Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Rift - could it be everything ffxiv is not? (was forum=152)Follow

#52 Jan 22 2011 at 4:19 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
972 posts
Comparing an offline FPS to an mmo is weird. Of course you won't mind mechanics being the same. They release in yearly installments. New worlds, new missions, and the online play is free in most cases. While you may have a lot of fun even though the fps are rather identical. Those games may give exponential short burst replayabliility. But in most cases you will not be playing the exact same fps entry for 5,8,or even 10 years. Also fps are not known to try to immerse you in giant worlds with 1-10k hrs+ replayability, and lore. Project titan is looking to change that, but that's in the future.

FFXIV will recover faster if they take the easy route and copy pasta systems from wow or ffxi. But imo if they don't try and keep some sandbox elements or originality. The games maximum potential will never be reached. Which has been proven time and time again with clones. If you liked Lineage 2 minus mob grind, Tera will bring a free targeting system, quest leveling, and a sandbox poiltical endgame to wet your whistle. If you seek a game with some of the best pvp known, dynamic events, and hot interchangable skill bars play guild wars 2. FFXIV is still my number one choice, as long as they don't delve too much into cloning. Oopsies forgot TOR. TOR is going to be fine. Wow polish with Bioware storytelling= win. But if you want mandatory or high grouping encouragement during the leveling process. It may not be for you. And I know this forums opinions on grouping requirements thus far.
#53 Jan 22 2011 at 4:20 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,576 posts
Spyrit178 wrote:
Aurelius wrote:

Compared to what? A critter grind game?


Getting purples every 4 months is a gear grind nothing more, exactly like wow, badge rewards right from the start, have no interest in playing wow for a second time. SEs endgame in FFXI was much broader, and I hope the follow suit with FFXIV. Rift is just a knockoff.


Ya, SE's endgame in a game they had been adding to for 8 years was what it was. We haven't even seen endgame in Rift yet, but apparently you know all about it. Have you read any interviews around what the devs have planned for Rift endgame, or are you just assuming?
#54 Jan 22 2011 at 4:43 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,636 posts
AnnabelleCloud wrote:
Olorinus the Vile wrote:

I grabbed a beta key and I am going to give it a roll but I strongly suspect I won't like it. Also, if all the female avatars are made to be super-boobtastic that will turn me off. (I don't know if that is the case but I somewhat suspect it will be)

I know it is just a little detail but things like that make me think that the developers are really only interested in targeting a male playerbase (even though I am a ******* and I like boobs). One of the reasons I like XIV is it is just really tasteful. I know I am a prude, but we are all allowed our irrational tastes, right?


I wouldn't exactly go so far to say that XIV is really tasteful when most of the crafting gear being sported by female characters has their boobs hanging out and when in the crafting stance exposes what could be seen by some as panties. I actually went and bought an entire new crafting set because of this.


I find a lot of the gear is just as distasteful, however I think the character models in FFXIV are a much more conservative.
____________________________

[ffxivsig]971172[/ffxivsig]
#55 Jan 22 2011 at 5:49 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,908 posts
KujaKoF wrote:
I find a lot of the gear is just as distasteful, however I think the character models in FFXIV are a much more conservative.

All of that goes out the window when you have a race of catgirls where you can only play females.
#56 Jan 22 2011 at 5:55 PM Rating: Good
****
9,526 posts
KujaKoF wrote:
AnnabelleCloud wrote:
Olorinus the Vile wrote:

I grabbed a beta key and I am going to give it a roll but I strongly suspect I won't like it. Also, if all the female avatars are made to be super-boobtastic that will turn me off. (I don't know if that is the case but I somewhat suspect it will be)

I know it is just a little detail but things like that make me think that the developers are really only interested in targeting a male playerbase (even though I am a ******* and I like boobs). One of the reasons I like XIV is it is just really tasteful. I know I am a prude, but we are all allowed our irrational tastes, right?


I wouldn't exactly go so far to say that XIV is really tasteful when most of the crafting gear being sported by female characters has their boobs hanging out and when in the crafting stance exposes what could be seen by some as panties. I actually went and bought an entire new crafting set because of this.


I find a lot of the gear is just as distasteful, however I think the character models in FFXIV are a much more conservative.


Yeah, I mean there are some cleavage shirts (and to be honest I actually like them) - but my character's ******* are not unrealistically huge, and as Theo said above - it is not like when I equip armor it changes into panties. Also compared to other games - XIV is totally tasteful. The vast majority of the clothing is not very revealing. The stuff that is, isn't like two strips covering the nipples with belly and ******* otherwise exposed (like this: http://www.tera-online.com/node/88 )





Edited, Jan 22nd 2011 3:56pm by Olorinus
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.


#57 Jan 22 2011 at 7:20 PM Rating: Decent
*****
11,576 posts
Olorinus the Vile wrote:
KujaKoF wrote:
AnnabelleCloud wrote:
Olorinus the Vile wrote:

I grabbed a beta key and I am going to give it a roll but I strongly suspect I won't like it. Also, if all the female avatars are made to be super-boobtastic that will turn me off. (I don't know if that is the case but I somewhat suspect it will be)

I know it is just a little detail but things like that make me think that the developers are really only interested in targeting a male playerbase (even though I am a ******* and I like boobs). One of the reasons I like XIV is it is just really tasteful. I know I am a prude, but we are all allowed our irrational tastes, right?


I wouldn't exactly go so far to say that XIV is really tasteful when most of the crafting gear being sported by female characters has their boobs hanging out and when in the crafting stance exposes what could be seen by some as panties. I actually went and bought an entire new crafting set because of this.


I find a lot of the gear is just as distasteful, however I think the character models in FFXIV are a much more conservative.


Yeah, I mean there are some cleavage shirts (and to be honest I actually like them) - but my character's ******* are not unrealistically huge, and as Theo said above - it is not like when I equip armor it changes into panties. Also compared to other games - XIV is totally tasteful. The vast majority of the clothing is not very revealing. The stuff that is, isn't like two strips covering the nipples with belly and ******* otherwise exposed (like this: http://www.tera-online.com/node/88 )


In that regard, I would say that Rift is pretty reasonable. I don't remember seeing a bewb slider in the character creation options, and the busts of the female characters are reasonable (ie. not exaggerated). I know the rogue (female) that I made during the last beta event wound up wearing some leather armor that was fairly revealing, but I also remember getting some plate gear for my lowbie warrior (male) that looked more like a harness than actual plate armor so it's not like the guy characters get full coverage and the same armor on a female character is dental floss and pasties.
#58 Jan 22 2011 at 8:35 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
225 posts
A level 10 -20 player should not have to be concerned with grinding anything but levels, let alone blue gears. I can't wait for rift to start the WoW fanbois will be gone, I never understood if you don't like a game why play it and why harass the people that do play and enjoy it, it doesn't contribute an ounce to the community. This is what people in FFXIV have had to put up with.

I won't be posting again in this thread because this is not a game I like.
____________________________

[ffxivsig]1807212[/ffxivsig]
#59 Jan 22 2011 at 8:43 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,908 posts
Spyrit178 wrote:
I never understood if you don't like a game... why harass the people that do play and enjoy it,

Spyrit178 wrote:
I can't wait for rift to start the WoW fanbois will be gone,

Seems like you should be able to answer your own question.
Spyrit178 wrote:
This is what people in FFXIV have had to put up with.

Hmm
#60 Jan 22 2011 at 9:03 PM Rating: Decent
*****
11,576 posts
Spyrit178 wrote:
A level 10 -20 player should not have to be concerned with grinding anything but levels, let alone blue gears. I can't wait for rift to start the WoW fanbois will be gone, I never understood if you don't like a game why play it and why harass the people that do play and enjoy it, it doesn't contribute an ounce to the community. This is what people in FFXIV have had to put up with.

