Originally posted by GeezerGamer Originally posted by FoomerangOriginally posted by Mattatron"Its now F2P beyond the initial purchase, and sales are always happening. "Why couldn't William Murphy, the managing editor of mmorpg.com, figure out how to type "B2P" or "buy to play". It's little stuff like this that makes me think alot of mmorpg.com staff don't even play mmo's much, or certainly not passionately enough to be a discussion contributor.
Same reason why, around here, Guild Wars 2 is the F2P poster child. Saying a game is free to play after you bought it is like saying your groceries were free after you paid for them. Its kinda stupid.GW2 is more like a F2P game with a cover charge. Wouldnt that just be a regular game then?
What would you call games that have no box price? Super Free?
I haven't played all of the games on this list but I think that Ryzome definitely belongs. It was revolutionary for its day: great animations beyond what was around at the time, a large, open, seamless world with interesting areas, dynamic areas with seasons, dynamic mobs with their own AI. It was a living, breathing world. The only downside was that the stanza system did not seem to work quite as it was advertized. However, it had all the features that sandbox cravers crave. I am surprised it never really caught on other than the fact that it is a French game.
Rift, nah. I think it is over appreciated just because it has a large playerbase (and gets good ratings) for an MMO (not in comparison to WoW of course but it is large for most MMOs). I think it is not as good as its rating.
Fallen Earth ? I guess it is under appreciated, but hard to say since I did not like many of its features. Since I am a huge Fallout fan, FE was a huge disappointment for me. I can't put my finger on it but it didn't feel right as far as its atmosphere is concerned.
I can't speak for the other two games on the list since I have not tried them.
My list though:
1) ToR: it is a much better themepark than people give it credit for. Yes it has some engine issues when loading many players, but it has some great features, interesting lore, decent quests (especially the quests that you come across while adventuring in an area and that increase in steps as you level), overall decent traditional MMO combat and classes. It does what Bioware advertized it as doing and it is not SWG2. I don't think it deserves the hatred that players direct at it just because it is not SWG2. That does not mean that there is no room for improvement, just that it has been abused too often by many posters.
2) ATitD: the game looks terrible and has a bad client and engine but it is awesome for a sandbox game. Almost all of the content is player-made and much of the game is learning about the players around you, interacting with them, and carrying out grand projects whether they are architectural, political, societal, etc. It has a heavy emphasis on barter between players so essentially a player-run economy. PvP is entirely non-combat but believe me when I say that a lot of this game is competing with other players. Some activities require being taught by other players, so this is one of the most social games out there.
3) I would stick with Ryzome for above reasons and reasons given by OP.
4) Anarchy Online: I still think that this game never really got the recognition it deserved especially as one of the most revolutionary MMORPGs of its day. It still has elements in it that have not been reproduced elsewhere (talking about the positive ones here). I saw so much good in it that I played it for years despite its many bugs and unintended features. It has one of the most unique gameworlds, stories, classes, and even though it is old now it has not yet been paralleled in my opinion. They were the first to give team missions, allow you to set the difficulty of instances, and flying mounts.
5) Vanguard: it deserves more attention. It is buggy, the server instability makes me scream in frustration, but the world, the game mechanics, and the classes are just great. I know that this game gets positive buzz from time to time by players, but it never seems to be quite enough to give the game the push it needs to have a decent population.
I am giving TSW a fair shot, and I must say that I am enjoying it a lot! I would say that it is more oriented for mature players that enjoys solving impressivly built quests, and a magnificent storyline. If you are a MMO lover and havent tried this one, do yourself a favor: give it a fair shot and emerse yourself in the Secret World. Its not for everyone's taste for sure but this is a must try
My biggest problem with Rift was its universe/lore. I couldn't get into it. I think the game is great. One of the best out there. But there no soul to the game. I know that's a weird thing to say but lore plays a huge part in an mmo. Lore is the backdrop of the entire game, the reason you read quests and want to understand why there's a dungeon in this zone or why we are raiding some underground laboratory. Yea the hamster wheel of loot is important but for me, if i don't like the lore behind things its tough for me to invest 100's of hours.
