On the "only two starting zones" thing. I wouldn't mind multiple factions with their set of races, but because I play with my SO we like to play together. Starting in different areas is a huge pain (esp on a huge world map where you can corpse run your way to the other person).
And the more factions you increase the chance that your guildmates (if you're coming from another game as a guild), will want to play something different and your guild might splinter.
In single player games, I love multiple starting areas based on race/class combos, but that's for replay value. In MMO's I prefer the opportunity to play with friends over multiple factions.
So what the OP listed as a 'con' may very well be someone else's 'pro'.
This game was barely on my radar at all until I began to read beta reviews from it and from friends. Then they started saying things I haven't heard about a new mmorpg for three years.
...Good things.
*That* is what is making me decide I might have some faith and preorder. Still a bit on the fence though.
I thought objective didn't involve your personal feelings on these things?
There no way around this problem for this game your either going to have the fanboy or the hater at this point. There is nothing objective in this review or any review I have yet to read. It is just more of the same, I love this or I hate this.
Objective at this point = point of view of the current poster.
After Cataclysm, I changed my mind about SW:TOR. I think the huge questing lines with the personal story telling will supplement the standard MMO features in future years. Oblivion meets MMO worlds. It all depends how you implement it and you should always motivate some grouping of course (I think the NPC henchman in SW are NOT good in this respect - both for PVE and PVP)..
The story telling to level up, group in controlled party play (to control the challenge/gameplay) is far better suited to satisfy the needs for most of the players. In the - free to choose - end game, the standard group MMO play will be included, but this technique caters for both kind of players.
-
I don't believe the so called "world" events like Rift or the upcoming events in GW2 will be popular after a few days/weeks.
The first times you are thrilled but after a few recycles the bottom line with these rather uncontrolled events (player wise) is that they pass along and players no longer are interested in doing them since they can't find themselves in the zerg fests that surround these events.
You don't have to agree, but I've seen enough in the last 10 years to know that these PVE kind of events are "over the heads" of the individual players and so they feel disconnected in the M A S S E S pretty soon.
So I hope for the fans of Rifts, it is really a side thing instead of a main feature.
I would like to add dungeon design and the Collection/achievement system to the pros and maybe a generic crafting system to the cons. I think most would agree with that. The collection system alone promotes exploration. Similar to the way Lotros deeds system makes the players travel to ever section of a map. It's pretty good and the dungeons are really good and even challenging.
The "Rift debate" has been fascinating to watch and has basically proven that generally speaking the MMO community at large will never and i mean NEVER overwhelmingly embrace a title.
So far it appears as though Rift is:
a.) polished and relatively bug free
b .) graphically very solid
c.) pretty filled with content
d.) has solid PVE
e.) good character development
f.) knows who and what it is
g.) has some PVP
h.) has some dynamic content with RIFTS
I.) has an active and responsive DEV team.
j.) is NEW!
So in many respects (at least in beta) it is overcoming THE BIG complaints about Aion, AoC, WAR, STO, FFXIV. So what is the response from the crowd? "But its not groundbreaking!" "Its not revolutionary" "It's too traditional". I mean for real? If these are the harshest things that can be said about the game it is already legions above the last 4 major titles to release.
Not sure why there are so many folks that are almost urging/begging/praying for new games to fail. I find it peculiar. Each success helps the entire genre. I will play RIFT for the very reasons so many list as negatives . I will also play it because its not what I have been playing for YEARS (eq2, wow, lotro, vanguard). IT is something new! It takes the standard MMO model and re-polishes it, upgrades it, changes it a bit and makes it "new". That works for me!
When I upgrade my car every four or so years I tend to stick with the same models that I like. I look forward to the new features, the new gadgets and safety improvements-solid improvements and modernizations! IF RIFT nudges the genre a few steps ahead, if it releases in good condition on stable servers and becomes the new "EQ2, LOTRO," and a good alternative for those still toiling in the Vanguards, the Eq1s, the DAOCs and yes even some WoW players-well then-i think it will be a resonding success!
Cars are hardly a valid comparison as they are, mostly, for practical purposes. What you should compare it to is rather other media such as movies.
I dont know about others but if I have seen action type movies with the same type of characters, explosion, plot etc I would not want to see the same thing over and over again, but rather look for new experiences. E.g. I have played WAR and got bored of it, I dont want to play another game that is just like it (not saying Rift is, it is just an example). But to each its own, maybe some people do like to play the same type of game over and over.
