people in here dissing wow saying rift is better is laughable , wow is like what 99% of what rift copied from their arrow over their head quests to just about every single warfront in the entire game , then with guild wars 2 coming out they tried to get a jump on them and put in conquest. All Rift has ever done is copy every other single games systems except their souls which was its saving factor. Now with storm legion Rifts soul system is cookie cutter maybe two or three builds per a class that actually can go into storm legion zones and level their way to 60. This game only kept any population at all because of Trion and their customer service , and interacting with their player base and content updates. Now they dont even do that and their content patches come slower than wows. Not sure how any fanboi or girl can even begin to rationalize how Rift is better than GW2 or WOW for that matter, its leagues behind both games and was made as nothing but a money grab from the start copying wow with their low overhead.
Heres something else thats hilarious on the guild wars 2 forums , there are actually players posting complete lies about rifts store on guild wars 2 trying to just get other players to come to it with them because they dislike GW2 and feel robbed though they played for months for free. Rifts cash shop is by far the worst cash shop ever released for a western mmorpg. They are literally selling every single thing in the game for cash except last tier raid gear but on the forums in GW2 people are lying saying they are not even selling gear or anything except luxury items. So many liars that just love to go from game to game telling fabricated stories in hopes of making the population leave another game because "they" dont like it anymore.
I'm glad you enjoy GW2, I pre-ordered it and haven't been able to get into.
What irks me about GW2 is I don't really know the objective. (Not saying it's the game's fault)
GW2 isn't a seamless world is it? As in you can walk across the zones without a loading screens?
I know in Rift you can't walk the entire thing without loading screens, going to the different continents have loading screens, but Telara feels more like a world to me than Guild Wars.
GW2 seems like the CRPG that GW was, but my expeirence is limited and mainly the info my friends have given me.
Honestly I could care less if the world is seamless. It makes no difference to me. Rift's original world is probably 1/4 the size of GW2 so it just feels very small. Not to mention that once you get past a certain level there is no point in going back to low level zones in Rift. So the whole world always feels relevant in GW2 as opposed to Rift. In Rift you also constantly use portals to get to places similar to GW2. In both games I feel like this removes any ideas of a huge open and seamless world. Seamless to me means that you don't zone except for when you load into the game. Dungeons are not instanced, ect.
GW2 feels more like an MMO to me then most other MMOs because the world actually has people in it since that is where a lot of the content is. It is not even close to a CRPG. I would say that Neverwinter feels more like a CRPG.
GW2 is mostly empty, you rarely see players in any of the zones outside of Lion's Arch and the lack of NPCs and Towns in the way that RIFT does them makes it feel so huge and empty. GW2 may be large but most of the gameworld is totally empty and lifeless compared to RIFT which actually feels like a real world. GW2 I do enjoy more overall although neither game is really all that awesome to be honest. But as far as world design RIFT wins out. Not to mention, GW2's zones are instanced A), and all big ugly squares and rectangles. Have you ever zoomed out and taken a look at the shapes of them? It's entirely unrealistic.
If you take away your crutch (holy trinity), two things will happen:
1) You fall down
or
2)You move faster
I take it you "fall down" without your crutch.
Some of us merely enjoy playing specialized roles instead of the weird do everything hybrids that GW2 has. It's just a lot more fun playing as the trinity. GW2's class design was bad. Classes are usually only kinda sorta the ones I typically enjoy but they are either watered down or have other skills and roles thrown in that I do not want instead of ones I do, in a poor attempt to make it fit in to GW2's trinity-less combat. I prefer my standard MMO class archetypes. There's a reason we have seen them in so many games - it's because they're fun to play.
I would suggest that the entire "casters must stand still to cast a spell" trope harkens all the way back to the beginnings of Dungeons and Dragons. As a Mage, you had to spend time to cast a spell, or it could be interrupted. EQ copied many of its concepts from the pen and paper world and I think it's a fair assumption they copied that idea as well.
Also, especially at low levels, you had only a handful of spells to use during a day, so yes, you would end up cracking skulls with your staff or flinging sling stones or darts--saving your spells for harder fights.
If you take away your crutch (holy trinity), two things will happen:
1) You fall down
or
2)You move faster
I take it you "fall down" without your crutch.
