is absolutely awesome, the graphics are stupidly above anything else out, the lore/ip is actually really fleshed out and well done, and it has TRUE dynamic content, not WOW style phasing, but true dynamic content.
I also think what bodes well for the game is how excited the majority of the MMO internet "press" is. The guys at Tentonhammer are basically jizzing in their pants from what they've seen. Even the guys at kotaku.com were impressed, which is saying a SHITLOAD.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Comments
Trion aren't looking to revolutionise the genre, they're merely looking to add a few novel twists to what is already a winning formula, as demonstrated by the success of the Everquest series, World of Warcraft etc. There's nothing wrong with that, a lot of people like those kinds of games. The question is whether those twists (rifts, dynamic content, soul system etc) are interesting enough to make the game stand out from other titles just like it. That's something we won't know until release unfortunately.
With regards to marketing, RIFT is still in alpha and isn't due out until next year so they're probably holding back on the all-out hype assault until closer to release. You can only hold the attention of the masses for so long before they lose interest, so it's best to hit them right before release to maximise sales. Given the massive budget they have, it's not as though they don't have the resources for a fancy advertising campaign.
i don't think it's wrong it's just same old thing i might give it a try as well
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
I don't think this game is more of the same even in the slightest. Listen, we are going to be sharing similar game mechanics throughout the Genre. Just like you can go from Halo to Call of Duty and know what the controls are, you can jump from WoW to Aion and have a fairly good idea of how to play the game. This doesn't make a game a clone of the former, the UI is simply standardized in an effort to keep the game familiar so new players don't experience a steep learning curve.
What makes Rift different are the persistent objectives which can be controlled by one of the 8 factions running throughout the world. There are 6 NPC factions, all of whom hate each other and will actively attack one another, and 2 player factions. Rifts open throughout the world in random locations. If they go unchecked or the players are defeated, the Rift expand into a foot hold. Eventually, an invasion occurs as the NPCs actually take over faction controlled land. This is a PvPvE system, and one that will put Aion's system to shame.
When a player engages in a Rift, Foot Hold, or Ward Stone invasion, they flag themselves for PvP. This is because when you capture a point or defend a point, you do so for your faction. Just as Rifts can expand and take land, so can your faction. This means that I can waltz into enemy territory and start claiming land. So, this lends itself to some intense RvR possibilities with a little PvE added like the cherry on top of an awesome sundae.
The next thing that really stands out to me is the ability to create your own class combination. There are four callings to choose from, each with 8 souls (classes) to build into your character. You can have three souls active at one time. You can choose to specialize in one soul, or mix the abilities of three together. There are multiple ways to set your character apart from others, as there are multiple ways to customize your class. The beauty of this is that there are no real permanent choices. You can instantly change from one build to another with a click of a button. Brilliant.
There are a number of other features, including the crafting system, which sets Rift apart from the others. For me, Rift is the game that I am looking forward to. I am looking forward to this because it is so radically different from some of the other games that are coming out.
After playing this at PAX last weekend:
Best thing about RIFT to me was the skill customization system. It felt like a well evolved version of the traditional talent-tree system. Also, the rift invasions do seem cool, but could be spotty depending on frequency of occurance.
Worst thing about RIFT was I was running around Generica, fighting token-unded, gathering standard-questitems, and following the newbie-area line ride as efficently as possible. Everything was meh, and the story hooks just never sank in for me.
Granted, this is ~20-25 min of gameplay with a fresh Defiant Reaver character.
Lets Push Things Forward
I knew I would live to design games at age 7, issue 5 of Nintendo Power.
Support games with subs when you believe in their potential, even in spite of their flaws.
Another WoW would be a Quality Fantasy Based MMO. I've seen most MMOs after WoW become more like WoW, even if they didn't initially intend to. I believe there are more people out there that do want another WoW than you think.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Rift might be more traditional than TOR, TERA and GW2 but nothing wrong with that. It is perfect that the genre see,s to be making more varied games and that means we need something close to EQ and Wow around too, and Rift do have some good things.
For one thing they have several actually experienced devs and a nice budget, something we havn't seen that often the last few years.