After Cataclysm, I changed my mind about SW:TOR. I think the huge questing lines with the personal story telling will supplement the standard MMO features in future years. Oblivion meets MMO worlds. It all depends how you implement it and you should always motivate some grouping of course (I think the NPC henchman in SW are NOT good in this respect - both for PVE and PVP)..
The story telling to level up, group in controlled party play (to control the challenge/gameplay) is far better suited to satisfy the needs for most of the players. In the - free to choose - end game, the standard group MMO play will be included, but this technique caters for both kind of players.
-
I don't believe the so called "world" events like Rift or the upcoming events in GW2 will be popular after a few days/weeks.
The first times you are thrilled but after a few recycles the bottom line with these rather uncontrolled events (player wise) is that they pass along and players no longer are interested in doing them since they can't find themselves in the zerg fests that surround these events.
You don't have to agree, but I've seen enough in the last 10 years to know that these PVE kind of events are "over the heads" of the individual players and so they feel disconnected in the M A S S E S pretty soon.
So I hope for the fans of Rifts, it is really a side thing instead of a main feature.
You're arguing that a straight as an arrow linear questing that was introduced with Cataclysm has more repleability than Rift's or GW2 (attempt on) dynamic content?
I'm not sure what people want from this game. They either bash it and compare this game to other games or they go overboard trying to defend it. The game is good. It's not great and its not horrible. If you like similar mmo's but are looking for a new world to explore than this game may be for you. If you're tired of the same old thing than wait for Tera or some other mmo.
I'd say rifts being a core of gameplay is a con. Something that is repetitive and omnipresent is something that will become mundane and old hat. I'd say the majority of the "ooo shiney" factor of this game is the relative newness of rifts. Once the shine wears off...
Drop the next-gen marketing and people will argue if the game itself has merit.
I'm not sure what people want from this game. They either bash it and compare this game to other games or they go overboard trying to defend it. The game is good. It's not great and its not horrible. If you like similar mmo's but are looking for a new world to explore than this game may be for you. If you're tired of the same old thing than wait for Tera or some other mmo.
Amen brother,,,,
You either like and will play it or you don't. Quit posting everywhere why you don't like it and how much you hate it... bla bla bla clone this and that.
Cars are hardly a valid comparison as they are, mostly, for practical purposes. What you should compare it to is rather other media such as movies.
I dont know about others but if I have seen action type movies with the same type of characters, explosion, plot etc I would not want to see the same thing over and over again, but rather look for new experiences. E.g. I have played WAR and got bored of it, I dont want to play another game that is just like it (not saying Rift is, it is just an example). But to each its own, maybe some people do like to play the same type of game over and over.
I don't think movies is a good comparison. A lot of movies are built in a similar fashion, with different actors and dialogues. A lot of popular ones contain clichés. Comparing entertainment is always tricky. :P
I'm not sure what people want from this game. They either bash it and compare this game to other games or they go overboard trying to defend it. The game is good. It's not great and its not horrible. If you like similar mmo's but are looking for a new world to explore than this game may be for you. If you're tired of the same old thing than wait for Tera or some other mmo.
Amen brother,,,,
You either like and will play it or you don't. Quit posting everywhere why you don't like it and how much you hate it... bla bla bla clone this and that.
It's a tit for tat thing. If people quit posting what they dont like, the only posts you'll see are what people do like. This leads to an unbalanced viewpoint full of half truths.
Drop the next-gen marketing and people will argue if the game itself has merit.
Balance? WTF? Ok I think someone needs to go outside.. Now we need just as many fanboys and we have haters... For forum balance...LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rift seems ok. But it doesn't offer enough "woah! Awesome!" stuff for me. Just a good amount of "that is nice". So, I guess once a free trial exists I will try that, and depending on my impression on that buy the game or not.
Originally posted by Yamota I hear a lot of Rift either being awesome on one side and the other side it is the same old, same old. But instead of using these statements, that does not really say much, why not actually list why this game will be so awesome, or not. From what I have gathered the pros are: Soul system which allows for great customization and replay value Rifts which introduces a, somewhat, fresh and dynamic element to the game PvP with both open world and instanced elements Nice gfx/sound Cons: Small and very linear "world", remiscent of WAR. Only two factions and only starting zones Generic quests Pointless PvP (?) as you really cant conquer much of anything, just temporarily disturb quest hubs (I dont consider gear rewards as meaningful PvP) Same auto-target, click 1,2,3 combat system that have been seen before. No dodging or using the environment to your advantage (?). So I really only see two elements that seems to make the game stand out, rifts and the soul system. Everything else seems kinda generic. PS. I dont consider polish/bug free etc. to be a pro, I take that for granted for any game that wants me to pay for it.