Some of us merely enjoy playing specialized roles instead of the weird do everything hybrids that GW2 has. It's just a lot more fun playing as the trinity. GW2's class design was bad. Classes are usually only kinda sorta the ones I typically enjoy but they are either watered down or have other skills and roles thrown in that I do not want instead of ones I do, in a poor attempt to make it fit in to GW2's trinity-less combat. I prefer my standard MMO class archetypes. There's a reason we have seen them in so many games - it's because they're fun to play.
I played trinity games for years and reality is that big big majority plays 1 role - dps. Then u have 2 small minorities - healers and tanks who carry rest through the whole endgame pve content. So yea, there are very few ppl who realy enjoy playing specific roles of tank or healer, but big big majority just enjoys being on easy mode.
RIFT stills a great game with a good combat,awesome classes and probably the Best "traits/soul" system EVER in a MMO!
I very strongly disagree with this. yes, its awesome planning where to put your points...and when its finally all done you have a character build that is kind of shallow. I think Burning Crusade era WoW was *much* better for example. Rift gives you lots of choice but the end result of it is less than spectacular. I
There are a few strong souls (Harbinger and Chloromancer for instance) but most of them are ultimately duds, and you cant really make true hybrids, for a system with as much choice it sure feels awfully limiting. the fact you couldnt make a melee mage until SL speaks to that, as does the fact that you cant have a plate wearing healer.
Last Time I played GW2 it had animation lock which is something I find unacceptable in an MMO.
In regards to the holy trinity - 5 players running around like chickens with their heads cut off dpsing a boss or group of adds is hardly a better alternative.
While I've played WoW for a very long time and have become extremely bored of it in the last year or so the sad reality is there is no alternative yet that does it as well as WoW while being significantly different enough to compensate for all the character(s) advancement built up over the years. i.e no point quilting WoW to start again in a pretty Wow clone - I really wish there was but there isn't.
The main issue I have with new games is the low population - when I jump on I want to do things within an acceptable period of time. e.g when I tried Rift for the second time I could queue in the LFD tool AS A TANK and not get a run for hours. GW2 is the same its a ghost town.
I'm glad you enjoy GW2, I pre-ordered it and haven't been able to get into.
What irks me about GW2 is I don't really know the objective. (Not saying it's the game's fault)
GW2 isn't a seamless world is it? As in you can walk across the zones without a loading screens?
I know in Rift you can't walk the entire thing without loading screens, going to the different continents have loading screens, but Telara feels more like a world to me than Guild Wars.
GW2 seems like the CRPG that GW was, but my expeirence is limited and mainly the info my friends have given me.
Honestly I could care less if the world is seamless. It makes no difference to me. Rift's original world is probably 1/4 the size of GW2 so it just feels very small. Not to mention that once you get past a certain level there is no point in going back to low level zones in Rift. So the whole world always feels relevant in GW2 as opposed to Rift. In Rift you also constantly use portals to get to places similar to GW2. In both games I feel like this removes any ideas of a huge open and seamless world. Seamless to me means that you don't zone except for when you load into the game. Dungeons are not instanced, ect.
GW2 feels more like an MMO to me then most other MMOs because the world actually has people in it since that is where a lot of the content is. It is not even close to a CRPG. I would say that Neverwinter feels more like a CRPG.
GW2 is mostly empty, you rarely see players in any of the zones outside of Lion's Arch and the lack of NPCs and Towns in the way that RIFT does them makes it feel so huge and empty. GW2 may be large but most of the gameworld is totally empty and lifeless compared to RIFT which actually feels like a real world. GW2 I do enjoy more overall although neither game is really all that awesome to be honest. But as far as world design RIFT wins out. Not to mention, GW2's zones are instanced A), and all big ugly squares and rectangles. Have you ever zoomed out and taken a look at the shapes of them? It's entirely unrealistic.
I can assure you having played the game recently it is not empty. If you are on a low population server you can also guest to a higher population server. Not to mention that Rift is FAR more empty then GW2 considering the fact that they are doing so poorly that they had to lay off a bunch of people and turn the game F2P....
The fact that you compare Rift ascetics to GW2 ascetics is laughable though. You are entitled to your opinion in that regard.
RIFT has the holy trinity , its better than GW2 for that 1 reason .