And you can't compare the Rift hype with what Warhammer had, WAR had more hype than GW2 have today, and so did AoC for that matter. WARs beta testers swore that it would be the "Wow killer" so many people seems to believe in and that it was the best thing since sliced bread.
While Rift has some really interested people and a certain hype it isn't that huge, at least not now. You just can't check the score on the hype meeter, you have to check how many players that actually voted too.
I think Rift will make a nice addition to the current MMO line and be able to run 300-500K players, maybe a lot more of CATA sucks and Blizzards next MMO takes a long time before release. It wont get as many players as TOR and GW2, Bioware and Arenanet just have more fans than Trion.
What game currently on the market has all of these things?
1. Dynamic Content that changes the game world encouraging players to interact with it.
2. World PVP. True world PVP not instanced garbage like arena or battlegrounds but spontaneous world PVP. Rift is reported to being very in favor of this.
3. Challenging game content without watered down hard modes. Some reviews of the game so far have stated even low level instances are quite challenging without all tank and spank bosses
4. Ability to mix and max classes within your archetype to design and play the class you want to play.
5. Emphasis on world exploration. MMOS should have a big open world. No current MMOs have a big open world anymore. WoW is just a lobby game and EQ is to outdated.
This is what I'm looking for in a game and so far i haven’t found any game that has all of them. WoW is what comes closest and that is pretty much just a lobby game now with a non existent open world.
Rift isn't trying to redesign the genre instead they are trying(atleast it looks like) to bring something back to the genre thath as gone missing over the last few years. In my opinion MMOs have lost that massive feeling and this is why I love to play them so much. There have been other games that have come out recently that have brought some of this or tried to bring all of it but ultimately have lacked polish or only had some of the features.
Every single mmorpg since EQ1(at least 3D mmorpg) have been more of the same but they have all had their little twists. If you really can't handle mmorpg being more of the same then i suggest you take up knitting.
That's not true. Darkfall is not the same, Mortal is not the same, Eve is not the same. There are a few games that have gone the other way, more sandbox I guess.
I'm reading what a lot of you are saying and I get the feeling that many people are looking forward to Rift but aren't really excited about it. I'm not necessarily saying that a new WoW would be a bad thing, it definitely wouldn't be for most people. For me it wouldn't be great because I considered WoW to be boring as all hell. I played it to level 60 before the first expansion, did some raids and other end game stuff and quit shortly after TBC came out. I'm not trying to knock Rift or say that it will either fail or be a bad game. From what I can see, it will be a stand up game, just not the type I'm really looking forward to. I just saw the hype meter for it, and after having watched a few of the interviews and videos throughout the past month or two I couldn't see why the hype was so high.
The only thing I fear about Rift is that if it is very successful it will only inspire more dev teams to try to make a game that is a rehash of other games. I prefer going into a game and having a new experience. For me, learning how to play the game properly is a major part of the fun and when I start one up and know almost everything already I lose interest very quickly.
And as far as Tera and GW2 being different - they are. Tera is different at least in its aim-based combat and GW2 is different in many ways, whether it be the static leveling times, the individualised story with instanced home towns, the newer twists on combat and overall grouping, or what have you. Deny it if you want, but the game does have some new ideas that I'm looking forward to since they will freshen the gameplay up a little bit, in my mind anyway.
Again, I'm not trolling or saying the game is going to be bad or fail, I was just trying to get an idea of what has people so hyped for the game. I think I've gotten a little insight now thanks to this thread.
Thanks to everyone who responded and shed a little light on the subject for me.
Rift looks like the direction Vanguard makers should have taken instead of unsuccessfully making EQ III... imo
Every game is more of the same since the atari 2600 days... sheesh... just give me my eye candy graphics and animations, and enough different types of loot to make even the most ardent loot Diablo loot wh0rez jealous, and maybe gameplay hybridization of Hellgate's 3rd/1st person fps/rpg elements and i'll be quite happy.
Isn't this game just more of the same?
Yes.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Yeah I got that impression too.