If you were going to actually do an objective look at Rift, you would have kept your opinions out of it. You would have looked at both the people find a feature good and people who find a feature bad.
For instance, the world is small to medium sized and at least through beta 3 the quest lines are linear. For people who want lots of area to explore and wide open zones, this is a definite con. For people who are tired of walking through empty zones looking for the mobs they need to kill, this is a pro. Something like that.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
After Cataclysm, I changed my mind about SW:TOR. I think the huge questing lines with the personal story telling will supplement the standard MMO features in future years. Oblivion meets MMO worlds. It all depends how you implement it and you should always motivate some grouping of course (I think the NPC henchman in SW are NOT good in this respect - both for PVE and PVP)..
The story telling to level up, group in controlled party play (to control the challenge/gameplay) is far better suited to satisfy the needs for most of the players. In the - free to choose - end game, the standard group MMO play will be included, but this technique caters for both kind of players.
-
I don't believe the so called "world" events like Rift or the upcoming events in GW2 will be popular after a few days/weeks.
The first times you are thrilled but after a few recycles the bottom line with these rather uncontrolled events (player wise) is that they pass along and players no longer are interested in doing them since they can't find themselves in the zerg fests that surround these events.
You don't have to agree, but I've seen enough in the last 10 years to know that these PVE kind of events are "over the heads" of the individual players and so they feel disconnected in the M A S S E S pretty soon.
So I hope for the fans of Rifts, it is really a side thing instead of a main feature.
You're arguing that a straight as an arrow linear questing that was introduced with Cataclysm has more repleability than Rift's or GW2 (attempt on) dynamic content?
Yes because that "dynamic" spawning of Rifts - PVE - content is far more repetitive than most people want to believe now.
Potential is always there, it is delivering the goods that ask effort.
It lacks the individual player incensitive and takes place "over the heads" of the players. I could point out to any of the previous world events shown in pre Cata launch. Boring as hell after participating in it for 2 times. Deleted after 7 days by Blizzard, thank God for that.
The group plays for you whether you do something or not and that makes hardly a difference in those zerg fests in which everyone or no one comes in.
It is a side show. if you would include it as a main feature, you end up running from world event to world event. Completely destroying the individual incensitve to play a video game.
I do think the Rifts will be considered a side effect in this game and a good lesson for GW2 in the planning stages.
After Cataclysm, I changed my mind about SW:TOR. I think the huge questing lines with the personal story telling will supplement the standard MMO features in future years. Oblivion meets MMO worlds. It all depends how you implement it and you should always motivate some grouping of course (I think the NPC henchman in SW are NOT good in this respect - both for PVE and PVP)..
The story telling to level up, group in controlled party play (to control the challenge/gameplay) is far better suited to satisfy the needs for most of the players. In the - free to choose - end game, the standard group MMO play will be included, but this technique caters for both kind of players.
-
I don't believe the so called "world" events like Rift or the upcoming events in GW2 will be popular after a few days/weeks.
The first times you are thrilled but after a few recycles the bottom line with these rather uncontrolled events (player wise) is that they pass along and players no longer are interested in doing them since they can't find themselves in the zerg fests that surround these events.
You don't have to agree, but I've seen enough in the last 10 years to know that these PVE kind of events are "over the heads" of the individual players and so they feel disconnected in the M A S S E S pretty soon.
So I hope for the fans of Rifts, it is really a side thing instead of a main feature.
You're arguing that a straight as an arrow linear questing that was introduced with Cataclysm has more repleability than Rift's or GW2 (attempt on) dynamic content?
Yes because that "dynamic" spawning of Rifts - PVE - content is far more repetitive than most people want to believe now.
Potential is always there, it is delivering the goods that ask effort.
It lacks the individual player incensitive and takes place "over the heads" of the players. I could point out to any of the previous world events shown in pre Cata launch. Boring as hell after participating in it for 2 times. Deleted after 7 days by Blizzard, thank God for that.