If you take away your crutch (holy trinity), two things will happen:
1) You fall down
or
2)You move faster
I take it you "fall down" without your crutch.
Some of us merely enjoy playing specialized roles instead of the weird do everything hybrids that GW2 has. It's just a lot more fun playing as the trinity. GW2's class design was bad. Classes are usually only kinda sorta the ones I typically enjoy but they are either watered down or have other skills and roles thrown in that I do not want instead of ones I do, in a poor attempt to make it fit in to GW2's trinity-less combat. I prefer my standard MMO class archetypes. There's a reason we have seen them in so many games - it's because they're fun to play.
I played trinity games for years and reality is that big big majority plays 1 role - dps. Then u have 2 small minorities - healers and tanks who carry rest through the whole endgame pve content. So yea, there are very few ppl who realy enjoy playing specific roles of tank or healer, but big big majority just enjoys being on easy mode.
QFT.*
Players (have always been?)* are playing games for the quick shot of fun. And this quick shot of fun should be action packed and very diluted so you don't need to put too much brains in to the system. So in the end, future of the MMORPG genre has to be renamed to Massively Multiplayer Online Action Role Playing Mini Game?
Right now, the future looks pretty grim. A sandbox MMO might be the last hope to counter the dumbing down of the MMORPG genre to oblivion.
RIFT has the holy trinity , its better than GW2 for that 1 reason .
If you take away your crutch (holy trinity), two things will happen:
1) You fall down
or
2)You move faster
I take it you "fall down" without your crutch.
Some of us merely enjoy playing specialized roles instead of the weird do everything hybrids that GW2 has. It's just a lot more fun playing as the trinity. GW2's class design was bad. Classes are usually only kinda sorta the ones I typically enjoy but they are either watered down or have other skills and roles thrown in that I do not want instead of ones I do, in a poor attempt to make it fit in to GW2's trinity-less combat. I prefer my standard MMO class archetypes. There's a reason we have seen them in so many games - it's because they're fun to play.
Indeed there is, but I don't think it's because it's "fun to play". Sure there can be enjoyment in playing a role that's more of the same old, same old I guess. However, we keep seeing the same versions of it because a lot of devs don't seem to have the confidence in developing something different. Options in playstyle are a good thing. If you want to stick with your comfort blanket, that's fine. Millions have moved on though even if you don't acknowledge it.
I'm pretty sure whatever game you play that makes you feel at home can be picked apart for it's features. Does that make that game suck? No. It just means that there are options in playstyle, which is,...you guessed it,... a good thing.
I didn't like the character models though, and the character creation didn't help either. They all looked the same without any variation (except hairstyles). Granted, GW2's is the same, as is WoW's, but at least they have different races to make up for it, which brings me to my next dislike about Rift.
The racial choices were underwhelming. It reminded me too much like Swtor, where all the races are humanoid only. Dwarves is the only distinct race in Rift. GW2 at least has asura, charr, and slyvari, which are all distinct in their own way.
The actual Rift events were fun, so i'll give Rift a positive mark for that. I never got higher than lvl 30 though, but i'm sure they get more difficult and challenging, which brings me to GW2's DEs. GW2's dynamic events are also fun, but the sheer amount of people doing them ruins the challenge, which is a shame. To truly enjoy GW2's DEs, is to do them with less players; same with Rift.
My major complaint though, is the combat in Rift. It's very slow, even when compared to WoW or Swtor, or any other traditional MMO. I think the devs tried to make it too realistic, which makes it uninteresting and boring. Even the casters in Rift were slow. It's a huge step backwards when compared to GW2's combat. GW2's combat is fast-paced, as is WoW's and even Swtor's. Mobs seem to die faster in these MMOs. That's the perception i get anyway. It might be Rift's early levels that make it seem this way though, but that's how i felt about it.
I could write more pros and cons of both games, but this is just a short comparison of my views. Both games are fun in their own right, in my opinion.
edit: forgot to add, that i tried Rift several weeks before their f2p announcement.
Come on, which MMORPG releases nowadays with only one starter area for all races, except the utterly bad WoW clones like Rift?
Rift has 2 starter zones across all races, not 1. At least get your facts straight...
