Home › Game Forums › Rift
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
How on earth did this site give rift an 8.7/10?
xx19kilosold
Member Posts: 209
in Rift
I does not deserve that high of a score when compared to how this site rates other games.
Credibility of MMORPG.com continues to wither away.
Comments
Well, metacritic gave Rift an average score of 8.4 based upon 46 reviews, so I'm not sure how mmorpg.com is that much out of order compared with that. Seems close enough to the averages.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
The score is fine. I just think a few new categories might need to be added, to apply more toward MMORPGs. Like a Longevity Category. How long will it last a player. Maybe an Immersion Category(no, RP isn't the same thing) as well.
Rift got an 8 - 9 score around the internet. Not just MMORPG.com. Gradually the hype is falling and people are becoming as disappointed in RIFT as they are in everything else.
Spec'ing properly is a gateway drug.
12 Million People have been meter spammed in heroics.
You guys are missing my point. I dont care about meta critic.
What blows my mind that Rift is the best game in the market according to MMORPG ratings. No game has gotten that high of a score from this site.
Rift is not a bad game game, but there is zero chance its the best MMO on the market.
OMG, I hear you! 8.7! It should be higher.
Well I think it is possibly the best new game that has hit in a very long time. Quite possibly the best on the market right now yes i can see that .. compared to ...what? The market is crap right now.
then what is the best game on the market?
all the other mmorpg fall hard on their face after this first few month(sother then wow) only rift look like its going to last until the next new mmorpg.
Considering its been the most complete MMO to be released in the last 5 years, I would say people are just shocked that it wasn't a bug infested trainwreck like all other releases.
I second that.
The big, BIG mistake that MMO reviewers make is to treat and review them like singleplayer games.
They're not.
It's all good to write a review about a singleplayer game for how it is in the first 30 hours or so. But with MMO's that is just the tiniest beginning, playtime of an MMORPG often rating in the many hundreds of hours.
Also, in contrast to singleplayer game, MMO gameplay can change drastically from midlevel onwards to level cap.
DCUO leveling can be great fun, but if endgame content is lacking in amount or variety, then it's still a miss.
Aion might be fun in the early levels, but when the midlevel experience is becoming more and more of a merciless grind, then the fun gets leaked away pretty fast.
Take any MMO, the leveling might be fun but if the endgame is not or lacking content, then that's a major issue for an MMORPG.
I think longevity should be added and one of the most important categories: MMO's are often bought with an eye on playing them for many months to sometimes even years. That's why how the gameplay after the first month or 2 is, becomes very important.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
You can't add 'longevity' as part of an MMO review. You review what's available not what content may or may not be available in the future.
Adding another layer of subjectivety to the review process will produce inconsistent results.
Lets stop and consider what the score was based on
For the purposes of this review I purchased my own digital copy from Trion, but they were kind enough to grant me Digital Collector’s Edition status to get the ugly as can be turtle mount. I played well into my 20s on my Defiant Cleric on a PvP server, and into my teens as a Guardian Cleric on a PvE server.
And thats how MMORPG.com came to the conclution that the game was worth 8.7... 30 hours of gameplay - Until the the character got to lvl 20...
Enough said.
im not sure a game that scores 0 at being original should ever go over 5.0 overall.
i mean its like giving a sims expansion a good rating.
completely illogical.
That's why i think MMO reviewers should do a second review after 2-3 months, because then they'll most probably have experienced all the available gameplay options and features, but also gotten an impression how they gel together.
Not that this will ever happen - it'd mean that a professional reviewer would have to spend 150 hours and more in an MMO - but reviewing an MMORPG based upon the first 30-40 hours has obvious limitations, it often won't be fully representative if at all for the gameplay after the first 100 hours or so.
The thing is though, that players decide whether they stay in an MMORPG, subbed and all, based upon how the gameplay is after the first 100-150 hours, and counting.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
It seems like any well polished game automatically gets at least an 8.0.
Honestly, as sad as it sounds, Rift is better than most of the games on this site.
It's a pretty decent game, if you compare it to other releases of the past couple of years.
As others said, compare it to other releases heck of the past two years.
The majority of those releases promised many cool features but did not deliver or axed them out for a later time to add it. Rift has mentioned many things and has delivered in the majority of them.
The vast majority of those releases promised good endgame but when players hit cap there was nothing to do. Rift started out with endgame and even a raid. Heck wow did not have endgame when it came out., it was upper black rock spire which was considered endgame.
Rift was running very smooth in beta and had little to no bugs on release. Tell me another game (Aion does not count since it was released more than a year before it hit the usa so the majority of the bugs were squashed) that has released almost bug free.?
Many games that were released (not all) in the past two years had horrible starts, problems on launchday ect. Rift came out as smoothe as a hot knife cutting butter.
Rift did improve some of the ole stuff we have already seen and was well polished out.
Dispite that i do not play it (i love my wow will die with it) Even I have to admit the score given was proper. It has been years since we seen a good mmoprg release and rift well deserves it score.
End game is sad in Rift at this point.
PvP is in even worse shape.
All the shinny "not in Azeroth anymore" is eroding away quickly to reveal all the warts.
This site got all crazt on the AION bandwagon as well giving it the highest score on the site up til that point.
My beef is not with Rift, its a top 1/3 MMO, but its not the best MMO to EVER come out and thats what MMORPG.com is trying to say.
