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
Aion was very polished, if you didnt' like it fine but it was fine other than the issues it had with gold sellers and the popularity that caused long queues.
Warhammer was a lot of fun though was a bit buggy so I'll give you the quality on that.
Conan was also buggy and I think suffered in its execution. 1-20 really set up one type of game and then it sort of fell apart for many.
Of the three, Aion was very polished so I think, once again, we are talking "subjective" here as far as being "crap".
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
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.
Stopped reading right there.
Sorry dude, but when are you coming out of this mentality.
Personally, I found Rift rather boring. Now, you should know that WoW wasn't my cup of tea, so for me to dislike Rift isn't a very huge leap. I also didn't find very much fun in the first Tier of Warhammer Online (arguably the most entertaining part of WAR).
When Rift chasing, I felt they were nothing more than rinse & repeat Public Quests, with very little deviation. My major gripe with the Rift PQ's was that having too many players on-site made it a cakewalk, and too few players made it a battle of attrition--if not impossible. These Rifts were essentially the game's meat and potatoes; the soul system was the creamy gravey that tasted oddly familiar. I'm not going to touch on the Soul system though. Anyhow, so Rift PQ's just felt a little forced and conflicted with the open-world; it didn't adapt well to the number of players partaking and intruded on any casual quest grinder's gaming time. Now, if Rift were able to better coordinate and reward Rift chasing, as well as scale to player population in a region and player participation per rift, then it wouldn't feel quite so intrusive, but--as it stands--I mostly dislike the Rifts.
Considering that Rift is essentially your standard MMORPG affair with high levels, meaningless and bountiful quest grinding, end-game raids, and arena-based PVP, with an unhealthy helping of--and forceful take on--Public Quests, I feel more inclined to wait for a game that aims to do a bit better. I'll go ahead and put it out there; my eyes are set on Guild Wars 2 taking the MMO cake. With a release date that looks set on mid-late 2011, GW2 isn't asking too much in terms of "wait and see". Granted, my rough description of Rift can also be loosely applied to GW2, but I think Guild Wars just holds so much more character AND it has a history of being a solid game as well.
You are certainly entitled to your two cents even though I don't agree. However, just to clarify, there are no arenas in Rift. The first warfront is 10 vs 10, and the second is 15 vs 15. We have not seen any of the others yet. There is open PvP on a PvP server after you leave Freemarch or Silverwood. And you can always flag yourself for PvP on any server in any zone.
Aditionally I believe the Port Scion zone will be for open PvP on all servers although that is not confirmed and won't happen at launch from what I've heard unofficially.
i dont know, probably when people quit bashing every new game that comes out and lets things fall where they may when a new game comes out, doesnt matter i was still correct in those games about their state of release. aion was unplayable because they allowed goldfarmers and botters in the game at first and did nothing to stop them until they realized they were losing more paying customers than the botters in the game. yes other than that aion was a good enough asian grinder with less bugs than all those others so i guess we can sort of take it off that list but the rest of the games were horrible at launch with wow i think being the worst so i cant come off that mentality on those games, i was there i played wow and still did up until november when i couldnt take re downloading my game every other patch any more. but that is when ill get off my attitude when people quit complaining about every single game out there, sound worse than my wife, gets on my nerves.
You are certainly entitled to your two cents even though I don't agree. However, just to clarify, there are no arenas in Rift. The first warfront is 10 vs 10, and the second is 15 vs 15. We have not seen any of the others yet. There is open PvP on a PvP server after you leave Freemarch or Silverwood. And you can always flag yourself for PvP on any server in any zone.
Aditionally I believe the Port Scion zone will be for open PvP on all servers although that is not confirmed and won't happen at launch from what I've heard unofficially.
But those are essentially arenas; it was a combination CTF/King of the Hill 10v10 structured match. I did notice the open PVP option too, but the problem there is that the difference in power as you climb in levels is so great that it just doesn't seem very practical. Granted, I didn't partake in Rift's open PVP because I only managed to reach level 15 or so in the short time I had to play, but I did see WoW's open PVP early on, which was pretty disappointing, and I can't imagine it would be too different for Rift, but I could be wrong.
Edit: I'd like to add that the warfronts just didn't feel very engaging; it lacked a certain excitement... Maybe it was the lack of risk vs. reward, but it just didn't feel like it mattered at all.
You know if you actually make an unbiased pros and cons list. Bring up each feature one by one, break em down and discuss what's wrong with each you would find very little to put in the cons section. Even the one feature I put in cons (crafting) isn't a con. The mechanic covers everything, the items you make are useful, it's accessible, your not fumbling with the crafting UI trying to make one freaking item. The whole idea of using two gathering professions for every one craft works well. I honestly think if you broke down every feature and didn't just blanket everything with "it's the same old stuff" again the game would have virtually no cons. Seriously think about it! Look at te games questing, is it buggy with a ton of broken quests? Do they flow from hub to hub? Are they well written?? When I really break everything down I struggle to fond anything that's "bad" about the game.
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.
It seems alot of people have got an issue with that objective word I used. The point of my post was not to talk about semantics and if my post is really objective or not. But rather to list the features that this game will provide and conclude, as unbiased as possible, why this game should be regarded so high or low.
Or to put it in another way. Why would you buy this MMORPG instead of any other AAA title out there?
Rifts and soul system are the ones that seem to stand out. Abundance of classes too but I guess that can be considered part of the soul system.
OK, a matter of semantics then. My idea of an arena is 5v5 or less. In any case, sorry you didn't care for Rift. I started out in beta 1 thinking it was just OK, but by the time I got to beta 4 I was hooked.
You know if you actually make an unbiased pros and cons list. Bring up each feature one by one, break em down and discuss what's wrong with each you would find very little to put in the cons section. Even the one feature I put in cons (crafting) isn't a con. The mechanic covers everything, the items you make are useful, it's accessible, your not fumbling with the crafting UI trying to make one freaking item. The whole idea of using two gathering professions for every one craft works well. I honestly think if you broke down every feature and didn't just blanket everything with "it's the same old stuff" again the game would have virtually no cons. Seriously think about it! Look at te games questing, is it buggy with a ton of broken quests? Do they flow from hub to hub? Are they well written?? When I really break everything down I struggle to fond anything that's "bad" about the game.
As others have said, what one person considers a pro another might consider a con, and your example is perfect.
Look at the games great questing..whoops, some folks don't think questing should even be in a game, or perhaps that character progression should not be driven by questing. They flow well from hub to hub? One might argue there should be no flow at all, rather it should be an open world and not so much running "on the rails" as it were. Are they well written? Some folks are annoyed they even have to read them and the faster they can skip them the better.
So you're right, using the term "bad" probably isn't correct, (usually applied to factual items) undesireable is probably more appropriate as it is based entirely on opinion.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
OK, a matter of semantics then. My idea of an arena is 5v5 or less. In any case, sorry you didn't care for Rift. I started out in beta 1 thinking it was just OK, but by the time I got to beta 4 I was hooked.
Yeah, my definition of an arena is any structured PVP/PVE that attempts to balance the matchup between opposing forces. So, even a 100-man Realm vs. Realm would be an arena-type match.
I haven't had much time to fiddle with Rift, so my experience only stretches up to level 15, and that wasn't all too engaging. Maybe it gets better after that point, but the first 10-15 levels are kind of essential for hooking players. I'm still going to partake in the next test though.
I've had a hell of a time trying to get hooked on any MMO that's come along since Ultima Online, but just haven't found a single one that strikes a nice balance between risk vs. reward and, as a result, doesn't feel engaging enough.
You know if you actually make an unbiased pros and cons list. Bring up each feature one by one, break em down and discuss what's wrong with each you would find very little to put in the cons section. Even the one feature I put in cons (crafting) isn't a con. The mechanic covers everything, the items you make are useful, it's accessible, your not fumbling with the crafting UI trying to make one freaking item. The whole idea of using two gathering professions for every one craft works well. I honestly think if you broke down every feature and didn't just blanket everything with "it's the same old stuff" again the game would have virtually no cons. Seriously think about it! Look at te games questing, is it buggy with a ton of broken quests? Do they flow from hub to hub? Are they well written?? When I really break everything down I struggle to fond anything that's "bad" about the game.
As others have said, what one person considers a pro another might consider a con, and your example is perfect.
Look at the games great questing..whoops, some folks don't think questing should even be in a game, or perhaps that character progression should not be driven by questing. They flow well from hub to hub? One might argue there should be no flow at all, rather it should be an open world and not so much running "on the rails" as it were. Are they well written? Some folks are annoyed they even have to read them and the faster they can skip them the better.
So you're right, using the term "bad" probably isn't correct, (usually applied to factual items) undesireable is probably more appropriate as it is based entirely on opinion.
You judge a game by what it offers the player not what you think it should offer. That's biased. When someone writes a unbiased review they take all mechanics in the game and through playtesting make a pro and cons list on functionality, accessibility, wether the mechanic achieves what it set out to accomplish. Not what you prefer in mmorpg games. This is just like the bullshit eve gets. People givin it shit for not having twitch combat. How is that a con? Just like the difference between linear and open-ended those are preferences and should never factor into an unbiased review of a game.
How is bullet points on positives and negatives not objective? Do you know what objective actually means? It means approching a topic with an open mind and not taking a strong point in any direction without waying the negatives and positives first without backing it up with investigative reasoning, If you look at his pros and cons most would agree. The definition of objective.. IE ...
==================================
ob·jec·tive
ADJECTIVE:
Of or having to do with a material object.
Having actual existence or reality.
Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
NOUN:
Something that actually exists.
Something worked toward or striven for; a goal. See Synonyms at intention.
====================================
As someone mentioned prior, you could do it without pro's and con's to be fully objective but in concept pros and cons work if you look at it in the way I see the OP posting and that would be pros and cons of the industry. Most of what he listed "IS" what the general thoughts are in the community. Maybe not this one, but most if not all my friends would agree those would be pro's and con's. I have no doubt if there was an actual survey of WoW players and other MMO's you would see the same response.
In the end, these kind of conversations are the best and the only one offended are the pure fanbots (as seen by many responses). For me seeing this list and then having the fans basicly rip it apart for the cons made me laugh and then come to a conclusion that indeed, there is nothing here inovative to see. Rifts in the end are open world events that maybe 3 years ago was something new but now it's not. Also the idea of having these event's also fail horribly when the population in an area fails. Say you are doing quest and a rift takes the area over the following day and now it's all different? Talk about a slap in the prograssional face.
The same thing the fanbots can rave about are the same reasons at this point I can see a whole bunch of negatives. PvP based gear rewards is rewarding? How about keep seiges and clan/guild ownership then status after the fact? Talk about taking pvp back a step.
Eh in the end, I like the post and the following, this thread is all win as you see the true nature and opinions here then any other thread. Well done indeed.
"The monster created isn't by the company that makes the game, it's by the fans that make it something it never was"
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'd say that pretty much sums it up! And for me, the Soul System, Rifts and the general "polish" of the game are what sells it (And despite your comment the vast majority of the MMOs published nowdays are "buggy pieces of crap" on release). I don't expect it to be different from other MMOs when it comes to quest structure, or general gameplay. I don't expect a Huge world, with new Factional Divisions. And I don't expect "meaningful PvP" (at least not for any game that uses a random number generator to determine combat damage).
Now I leave you to form your own opinions. But my attitude is still "wait and see"... I've pre-ordered (based on my experience) and will subscribe for at least 3 months. After that I will be able to make a "qualified decision". All I can say is that, if you haven't actually tried it, you cannot make a good decision. This type of thing is just too subjective to try and analyse it without experience.
The way the quest are laid out is very linear but the zones are actually fairly open making room for rifts to happen very nicely. I will concede that the zones appear to be pretty walled off from each other however rather than the world being one big open map like in L2. But then that makes a certain amount of sense when you use zones to strictly separate level ranges which is a fairly standard practice now.
Two factions is also pretty standard. Everyone pines for 3 factions because DAoC did things so well but most fail to remember how 3 player factions didn't make the sides balanced it simply made balance so impossible that nobody worried about it. Players do what ever they want and what they often want is fundamentally selfish and not given to balance. Rift in this case actually gives us 8 factions total with 6 being npc factions. They have also stated specifically that they plan to deal with faction imbalance by using these NPC factions to even things out. That sounds like a good plan to me. Hopefully they will succeed with it.
The quests seemed sufficiently varied to me, keeping in mind that the quests are only a part of the leveling experience in this game. Rifts are what will be adding the most spice to the soup. one thing I was glad to see was the quests being kept fairly straight forward. Questing that gets too elaborate tends towards a more "on rails" third person story time experience like with the latest in WoW or LOTRO. It is a nice way to tell a story but I am not looking for a movie. I am much more interested in a game that has strong incentives toward grouping and team play. Solo questing can and should be secondary, I like that Rift seems to have done just that.
Rift has gone with a view of PvP that clearly makes it secondary to the PvE. This is a PvE game fundamentally with some PvP added. If you want to PvP focused game you will probably need to go else where. This is probably smart on Trions part as PvE games appear to be more popular than PvP games but ultimately it is just a design choice. One inovative thing Rift seems to do is to create a sense of heart pounding action and unexpected encounter using the rift system rather than trying to use PvP for that. This may turn out to be a very smart move since people like things getting mixed up a little but not too much. Not over whelming but not under whelming either. The problem is that real PvP is hard to manage in that regard. Again people do what ever they want, not what will be most interesting for their opponents. I think the rifts will do a good job of giving the sense of "we are being invaded and need to fight this off" without it becoming frustrating and progression blocking.
Trion has also said specifically that they went with a standard hotkey/autoattack combat system. Rift is not trying to change too many things at once. They are taking what is know to work, polishing it up nicely and then adding a few extras. It is called iterating the genre forward, not reinventing the wheel.
As for polish and completeness being a feature, the OP is correct. It shouldn't be something that stands out, it should simply be the norm. The problem is that it is not. Game after game has been released half-baked. So consistantly has poor workmanship been the norm that a game that is polished and virtually bug-free really is an exception. You simply cant expect people to not talk about that aspect of the game at a time when almost the whole industry has fallen away from the practice. Trion's professionalism, customer service and craftsmanship shouldn't be a selling point but in fact it is. That is how far this industry has fallen.
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.
See there you've hit on something. Rift makes me nostalgic for EQ I.
The class system offers enough flexibility to almost recreate my old favorite classes. The world may be smaller than most today but I started EQ in beta and with no expansions it really wasn't that large.. it just seemed that way because you had to go on foot everywhere at the time and you had all the zoning waits.
I had a good time in EQ I and yet I hated parts of it with a passion and I'm sure it will be the same way in Rift.
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.
It seems alot of people have got an issue with that objective word I used. The point of my post was not to talk about semantics and if my post is really objective or not. But rather to list the features that this game will provide and conclude, as unbiased as possible, why this game should be regarded so high or low.
Or to put it in another way. Why would you buy this MMORPG instead of any other AAA title out there?
Rifts and soul system are the ones that seem to stand out. Abundance of classes too but I guess that can be considered part of the soul system.
Well, "it's just fun". What can I tell you?
I don't know how the use of the Rifts will occur at launch. Probably not as insane as Beta but you never know.
I found spontaneously grouping or just being part of the pack in order to fight back an invasion fun. I liked how npc's were taken out and couldn't come back until the Rift was done. I've yet to experience pvp so I can't say how good or bad that is.
I buy my games based on whether I am enjoying them. Not because they fit list A or list B.
That's why I think Warhammer was a good game, I really enjoyed myself. Did it have (or does it have) issues? sure! But those issues were never enough that they spoiled my fun.
Same with Rift. It's just fun for those who can get on the same bandwagon. And it's obviously doing something right if there are so many people "pro" and so many "con".
It seems that more often than not people want all these games to be "pro" for everyone.
And I agree with RockGod's assessment. People need to stop saying that things are "bad" just because they don't like them.
That should never come into the equation. I can bet you dollars to donuts that I could review any game fairly whether I liked it or not. Even if I hated it. But most players are more about what they like and what they are not getting. I can appreciate that there is a disenfranchised player base out there but it makes sense that certain things start becoming more niche over time. It happens to everything.
If people like quest based games, don't mind quest hubs or can step off of the quest hub train and seek out their own fun in the form of Rifts/invasions then the game can be very enjoyable.
Regardless of what fills list A or B.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
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.
See now there's where you're wrong.
WAR PQs were a failure and I knew they would be from beta. There were a neat idea but they placed them in a game centered on PvP. So, even before beta was over they were being ignored/abandoned by the players. There were okay to do a few times but after that everyone completely bypasses them.
Rifts happen at random times in random places and you can't just ignore them because they will kill your quest NPCs, they will show up in the middle of your PvP fights, they will send out patrols so the roads are no longer safe. Rift is a game where you can't go AFK and expect to come back to a live character.
If you want to see Rifts once a week then you're missing the point and you definately should not buy the game.
Granted, my rough description of Rift can also be loosely applied to GW2, but I think Guild Wars just holds so much more character AND it has a history of being a solid game as well.
Just my two cents.
It doesn't have any 'history' it is a new game which means it can easily be as big a pile of crap as anything else. See any of the "II" games for that like EQ II, Asheron's Call II, or the crap Cryptic puts out now after doing a more than respectable job on CoH.
There are several ways in which rifts are different from WAR's PQs that will ultimately make them much better. First, first happen based on active population in an area. The reason that rifts where happening all the time in the beta was because everyone was leveling concentrated in just a few zones. As starting zones quite down as people level up the rifts will also calm down and get easier. If you only have a few people in a zone you are only going to see infrequent minor rifts that can be soloed.
Which is the second point. The easiest rifts can be soloed. In WAR you could solo the first stage and maybe, very rarely the second but you almost never complete a public quest. Which made the public quests pointless when there was no public to help you with them. In Rift if you lack a public to help you, the rifts will be small and soloable.
Third the exp for rifts is great. People don't mind stopping working on a quest to jump into a rift, especially if they see others and figure the group can make quick work of the rift. They provide the best exp in the game so people have a good reason to want to do them at every opportunity. Also, given the nature of the rewards you get, that is the sourcestones and badges and other goodies, even passing high level characters or high level guild mates have a good reason to stop and how lowbies or friends fend off the invasion. These strong rewards mean that people will be seeking out the rifts rather than ignoreing them much of the time.
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!
I cannot agree more
Well said. I also agree, emphatically. I have pre-ordered and am looking forward to this shiny and new MMO.
Rift is a linear questing game. That makes it very difficult for grouping, unless you don't mind pick up groups. I played in the beta with a guild. It had no meaning outside of guild chat in the guild forum. I found solo after level 18 very difficult, so I had a friend to duo with. Neither of us plan to purchase the game.
Rift is a linear questing game. That makes it very difficult for grouping, unless you don't mind pick up groups. I played in the beta with a guild. It had no meaning outside of guild chat in the guild forum. I found solo after level 18 very difficult, so I had a friend to duo with. Neither of us plan to purchase the game.
Eh, all depends really.
Getting groups for questing can be a chore and frustrating, but getting groups for Rifts/Invasions and dungeons is actually easy and as rewarding as doing quests.
I discovered in the last beta event that questing worked well with small groups (2 to 3 people) but when the rest of the guild came on we went straight to hunting rifts and invaders, gaining XP the whole time and having a blast (specially when we went into gaurdian territory and did some pvp while hunting rifts/invaders).
I guess what I am saying is if you pidgeonhole yourself into doing one form of progression (questing) then yeah, you will be stuck in the linear rutt. Grouping doesn't have to be about questing as there are plenty of things a group can do aside from questing that will be fun as well as rewarding.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Comments
Aion was very polished, if you didnt' like it fine but it was fine other than the issues it had with gold sellers and the popularity that caused long queues.
Warhammer was a lot of fun though was a bit buggy so I'll give you the quality on that.
Conan was also buggy and I think suffered in its execution. 1-20 really set up one type of game and then it sort of fell apart for many.
Of the three, Aion was very polished so I think, once again, we are talking "subjective" here as far as being "crap".
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
Stopped reading right there.
Sorry dude, but when are you coming out of this mentality.
wow all the cons listed is basicly the same as all other mmos has... grats....
Cons of the thread: Generic
Personally, I found Rift rather boring. Now, you should know that WoW wasn't my cup of tea, so for me to dislike Rift isn't a very huge leap. I also didn't find very much fun in the first Tier of Warhammer Online (arguably the most entertaining part of WAR).
When Rift chasing, I felt they were nothing more than rinse & repeat Public Quests, with very little deviation. My major gripe with the Rift PQ's was that having too many players on-site made it a cakewalk, and too few players made it a battle of attrition--if not impossible. These Rifts were essentially the game's meat and potatoes; the soul system was the creamy gravey that tasted oddly familiar. I'm not going to touch on the Soul system though. Anyhow, so Rift PQ's just felt a little forced and conflicted with the open-world; it didn't adapt well to the number of players partaking and intruded on any casual quest grinder's gaming time. Now, if Rift were able to better coordinate and reward Rift chasing, as well as scale to player population in a region and player participation per rift, then it wouldn't feel quite so intrusive, but--as it stands--I mostly dislike the Rifts.
Considering that Rift is essentially your standard MMORPG affair with high levels, meaningless and bountiful quest grinding, end-game raids, and arena-based PVP, with an unhealthy helping of--and forceful take on--Public Quests, I feel more inclined to wait for a game that aims to do a bit better. I'll go ahead and put it out there; my eyes are set on Guild Wars 2 taking the MMO cake. With a release date that looks set on mid-late 2011, GW2 isn't asking too much in terms of "wait and see". Granted, my rough description of Rift can also be loosely applied to GW2, but I think Guild Wars just holds so much more character AND it has a history of being a solid game as well.
Just my two cents.
You are certainly entitled to your two cents even though I don't agree. However, just to clarify, there are no arenas in Rift. The first warfront is 10 vs 10, and the second is 15 vs 15. We have not seen any of the others yet. There is open PvP on a PvP server after you leave Freemarch or Silverwood. And you can always flag yourself for PvP on any server in any zone.
Aditionally I believe the Port Scion zone will be for open PvP on all servers although that is not confirmed and won't happen at launch from what I've heard unofficially.
i dont know, probably when people quit bashing every new game that comes out and lets things fall where they may when a new game comes out, doesnt matter i was still correct in those games about their state of release. aion was unplayable because they allowed goldfarmers and botters in the game at first and did nothing to stop them until they realized they were losing more paying customers than the botters in the game. yes other than that aion was a good enough asian grinder with less bugs than all those others so i guess we can sort of take it off that list but the rest of the games were horrible at launch with wow i think being the worst so i cant come off that mentality on those games, i was there i played wow and still did up until november when i couldnt take re downloading my game every other patch any more. but that is when ill get off my attitude when people quit complaining about every single game out there, sound worse than my wife, gets on my nerves.
Game rocks! I preordered
But those are essentially arenas; it was a combination CTF/King of the Hill 10v10 structured match. I did notice the open PVP option too, but the problem there is that the difference in power as you climb in levels is so great that it just doesn't seem very practical. Granted, I didn't partake in Rift's open PVP because I only managed to reach level 15 or so in the short time I had to play, but I did see WoW's open PVP early on, which was pretty disappointing, and I can't imagine it would be too different for Rift, but I could be wrong.
Edit: I'd like to add that the warfronts just didn't feel very engaging; it lacked a certain excitement... Maybe it was the lack of risk vs. reward, but it just didn't feel like it mattered at all.
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
It seems alot of people have got an issue with that objective word I used. The point of my post was not to talk about semantics and if my post is really objective or not. But rather to list the features that this game will provide and conclude, as unbiased as possible, why this game should be regarded so high or low.
Or to put it in another way. Why would you buy this MMORPG instead of any other AAA title out there?
Rifts and soul system are the ones that seem to stand out. Abundance of classes too but I guess that can be considered part of the soul system.
My gaming blog
OK, a matter of semantics then. My idea of an arena is 5v5 or less. In any case, sorry you didn't care for Rift. I started out in beta 1 thinking it was just OK, but by the time I got to beta 4 I was hooked.
As others have said, what one person considers a pro another might consider a con, and your example is perfect.
Look at the games great questing..whoops, some folks don't think questing should even be in a game, or perhaps that character progression should not be driven by questing. They flow well from hub to hub? One might argue there should be no flow at all, rather it should be an open world and not so much running "on the rails" as it were. Are they well written? Some folks are annoyed they even have to read them and the faster they can skip them the better.
So you're right, using the term "bad" probably isn't correct, (usually applied to factual items) undesireable is probably more appropriate as it is based entirely on opinion.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Yeah, my definition of an arena is any structured PVP/PVE that attempts to balance the matchup between opposing forces. So, even a 100-man Realm vs. Realm would be an arena-type match.
I haven't had much time to fiddle with Rift, so my experience only stretches up to level 15, and that wasn't all too engaging. Maybe it gets better after that point, but the first 10-15 levels are kind of essential for hooking players. I'm still going to partake in the next test though.
I've had a hell of a time trying to get hooked on any MMO that's come along since Ultima Online, but just haven't found a single one that strikes a nice balance between risk vs. reward and, as a result, doesn't feel engaging enough.
As others have said, what one person considers a pro another might consider a con, and your example is perfect.
Look at the games great questing..whoops, some folks don't think questing should even be in a game, or perhaps that character progression should not be driven by questing. They flow well from hub to hub? One might argue there should be no flow at all, rather it should be an open world and not so much running "on the rails" as it were. Are they well written? Some folks are annoyed they even have to read them and the faster they can skip them the better.
So you're right, using the term "bad" probably isn't correct, (usually applied to factual items) undesireable is probably more appropriate as it is based entirely on opinion.
You judge a game by what it offers the player not what you think it should offer. That's biased. When someone writes a unbiased review they take all mechanics in the game and through playtesting make a pro and cons list on functionality, accessibility, wether the mechanic achieves what it set out to accomplish. Not what you prefer in mmorpg games. This is just like the bullshit eve gets. People givin it shit for not having twitch combat. How is that a con? Just like the difference between linear and open-ended those are preferences and should never factor into an unbiased review of a game.Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
How is bullet points on positives and negatives not objective? Do you know what objective actually means? It means approching a topic with an open mind and not taking a strong point in any direction without waying the negatives and positives first without backing it up with investigative reasoning, If you look at his pros and cons most would agree. The definition of objective.. IE ...
==================================
ob·jec·tive
ADJECTIVE:
Of or having to do with a material object.
Having actual existence or reality.
Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
NOUN:
Something that actually exists.
Something worked toward or striven for; a goal. See Synonyms at intention.
====================================
As someone mentioned prior, you could do it without pro's and con's to be fully objective but in concept pros and cons work if you look at it in the way I see the OP posting and that would be pros and cons of the industry. Most of what he listed "IS" what the general thoughts are in the community. Maybe not this one, but most if not all my friends would agree those would be pro's and con's. I have no doubt if there was an actual survey of WoW players and other MMO's you would see the same response.
In the end, these kind of conversations are the best and the only one offended are the pure fanbots (as seen by many responses). For me seeing this list and then having the fans basicly rip it apart for the cons made me laugh and then come to a conclusion that indeed, there is nothing here inovative to see. Rifts in the end are open world events that maybe 3 years ago was something new but now it's not. Also the idea of having these event's also fail horribly when the population in an area fails. Say you are doing quest and a rift takes the area over the following day and now it's all different? Talk about a slap in the prograssional face.
The same thing the fanbots can rave about are the same reasons at this point I can see a whole bunch of negatives. PvP based gear rewards is rewarding? How about keep seiges and clan/guild ownership then status after the fact? Talk about taking pvp back a step.
Eh in the end, I like the post and the following, this thread is all win as you see the true nature and opinions here then any other thread. Well done indeed.
"The monster created isn't by the company that makes the game, it's by the fans that make it something it never was"
I'd say that pretty much sums it up! And for me, the Soul System, Rifts and the general "polish" of the game are what sells it (And despite your comment the vast majority of the MMOs published nowdays are "buggy pieces of crap" on release). I don't expect it to be different from other MMOs when it comes to quest structure, or general gameplay. I don't expect a Huge world, with new Factional Divisions. And I don't expect "meaningful PvP" (at least not for any game that uses a random number generator to determine combat damage).
Now I leave you to form your own opinions. But my attitude is still "wait and see"... I've pre-ordered (based on my experience) and will subscribe for at least 3 months. After that I will be able to make a "qualified decision". All I can say is that, if you haven't actually tried it, you cannot make a good decision. This type of thing is just too subjective to try and analyse it without experience.
The way the quest are laid out is very linear but the zones are actually fairly open making room for rifts to happen very nicely. I will concede that the zones appear to be pretty walled off from each other however rather than the world being one big open map like in L2. But then that makes a certain amount of sense when you use zones to strictly separate level ranges which is a fairly standard practice now.
Two factions is also pretty standard. Everyone pines for 3 factions because DAoC did things so well but most fail to remember how 3 player factions didn't make the sides balanced it simply made balance so impossible that nobody worried about it. Players do what ever they want and what they often want is fundamentally selfish and not given to balance. Rift in this case actually gives us 8 factions total with 6 being npc factions. They have also stated specifically that they plan to deal with faction imbalance by using these NPC factions to even things out. That sounds like a good plan to me. Hopefully they will succeed with it.
The quests seemed sufficiently varied to me, keeping in mind that the quests are only a part of the leveling experience in this game. Rifts are what will be adding the most spice to the soup. one thing I was glad to see was the quests being kept fairly straight forward. Questing that gets too elaborate tends towards a more "on rails" third person story time experience like with the latest in WoW or LOTRO. It is a nice way to tell a story but I am not looking for a movie. I am much more interested in a game that has strong incentives toward grouping and team play. Solo questing can and should be secondary, I like that Rift seems to have done just that.
Rift has gone with a view of PvP that clearly makes it secondary to the PvE. This is a PvE game fundamentally with some PvP added. If you want to PvP focused game you will probably need to go else where. This is probably smart on Trions part as PvE games appear to be more popular than PvP games but ultimately it is just a design choice. One inovative thing Rift seems to do is to create a sense of heart pounding action and unexpected encounter using the rift system rather than trying to use PvP for that. This may turn out to be a very smart move since people like things getting mixed up a little but not too much. Not over whelming but not under whelming either. The problem is that real PvP is hard to manage in that regard. Again people do what ever they want, not what will be most interesting for their opponents. I think the rifts will do a good job of giving the sense of "we are being invaded and need to fight this off" without it becoming frustrating and progression blocking.
Trion has also said specifically that they went with a standard hotkey/autoattack combat system. Rift is not trying to change too many things at once. They are taking what is know to work, polishing it up nicely and then adding a few extras. It is called iterating the genre forward, not reinventing the wheel.
As for polish and completeness being a feature, the OP is correct. It shouldn't be something that stands out, it should simply be the norm. The problem is that it is not. Game after game has been released half-baked. So consistantly has poor workmanship been the norm that a game that is polished and virtually bug-free really is an exception. You simply cant expect people to not talk about that aspect of the game at a time when almost the whole industry has fallen away from the practice. Trion's professionalism, customer service and craftsmanship shouldn't be a selling point but in fact it is. That is how far this industry has fallen.
All die, so die well.
See there you've hit on something. Rift makes me nostalgic for EQ I.