I'm not always focused on getting information about that game, but I watch a video or read an article once in a while. But if it is well done, has no item shop, enough starting zones and stuff, then why not? *shrugs*
Let's play Fallen Earth (blind, 300 episodes)
Let's play Guild Wars 2 (blind, 45 episodes)
I believe the mmo market has still room for good fantasy MMOs (and plenty of) so it really doesn't matter if one looks like the other. For now I have my eyes on Rift, GW2 and TERA and a few other Asian ones which promise quality and fun. The more games succeed the better. Many people haven't played an MMO for quite some time and I hope everyone finds what he needs, next year is very promising
Actually, from your post, I'm pretty sure you missed the point entirely. You claim that Tera and GW2 are different, but, as many people have point out very clearly...no, they really aren't. None of the things you list for them drastically alter the game anymore than the class system for Rift does which is looking to be more dynamic than the existing skill systems.
List out all of the features of any particular MMORPG...and I mean all of the features. Now list out all of the features of Tera or GW2 or SWTOR or Rift. You'll find there is a less than 10% difference between any of them.
I've read all kinds of people getting thrilled by GW2 having a "dynamic" quest system...you'd think that there was magic in the programming the way some people describe it. However, the description is pretty much just an incremental upgrade to the in-world instancing that I saw in WoW Wrath almost 2 years ago (which I'm sure Blizzard stole from somewhere else)...it's just adding a condition to which of the next in-world instancing it will load based on how well your character succeeds. Will it really change what you do in game? Of course not. It may add to replayability since you can go to the same zone and potentially have a different experience...but that can just as easily (and, imho, more effectively) be accomplished by having more zones with entirely different story arcs. From this stand point, I see GW2 as being substantially overhyped more so than this game...
That said, I still have high hopes for GW2, but no more than for Rift. Maybe I'm just a jaded gamer, but I've seen these wondrous stories for far too many games that turned out to be substantially less than promised...
TERA is different. It goes as far as an MMO can away from the traditional roots of a fantasy non-sandbox game from an aim-based system to a deep and advanced political system, but still being able to maintain the very basic concept a non-sandbox MMO steps on (levels, classes, skills). That is still probably not enough to convince someone that it's a different MMO, but we can all see what happens when someone goes over the edge trying to revolutionalize the genre (see MO, DF etc.). With that being said, TERA is probably the only high budget and quality MMO that is trying to strive away from the typicals and until a company rises with the guts, the money and the skills to make something entirely new, the above is as close as a difference you can get.
Wait, there isnt magic in the programming?
What are you gonna tell me next, Santa Clause and the easter bunny arent real?
It might be more of the same type o fantisy game, actually not from what all I have been reading.
The one thing I can say that it has going great for it, and that is it is not made by Turbine or by SOE and that's good enough for me.
Maybe you missed the part when he said "List out all of the features of any particular MMORPG...and I mean all of the features. Now list out all of the features of Tera or GW2 or SWTOR or Rift. You'll find there is a less than 10% difference between any of them."
You said "we can all see what happens when someone goes over the edge trying to revolutionalize the genre (see MO, DF etc.)" Show me a Developer that spent 50 million on a revolutionary game like MO and DF. Oh wait, there isnt one. Now if MO and DFO were big budget games, you would have a point. They werent, you dont.
I cant help but ask, are you George Bush Jr? Revolutionalize? Dont forget strategery :P
I think it's more of the same, but it's a nice blend of old school EQ (setting and art style, some mechanics), WoW (skill system, most mechanics, blend of hardcore PvE and faction based PvP), and even Warhammer Online (dynamic quest system is similar to public quests, but dynamic). It also looks to be fairly polished, even in it's current Alpha state. Definitely going to keep an eye on this one.
It's polished and highly playable in an Alpha State. By that alone it isn't "more of the same".
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
To me, the game looks more like a world to explore instead of just a boxed off series of zones. I could be wrong, but I want to explore what's in those spires in the video or see if I can fall off the treehouse like huts or have the mess scared out of me when a Plane of Death drops on me at night when wandering thru a zone. For some reason this game reminds me of the GM events of EQ1 or of the promise of a new EQ like experience ie; Vanguard. I'm more jaded now than during my rabid following of EQ2 and VG but all this talk of extreme polish pre-beta, great art and the introduction of improved dynamic content and multi-classing is enough. Throw in extensive lore and a Forgotten Realms meets Ebberon feel and I'm good. It's still just a Fantasy game but I'm intrigued just the same.