The group plays for you whether you do something or not and that makes hardly a difference in those zerg fests in which everyone or no one comes in.
It is a side show. if you would include it as a main feature, you end up running from world event to world event. Completely destroying the individual incensitve to play a video game.
I do think the Rifts will be considered a side effect and a good lesson for GW2 in the planning stages.
Yes, but we're talking about repetition here. The Cataclysm style of questing you can do it once. That's it. Anything there was to see you saw it that one time. It's like watching a movie, sure it looks great the first time you see it. How many times you can watch the exact same movie with zero variations though?
Aren't you a bit biased towards the (can't do wrong) WoW? If SW:TOR will be the same, and in all probability for Blizzard to go towards that direction it will be, it'll be a disaster. Who exactly wants to play Dragon Age with a chat channel, because that's all it boils down to.
Personally I saw everything Cataclysm had to offer minus the raiding in under a month. And since there was zero incentive to go through the same single player experience, I quit. It basically boils down to the game design and to the player. If you're an explorer you'll hate the pulling by the nose everywhere introduced in LK and gone to overdrive in Cataclysm. I fear that we'll see a similar approach by SW:TOR, since after all that's where Blizzard probably got their latest single line quest ideas.
I was willing to spend hours or days at the same camp in EQ1... and I actually kind of enjoyed it. So chasing rifts is a moving camp. At least the scenery changes.
After Cataclysm, I changed my mind about SW:TOR. I think the huge questing lines with the personal story telling will supplement the standard MMO features in future years. Oblivion meets MMO worlds. It all depends how you implement it and you should always motivate some grouping of course (I think the NPC henchman in SW are NOT good in this respect - both for PVE and PVP)..
The story telling to level up, group in controlled party play (to control the challenge/gameplay) is far better suited to satisfy the needs for most of the players. In the - free to choose - end game, the standard group MMO play will be included, but this technique caters for both kind of players.
-
I don't believe the so called "world" events like Rift or the upcoming events in GW2 will be popular after a few days/weeks.
The first times you are thrilled but after a few recycles the bottom line with these rather uncontrolled events (player wise) is that they pass along and players no longer are interested in doing them since they can't find themselves in the zerg fests that surround these events.
You don't have to agree, but I've seen enough in the last 10 years to know that these PVE kind of events are "over the heads" of the individual players and so they feel disconnected in the M A S S E S pretty soon.
So I hope for the fans of Rifts, it is really a side thing instead of a main feature.
You're arguing that a straight as an arrow linear questing that was introduced with Cataclysm has more repleability than Rift's or GW2 (attempt on) dynamic content?
Yes because that "dynamic" spawning of Rifts - PVE - content is far more repetitive than most people want to believe now.
Potential is always there, it is delivering the goods that ask effort.
It lacks the individual player incensitive and takes place "over the heads" of the players. I could point out to any of the previous world events shown in pre Cata launch. Boring as hell after participating in it for 2 times. Deleted after 7 days by Blizzard, thank God for that.
The group plays for you whether you do something or not and that makes hardly a difference in those zerg fests in which everyone or no one comes in.
It is a side show. if you would include it as a main feature, you end up running from world event to world event. Completely destroying the individual incensitve to play a video game.
I do think the Rifts will be considered a side effect and a good lesson for GW2 in the planning stages.
Yes, but we're talking about repetition here. The Cataclysm style of questing you can do it once. That's it. Anything there was to see you saw it that one time. It's like watching a movie, sure it looks great the first time you see it. How many times you can watch the exact same movie with zero variations though?
Aren't you a bit biased towards the (can't do wrong) WoW? If SW:TOR will be the same, and in all probability for Blizzard to go towards that direction it will be, it'll be a disaster. Who exactly wants to play Dragon Age with a chat channel, because that's all it boils down to.
Personally I saw everything Cataclysm had to offer minus the raiding in under a month. And since there was zero incentive to go through the same single player experience, I quit. It basically boils down to the game design and to the player. If you're an explorer you'll hate the pulling by the nose everywhere introduced in LK and gone to overdrive in Cataclysm. I fear that we'll see a similar approach by SW:TOR, since after all that's where Blizzard probably got their latest single line quest ideas.
Ok rifts are nothing more then random public quests of War, and everyone nows where they went, there not a bad idea but it shouldnt be a main feature.
Rifts should be Rare like once a week or twice week.
