Given that most game genres have been stagnant for such a long time, and that most people hate change (or can't handle anything outside of their familiar box), it's a very reasonable score.
Remember, game designers that attempt something new and innovative typically fail 90% (or more) of the time.
I personally would like to see the genre evolve, but on the other hand, I think what I really want is a new genre that's massively multiplayer and is NOTHING like an mmorpg that we know.
A game that brings Nothing New to the table gets an 8.7
Because its "Well Polished"?
So thats what MMORPG.com bases 98% of its reviews on.
Polish.
Fantastic.
Honestly i would want to play a game that doesn't crash every second, need users to make a patcher for it,take sup 162 gigs of space on my hard drive because of a bad install.
I do want something new but so many recent mmos have been so rusty that it is a breath of fresh air to see something that actually works.
A game that brings Nothing New to the table gets an 8.7
Because its "Well Polished"?
So thats what MMORPG.com bases 98% of its reviews on.
Polish.
Fantastic.
Yes, because that's the state of the genre itself. Almost all popular game genres don't deviate from the basic game mechanics. If they did, "most" of them wouldn't sell very well, unless they got lucky and did something magical. In the business world, you can't count on being magical.
With that said, a polished game that fits into its target genre and does it well, definitely deserves a high score whether you like it or not.
A game that brings Nothing New to the table gets an 8.7
Because its "Well Polished"?
So thats what MMORPG.com bases 98% of its reviews on.
Polish.
Fantastic.
I agree..
Metacritic, Rift:
Accumulative average Critic review: 8.4
Accumulative average user review: 8.1
If site reviews don't agree with you, it's a bit childish and immature to rant that the site must be bought or flawed. Seems to me that enough other critics and MMO gamers agree with a rating of 8+ for Rift, so mmorpg.com's review sounds fair and not out of touch with other reviews from critics and players.
You might not like that kind of MMO games, but at least respect people who do. Different games for different tastes.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
A game that brings Nothing New to the table gets an 8.7
Because its "Well Polished"?
So thats what MMORPG.com bases 98% of its reviews on.
Polish.
Fantastic.
I agree..
Metacritic, Rift:
Accumulative average Critic review: 8.4
Accumulative average user review: 8.1
If site reviews don't agree with you, it's a bit childish and immature to rant that the site must be bought or flawed. Seems to me that enough other critics and MMO gamers agree with a rating of 8+ for Rift, so mmorpg.com's review sounds fair and not out of touch with other reviews from critics and players.
You might not like that kind of MMO games, but at least respect people who do. Different games for different tastes.
I am not going to bite,it's my opinion and you have yours. Having played all 7 betas up nto level 42 and done all content on both factions i really don't think RIFT deserves the score it has got.
It's got nothing to do with repect at all,it's an opinion which everyone is allowed to have.
A game that brings Nothing New to the table gets an 8.7
Because its "Well Polished"?
So thats what MMORPG.com bases 98% of its reviews on.
Polish.
Fantastic.
I agree..
Metacritic, Rift:
Accumulative average Critic review: 8.4
Accumulative average user review: 8.1
If site reviews don't agree with you, it's a bit childish and immature to rant that the site must be bought or flawed. Seems to me that enough other critics and MMO gamers agree with a rating of 8+ for Rift, so mmorpg.com's review sounds fair and not out of touch with other reviews from critics and players.
You might not like that kind of MMO games, but at least respect people who do. Different games for different tastes.
Well seeing how WOW has a 93 rating I don't see metacritic being to helpful, but most critics aren't. As for user ratings, I hardly think 150 something users really mean anything.
There really is no pleasing everyone, there's always going to be someone who disagrees. Personally I just don't agree with giving something that is a copy of another game an 8.7 rating, especially when that other game is 6 years old or whatever. Everyone has their opinion though.
Even with the number of haters that probably rated the game a 1 (vs the fanboys who went straight 10s), and people like me who rated it a 4.8, the average rating on this site for both User Ratings and Staff Ratings are both 8.7.
