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
Why does RIFT feel lacking? Could it be you?
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
Well said I agree. I never intended this thread to be, you all are stupid and should all like RIFT. This thread is indeed entertainment and I worded my original post to be provocative to get a disussion started because it is fun to talk about games. I do not and never thought RIFT is the best MMO ever made. It is good and I feel if players stop playing all MMOs as console games to win they would have more fun. I do feel RIFT is a lot better then many here at MMORPG.com claim. Greenknight7 is correct it is indeed subjective.
Anytime a game I'm paying $15/month tells me to "use my imagination" because their content is boring and doesn't draw me in, that's when I leave it.
Hitting 50 and doing nothing but raiding with lackluster PvP isn't my idea of fun, and I don't know how to stretch that out for imagination's sake. Maybe the first 50 times in dungeons I could use my imagination but with 3 50s there isn't that much Johnny Five year old imagining around.
Sorry
Yesterday you lectured me on reading comprehension. Guess you need to use your own advice since you took 'imagination of kid' completely out of context. Paying 15 bucks a month got nothing to do with enjoying a game with enthusiasm and excitement of a kid. that is what OPis trying to say.
I have no idea what you mean here, sorry.
"TO MICHAEL!"
If WoW was small at launch and Telara is roughly the size of Kalimdor what does that say about Rift's size?
No, MMORPGS are not 'bigger and better'. For one, they are less ambitious. Rift definitely played it safe staying *very* close to WoW's established formula. It also has nowhere near the immersion and soul of many previous titles.
EQ1 had deeper group mechanics than WoW, Rift, Lotro, etc. DAoC had better PvP. AC had better character building. The only thing that is better is graphics, and, to me, art style is FAR more important than graphics.
Bigger isnt subjective, we know Rift is a very small game, even now. Better is very subjective, but most MMORPG gamers will say the titles were better before 2005. EQ1/DAoC/AC/UO is still the golden age of the genre for most people. Those games were bigger and better.
You guys call it a small game, but as any WoW player will tell you right now the only thing to do at end game is Firelands and Arena. Take away all the content that they completely negated and you get a very small end game.
While Rift on the other hand istead of having to go back 7 years later uses assets they have now. I mean come on people we can not have it both ways. You tell devs to use what they have and then you tell devs that every new thing has to be some big world, but you better make it always useful.
The title of this thread is unbelievably correct that people have no clue what they want. Look at the world size of Guild Wars. Where are the gloom and doom prohphecies there? It is not about the size, but how you use it and if it can keep the player engaged.
I'll tell you my biggest concern about ToR right this minute after launch. 17 worlds and maybe 2 will be active 3 months after launch not because new people are not starting, but because in ToR you kill the NPC the NPC does not try and come find you and kill you.
Go afk in a Rift quest hub and tell me what happens. I bet that will apply to GW2 also. This dead world stuff is BORING and gets ungodly repetitive. I played WoW long enough to get sick and tired of it. New content..get gear..sit around with nothing to do until the next patch.
I would prefer Trion attempt to keep the world small and use every single inch of landscape for content before adding more pointless land mass onto the game. Seriously who goes to outlands or northrend in WoW anymore? When everything that involves those two land masses is figuring out ways to rush people out of it you failed.
TL'DR: Huge land and zones are pointless if they are dead
Correction, EQ is the established formula. WoW didn't design the gamepay they used, they took it directly from EQ. I don't understand why people who are familliar with the first MMO's refer to the "WoW formula"
On the surface, UO plays just like every other MMO. You have a hotbar, you put abilities in it, and you click the coresponding button to execute the ability. Slight variations don't change what it is. Not to mention, this formula of gameplay existed before MMO's. They're all variations of single player RPG's that were made prior to the internet.
No one calls Dragon Age a WoW clone, or critisizes them for using "the WoW formula". It plays exactly like WoW though, only you control a couple of pets.
Baldurs gate plays exactly like WoW, and that game came out well before WoW, and isn't an MMO.
WoW didn't establish anything other then one of the largest player bases in the MMO genre. Everything about WoW, as well as just about every other MMO, is taken from RPG's made years and even decades before them.
I grabbed a cheap copy of Rift to have something to do before TOR comes out and i have to say that most of the "wrong" things about Rift people are mentioning is indeed true. I'm 29 now, and i couldn't help but notice that:
-The quests are very repetitive and generic. Kill X, Bring X, Talk to X, Get X. I tried to get into them, tried to read the quest logs and the conversation entirely, but they're just not interesting.
-Telara, even though it's very pretty it seems just lifeless.
-Not much variety when it comes to races. 2 different humans, 2 different elves, dwarves and draenei's without goat legs.