Cataclysm is basicly end game content and there trying to tell a story, but if you start fresh from level 1 you can do what you want to get there. lots of zones and different quests.
I hear a lot of Rift either being awesome on one side and the other side it is the same old, same old. But instead of using these statements, that does not really say much, why not actually list why this game will be so awesome, or not.
From what I have gathered the pros are:
Soul system which allows for great customization and replay value
Rifts which introduces a, somewhat, fresh and dynamic element to the game
PvP with both open world and instanced elements
Nice gfx/sound
Cons:
Small and very linear "world", remiscent of WAR.
Only two factions and only starting zones
Generic quests
Pointless PvP (?) as you really cant conquer much of anything, just temporarily disturb quest hubs (I dont consider gear rewards as meaningful PvP)
Same auto-target, click 1,2,3 combat system that have been seen before. No dodging or using the environment to your advantage (?).
So I really only see two elements that seems to make the game stand out, rifts and the soul system. Everything else seems kinda generic.
PS. I dont consider polish/bug free etc. to be a pro, I take that for granted for any game that wants me to pay for it.
I have to agree with some others, this is not very objective.
For instance, the questing system is generic but some might actually like the quests. Remember, some actually do read them. Pointless pvp? Subjective. I would say any pvp where you are enjoying yourself is not pointless. You have essentially applied your criteria for what makes "good pvp". Nothing wrong with that but subjective.
I don't accept the auto target argument because if they made it like an fps game then one could say "same fps shooting style that other games have". Incidentally, I don't recall players of fps games ever complaining that they don't have tab targeting and that their system is "same old same old".
Two factions and starting zones? One could say that other than the need to make an alt the soul system allows a player a lot of flexibility in their characters therefore making an alt is needed less if they want to experience a different type of class in the same discipline. Other than that, some people don't care if there are two factions. Some don't care about their being two starting zones. Subjective.
Nice graphics and sound is also subjective.
It's no biggie but you are not applying a really objective eye.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Yamota pretty much summed up my feelings and I think it's a fair analysis, and yes, I have played it. I think in normal times this game wouldn't even be a blip on anyones radar, but 2010 was so terrible that people are starving for something new. For PvP focused players, Rift will be a disappointment, but I can see what some PvE people might like it.
Cataclysm was 80 to 85 for most old timers like me. So I believe my description of the movie style one time questing is accurate. The rest of the game is a huge instance. You leave one and enter the next. That and dailies.
For me (and that's a personal and subjective assessment) Rift in its current incarnation feels like a living world again. The way vanilla felt like a living world, when you were roaming the world and you got to meet other people from your own server. I don't know if this feeling will last, but for now it's there.
I've also played War and they didn't gave me the feeling of public quests at all. Maybe due to the random factor and the unpredictability of the rifts positions and the roaming mobs. I'll tell you what though, if they follow your suggestion and Trion makes rifts rare, we'll end up wth something that will (in my eyes) be less appealing that what I've experienced in beta 4.
Ok rifts are nothing more then random public quests of War, and everyone nows where they went, there not a bad idea but it shouldnt be a main feature.
Rifts should be Rare like once a week or twice week.
Cataclysm is basicly end game content and there trying to tell a story, but if you start fresh from level 1 you can do what you want to get there. lots of zones and different quests.
I agree. Every few days a world event could come to shake up things. But if you would spwan it every few hours in ANY form you are creating a hectic massive zerg fest in which no one will participate except a few braindead who want to level fast and bashing anything in red.
Also: the individual story is rather important if you want the player to get hooked. There are many stories and many possibilites to level post Cata. But this is not a discussion about that game, it is a discussion about those world events.
Putting out ONLY main world events is not going to shake it. Players need to stay on top.
The world changes, so ... the world changes with or without my effort. So in the long run, what's in there for me?