2) ATitD: the game looks terrible and has a bad client and engine but it is awesome for a sandbox game. Almost all of the content is player-made and much of the game is learning about the players around you, interacting with them, and carrying out grand projects whether they are architectural, political, societal, etc. It has a heavy emphasis on barter between players so essentially a player-run economy. PvP is entirely non-combat but believe me when I say that a lot of this game is competing with other players. Some activities require being taught by other players, so this is one of the most social games out there.
4) Anarchy Online: I still think that this game never really got the recognition it deserved especially as one of the most revolutionary MMORPGs of its day. It still has elements in it that have not been reproduced elsewhere (talking about the positive ones here). I saw so much good in it that I played it for years despite its many bugs and unintended features. It has one of the most unique gameworlds, stories, classes, and even though it is old now it has not yet been paralleled in my opinion. They were the first to give team missions, allow you to set the difficulty of instances, and flying mounts.
5) Vanguard: it deserves more attention. It is buggy, the server instability makes me scream in frustration, but the world, the game mechanics, and the classes are just great. I know that this game gets positive buzz from time to time by players, but it never seems to be quite enough to give the game the push it needs to have a decent population.
ATITD= A better UI and support and I would be playing. I also would play as it is if the sub fee was under 8 dollars.
Anarchy Online = Maybe the updated graphics will bring life back to this game. I will try it when this happens if ever. :P
Vanguard = Sony My trust for Sony is at all time low even lower when they dropped the NGE in SWG.
I think Rift is out of place on the list, but I'm not sure what game I'd replace it with.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
anyways, i agree wholeheartedly with this list. ive tried all 5 and pretty much agree with Mr Murphy on them all.
Rift is not that bad, its world does seem to lack soul though as has been mentioned. there are now constant updates to content and a lively population. its is the single best themepark mmo out there with the single best f2p system as well.
however, i would have replaced Rift with Vanguard.
TSW's combat ... how in the world is that 'action combat'?! its anything but action combat. your character's top half moves in one direction while your legs in another and //that's it//! there's no movement. its not actiony at all.
but it does have some of the most interesting quests of any game i have ever played, including many single player rpg's.
Ryzom has always been fantastic and it has been the first with many ideas that later companies stumble upon themselves years after the fact. however, it is /not/ an "open seamless world" it is a world of zones and not always particularly large ones at that. Ryzom /does/ have housing and its economy is /only/ crafting based. much of the world is player created and sustained.
it is still a game of beautiful detail and will remain a standard i hold other games to when they try to deliver a living world.
Fallen Earth ... oh how i wish you had lived up to your promise. but ive tried it several times and each time its a little worse. the community, for the most part, is insular and toxic. (there are some singular exceptions to that, but they are /singular/.) having to pay for the privilege of crafting is absurd. there are so many other ways to squeeze money from players in an f2p title. and finally, the combat ... it really needs a solid cover mechanic.
"There are at least two kinds of games. One could be called finite, the other infinite. A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play." Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse
"There are at least two kinds of games. One could be called finite, the other infinite. A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play." Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse
"There are at least two kinds of games. One could be called finite, the other infinite. A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play." Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse
I don't know how you can call Rift under appreciated. Its gotten a *lot* of love over its lifetime and has probably had more people try it than EQ2 or AoC. Those games are both a much better fit for under appreciated. EQ2 during EoF had only about 200k subs and at that point it was as good as any themepark has ever been. And AoC was awful at launch but has done a lot to vastly improve the game.
And to say Rift is 'anything but' a WoW clone is just ridiculous. Its tried to distance itself in the last year or so, but the game its obvious the developers not only took inspiration from WoW, but used it as their direct blueprint. Crafting = same, UI = same, endgame = same, PvP through battlegrounds = same, getting upgrades to old skills every two levels = same (since removed form both games), assigning points to 3 trees = same (they added a choice of trees of course), 2 factions = same. Add in Rifts and invasions and collections and you have Rift. Is it the literal meaning of WoW clone? No. Was the launch version of Rift the closest thing to WoW ever released this side of Allods Online? Yes.