The only thing I find odd is both are 8.7 lol.
I just think, and I know I say this a lot, originality or lack thereof should matter so much more than it does.
What if I told you 6.5 years ago, at WoW's release that games would be the same now? Or how about I say that now--"In October 2017, MMOs will be the same as now, just prettier."? When games get reviewed like that, that's where I'm afraid the industry is heading.
What if Titan is just... rofl.. a wow clone?
Spec'ing properly is a gateway drug. 12 Million People have been meter spammed in heroics.
Rift isnt a bad game if you never played an MMO before.
Most people want more sameness.
Every new AAA game that is released has high scores initially. Look at Warhammer, it was on top for 3 or 4 months after it was released. Imo warhammer was a better more fun game.
Rift will share a similar fate imo, because once you get to cap level there really isnt much to do. Go do expert dungeons, which are the same dungeons you already did leveling up, with an added mob or two. BORING!
Pvp could be fun, but its the same 4 warfronts over and over again, 3 of which you did many times while leveling up.
The community is horrible, just a bunch of leet kiddies wanitng to know how much dps you are doing, and if you have proper gear, otherwise you cant be a cool kid.
Everyone is in an instance somewhere, so most of the time you dont see many people in the world, and if you do its a raid group doing a rift, so there isnt much PVP.
Was hoping they would add pvp only zones like Daoc has, and let the pve'ers do their thing, but that doesnt look like its gonna happen.
For me this game is just a WoW expansion, if you loved WoW then this is the game for you.
If you hated WoW as i did, then you will not like Rift either.
Even with the number of haters that probably rated the game a 1 (vs the fanboys who went straight 10s), and people like me who rated it a 4.8, the average rating on this site for both User Ratings and Staff Ratings are both 8.7.
The only thing I find odd is both are 8.7 lol.
I just think, and I know I say this a lot, originality or lack thereof should matter so much more than it does.
What if I told you 6.5 years ago, at WoW's release that games would be the same now? Or how about I say that now--"In October 2017, MMOs will be the same as now, just prettier."? When games get reviewed like that, that's where I'm afraid the industry is heading.
What if Titan is just... rofl.. a wow clone?
Dude, seriously I was just about to type that, I went to make sure there wasn't some sort of originality rating on the ratings page. I really think there needs to be some sort of rating selection for originality of content, gameplay, or something.
One thing that might be something to look into, MMORPG, would be maybe a separate rating system for innovation/originality. It would allow the games individual rating for preformance, graphics, and such to remain the same and have a score that reflects it as an island by itself without taking into consideration if the mechanics or anything are just like somthing else. Then at the same time an originality rating system would help show the games merit as a newcomer into whichever genre it's coming into. I think that would be a fair rating system. You could put lots into that category, improvment of graphics in comparison to other games, combat mechanics (just the same ol' stuff or something different), innovative gameplay, character customization (maybe?), rifts would definitely fall into some sort of progression. I dunno just spit balling here. I think it would be a huge success for all those veterans who see games like this as deserving less than what they've been given.
My prediction, even though I personally am looking forwards to GW2 is this... Because of the new MMO mindset created by Blizzards 12 million player WoW. Any new and original gameplay is not gonna be viewed favorably because todays new MMO player has lost the ability to enjoy the journey and only want to hit max lvl asap without reading anything and to hell with such a thing as role playing a char and enjoying the games many offerings and focusing only on combat see my previous thread on the subject here>>
Excellent review. I agree with the score. I'm having a blast in the game and it ranks up there with many 8 out of 10 games console and PC I've played over the years. All haters need to find a new hobby, truly. You won't be satisfied with ANYTHING.
A game that brings Nothing New to the table gets an 8.7
Because its "Well Polished"?
So thats what MMORPG.com bases 98% of its reviews on.
Polish.
Fantastic.
I agree..
