Spot on In your assessments I think. The only part I think that you should cut them some slack on is the amount of leveling paths. It is a fresh release and totally expected IMO. I would expect content updates and an expansion to solve this. Every mmo I have played at launch has been this way. Can't have everything at launch.
What games have you been playing? I have a hard time thinking of AAA titles relesed over the last 5-7 years with such a limited starting area / questing path AT LAUNCH than RIFT. Aion is one that I can think of though, I'll give you that one.
I don't mind the lack of originality so much as I do the fact that most of the features that people bash RIFT as generic for are NOT done better than games released 7 years ago. Want to be generic, that's ok, but at least make the generic game features BETTER than older mmo's. I think RIFT completely fails at this.
1. Questing - same as, or worse, depending on what mmo you compare it to.
2. Crafting - same as, or worse, depending on what mmo you compare it to.
3. Amount of starting areas - Worse
4. Race selection / originality / number of options - Worse
5. End game - same as (gear grind through raiding or pvp)
6. Achievements - same as, STILL just a point system with no sort of rewards.
7. Housing - Worse, non existent and unlikely to ever be in game.
8. Reputation - same as (reputation grinding)
9. Cities - Worse (lack of at all and non impressive size. Very much lacks an awe factor)
10. Lore - Same as (seriously, what an unoriginal story)
I think that's enough to get my point across. I love the actual rift's and invasions, they are definitely fun. But MAN what a drag the rest of it all is.
I agree with the guy saying, that a different rating might make sense. For example, and I'm just guessing here since I just played the beta, for Rift you could do it like this:
solo-play: 5
small group: 7
raid: 7
crafting: 4
audio & graphics: 8
polish: 9
pvp: 6
presentation: 4
replayability: 3
community: 7
overall impression: 7
Or something like that. As said, the numbers are mostly guesses, but such a rating system would really give more useful information.
There is only one leveling path, each faction has one, you can’t count that as two.
Questing is always going to seem the same, how is that a Con?
What MMO truely has PvP balance? You can say DAOC had better faction grounds but did it have better balance?
For me the game would be an 8.0, but then every grading a game gets is inflated just like movies on release. Rift is a soild game which definatly deserves a go.
It's a well written and well judged review of Rift that Bill has written here, but I do find myself wondering how he has come to a score of 8.7. It's Bill's opionion and I'll accept that, but it's fairly clear his list of pros are not so seriously outweighing the cons to justify a score of 8.7, even if he does go into a lot of detail to back up his feelings. It makes me wonder what an amazing game that does everything would get. It would have to be a guaranteed 10 on this system.
I do get the opinion from a lot of talk on Rift that people feel they need to justify the game in context with other MMOs. Statements such as 'I guess that could be said of many MMOs' seems to crop up alot, and have done here. It just appears to be the reviewer saying that he or she knows it's not great, but it's the same everywhere, right? I don't know, is it?
The long and short of it is that Rift has gotten 8.7 on the basis of three facts. That it looks great (which means Guild Wars 2 - judging by current screenshots and videos - should start at the same level - we'll see), that it has something different in the form of dynamic content (Guild Wars2 again?) and the what I admit is a very interesting class system. Of course the truth about the class system that is not even hinted at is that it's wasted in a game that caters so little to tactical grouping and so greatly to going it alone. I actually fail to understand how so many people can say that Rift changes the social aspect of MMOs. There's no close grouping, but a mass of people all after the same goals. I also don't understand this review saying that Rift's solo gameplay is so tedious when the game focuses so heavily on letting everyone manage by themselves. Wasn't the open group system only added after players complained they never felt that grouping was commonplace, hence people were content to solo. Now group play in Rift is lauded upon and the review score reflects what?
If the questing has been totally mind-blowing, the levelling paths more than two, the crafting on a whole new level and all the little niggles sorted then would Rift have had to be a 10? I find it strange that somewhat big things like these can damage the score by only 1.3. The lack of replayability, that seems to be a big concern of both Bill and the second opinion, must have been tossed aside.