Still, its a good game if lore/immersion isnt a big deal to you. And its got a great F2P model. And i think most people see it that way. Its appreciated right where it should be.
I would replace it with AoC. AO deserves an honorable mention but for what it was years ago, not what it is now.
its a good list and I understand why the author chose the games they chose, but "needs more POTBS" IMHO.
POTBS sits in such a wierd little space (partway between pvp and pve, snadbox and themepark, and a historical theme when everything else is fantastical or sci-fi) that not many have fooled around with it, but if you try it you'll see how a lot of folks including me have fallen in love with it at one time or another.
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
I bought Rift...played for a bout a couple of weeks (cancelled the Sub)...it could not hold my attention.
While interesting PVE... I can take only so much PVE and need to get some fun from PvPing...yet, what pushed me off was the PvP in t...not enjoyable at all, was nto able to know who was doing what, and who was shooting what where and from where..very clunky and laggy, and stuttery...
I reality however, it is not exactly the PVE that gets me...I have come to identify what turns me off as being the Guided Scripted Task oriented strict Quest design.
I simply am having much more fun with Open ended, Free form play be it PVE or PvP. If it is structured PVE... then I get bored as it seems repetitious and redundant to me.
- Duke Suraknar - Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
Yeah, I loved Fallen Earth at launch. Despite the technical issues. It could have been developed into a great sandbox. But instead only more gimmicks were added that that would be more fitting in a themepark MMO.
I don't remember anymore when this started, with Gamersfirst or still before that. But the changes to the skill system and gear, the gimmicky pvp additions and new content based around the online shop killed this game. Not to mention the ridiculously unpractical f2p restrictions.
TSW has the best quests and lore is amazing. I have enjoyed playing it for months. But sadly this is not a mmo. Once you hit do all the quests there is nothing more to do then doing those same quests all over again. Yup this game deserves to be on the list, but also deserves to not be AAA game since the main thing was missed (with everything else being close to perfect).
Fallen Earth is in the same category. I remember my first electro bike.... WOW! And crafting my way up and up and up. Awesome! Yet it is not really a mmo again.
Both games could have done well as single player games with good story which they already have.. And then imagine Fallen Earth in EVE-like free universe...
No fate but what we make, so make me a ham sandwich please.
i hated on this game but my friend convinced me to try it again and omfg I am in LOVE. HUGE open world... a fantastic sense of exploration. AWESOME dungeons and great group dynamics that makes it feel like classic Everquest. And let me tell you... the population is very healthy. My first month into the game and I get a PUG group every single damn night. Either that or I end up duo'ing with some random players. Very excited about my upcoming time in Vanguard. I just bought 6 month subscription for 8$ a fukin month.. awesome deal.
Comments
GW2 is more like a F2P game with a cover charge.
Wouldnt that just be a regular game then?
What would you call games that have no box price? Super Free?
TSW = Another action combat MMO.
Rift = Dumbed game down like Wow and took away one of its great strengths the challenging leveling content.
Fallen Earth = LOL
Ryzom = If it had a crafted economy and housing this game would have been a lot of fun.
Wakfu = Nothing liked getting ganked as you step out of the newbie zone. :P
I haven't played all of the games on this list but I think that Ryzome definitely belongs. It was revolutionary for its day: great animations beyond what was around at the time, a large, open, seamless world with interesting areas, dynamic areas with seasons, dynamic mobs with their own AI. It was a living, breathing world. The only downside was that the stanza system did not seem to work quite as it was advertized. However, it had all the features that sandbox cravers crave. I am surprised it never really caught on other than the fact that it is a French game.
Rift, nah. I think it is over appreciated just because it has a large playerbase (and gets good ratings) for an MMO (not in comparison to WoW of course but it is large for most MMOs). I think it is not as good as its rating.