Metacritic, Rift:
Accumulative average Critic review: 8.4
Accumulative average user review: 8.1
If site reviews don't agree with you, it's a bit childish and immature to rant that the site must be bought or flawed. Seems to me that enough other critics and MMO gamers agree with a rating of 8+ for Rift, so mmorpg.com's review sounds fair and not out of touch with other reviews from critics and players.
You might not like that kind of MMO games, but at least respect people who do. Different games for different tastes.
To that though I would add just because lots of sites are paid off *hore* does not make him wrong. I played Rift, and I think this review is way off. Rift is like a 6 or 7 at best.
Rift isnt a bad game if you never played an MMO before.
Most people want more sameness.
Every new AAA game that is released has high scores initially. Look at Warhammer, it was on top for 3 or 4 months after it was released. Imo warhammer was a better more fun game.
Rift will share a similar fate imo, because once you get to cap level there really isnt much to do. Go do expert dungeons, which are the same dungeons you already did leveling up, with an added mob or two. BORING!
Pvp could be fun, but its the same 4 warfronts over and over again, 3 of which you did many times while leveling up.
The community is horrible, just a bunch of leet kiddies wanitng to know how much dps you are doing, and if you have proper gear, otherwise you cant be a cool kid.
Everyone is in an instance somewhere, so most of the time you dont see many people in the world, and if you do its a raid group doing a rift, so there isnt much PVP.
Was hoping they would add pvp only zones like Daoc has, and let the pve'ers do their thing, but that doesnt look like its gonna happen.
For me this game is just a WoW expansion, if you loved WoW then this is the game for you.
If you hated WoW as i did, then you will not like Rift either.
I call BS on this.. sounds to me you havent even played RIFT
While an originality rating is nice, I have to wonder why MMO gamers fuss so much more about originality and bashing MMO's that in their eyes don't tickle their innovation sweet spot, while singleplayer games are far less innovative in their genres (FPS/TPS, anyone?) qua mechanics and you hear a lot less ranting and whining about that.
Don't get me wrong, I love innovation and variety, that's why I'm looking forward to GW2 and TSW but also to SWTOR's quest revamp, and that's why I've played all kinds of MMO's. But innovation is just one factor that can make a game fun.
No, if there's one criterium that's a definitive must for MMORPG reviews, then it's longterm value.
It's all nice if professional reviewers and regular players rate the first 50-100 hours they've played. But in contrast to singleplayer games, gameplay in MMORPG's lasts longer than that and can change a lot, when leveling content is compared with the endgame content.
How an MMORPG can hold his own after the first 100-200 hours, that's one thing that's neglected in most reviews, but also the single most important thing for MMO gamers. Because its longterm value will determine whether they'll stick around and resub after the first month or two.
Originally posted by gekkothegrey
To that though I would add just because lots of sites are paid off *hore* does not make him wrong. I played Rift, and I think this review is way off. Rift is like a 6 or 7 at best.
Your opinion. You're entitled to it. A lot of other people have different opinions than you have, and therefore will rate Rift differently.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Its hard to say a game is quality when you could be having the almost exact same experience playing another game that has already been released and has more content, more updates, and more players. The only reason I see to play Rift is because I have gotten bored of WoW but love WoW, which I think the developers knew, hence why their target audience is WoW players.
While an originality rating is nice, I have to wonder why MMO gamers fuss so much more about originality and bashing MMO's that in their eyes don't tickle their innovation sweet spot, while singleplayer games are far less innovative in their genres (FPS/TPS, anyone?) qua mechanics and you hear a lot less ranting and whining about that.
Don't get me wrong, I love innovation and variety, that's why I'm looking forward to GW2 and TSW but also to SWTOR's quest revamp, and that's why I've played all kinds of MMO's. But innovation is just one factor that can make a game fun.
No, if there's one criterium that's a definitive must for MMORPG reviews, then it's longterm value.