I won't be posting again in this thread because this is not a game I like.


Maybe I missed something. Could someone maybe fill me in on what blue "gears" he's referring to? I've got one character in the early twenties and I never felt the need or even the urge to grind for gear for anything. I could have, but I don't think my experience was lessened for not having done so.

He's right though: exaggeration and assumption are a major component of the XIV community's xenophobia with regards to other games. And that's what the reasonable folks who followed XIV's development and bought the game at or after launch have had to put up with. At least in a month they'll have a fun game like Rift with which to occupy their time.
#61 Jan 22 2011 at 9:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
Aurelius wrote:
Spyrit178 wrote:
A level 10 -20 player should not have to be concerned with grinding anything but levels, let alone blue gears. I can't wait for rift to start the WoW fanbois will be gone, I never understood if you don't like a game why play it and why harass the people that do play and enjoy it, it doesn't contribute an ounce to the community. This is what people in FFXIV have had to put up with.

I won't be posting again in this thread because this is not a game I like.


Maybe I missed something. Could someone maybe fill me in on what blue "gears" he's referring to? I've got one character in the early twenties and I never felt the need or even the urge to grind for gear for anything. I could have, but I don't think my experience was lessened for not having done so.


I've seen a few things, actually. There are blue quality items available at level, what, 13? If you want them that low, you need to specifically go rift hunting with a group, in order to get blue emblems to trade. Also, while I enjoyed the warfronts, giving them a notoriety component that increases by a huge degree later on will obviously lead to a bit of a grind. It's easy to get 3000 notoriety for the level 25 rewards; but when you need, what, 30,000 for the level 45 rewards, that's a lot more games. Suddenly it's 50 wins instead of 5. That can easily become a grind.

Granted, those are all choices. You don't need the gear, and as the spacing is right now (every 10 levels you can get a new PvP piece) if you PvP a lot for fun you'll easily have the notoriety (and likely 10x the favor needed) by the time you hit the level.

I'm interested in seeing if and how they adjust PvP rewards, actually. My preference would be you can buy any item at any level on a sliding scale. Ie, you can buy a shoulder piece at any level for a sliding scale of favor and a sliding item level. So a level 25 would pay 500 favor and get and item level 25 item. If he hits 30 and wants to upgrade, he can buy a new piece for 750 favor and level 30 stats.

Sorry, I'm rambling. I can see some grinds already, but they aren't necessary by any means!
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#62 Jan 22 2011 at 9:22 PM Rating: Decent
*****
11,576 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
I've seen a few things, actually. There are blue quality items available at level, what, 13? If you want them that low, you need to specifically go rift hunting with a group, in order to get blue emblems to trade. Also, while I enjoyed the warfronts, giving them a notoriety component that increases by a huge degree later on will obviously lead to a bit of a grind. It's easy to get 3000 notoriety for the level 25 rewards; but when you need, what, 30,000 for the level 45 rewards, that's a lot more games. Suddenly it's 50 wins instead of 5. That can easily become a grind.


Ya, I have one of the blue tokens on my warrior (even though I don't think I ever found the vendor in Sanctum) and I have one of the epic tokens on my rogue (finding the vendor in Meridian was a little easier). I poked around a bit but at the end of the day I didn't feel like I was suffering because my gear was all green instead of green + blue so I kept plugging away questing and rifting and having fun. I tend to not start concerning myself with gear until the later levels. I don't expect to see low-mid level dungeons tuned such that you have to grind for blue gear in order to be able to contribute.

And since you brought up PvP, did you see the new dev diary video where they showed some video of the Port Scion warfront? I'm not huge on PvP but that looked pretty swanky.
#63TheonVenethiel, Posted: Jan 23 2011 at 2:01 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yeah,that's why they went f2p,LOL.
#64 Jan 23 2011 at 2:55 AM Rating: Good
*****
11,576 posts
TheonVenethiel wrote:
BartelX wrote:
MclarenTAGPorsche wrote:
Rift is another copy/paste version of WoW with better graphics. This happened already with Lords of the Rings Online AND Warhammer Online. Titles with much stronger names than Rift and still failed miserably to the point they had to rethink the game subscription due to lack of subscribers.

Yes it looks nice and all but before LOTRO and WAR were released you could her pretty much the same. You know what happened after. Any game that uses WoW system will fail because there will be a correlation with a game that has 6 years with content and stability.


Please leave lotro out of things you clearly don't understand. Lotro has been one of the most successful non-WoW mmo's that has been released in the past decade. Also, while it does have some similarities to WoW, the playstyle, level of difficulty, incredible narrative, and FAR superior graphics set it miles apart imo. The only reason it went F2P was because they realized that they could be making more money from it on a micro-transaction level, and actually they still allow players to keep paying a monthly fee the way they used to if they are so inclined. Please don't post about things you have no clue about.

Yeah,that's why they went f2p,LOL.

Lotro succesfull mmo...in your dreams,just another fail.


LOTRO didn't go free to play because it was failing. It went free to play because the same company behind LOTRO is also the company that makes DDO and making DDO f2p brought in a lot of new players and more money. You can't equate a game going f2p as an indication of success or failure. The f2p model, if done right, can bring in more money than the subscription model.
#65 Jan 23 2011 at 12:07 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
278 posts
Aurelius wrote:
Spyrit178 wrote:
Aurelius wrote:

Compared to what? A critter grind game?


Getting purples every 4 months is a gear grind nothing more, exactly like wow, badge rewards right from the start, have no interest in playing wow for a second time. SEs endgame in FFXI was much broader, and I hope the follow suit with FFXIV. Rift is just a knockoff.


Ya, SE's endgame in a game they had been adding to for 8 years was what it was. We haven't even seen endgame in Rift yet, but apparently you know all about it. Have you read any interviews around what the devs have planned for Rift endgame, or are you just assuming?



Aurelius, you're starting to sound like the fanboys from early on in FFXIV's beta. "You're not level 50 yet but apparently you know all about FFXIV 's endgame. Have you read the interviews as to what SE has planned for FFXIV? (bolded for the irony).

Either way I will be joining you in RIFT come the Battle of the Ascended, so I won't have to bias my opinion off of videos anymore. I will be truly disapointed if the game you have been touting all this time turns out to be a WoW/WAR/Aion clone with a single gimmick to call it's own.
#66 Jan 23 2011 at 12:38 PM Rating: Decent
*****
11,576 posts
Wloire wrote:
Aurelius wrote:
Spyrit178 wrote:
Aurelius wrote:

Compared to what? A critter grind game?


Getting purples every 4 months is a gear grind nothing more, exactly like wow, badge rewards right from the start, have no interest in playing wow for a second time. SEs endgame in FFXI was much broader, and I hope the follow suit with FFXIV. Rift is just a knockoff.


Ya, SE's endgame in a game they had been adding to for 8 years was what it was. We haven't even seen endgame in Rift yet, but apparently you know all about it. Have you read any interviews around what the devs have planned for Rift endgame, or are you just assuming?



Aurelius, you're starting to sound like the fanboys from early on in FFXIV's beta. "You're not level 50 yet but apparently you know all about FFXIV 's endgame. Have you read the interviews as to what SE has planned for FFXIV? (bolded for the irony).

Either way I will be joining you in RIFT come the Battle of the Ascended, so I won't have to bias my opinion off of videos anymore. I will be truly disapointed if the game you have been touting all this time turns out to be a WoW/WAR/Aion clone with a single gimmick to call it's own.


The point I was getting it is that I have read about what the devs have in mind for endgame, and it sounds like there's going to be quite a bit going on for launch. Only in this case we're not talking about a game like FFXIV where even the low-mid level content was sub-par, or a game like FFXIV where the devs did a lot of talking about all aspects of the game but not a lot of delivery on that talk. Some people just try to find reasons to be negative about things. So far, Trion has delivered on everything I've read or heard them talk about. When I listen to podcasts with developers they talk about long term plans but they also talk about the things that are pretty much ready to go that we haven't seen yet. Two raid instances, raid rifts, all of the dungeons you experience throughout the leveling process retuned for 50 with an expert mode on top of that. There won't be a shortage of endgame content at launch. But if I'm playing a disappointing game and I feel the need to take shots at a game that already has so much more going on in beta, I can cry about assumptions around gear progression.
#67 Jan 23 2011 at 12:48 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
278 posts
Aurelius wrote:

The point I was getting it is that I have read about what the devs have in mind for endgame, and it sounds like there's going to be quite a bit going on for launch. Only in this case we're not talking about a game like FFXIV where even the low-mid level content was sub-par, or a game like FFXIV where the devs did a lot of talking about all aspects of the game but not a lot of delivery on that talk. Some people just try to find reasons to be negative about things. So far, Trion has delivered on everything I've read or heard them talk about. When I listen to podcasts with developers they talk about long term plans but they also talk about the things that are pretty much ready to go that we haven't seen yet. Two raid instances, raid rifts, all of the dungeons you experience throughout the leveling process retuned for 50 with an expert mode on top of that. There won't be a shortage of endgame content at launch. But if I'm playing a disappointing game and I feel the need to take shots at a game that already has so much more going on in beta, I can cry about assumptions around gear progression.


You're always so defensive! I didn't even mention WoW's gear grind. See you soon.
#68 Jan 23 2011 at 2:11 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,707 posts
Olorinus the Vile wrote:
KujaKoF wrote:
AnnabelleCloud wrote:
Olorinus the Vile wrote:

I grabbed a beta key and I am going to give it a roll but I strongly suspect I won't like it. Also, if all the female avatars are made to be super-boobtastic that will turn me off. (I don't know if that is the case but I somewhat suspect it will be)

I know it is just a little detail but things like that make me think that the developers are really only interested in targeting a male playerbase (even though I am a ******* and I like boobs). One of the reasons I like XIV is it is just really tasteful. I know I am a prude, but we are all allowed our irrational tastes, right?


I wouldn't exactly go so far to say that XIV is really tasteful when most of the crafting gear being sported by female characters has their boobs hanging out and when in the crafting stance exposes what could be seen by some as panties. I actually went and bought an entire new crafting set because of this.


I find a lot of the gear is just as distasteful, however I think the character models in FFXIV are a much more conservative.


[quote]Yeah, I mean there are some cleavage shirts (and to be honest I actually like them) - but my character's ******* are not unrealistically huge, and as Theo said above - it is not like when I equip armor it changes into panties. Also compared to other games - XIV is totally tasteful. The vast majority of the clothing is not very revealing. The stuff that is, isn't like two strips covering the nipples with belly and ******* otherwise exposed (like this: http://www.tera-online.com/node/88 )



Tera is ridiculous. I won't even consider the game for that reason alone. ****, my wife would pull the plug on it as soon as she walked in and saw a female character practically having an ****** during the spell casting animation. Watch the main trailer. Fair warning though, you'll feel dirty.


Edited, Jan 23rd 2011 2:12pm by Mithsavvy
#69 Jan 23 2011 at 2:13 PM Rating: Decent
*****
11,576 posts
Wloire wrote:
Aurelius wrote:

The point I was getting it is that I have read about what the devs have in mind for endgame, and it sounds like there's going to be quite a bit going on for launch. Only in this case we're not talking about a game like FFXIV where even the low-mid level content was sub-par, or a game like FFXIV where the devs did a lot of talking about all aspects of the game but not a lot of delivery on that talk. Some people just try to find reasons to be negative about things. So far, Trion has delivered on everything I've read or heard them talk about. When I listen to podcasts with developers they talk about long term plans but they also talk about the things that are pretty much ready to go that we haven't seen yet. Two raid instances, raid rifts, all of the dungeons you experience throughout the leveling process retuned for 50 with an expert mode on top of that. There won't be a shortage of endgame content at launch. But if I'm playing a disappointing game and I feel the need to take shots at a game that already has so much more going on in beta, I can cry about assumptions around gear progression.


You're always so defensive! I didn't even mention WoW's gear grind. See you soon.


I didn't either. Spyrit178 did, and then you responded to my response to him.
#70 Jan 23 2011 at 2:33 PM Rating: Good
I went ahead and pre-ordered this game. I was never a WOW fan per say, but i did try all the WOW clones at some point (WAR,LOTRO,Aion).
It looks interesting so far. Guess i'll see you guys on Tuesday.
____________________________

#71 Jan 23 2011 at 7:59 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
99 posts
I really liked/loved ffxi and in fact played it for 7 years. I have dabbled in other MMO's but always went back to ffxi. I was excited when they announced ffxiv, bought a collecters edition and have tried to get into it since launch, but it just is a failure. Every time I try to log in I just end up playing for a few minutes (<30) and log out in disgust.

Now Rift is kind of the opposite. First beta I really dislike it because of the linear quest lines. Second beta was probably even worse. But then I got a character to level 20+ in beta 3 and you know the game really began to grow on me. There is a lot more to do than just questing to level, graphics are OKay, but mostly the devs seem to listen to beta feedback and make changes. I still think some things are lacking in Rift, especially the crafting but after seeing changes made from beta 1 to 4 I feel like improvements will come to most of the game systems and it is fun to play. At least for now :)

I still haven't pre-ordered yet though. I guess FFXIV kin of broke me of my habit of preodering.
____________________________
Dragonsfire
75WHM/75RDM/75BST/75BLM
Midgardsormr -- Pandavas
Chante Loremaster 50
Mask Burglar 30
#72nick2412, Posted: Jan 23 2011 at 9:58 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Oh god FFXIV fanbois invading the nice Rift forum.. run for your lives folks..
#73 Jan 23 2011 at 10:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
Wloire wrote:
I will be truly disapointed if the game you have been touting all this time turns out to be a WoW/WAR/Aion clone with a single gimmick to call it's own.


So far this is actually what it feels like to me (note: only played WoW and Aion), but the "gimmick" isn't really a "gimmick" so much as a core part of the game which is actually fun. In Aion, flight was a gimmick. NcSoft talked it up like crazy, but when I got to play it, it was terrible. It was like swimming, but instead of a breath meter you had a flight meter. Horrible design.

In Rift, the "gimmick" literally changes the world. Your quest hubs disappear if they are invaded. The land around a rift morphs, brand new enemies spawn, and they can show up almost anywhere. And a zone-wide event? Completely random and insanely fun. A few times I was annoyed when rifts spawned because I couldn't turn in my quests. Then I realized that the quests are always going to be there, but rifts are completely random and a lot more fun than traditional questing.

Rift is a "WoW clone" in that they have a lot of concepts the same or better compared to WoW. The AH is functionally similar, with slightly more options. Crafting is the same, except with an option to add additional stats using items found from rift invasions. Warfronts are the same as Battlegrounds, except the concepts are a lot more fun, even with just a weekend of playtime under my belt (I'd take Black Garden over WSG any day). They even added the remote queuing system, so I can wait in line for Warfronts while I go out and do whatever I'd like. The UIs look functionally the same, but they have the ability to customize them to your liking already in the game... something that only came to WoW with add-ons (which I think I heard Rift will also allow). Questing is the same in that you get experience, currency, and items from the quests, but they also include items like a built in map helper and quest hubs that flow smoothly from one to the next (with still a few quests out of the way, say, from drops off of enemies, or daily quests for notoriety or downing rifts for extra loot); innovations that either aren't in WoW or were just introduced within the last year.

