Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

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

#102 Jan 26 2011 at 2:44 PM Rating: Decent
*
200 posts
Wloire 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


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).


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.


Edited, Jan 26th 2011 2:48pm by Wloire


It is most likely helpful for the market though. WoW being popular forces new games to make innovations. If not front end then back end. WoW has grown and even if only ONE thing they have probably made SOMETHING more efficient front end or back end. Therefore the market has a slightly cheaper start up and more time and money can be spent on making other aspects of games better and not on recreating something from scratch like WoW (or any other MMO) may have had to do.

Edit: replace WoW with every MMO (and/or other game) ever made with a few exceptions and we have todays games.

Edited, Jan 26th 2011 3:46pm by Danex317
#103 Jan 26 2011 at 4:54 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
278 posts
KTurner wrote:
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"


We've seen it time and time again. WoW players always return to WoW. The "next big thing" will only come along when WoW inevitably dies of old age. The only thing that can kill WoW is time.

You can pretend like you know AoC and WAR at launch were terrible but they weren't. The technical problems were exaggerated and par for the course for an MMO release, for example WoW was unplayable at launch. Having played all three of these games at launch (amongst more) I can tell you WoW was the worst of these three. So why did WAR and AoC fail so miserably?

For one WoW players, you included apparently, think MMO's at launch can compete on content with 7 year old games. Its not possible. Ever. Under any circumstance. No matter what you think. WoW had less content than EQ at launch. EQ had less content than Ultima at launch. It's how it works. WoW tourists also need to understand that instability at release is par for the course. It's going to happen. It's not like WoW didn't suffer it's own poor launch. Yet even though new MMO's go through the same experience as WoW they suffer consistent criticism and failure. Yea, that's conducive to a strong market.

Another one of WoW's strength's is it size. Not only is it the leader but it's the leader by an incredible margin. WoW is essentially rewarded with new players simply for having the most players which creates a nasty positive feedback loop. People new to the market will automatically think its the best game simply due to its popularity. Unfortunately this isn't necessarily true. There's a reason so many people hate on WoW, and it's not just because its popular. Just like say Mcdonalds and Top 40 music, WoW isn't the best of it's class simply the most popular.

So how does this all come together? Due to the above World of Warcraft does indeed have a stranglehold over the market. There will be no new game that suddenly steals all of WoW's players and takes the number one spot. We will see a overall decline in the market's subscription population before we see WoW take the number two spot (this depends of course on Blizzards new MMO and if they are considering replacing WoW with it).

Your point is flawed beyond belief. Half the player base doesn't want the next big MMO. WoW players want another WoW, they don't want the learning curve that comes with new games, they don't want the technical issues that come with new games, they don't want to start from 0. This is why games that are considered "clones" like Allods, Warhammer and AoC see so many subs in their first month while games like EVE, that are so far away from the WoW formula, do not suffer the tourist effect.

The only argument for WoW's advancment of the genre is the gamplay value it has brought. For those who enjoy easy-mode quest grind WoW has been a boon. The "WoW UI" that has become so popular in every game is also of course thanks to WoW (but not to Blizzard, they stole it from a 3rd party). Those who enjoy the slightly cartoony/oversized shoulderpads artstyle can also thank WoW. Whether or not these features are welcome is debatable.

Developers who wish to stray from the Warcraft formula will not benefit from Warcraft whatsoever and therein lies the problem. I don't care if 1000 Warhammer's, Allod's and other WoW clones die. What matter's to me is when MMO developers with original ideas can't get off the ground because anything with any semblance of difficulty is a sh*tty game. Anything with less than five hundred thousand subscribers is a failed game. Anything that doesn't let you teleport and makes you actually travel is retarded. Any game that doesn't let you jump is stupid. Any game that doesen't offer you epics to re-grind every expansion is a waste of time. Any game that isn't WoW sucks.

Edited, Jan 26th 2011 6:00pm by Wloire
#104 Jan 26 2011 at 5:22 PM Rating: Good
*
82 posts
Wloire wrote:
The only thing that can kill WoW is time.