Fallen Earth ? I guess it is under appreciated, but hard to say since I did not like many of its features. Since I am a huge Fallout fan, FE was a huge disappointment for me. I can't put my finger on it but it didn't feel right as far as its atmosphere is concerned.
I can't speak for the other two games on the list since I have not tried them.
My list though:
1) ToR: it is a much better themepark than people give it credit for. Yes it has some engine issues when loading many players, but it has some great features, interesting lore, decent quests (especially the quests that you come across while adventuring in an area and that increase in steps as you level), overall decent traditional MMO combat and classes. It does what Bioware advertized it as doing and it is not SWG2. I don't think it deserves the hatred that players direct at it just because it is not SWG2. That does not mean that there is no room for improvement, just that it has been abused too often by many posters.
2) ATitD: the game looks terrible and has a bad client and engine but it is awesome for a sandbox game. Almost all of the content is player-made and much of the game is learning about the players around you, interacting with them, and carrying out grand projects whether they are architectural, political, societal, etc. It has a heavy emphasis on barter between players so essentially a player-run economy. PvP is entirely non-combat but believe me when I say that a lot of this game is competing with other players. Some activities require being taught by other players, so this is one of the most social games out there.
3) I would stick with Ryzome for above reasons and reasons given by OP.
4) Anarchy Online: I still think that this game never really got the recognition it deserved especially as one of the most revolutionary MMORPGs of its day. It still has elements in it that have not been reproduced elsewhere (talking about the positive ones here). I saw so much good in it that I played it for years despite its many bugs and unintended features. It has one of the most unique gameworlds, stories, classes, and even though it is old now it has not yet been paralleled in my opinion. They were the first to give team missions, allow you to set the difficulty of instances, and flying mounts.
5) Vanguard: it deserves more attention. It is buggy, the server instability makes me scream in frustration, but the world, the game mechanics, and the classes are just great. I know that this game gets positive buzz from time to time by players, but it never seems to be quite enough to give the game the push it needs to have a decent population.
Playing MUDs and MMOs since 1994.
Ryzom has an apartment system, you can own an apartment in 4 different locations.
http://en.ryzomnomnom.com/wiki/Apartment
ATITD= A better UI and support and I would be playing. I also would play as it is if the sub fee was under 8 dollars.
Anarchy Online = Maybe the updated graphics will bring life back to this game. I will try it when this happens if ever. :P
Vanguard = Sony
My trust for Sony is at all time low even lower when they dropped the NGE in SWG.
ohgahd, so much misinformation, so little time...
anyways, i agree wholeheartedly with this list. ive tried all 5 and pretty much agree with Mr Murphy on them all.
Rift is not that bad, its world does seem to lack soul though as has been mentioned. there are now constant updates to content and a lively population. its is the single best themepark mmo out there with the single best f2p system as well.
however, i would have replaced Rift with Vanguard.
TSW's combat ... how in the world is that 'action combat'?! its anything but action combat. your character's top half moves in one direction while your legs in another and //that's it//! there's no movement. its not actiony at all.
but it does have some of the most interesting quests of any game i have ever played, including many single player rpg's.
Ryzom has always been fantastic and it has been the first with many ideas that later companies stumble upon themselves years after the fact. however, it is /not/ an "open seamless world" it is a world of zones and not always particularly large ones at that. Ryzom /does/ have housing and its economy is /only/ crafting based. much of the world is player created and sustained.
it is still a game of beautiful detail and will remain a standard i hold other games to when they try to deliver a living world.
Fallen Earth ... oh how i wish you had lived up to your promise. but ive tried it several times and each time its a little worse. the community, for the most part, is insular and toxic. (there are some singular exceptions to that, but they are /singular/.) having to pay for the privilege of crafting is absurd. there are so many other ways to squeeze money from players in an f2p title. and finally, the combat ... it really needs a solid cover mechanic.
"There are at least two kinds of games.
One could be called finite, the other infinite.
A finite game is played for the purpose of winning,
an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play."
Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse
"There are at least two kinds of games.
One could be called finite, the other infinite.
A finite game is played for the purpose of winning,
an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play."
Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse
"There are at least two kinds of games.