It's all nice if professional reviewers and regular players rate the first 50-100 hours they've played. But in contrast to singleplayer games, gameplay in MMORPG's lasts longer than that and can change a lot, when leveling content is compared with the endgame content.
How an MMORPG can hold his own after the first 100-200 hours, that's one thing that's neglected in most reviews, but also the single most important thing for MMO gamers. Because its longterm value will determine whether they'll stick around and resub after the first month or two.
Well when it comes to single player games they are not meant to be played for long periods of time, or require subscriptions on top of the game cost. You, well I at least, play single player games for the story and fun. I could play the prince of persia, uncharted, Batman, assassin's creed games one after the other, but when it comes to MMORPG you're looking for something more. I'd explain that personally this way. I played WOW for years, and Eve, and unlike single player games you played the MMORPG's FOREVER in comparison, so really after a while going to a new game that is set up the same way is just repetitive and boring to me. With the single player games I think their times come, like assassins creed I think it's getting stale, same with the prince of persia games. Look at Rock Band. I think an amazing series of games would be Zelda or Final Fantasy (non-MMORPG) these games put out sequals of decades, but kept putting out original mechanics and such revolutionizing the game itself. That's what makes something amazing. This is also the reason I think that an originality/innovation rating system would be a plus for an addition IMO.
Also maybe Mario but I was a nintendo kid so I'm partial
While an originality rating is nice, I have to wonder why MMO gamers fuss so much more about originality and bashing MMO's that in their eyes don't tickle their innovation sweet spot, while singleplayer games are far less innovative in their genres (FPS/TPS, anyone?) qua mechanics and you hear a lot less ranting and whining about that.
First, I feel like I have to say that a review of originality is not just nice, it's necessary. It needs to happen, but that's just semantics. On to your points--
Perhaps it is because the very state of an MMO invites players to join the community online. Perhaps FPS are (***please forgive me for saying this, I'm not an FPS'er!***) closer to perfection until VR happens? Also, when I do FPS, I don't feel like I'm watching the UI like I am in WoW or RIFT. And that's the way a game should be.
Do FPS have guns with cooldowns? You just fired an anti-aircraft missle. You have 4 more on your person but must wait 30 seconds before firing another? And I'd assume GCD is non-existent.
Don't get me wrong, I love innovation and variety, that's why I'm looking forward to GW2 and TSW but also to SWTOR's quest revamp, and that's why I've played all kinds of MMO's. But innovation is just one factor that can make a game fun.
No, if there's one criterium that's a definitive must for MMORPG reviews, then it's longterm value.
Of course, an initial review can't rate that. The Wayback reviews don't even rate that though. Perhaps that's an idea the staff should take to heart. RIFT, for instance, is criticized for having little replayability but many players aren't Altoholics, especially in a game like RIFT or FFXI where no class is locked to one single role or playstyle. (Of the hundreds of people I knew in FFXI, I knew noone with an actual played alt that was on the same account. Yeah people had tagalong alts for multiboxing.
It's all nice if professional reviewers and regular players rate the first 50-100 hours they've played. But in contrast to singleplayer games, gameplay in MMORPG's lasts longer than that and can change a lot, when leveling content is compared with the endgame content.
How an MMORPG can hold his own after the first 100-200 hours, that's one thing that's neglected in most reviews, but also the single most important thing for MMO gamers. Because its longterm value will determine whether they'll stick around and resub after the first month or two.
Spec'ing properly is a gateway drug. 12 Million People have been meter spammed in heroics.
This high of a rating for RIFT is, obviously, subjective, as all ratings and opinions are subjective. Just because it comes from MMORPG.com staff doesn't make it somehow more valuable. It's still...just an opinion. So I'm not sure why people are either all "high five" or "this sucks" about the review. Personally, I think to review RIFT that high is ludicrous, but that's because I wasn't too fond of the game and felt it was dry and bland. So...my opinion will be colored by that view. And I suppose if you are just STARVED for an MMO, your opinion might be higher of RIFT than mine. Frankly....I'm not that hungry yet.