When Bill posted his reviews methods a few days back I replied that a review score was personal and as long as the reviewer posted their reasons then it should be accepted. I'll stand by that but I am at a loss as to how the score of 8.7 was arrived at. Does the fact that game released stable mean an automatic 6, or something? Shouldn't that be expected? I guess what I am saying is that I'm unsure how the points explained reflect upon the final score.
I looked at review scores for all the MMOs that this site have done and it makes a lot more sense with that comparison. Very few games get a poor score here. Over 50% of games or expansions reviewed by mmorpg.com have got 7.0 or greater, including such oft-claimed masterpieces (take that as you like) as Age of Conan, Aion and PixieHollow (??). It makes the score of 8.7 seem only just above average, and more justified, to me. If all games are getting such great reviews from a MMO centered website then I fear for the future of MMOs. They may aswell keep making Rifts if they're guaranteed praise despite the negatives.
All in all it does justify looking at a lot of reviews for any game and always trying to play a demo. It's something I always look to do. I really think magazine reviews are a lot less favourable to games than website based reviews are. I'm eagerly awaiting the UK PC Gamer review of Rift on April 13th.
So far for me game is the best thing that has happened in gaming industry since release of wow. Loved also war, aoc .... but were plagued to much by months and months of constant problems, lag, .... etc. And still are, mainly War. Rift, besides having impressive graphics, lovely quests (if you do NOT READ at all quests, please do not complain, begone), .... is lag free on max settings and so far (up to lv. 25 as im altholic no one of my alts is past 25) nearly bug free. Small and not anyoing bugs.
And about complaining about "all seen, nothing new". Car maker has produced great looking car, no service required, ... all great ... but - how terrible - he is using WHEELS!! Can you immagine??? Every car in past had whells! They should invent something "new"! They are bad, bad, bad, ... ueeee .. ueee.... Of course :-) needed at end but such utterly stupid complaints make me more :-(.
Good review and i agree with it. And i really looking forward to a bright future for this game! Already this polished, just imagine how it will be in a couple of years.
Looking at MMO and the state they were in at launch. Rifts is miles ahead in play style, end game content, char builds and I dont care what they said about crafting its worth doing because items you make are always better then what you get from questing. I am always wearing armor I can use and my jeweler is the same. I think this MMO will be around for a long time.
The review seems solid, but the final score seems too much. I agree with others, it seems that its almost impossible for a MMO to not score good anymore.
I think that FFXIV, STO, Earthrise and APB proved differently, and that's within the last year.
Not everyone is burnt out on certain traditional MMO features, not everyone needs huge doses of innovation to get their MMO fix. If an MMORPG is solid, has a good production value and quality and as a result is very enjoyable to quite a number of MMO gamers, then I don't see why it shouldn't get a high grade just because it isn't innovative enough for some.
My point was that the list of Cons dont fit in a game that scores a 8.7 :
Final Score
8.7
Great
Pros
Ascended Soul system
Beautiful sounds & visuals
Highly polished
Massive rift invasions
Open grouping
Cons
Bland crafting
Only two leveling paths
PvP imbalance
Same old questing
Tedious solo play
Compare the pros with cons. Cons basically says, boring crafting, imbalanced PVP (enough to make the Cons list), boring solo play, only 2 leveling paths (= lack of replayability).
You can forget the same old questing comment, because these cons alone are already quite serious on their own.
Then look at the Pros : Beautifull graphics, highly polished, open grouping (that is minor), massive rift invasions, ascended soul system.
So yeah, I can understand the cynical remarks of posters if they say that Rift received a 8.7 because its polished.
I can understand that a review would always be subjective to some extent, but at least a reviewer on a website like this should try to keep other players in mind with reviewing. Unbalanced PVP, boring solo play , lack of replayability are serious cons, even if the reviewer doesnt care about them himself. Its as if the pros/cons list if for others and the score for himself.