I'm not sure if you'll like Rift, but I have really enjoyed it personally. Aion was a bad WoW clone with a gimmick. Rift is a WoW clone, but done right and with improvements. FFXIV, from what I have heard, is a poorly done "unique" game with a strong fan base being the only thing supporting it.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#74 Jan 23 2011 at 10:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
nick2412 wrote:
Oh god FFXIV fanbois invading the nice Rift forum.. run for your lives folks..


Apparently you failed to see that this post was originally in the FFXIV forums...?
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#75 Jan 23 2011 at 10:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
Aurelius wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
I've seen a few things, actually. There are blue quality items available at level, what, 13? If you want them that low, you need to specifically go rift hunting with a group, in order to get blue emblems to trade. Also, while I enjoyed the warfronts, giving them a notoriety component that increases by a huge degree later on will obviously lead to a bit of a grind. It's easy to get 3000 notoriety for the level 25 rewards; but when you need, what, 30,000 for the level 45 rewards, that's a lot more games. Suddenly it's 50 wins instead of 5. That can easily become a grind.


Ya, I have one of the blue tokens on my warrior (even though I don't think I ever found the vendor in Sanctum) and I have one of the epic tokens on my rogue (finding the vendor in Meridian was a little easier). I poked around a bit but at the end of the day I didn't feel like I was suffering because my gear was all green instead of green + blue so I kept plugging away questing and rifting and having fun. I tend to not start concerning myself with gear until the later levels. I don't expect to see low-mid level dungeons tuned such that you have to grind for blue gear in order to be able to contribute.


No, all of that us very true. You do not need the best gear to advance; however, there definitely are grinds already within the game. The notoriety requirement for Warfront gear is the main culprit in my mind - years ago grinding AB reputation in WoW still makes me shudder, and Rift is currently set up to be the same. Someone hits 50 and decides they want to PvP? To get Warfront gear, they will need to put in dozens of hours running the same game over and over to attain ANY piece of level 50 gear. It's completely a grind, with no reward until the very end. At least my idea would allow for relevant rewards all the way up, no matter what your level, as long as your slaughter the other team Smiley: grin

Quote:
And since you brought up PvP, did you see the new dev diary video where they showed some video of the Port Scion warfront? I'm not huge on PvP but that looked pretty swanky.

Yup, looks awesome! I also really like Black Garden. Don't care for the Codex, but that's because it is Arathi Basin, and since I've done that for years I'm through with it, haha.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#76 Jan 23 2011 at 11:22 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,576 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
No, all of that us very true. You do not need the best gear to advance; however, there definitely are grinds already within the game. The notoriety requirement for Warfront gear is the main culprit in my mind - years ago grinding AB reputation in WoW still makes me shudder, and Rift is currently set up to be the same. Someone hits 50 and decides they want to PvP? To get Warfront gear, they will need to put in dozens of hours running the same game over and over to attain ANY piece of level 50 gear. It's completely a grind, with no reward until the very end. At least my idea would allow for relevant rewards all the way up, no matter what your level, as long as your slaughter the other team Smiley: grin


I'll respond to this part in your other thread ;D

Quote:
Quote:
And since you brought up PvP, did you see the new dev diary video where they showed some video of the Port Scion warfront? I'm not huge on PvP but that looked pretty swanky.

Yup, looks awesome! I also really like Black Garden. Don't care for the Codex, but that's because it is Arathi Basin, and since I've done that for years I'm through with it, haha.


I'm hoping to try some warfronts during beta 5, but it depends on whether or not I can get my warrior to level 30 in a reasonable amount of time. I spent most of the last beta just getting a feel for the basic PvE elements, but I'll be happy if I can hit level 30 and squeeze in some dungeon and warfront action just for the sake of testing them out.
#77 Jan 23 2011 at 11:23 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,908 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
however, there definitely are grinds already within the game.

Breaking off on a tangent, but a tangent of a thread that seems to be largely a pointless flamefest.

Why do developers put grinds or otherwise obvious and deliberate time-wasters into MMORPGs? This has never made sense to me. Most AAA MMORPGs use a monthly subscription revenue stream, so there is not direct benefit from encouraging players to play the game for longer durations. My only guess is that they feel that if players get some sort of reward too early that they will quit the game altogether because they having nothing more to strive for, or perhaps it's a concern that players will become bored too quickly with existing items. Whatever the reason is, diluting content to span longer amounts of time has the opposite effect for me.

After playing Lotro and WAR I realized something very startling. In an MMORPG I was doing approximately 6 hours of unfun taks for every hour of fun things I wanted to do. I like MMORPgs, and there is certainly fun to be had in them, but most of the time they aren't worth it. Why should I grind for 6 hours to reach a level so that I can try a fun instance once, when I could hop onto TF2, LoL, or any other game and be instantly having fun all the time. I realized "this is stupid," and I quit playing MMORPGs. The reason I'm even bothering with Rift is because it is going to serve the very specific purpose of hanging out with some close friends who happen to be spread out around the country now. The grinding won't be to gain levels, but merely to hangout, and therefore the game is again tolerable.

I read on the Rift forums that some people were concerned leveling was too fast, and I was so perplexed. Why stretch it out? What's the point? You don't even get a new ability every level.

I question whether players actually want highly diluted gameplay or is there is just a shared illusion where developers and players are stuck accepting the situation as is because that's how it has always been.
#78 Jan 23 2011 at 11:52 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,576 posts
Allegory wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
however, there definitely are grinds already within the game.

Breaking off on a tangent, but a tangent of a thread that seems to be largely a pointless flamefest.

Why do developers put grinds or otherwise obvious and deliberate time-wasters into MMORPGs? This has never made sense to me. Most AAA MMORPGs use a monthly subscription revenue stream, so there is not direct benefit from encouraging players to play the game for longer durations. My only guess is that they feel that if players get some sort of reward too early that they will quit the game altogether because they having nothing more to strive for, or perhaps it's a concern that players will become bored too quickly with existing items. Whatever the reason is, diluting content to span longer amounts of time has the opposite effect for me.

After playing Lotro and WAR I realized something very startling. In an MMORPG I was doing approximately 6 hours of unfun taks for every hour of fun things I wanted to do. I like MMORPgs, and there is certainly fun to be had in them, but most of the time they aren't worth it. Why should I grind for 6 hours to reach a level so that I can try a fun instance once, when I could hop onto TF2, LoL, or any other game and be instantly having fun all the time. I realized "this is stupid," and I quit playing MMORPGs. The reason I'm even bothering with Rift is because it is going to serve the very specific purpose of hanging out with some close friends who happen to be spread out around the country now. The grinding won't be to gain levels, but merely to hangout, and therefore the game is again tolerable.

I read on the Rift forums that some people were concerned leveling was too fast, and I was so perplexed. Why stretch it out? What's the point? You don't even get a new ability every level.

I question whether players actually want highly diluted gameplay or is there is just a shared illusion where developers and players are stuck accepting the situation as is because that's how it has always been.


I think that up until now, developers have been concerned about being able to provide enough content to keep people occupied and if they hand out all the carrots too soon, people will just eat the carrots and leave until the developers adds more. I can't say how much long-term appeal rifts and invasions will have. Trion could do some really crazy, diverse stuff with them that will keep me around for a really long time or I could get to endgame and burn out in a couple of months like I did with LOTRO. But at least with the scope of dynamic content in Rift, there's a chance that they can keep players coming beck because there will almost always be a little something new even if it's just a twist on the core concepts thrown in every 2-4 weeks (that's their stated timeframe for content updates as of the last I read).

I don't see them rescaling the pace of leveling, at least for the first 20 levels. And if FFXIV is any example, there are few better ways to **** off your players than to give them a smooth ride to 20 and them slam a brick wall in front of them for the rest of the way to the cap. During Rift's beta 4, when I left Silverwood with my warrior I was level 21 and I had just finished off the last quest series that was listed as being for level 19/20ish. And I did a fair bit of rift chasing and invasion thwarting during that time as well, so I ran out of quest content in that zone at about the perfect time. I'll be able to get a better feel for the 20-30 stretch this week but my sense is that it will be about the same. They've set up a pace that will have you finishing out the quests in a given zone at about the time you're of an adequate level to transition smoothly to the next zone.