Im not sure what to believe. The score of 8.7 or this list :
Pros
Ascended Soul system
Beautiful sounds & visuals
Highly polished
Massive rift invasions
Open grouping
Cons
Bland crafting
Only two leveling paths
PvP imbalance
Same old questing
Tedious solo play
Those cons are not just minor details. But with a score of 8.7, there isnt much room for improvement, so I wonder if this is even on a scale of 1-10.
If the conclusion is something along the line of that its a very polished nice looking version of same old same old, then how can that score get so high? Or does innovation and improvement not count anymore?
The review seems solid, but the final score seems too much. I agree with others, it seems that its almost impossible for a MMO to not score good anymore.
This high of a rating for RIFT is, obviously, subjective, as all ratings and opinions are subjective. Just because it comes from MMORPG.com staff doesn't make it somehow more valuable. It's still...just an opinion. So I'm not sure why people are either all "high five" or "this sucks" about the review. Personally, I think to review RIFT that high is ludicrous, but that's because I wasn't too fond of the game and felt it was dry and bland. So...my opinion will be colored by that view. And I suppose if you are just STARVED for an MMO, your opinion might be higher of RIFT than mine. Frankly....I'm not that hungry yet.
I dont mind that its subjective. Its just odd to see that list of Cons together with that final score.
The review seems solid, but the final score seems too much. I agree with others, it seems that its almost impossible for a MMO to not score good anymore.
I think that FFXIV, STO, Earthrise and APB proved differently, and that's within the last year.
Not everyone is burnt out on certain traditional MMO features, not everyone needs huge doses of innovation to get their MMO fix. If an MMORPG is solid, has a good production value and quality and as a result is very enjoyable to quite a number of MMO gamers, then I don't see why it shouldn't get a high grade just because it isn't innovative enough for some.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Comments
I agree..
Given that most game genres have been stagnant for such a long time, and that most people hate change (or can't handle anything outside of their familiar box), it's a very reasonable score.
Remember, game designers that attempt something new and innovative typically fail 90% (or more) of the time.
I personally would like to see the genre evolve, but on the other hand, I think what I really want is a new genre that's massively multiplayer and is NOTHING like an mmorpg that we know.
Heres a real question, how does not brinign anything new to teh table make it a bad game?
People nee dot get over the add obsessions with "new", and focus on what they like instead.
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling"
Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
Honestly i would want to play a game that doesn't crash every second, need users to make a patcher for it,take sup 162 gigs of space on my hard drive because of a bad install.
I do want something new but so many recent mmos have been so rusty that it is a breath of fresh air to see something that actually works.
Yes, because that's the state of the genre itself. Almost all popular game genres don't deviate from the basic game mechanics. If they did, "most" of them wouldn't sell very well, unless they got lucky and did something magical. In the business world, you can't count on being magical.
With that said, a polished game that fits into its target genre and does it well, definitely deserves a high score whether you like it or not.
Metacritic, Rift:
Accumulative average Critic review: 8.4
Accumulative average user review: 8.1
If site reviews don't agree with you, it's a bit childish and immature to rant that the site must be bought or flawed. Seems to me that enough other critics and MMO gamers agree with a rating of 8+ for Rift, so mmorpg.com's review sounds fair and not out of touch with other reviews from critics and players.
You might not like that kind of MMO games, but at least respect people who do. Different games for different tastes.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
I am not going to bite,it's my opinion and you have yours. Having played all 7 betas up nto level 42 and done all content on both factions i really don't think RIFT deserves the score it has got.
It's got nothing to do with repect at all,it's an opinion which everyone is allowed to have.
Well seeing how WOW has a 93 rating I don't see metacritic being to helpful, but most critics aren't. As for user ratings, I hardly think 150 something users really mean anything.
There really is no pleasing everyone, there's always going to be someone who disagrees. Personally I just don't agree with giving something that is a copy of another game an 8.7 rating, especially when that other game is 6 years old or whatever. Everyone has their opinion though.