I am talking PVE here. PvP is another story but another angle too.
well lets look at the last several titles or all previous mmos and you tell me one, just one that released in the condition rift is in right now. i cant think of, not free to play, pay to play, freemium, or anything else, lotro is the only one that came close.
aion was a horrible piece of crap.
war was a horrible piece of crap.
age of conan was a horrible piece of crap
wow the big granddaddy of them all was a horrible piece of crap. hell wow to this day every single patch breaks their game and introduces game altering bugs, reason i took a break from wow is the pre cataclysm update ruined the game play for me and i got sick of that with wow, 6 years of them being too stupid to patch their own code without breaking it.
every game released in the last ten years was horrible at launch, and people are saying the one game that releases in a playable state and as polished as this one is isnt a pro for the game when no other game has ever done it, to me that is a big pro and one of the reasons i bought it. i dont know if its gonna be a great game or even a good game but i had fun playing it in the beta events so i decided to get it, i might get bored with it in six months, i might not, i hope not, but i dont understand why people are bashing the game, if you dont like it, dont play it and leave those of us that do like it alone but to me the facts will speak for themselves about this game if you play it. it is a very well done mmo, and btw i havent seen a generic mmo yet, i dont even know what that means because in my opinion there have only been 6 mmos ever and each was different. ultima, eq, asherons call, city of heroes, wow, and lotro, and each was different, all this other crap you see on the market are just trying to cash in on those titles. rifts is different from all of those but with the same basic background so that is not generic imo.
I hear a lot of Rift either being awesome on one side and the other side it is the same old, same old. But instead of using these statements, that does not really say much, why not actually list why this game will be so awesome, or not.
From what I have gathered the pros are:
Soul system which allows for great customization and replay value
Rifts which introduces a, somewhat, fresh and dynamic element to the game
PvP with both open world and instanced elements
Nice gfx/sound
Untill now the best costumer service ever
More polished game in beta then 99% of the mmorpgs on the market.
Does what wow did, grabs everything that is good in other mmorpgs and does it with quality in a single game, if something works dont try to reinvent the weel.
Cons:
Small and very linear "world", remiscent of WAR. The world is by no means small where did you come up with that one? Quests are linear like in all mmorpgs.
Only two factions and only starting zones
Generic quests All mmorpgs in the world are made with generic quests this one included
Pointless PvP (?) as you really cant conquer much of anything, just temporarily disturb quest hubs (I dont consider gear rewards as meaningful PvP) No pvp is pointless, its suposed to entertain me and make me have fun getting better gear improving my stats, thats what all mmorpgs ever made are about some more some less.
Same auto-target, click 1,2,3 combat system that have been seen before. No dodging or using the environment to your advantage (?). This is considered a pros not a cons, almost all humans are lazy including most mmorpg players and prefer this type of combat me included, all games in the market that make action targeting systems or combos like AOC, Darkfall are almost dead.
So I really only see two elements that seems to make the game stand out, rifts and the soul system. Everything else seems kinda generic.
PS. I dont consider polish/bug free etc. to be a pro, I take that for granted for any game that wants me to pay for it.
Comments
On the "only two starting zones" thing. I wouldn't mind multiple factions with their set of races, but because I play with my SO we like to play together. Starting in different areas is a huge pain (esp on a huge world map where you can corpse run your way to the other person).
And the more factions you increase the chance that your guildmates (if you're coming from another game as a guild), will want to play something different and your guild might splinter.
In single player games, I love multiple starting areas based on race/class combos, but that's for replay value. In MMO's I prefer the opportunity to play with friends over multiple factions.
So what the OP listed as a 'con' may very well be someone else's 'pro'.
This game was barely on my radar at all until I began to read beta reviews from it and from friends. Then they started saying things I haven't heard about a new mmorpg for three years.
...Good things.
*That* is what is making me decide I might have some faith and preorder. Still a bit on the fence though.
There no way around this problem for this game your either going to have the fanboy or the hater at this point. There is nothing objective in this review or any review I have yet to read. It is just more of the same, I love this or I hate this.
Objective at this point = point of view of the current poster.
After Cataclysm, I changed my mind about SW:TOR. I think the huge questing lines with the personal story telling will supplement the standard MMO features in future years. Oblivion meets MMO worlds. It all depends how you implement it and you should always motivate some grouping of course (I think the NPC henchman in SW are NOT good in this respect - both for PVE and PVP)..
The story telling to level up, group in controlled party play (to control the challenge/gameplay) is far better suited to satisfy the needs for most of the players. In the - free to choose - end game, the standard group MMO play will be included, but this technique caters for both kind of players.
-
I don't believe the so called "world" events like Rift or the upcoming events in GW2 will be popular after a few days/weeks.
The first times you are thrilled but after a few recycles the bottom line with these rather uncontrolled events (player wise) is that they pass along and players no longer are interested in doing them since they can't find themselves in the zerg fests that surround these events.