I'm both looking forward to it and very excited about it, and I haven't felt that way about an upcoming MMO for a number of years. I think anyone that has spent a lot of time watching the videos and reading the forums regarding the MMO they're interested in feels there is a lot of differences. You're looking forward to TERA and from my perspective except for targeting it looks like more of the same, and offers nothing that excites me. But I haven't spent the time studying it as you have, and I don't think you've spent any time at all reading up on Rift.
First off I like the team involved. As someone coming from EQ1 and EQ2 I'm familiar with Scott Hartsman and loved EQ2 while he was there, and not so much since he's been gone. The team is very active with the community and keeping the information flowing to keep interest up. I like the dynamic content of the Rifts and defending the towns when the Rifts aren't closed. It's something extra to do instead of the typical questing. They've said their goal is to have so many dungeons that you can literally run each one just once and reach max level doing so. That's a ton of dungeons. I love a good dungeon crawl and the videos I've seen of them look amazing. The world looks beautiful and open and ripe for exploration.
With their team coming from every US-made MMO, it seems they've taken certain ideas from their past experiences, improved upon them, and added new ones. I just expect an MMO to be fun not necessarily 100% original, and Rift very much seems like it will be a lot of fun for me.
Well, i'm not going to go into a bitching tirade like i want to after reading OP's post and some of the responses, because its clear people just don't get it.
The point is this. People keep making the HORRRRRRIBLE mistake of assuming that games like Vanguard and AoC failed based on IP/Lore/too much pvp, too little pvp, etc etc.
Those games failed because they were released in an unpolished, unfinished state, with nowhere near the content they should have had.
Vanguard failed moreso due to a lack of polish, specifically regarding the graphics engine. I built a top of the line system 2 months before VG released and it was barely playable on my system with the settings up high. Yeah, you could turn them down, but then it looked like shit.
AoC failed due to a lack of content, once you got out of Tortage, all the voice acting stopped, you didnt have enough quests/etc to level properly without spending several levels just chain slaughtering mobs to make it through, etc.
Both of these are issues that were the result of being forced into an EARLY RELEASE.
Now, you have games like Darkfall and Mortal Online, which all the sandbox asshats tout as being innovative and fresh and "got the right idea".
And guess what, those failed because of their gameplay/features.
Sandbox PVP MMO'ers in my mind are literally = Apple/Mac Owners, they're so far down the rabbit hole of delusion they are literally incapable of reason and seeing the other side. To them it is literally "this isn't what i like/think is awesome?!!, then how could ANYBODY want to play this tripe? its obvious its going to fail".
The reality is you have this massive pie of about 20 million MMO players. At best, AT BEST 500k of those are people whose 100% ideal mmo is a fully sandbox, no holds barred pvp based game, complete with ganking and full loot rights, etc. This has been shown through multiple polls. including polls on this very website.
Now, there is a much larger portion of the MMO playerbase, about 35-40%, who prefer PVP mmo's, but more in the sense of games like DAOC and WAR. In so much as that they love PVP, but they dont like spawn camping, ganking n00bs, etc.
The rest of the pie is made up of people who prefer PVE MMO's, you can split those up into casual/core/hardcore. Hardcore typically tend to be the people who grew up on EQ1, AO, etc. Where it was much more difficult/harsh/time consuming, etc. Core are the ones who currently play games like WOW/LOTRO/etc, but spend a healthy amt of time in the game, most of which is made up of raiding if they're at the end game. Casuals are the bulk and are the typical wow non raider or light raider. They have maybe 5-10 hours a week max to play the game, and dont take it overly seriously.
Rift is targetting primarily the core gamer of the PVE side of things, and the non sandbox pvp'er.
Now, what truly makes Rift special has already been mentioned. The class system is absolutely awesome, the graphics are stupidly above anything else out, the lore/ip is actually really fleshed out and well done, and it has TRUE dynamic content, not WOW style phasing, but true dynamic content.
I also think what bodes well for the game is how excited the majority of the MMO internet "press" is. The guys at Tentonhammer are basically jizzing in their pants from what they've seen. Even the guys at kotaku.com were impressed, which is saying a SHITLOAD.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche