Critics opinions through the years on MMO's really boils down to one thing -
"Damned if you do, Damned if you don't" . '
Of all the Fantasy type MMO's Rift has made the best first impression on me than any of the others I have tried. No other game in this MMO category has captured my interest.. I played a different genre of MMO for years and also tried WOW, LOTR, AOC, DAOC, EQ 1& 2, Lineage,, you name it , but just couldn't be captivated long enough in any of those to continue.. I am curious to all the critics as to what they would want in a MMO of this genre that would make it a 9 or 10, thats' if you really care about numbers.. Been a gamer since PONG.... To the C64 guys - All hail ZORK!
Rift is at this point my farvorite MMO. After many bugged launches of other games it was very refreshing to get into Rift with no bugs. for players like me playing as casual and not worried or care much about end game. Rift is very near perfect. Sure Crafting and collecting needs tweeks to it so it actually means something. Questing is tedious and often boring. That is where the Rifts and Invasions come in and break up the boring tedious stuff. Grinding in the MMO worlds seems to be the Norm. Rift changes the game a bit Making the grind a lot more fun.. When your going against the Rifts and invasions you forget your actually grinding...
Why try to be a game changer when those are typically the games that not enough people play to keep it an MMO. I think what they did was smart. Took several of the elements that people love from other MMO's and put their stamp on it. They are obviously doing something right with the attention they've been getting and the number of people currently playing.
Is it perfect? No. But I'll be playing it for quite a while and having a good time doing it. I hope it succeeds. I would probably give it an 8, mainly because due to the crafting system and speed of levelling (too quick) I don't feel I can go any higher.
I always read reviews on games but I believe to get a better idea of a game is to take it slow and play out all the content yourself before you can give a full well informed opinion.
I see nothing wrong with trion taking ideas from other mmos and perfecting it as they have clearly done with this game. Invasions is something new that keeps the game exciting but yes I would love to see more unique things added too as everyone does these days.
I just want to make the point that once I got to a certain level in game I found I was questing across 3 zones, if I get bored with one then I go to the other. It would be good though to have more of a choice of zones in all level ranges to quest in so starting anew doesn't become stale.
"I have an nVidia GTX460, 6GB of RAM, and quad-core clocked at over 3.2Ghz"
Either give your system specs or don't give your system specs. That says just enough to give the illusion of saying what you have, without actually specifying anything at all about your system.
What processor is it? Lots of processors of very different architectures have been quad cores and/or clocked over 3.2 GHz. There's quite a difference in performance between Propus and Sandy Bridge.
What video card is it? There are at least five different video cards that have been branded as GeForce GTX 460 something or other, and you don't say which you have. That's not counting different board partners or factory overclocks as different, either. The fastest of the GTX 460s offers well over double the performance of the slowest.
And for memory, 6 GB only makes sense if you have a Bloomfield processor, which was pretty much obsolete before any of the GTX 460s came out. Otherwise, you're mismatching memory slots, and possibly memory channels, which will hurt your performance.
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.
Agree!
Originally posted by someforumguy
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.
I haven't played Rift yet, but from the looks of it a lot of people say it has nothing really innovative, except the rifts and the class and souls system.
Innovation is what makes the world advance. If there wasn't innovation, all the people would never use internet, would never play a PS3 or XBOX-360, you will always play the first Prince of Persia and never the new ones, and never take photos or make videos with your cellphone. Now tell me (all those people that agree with the ratings from these forums), what is better, the old stuff or the new and upgraded stuff?
Even in games like PES / FIFA, you see innovation from one version to the next and not just in graphics. That's what makes the games get higher scores from the previous ones. FIFA just got 1st recently because it's gameplay finally innovated, and PES, that was 1st before, went down to 2nd. Finally some real competition again.
In MMORPGs, I almost never see innovations for the last 4-5 years. Finally we have some real innovations. And I heard Rift has some of them, as I said before, but still a LOT needs to change. The game might deserve a high score, but YOU CAN'T TELL ME THAT 7.5 ISN'T HIGH! If you had 7.5 (15 in 1-20 scale, or equals to B or B- in A-F scale) in most of your exams in school/university, you would considered one of the best in class. Having 8.7 in a game with SO MANY flaws in innovation, originality and some mechanics, it's not a good review. You need to have a LOT of innovation and originality, and very few flaws and old stuff.
Originally posted by hitsuji182
Lol, I'm wondering what score GW2 will get then.
Exactly. It can't have 10! I wouldn't mind if it could have, and I hope it will the best MMORPG I will ever play, but still, in order to get 10 it needs to be PERFECT! PERFECTION is something we can't see in games, unless there's no more room for innovation. I don't mean to offend MMORPG staff (I do like your work ), but If GW2 delivers everything they said and showed us so far with few flaws and gets less than 9.5 in your scale, Rift could never get close to 8.7.
I guess the MMORPG staff (and staff from other mmo forums too) should remake their most important points for reviews. And now it's the right time, since we finally have some games with innovations for the genre releasing in the next 6-12 months.
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.
The reason why people take review scores seriously is because they know it does matter to some degree. Are you saying that if 10 websites review a game (that has no demo) and they all give it a 5 out of 10 or worse, you're going to run out and buy it? Or do you just buy games on a whim witout any research at all?
Of course reviews are subjective, but it's also part of the equation for a purchase decision. I'm not going to buy a $50 game with a $15 sub if 9 out of 10 people who also enjoy the same genre as I say that it sucks. Believe me, I'll take their word for it. On the other hand, if the game still seems interesting to me, I might wait until it's $7 with no sub.
The same goes for other genres. If an open world action adventure comes out and 10 websites give it 8/10 or better, I might buy it that week, because I love that genre.
Well, one has to appreciate that Trion succeeded in entirely manifesting their plan! I mean, how rare is THAT? It's super polished, and I'd say it extends the classic EQ-ish MMO formula to it's heights. I think Rift is in a way a continuation of EQ2 more than anything else. I don't see the WAR or WOW comparisions at all, save the UI maybe. It hasn't the PVP focus of WAR and it has nothing from WOW, outside UI and maybe the very basic "it has quests".
Rift also has some old fashioned-ness. Back when EQ2 was new, most areas outside of Qeynos were for groups only, because a lot of mobs were heroic. Rift is in a way similar, but while mobs are soloable, they are so densly packed and fast respawning in many areas, it makes soloing harsh and at least groups or duos the default way to play it. Which one may love or hate, as things are. Making a Cleric has given me max solo survivability (since I am a jerk and HATE to depend on others... ^^), but other classes I found way less survivable.
We all know Rift lacks replayability (actually it has zero), and IMVPO the lack of replayability should lower a rating considerable, given how many people love to play several alts. It's the same I said about DCU. Replayability is one of the most important features for the longevity of a MMO. Period.
Also the quests are VERY lackluster. Not bad, but nothing you'll write home about. The Rift experience is something truly awesome, always some invasion going on somewhere and Trion already started a worldwide, week-long event, which looks good for the future. I don't think it is entirely fair to compare a new MMO to MMOs which ran for years by now. EQ2 or WOW weren't any better or more complete, and even WOW took 5 years until it became good (with Cataclysm) on the quest-front.
Personally I always found the visuals stunning.
Overall I'd say 7.5 of 10 would be fair.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
May I suggest a "revised" rating system for MMORPG.COM by adding a few more ratings:
1) Have a rating for PvE quality (rated by someone who actually likes PvE, which I believe is the majority of MMORPG.com staff).
2) Have a rating for PvP quality (rated by someone who actually likes PvP, which I believe is the minority of MMORPG.com staff).
3) Have a rating for innovation
4) Have an overall rating for game satisfaction/graphics/polish/etc. (similar to the rating you have now).
Personally, if a game was poor in PvE but fantastic in PvP, that would be great for me but terrible for others. Furthermore, I suspect the rating for PvE and innovation could be done rather quickly, with the PvP rating and overall satisfaction rating coming on later on after more extensive gameplay. Trying to write a review for the game with limited time in PvP and/or endgame content is just not realistic. I know you try to get th reviews out quickly, but you sacrafice too much in quality to get it out quickly.
everyone keeps crying for a game to "bring something new to the table". Then games like Final Fantasy XIV and Mortal Online come out and people crap on it.
A game like Rift comes out, and people still crap on it but its doing a lot better than both FFXIV and Mortal Online. You tell me whos right, and whos wrong?
MMO's are a genre and much of what you see in Rift and other MMO's that share similarities are part of this genre. Its been proven when you deviate too much from these models, the MMO community runs from it.
For further information on this subject, see Star Wars: The Old Republic
everyone keeps crying for a game to "bring something new to the table". Then games like Final Fantasy XIV and Mortal Online come out and people crap on it.
A game like Rift comes out, and people still crap on it but its doing a lot better than both FFXIV and Mortal Online. You tell me whos right, and whos wrong?
MMO's are a genre and much of what you see in Rift and other MMO's that share similarities are part of this genre. Its been proven when you deviate too much from these models, the MMO community runs from it.
For further information on this subject, see Star Wars: The Old Republic
lol Thats true however...
FFXIV noticeably failed with its interface. I still want to play the damn game because i have thought it looks great for a long time but even the players that enjoy the game suggest to stay away until its fixed more.
Mortal Online is another thing, all it takes is reading just a little bit good and bad and you can decide if you want to play it or not. People dont dislike it because it doesnt offer some great gameplay (as far as i can tell), they dislike it simply because it is unfinished well ok and some anger at the small staff they have for whatever reasons goin on with the game.
Then you take into consideration the fact that all the word on the "street" is Rift is a finished product, and you can see that its really well done and Trion has backed it up like crazy since the start. Until things change and if they change you can tell that Trion really gives a crap, theyre on the ball and constantly keeping their world alive.
Im not a fan of Rift, im just saying. I wont forget the name Trion and i will be looking for any other games they put up.
Jeremiah 8:21 I weep for the hurt of my people; I stand amazed, silent, dumb with grief. Join me on TwitchFacebook Twitter
Spot on In your assessments I think. The only part I think that you should cut them some slack on is the amount of leveling paths. It is a fresh release and totally expected IMO. I would expect content updates and an expansion to solve this. Every mmo I have played at launch has been this way. Can't have everything at launch.
Very good review. I would give it a little higher review, maybe a 9.0 even, but 8.7 is fair enough. As I've told several of my friends that I've gotten "Riftified" (that's my word, but you can use it hehe), other than it's class and invasion system there's nothing new, but Rift has taken many parts of what has worked in the past and put a very very nice polish on. If you've ever played EQ, WoW, EQ2, LOTRO, or pretty much any other fantasy-based mmo, you'll probably like Rift. I've gotten to level 50, and I can add that the game is still fun at the end. However, in some of the mid-zones (level 30-45ish) the invasions are more ignored and avoided, since they're very strong (and when I went through it there weren't many players in the zones, like 10-20 maybe). I'm on my second character and in those zones again, and it seems to be much better when an invasion comes around. Instead of 20 people trying to take on an onslaught of 500 there's more like a 100 or so.
I run Rift with all the settings on maximum, and the graphics/sounds are one of the best parts of this game. However, I can still run it on my 5 year old laptop without any problems, (the graphics are just toned down alot) and they look better than any game I've ever played on that laptop. In the major invasion raids, especially the ending boss fights my FPS barely drops on either computer (which is amazing). I've recommended this to any of my friends I've made over the past almost 20 years of MMO playing, most of them are already playing it.
8.7 is way to high a score IMO. I would put it more like 7.0-7.5 (Good) but def not great.
Velika: City of Wheels: Among the mortal races, the humans were the only one that never built cities or great empires; a curse laid upon them by their creator, Gidd, forced them to wander as nomads for twenty centuries...
I enjoyed Beta 6 & 7 and the first 3 weeks of launch but this week I've hardly logged in. As others have said it's nothing new and I'm finding it a bit stale. I will most likely sub for another month to get my Rogue to 50 and see whats on offer but I as it's the same gear grind I doubt they will see me playing any longer than that.
If you haven't been playing this genre for long you will probably enjoy the game but for those who are looking for something more than the gear grind you will not get it. My rating would be 7/10.
i find more important all the CONS than the PROS from this review.... if Trion addressed those as of patch 1.1 then its ok... otherwise, Rift needs that fixxed for me to go back to play it ( just a personal opinion here)...
Good write up and the second opinion was welcomed. 8.7 for me is a little to high. I would have put it at 8.0. However, there is a theme with all these rift reviews which is that rifts doesn't reinvent the wheel but instead adds those shiny spinning rims to the mmo tire. For me that's just fine. I don't think I'll ever understand why people dislike a game because it doesn't bring something new to the genre. I'm sure those same ppl will be just as upset when SWTOR or GW2 comes out. Seems to me they are more burnt out on this genre than anything really.
Just becuase its not innovative doesnt mean it should get a bad grade for it.Rift is good at what it does..
Some people are saying a 6.5? seriously? this is the first game in nearly a decade that released as a solid complete MMO from levels 1-50 and with minimal bugs.
6.5? really? this must mean that MMO's like Mortal are like a -100..
I always read these comments then ask myself ..Self "how many of these people making these comments about the game have a sub and are playing the finished game?" Sure Rift is a "Clone" of WoW And WoW is a "Clone" of Everquest and Everquest is a "Clone" of Meridan 59. The List goes on and on. I am Playing Rift now And its a great well made game with a great story.
So you Played this type of game before I understand its "the same old thing " its the same people who complain that a game like EVE is "So different and unplayable". Play the game, Tell me what you dont like about it, what do you like about it, what do you think needs improvement? But alias I think im asking for blood from a rock with most of the people here. oh and if you do play Tell us your Char. name and Server I would love to come visit you !
To be honest, I put probably 50 hours into the game over the past 3 weeks and what I found to be most aggravating is the one feature i was really looking forward to in this title, and that is the souls system. It is wildly unbalanced at all levels, and this results in there actually being fewer choices available than you would like. Now this is coming from someone who enjoys PvP, and likes to do a dungeon with a minimal amount of repeated deaths. While yes, you can spec however you like, that's a pretty sorry consolation when you die repeatedly to either bosses or other players. It's just not enjoyable to get facestomped over and over to the point you end up sitting in the graveyard as much as you are fighting. I have been in this position from both angles. Where I was trying a soul combo out and it was just horrible, and when I was running a dungeon and someone else was horrible. It's frustrating, and not enjoyable at all.
I think the lack of an easily usable parser is very, very telling in this game. While you may not want a "recount competition" it is a very useful measuring stick when looking at damage taken and damage done. If one tank is taking double the damage of another in similar gear, then something is broken. If one DPS is doing double the damage of another DPS, then something is broken. When it's the same player and they are just changing souls, then that's even more horribly broken.
So in my mind you can't have
+Ascended soul system
when you have
-PvP imbalance
Because no one can seriously believe that when PvP imbalance is bad enough to make it a con, that there isn't going to be spillover in PvE. The concept is great, sure. Won't argue that. The execution of it leaves something to be desired.
I gave this game a shot, a month of playing around an hour and half a day average is more than adequate in my opinion to get a feel for the game. While I did not rush to 50, I have friends who picked up the game that did. I got bored with warriors at 37, the combat was repetitive and the tanking was frustrating (lack of good cooldowns, mitgation was awful). At which point I rolled a rogue because we were light on support classes, and I leveled that to 40. I felt that given the recent track record of MMOs I'd just take it pretty easy and let them rush if they wanted to, they would see what there was at max level and I could go on that + what my own opinion of the game up to that point is. I was pretty much going on them whether I would cancel my account or not. I didn't have a terrible time with the game, but it certainly became very grindy, very quickly. But they are all cancelling after being 50 for 2 and half weeks. I don't much see the point of playing when I'm not having a great time, plus most of the people I intended to play the game with are quitting.
It's a good game, but not great. I'd feel it deserver much closer to a 7. Reason being I can't really agree with 2 of your + being Ascended souls and Highly Polished. If I'd only played into the mid 20's I would probably agree with you. I have to say the first zone is definitely the best. The quests are no where near as repetitive, the overlap is better, and it's just a better flow in general (the one hiccough being the damnably stupidly designed epic quest that sends you into a dungeon 4 levels under you by the time you get done with it and overall is a huge waste of time because the objectives are so annoying). By the time you get into the mid 30's it's a huge grind. The quest creativity is just gone. It's a lifeless go here, kill this, pick this up, use this on this guy compilation worsened by the fact that a lot of it is just in open terrain where they plopped down the mobs with maybe a building or two.
I can't say that the entire game is highly polished. The game works, no doubt, but there are a lot of glaring issues with the class system and quest flow, and questing in general. You can argue that questing is a small part of the game, I will concede this only if people are going to be playing for months. If it is so tedious, onerous, and repetitive that people don't WANT to get to max level.... well then they aren't going to stick around for months, are they ? And once you get max level, what's important ? Class balance is in my top 5 for sure. And that's a con, a big one.
I actually agree with both reviews' negative and positive points and would grade it a bit lower at 8/10.
I'm enjoying it for now and after two betas and the first month, I subscribed for 6 months and will concurrently only play the sublime LOTRO which still is the best mmorpg ever made.
Btw Rift at 8.99 euros/month and no item shop made it the cheapest and fairest p2p AAA mmo around.
Comments
Critics opinions through the years on MMO's really boils down to one thing -
"Damned if you do, Damned if you don't" . '
Of all the Fantasy type MMO's Rift has made the best first impression on me than any of the others I have tried. No other game in this MMO category has captured my interest.. I played a different genre of MMO for years and also tried WOW, LOTR, AOC, DAOC, EQ 1& 2, Lineage,, you name it , but just couldn't be captivated long enough in any of those to continue.. I am curious to all the critics as to what they would want in a MMO of this genre that would make it a 9 or 10, thats' if you really care about numbers.. Been a gamer since PONG.... To the C64 guys - All hail ZORK!
Rift is at this point my farvorite MMO. After many bugged launches of other games it was very refreshing to get into Rift with no bugs. for players like me playing as casual and not worried or care much about end game. Rift is very near perfect. Sure Crafting and collecting needs tweeks to it so it actually means something. Questing is tedious and often boring. That is where the Rifts and Invasions come in and break up the boring tedious stuff. Grinding in the MMO worlds seems to be the Norm. Rift changes the game a bit Making the grind a lot more fun.. When your going against the Rifts and invasions you forget your actually grinding...
Only Rugby releases the stress of Life.
Why try to be a game changer when those are typically the games that not enough people play to keep it an MMO. I think what they did was smart. Took several of the elements that people love from other MMO's and put their stamp on it. They are obviously doing something right with the attention they've been getting and the number of people currently playing.
Is it perfect? No. But I'll be playing it for quite a while and having a good time doing it. I hope it succeeds. I would probably give it an 8, mainly because due to the crafting system and speed of levelling (too quick) I don't feel I can go any higher.
Great game and fair reviews.
1.1 = More Rifts
/bleh
Can't wait until 1.5 Moar RIFTZ!
Come to the conclusion that Trion is the master of being stale. Had more fun in WAR than here, that's saying something.
I always read reviews on games but I believe to get a better idea of a game is to take it slow and play out all the content yourself before you can give a full well informed opinion.
I see nothing wrong with trion taking ideas from other mmos and perfecting it as they have clearly done with this game. Invasions is something new that keeps the game exciting but yes I would love to see more unique things added too as everyone does these days.
I just want to make the point that once I got to a certain level in game I found I was questing across 3 zones, if I get bored with one then I go to the other. It would be good though to have more of a choice of zones in all level ranges to quest in so starting anew doesn't become stale.
So, it's a blend of EQ2, VG, WoW..exactly what I want to do with my time, NOT
"I have an nVidia GTX460, 6GB of RAM, and quad-core clocked at over 3.2Ghz"
Either give your system specs or don't give your system specs. That says just enough to give the illusion of saying what you have, without actually specifying anything at all about your system.
What processor is it? Lots of processors of very different architectures have been quad cores and/or clocked over 3.2 GHz. There's quite a difference in performance between Propus and Sandy Bridge.
What video card is it? There are at least five different video cards that have been branded as GeForce GTX 460 something or other, and you don't say which you have. That's not counting different board partners or factory overclocks as different, either. The fastest of the GTX 460s offers well over double the performance of the slowest.
And for memory, 6 GB only makes sense if you have a Bloomfield processor, which was pretty much obsolete before any of the GTX 460s came out. Otherwise, you're mismatching memory slots, and possibly memory channels, which will hurt your performance.
Agree!
I haven't played Rift yet, but from the looks of it a lot of people say it has nothing really innovative, except the rifts and the class and souls system.
Innovation is what makes the world advance. If there wasn't innovation, all the people would never use internet, would never play a PS3 or XBOX-360, you will always play the first Prince of Persia and never the new ones, and never take photos or make videos with your cellphone. Now tell me (all those people that agree with the ratings from these forums), what is better, the old stuff or the new and upgraded stuff?