Ah yes, yes, 1 zone separating in 2 each side of the same bridge. I'm going to be generous and say it's 1 starter area per faction then. That's still ridiculous compared to games like WoW or GW2.
And there's close to no racial lore in Rift either, all races are similar looking and don't have specific story lines. That also doesn't come even remotely close to games like WoW or GW2, or even SW:TOR or LotRO.
I agree with Observer above about combat too. Both GW2 but also WoW have very responsive and fast combat, as well as a few other MMOs like SW:TOR. Rift is average at best (and I'm being generous), LotRO being among the worse concerning speed and responsiveness. I think Rift also suffers from the choice of engine they made, combat is clumsy and slow just like Warhammer, that's not a coincidence.
So I agree with those saying Rift is a "sub par" WoW clone compared to many other games released in the last years. For me, there are much better games in the same genre (theme park MMO) to spend my limited gaming time in even if I was not playing GW2 for now. Games with bigger worlds, better character diversity, stronger racial lore and story lines, better combat and better leveling diversity and possible choices while leveling. In short, more interesting games that go beyond simple monster bashing.
I'd like to clear up a lot of the back-and-forth stuff as well as the misconceptions....
1) GW2 doesn't have animation lock, you're thinking of Tera.
2) Magi (which is plural for Mage, not "mages") are wielders of magical properties. They stem for lore throughout history in a variety of ways. They could be conjurers, potion mixers, matter manipulating super beings; each of these done either through mental concentration, channeled magically attuned bodies, item use, or by the look of an eye. It doesn't matter what you believe is correct to you in terms of this ideology, because it's all just fiction really. But, when it comes to a game, what one is fun is the most important factor.
3) Though the "TLDR" section focused on combat comparison between the two games, the focus of the whole was mostly that of the first 5-15 minutes experience within each of them. It's that experience taken as a whole, not a part, that is a make-or-break factor for players. It's was drives them to want to experience more of a game, or pass on it from there.
4) Since the topic repeatedly showed it's ugly head... End-game is what the player makes it from what's in the game. There's no defined, set in stone, must follow or will burn in hell End-Game that every game must follow to the 'T'. To say one has end-game where one does not is just a foolish statement that should be rephrased to state: "That game doesn't have end-game material that I prefer." Simple, precise, and plays into being an opinion as it rightfully should be. To this point, Rift's end-game is about doing raiding and slivers for gear; where as GW2's end-game is about doing world events, WvW, sPvP, guild missions, and just whatever you want to do openly within the game (it's basically all end-game material).
5) Holy Trinity is something of a flavor choice that some prefer and some do not. Those that mentioned in this thread that it's usually a mostly DPS affair anyways are correct ( about an 80% DPS, 13% Tank and 7% Healer population set up *statistics completely pulled out of the air*). A game can be played without the requirement of those old-school mechanics, and yet players can still go into them if they'd like. In GW2 there are Staff Ele builds and Guard builds that are used as key healing supporters (in fact, many WvW groups have been building around having them with blast finisher Area Healing done in very precise fashion); tanks are also showing up through specific warrior builds ...though mainly a soaker standing there wailing on something because there's no aggro pull.
Bosses don't have to be built around "hold aggro, DPS the thing, and heal those that get hit" as they are in the past. Take for example how during the F&F event, the two bosses at the end of the dungeon had interesting kiting and AoE mechanics. The fractal bosses added all have special things to them that are really coordinated for group cooperation (try fighting the first cat Golem without having people set the fan batteries and see how long you outlast the poison). I guess I'm stating in this prolonged section that the Trinity of H/T/D can be a possibility in a game, but shouldn't be a stand-in required mechanic. That kind of mechanism always plays against the player (and even pits allies against each other "...who do we blame for the wipe? Tank? Healer? DPS? 'Yo mama!' " )
6) Large zones are empty if you go to an empty spot and stand around there alone, ....right. But moving around the zone, interacting with other players, and participating in the events will find that there's a very large population for GW2 and the zones are far from empty. Take the example of the above mentioned Guild Missions, of which people run the same missions with other guilds, hunt the same bounties, do the same jumping puzzles, Rush together, and so on; I cannot speak for the population of Rift because I honestly don't know it's situation and could only play the very short less-than-1hr session that I'd ran. However, I will say that Guild Wars 2 is doing very well and there are lots of people in the game in different zones across the world...
I tried out RIFT when it first came out and whent back a year later for a short visit, I kinda liked the rift things for a while then it got repetive.
What I really hated in that game you were forced to complete quests in the right order to unlock the next quest hub, only very few quests were located off the beated path.
Secondly the mobs were placed in such a manner it was impossible not to aggro all sort of shit even if they were 20-30 levels below you.
Well , certainly recognise this, the only games i can stand outside of GW2 are those with highly interactive and immersive stories like SWTOR, TSW . But only because there is not enough story quests in GW2.
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
Originally posted by Lord.Bachus Well , certainly recognise this, the only games i can stand outside of GW2 are those with highly interactive and immersive stories like SWTOR, TSW . But only because there is not enough story quests in GW2.
Even WoW has more story than Rift though. When it comes to story and lore, Rift is one of the worse possible choice of the market.
Originally posted by Lord.Bachus Well , certainly recognise this, the only games i can stand outside of GW2 are those with highly interactive and immersive stories like SWTOR, TSW . But only because there is not enough story quests in GW2.
Even WoW has more story than Rift though. When it comes to story and lore, Rift is one of the worse possible choice of the market.
Lore develops over time - Rift launched in 2011 and it is new IP.
WoW launched in 2006 on established IP.
Apples and Oranges.
Take EQ1s lore the game launched in 1999 and has 19 expansions, you can't compare the lore of that to something that is a couple of years old, there is no competition.
The base concept of Rift is anti-Lore. All races, same starting area, same quest lines, nothing race specific at all. Cities aren't cities, but just glorified war camps, not places were people may live. The whole game feels artificial.
There's a load of games not based on a previous IP that had much better stories and lore than Rift at release. A few out of my mind: Everquest, Asheron's Call, Anarchy Online, DAoC, Vanguard, Guild Wars (the first).
Rift is a "whack a mole" MMO, story and lore are afterthoughts, barely existing. I understand this may be enough for some people, but even some "whack a mole" games like the Diablo series have more story and lore than Rift.
Nothing wrong with that by the way. Many players don't care about rich lore as long as they can bash monsters and get shiny trinkets. To each his own, I like my games with a bit more story depth.
Rift - soul system is way better than weapons swap in GW2.....Tank, healer and dps is better too.
GW2- Better graphics and coding.
For me both games should NOT be called mmos :
Rift - Had deep chain quest. No one could play with each other unless you match quest for quest, maybe a breff help out or end game.
GW2 - Auto group, play with others around you. Kind of like going to the mall by yourself.
Both games lasted three weeks for me......There not mmos !
Care to explain what a MMO ( Massively multiplayer online) is for you then?
I want to know, I mean he contradicted himself in a sense by bringing up the mall, and I have a feeling it's due to his personal issues like not being social and etc.
Think I said it months ago but people believe forced grouping is being social which then translates into an MMORPG must, otherwise it is not an MMORPG.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
Comments
people in here dissing wow saying rift is better is laughable , wow is like what 99% of what rift copied from their arrow over their head quests to just about every single warfront in the entire game , then with guild wars 2 coming out they tried to get a jump on them and put in conquest. All Rift has ever done is copy every other single games systems except their souls which was its saving factor. Now with storm legion Rifts soul system is cookie cutter maybe two or three builds per a class that actually can go into storm legion zones and level their way to 60. This game only kept any population at all because of Trion and their customer service , and interacting with their player base and content updates. Now they dont even do that and their content patches come slower than wows. Not sure how any fanboi or girl can even begin to rationalize how Rift is better than GW2 or WOW for that matter, its leagues behind both games and was made as nothing but a money grab from the start copying wow with their low overhead.
Heres something else thats hilarious on the guild wars 2 forums , there are actually players posting complete lies about rifts store on guild wars 2 trying to just get other players to come to it with them because they dislike GW2 and feel robbed though they played for months for free. Rifts cash shop is by far the worst cash shop ever released for a western mmorpg. They are literally selling every single thing in the game for cash except last tier raid gear but on the forums in GW2 people are lying saying they are not even selling gear or anything except luxury items. So many liars that just love to go from game to game telling fabricated stories in hopes of making the population leave another game because "they" dont like it anymore.
If you take away your crutch (holy trinity), two things will happen:
1) You fall down
or
2)You move faster
I take it you "fall down" without your crutch.
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
GW2 is mostly empty, you rarely see players in any of the zones outside of Lion's Arch and the lack of NPCs and Towns in the way that RIFT does them makes it feel so huge and empty. GW2 may be large but most of the gameworld is totally empty and lifeless compared to RIFT which actually feels like a real world. GW2 I do enjoy more overall although neither game is really all that awesome to be honest. But as far as world design RIFT wins out. Not to mention, GW2's zones are instanced A), and
all big ugly squares and rectangles. Have you ever zoomed out and taken a look at the shapes of them? It's entirely unrealistic.
Some of us merely enjoy playing specialized roles instead of the weird do everything hybrids that GW2 has. It's just a lot more fun playing as the trinity. GW2's class design was bad. Classes are usually only kinda sorta the ones I typically enjoy but they are either watered down or have other skills and roles thrown in that I do not want instead of ones I do, in a poor attempt to make it fit in to GW2's trinity-less combat. I prefer my standard MMO class archetypes. There's a reason we have seen them in so many games - it's because they're fun to play.
I would suggest that the entire "casters must stand still to cast a spell" trope harkens all the way back to the beginnings of Dungeons and Dragons. As a Mage, you had to spend time to cast a spell, or it could be interrupted. EQ copied many of its concepts from the pen and paper world and I think it's a fair assumption they copied that idea as well.
Also, especially at low levels, you had only a handful of spells to use during a day, so yes, you would end up cracking skulls with your staff or flinging sling stones or darts--saving your spells for harder fights.
I played trinity games for years and reality is that big big majority plays 1 role - dps. Then u have 2 small minorities - healers and tanks who carry rest through the whole endgame pve content. So yea, there are very few ppl who realy enjoy playing specific roles of tank or healer, but big big majority just enjoys being on easy mode.
I very strongly disagree with this. yes, its awesome planning where to put your points...and when its finally all done you have a character build that is kind of shallow. I think Burning Crusade era WoW was *much* better for example. Rift gives you lots of choice but the end result of it is less than spectacular. I
There are a few strong souls (Harbinger and Chloromancer for instance) but most of them are ultimately duds, and you cant really make true hybrids, for a system with as much choice it sure feels awfully limiting. the fact you couldnt make a melee mage until SL speaks to that, as does the fact that you cant have a plate wearing healer.
Last Time I played GW2 it had animation lock which is something I find unacceptable in an MMO.
In regards to the holy trinity - 5 players running around like chickens with their heads cut off dpsing a boss or group of adds is hardly a better alternative.
While I've played WoW for a very long time and have become extremely bored of it in the last year or so the sad reality is there is no alternative yet that does it as well as WoW while being significantly different enough to compensate for all the character(s) advancement built up over the years. i.e no point quilting WoW to start again in a pretty Wow clone - I really wish there was but there isn't.
The main issue I have with new games is the low population - when I jump on I want to do things within an acceptable period of time. e.g when I tried Rift for the second time I could queue in the LFD tool AS A TANK and not get a run for hours. GW2 is the same its a ghost town.
I can assure you having played the game recently it is not empty. If you are on a low population server you can also guest to a higher population server. Not to mention that Rift is FAR more empty then GW2 considering the fact that they are doing so poorly that they had to lay off a bunch of people and turn the game F2P....
The fact that you compare Rift ascetics to GW2 ascetics is laughable though. You are entitled to your opinion in that regard.
QFT.*
Players (have always been?)* are playing games for the quick shot of fun. And this quick shot of fun should be action packed and very diluted so you don't need to put too much brains in to the system. So in the end, future of the MMORPG genre has to be renamed to Massively Multiplayer Online Action Role Playing Mini Game?
Right now, the future looks pretty grim. A sandbox MMO might be the last hope to counter the dumbing down of the MMORPG genre to oblivion.
Indeed there is, but I don't think it's because it's "fun to play". Sure there can be enjoyment in playing a role that's more of the same old, same old I guess. However, we keep seeing the same versions of it because a lot of devs don't seem to have the confidence in developing something different. Options in playstyle are a good thing. If you want to stick with your comfort blanket, that's fine. Millions have moved on though even if you don't acknowledge it.
I'm pretty sure whatever game you play that makes you feel at home can be picked apart for it's features. Does that make that game suck? No. It just means that there are options in playstyle, which is,...you guessed it,... a good thing.
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
LOL...You just gave me my laugh for the day.
Rift was actually decent.
I didn't like the character models though, and the character creation didn't help either. They all looked the same without any variation (except hairstyles). Granted, GW2's is the same, as is WoW's, but at least they have different races to make up for it, which brings me to my next dislike about Rift.
The racial choices were underwhelming. It reminded me too much like Swtor, where all the races are humanoid only. Dwarves is the only distinct race in Rift. GW2 at least has asura, charr, and slyvari, which are all distinct in their own way.
The actual Rift events were fun, so i'll give Rift a positive mark for that. I never got higher than lvl 30 though, but i'm sure they get more difficult and challenging, which brings me to GW2's DEs. GW2's dynamic events are also fun, but the sheer amount of people doing them ruins the challenge, which is a shame. To truly enjoy GW2's DEs, is to do them with less players; same with Rift.
My major complaint though, is the combat in Rift. It's very slow, even when compared to WoW or Swtor, or any other traditional MMO. I think the devs tried to make it too realistic, which makes it uninteresting and boring. Even the casters in Rift were slow. It's a huge step backwards when compared to GW2's combat. GW2's combat is fast-paced, as is WoW's and even Swtor's. Mobs seem to die faster in these MMOs. That's the perception i get anyway. It might be Rift's early levels that make it seem this way though, but that's how i felt about it.
I could write more pros and cons of both games, but this is just a short comparison of my views. Both games are fun in their own right, in my opinion.
edit: forgot to add, that i tried Rift several weeks before their f2p announcement.
Ah yes, yes, 1 zone separating in 2 each side of the same bridge. I'm going to be generous and say it's 1 starter area per faction then. That's still ridiculous compared to games like WoW or GW2.
And there's close to no racial lore in Rift either, all races are similar looking and don't have specific story lines. That also doesn't come even remotely close to games like WoW or GW2, or even SW:TOR or LotRO.
I agree with Observer above about combat too. Both GW2 but also WoW have very responsive and fast combat, as well as a few other MMOs like SW:TOR. Rift is average at best (and I'm being generous), LotRO being among the worse concerning speed and responsiveness. I think Rift also suffers from the choice of engine they made, combat is clumsy and slow just like Warhammer, that's not a coincidence.
So I agree with those saying Rift is a "sub par" WoW clone compared to many other games released in the last years. For me, there are much better games in the same genre (theme park MMO) to spend my limited gaming time in even if I was not playing GW2 for now. Games with bigger worlds, better character diversity, stronger racial lore and story lines, better combat and better leveling diversity and possible choices while leveling. In short, more interesting games that go beyond simple monster bashing.
My computer is better than yours.
I'd like to clear up a lot of the back-and-forth stuff as well as the misconceptions....
1) GW2 doesn't have animation lock, you're thinking of Tera.
2) Magi (which is plural for Mage, not "mages") are wielders of magical properties. They stem for lore throughout history in a variety of ways. They could be conjurers, potion mixers, matter manipulating super beings; each of these done either through mental concentration, channeled magically attuned bodies, item use, or by the look of an eye. It doesn't matter what you believe is correct to you in terms of this ideology, because it's all just fiction really. But, when it comes to a game, what one is fun is the most important factor.
3) Though the "TLDR" section focused on combat comparison between the two games, the focus of the whole was mostly that of the first 5-15 minutes experience within each of them. It's that experience taken as a whole, not a part, that is a make-or-break factor for players. It's was drives them to want to experience more of a game, or pass on it from there.
4) Since the topic repeatedly showed it's ugly head... End-game is what the player makes it from what's in the game. There's no defined, set in stone, must follow or will burn in hell End-Game that every game must follow to the 'T'. To say one has end-game where one does not is just a foolish statement that should be rephrased to state: "That game doesn't have end-game material that I prefer." Simple, precise, and plays into being an opinion as it rightfully should be. To this point, Rift's end-game is about doing raiding and slivers for gear; where as GW2's end-game is about doing world events, WvW, sPvP, guild missions, and just whatever you want to do openly within the game (it's basically all end-game material).