-Even though it tries very hard, the game simply doesn't have this sense of urgency like for example Warhammer did. Despite it's many flaws, WAR was an amazing game when it comes to atmosphere and the epic feeling of war. Rift however for some unexplainable reason is very lacking in this department and it had such huge potential to be something amazing. The whole concept of watching the world burn to ashes, just to go back in time to warn everyone and stop Regulos is just epic. However, the second you step through that time machine, that sense of impending doom just goes away. You simply don't feel like the world is really ending.
I'm a dude. I do stuff.
Well to the poster above me,i know exactly what i want in a game and it is something close to the original FFXI.I want a challenging group game ,i do not care about end game ever and i don't want easy handouts.
I did notice right away that Rift maps were very small,this is how they got away with a bit of the animation/action on the maps.It wasn't a big deal to me ,but it didn't make me think good job either.The maps as they were done being smallish were done pretty good so no complaints there.
I do not and have never thought Rift is a bad game in any fashion but from my stand point it cannot give me what i got from FFXI.FFXI did so many things better than all other games including content outside the norm that they themselves used up all their ideas.Even rifts and invasions i already did the same design in FFXI's Campaigns/Beseiged.
I like to feel some sense of accomplishment when i build my player with several skills and options,but in Rift i was literally handed far too many options too easily.I felt no satisfaction and no immersion within the game at all,even the questing system just felt generic.In FFXI it was part of a nation rank system so it had more depth than these other games do quests.In FFXI you knew where to go to be immersed in the story line,it was in Missions,but other games i feel lost like there is no true story line,just a mess of quests.
It is of course the developers choice on how to build a game,there is something for everyone,well there was but not anymore.When i play a NEW game it has to at least be equal or better than my last,this is not asking too much becaause with ever advancing technology it should be expected.
Perhaps my biggest flaw is that i know exactly what these games can do and i know how much effort most of their ideas took,so i can't be fooled into anything.This really limits me from playing any new game that comes out.I expect a LOT.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
You die to mobs.
You respawn around the corner.
You don't have any death penalty.
You pick up where you left off.
I'm not sure that's anymore epic than traditional games without that. No consequence either way is no consequence.
"TO MICHAEL!"
There's a death penalty, it's just not applied to your gear or xp gain as most every MMO does.
But why would I play Rift, when there's other better game out there ? With better graphic, better combat, better environnement, better class system ? Well... where everything is better ?
If you like to pay for a sub-quality game, ok..
But If I have to pay, I prefer paying for a high quality game.
If you don't like Rift, why would you play it indeed? Why even bother reading a thread about Rift in the Rift General Discussion forum? Why aren't you playing that totally wonderful, better graphics, better combat, better environment and better class system game right now? You don't have to answer. Per normal internet rules, I have made up my own answer based on my own opinions and am now using it as fact.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You're attempting to make a valid point and the second word already makes it wrong. EQ did not invent or create these ideas. EQ s not the established formula. As you go on to say, it was created by others much ealier. In the end, who cares? Aside from fanboy trolls? Just about EVERYTHING in life these days was created by someone else. There is nothing wrong with taking an existing idea, and makin it better (in you eyes). WoW took existing ideas ,and perfected them. YOU may not aree (and most of the trolls on this site won't either) but the HUGE subscription numbers the game has proves otherwise.
Someone should do a magical study on the number of Trolls who flame wow and how many of them actually played it for years and years. Pretty sure a HUGE majority of people here have played it and enjoyed it when they did. No video game is entertaining for 6+ years. The few people who actually continue to play games for so many years (think EQ1 is what 12 years old now?) only do so because they have a dedicated group of friends / guilds. It's more like being on a sports team. Basketball isn't enjoyable by itself for endless years on end. But good teams, fun friends... make all the difference.
You're right. I did kind of contradict myself.
I mean to say that as far MMO's go, EQ is really the first to take what was done in single player games and present it as an MMO. UO went in another direction, and may well be the most original game of it's time; I can't really think of any single player games with that kind of open ended class structure, but it's still using mechanics for gameplay that existed in in single player games.
Meridian 59 used what was being done in the D&D games, with the first person view RPG.
These 3 games defined how MMO's would be made from then on out. While they didn't create the gameplay itself, they kind of set the formula that other MMO's would follow.
You're right, it's rather a contradiction. It's meant to say, MMO's that came after those three, were looking at those three, while those three themselves were looing at what was offered in single player RPG's. It's kind of a strange thing to express without being contradictory.
I don't have any problem with games taking from what's already been done, it's not possible to do otherwise. Everything is simply a variation of an existing design; afterall, there is only so much you can do in a video game. I was actually really suprised at just how much I enjoyed Rfit; best MMO I've played since WoW released.
The easy answer is, because that's all subjective.
No one makes anything expecting everyone to like it. Some people think that the combat in AoC is great, I couldn't stand it; so i don't play it. Nor do i complain that it sucks, it's how the game is, and they aren't going to change it so that I'll enjoy it.