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/431/view/ratings
Even with the number of haters that probably rated the game a 1 (vs the fanboys who went straight 10s), and people like me who rated it a 4.8, the average rating on this site for both User Ratings and Staff Ratings are both 8.7.
The only thing I find odd is both are 8.7 lol.
I just think, and I know I say this a lot, originality or lack thereof should matter so much more than it does.
What if I told you 6.5 years ago, at WoW's release that games would be the same now? Or how about I say that now--"In October 2017, MMOs will be the same as now, just prettier."? When games get reviewed like that, that's where I'm afraid the industry is heading.
What if Titan is just... rofl.. a wow clone?
Spec'ing properly is a gateway drug.
12 Million People have been meter spammed in heroics.
Rift isnt a bad game if you never played an MMO before.
Most people want more sameness.
Every new AAA game that is released has high scores initially. Look at Warhammer, it was on top for 3 or 4 months after it was released. Imo warhammer was a better more fun game.
Rift will share a similar fate imo, because once you get to cap level there really isnt much to do. Go do expert dungeons, which are the same dungeons you already did leveling up, with an added mob or two. BORING!
Pvp could be fun, but its the same 4 warfronts over and over again, 3 of which you did many times while leveling up.
The community is horrible, just a bunch of leet kiddies wanitng to know how much dps you are doing, and if you have proper gear, otherwise you cant be a cool kid.
Everyone is in an instance somewhere, so most of the time you dont see many people in the world, and if you do its a raid group doing a rift, so there isnt much PVP.
Was hoping they would add pvp only zones like Daoc has, and let the pve'ers do their thing, but that doesnt look like its gonna happen.
For me this game is just a WoW expansion, if you loved WoW then this is the game for you.
If you hated WoW as i did, then you will not like Rift either.
Then I demand you start your own gaming website and write your own bloody review mate. And while you're up get me a bacon sandwitch and a pint.
Personally I believe that Rift deserves 7675684675469754 out of 903442372704354.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
Dude, seriously I was just about to type that, I went to make sure there wasn't some sort of originality rating on the ratings page. I really think there needs to be some sort of rating selection for originality of content, gameplay, or something.
One thing that might be something to look into, MMORPG, would be maybe a separate rating system for innovation/originality. It would allow the games individual rating for preformance, graphics, and such to remain the same and have a score that reflects it as an island by itself without taking into consideration if the mechanics or anything are just like somthing else. Then at the same time an originality rating system would help show the games merit as a newcomer into whichever genre it's coming into. I think that would be a fair rating system. You could put lots into that category, improvment of graphics in comparison to other games, combat mechanics (just the same ol' stuff or something different), innovative gameplay, character customization (maybe?), rifts would definitely fall into some sort of progression. I dunno just spit balling here. I think it would be a huge success for all those veterans who see games like this as deserving less than what they've been given.
1.1 sadly nullifies this review.
My prediction, even though I personally am looking forwards to GW2 is this... Because of the new MMO mindset created by Blizzards 12 million player WoW. Any new and original gameplay is not gonna be viewed favorably because todays new MMO player has lost the ability to enjoy the journey and only want to hit max lvl asap without reading anything and to hell with such a thing as role playing a char and enjoying the games many offerings and focusing only on combat see my previous thread on the subject here>>
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/311535/Todays-MMO-player.html
Excellent review. I agree with the score. I'm having a blast in the game and it ranks up there with many 8 out of 10 games console and PC I've played over the years. All haters need to find a new hobby, truly. You won't be satisfied with ANYTHING.
To that though I would add just because lots of sites are paid off *hore* does not make him wrong. I played Rift, and I think this review is way off. Rift is like a 6 or 7 at best.