5) Holy Trinity is something of a flavor choice that some prefer and some do not. Those that mentioned in this thread that it's usually a mostly DPS affair anyways are correct ( about an 80% DPS, 13% Tank and 7% Healer population set up *statistics completely pulled out of the air*). A game can be played without the requirement of those old-school mechanics, and yet players can still go into them if they'd like. In GW2 there are Staff Ele builds and Guard builds that are used as key healing supporters (in fact, many WvW groups have been building around having them with blast finisher Area Healing done in very precise fashion); tanks are also showing up through specific warrior builds ...though mainly a soaker standing there wailing on something because there's no aggro pull.
Bosses don't have to be built around "hold aggro, DPS the thing, and heal those that get hit" as they are in the past. Take for example how during the F&F event, the two bosses at the end of the dungeon had interesting kiting and AoE mechanics. The fractal bosses added all have special things to them that are really coordinated for group cooperation (try fighting the first cat Golem without having people set the fan batteries and see how long you outlast the poison). I guess I'm stating in this prolonged section that the Trinity of H/T/D can be a possibility in a game, but shouldn't be a stand-in required mechanic. That kind of mechanism always plays against the player (and even pits allies against each other "...who do we blame for the wipe? Tank? Healer? DPS? 'Yo mama!' " )
6) Large zones are empty if you go to an empty spot and stand around there alone, ....right. But moving around the zone, interacting with other players, and participating in the events will find that there's a very large population for GW2 and the zones are far from empty. Take the example of the above mentioned Guild Missions, of which people run the same missions with other guilds, hunt the same bounties, do the same jumping puzzles, Rush together, and so on; I cannot speak for the population of Rift because I honestly don't know it's situation and could only play the very short less-than-1hr session that I'd ran. However, I will say that Guild Wars 2 is doing very well and there are lots of people in the game in different zones across the world...
I tried out RIFT when it first came out and whent back a year later for a short visit, I kinda liked the rift things for a while then it got repetive.
What I really hated in that game you were forced to complete quests in the right order to unlock the next quest hub, only very few quests were located off the beated path.
Secondly the mobs were placed in such a manner it was impossible not to aggro all sort of shit even if they were 20-30 levels below you.
If it's not broken, you are not innovating.
Current MMOs: Rift, GW2, Defiance
Blog: http://realmsofchirak.blogspot.com (old school tabletop gaming and more)
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
Even WoW has more story than Rift though. When it comes to story and lore, Rift is one of the worse possible choice of the market.
My computer is better than yours.
Rift - soul system is way better than weapons swap in GW2.....Tank, healer and dps is better too.
GW2- Better graphics and coding.
For me both games should NOT be called mmos :
Rift - Had deep chain quest. No one could play with each other unless you match quest for quest, maybe a breff help out or end game.
GW2 - Auto group, play with others around you. Kind of like going to the mall by yourself.
Both games lasted three weeks for me......There not mmos !
It's not because a game doesn't fit your very personal definition of what a MMORPG should be that it's not a MMORPG.
My computer is better than yours.
Care to explain what a MMO ( Massively multiplayer online) is for you then?
If it's not broken, you are not innovating.
The base concept of Rift is anti-Lore. All races, same starting area, same quest lines, nothing race specific at all. Cities aren't cities, but just glorified war camps, not places were people may live. The whole game feels artificial.
There's a load of games not based on a previous IP that had much better stories and lore than Rift at release. A few out of my mind: Everquest, Asheron's Call, Anarchy Online, DAoC, Vanguard, Guild Wars (the first).
Rift is a "whack a mole" MMO, story and lore are afterthoughts, barely existing. I understand this may be enough for some people, but even some "whack a mole" games like the Diablo series have more story and lore than Rift.
Nothing wrong with that by the way. Many players don't care about rich lore as long as they can bash monsters and get shiny trinkets. To each his own, I like my games with a bit more story depth.
My computer is better than yours.
I want to know, I mean he contradicted himself in a sense by bringing up the mall, and I have a feeling it's due to his personal issues like not being social and etc.
Think I said it months ago but people believe forced grouping is being social which then translates into an MMORPG must, otherwise it is not an MMORPG.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.