One could be called finite, the other infinite.
A finite game is played for the purpose of winning,
an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play."
Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse
I don't know how you can call Rift under appreciated. Its gotten a *lot* of love over its lifetime and has probably had more people try it than EQ2 or AoC. Those games are both a much better fit for under appreciated. EQ2 during EoF had only about 200k subs and at that point it was as good as any themepark has ever been. And AoC was awful at launch but has done a lot to vastly improve the game.
And to say Rift is 'anything but' a WoW clone is just ridiculous. Its tried to distance itself in the last year or so, but the game its obvious the developers not only took inspiration from WoW, but used it as their direct blueprint. Crafting = same, UI = same, endgame = same, PvP through battlegrounds = same, getting upgrades to old skills every two levels = same (since removed form both games), assigning points to 3 trees = same (they added a choice of trees of course), 2 factions = same. Add in Rifts and invasions and collections and you have Rift. Is it the literal meaning of WoW clone? No. Was the launch version of Rift the closest thing to WoW ever released this side of Allods Online? Yes.
Still, its a good game if lore/immersion isnt a big deal to you. And its got a great F2P model. And i think most people see it that way. Its appreciated right where it should be.
I would replace it with AoC. AO deserves an honorable mention but for what it was years ago, not what it is now.
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
Dwight D Eisenhower
My optimism wears heavy boots and is loud.
Henry Rollins
I bought Rift...played for a bout a couple of weeks (cancelled the Sub)...it could not hold my attention.
While interesting PVE... I can take only so much PVE and need to get some fun from PvPing...yet, what pushed me off was the PvP in t...not enjoyable at all, was nto able to know who was doing what, and who was shooting what where and from where..very clunky and laggy, and stuttery...
I reality however, it is not exactly the PVE that gets me...I have come to identify what turns me off as being the Guided Scripted Task oriented strict Quest design.
I simply am having much more fun with Open ended, Free form play be it PVE or PvP. If it is structured PVE... then I get bored as it seems repetitious and redundant to me.
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
And thats just it, if you have to return to it again and again that means there is so much Trion did wrong.
Hell, theres a lot that WAR did right (including the most underrated feature in MMORPG history, the Tome of Knowledge). but it didnt do enough right.
Yeah, I loved Fallen Earth at launch. Despite the technical issues. It could have been developed into a great sandbox. But instead only more gimmicks were added that that would be more fitting in a themepark MMO.
I don't remember anymore when this started, with Gamersfirst or still before that. But the changes to the skill system and gear, the gimmicky pvp additions and new content based around the online shop killed this game. Not to mention the ridiculously unpractical f2p restrictions.
TSW has the best quests and lore is amazing. I have enjoyed playing it for months. But sadly this is not a mmo. Once you hit do all the quests there is nothing more to do then doing those same quests all over again. Yup this game deserves to be on the list, but also deserves to not be AAA game since the main thing was missed (with everything else being close to perfect).
Fallen Earth is in the same category. I remember my first electro bike.... WOW! And crafting my way up and up and up. Awesome! Yet it is not really a mmo again.
Both games could have done well as single player games with good story which they already have.. And then imagine Fallen Earth in EVE-like free universe...
No fate but what we make, so make me a ham sandwich please.
Discuss. Reason. Society.
Become a Dragon. Take your world back.
I played up until the point I got 2 shotted by someone as I was crafting and lost everything. Uninstalled faster then you can make me a sammich.
Discuss. Reason. Society.
Become a Dragon. Take your world back.
Vanguard Saga of Heroes !!!!
i hated on this game but my friend convinced me to try it again and omfg I am in LOVE. HUGE open world... a fantastic sense of exploration. AWESOME dungeons and great group dynamics that makes it feel like classic Everquest. And let me tell you... the population is very healthy. My first month into the game and I get a PUG group every single damn night. Either that or I end up duo'ing with some random players. Very excited about my upcoming time in Vanguard. I just bought 6 month subscription for 8$ a fukin month.. awesome deal.
take my GW2 account, please