Even in games like PES / FIFA, you see innovation from one version to the next and not just in graphics. That's what makes the games get higher scores from the previous ones. FIFA just got 1st recently because it's gameplay finally innovated, and PES, that was 1st before, went down to 2nd. Finally some real competition again.
In MMORPGs, I almost never see innovations for the last 4-5 years. Finally we have some real innovations. And I heard Rift has some of them, as I said before, but still a LOT needs to change. The game might deserve a high score, but YOU CAN'T TELL ME THAT 7.5 ISN'T HIGH! If you had 7.5 (15 in 1-20 scale, or equals to B or B- in A-F scale) in most of your exams in school/university, you would considered one of the best in class. Having 8.7 in a game with SO MANY flaws in innovation, originality and some mechanics, it's not a good review. You need to have a LOT of innovation and originality, and very few flaws and old stuff.
Exactly. It can't have 10! I wouldn't mind if it could have, and I hope it will the best MMORPG I will ever play, but still, in order to get 10 it needs to be PERFECT! PERFECTION is something we can't see in games, unless there's no more room for innovation. I don't mean to offend MMORPG staff (I do like your work
), but If GW2 delivers everything they said and showed us so far with few flaws and gets less than 9.5 in your scale, Rift could never get close to 8.7.
I guess the MMORPG staff (and staff from other mmo forums too) should remake their most important points for reviews. And now it's the right time, since we finally have some games with innovations for the genre releasing in the next 6-12 months.
PS: Sorry for the long post. Got inspired today
The reason why people take review scores seriously is because they know it does matter to some degree. Are you saying that if 10 websites review a game (that has no demo) and they all give it a 5 out of 10 or worse, you're going to run out and buy it? Or do you just buy games on a whim witout any research at all?
Of course reviews are subjective, but it's also part of the equation for a purchase decision. I'm not going to buy a $50 game with a $15 sub if 9 out of 10 people who also enjoy the same genre as I say that it sucks. Believe me, I'll take their word for it. On the other hand, if the game still seems interesting to me, I might wait until it's $7 with no sub.
The same goes for other genres. If an open world action adventure comes out and 10 websites give it 8/10 or better, I might buy it that week, because I love that genre.
I guess the one-eyed is king among the blind, eh?
Well, one has to appreciate that Trion succeeded in entirely manifesting their plan! I mean, how rare is THAT? It's super polished, and I'd say it extends the classic EQ-ish MMO formula to it's heights. I think Rift is in a way a continuation of EQ2 more than anything else. I don't see the WAR or WOW comparisions at all, save the UI maybe. It hasn't the PVP focus of WAR and it has nothing from WOW, outside UI and maybe the very basic "it has quests".
Rift also has some old fashioned-ness. Back when EQ2 was new, most areas outside of Qeynos were for groups only, because a lot of mobs were heroic. Rift is in a way similar, but while mobs are soloable, they are so densly packed and fast respawning in many areas, it makes soloing harsh and at least groups or duos the default way to play it. Which one may love or hate, as things are. Making a Cleric has given me max solo survivability (since I am a jerk and HATE to depend on others... ^^), but other classes I found way less survivable.
We all know Rift lacks replayability (actually it has zero), and IMVPO the lack of replayability should lower a rating considerable, given how many people love to play several alts. It's the same I said about DCU. Replayability is one of the most important features for the longevity of a MMO. Period.
Also the quests are VERY lackluster. Not bad, but nothing you'll write home about. The Rift experience is something truly awesome, always some invasion going on somewhere and Trion already started a worldwide, week-long event, which looks good for the future. I don't think it is entirely fair to compare a new MMO to MMOs which ran for years by now. EQ2 or WOW weren't any better or more complete, and even WOW took 5 years until it became good (with Cataclysm) on the quest-front.
Personally I always found the visuals stunning.
Overall I'd say 7.5 of 10 would be fair.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
May I suggest a "revised" rating system for MMORPG.COM by adding a few more ratings:
1) Have a rating for PvE quality (rated by someone who actually likes PvE, which I believe is the majority of MMORPG.com staff).
2) Have a rating for PvP quality (rated by someone who actually likes PvP, which I believe is the minority of MMORPG.com staff).
3) Have a rating for innovation
4) Have an overall rating for game satisfaction/graphics/polish/etc. (similar to the rating you have now).