You don't have to agree, but I've seen enough in the last 10 years to know that these PVE kind of events are "over the heads" of the individual players and so they feel disconnected in the M A S S E S pretty soon.
So I hope for the fans of Rifts, it is really a side thing instead of a main feature.
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
Cars are hardly a valid comparison as they are, mostly, for practical purposes. What you should compare it to is rather other media such as movies.
I dont know about others but if I have seen action type movies with the same type of characters, explosion, plot etc I would not want to see the same thing over and over again, but rather look for new experiences. E.g. I have played WAR and got bored of it, I dont want to play another game that is just like it (not saying Rift is, it is just an example). But to each its own, maybe some people do like to play the same type of game over and over.
My gaming blog
You're arguing that a straight as an arrow linear questing that was introduced with Cataclysm has more repleability than Rift's or GW2 (attempt on) dynamic content?
I'm not sure what people want from this game. They either bash it and compare this game to other games or they go overboard trying to defend it. The game is good. It's not great and its not horrible. If you like similar mmo's but are looking for a new world to explore than this game may be for you. If you're tired of the same old thing than wait for Tera or some other mmo.
I'd say rifts being a core of gameplay is a con. Something that is repetitive and omnipresent is something that will become mundane and old hat. I'd say the majority of the "ooo shiney" factor of this game is the relative newness of rifts. Once the shine wears off...
Drop the next-gen marketing and people will argue if the game itself has merit.
Amen brother,,,,
You either like and will play it or you don't. Quit posting everywhere why you don't like it and how much you hate it... bla bla bla clone this and that.
I don't think movies is a good comparison. A lot of movies are built in a similar fashion, with different actors and dialogues. A lot of popular ones contain clichés. Comparing entertainment is always tricky. :P
It's a tit for tat thing. If people quit posting what they dont like, the only posts you'll see are what people do like. This leads to an unbalanced viewpoint full of half truths.
Drop the next-gen marketing and people will argue if the game itself has merit.
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
Rift seems ok. But it doesn't offer enough "woah! Awesome!" stuff for me. Just a good amount of "that is nice". So, I guess once a free trial exists I will try that, and depending on my impression on that buy the game or not.
Let's play Fallen Earth (blind, 300 episodes)
Let's play Guild Wars 2 (blind, 45 episodes)
If you were going to actually do an objective look at Rift, you would have kept your opinions out of it. You would have looked at both the people find a feature good and people who find a feature bad.
For instance, the world is small to medium sized and at least through beta 3 the quest lines are linear. For people who want lots of area to explore and wide open zones, this is a definite con. For people who are tired of walking through empty zones looking for the mobs they need to kill, this is a pro. Something like that.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Yes because that "dynamic" spawning of Rifts - PVE - content is far more repetitive than most people want to believe now.
Potential is always there, it is delivering the goods that ask effort.
It lacks the individual player incensitive and takes place "over the heads" of the players. I could point out to any of the previous world events shown in pre Cata launch. Boring as hell after participating in it for 2 times. Deleted after 7 days by Blizzard, thank God for that.
The group plays for you whether you do something or not and that makes hardly a difference in those zerg fests in which everyone or no one comes in.
It is a side show. if you would include it as a main feature, you end up running from world event to world event. Completely destroying the individual incensitve to play a video game.
I do think the Rifts will be considered a side effect in this game and a good lesson for GW2 in the planning stages.
Yes, but we're talking about repetition here. The Cataclysm style of questing you can do it once. That's it. Anything there was to see you saw it that one time. It's like watching a movie, sure it looks great the first time you see it. How many times you can watch the exact same movie with zero variations though?
Aren't you a bit biased towards the (can't do wrong) WoW? If SW:TOR will be the same, and in all probability for Blizzard to go towards that direction it will be, it'll be a disaster. Who exactly wants to play Dragon Age with a chat channel, because that's all it boils down to.
Personally I saw everything Cataclysm had to offer minus the raiding in under a month. And since there was zero incentive to go through the same single player experience, I quit. It basically boils down to the game design and to the player. If you're an explorer you'll hate the pulling by the nose everywhere introduced in LK and gone to overdrive in Cataclysm. I fear that we'll see a similar approach by SW:TOR, since after all that's where Blizzard probably got their latest single line quest ideas.
I was willing to spend hours or days at the same camp in EQ1... and I actually kind of enjoyed it. So chasing rifts is a moving camp. At least the scenery changes.