I think that the worst case scenario would be for me to arrive at level 50 to find that for whatever reason I don't like the way they've designed their dungeons, rift events have grown stale, and I haven't found a group of players that I mesh with in terms of both personality and skill level. At that point, any MMO will become a chore. From what I've seen so far, however, it's also entirely possible I'll get years of enjoyment out of the game. One of the things I've learned, and especially from my experience with FFXIV, is that it doesn't pay to be picky any more than it does to try to play a game based on potential. Right now the XIV boards are a mess of people who don't like this and don't like that and all they like is FFXI stuff which is now dated and no developer in their right mind would make another game like that in today's market. So they end up wanting what they can't have and turning up their nose at everything else. By the time they're done listing everything they don't like, they don't leave themselves with much.

Edited, Jan 23rd 2011 11:02pm by Aurelius
#79 Jan 24 2011 at 9:05 AM Rating: Decent
**
589 posts
I still find it amazing how folks like to throw out the word clone. Copy and paste etc. umm lets see, durability, yeah I've seen that before in wow: check. Folks wanting an AH, wait I've seen that in some other MMO too: check. Rift has a "subjob" system: check.

But wait, if you where a true FF fan you would know that nearly ever FF consul game had the same UI or improved upon it. Think FF to FF2 to FF3. You could play nearly every FF game without ever ooking at the manuel because the UI or menus worked the same. Thats not a bad thing. Using something familiar is NOT a bad thing. I'm actually surprised that no one has compared the Rifts to balur attacks from Aion.

O and I really like the murlock argument. hmm... yup, cus if I see a bird/crab/rat I need to kill in a game it was clearly stolen from some other MMO! Shoot I though soulflayers where an FFXI exculsive untill I did some research. Seems D&D did it first! I can only ride the FFXIV hope train/airship/chocobo but for so long since there they are missing from the game but not in Rift and... from the start!

It really sadden me that so many are closed minded to anything that may have or be asscoated it the letters "W" and "O". I used to be like that too. But when you let go and see that , hey, I don't need to kill doblyns for 3 hours to get close to a level, but I can get the same reward by doing quest, you wonder why. You see your spells actually working when you cast them and you wonder... why cant I SEE them in in action in ffxiv? Why is everything so hidden yet in these other MMOs my stats tell me exactly what they do without needing to theory craft.

So I'm happy everyone calls it a "wow clone". The means I know its done right. I mean really would you play a game that was a "FFXIV clone" .... well you coudln't because no one will every copy this game.
#80 Jan 24 2011 at 11:42 AM Rating: Good
Terrorfiend
*****
12,905 posts
MclarenTAGPorsche wrote:
Rift is another copy/paste version of WoW with better graphics. This happened already with Lords of the Rings Online AND Warhammer Online. Titles with much stronger names than Rift and still failed miserably to the point they had to rethink the game subscription due to lack of subscribers.

Yes it looks nice and all but before LOTRO and WAR were released you could her pretty much the same. You know what happened after. Any game that uses WoW system will fail because there will be a correlation with a game that has 6 years with content and stability.


Didnt read the whole thread, but i'd like to comment on this.

LotRO and WAR had some major flaws in terms of longevity. LotRO lacks a robust end game and the PvP is minimal. When a game is built around the leveling and lore it is going to have a hard time keeping 'the hardcores' interested for the long haul. I think a good PvP option in an MMO is crucial for a hit game. Get phat loots; smash people's faces in with said loots.

WAR had a great premise, but also had extreme hardware issues during a vital part of it's existence, which basically made the end game unplayable for the majority of the population. I'm not even sure it's been fixed, but i remember playing relatively small scale PvP battles and having it lag like crazy, and kill my framerate with a decent rig. The PvE in that game was also minimal. Add to that the fact it was release just in time for WoW's WotLK expansion, it was destined to fail.

Rift has some things going for it, and sure every new MMO has hype surrounding it that it will be the next big MMO, but at least this game appears to be correcting the mistakes made by other companies, and they dont have to compete with a newly released WoW expansion a few months after it goes retail. ****, it might be released at just the right time for people who are already tired of WoW's latest expansion.
#81 Jan 24 2011 at 6:09 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,908 posts
Also WAR had tier 2 pvp, OH GOD THE TIER 2 PVP. I'm not sure what they expected to happen when you mix lava pitfalls with knockback classes, but clearly they didn't expect the obvious.
#82thehellfire, Posted: Jan 24 2011 at 7:22 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I have yet to play this game (will tomorrow :) ) and it looks pretty good. I wouldn't worry about FFXIV, they are NGEing it into a WoW-XI hybrid and it will fail soon.
#83 Jan 24 2011 at 8:49 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
278 posts
nonameoflevi wrote:
I still find it amazing how folks like to throw out the word clone. Copy and paste etc. umm lets see, durability, yeah I've seen that before in wow: check. Folks wanting an AH, wait I've seen that in some other MMO too: check. Rift has a "subjob" system: check.

But wait, if you where a true FF fan you would know that nearly ever FF consul game had the same UI or improved upon it. Think FF to FF2 to FF3. You could play nearly every FF game without ever ooking at the manuel because the UI or menus worked the same. Thats not a bad thing. Using something familiar is NOT a bad thing. I'm actually surprised that no one has compared the Rifts to balur attacks from Aion.

O and I really like the murlock argument. hmm... yup, cus if I see a bird/crab/rat I need to kill in a game it was clearly stolen from some other MMO! Shoot I though soulflayers where an FFXI exculsive untill I did some research. Seems D&D did it first! I can only ride the FFXIV hope train/airship/chocobo but for so long since there they are missing from the game but not in Rift and... from the start!

It really sadden me that so many are closed minded to anything that may have or be asscoated it the letters "W" and "O". I used to be like that too. But when you let go and see that , hey, I don't need to kill doblyns for 3 hours to get close to a level, but I can get the same reward by doing quest, you wonder why. You see your spells actually working when you cast them and you wonder... why cant I SEE them in in action in ffxiv? Why is everything so hidden yet in these other MMOs my stats tell me exactly what they do without needing to theory craft.

So I'm happy everyone calls it a "wow clone". The means I know its done right. I mean really would you play a game that was a "FFXIV clone" .... well you coudln't because no one will every copy this game.


The problem isn't that game x has an AH, durability and a quest based system making it a WoW clone. It's more the entire direction the game takes. From what I've seen (and again I can't truly test until tomorrow) when Trion says they took "everything players like in a MMO" they mean they took every single feature WoW has pioneered or perfected.

There's a reason why certain games are universally titled WoW clones; because they are clones. FFXIV as much as its failed tried to do something new, shake up the norm and as long as it partially succeeds those are the types of games (minus Warcraft of course) that succeed. Think EVE Online for example, the game is as far away from WoW as you can get in the genre, and since I've played drove most WoW players into hysterics. On the other end of the spectrum here's a list of games that tried to clone the Warcraft formula that have failed:

WAR
AoC
LotRO (debatable)
SWG:NGE
Allods Online
Star Trek Online
Vanguard
Alganon

We don't scream WoW clone because we are jealous of WoW's success, we do it because WoW's success has crippled the industry and any ingenuity that came. I want RIFT to succeed on it's own merits. I want it to be that EVE Online without the slow startup. History shows that if it's just another WoW clone it will fail.





#84 Jan 24 2011 at 9:45 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,908 posts
Wloire wrote:
There's a reason why certain games are universally titled WoW clones; because they are clones.

Well, no. People call games WoW clones to insult the games. That is the reason. If these people happen to be correct about the games then that is purely incidental.