Personally, if a game was poor in PvE but fantastic in PvP, that would be great for me but terrible for others. Furthermore, I suspect the rating for PvE and innovation could be done rather quickly, with the PvP rating and overall satisfaction rating coming on later on after more extensive gameplay. Trying to write a review for the game with limited time in PvP and/or endgame content is just not realistic. I know you try to get th reviews out quickly, but you sacrafice too much in quality to get it out quickly.
everyone keeps crying for a game to "bring something new to the table". Then games like Final Fantasy XIV and Mortal Online come out and people crap on it.
A game like Rift comes out, and people still crap on it but its doing a lot better than both FFXIV and Mortal Online. You tell me whos right, and whos wrong?
MMO's are a genre and much of what you see in Rift and other MMO's that share similarities are part of this genre. Its been proven when you deviate too much from these models, the MMO community runs from it.
For further information on this subject, see Star Wars: The Old Republic
lol Thats true however...
FFXIV noticeably failed with its interface. I still want to play the damn game because i have thought it looks great for a long time but even the players that enjoy the game suggest to stay away until its fixed more.
Mortal Online is another thing, all it takes is reading just a little bit good and bad and you can decide if you want to play it or not. People dont dislike it because it doesnt offer some great gameplay (as far as i can tell), they dislike it simply because it is unfinished well ok and some anger at the small staff they have for whatever reasons goin on with the game.
Then you take into consideration the fact that all the word on the "street" is Rift is a finished product, and you can see that its really well done and Trion has backed it up like crazy since the start. Until things change and if they change you can tell that Trion really gives a crap, theyre on the ball and constantly keeping their world alive.
Im not a fan of Rift, im just saying. I wont forget the name Trion and i will be looking for any other games they put up.
Jeremiah 8:21 I weep for the hurt of my people; I stand amazed, silent, dumb with grief.
Join me on Twitch Facebook Twitter
Very good review. I would give it a little higher review, maybe a 9.0 even, but 8.7 is fair enough. As I've told several of my friends that I've gotten "Riftified" (that's my word, but you can use it hehe), other than it's class and invasion system there's nothing new, but Rift has taken many parts of what has worked in the past and put a very very nice polish on. If you've ever played EQ, WoW, EQ2, LOTRO, or pretty much any other fantasy-based mmo, you'll probably like Rift. I've gotten to level 50, and I can add that the game is still fun at the end. However, in some of the mid-zones (level 30-45ish) the invasions are more ignored and avoided, since they're very strong (and when I went through it there weren't many players in the zones, like 10-20 maybe). I'm on my second character and in those zones again, and it seems to be much better when an invasion comes around. Instead of 20 people trying to take on an onslaught of 500 there's more like a 100 or so.
I run Rift with all the settings on maximum, and the graphics/sounds are one of the best parts of this game. However, I can still run it on my 5 year old laptop without any problems, (the graphics are just toned down alot) and they look better than any game I've ever played on that laptop. In the major invasion raids, especially the ending boss fights my FPS barely drops on either computer (which is amazing). I've recommended this to any of my friends I've made over the past almost 20 years of MMO playing, most of them are already playing it.
8.7 is way to high a score IMO. I would put it more like 7.0-7.5 (Good) but def not great.
Velika: City of Wheels: Among the mortal races, the humans were the only one that never built cities or great empires; a curse laid upon them by their creator, Gidd, forced them to wander as nomads for twenty centuries...
I enjoyed Beta 6 & 7 and the first 3 weeks of launch but this week I've hardly logged in. As others have said it's nothing new and I'm finding it a bit stale. I will most likely sub for another month to get my Rogue to 50 and see whats on offer but I as it's the same gear grind I doubt they will see me playing any longer than that.
If you haven't been playing this genre for long you will probably enjoy the game but for those who are looking for something more than the gear grind you will not get it. My rating would be 7/10.
i find more important all the CONS than the PROS from this review.... if Trion addressed those as of patch 1.1 then its ok... otherwise, Rift needs that fixxed for me to go back to play it ( just a personal opinion here)...
Rift is a solid game..
Just becuase its not innovative doesnt mean it should get a bad grade for it.Rift is good at what it does..
Some people are saying a 6.5? seriously? this is the first game in nearly a decade that released as a solid complete MMO from levels 1-50 and with minimal bugs.
6.5? really? this must mean that MMO's like Mortal are like a -100..
Good game.. but the AH SUCK!!!