"The only thing that can kill Barnes is Barnes." That quote gave me a little Platoon flashback. lol
#105 Jan 26 2011 at 5:57 PM Rating: Good
Terrorfiend
*****
12,905 posts
First off, I'm not a WoW fanboy, you'd probably be surprised just how much I hate it, I'm just trying to be realistic.

Quote:
You can pretend like you know AoC and WAR at launch were terrible but they weren't. The technical problems were exaggerated and par for the course for an MMO release, for example WoW was unplayable at launch. Having played all three of these games at launch (amongst more) I can tell you WoW was the worst of these three. So why did WAR and AoC fail so miserably?


AoC was considered a 'good' product by the industry and I bet it was stunted by WoW's content additions in preparation for WotLK. 2008 was a busy year in WoW

WAR's flaws were not minor and were entirely game-breaking (when a game is touted for its large scale PVP then cannot run that PVP thats a huge problem), and it was released sept 2008, did well for a couple months then plummeted when WotLK was released. I was there for the entire ride. I remember going from a full guild to a guild of 2 the day WotLK came out. The game was rushed out the door and they were overly confident of the games potential, and they got destroyed for it. Wait 4-5 months, more polished product, less competition.

Quote:
So how does this all come together? Due to the above World of Warcraft does indeed have a stranglehold over the market. There will be no new game that suddenly steals all of WoW's players and takes the number one spot. We will see a overall decline in the market's subscription population before we see WoW take the number two spot (this depends of course on Blizzards new MMO and if they are considering replacing WoW with it).


Another thing to remember is that nobody with half a brain is expecting any game released to overtake WoW. And that a game can be very successful w/o having anywhere near the subscribers WoW does. Besides, all that matters is a robust server population and a profit for the company. It doesnt matter if you have 100 servers or 10. What matters, imo, is that the server is populated.

Quote:
Your point is flawed beyond belief. Half the player base doesn't want the next big MMO. WoW players want another WoW, they don't want the learning curve that comes with new games, they don't want the technical issues that come with new games, they don't want to start from 0. This is why games that are considered "clones" like Allods, Warhammer and AoC see so many subs in their first month while games like EVE, that are so far away from the WoW formula, do not suffer the tourist effect.


Well of course it's flawed, its obviously speculative. And your point is contradictory. If WoW players want another WoW then why is EVE (polar opposite of WoW) thriving? People wouldnt be trying a game if they werent interested in pursuing it further provided it is a better product then their perception of WoW.

Quote:
What matter's to me is when MMO developers with original ideas can't get off the ground because anything with any semblance of difficulty is a sh*tty game. Anything with less than five hundred thousand subscribers is a failed game. Anything that doesn't let you teleport and makes you actually travel is retarded. Any game that doesn't let you jump is stupid. Any game that doesen't offer you epics to re-grind every expansion is a waste of time. Any game that isn't WoW sucks.


Name some games that bring something new the genre that have failed. I can think of.....very few. And if you can do that, tell me one that's actually good :P



#106 Jan 26 2011 at 7:47 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
278 posts
I hate quoting on a laptop ><.

You're description of AoC is lacking. It didn't die off slowly. It dropped 300k subscribers before the first pay month and another 250k before the year was up. How does that look to your players when 300 thousand players suddenly disappear. How does it look when the media starts reporting server mergers? It doesn't matter if the company is making a profit at this point because the negative publicity will continue to kill them until they hit bottom as we saw with AoC.

WAR's flaws WERE minor, in the sense that any open world PVP game suffers the same problems. The stronger your servers the more players will throw themselves into one zone to crash it. The regular keeps had no problems. Fortresses were terrible but very few people saw them. City Attacks were instanced ( a problem in itself). PVE zones were fine stability wise, and the instanced PVP worked perfectly (minus the stun spam).

You yourself said WoW is a boon for the next big thing. If nothing is going to take WoW's subscribers then how exactly is WoW helping the next big thing?