I call BS on this.. sounds to me you havent even played RIFT
While an originality rating is nice, I have to wonder why MMO gamers fuss so much more about originality and bashing MMO's that in their eyes don't tickle their innovation sweet spot, while singleplayer games are far less innovative in their genres (FPS/TPS, anyone?) qua mechanics and you hear a lot less ranting and whining about that.
Don't get me wrong, I love innovation and variety, that's why I'm looking forward to GW2 and TSW but also to SWTOR's quest revamp, and that's why I've played all kinds of MMO's. But innovation is just one factor that can make a game fun.
No, if there's one criterium that's a definitive must for MMORPG reviews, then it's longterm value.
It's all nice if professional reviewers and regular players rate the first 50-100 hours they've played. But in contrast to singleplayer games, gameplay in MMORPG's lasts longer than that and can change a lot, when leveling content is compared with the endgame content.
How an MMORPG can hold his own after the first 100-200 hours, that's one thing that's neglected in most reviews, but also the single most important thing for MMO gamers. Because its longterm value will determine whether they'll stick around and resub after the first month or two.
Your opinion. You're entitled to it. A lot of other people have different opinions than you have, and therefore will rate Rift differently.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Its hard to say a game is quality when you could be having the almost exact same experience playing another game that has already been released and has more content, more updates, and more players. The only reason I see to play Rift is because I have gotten bored of WoW but love WoW, which I think the developers knew, hence why their target audience is WoW players.
Play as your fav retro characters: cnd-online.net. My site: www.lysle.net. Blog: creatingaworld.blogspot.com.
Well when it comes to single player games they are not meant to be played for long periods of time, or require subscriptions on top of the game cost. You, well I at least, play single player games for the story and fun. I could play the prince of persia, uncharted, Batman, assassin's creed games one after the other, but when it comes to MMORPG you're looking for something more. I'd explain that personally this way. I played WOW for years, and Eve, and unlike single player games you played the MMORPG's FOREVER in comparison, so really after a while going to a new game that is set up the same way is just repetitive and boring to me. With the single player games I think their times come, like assassins creed I think it's getting stale, same with the prince of persia games. Look at Rock Band. I think an amazing series of games would be Zelda or Final Fantasy (non-MMORPG) these games put out sequals of decades, but kept putting out original mechanics and such revolutionizing the game itself. That's what makes something amazing. This is also the reason I think that an originality/innovation rating system would be a plus for an addition IMO.
Also maybe Mario but I was a nintendo kid so I'm partial
Spec'ing properly is a gateway drug.
12 Million People have been meter spammed in heroics.
This high of a rating for RIFT is, obviously, subjective, as all ratings and opinions are subjective. Just because it comes from MMORPG.com staff doesn't make it somehow more valuable. It's still...just an opinion. So I'm not sure why people are either all "high five" or "this sucks" about the review. Personally, I think to review RIFT that high is ludicrous, but that's because I wasn't too fond of the game and felt it was dry and bland. So...my opinion will be colored by that view. And I suppose if you are just STARVED for an MMO, your opinion might be higher of RIFT than mine. Frankly....I'm not that hungry yet.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
Im not sure what to believe. The score of 8.7 or this list :
Pros
Cons
Those cons are not just minor details. But with a score of 8.7, there isnt much room for improvement, so I wonder if this is even on a scale of 1-10.
If the conclusion is something along the line of that its a very polished nice looking version of same old same old, then how can that score get so high? Or does innovation and improvement not count anymore?
The review seems solid, but the final score seems too much. I agree with others, it seems that its almost impossible for a MMO to not score good anymore.
I dont mind that its subjective. Its just odd to see that list of Cons together with that final score.
I think that FFXIV, STO, Earthrise and APB proved differently, and that's within the last year.
Not everyone is burnt out on certain traditional MMO features, not everyone needs huge doses of innovation to get their MMO fix. If an MMORPG is solid, has a good production value and quality and as a result is very enjoyable to quite a number of MMO gamers, then I don't see why it shouldn't get a high grade just because it isn't innovative enough for some.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."