I agree with the review and rating, but as most ratings go, the criteria that is used to determine the score is somewhat vague. The only area Rift really lacks to me is innovation, although they have a solid framework to build upon with Rifts and World Events. I have loved Rift since beta and am lovin' it in release.
Simply placing a disclaimer saying its not based upon the changes in 1.1 is completely unsatisfactory. The changes are dramatic, and it no longer plays as reviewed.
Now nerfs, tweaks, etc happen, but I have never seen a game change so much because of them (other than SWG). On the server I play level 50 chat is now all but dead, groups aren't forming, and the attitude of the community has changed for the worse.
Simply placing a disclaimer saying its not based upon the changes in 1.1 is completely unsatisfactory. The changes are dramatic, and it no longer plays as reviewed.
Now nerfs, tweaks, etc happen, but I have never seen a game change so much because of them (other than SWG). On the server I play level 50 chat is now all but dead, groups aren't forming, and the attitude of the community has changed for the worse.
For now this game isn't worth playing.
Omg, Trion pulled an NGE because they balanced warriors to be closer in line with the other classes/souls!
Simply placing a disclaimer saying its not based upon the changes in 1.1 is completely unsatisfactory. The changes are dramatic, and it no longer plays as reviewed.
Now nerfs, tweaks, etc happen, but I have never seen a game change so much because of them (other than SWG). On the server I play level 50 chat is now all but dead, groups aren't forming, and the attitude of the community has changed for the worse.
For now this game isn't worth playing.
Omg, Trion pulled an NGE because they balanced warriors to be closer in line with the other classes/souls!
It's April 1st but seriously ....
Warrior's needed a balance review. Whether it went to far isn't the issue, its the affect ALL the changes in 1.1 has had. The game doesn't play the same anymore, mostly because its changed the community scene.
The soul system is now pretty much useless, which is one of my personal complaints. As the classes changed (i.e. Rogue and Warrior) are now pigeon holed.
It is also nowhere close to the amount of changes SOE did with the NGE, but as I said I've never seen a game change so much, so quickly, other for there.
Why even bother have a scale from 1-10 if the games you rate are always 7 or better. Personally I feel Rift is a good game if someone has never experienced an MMORPG before, with that said, Rift has quite a few short comings that I think many veteran players will agree either gives the game to much of a "been there - done that" feel or completely misses the boat. In my opinion, based on my experience with the game, I see it only rating a 6.5 at best.
totally agree. I never comment on reviews but I had to in the case of RIFT. With this insanely high score for RIFT I have lost my faith in MMORPG's reviews.
Once again mmorpg.com does it. Review a game based on short term enjoyment, like a single player game, rather than long term. MMORPGs are not single player games and they come with more fees, i.e. the subscription fee, and as such should be reviewed on the basis if the game is worth the subscription fee on top of the one time cost.
"I am having fun right now." is simply not enough. The question to be asked is:
"Will I have fun 3-4 months down the road so to warrant the monthly subscription fee?"
And for me the answer is simply no. Even casuals will cap this game in one or two months and then have to make due with the end game content which for sure wont last more than a month at most.
More over, the reviewer admits that he hasnt even got close to the end game so in fact this "review" is a preview/first impression article. It is like watching the first hour of a movie and write a review on that.
Right right, warriors got pigeon holed because now they do damage in line with other dps classes* instead of face rolling? Please, go to your talent calculator, make some adjustments and see how far you are actually behind instead of how far you actually perceive you are.
*Pyro mages excluding. But then again, when pyros get inevitably toned down and we hear the same moaning from mages, should we take it any more seriously than the warrior whining?
Once again mmorpg.com does it. Review a game based on short term enjoyment, like a single player game, rather than long term. MMORPGs are not single player games and they come with more fees, i.e. the subscription fee, and as such should be reviewed on the basis if the game is worth the subscription fee on top of the one time cost.
"I am having fun right now." is simply not enough. The question to be asked is:
"Will I have fun 3-4 months down the road so to warrant the monthly subscription fee?"
And for me the answer is simply no. Even casuals will cap this game in one or two months and then have to make due with the end game content which for sure wont last more than a month at most.
For you perhaps, the reviewers have a different opinion. The subscribers in the end may get in line with either your opinion or the reviewerers opinion. April 4th is just 3 days away and we'll see (or won't I suppose) the retention rate of the game after the first month.
Right right, warriors got pigeon holed because now they do damage in line with other dps classes* instead of face rolling? Please, go to your talent calculator, make some adjustments and see how far you are actually behind instead of how far you actually perceive you are.
*Pyro mages excluding. But then again, when pyros get inevitably toned down and we hear the same moaning from mages, should we take it any more seriously than the warrior whining?
No, they're being pigeon holed because to reach the dps of other classes, they have become heavily restricted in build. While having less utility and variance than other classes, due to having to sacrifice skill point assignments, and picking key souls.
Balancing does not mean everyone should do the same level of DPS. If they want that to be the case, then all classes should have all functions (i.e. tank/mage/healer/controller), at the same level. So to have true balance they might as well remove all the souls and just have one build, as that's the only way they'll be able to balance PvP.
Trying to balance a PvE focused game on PvP NEVER works.
Thousands of users/players have scored Rift a 8.64 so the 8.7 seems reasonable to me.
Rift is a great game. Not groundbreaking, but fun, polished, and has some fresh new ideas that can and likely will be expanded upon as the game matures.
I'm having a blast and don't see any reason why I won't be having fun playing Rift for a long time to come.
Fair review, and spot on to what my experience has been.
Here is my "pinch point".....the expectations of the "current average MMO player"
As a gamer that got into MMORPG games in the days of Ultima Online (because I wasn't getting what I needed in casual console games), I LIKE the tried and true fantasy trope of MMORPGs. I LIKE a highlight + click + use skill / spell combat system. I LIKE 3rd person view character control and camera angles.
In the Rift review, the author slams Trion for Rift's solo experience being bland and boring....as if it were an area that Rift could improve upon to make his solo gaming experience better.
THIS IS A MMORPG! There are several aspects of MMORPGs that make them unique to other game genere's.....which many of players appreicate. If your solo experience in a game geared for group play is boring, then I suggest finding your gaming entertainment in one of the many game generes that are suited for more casual gaming requirments. Its fustrating as a gamer who left casual gaming because I wanted something more challenging and deep, only to have all the casuals jump the fence and start trying to remake MMORPGs into the image of FPS games or single player RPG experiences.
For arguments sake, lets go ahead and embrace the big tent theory on MMORPG gaming (stuff to do for all kinds).....how do you think improving solo play would effect the attractiveness of grouping? WOW is your perfect example. They made soloing (atleast at early levels) the most attractive and lucrative method of leveling...to the point where the community at large needed an automated group generator w/ instant teleporting to and from the dungeon just to improve group play prior to endgame content. For a MMORPG, thats sort of sad. And for a MMORPG to get a ding on its rating because its solo content isn't as fun as the group experience is......thats sort of sad too.
Comments
What games have you been playing? I have a hard time thinking of AAA titles relesed over the last 5-7 years with such a limited starting area / questing path AT LAUNCH than RIFT. Aion is one that I can think of though, I'll give you that one.
I don't mind the lack of originality so much as I do the fact that most of the features that people bash RIFT as generic for are NOT done better than games released 7 years ago. Want to be generic, that's ok, but at least make the generic game features BETTER than older mmo's. I think RIFT completely fails at this.