The point is WoW players don't play EVE. You need to become part of the EVE community to understand. You have the odd person who makes the transition fine but its very rare. EVE players either come from different MMO's (normally not WoW-type mmos), or EVE is their first and they are too hard headed to give up. I'm not going to say EVE players are particularly smarter. Thats not true. What it takes to play EVE that WoW burns out of it's players is perseverance, patience and hard work. EVE grows and does well on it's own. WoW does nothing for EVE.

Finally, Auto Assault, Star Wars Galaxies, APB, D&DO, Darkfall (does that count as a failure?), Huxley, Tabula Rasa.

SWG Pre-NGE was especially near and dear to my heart though. :-(

edit: Who defines good? Is Katy Perry's "Fireworks" the best song released in the last month simply because it is at the top of the American Top 40? Is Alvin and the Chipmunks 2 a better movie than Scott Pilgrim vs. The World because it made more money? I thought SWG was the best MMO created in the sandbox genre. Plenty of people stood by Tabula Rasa. Are you going to tell these perfectly sane/intelligent people that their games suck?


Edited, Jan 26th 2011 8:51pm by Wloire
#107 Jan 26 2011 at 11:43 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,908 posts
Wloire wrote:
WAR's flaws WERE minor

Not at all. Aside from various other issues, there were fundamental class imbalances. Bright Wizards were flat out better than Sorcerers.

Edited, Jan 26th 2011 11:43pm by Allegory
#108 Jan 26 2011 at 11:46 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
278 posts
Allegory wrote:
Wloire wrote:
WAR's flaws WERE minor

Not at all. Aside from various other issues, there were fundamental class imbalances. Bright Wizards were flat out better than Sorcerers.

Edited, Jan 26th 2011 11:43pm by Allegory


I will give you that. And Warrior Priest's were wildly over powered.
#109 Jan 27 2011 at 12:18 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,908 posts
Witch Elf kisses were also a better mechanic than their Witch Hunter equivalent.

Having asymmetrical teams does often make a game more interesting, but it invites a world of balance trouble. Most games with asymmetrical gameplay balance it by having team take turns (such as attack-defend situations), which isn't very possible with faction classes.
#110 Jan 27 2011 at 9:56 AM Rating: Default
**
526 posts
lol hitboxes scale with Character size and that is how the Koreans are releasing it. Tera is a pile of garbage and will suffer the fate of Aion. God knows why they did not learn from Aion on why is it a MAJORRRRR mistake to release a game in NA close to 7-8 months later then the Korean release.

I had to create an account here to counter the blatant lies in this thread. If you graphics card sucks it is not Trions fault. The graphics are pretty intense.

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/6836/2011126204827.jpg



Edited, Jan 27th 2011 10:57am by Puremallace
#111 Jan 27 2011 at 11:25 AM Rating: Good
Terrorfiend
*****
12,905 posts
Quote:
You're description of AoC is lacking. It didn't die off slowly. It dropped 300k subscribers before the first pay month and another 250k before the year was up. How does that look to your players when 300 thousand players suddenly disappear. How does it look when the media starts reporting server mergers? It doesn't matter if the company is making a profit at this point because the negative publicity will continue to kill them until they hit bottom as we saw with AoC.


My description was lacking because ive never played the game. I really cant comment on it I guess.

Quote:
You yourself said WoW is a boon for the next big thing. If nothing is going to take WoW's subscribers then how exactly is WoW helping the next big thing?


I dont recall saying WoW is a boon for the next big thing. I'm saying WoW is bringing in people to the genre so other companies can make new MMOs and have a chance at being successful (see previous post regarding 'success'), offering potential variety to the genre. If a game decides to throw out an unfinished product for a quick buck they arent going to make it.

Quote:
Who defines good? Is Katy Perry's "Fireworks" the best song released in the last month simply because it is at the top of the American Top 40? Is Alvin and the Chipmunks 2 a better movie than Scott Pilgrim vs. The World because it made more money? I thought SWG was the best MMO created in the sandbox genre. Plenty of people stood by Tabula Rasa. Are you going to tell these perfectly sane/intelligent people that their games suck?


