Rift is a progression towards a more dyanmic MMO world. No its not fully dynamic and , in my opinion, MMO's will never have a truly dynamic world due to too many uncontrolled variables. But Rift is a step closer to being dynamic and is a lot more dynamic than any other MMo on the market right now.
And if you think all Rifts/invasions/etc... are static and do the same thing every time, you have not played Rift and are VERY mistaken. Next time, play to at least level 20 and be informed before you comment.
I've played to lvl 30 and can safely say that they are always 3-5 stages of kill these creatures.
Am I mistaken?
Haven't seen anything different at level 50 in terms of rifts comprising of stages (I have seen 7 & 8 stages though).
What I have seen though is different types of rifts. Like the ones where a demon is portaling around and spawns minions when he's getting beaten, or a death rift that tells a story of how an area is taken and the family members were turned one by one into undead abominations. These were more intesting because were done with a small team. Zerging the rifts definitely takes away from the challenge, but it's somewhat unavoidable when the population is not evenly distributed among all levels.
Originally posted by Thillian Originally posted by lizardbones
Originally posted by deniter
Originally posted by Xasapis
Originally posted by Thillian
Dynamic World has migrating mobs, change of seasons, capturable cities, constructable houses / cities, terraforming tools, ... None of it is in Rift. The silly invasions are just an occasional random nuisanse, don't interchange it with a dynamic world.
I think you've gone a bit too far with that. In the same way that there is a range between a full blown sandbox game and a full blown themepark game, there is also a range between a totally static world and a totally dynamic world. Rifts make the world feel a lot more dynamic that most MMOs out there. The effects are not permanent and thus lose points due to that however. Also, players strive to keep the world static by destroying the rifts and invasions. It would definitely be more interesting if the player actions or inactions were the cause that put changes in the world.
But still, Thillian has a point there. A few dynamic effects don't make a dynamic world. It's best to use wording that describes rifts as what they really are.
Look up some definitions for dynamic on the web. Dynamic basically means "changing". When you're talking about programmed systems, it can go so far as "changing on demand". The definition doesn't include, "Make a change and have it be permanent". The world is dynamic because it changes based on whether rifts in a particular area are open or not. You can open rifts on demand, changing that section of the world. That makes it dynamic. In fact, returning to the original state fits in with the definition of 'dynamic'.
That does not, however, make it a sandbox.
In that case, every online game world is dynamic, because one time there's a player standing next to you, and the other time there isn't. Dynamic world has its own generally accepted definition, with the list of features I mentioned at the start. Don't trivialize, and say every mmorpg has a dynamic world, because that doesn't really make your point any more valid.
Obviously it's not generally accepted or this would be a pointless discussion. Rift's world does change, so it's dynamic. You are using "Dyanamic" to mean "Sandbox" and they do not have equivalent meanings. Rift's world is not a sandbox. I'm not sure why anyone, anywhere would have that expectation.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I think a lot of people are missing the point of the OP or are either looking for something that does not yet exist.
He comments on things other than just the rifts. i.e. One mob attacking another in the world. He is right. The only other game I have seen this in is Ryzom. While certain people may not consider that dynamic, it does add to the player experience of the world. It gives an illusion of life. The mobs don't just stand around. They roam and can interact/fight with other mobs. You can't please everyone, but these little things do add to the feel of the game world. I believe that is the point of the OP.
The whole Rift is not a Dynamic World argument is moronic. No MMO will ever have a truly Dynamic World. Not to the point the naysayers are suggesting.
Why? Because you need to have repeatable events for new players and players whom happen to not be on at the time to experience. Otherwise everything in the game will have to be newly created events and scripts constantly.
A truly Dynamic World would have no story. Bosses only die once and once a town/village/city was saved - that's it. Moving on. Never see that again.
Really there could be no lore, except for the story you start out with; but even that will change for new players right? I mean it's dynamic so a player's birth will be different from another players. No database will help you. No guides. No Theorycrafting because what are you going to base you uber gear on? The world is Dynamic so no one does the same quests or dungeons or anything.
Everyone is a special snowflake.
Guess what, people will hate it. Already, Rift is getting slammed from people upset that their static quest givers are not there for an hour because of a foothold that took over their hub. The complaining player is upset because they don't want to fight the foothold and clear it out to turn in the quest.
Two games of late have been championing the idea of Dynamic content and they're both right.
Rift is Dynamic. Is it to the level that GW2 is going for?
I think more so. Here's why. You will know like the coming of the seasons what event will happen where and what will trigger the next event in GW2. In Rift who the hell knows where and when what rift/invasion/footholds will show up.
Regardless, both of these companies are moving the genre forward and people whom are dismissing it out of hand because it's not real life are being unreasonable. It's a video game meant to be played by a HUGE number of people. Developers have to work within those constraints.
Want an individual experience, that's tailored around your actions and no one elses?
Dynamic World has migrating mobs, change of seasons, capturable cities, constructable houses / cities, terraforming tools, ... None of it is in Rift. The silly invasions are just an occasional random nuisanse, don't interchange it with a dynamic world.
Actually you just described Sims. Rift is a shining example of a dynamic mmo. Best on the market.
Dynamic World has migrating mobs, change of seasons, capturable cities, constructable houses / cities, terraforming tools, ...
None of it is in Rift. The silly invasions are just an occasional random nuisanse, don't interchange it with a dynamic world.
Actually you just described Sims. Rift is a shining example of a dynamic mmo. Best on the market.
Exactly... I don't see why would they make a game with such features.
It is a players dream... so true but try to keep up with me on this one:
Players would mess up the system! They just would! Capturing cities? If people already cry because they can't turn quests for 5 minutes because of a invasion in their quest hub, imagine if players would capture those questing hubs and make it their hub from now on during X days, weeks or months? Constructing houses? Sure, I think housing is a good add if your into guild parties or "chat-room" environment but could you imagine a land filled with houses that didn't even fit the surroundings... like in the middle of a forest and you see a "bad-fame" house and a couple of... E-RP out of nowhere saying: "Welcome to the jungle" or in the middle of the desert and you see a gigantic noble castle out of the sands and a tavern right next to it?
People would mess up if such options were avaliable and you know it... I won't even talk about terraforming. The land would be completely destroyed... everywhere!
What your asking is a anarchy... inside a MMO. That isn't the definition of fun to me.
I see a universe where unicorns fly... and my mother-in-law is in a grave at last. |BEST UNIVERSE EVA AWARD|
The whole Rift is not a Dynamic World argument is moronic. No MMO will ever have a truly Dynamic World. Not to the point the naysayers are suggesting.
Why? Because you need to have repeatable events for new players and players whom happen to not be on at the time to experience. Otherwise everything in the game will have to be newly created events and scripts constantly.
A truly Dynamic World would have no story. Bosses only die once and once a town/village/city was saved - that's it. Moving on. Never see that again.
Really there could be no lore, except for the story you start out with; but even that will change for new players right? I mean it's dynamic so a player's birth will be different from another players. No database will help you. No guides. No Theorycrafting because what are you going to base you uber gear on? The world is Dynamic so no one does the same quests or dungeons or anything.
Everyone is a special snowflake.
Guess what, people will hate it. Already, Rift is getting slammed from people upset that their static quest givers are not there for an hour because of a foothold that took over their hub. The complaining player is upset because they don't want to fight the foothold and clear it out to turn in the quest.
Two games of late have been championing the idea of Dynamic content and they're both right.
Rift is Dynamic. Is it to the level that GW2 is going for?
I think more so. Here's why. You will know like the coming of the seasons what event will happen where and what will trigger the next event in GW2. In Rift who the hell knows where and when what rift/invasion/footholds will show up.
Regardless, both of these companies are moving the genre forward and people whom are dismissing it out of hand because it's not real life are being unreasonable. It's a video game meant to be played by a HUGE number of people. Developers have to work within those constraints.
Want an individual experience, that's tailored around your actions and no one elses?
Go play a single player RPG.
Excellent post.
The only people trivialising are those dismissing Rifts' dynamic event system as ho hum same old. Yes of course it can get repetitive, just like kill 10 rat quests can, but that is because the game HAS to be designed so that the content of the open world can be accessed by all players.
I actually begin to worry about GW2's dynamic content. The events are more complicated than Rift, stories that have been written and play out, and I wonder if that is a good thing. For example, because they tell a story you will easily recognise these events when they repeat. When they do repeat it sounds like they will play out the same way provided there isn't failure somewhere along the line.
In Rift, every invasion battle has felt quite different to me. What level I am relative to the invasion forces, how many players are involved, where we take a stand, what is coming from which direction, am I trying to close down the Rifts or am I fighting the invasions, am I chasing them down or meeting them head on.
Dynamic content may work better if it is kept simple and variation is created by interaction between the dynamic agents in a spatial setting.
I've said this before, but the mathematical behaviour of a system with agents interacting in a spatial setting on a nearest-neighbour basis, with simple rules, is incredibly complicated, and can have unpredictable outcomes. It is not entirely unlike chess. Simple rules, incredible depth.
Therefore, there is a mathematical argument that Rift may in fact have a DE system with more potential than GW2.
To me dynamic content is where the objectives can change on a dime. My understanding of Rifts is that their spawns are dynamic, but the Rifts themselves are static. PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, that's just my understanding that there are a handful of static Rifts and they randomly spawn in the world.
I think GW2 is trying to capture dynamic objectives. That would be a real treat.
Dynamic World has migrating mobs, change of seasons, capturable cities, constructable houses / cities, terraforming tools, ...
None of it is in Rift. The silly invasions are just an occasional random nuisanse, don't interchange it with a dynamic world.
Actually you just described Sims. Rift is a shining example of a dynamic mmo. Best on the market.
Exactly... I don't see why would they make a game with such features.
It is a players dream... so true but try to keep up with me on this one:
Players would mess up the system! They just would! Capturing cities? If people already cry because they can't turn quests for 5 minutes because of a invasion in their quest hub, imagine if players would capture those questing hubs and make it their hub from now on during X days, weeks or months? Constructing houses? Sure, I think housing is a good add if your into guild parties or "chat-room" environment but could you imagine a land filled with houses that didn't even fit the surroundings... like in the middle of a forest and you see a "bad-fame" house and a couple of... E-RP out of nowhere saying: "Welcome to the jungle" or in the middle of the desert and you see a gigantic noble castle out of the sands and a tavern right next to it?
People would mess up if such options were avaliable and you know it... I won't even talk about terraforming. The land would be completely destroyed... everywhere!
What your asking is a anarchy... inside a MMO. That isn't the definition of fun to me.
You fail to realize that a lot of this has been done in successful MMORPGs. The theme park-MMORPG is becoming more popular because it gives the development team more structure. A dynamic world offers not only options but exploration. We've had previous MMORPGs that launched with great ideas already embedded from the beginning, but it was other things that held them back. And some of the old-school MMORPGs had such features which also presented other options for end-game content then just PvP and raiding gear.
Asheron's Call was Turbine's first MMORPG and one of the big 3(with Ultima Online and Everquest at its side). Turbine uses scripted events for Lord of the Rings Online, but before they used live-events(in combination with available quests) to help make the world "feel" dynamic in Asheron's Call. The town of Arwic which was probably the largest hub for players at the time was destroyed and rebuild years later. One of the antagonist, Bael'zharon(just type the name in Google) took on a single apprentice who was an actual player. Plots of land could be bought and were first come-first served allowing you to actually build homes. Not to mention the world was so big there was plenty of it to go around(not to mention your could sell it).
Games have offered cities that can't be invaded because they are important to the mechanics and overall protocol. You're right, we all don't want cities constantly being overrun. But there have been locales which opposing factions can fight over and receive economic benefits for obtaining them. And this whole thing with renown in all these MMOs; what ever happened to the system in Everquest where you could gain satisfaction with an opposing racial faction while harming your popularity with your own people? Vanguard: Saga of Heroes also had a very interesting feature called the diplomacy system which was a game in itself allowing players to become political figures.
Asheron's Call 2 was suppose to have a player-driven community(you could build towns too); but it would have been much better to have available NPC to held with the progression. The original AC(and some others MMOs) featured all 4 seasons. Around Halloween and Thanksgiving leaves were falling and around Christmas it was snowing. And weather effects are always a big deal. EVE Online is also another MMORPG that offers a really good sandbox system. About a year and half ago there was a bank that was run by players. One of the owners took tons of ISK(the currency) and ran with it. Players were so pissed and wanted the dev. to do something about it but that feature is all apart of the game. Instead he had a bounty on his head.
I personally thought that some of these features would have evolved along with the idea of raiding and player vs player combat. The instant dungeon was a great idea. We also have to realize that a community in MMORPGs can make things feel dynamic and I think that's why some people look at rifts being a great "change" to the game world. For me it's all about the community.
The whole Rift is not a Dynamic World argument is moronic. No MMO will ever have a truly Dynamic World. Not to the point the naysayers are suggesting.
Why? Because you need to have repeatable events for new players and players whom happen to not be on at the time to experience. Otherwise everything in the game will have to be newly created events and scripts constantly.
A truly Dynamic World would have no story. Bosses only die once and once a town/village/city was saved - that's it. Moving on. Never see that again.
Really there could be no lore, except for the story you start out with; but even that will change for new players right? I mean it's dynamic so a player's birth will be different from another players. No database will help you. No guides. No Theorycrafting because what are you going to base you uber gear on? The world is Dynamic so no one does the same quests or dungeons or anything.
Don't restrict what is possible to the limits of your own imagination.
Quest content can be dynamically generated depending on the events happening in the world around the quest hub. Yes, your alt will almost never have the same quests that your main. You alt will never kill exactly the same boss as your main. But is it really a problem? Your main and his team mates wiped the wolves endangering that village, but does it mean your alt will have nothing to do there? Nope, because the advanced AI managed creature breeding and migration. Now when your alt arrives in the village, you discover that a huge orc band has installed its camp nearby and that it endangers the village. The quests given in the village have been dynamically generated by the AI as result of that new threat.
Imagine that... a MMORPG where the experience is REALLY always renewed. My god, what a concept compared to the lame dungeon farming clones we get nowadays (including Rift and its "fake" dynamism). Imagine a game when you go out with a small group of friends in the wilderness, not to kill "megaboss 10" for the 30th time, but to find adventure, and of course the game would be coded to make sure that you will find some challenging one, yet you never know what's gonna happen next?
It's only a problem for those who have their heads to deeply stuck in the "theme park" design that they can't imagine anything different. They are so used to go to WoWhead / Rifthead / EQ2head and limit their gameplay to what the next purple item they will get will be that they can't imagine a game without that gear bait.
Asheron's Call wasn't really a dynamic world, but monthly content patches could drastically change the world. They nuked entire cities, changed entire areas just because the story line progressed. Some content totally disapeared to be replaced with new one. They didn't have the technology back then to do it in real time, but that is no longer true today. Also, AC1's loot was for most not predefined, but every item dropped with random stats, except specific quest items which were never the "best in slot". The best loot came from random mobs, and you had to hunt and trade with other players to get it for your character instead of mindlessly farming the same theme park scripted boss over and over again.
Respect, walk, what did you say? Respect, walk Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me? - PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023
Comments
Haven't seen anything different at level 50 in terms of rifts comprising of stages (I have seen 7 & 8 stages though).
What I have seen though is different types of rifts. Like the ones where a demon is portaling around and spawns minions when he's getting beaten, or a death rift that tells a story of how an area is taken and the family members were turned one by one into undead abominations. These were more intesting because were done with a small team. Zerging the rifts definitely takes away from the challenge, but it's somewhat unavoidable when the population is not evenly distributed among all levels.
Hilarious.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
I think you've gone a bit too far with that. In the same way that there is a range between a full blown sandbox game and a full blown themepark game, there is also a range between a totally static world and a totally dynamic world.
Rifts make the world feel a lot more dynamic that most MMOs out there. The effects are not permanent and thus lose points due to that however. Also, players strive to keep the world static by destroying the rifts and invasions. It would definitely be more interesting if the player actions or inactions were the cause that put changes in the world.
But still, Thillian has a point there. A few dynamic effects don't make a dynamic world. It's best to use wording that describes rifts as what they really are.
Look up some definitions for dynamic on the web. Dynamic basically means "changing". When you're talking about programmed systems, it can go so far as "changing on demand". The definition doesn't include, "Make a change and have it be permanent". The world is dynamic because it changes based on whether rifts in a particular area are open or not. You can open rifts on demand, changing that section of the world. That makes it dynamic. In fact, returning to the original state fits in with the definition of 'dynamic'.
That does not, however, make it a sandbox.
In that case, every online game world is dynamic, because one time there's a player standing next to you, and the other time there isn't. Dynamic world has its own generally accepted definition, with the list of features I mentioned at the start. Don't trivialize, and say every mmorpg has a dynamic world, because that doesn't really make your point any more valid.
Obviously it's not generally accepted or this would be a pointless discussion. Rift's world does change, so it's dynamic. You are using "Dyanamic" to mean "Sandbox" and they do not have equivalent meanings. Rift's world is not a sandbox. I'm not sure why anyone, anywhere would have that expectation.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I'm sorry to burst some bubbles here but 100% dynamic world hasen't been made yet only IRL it's 100% dynamic.
You can have dynamic elements in a game that dosen't mean the game itself is dynamic.
If it's not broken, you are not innovating.
I think a lot of people are missing the point of the OP or are either looking for something that does not yet exist.
He comments on things other than just the rifts. i.e. One mob attacking another in the world. He is right. The only other game I have seen this in is Ryzom. While certain people may not consider that dynamic, it does add to the player experience of the world. It gives an illusion of life. The mobs don't just stand around. They roam and can interact/fight with other mobs. You can't please everyone, but these little things do add to the feel of the game world. I believe that is the point of the OP.
The whole Rift is not a Dynamic World argument is moronic. No MMO will ever have a truly Dynamic World. Not to the point the naysayers are suggesting.
Why? Because you need to have repeatable events for new players and players whom happen to not be on at the time to experience. Otherwise everything in the game will have to be newly created events and scripts constantly.
A truly Dynamic World would have no story. Bosses only die once and once a town/village/city was saved - that's it. Moving on. Never see that again.
Really there could be no lore, except for the story you start out with; but even that will change for new players right? I mean it's dynamic so a player's birth will be different from another players. No database will help you. No guides. No Theorycrafting because what are you going to base you uber gear on? The world is Dynamic so no one does the same quests or dungeons or anything.
Everyone is a special snowflake.
Guess what, people will hate it. Already, Rift is getting slammed from people upset that their static quest givers are not there for an hour because of a foothold that took over their hub. The complaining player is upset because they don't want to fight the foothold and clear it out to turn in the quest.
Two games of late have been championing the idea of Dynamic content and they're both right.
Rift is Dynamic. Is it to the level that GW2 is going for?
I think more so. Here's why. You will know like the coming of the seasons what event will happen where and what will trigger the next event in GW2. In Rift who the hell knows where and when what rift/invasion/footholds will show up.
Regardless, both of these companies are moving the genre forward and people whom are dismissing it out of hand because it's not real life are being unreasonable. It's a video game meant to be played by a HUGE number of people. Developers have to work within those constraints.
Want an individual experience, that's tailored around your actions and no one elses?
Go play a single player RPG.
Not even IRL is dynamic my friend. You can predict many things, and they happen over and over again. But I get where you are coming from
Why people cry for not beying able to give quests because of a invasion is out of my mind.
I mean, cmon... really... crying over because you can't turn a quest? Since when is a MMO only about questing?
Now go out there and kill a few dragon elemental minions before they get even more quest hubs!
Boring? Guess what, the game is named RIFT. Guess what happends? RIFTS. What are rifts? Any dictionary would teach you that.
What is Rift without the rifts/invasions/large world events? Well, you get the picture.
I see a universe where unicorns fly... and my mother-in-law is in a grave at last.
|BEST UNIVERSE EVA AWARD|
Everquest had this.
And Mob AI is in no way a strength of Rift.
It is more dynamic than most MMOs though, I can agree with that. It is just poorly implemented so it doesn't feel as dynamic as it could.
Actually you just described Sims. Rift is a shining example of a dynamic mmo. Best on the market.Exactly... I don't see why would they make a game with such features.
It is a players dream... so true but try to keep up with me on this one:
Players would mess up the system! They just would! Capturing cities? If people already cry because they can't turn quests for 5 minutes because of a invasion in their quest hub, imagine if players would capture those questing hubs and make it their hub from now on during X days, weeks or months? Constructing houses? Sure, I think housing is a good add if your into guild parties or "chat-room" environment but could you imagine a land filled with houses that didn't even fit the surroundings... like in the middle of a forest and you see a "bad-fame" house and a couple of... E-RP out of nowhere saying: "Welcome to the jungle" or in the middle of the desert and you see a gigantic noble castle out of the sands and a tavern right next to it?
People would mess up if such options were avaliable and you know it... I won't even talk about terraforming. The land would be completely destroyed... everywhere!
What your asking is a anarchy... inside a MMO. That isn't the definition of fun to me.
I see a universe where unicorns fly... and my mother-in-law is in a grave at last.
|BEST UNIVERSE EVA AWARD|
Excellent post.
The only people trivialising are those dismissing Rifts' dynamic event system as ho hum same old. Yes of course it can get repetitive, just like kill 10 rat quests can, but that is because the game HAS to be designed so that the content of the open world can be accessed by all players.
I actually begin to worry about GW2's dynamic content. The events are more complicated than Rift, stories that have been written and play out, and I wonder if that is a good thing. For example, because they tell a story you will easily recognise these events when they repeat. When they do repeat it sounds like they will play out the same way provided there isn't failure somewhere along the line.
In Rift, every invasion battle has felt quite different to me. What level I am relative to the invasion forces, how many players are involved, where we take a stand, what is coming from which direction, am I trying to close down the Rifts or am I fighting the invasions, am I chasing them down or meeting them head on.
Dynamic content may work better if it is kept simple and variation is created by interaction between the dynamic agents in a spatial setting.
I've said this before, but the mathematical behaviour of a system with agents interacting in a spatial setting on a nearest-neighbour basis, with simple rules, is incredibly complicated, and can have unpredictable outcomes. It is not entirely unlike chess. Simple rules, incredible depth.
Therefore, there is a mathematical argument that Rift may in fact have a DE system with more potential than GW2.
Doesn't GW1 have capturable cities?
To me dynamic content is where the objectives can change on a dime. My understanding of Rifts is that their spawns are dynamic, but the Rifts themselves are static. PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, that's just my understanding that there are a handful of static Rifts and they randomly spawn in the world.
I think GW2 is trying to capture dynamic objectives. That would be a real treat.
You fail to realize that a lot of this has been done in successful MMORPGs. The theme park-MMORPG is becoming more popular because it gives the development team more structure. A dynamic world offers not only options but exploration. We've had previous MMORPGs that launched with great ideas already embedded from the beginning, but it was other things that held them back. And some of the old-school MMORPGs had such features which also presented other options for end-game content then just PvP and raiding gear.
Asheron's Call was Turbine's first MMORPG and one of the big 3(with Ultima Online and Everquest at its side). Turbine uses scripted events for Lord of the Rings Online, but before they used live-events(in combination with available quests) to help make the world "feel" dynamic in Asheron's Call. The town of Arwic which was probably the largest hub for players at the time was destroyed and rebuild years later. One of the antagonist, Bael'zharon(just type the name in Google) took on a single apprentice who was an actual player. Plots of land could be bought and were first come-first served allowing you to actually build homes. Not to mention the world was so big there was plenty of it to go around(not to mention your could sell it).
Games have offered cities that can't be invaded because they are important to the mechanics and overall protocol. You're right, we all don't want cities constantly being overrun. But there have been locales which opposing factions can fight over and receive economic benefits for obtaining them. And this whole thing with renown in all these MMOs; what ever happened to the system in Everquest where you could gain satisfaction with an opposing racial faction while harming your popularity with your own people? Vanguard: Saga of Heroes also had a very interesting feature called the diplomacy system which was a game in itself allowing players to become political figures.
Asheron's Call 2 was suppose to have a player-driven community(you could build towns too); but it would have been much better to have available NPC to held with the progression. The original AC(and some others MMOs) featured all 4 seasons. Around Halloween and Thanksgiving leaves were falling and around Christmas it was snowing. And weather effects are always a big deal. EVE Online is also another MMORPG that offers a really good sandbox system. About a year and half ago there was a bank that was run by players. One of the owners took tons of ISK(the currency) and ran with it. Players were so pissed and wanted the dev. to do something about it but that feature is all apart of the game. Instead he had a bounty on his head.
I personally thought that some of these features would have evolved along with the idea of raiding and player vs player combat. The instant dungeon was a great idea. We also have to realize that a community in MMORPGs can make things feel dynamic and I think that's why some people look at rifts being a great "change" to the game world. For me it's all about the community.
Don't restrict what is possible to the limits of your own imagination.
Quest content can be dynamically generated depending on the events happening in the world around the quest hub. Yes, your alt will almost never have the same quests that your main. You alt will never kill exactly the same boss as your main. But is it really a problem? Your main and his team mates wiped the wolves endangering that village, but does it mean your alt will have nothing to do there? Nope, because the advanced AI managed creature breeding and migration. Now when your alt arrives in the village, you discover that a huge orc band has installed its camp nearby and that it endangers the village. The quests given in the village have been dynamically generated by the AI as result of that new threat.
Imagine that... a MMORPG where the experience is REALLY always renewed. My god, what a concept compared to the lame dungeon farming clones we get nowadays (including Rift and its "fake" dynamism). Imagine a game when you go out with a small group of friends in the wilderness, not to kill "megaboss 10" for the 30th time, but to find adventure, and of course the game would be coded to make sure that you will find some challenging one, yet you never know what's gonna happen next?
It's only a problem for those who have their heads to deeply stuck in the "theme park" design that they can't imagine anything different. They are so used to go to WoWhead / Rifthead / EQ2head and limit their gameplay to what the next purple item they will get will be that they can't imagine a game without that gear bait.
Asheron's Call wasn't really a dynamic world, but monthly content patches could drastically change the world. They nuked entire cities, changed entire areas just because the story line progressed. Some content totally disapeared to be replaced with new one. They didn't have the technology back then to do it in real time, but that is no longer true today. Also, AC1's loot was for most not predefined, but every item dropped with random stats, except specific quest items which were never the "best in slot". The best loot came from random mobs, and you had to hunt and trade with other players to get it for your character instead of mindlessly farming the same theme park scripted boss over and over again.
Respect, walk
Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me?
- PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023