And to say that anything is sub-quality because jus because you don't like it is entirely wrong. I don't like Fiat, I find their cars rather unapealing, that doesn't make them sub-quality, in fact they're very high quality cars.
That's what I mean by no death penalty because it isn't much of a penalty. You can still do anything you want with 90% of your soul 'damaged' in Rift.
I don't fully remember WoW's death penalty but I remember that it caused your gear to degrade and it got expensive to repair. Unlike in Rift where plat is easy to come by and there's nothing to spend it on in the auction house.
"TO MICHAEL!"
WoW systems was mostly made as a anti-inflationary tool. I prefer Rifts system honestly, but that is me. Some people like how Aion did it where if you died in pvp you were heavily penalized. I never saw the point of harsh death penalties.
By the OPs rationale - if I chance across a game I instantly don't like that seems: samey, derivative, repetitive, walled in, transparently limited, unecessary and generally not fun for more than 10 minutes - the default SOLUTION to my obvious error of judgement is to squint my eyes, furrow my brows and pretend it's none of these things simply using my imagination? Man, you should definitely be working for a gaming company PR department, they would love you.
Have you considered the use of mild coercion, subliminal messages and other forms of thought control in this new sales policy? :P
RIFT isn't lacking at all.
Personally, I think it's WoW 2.0 and a bloody good game for it!
The issue with RIFT (and potentially SWTOR and GW2) is that as soon as it launched people were already either:
1. Looking ahead to an as yet unreleased game when RIFT didn't live up to everyone single one of their expectations.
2. Looking back at a game they ploughed hours, days, weeks into (WoW) and has several years of content development behind it and decided RIFT just wasn't different or advanced enough.
I genuinely feel masses of people will be let down by SWTOR and GW2 because there'll always be something more promising on the horizon and they can't bring themselves to commit hours and hours of gameplay to something that will experience a population exodus when the next game lands.
It's a vicuous circle - games needs players to survive and grow, yet as soon as the playerbase gets wind that people 'might' be leaving they jump ship for fear of wasting time of a lost cause... which causes pops to drop, which causes more players to leave, which causes pops to drop, and on and on and on.
And the WoW crowd, they need a game that is massively far advanced over WoW. Not just DX11 graphics, or Facebook connected. They need a real setp-up in terms of gaming advancement to make it worth while. If you love WoW, why else would you part with that amount of content just for prettier graphics?
Aryas
Playing: Ableton Live 8
~ ragequitcancelsubdeletegamesmashcomputerkillself ~
Not sure how Aion got into this but okay.
I was just responding to your post about what happens when you go AFK in a quest hub in Rift; which is nothing of any consequence really which is no different in WoW if you stand there until you get back.
"TO MICHAEL!"
The only people likely to be disappointed by TOR after all this time is people who haven't read ANYTHING at all about it, which is highly unlikely given how much negative and positive hype has been out for months already. There can't possibly be any gamers around who haven't looked into what TOR is going to be or don't know that it's basically a new take on WoW but heavy with story.
Anyone getting let down at this point would have to be someone like a sandbox guy who read everything but still "hopes" there's a sandbox in there someplace, which is completely bonkers. Or the ex-SWG gal who didn't "believe" all the articles describing how TOR was nothing like SWG except only in name.
Anyone who pre-ordered has to know what they've gotten into already. No one could be that dense.
"TO MICHAEL!"
I don't think you understand this.
Your opinion about the relevancy of a deathpeanalty doesn't make it nonexistant. It's there, therefore your statement that thee isn't one, is wrong.
One does indeed exist, whether or not the penalty is sufficient for you doesn't matter at all when you say that one doesn't exist. Saying it doesn't exist isn't an opinion, because one does indeed exist.
The penalty is no more relevant then WoW's. The more you die, the more you pay to get back to 100%, it's the same premise in pretty much every game that uses some form of degrade on death. It doesn't make it impossible to not do things, even in wow I can still play with broken gear, I'm must not as good as when I play with reparied gear. And the penalty for gear that is damaged doesn't really have any relevant effect on your character, it's not until it's broken that it becomes a problem. The longer you wait to repair the more it cost.
And the high repair costs were the cost of reparing epics in vanilla WoW, prior to getting your epics it was pretty irrelivant, and post vanilla WoW the costs became irrelivant because of how easy it is to make money. None of that means that wow doesn't have a death penalty.
Your exact line is "you don't have any death penalty", and that's wrong. There is one. And it does start to effect you if you don't have your soul restored. Just because it's not drastic or impede your ability to play, doesn't make it nonexistant.
The only people likely to be disappointed by TOR after all this time is people who haven't read ANYTHING at all about it, which is highly unlikely given how much negative and positive hype has been out for months already. There can't possibly be any gamers around who haven't looked into what TOR is going to be or don't know that it's basically a new take on WoW but heavy with story.