I'll assume this is mostly rhetorical because I'm sure you know the difference between your idea of good, and the money-grubbing suit's idea of good.

eta: i dont think i really have much more to say about the subject. So.... signing off :P


Edited, Jan 27th 2011 9:26am by KTurner
#112 Jan 27 2011 at 12:30 PM Rating: Default
WOW players are the biggest bunch of self-lovers. All new MMO's that hit the market are immediately tagged a "WOW clone". Any compliment to another MMO is an attack on WOW in their feeble brains. Do you not realize that WOW is not original either? Many of the thing in WOW were "borrowed" from other games. I'm not discounting the power of being the industry leader as WOW is, but its not the end-all game. Did you know it took Blizzard 3 years to launch WOW after they initially announced it? And, they haven't updated their graphics since 2004, it would appear. The newest update, Cataclysm, maybe brought it up to 2005 graphics.

So WOW fan-boys, here are some of the MMORPG's that were released before World of Warcraft to give you a little context:

Everquest (1999)
Anarchy Online (2001)
Dark Age of Camelot (2001)
Runescape(2001)
Disney's Toontown (2003)
Eve Online (2003)
Everquest II (2004)
World of Warcraft (2004)

If anything, all of these games are Everquest "clones", get over yourselves!

Btw, FF was awful, what is with a game you can't even jump over a rock ...stupid.





#113 Jan 27 2011 at 1:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
silverramtruck wrote:
WOW players are the biggest bunch of self-lovers. All new MMO's that hit the market are immediately tagged a "WOW clone". Any compliment to another MMO is an attack on WOW in their feeble brains. Do you not realize that WOW is not original either? Many of the thing in WOW were "borrowed" from other games. I'm not discounting the power of being the industry leader as WOW is, but its not the end-all game. Did you know it took Blizzard 3 years to launch WOW after they initially announced it? And, they haven't updated their graphics since 2004, it would appear. The newest update, Cataclysm, maybe brought it up to 2005 graphics.

So WOW fan-boys, here are some of the MMORPG's that were released before World of Warcraft to give you a little context:

Everquest (1999)
Anarchy Online (2001)
Dark Age of Camelot (2001)
Runescape(2001)
Disney's Toontown (2003)
Eve Online (2003)
Everquest II (2004)
World of Warcraft (2004)

If anything, all of these games are Everquest "clones", get over yourselves!

Btw, FF was awful, what is with a game you can't even jump over a rock ...stupid.


You realize that "WoW clone" is being thrown around in this thread as an insult by people who dislike WoW's style of play, right? People who like WoW do not usually call it that. And no one's saying "WoW did it first;" everyone is saying "WoW did it best." It would be like saying "Such and such is a Wal-Mart clone" and you chiming in "Target did it first." Nice point, but Wal-Mart is the biggest by far; to aim for the sky is to knock out the biggest kid in town, not the one less than a sixth its size.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#114 Jan 27 2011 at 2:30 PM Rating: Good
This thread reminds me of general chat in any new MMO ever...

Which I immediately turn off so I can enjoy the game.
____________________________
An old silent pond...
A frog jumps into the pond,
splash! Silence again.

~ Matsuo Basho
#115 Jan 27 2011 at 3:07 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
278 posts
silverramtruck wrote:
WOW players are the biggest bunch of self-lovers. All new MMO's that hit the market are immediately tagged a "WOW clone". Any compliment to another MMO is an attack on WOW in their feeble brains. Do you not realize that WOW is not original either? Many of the thing in WOW were "borrowed" from other games. I'm not discounting the power of being the industry leader as WOW is, but its not the end-all game. Did you know it took Blizzard 3 years to launch WOW after they initially announced it? And, they haven't updated their graphics since 2004, it would appear. The newest update, Cataclysm, maybe brought it up to 2005 graphics.

So WOW fan-boys, here are some of the MMORPG's that were released before World of Warcraft to give you a little context:

Everquest (1999)
Anarchy Online (2001)
Dark Age of Camelot (2001)
Runescape(2001)
Disney's Toontown (2003)
Eve Online (2003)
Everquest II (2004)
World of Warcraft (2004)

If anything, all of these games are Everquest "clones", get over yourselves!

Btw, FF was awful, what is with a game you can't even jump over a rock ...stupid.