They also happen to be very, very wrong most of the time. They can't distinguish between a genre style and an identical copy. racquetball and squash are similar games, they are not clones. Just because they are more similar to each other than they are to other racquet sports such as badminton does not make them identical. Heroes of Newerth is a clone of DotA. This game is a clone because not only does it have an identical playstyle, but it has direct ports of most of the characters, direct ports of items, a direct port of the map, direct ports of gameplay mechanics. This is the difference between a similar game and a clone.

Honestly, the wow-hate fad is as annoying as it is stupid. It reminds me of the kids who were so insecure about their maturity they had to go on at lengths about how much they hated barney/pokemon/etc.
#85 Jan 24 2011 at 9:50 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,908 posts
Wloire wrote:
we do it because WoW's success has crippled the industry and any ingenuity that came.

Yeah, objectively wrong in every sense. Before WoW, the vast majority of MMORPGs were following models similar to EQ and Runescape. They were as much clones of those games as Lotro is a clone of WoW. There was no ingenuity. As for crippling the industry, post WoW the MMORPG is more vibrant than ever. Not only did WoW hugely increase the market by its own accord, but the games that followed in its wake also experienced explosive player populations. The entire market hit a huge boon post WoW.
#86 Jan 25 2011 at 12:30 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
278 posts
Allegory wrote:
Wloire wrote:
we do it because WoW's success has crippled the industry and any ingenuity that came.

Yeah, objectively wrong in every sense. Before WoW, the vast majority of MMORPGs were following models similar to EQ and Runescape. They were as much clones of those games as Lotro is a clone of WoW. There was no ingenuity. As for crippling the industry, post WoW the MMORPG is more vibrant than ever. Not only did WoW hugely increase the market by its own accord, but the games that followed in its wake also experienced explosive player populations. The entire market hit a huge boon post WoW.


You seem to think a larger market means a stronger industry. There are more players playing WoW worldwide than there are players playing every other tracked MMO in existence. Thats only a hugely increased market by proxy. If by games having explosive player populations you mean games were flooded for the first month and then players subsequently left in droves then yes you would be right. Aion is the only game that has been able to retain a "strong" population.

Otherwise no, games that are titled WoW clones today are closer representations of WoW then games of the past were of Everquest. For example, FFXI's only similarity to EQ was the grind, otherwise they were completely different games. You have games such as Ultima that push forward true sandbox experiences, games like DAoC, that pioneered PVP and games like World War 2 Online, that didnt really do much, but were unique none the less. Now compare that (incomplete) list to games released post 2004.

Yea, exactly. If 13 million players play World of Warcraft but won't play any other MMO that's good for WoW, not good for the MMO market.
#87 Jan 25 2011 at 2:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,908 posts
Wloire wrote:
There are more players playing WoW worldwide than there are players playing every other tracked MMO in existence. Thats only a hugely increased market by proxy.

The entire market is up sans WoW. WoW is a significant contributor to the increase, but removing its data the growth rate is still strongly positive.
Wloire wrote:
If by games having explosive player populations you mean games were flooded for the first month and then players subsequently left in droves then yes you would be right. Aion is the only game that has been able to retain a "strong" population.

Blatantly false. Eve population was experiencing slow growth, until around 2006 when it increased significantly and has since held on. Dofus and Runescape, similarly had steady populations until around 2006 when they started growing much more rapidly and then held firm. Second life? Exploded around 2006. What happened around that time? WoW became a public icon for MMORPGs and greatly increase awareness. There are more examples, but their subscriptions numbers are far less reliable.
Wloire wrote:
Yea, exactly. If 13 million players play World of Warcraft but won't play any other MMO that's good for WoW, not good for the MMO market.

It's good for both. You can't sell products to a demographic that doesn't exist. You need people willing to try MMORPGs to have customers to sell an MMORPG.

Without WoW the MMORPG market in the west would have remained a far more niche market. You may not like all the games being developed now because of WoW, but they are being developed because of WoW.
Wloire wrote:
Now compare that (incomplete) list to games released post 2004.

Auto Assault. The Matrix Online. WAR public quests (sure the rest of the game was typical, but casual grouping is as innovative as WoW's casual quest grind was). Lego Universe. Guild Wars. Maple Story. DCUO is pretty much MMO-arcade game. These games all tried something very different. They weren't all successful, but if you're arguing that WoW has killed innovation, then you're wrong.




More than anything though, I'm tired of people constantly griping about WoW. Even if I agreed with you, I'd still make the same arguments hoping I might convince you or at least one other person to stop crying about WoW every single time a new MMO is released. It's beyond old. Even if you're 100% right you still contribute nothing to a conversation because everything you've said has been said before.

Edited, Jan 25th 2011 2:43am by Allegory
#88 Jan 25 2011 at 11:32 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
278 posts
Allegory wrote:
Wloire wrote:
There are more players playing WoW worldwide than there are players playing every other tracked MMO in existence. Thats only a hugely increased market by proxy.

The entire market is up sans WoW. WoW is a significant contributor to the increase, but removing its data the growth rate is still strongly positive.
Wloire wrote:
If by games having explosive player populations you mean games were flooded for the first month and then players subsequently left in droves then yes you would be right. Aion is the only game that has been able to retain a "strong" population.

Blatantly false. Eve population was experiencing slow growth, until around 2006 when it increased significantly and has since held on. Dofus and Runescape, similarly had steady populations until around 2006 when they started growing much more rapidly and then held firm. Second life? Exploded around 2006. What happened around that time? WoW became a public icon for MMORPGs and greatly increase awareness. There are more examples, but their subscriptions numbers are far less reliable.
Wloire wrote:
Yea, exactly. If 13 million players play World of Warcraft but won't play any other MMO that's good for WoW, not good for the MMO market.

It's good for both. You can't sell products to a demographic that doesn't exist. You need people willing to try MMORPGs to have customers to sell an MMORPG.

Without WoW the MMORPG market in the west would have remained a far more niche market. You may not like all the games being developed now because of WoW, but they are being developed because of WoW.
Wloire wrote:
Now compare that (incomplete) list to games released post 2004.

Auto Assault. The Matrix Online. WAR public quests (sure the rest of the game was typical, but casual grouping is as innovative as WoW's casual quest grind was). Lego Universe. Guild Wars. Maple Story. DCUO is pretty much MMO-arcade game. These games all tried something very different. They weren't all successful, but if you're arguing that WoW has killed innovation, then you're wrong.




More than anything though, I'm tired of people constantly griping about WoW. Even if I agreed with you, I'd still make the same arguments hoping I might convince you or at least one other person to stop crying about WoW every single time a new MMO is released. It's beyond old. Even if you're 100% right you still contribute nothing to a conversation because everything you've said has been said before.

Edited, Jan 25th 2011 2:43am by Allegory


You're right, we aren't going to agree since you are apparently blindly supporting WoW simply because you are tired of the WoW bashing. Simply put this way, if Ford became the most popular car company in Asia, and every Chinese/Indian/etc bought a Ford , that would be a huge increase in the automobile market. Now if those same consumers refused to drive another brand beyond a free 1 month test drive now and then, that would not be good for any other automobile company, that would only be beneficial for Ford. Unless WoW were to suddenly shut down, no other game is going to benefit from its presence, truly most of the games released since WoW have "failed" because of over-hyped expectations.
#89 Jan 25 2011 at 12:01 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,563 posts
Wloire wrote:
Allegory wrote:
Wloire wrote:
There are more players playing WoW worldwide than there are players playing every other tracked MMO in existence. Thats only a hugely increased market by proxy.

The entire market is up sans WoW. WoW is a significant contributor to the increase, but removing its data the growth rate is still strongly positive.
Wloire wrote:
If by games having explosive player populations you mean games were flooded for the first month and then players subsequently left in droves then yes you would be right. Aion is the only game that has been able to retain a "strong" population.