1. Questing - same as, or worse, depending on what mmo you compare it to.
2. Crafting - same as, or worse, depending on what mmo you compare it to.
3. Amount of starting areas - Worse
4. Race selection / originality / number of options - Worse
5. End game - same as (gear grind through raiding or pvp)
6. Achievements - same as, STILL just a point system with no sort of rewards.
7. Housing - Worse, non existent and unlikely to ever be in game.
8. Reputation - same as (reputation grinding)
9. Cities - Worse (lack of at all and non impressive size. Very much lacks an awe factor)
10. Lore - Same as (seriously, what an unoriginal story)
I think that's enough to get my point across. I love the actual rift's and invasions, they are definitely fun. But MAN what a drag the rest of it all is.
I agree with the guy saying, that a different rating might make sense. For example, and I'm just guessing here since I just played the beta, for Rift you could do it like this:
solo-play: 5
small group: 7
raid: 7
crafting: 4
audio & graphics: 8
polish: 9
pvp: 6
presentation: 4
replayability: 3
community: 7
overall impression: 7
Or something like that. As said, the numbers are mostly guesses, but such a rating system would really give more useful information.
Let's play Fallen Earth (blind, 300 episodes)
Let's play Guild Wars 2 (blind, 45 episodes)
There is only one leveling path, each faction has one, you can’t count that as two.
Questing is always going to seem the same, how is that a Con?
What MMO truely has PvP balance? You can say DAOC had better faction grounds but did it have better balance?
For me the game would be an 8.0, but then every grading a game gets is inflated just like movies on release. Rift is a soild game which definatly deserves a go.
It's a well written and well judged review of Rift that Bill has written here, but I do find myself wondering how he has come to a score of 8.7. It's Bill's opionion and I'll accept that, but it's fairly clear his list of pros are not so seriously outweighing the cons to justify a score of 8.7, even if he does go into a lot of detail to back up his feelings. It makes me wonder what an amazing game that does everything would get. It would have to be a guaranteed 10 on this system.
I do get the opinion from a lot of talk on Rift that people feel they need to justify the game in context with other MMOs. Statements such as 'I guess that could be said of many MMOs' seems to crop up alot, and have done here. It just appears to be the reviewer saying that he or she knows it's not great, but it's the same everywhere, right? I don't know, is it?
The long and short of it is that Rift has gotten 8.7 on the basis of three facts. That it looks great (which means Guild Wars 2 - judging by current screenshots and videos - should start at the same level - we'll see), that it has something different in the form of dynamic content (Guild Wars2 again?) and the what I admit is a very interesting class system. Of course the truth about the class system that is not even hinted at is that it's wasted in a game that caters so little to tactical grouping and so greatly to going it alone. I actually fail to understand how so many people can say that Rift changes the social aspect of MMOs. There's no close grouping, but a mass of people all after the same goals. I also don't understand this review saying that Rift's solo gameplay is so tedious when the game focuses so heavily on letting everyone manage by themselves. Wasn't the open group system only added after players complained they never felt that grouping was commonplace, hence people were content to solo. Now group play in Rift is lauded upon and the review score reflects what?
If the questing has been totally mind-blowing, the levelling paths more than two, the crafting on a whole new level and all the little niggles sorted then would Rift have had to be a 10? I find it strange that somewhat big things like these can damage the score by only 1.3. The lack of replayability, that seems to be a big concern of both Bill and the second opinion, must have been tossed aside.
When Bill posted his reviews methods a few days back I replied that a review score was personal and as long as the reviewer posted their reasons then it should be accepted. I'll stand by that but I am at a loss as to how the score of 8.7 was arrived at. Does the fact that game released stable mean an automatic 6, or something? Shouldn't that be expected? I guess what I am saying is that I'm unsure how the points explained reflect upon the final score.
I looked at review scores for all the MMOs that this site have done and it makes a lot more sense with that comparison. Very few games get a poor score here. Over 50% of games or expansions reviewed by mmorpg.com have got 7.0 or greater, including such oft-claimed masterpieces (take that as you like) as Age of Conan, Aion and PixieHollow (??). It makes the score of 8.7 seem only just above average, and more justified, to me. If all games are getting such great reviews from a MMO centered website then I fear for the future of MMOs. They may aswell keep making Rifts if they're guaranteed praise despite the negatives.