{mod edit}
In the end, the ratings and hype feature this site has is essentially the exact same thing, when you play a game like Rift, in all it's newfound glory, you are already trying to take in the first breath, and your own professional opinion becomes biased pretty quick, I mean look at Guildwars 2 with a 8.72 rating, it's been that way since it was announced.
The title literally gave it 8.72.
In the end no matter how many games you have reviewed or how many games you've played, you will still return to the raw excitement which you get from holding something you're about to play, every first review is biased, it's only when you have something newer to compare to that the review has any more weight.
EDIT: don't get me wrong I do understand the difference between the Hype feature (people voting how much they want the game, unique id's vote) and Rating (a single reviewer takes the a day or two to rate it) but the biased view is the same on both.
Trion has proven that they are very good at marketting.
Apparently this also extends to giving reviewers free content. +1 to Trion.
If the red is true though, the review should be a "Rift up until level 25-ish" review, not the entire game. Endgame is apparently where the most issues come into play.
.. But in a good way.
The quality of a MMO is not judged on few hours played. It is mesured over long period of time - weeks - and months. Neither is it based on the raiting of 1 player over that period but the period of alot of players.
The quality of a MMO is also based on the reactions to certain issues that rise - and how the overall content progress is from a development standpoint.
At this point... RIFT is standing pretty much in exactly the same place that games like WARHAMMER and AOC were standing 1 month into launch. The issues were staring to show and some were beeing resolved while others were not.
At this point - I see the developers of RIFT be going the exact same way that WARHAMMER devs went. THey ignored alot of the issues for way to long.
RIFT had HUGE issues at launch... there were HUGE hacking issues - both on accounts AND (into the server frame that TRION has manged to keep quiet. There are huge server populations issues. Nothing is beeing done about it. The first event they did was a Massive letdown for alot of players. THere is huge imbalance in PVP content. Souls are far from balanced and tweaks are needed fast. There are serious exploids beeing discovered like the falling throught the map ones in PVP.
RIft will be judged over the next year. Atm we are seeing more and more ppl posting the real state of the game. And the picture isn't always as perfect as the devs would like to paint it.
DOnt forget that WAR launched a huge content patch 8 months after release. Then nothing was added for 2 years and ofc it killed the game.
RIFT could go exactly the same route. Now the devs need to tackle the REAL issues the game has - and it has to happen in next 1-2 months.
Its taken directly from the MMORPG.COM review
Sorta funny that Mr WOOD then comes out with an article like this one
OFC we will see unfinshed games with alot of issues when a reviewer give it 8,7 after 30 hours doing less than half of the leveling content.
QFT!
So to address a few comments I've seen.
1. Rift launch is nothing like Warhammer launch and I'm so sick of people saying this that I want to throw up. WAR was unplayable. Maybe WAR would have had hacking issues if people could actually play it. WAR and AoC saw their active subscriberships drop in half in the first 2 months. Rift is now almost two months post launch and the vast majority of servers were FULL on Saturday. Please, please spare us your very short memories and stop comparing Rift's launch to WAR's.
2. To the notion that lack of originality means it doesn't deserve a good score, are you trying to tell me that WoW deserves a 5 while Xsyon deserves better? Really? And I'm not knocking Xsyon at all. I'm just saying that as of launch, it didn't deserve much.
3. To the op's original statements. Rift is not the #1 reviewed game on mmorpg.com. It is the #1 game in terms of reader's rating among released games. The highest review score belongs to WotLK, followed by CoH Architect, Apocrypha, Aion, and finally Rift. Personally I would not agree with any except WotLK. After Rift is AoC, Pixie Hollow, and WAR which land above DAoC and EVE, which makes absolutely no sence to me but then I wasn't asked to write the reviews.
I was pleasantly surprised when I went from Apprentice to full 5 star Elite in under 2 months. I was pleasantly surprised again when I went from Elite to just barely Hardcore in 2 weeks. Apprentice, here I come!
FIrst off - Saying that full servers Saturday means the game has healthy populations is simply not true.
There are alot of post pointing out that the main reason why there were server Qs is because TRION lowered the number of players that were allowed on to the server.
This was so obvoius on the servers that crahsed - cause the players that were online at the time of the crash - all of a sudden had 8 hours waiting time when they tried to log in again.
Secondly - I Played WARHAMMER at launch - It was playable. It wasn't perfect but it still got 8.4 on MMORPG.COM. But if thats the case.. then it sorta proofs the point that 8.7 score for RIFT is pretty much exactly the same quality for lower level content as WARHAMER was getting at the time.
And you mister said WARHAMMER was unplayable. Not me. I would not have given it 8,4 tho... like MMORPG.COM did.. but that exactly the question that OP asked about RIFT ? How on earth.... ?
IM pretty sure you would have asked "How on earth could Warhammer online get 8.4?" But you are looking back 2 years. We are wondering how MMORPG.COM gave RIFT 8,7 based on 30 hours played and 2 characters up to 15-20s?
Users here, who regularly shit on every game that comes out, have given this game an 8.5... This site, being more objective, educated, and experienced, gave it an 8.7... very little difference, and seems to be right on target. The fact that it's very close to Metacritic simply reinforces this.
Sure, you hate the game. Fine. It's not what you want out of a game. Fine. That doesn't make it a bad game, just not the right game for you. You, and those like you, are simply in the minority.