Blatantly false. Eve population was experiencing slow growth, until around 2006 when it increased significantly and has since held on. Dofus and Runescape, similarly had steady populations until around 2006 when they started growing much more rapidly and then held firm. Second life? Exploded around 2006. What happened around that time? WoW became a public icon for MMORPGs and greatly increase awareness. There are more examples, but their subscriptions numbers are far less reliable.
Wloire wrote:
Yea, exactly. If 13 million players play World of Warcraft but won't play any other MMO that's good for WoW, not good for the MMO market.

It's good for both. You can't sell products to a demographic that doesn't exist. You need people willing to try MMORPGs to have customers to sell an MMORPG.

Without WoW the MMORPG market in the west would have remained a far more niche market. You may not like all the games being developed now because of WoW, but they are being developed because of WoW.
Wloire wrote:
Now compare that (incomplete) list to games released post 2004.

Auto Assault. The Matrix Online. WAR public quests (sure the rest of the game was typical, but casual grouping is as innovative as WoW's casual quest grind was). Lego Universe. Guild Wars. Maple Story. DCUO is pretty much MMO-arcade game. These games all tried something very different. They weren't all successful, but if you're arguing that WoW has killed innovation, then you're wrong.




More than anything though, I'm tired of people constantly griping about WoW. Even if I agreed with you, I'd still make the same arguments hoping I might convince you or at least one other person to stop crying about WoW every single time a new MMO is released. It's beyond old. Even if you're 100% right you still contribute nothing to a conversation because everything you've said has been said before.

Edited, Jan 25th 2011 2:43am by Allegory


You're right, we aren't going to agree since you are apparently blindly supporting WoW simply because you are tired of the WoW bashing. Simply put this way, if Ford became the most popular car company in Asia, and every Chinese/Indian/etc bought a Ford , that would be a huge increase in the automobile market. Now if those same consumers refused to drive another brand beyond a free 1 month test drive now and then, that would not be good for any other automobile company, that would only be beneficial for Ford. Unless WoW were to suddenly shut down, no other game is going to benefit from its presence, truly most of the games released since WoW have "failed" because of over-hyped expectations.


Yea, except I'm pretty sure you're wrong and your example is flawed. I have no numbers to back this up, but I know from these forums that there are a lot of people who quit WoW and moved on to other MMOs. That says to me that there are tons more who have done the same that aren't on these forums. What are the odds that all of those people played MMOs before WoW? I'd say pretty **** low. I highly doubt that all those Asians who bought a Ford would stick with Ford for their next purchase. Despite its popularity, many would find that while they liked their Ford for a while, they found that this other car company suits their needs better.
____________________________
◕ ‿‿ ◕
#90 Jan 25 2011 at 3:11 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
278 posts
Vataro wrote:
Wloire wrote:
Allegory wrote:
Wloire wrote:
There are more players playing WoW worldwide than there are players playing every other tracked MMO in existence. Thats only a hugely increased market by proxy.

The entire market is up sans WoW. WoW is a significant contributor to the increase, but removing its data the growth rate is still strongly positive.
Wloire wrote:
If by games having explosive player populations you mean games were flooded for the first month and then players subsequently left in droves then yes you would be right. Aion is the only game that has been able to retain a "strong" population.

Blatantly false. Eve population was experiencing slow growth, until around 2006 when it increased significantly and has since held on. Dofus and Runescape, similarly had steady populations until around 2006 when they started growing much more rapidly and then held firm. Second life? Exploded around 2006. What happened around that time? WoW became a public icon for MMORPGs and greatly increase awareness. There are more examples, but their subscriptions numbers are far less reliable.
Wloire wrote:
Yea, exactly. If 13 million players play World of Warcraft but won't play any other MMO that's good for WoW, not good for the MMO market.

It's good for both. You can't sell products to a demographic that doesn't exist. You need people willing to try MMORPGs to have customers to sell an MMORPG.

Without WoW the MMORPG market in the west would have remained a far more niche market. You may not like all the games being developed now because of WoW, but they are being developed because of WoW.
Wloire wrote:
Now compare that (incomplete) list to games released post 2004.

Auto Assault. The Matrix Online. WAR public quests (sure the rest of the game was typical, but casual grouping is as innovative as WoW's casual quest grind was). Lego Universe. Guild Wars. Maple Story. DCUO is pretty much MMO-arcade game. These games all tried something very different. They weren't all successful, but if you're arguing that WoW has killed innovation, then you're wrong.




More than anything though, I'm tired of people constantly griping about WoW. Even if I agreed with you, I'd still make the same arguments hoping I might convince you or at least one other person to stop crying about WoW every single time a new MMO is released. It's beyond old. Even if you're 100% right you still contribute nothing to a conversation because everything you've said has been said before.

Edited, Jan 25th 2011 2:43am by Allegory


You're right, we aren't going to agree since you are apparently blindly supporting WoW simply because you are tired of the WoW bashing. Simply put this way, if Ford became the most popular car company in Asia, and every Chinese/Indian/etc bought a Ford , that would be a huge increase in the automobile market. Now if those same consumers refused to drive another brand beyond a free 1 month test drive now and then, that would not be good for any other automobile company, that would only be beneficial for Ford. Unless WoW were to suddenly shut down, no other game is going to benefit from its presence, truly most of the games released since WoW have "failed" because of over-hyped expectations.


Yea, except I'm pretty sure you're wrong and your example is flawed. I have no numbers to back this up, but I know from these forums that there are a lot of people who quit WoW and moved on to other MMOs. That says to me that there are tons more who have done the same that aren't on these forums. What are the odds that all of those people played MMOs before WoW? I'd say pretty **** low. I highly doubt that all those Asians who bought a Ford would stick with Ford for their next purchase. Despite its popularity, many would find that while they liked their Ford for a while, they found that this other car company suits their needs better.


My example is flawed?
Go here

Go through each chart. Other than WoW, Dofus, DDO, Runescape and Second Life are the only games that aren't currently in a decline. All of these are free to play games (so we may assume EQ2 and LotRO are probably on the verge of growth as well). Essentially unless you are risking the free to play model or are Blizzard Entertainment, you're game is not succeeding. The one free to play success story in the past 6 years is EVE Online which has had steady growth since 2006, although apparently they dropped 30 000 users following 2010 for whatever reason.

Using the same charts calculate the subscriptions of every game (including those who have been canceled such as Tabula Rasa and the Matrix Online. Then compare this number to 12 million World of Warcraft subscriptions. You'l see that there are less subscriptions for every other game tracked, than there are for WoW subscriptions. (That large dip in the WoW subs by the way was when WoW was banned in China for a short period).

Your example of "hearing people who quit WoW and moved on to greener pastures" is flawed. Just because they "quit" WoW doesn't mean they don't go back every time a new expansion is released, which is one of WoW's greatest strengths, it's player always return even after "quitting". Likewise those who "quit" often jump from game to game looking for the next new thing for themselves but never truly settle down. We saw it with Warhammer which in it's first month (the free test drive) saw 800k subscriptions, which then immediately dropped to 300k subscriptions by month 2 and is now hovering at approximately 50k. Age of Conan same story, 700k subscriptions month one, 400k month two, 75k by 2010. Where do you think those inflated numbers came from during the free to play period and where do you think they went?

Again my Ford analogy holds true as improbable as it is. World of Warcraft players stick to WoW. Don't get me wrong either, here and there someone entered the market with WoW and moved on to a different game. But not a significant amount. Hopefully RIFT can buck the trend.
#91 Jan 25 2011 at 3:43 PM Rating: Good
Terrorfiend
*****
12,905 posts
Those games all "failed" because of flaws in their design or marketing, not solely because they were similar to WoW, or because of WoW's inarguable hold on the MMO genre.

edit: as much as I hate to defend WoW, Allegory does have a point. Whenever a new MMO comes along the entire MMO community buzzes about it and alot of people give the new game a shot because people want to see a good game other than WoW. WoW's brought in a lot of players to the genre, and thats a lot of people for new games to market to. If the game doesnt put out a polished product, most people are going to be turned off by that and go "oh well...." and head back to WoW.