All in all it does justify looking at a lot of reviews for any game and always trying to play a demo. It's something I always look to do. I really think magazine reviews are a lot less favourable to games than website based reviews are. I'm eagerly awaiting the UK PC Gamer review of Rift on April 13th.
.
Very well written feedback!
(if just we could highlight the best feedbacks, so it is more easy to navigate a long thread like this!)
8.7 ? What a load of crap.
Try 7.0
So far for me game is the best thing that has happened in gaming industry since release of wow. Loved also war, aoc .... but were plagued to much by months and months of constant problems, lag, .... etc. And still are, mainly War. Rift, besides having impressive graphics, lovely quests (if you do NOT READ at all quests, please do not complain, begone), .... is lag free on max settings and so far (up to lv. 25 as im altholic no one of my alts is past 25) nearly bug free. Small and not anyoing bugs.
And about complaining about "all seen, nothing new". Car maker has produced great looking car, no service required, ... all great ... but - how terrible - he is using WHEELS!! Can you immagine??? Every car in past had whells! They should invent something "new"! They are bad, bad, bad, ... ueeee .. ueee.... Of course :-) needed at end but such utterly stupid complaints make me more :-(.
Good review and i agree with it. And i really looking forward to a bright future for this game! Already this polished, just imagine how it will be in a couple of years.
Looking at MMO and the state they were in at launch. Rifts is miles ahead in play style, end game content, char builds and I dont care what they said about crafting its worth doing because items you make are always better then what you get from questing. I am always wearing armor I can use and my jeweler is the same. I think this MMO will be around for a long time.
My point was that the list of Cons dont fit in a game that scores a 8.7 :
Final Score
8.7
Great
Pros
Cons
Compare the pros with cons. Cons basically says, boring crafting, imbalanced PVP (enough to make the Cons list), boring solo play, only 2 leveling paths (= lack of replayability).
You can forget the same old questing comment, because these cons alone are already quite serious on their own.
Then look at the Pros : Beautifull graphics, highly polished, open grouping (that is minor), massive rift invasions, ascended soul system.
So yeah, I can understand the cynical remarks of posters if they say that Rift received a 8.7 because its polished.
I can understand that a review would always be subjective to some extent, but at least a reviewer on a website like this should try to keep other players in mind with reviewing. Unbalanced PVP, boring solo play , lack of replayability are serious cons, even if the reviewer doesnt care about them himself. Its as if the pros/cons list if for others and the score for himself.
I agree with the review and rating, but as most ratings go, the criteria that is used to determine the score is somewhat vague. The only area Rift really lacks to me is innovation, although they have a solid framework to build upon with Rifts and World Events. I have loved Rift since beta and am lovin' it in release.
challenge accepted.
i give it an 8.7
Games i'm playing right now...
"In short, I thought NGE was a very bad idea" - Raph Koster talking about NGE on his blog at raphkoster.com
This review should be pulled.
Simply placing a disclaimer saying its not based upon the changes in 1.1 is completely unsatisfactory. The changes are dramatic, and it no longer plays as reviewed.
Now nerfs, tweaks, etc happen, but I have never seen a game change so much because of them (other than SWG). On the server I play level 50 chat is now all but dead, groups aren't forming, and the attitude of the community has changed for the worse.
For now this game isn't worth playing.
Omg, Trion pulled an NGE because they balanced warriors to be closer in line with the other classes/souls!
It's April 1st but seriously ....
Warrior's needed a balance review. Whether it went to far isn't the issue, its the affect ALL the changes in 1.1 has had. The game doesn't play the same anymore, mostly because its changed the community scene.
The soul system is now pretty much useless, which is one of my personal complaints. As the classes changed (i.e. Rogue and Warrior) are now pigeon holed.
It is also nowhere close to the amount of changes SOE did with the NGE, but as I said I've never seen a game change so much, so quickly, other for there.
totally agree. I never comment on reviews but I had to in the case of RIFT. With this insanely high score for RIFT I have lost my faith in MMORPG's reviews.