You are nothing short of an idiot. I try to refrain from name calling but at least everyone else arguing with me had intelligent point's they actually took a moment to think out and understand.

As said abovew those who use the term WoW clone use it as a derogative term signifying a lack of creativity in the production of AAA MMO's since WoW became popular. Games that are called WoW-clones generally share these features:

- Standard WoW UI.
- Cartoony art style with giant shoulderpads.
- Quest grind based gameplay.
- Token PVP, preferably instanced, that has little to no effect on the rest of the world, involves some sort of epeen gear ranking.

More minor gameplay instances of WoW-cloniness:
- The ability to teleport almost anywhere in the game because who the **** wants to walk 10 minutes amirite?
- An over saturation of shiny abilities that don't really have many differences from each other.
- A "world" that is essentially a road with a new quest hub every twenty feet and a large city periodicly.
- Continually recycled gear grind that serves no purpose since you raid to get better gear so you can become better at raiding... for better gear.

Of the above the only one that pertains to Everquest is the end game gear grind.
#116 Jan 27 2011 at 5:41 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
237 posts
Aurelius wrote:
e. No MMO is going to appeal to everyone, but I think the people who haven't tried it, or got into a beta but didn't stick around long enough to experience any of the zone-wide invasions or events might want to hold back on the quick judgments.



You are right in that Aurelius, last night i logged in around 2am and came to find Miridian (I know it's spelled wrong) under assault by multiple water invasions. It truly had a sense of an epic battle, as many of us valiantly ran down the stairs to defend the city. The battle lasted about 30 minutes before other players managed to close down the rifts to stop the invasions, but for those 30 minutes it was insane PVE action, many of us fell but had a ton of fun. I died twice when I got flanked by reinforcing invasions. All I have to say is as of yet I have struggled to find any sort of that of action or content in FFXIV. But like many I wait for it to get better, and in the mean time I will be playing Rift, cause it offers fun and content right out of the box... **** right out of the beta, that is more than FFXIV can say right now.
#117 Jan 27 2011 at 7:01 PM Rating: Good
13 posts
I love Rift so much precisely because it's a near clone of WoW, simply with better features.

What WoW did to all other MMOs when it released (took all the best parts (UI, flow of action, game mechanics, AH, etc), made them better, and added small number of its own innovations), Rift does to WoW. Rift takes the standard MMO UI, chat pane, map, questing, etc, and improves on them.

Quest objectives are shown on the map with clear, concise descriptions (like how WoW recently included the Questtracker addon into its map, but better). Combat is fluid and fast paced, just like WoW and unlike FFXIV/other failed games. Spell animations are shiny and cool, maybe even shinier and cooler than WoW's. Rift has many, I might even say all, mechanics that WoW and many other MMOs have as well as a whole spate of new ones (which they practically have to have to accommodate their huge class system).

Rift has instanced Warfronts (Battlegrounds) that are easily accessible from anywhere, as well as a stat pane within each Warfront that is almost an exact copy of WoW's. In fact the whole Warfront system is practically an exact copy of Battlegrounds, right down to getting exp from them. The thing that makes Warfronts just a bit better than Battlegrounds is that you never have a clear advantage; combat is always hectic and in flux. Even up 450 resource points to 250, they can come back and get 500 points and win. There is no point when you can sigh to yourself and say, "we're good for a minute, just gotta stretch back and camp now". That is of course only one Warfront, but I have faith in any development team that can come up with something as dynamic as this.

And so Rift is basically copying WoW in many ways and making it better along the way. However there are things that are really ingenious and totally set it apart from anything else on the market; to name a few: the crazy soul system. 8 talent trees for each class, with 3 active at any time, and the addition of the root spell system, all that just adds up to the possibility for so much player creativity. We can mix and match things, spec into a pet tree for a bit to get a DoT spell and pet, maybe some debuffs, then switch around to a nuke-based soul and enhance some of our cast-time nukes, maybe pick a bit from the PvP tree and get a trinket and some utility and CC spells. There are so many combinations that you can essentially craft your very own class and play style. And to enhance that flexibility factor, Rift has a system with four dual-specs enabled. This means you can have, say, a tanking role, a DPS role, a support role, and a PvP role, all without sacrificing anything. Just a quick 2-second cast role switch.