Looking at your source, eyeball a trend from 2004-present w/o WoW. Im seeing roughly double the MMO subscribers thanks to WoW.

Edited, Jan 25th 2011 2:03pm by KTurner
#92 Jan 25 2011 at 4:09 PM Rating: Decent
*
200 posts
I don't have much to contribute but at least this thread grew into something tangible.

It started with people complaining about graphics (and if not solely graphics they almost always started with graphics as their first example). What people really have to realize is that in today's world graphics are almost PURELY an art style. To compare art styles of two different games is useless because nobody is TRYING to copy another game's art style and if they were they would have no problem doing so.

I am just curious if anybody will take this and run with it or it will fall into the pit of this thread. Just wanted to make sure it got said by somebody.
#93 Jan 25 2011 at 5:16 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
278 posts
Danex317 wrote:
I don't have much to contribute but at least this thread grew into something tangible.

It started with people complaining about graphics (and if not solely graphics they almost always started with graphics as their first example). What people really have to realize is that in today's world graphics are almost PURELY an art style. To compare art styles of two different games is useless because nobody is TRYING to copy another game's art style and if they were they would have no problem doing so.

I am just curious if anybody will take this and run with it or it will fall into the pit of this thread. Just wanted to make sure it got said by somebody.


I'm not going to say much on it but there HAVE been games that seem to have attempted to copy WoW's art style. RIFT's fortunately isn't one.
#94 Jan 26 2011 at 12:20 AM Rating: Good
*****
10,563 posts
I like KT's source, but now we need to figure out how many of those are WoW subscribers and subtract a baseline to actually figure out how many new MMO subscribers have entered the market (hard to say if it's actually due to WoW or not unfortunately) since WoW's release. This is probably a moot argument as it'd be difficult to conclusively prove one side or the other though :(.
____________________________
◕ ‿‿ ◕
#95 Jan 26 2011 at 9:25 AM Rating: Good
Terrorfiend
*****
12,905 posts
http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart5_files/Subscriptions_22082_image001.png that more or less shows it, but it only goes to 2008 :\

Edited, Jan 26th 2011 8:28am by KTurner
#96 Jan 26 2011 at 9:59 AM Rating: Good
*****
10,563 posts
That link keeps taking me to a blank page :(.
____________________________
◕ ‿‿ ◕
#97 Jan 26 2011 at 11:47 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
278 posts
KTurner wrote:
Those games all "failed" because of flaws in their design or marketing, not solely because they were similar to WoW, or because of WoW's inarguable hold on the MMO genre.

edit: as much as I hate to defend WoW, Allegory does have a point. Whenever a new MMO comes along the entire MMO community buzzes about it and alot of people give the new game a shot because people want to see a good game other than WoW. WoW's brought in a lot of players to the genre, and thats a lot of people for new games to market to. If the game doesnt put out a polished product, most people are going to be turned off by that and go "oh well...." and head back to WoW.

Looking at your source, eyeball a trend from 2004-present w/o WoW. Im seeing roughly double the MMO subscribers thanks to WoW.

Edited, Jan 25th 2011 2:03pm by KTurner


Correct me if I'm wrong. From the source you provided it would seem the market was at just under 7 million subs before WoW's launch and now sits at 21 million give or take. Thats a growth of 14 million players. WoW has 12 million subscribers. So what your saying is over a 7 year period WoW helped bring about 2 million players to the rest of the market?

So you think the 4% per year growth in the market (not counting WoW subscribers) is thanks to World of Warcraft and not natural growth?
#98 Jan 26 2011 at 1:08 PM Rating: Good
Terrorfiend
*****
12,905 posts
My own graph


Blue being what WoW brought to the genre.

yes i know it's rough, but im only willing to exert so much effort here....

Edited, Jan 26th 2011 11:09am by KTurner
#99 Jan 26 2011 at 1:32 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,707 posts
KTurner wrote:
My own graph


Blue being what WoW brought to the genre.

yes i know it's rough, but im only willing to exert so much effort here....

Edited, Jan 26th 2011 11:09am by KTurner


Seems reasonable to me.

The following are most likely true statements:

1. Total number of worldwide MMO player base is growing with or without WoW
2. Total number of worldwide MMO player base is growing evne faster with WoW
3. One someone becomes an MMO gamer, for the most part they will continue to be an MMO gamer
4. The only MMO game that WoW hurting is whoever is currently second best (just my speculation that the timing is ripe for non-gamers to become gamers so the current top MMO has a special advantage in that regard).
#100 Jan 26 2011 at 1:46 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
278 posts
KTurner wrote:
My own graph


Blue being what WoW brought to the genre.

yes i know it's rough, but im only willing to exert so much effort here....

Edited, Jan 26th 2011 11:09am by KTurner


Mithsavvy wrote:
KTurner wrote:
My own graph


Blue being what WoW brought to the genre.

yes i know it's rough, but im only willing to exert so much effort here....

Edited, Jan 26th 2011 11:09am by KTurner


Seems reasonable to me.

The following are most likely true statements:

1. Total number of worldwide MMO player base is growing with or without WoW
2. Total number of worldwide MMO player base is growing evne faster with WoW
3. One someone becomes an MMO gamer, for the most part they will continue to be an MMO gamer
4. The only MMO game that WoW hurting is whoever is currently second best (just my speculation that the timing is ripe for non-gamers to become gamers so the current top MMO has a special advantage in that regard).


1. Natural Growth is healthy and inevitable.
2. True but beyond the point. WoW is part of the MMO market so any gain wow makes is by proxy a growth in the market. That doesn't mean it is helpful for the market. WoW's continual growth helps WoW, not the rest of the games on the list.
3. Debatable but most likely true.
4. Untrue. According to the graphs the MMO market sans World of Warcraft has only grown 2 million subscriptions in the last 7 years. Thats 4% per year. On the other hand WoW has grown 12 million subscriptions in same 7 years. There is no correlation between World of Warcraft's success and the success of the rest of the market (not including WoW of course).


Edited, Jan 26th 2011 2:48pm by Wloire
#101 Jan 26 2011 at 2:31 PM Rating: Good
Terrorfiend
*****
12,905 posts
Wloire wrote:

4. Untrue. According to the graphs the MMO market sans World of Warcraft has only grown 2 million subscriptions in the last 7 years. Thats 4% per year. On the other hand WoW has grown 12 million subscriptions in same 7 years. There is no correlation between World of Warcraft's success and the success of the rest of the market (not including WoW of course).


And w're back to square one.

Put aside WoW vs non-WoW games for a second and see the big picture: MMO playerbase has increased dramatically due to the success and popularity of WoW. say that 50% of the MMO playerbase is interested in 'the next big mmo'. w/o WoW that number would be ~6mil. w/ WoW that number is ~10mil, or a 66% larger playerbase to sell MMOs to.

The other games on the list are inconsequential. They had a chance and didnt deliver a product that is (in the eyes of the 12mil WoW players) better than WoW. If they still have servers going, they are still making money. And for those people, that game is probably the "best" mmo on the market. Whatever they want.

What WoW has done is raised the bar for what can make it big. If the new MMOs (primarily aimed at publishers) opted to delay their product until fully tested and fully polished, they would possibly have a chance at a successful game. All games that have failed out of the gate simply weren't good products*.

IMO if you want to blame somebody, blame the publishers rushing the MMOs.

*from the standpoint of the "WoW gamer"
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 29 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (29)