The class system offers enough flexibility to almost recreate my old favorite classes. The world may be smaller than most today but I started EQ in beta and with no expansions it really wasn't that large.. it just seemed that way because you had to go on foot everywhere at the time and you had all the zoning waits.
I had a good time in EQ I and yet I hated parts of it with a passion and I'm sure it will be the same way in Rift.
Well, "it's just fun". What can I tell you?
I don't know how the use of the Rifts will occur at launch. Probably not as insane as Beta but you never know.
I found spontaneously grouping or just being part of the pack in order to fight back an invasion fun. I liked how npc's were taken out and couldn't come back until the Rift was done. I've yet to experience pvp so I can't say how good or bad that is.
I buy my games based on whether I am enjoying them. Not because they fit list A or list B.
That's why I think Warhammer was a good game, I really enjoyed myself. Did it have (or does it have) issues? sure! But those issues were never enough that they spoiled my fun.
Same with Rift. It's just fun for those who can get on the same bandwagon. And it's obviously doing something right if there are so many people "pro" and so many "con".
It seems that more often than not people want all these games to be "pro" for everyone.
And I agree with RockGod's assessment. People need to stop saying that things are "bad" just because they don't like them.
That should never come into the equation. I can bet you dollars to donuts that I could review any game fairly whether I liked it or not. Even if I hated it. But most players are more about what they like and what they are not getting. I can appreciate that there is a disenfranchised player base out there but it makes sense that certain things start becoming more niche over time. It happens to everything.
If people like quest based games, don't mind quest hubs or can step off of the quest hub train and seek out their own fun in the form of Rifts/invasions then the game can be very enjoyable.
Regardless of what fills list A or B.
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
See now there's where you're wrong.
WAR PQs were a failure and I knew they would be from beta. There were a neat idea but they placed them in a game centered on PvP. So, even before beta was over they were being ignored/abandoned by the players. There were okay to do a few times but after that everyone completely bypasses them.
Rifts happen at random times in random places and you can't just ignore them because they will kill your quest NPCs, they will show up in the middle of your PvP fights, they will send out patrols so the roads are no longer safe. Rift is a game where you can't go AFK and expect to come back to a live character.
If you want to see Rifts once a week then you're missing the point and you definately should not buy the game.
It doesn't have any 'history' it is a new game which means it can easily be as big a pile of crap as anything else. See any of the "II" games for that like EQ II, Asheron's Call II, or the crap Cryptic puts out now after doing a more than respectable job on CoH.
There are several ways in which rifts are different from WAR's PQs that will ultimately make them much better. First, first happen based on active population in an area. The reason that rifts where happening all the time in the beta was because everyone was leveling concentrated in just a few zones. As starting zones quite down as people level up the rifts will also calm down and get easier. If you only have a few people in a zone you are only going to see infrequent minor rifts that can be soloed.
Which is the second point. The easiest rifts can be soloed. In WAR you could solo the first stage and maybe, very rarely the second but you almost never complete a public quest. Which made the public quests pointless when there was no public to help you with them. In Rift if you lack a public to help you, the rifts will be small and soloable.
Third the exp for rifts is great. People don't mind stopping working on a quest to jump into a rift, especially if they see others and figure the group can make quick work of the rift. They provide the best exp in the game so people have a good reason to want to do them at every opportunity. Also, given the nature of the rewards you get, that is the sourcestones and badges and other goodies, even passing high level characters or high level guild mates have a good reason to stop and how lowbies or friends fend off the invasion. These strong rewards mean that people will be seeking out the rifts rather than ignoreing them much of the time.
All die, so die well.
Well said. I also agree, emphatically. I have pre-ordered and am looking forward to this shiny and new MMO.
Shannon at Rift-Craft.com
Rift is a linear questing game. That makes it very difficult for grouping, unless you don't mind pick up groups. I played in the beta with a guild. It had no meaning outside of guild chat in the guild forum. I found solo after level 18 very difficult, so I had a friend to duo with. Neither of us plan to purchase the game.
Eh, all depends really.
Getting groups for questing can be a chore and frustrating, but getting groups for Rifts/Invasions and dungeons is actually easy and as rewarding as doing quests.
I discovered in the last beta event that questing worked well with small groups (2 to 3 people) but when the rest of the guild came on we went straight to hunting rifts and invaders, gaining XP the whole time and having a blast (specially when we went into gaurdian territory and did some pvp while hunting rifts/invaders).
I guess what I am saying is if you pidgeonhole yourself into doing one form of progression (questing) then yeah, you will be stuck in the linear rutt. Grouping doesn't have to be about questing as there are plenty of things a group can do aside from questing that will be fun as well as rewarding.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"