I always read these comments then ask myself ..Self "how many of these people making these comments about the game have a sub and are playing the finished game?" Sure Rift is a "Clone" of WoW And WoW is a "Clone" of Everquest and Everquest is a "Clone" of Meridan 59. The List goes on and on. I am Playing Rift now And its a great well made game with a great story.
So you Played this type of game before I understand its "the same old thing " its the same people who complain that a game like EVE is "So different and unplayable". Play the game, Tell me what you dont like about it, what do you like about it, what do you think needs improvement? But alias I think im asking for blood from a rock with most of the people here. oh and if you do play Tell us your Char. name and Server I would love to come visit you !
To be honest, I put probably 50 hours into the game over the past 3 weeks and what I found to be most aggravating is the one feature i was really looking forward to in this title, and that is the souls system. It is wildly unbalanced at all levels, and this results in there actually being fewer choices available than you would like. Now this is coming from someone who enjoys PvP, and likes to do a dungeon with a minimal amount of repeated deaths. While yes, you can spec however you like, that's a pretty sorry consolation when you die repeatedly to either bosses or other players. It's just not enjoyable to get facestomped over and over to the point you end up sitting in the graveyard as much as you are fighting. I have been in this position from both angles. Where I was trying a soul combo out and it was just horrible, and when I was running a dungeon and someone else was horrible. It's frustrating, and not enjoyable at all.
I think the lack of an easily usable parser is very, very telling in this game. While you may not want a "recount competition" it is a very useful measuring stick when looking at damage taken and damage done. If one tank is taking double the damage of another in similar gear, then something is broken. If one DPS is doing double the damage of another DPS, then something is broken. When it's the same player and they are just changing souls, then that's even more horribly broken.
So in my mind you can't have
+Ascended soul system
when you have
-PvP imbalance
Because no one can seriously believe that when PvP imbalance is bad enough to make it a con, that there isn't going to be spillover in PvE. The concept is great, sure. Won't argue that. The execution of it leaves something to be desired.
I gave this game a shot, a month of playing around an hour and half a day average is more than adequate in my opinion to get a feel for the game. While I did not rush to 50, I have friends who picked up the game that did. I got bored with warriors at 37, the combat was repetitive and the tanking was frustrating (lack of good cooldowns, mitgation was awful). At which point I rolled a rogue because we were light on support classes, and I leveled that to 40. I felt that given the recent track record of MMOs I'd just take it pretty easy and let them rush if they wanted to, they would see what there was at max level and I could go on that + what my own opinion of the game up to that point is. I was pretty much going on them whether I would cancel my account or not. I didn't have a terrible time with the game, but it certainly became very grindy, very quickly. But they are all cancelling after being 50 for 2 and half weeks. I don't much see the point of playing when I'm not having a great time, plus most of the people I intended to play the game with are quitting.
It's a good game, but not great. I'd feel it deserver much closer to a 7. Reason being I can't really agree with 2 of your + being Ascended souls and Highly Polished. If I'd only played into the mid 20's I would probably agree with you. I have to say the first zone is definitely the best. The quests are no where near as repetitive, the overlap is better, and it's just a better flow in general (the one hiccough being the damnably stupidly designed epic quest that sends you into a dungeon 4 levels under you by the time you get done with it and overall is a huge waste of time because the objectives are so annoying). By the time you get into the mid 30's it's a huge grind. The quest creativity is just gone. It's a lifeless go here, kill this, pick this up, use this on this guy compilation worsened by the fact that a lot of it is just in open terrain where they plopped down the mobs with maybe a building or two.
I can't say that the entire game is highly polished. The game works, no doubt, but there are a lot of glaring issues with the class system and quest flow, and questing in general. You can argue that questing is a small part of the game, I will concede this only if people are going to be playing for months. If it is so tedious, onerous, and repetitive that people don't WANT to get to max level.... well then they aren't going to stick around for months, are they ? And once you get max level, what's important ? Class balance is in my top 5 for sure. And that's a con, a big one.
I actually agree with both reviews' negative and positive points and would grade it a bit lower at 8/10.
I'm enjoying it for now and after two betas and the first month, I subscribed for 6 months and will concurrently only play the sublime LOTRO which still is the best mmorpg ever made.
Btw Rift at 8.99 euros/month and no item shop made it the cheapest and fairest p2p AAA mmo around.