Anyone getting let down at this point would have to be someone like a sandbox guy who read everything but still "hopes" there's a sandbox in there someplace, which is completely bonkers. Or the ex-SWG gal who didn't "believe" all the articles describing how TOR was nothing like SWG except only in name.
Anyone who pre-ordered has to know what they've gotten into already. No one could be that dense.
People are going to be genuinely upset that SW:ToR isn't the game they thought it was going to be, even though they did not read the feature list, or read it an ignored it. It happened with Rift (on these very forums even) and it'll happen with SW:ToR. It'll happen with GW2 as well. It seems to be pretty common.
It probably won't be enough to matter though.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You've been a member of this site for the last 4 years, and you really think that?
After 4 years you should be pretty familliar with the community here and how they behaive. There will be a flood of people who know very well what ToR is and they will still buy the game, quit sometime within the first week or couple of months, then come here and post repeatedly how ToR isn't any diffierent then WoW or any other game.
Did you play Rift? Did you not know what it was about before you tried it?
I know what every game is about before I buy them, that doesn't mean I'll like them. Just because I understand what they're doing doesn't mean that it's going to apeal to me once I actually play it. I knew all about AoC before it released. I followed the development, read what they were offering, and I still didn't like it after I bought and tried played it. Don't think I ever managed to play for an hour straight on multiple attempts. I read all about how the combat would work, but until I experienced it first hand, I didn't know if it would be for me or not. I don't post in the AoC forums. Not sureI ever posted once. And I've only mentioned that I disliked AoC a couple of times in verious threads. I'm not hung up on it, I'm not complaining repeatedly about waisting money on it. I got it, tried it, and was done with it.
Seriously? You don't think that peole read about a game before they buy? No sir, that's untrue. Lots of people know what the game is about and then find it didn't suit them. If it workd the way you said it did, there wouldn't be so much negativety on these forums.
You die to mobs.
You respawn around the corner.
You don't have any death penalty.
You pick up where you left off.
I'm not sure that's anymore epic than traditional games without that. No consequence either way is no consequence.
There's a death penalty, it's just not applied to your gear or xp gain as most every MMO does.
The death penalty isn't of any consequence. You can die over and over until your souls get down to 10% and won't see any difference.
That's what I mean by no death penalty because it isn't much of a penalty. You can still do anything you want with 90% of your soul 'damaged' in Rift.
I don't fully remember WoW's death penalty but I remember that it caused your gear to degrade and it got expensive to repair. Unlike in Rift where plat is easy to come by and there's nothing to spend it on in the auction house.
I don't think you understand this.
Your opinion about the relevancy of a deathpeanalty doesn't make it nonexistant. It's there, therefore your statement that thee isn't one, is wrong.
One does indeed exist, whether or not the penalty is sufficient for you doesn't matter at all when you say that one doesn't exist. Saying it doesn't exist isn't an opinion, because one does indeed exist.
The penalty is no more relevant then WoW's. The more you die, the more you pay to get back to 100%, it's the same premise in pretty much every game that uses some form of degrade on death. It doesn't make it impossible to not do things, even in wow I can still play with broken gear, I'm must not as good as when I play with reparied gear. And the penalty for gear that is damaged doesn't really have any relevant effect on your character, it's not until it's broken that it becomes a problem. The longer you wait to repair the more it cost.
And the high repair costs were the cost of reparing epics in vanilla WoW, prior to getting your epics it was pretty irrelivant, and post vanilla WoW the costs became irrelivant because of how easy it is to make money. None of that means that wow doesn't have a death penalty.
Your exact line is "you don't have any death penalty", and that's wrong. There is one. And it does start to effect you if you don't have your soul restored. Just because it's not drastic or impede your ability to play, doesn't make it nonexistant.
No no.. you're mixing topics.
Pure asked what happens when you go AFK at a questhub.
I told him... nothing of importance or consequence. You get killed, you respawn and you come back.
No big deal. Happened to me all the time.
The only difference from this and WoW was in WoW you didn't die, so you save a little gold. In Rift you died, but you didn't have to repair your soul lol. It wasn't like it was going to lessen your combat effectiveness.
As a matter of fact, I rarely 'repaired souls' in Rift. There simply wasn't any need to other than you MAY need to have a full soul if you go into a dungeon. But if I wasn't going into a dungeon.. who cares, lol.
It's a death penalty like saying an overdue library book is a significant fine.
"TO MICHAEL!"
In case it was missed, once again:
COMPLAIN, MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS. COMPLAIN LONG AND HARD. COMPLAIN IN THE HOPES THAT DEVELOPERS DEVELOP A CLUE! COMPLAIN THAT WE WILL NOT CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THIS GARBAGE! COMPLAIN! COMPLAIN! COMPLAIN FOR A BETTER TOMORROW...
...because today is pretty dismal.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%