Once again mmorpg.com does it. Review a game based on short term enjoyment, like a single player game, rather than long term. MMORPGs are not single player games and they come with more fees, i.e. the subscription fee, and as such should be reviewed on the basis if the game is worth the subscription fee on top of the one time cost.
"I am having fun right now." is simply not enough. The question to be asked is:
"Will I have fun 3-4 months down the road so to warrant the monthly subscription fee?"
And for me the answer is simply no. Even casuals will cap this game in one or two months and then have to make due with the end game content which for sure wont last more than a month at most.
More over, the reviewer admits that he hasnt even got close to the end game so in fact this "review" is a preview/first impression article. It is like watching the first hour of a movie and write a review on that.
My gaming blog
Right right, warriors got pigeon holed because now they do damage in line with other dps classes* instead of face rolling? Please, go to your talent calculator, make some adjustments and see how far you are actually behind instead of how far you actually perceive you are.
*Pyro mages excluding. But then again, when pyros get inevitably toned down and we hear the same moaning from mages, should we take it any more seriously than the warrior whining?
For you perhaps, the reviewers have a different opinion. The subscribers in the end may get in line with either your opinion or the reviewerers opinion. April 4th is just 3 days away and we'll see (or won't I suppose) the retention rate of the game after the first month.
No, they're being pigeon holed because to reach the dps of other classes, they have become heavily restricted in build. While having less utility and variance than other classes, due to having to sacrifice skill point assignments, and picking key souls.
Balancing does not mean everyone should do the same level of DPS. If they want that to be the case, then all classes should have all functions (i.e. tank/mage/healer/controller), at the same level. So to have true balance they might as well remove all the souls and just have one build, as that's the only way they'll be able to balance PvP.
Trying to balance a PvE focused game on PvP NEVER works.
8.7?! overrated, 8.0 tops.
Guild Wars 2 Youtube Croatian Maniacs
My Guild Wars titles
Thousands of users/players have scored Rift a 8.64 so the 8.7 seems reasonable to me.
Rift is a great game. Not groundbreaking, but fun, polished, and has some fresh new ideas that can and likely will be expanded upon as the game matures.
I'm having a blast and don't see any reason why I won't be having fun playing Rift for a long time to come.
Lol @ 8.7. It hardly hits 7
Fair review, and spot on to what my experience has been.
Here is my "pinch point".....the expectations of the "current average MMO player"
As a gamer that got into MMORPG games in the days of Ultima Online (because I wasn't getting what I needed in casual console games), I LIKE the tried and true fantasy trope of MMORPGs. I LIKE a highlight + click + use skill / spell combat system. I LIKE 3rd person view character control and camera angles.
In the Rift review, the author slams Trion for Rift's solo experience being bland and boring....as if it were an area that Rift could improve upon to make his solo gaming experience better.
THIS IS A MMORPG! There are several aspects of MMORPGs that make them unique to other game genere's.....which many of players appreicate. If your solo experience in a game geared for group play is boring, then I suggest finding your gaming entertainment in one of the many game generes that are suited for more casual gaming requirments. Its fustrating as a gamer who left casual gaming because I wanted something more challenging and deep, only to have all the casuals jump the fence and start trying to remake MMORPGs into the image of FPS games or single player RPG experiences.
For arguments sake, lets go ahead and embrace the big tent theory on MMORPG gaming (stuff to do for all kinds).....how do you think improving solo play would effect the attractiveness of grouping? WOW is your perfect example. They made soloing (atleast at early levels) the most attractive and lucrative method of leveling...to the point where the community at large needed an automated group generator w/ instant teleporting to and from the dungeon just to improve group play prior to endgame content. For a MMORPG, thats sort of sad. And for a MMORPG to get a ding on its rating because its solo content isn't as fun as the group experience is......thats sort of sad too.