Ok rifts are nothing more then random public quests of War, and everyone nows where they went, there not a bad idea but it shouldnt be a main feature.
Rifts should be Rare like once a week or twice week.
Cataclysm is basicly end game content and there trying to tell a story, but if you start fresh from level 1 you can do what you want to get there. lots of zones and different quests.
I have to agree with some others, this is not very objective.
For instance, the questing system is generic but some might actually like the quests. Remember, some actually do read them. Pointless pvp? Subjective. I would say any pvp where you are enjoying yourself is not pointless. You have essentially applied your criteria for what makes "good pvp". Nothing wrong with that but subjective.
I don't accept the auto target argument because if they made it like an fps game then one could say "same fps shooting style that other games have". Incidentally, I don't recall players of fps games ever complaining that they don't have tab targeting and that their system is "same old same old".
Two factions and starting zones? One could say that other than the need to make an alt the soul system allows a player a lot of flexibility in their characters therefore making an alt is needed less if they want to experience a different type of class in the same discipline. Other than that, some people don't care if there are two factions. Some don't care about their being two starting zones. Subjective.
Nice graphics and sound is also subjective.
It's no biggie but you are not applying a really objective eye.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Yamota pretty much summed up my feelings and I think it's a fair analysis, and yes, I have played it. I think in normal times this game wouldn't even be a blip on anyones radar, but 2010 was so terrible that people are starving for something new. For PvP focused players, Rift will be a disappointment, but I can see what some PvE people might like it.
TwitchTV Partnered Streamer
MMORPG.com Spotlight Blog Writer
Co-Leader of Inquisition
Youtube Channel
Cataclysm was 80 to 85 for most old timers like me. So I believe my description of the movie style one time questing is accurate. The rest of the game is a huge instance. You leave one and enter the next. That and dailies.
For me (and that's a personal and subjective assessment) Rift in its current incarnation feels like a living world again. The way vanilla felt like a living world, when you were roaming the world and you got to meet other people from your own server. I don't know if this feeling will last, but for now it's there.
I've also played War and they didn't gave me the feeling of public quests at all. Maybe due to the random factor and the unpredictability of the rifts positions and the roaming mobs. I'll tell you what though, if they follow your suggestion and Trion makes rifts rare, we'll end up wth something that will (in my eyes) be less appealing that what I've experienced in beta 4.
I agree. Every few days a world event could come to shake up things. But if you would spwan it every few hours in ANY form you are creating a hectic massive zerg fest in which no one will participate except a few braindead who want to level fast and bashing anything in red.
Also: the individual story is rather important if you want the player to get hooked. There are many stories and many possibilites to level post Cata. But this is not a discussion about that game, it is a discussion about those world events.
Putting out ONLY main world events is not going to shake it. Players need to stay on top.
The world changes, so ... the world changes with or without my effort. So in the long run, what's in there for me?
I am talking PVE here. PvP is another story but another angle too.
well lets look at the last several titles or all previous mmos and you tell me one, just one that released in the condition rift is in right now. i cant think of, not free to play, pay to play, freemium, or anything else, lotro is the only one that came close.
aion was a horrible piece of crap.
war was a horrible piece of crap.
age of conan was a horrible piece of crap
wow the big granddaddy of them all was a horrible piece of crap. hell wow to this day every single patch breaks their game and introduces game altering bugs, reason i took a break from wow is the pre cataclysm update ruined the game play for me and i got sick of that with wow, 6 years of them being too stupid to patch their own code without breaking it.
every game released in the last ten years was horrible at launch, and people are saying the one game that releases in a playable state and as polished as this one is isnt a pro for the game when no other game has ever done it, to me that is a big pro and one of the reasons i bought it. i dont know if its gonna be a great game or even a good game but i had fun playing it in the beta events so i decided to get it, i might get bored with it in six months, i might not, i hope not, but i dont understand why people are bashing the game, if you dont like it, dont play it and leave those of us that do like it alone but to me the facts will speak for themselves about this game if you play it. it is a very well done mmo, and btw i havent seen a generic mmo yet, i dont even know what that means because in my opinion there have only been 6 mmos ever and each was different. ultima, eq, asherons call, city of heroes, wow, and lotro, and each was different, all this other crap you see on the market are just trying to cash in on those titles. rifts is different from all of those but with the same basic background so that is not generic imo.