There are also the actual Rifts. Oh god, so much to say here. Rifts are basically taking the idea of the public quest from WAR and improving it so much it's hardly recognizable. There are 2 main differences between public quests and rifts: public quests are timed while rifts are random, and public quests are static while rifts can appear anywhere, any time. Not only is the concept incredible, so is the implementation. First of all, when a rift appears the size and strength of it is determined by how many players at what levels are in the area at the time. The implications are obvious; there aren't any one-sided matchups, though some rifts are quite challenging. The rifts are broken up into stages and any stage might be a boss, a handful of powerful elite mobs, a huge crush of normal mobs, or anything in between. Defeating a rift gives everyone rewards based on how much they participated - if you did very little, your reward will be minimum, and if you were one of the highest contributors be it healing, tanking, or DPS, your reward will be higher. I believe this is graded on a bell curve not a static numerical system, though I may be wrong. You're rewarded with what may be thought of as rift tokens, which can be turned in for good gear at a vendor, as well as other things like gold, items, potions, etc. Rifts also give quite a bit of exp; having a rift suddenly appear in your questing hub and having to kill it is never going to slow you down. The way rifts automatically group players up is ingenious as well, as it sets up for a group of rift-slaughtering heroes. Any time you walk near a rift you're asked if you want to join the "Public Group" that's comprised of anyone else in the area fighting the rift, and then you and your raid buddies, whether it's just you and one other guy or you and ten other guys, fight together anything that comes out of the rift. After you kill the rift the group is not automatically disbanded, thereby providing a convenient, prepared group just ready for the next rift. Because rifts show up on your map, you can simply hit M, check it out, and if there's a rift nearby more likely than not your whole raid group will roll on over to it for some more good times.

Fighting a rift has never felt boring or grindy to me and this is because, in addition to all the aforementioned cool stuff the rifts have going for them, they pose an actual threat. If a rift spawns and no one goes to kill it, the mobs do not stand around near the rift waiting to be killed. They will actually choose a direction to go, usually to a town along a road, and advance towards it, and if they get there they will take it over.

The art direction of Rift puts it apart from WoW - it's more gritty and realistic as opposed to the cartoony WoW. This is not a plus or minus by itself, merely a subjective difference. However, the art quality itself is an improvement, though that's really to be expected for a game that came out 6 or 7 years ago and only had one major graphic update since then.

There are things that work against Rift as well, mainly really 2 things that kind of roll into one another: the lack of starting zones, and the linear questing. Rift's questing is on rails hard, which isn't a concern right now but I could see it being annoying when I reroll. On the other hand you're really only going to need to reroll 3 times because there are only 4 main classes, so that does dampen the affect. Still, this is the only thing I can say WoW does better than Rift right now, and is something I hope they look to improve in the future.

All of these things considered, I have one last thing to say: Rift is still in beta, it's not going to be released for a month, and it's already this **** good. I can not wait to see what it's like in half a year.

Edited, Jan 27th 2011 8:04pm by Sententia
#118 Jan 27 2011 at 7:21 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
278 posts
Sententia wrote:



There are also the actual Rifts. Oh god, so much to say here. Rifts are basically taking the idea of the public quest from WAR and improving it so much it's hardly recognizable. There are 2 main differences between public quests and rifts: public quests are timed while rifts are random, and public quests are static while rifts can appear anywhere, any time. Not only is the concept incredible, so is the implementation. First of all, when a rift appears the size and strength of it is determined by how many players at what levels are in the area at the time. The implications are obvious; there aren't any one-sided matchups, though some rifts are quite challenging. The rifts are broken up into stages and any stage might be a boss, a handful of powerful elite mobs, a huge crush of normal mobs, or anything in between. Defeating a rift gives everyone rewards based on how much they participated - if you did very little, your reward will be minimum, and if you were one of the highest contributors be it healing, tanking, or DPS, your reward will be higher. I believe this is graded on a bell curve not a static numerical system, though I may be wrong. You're rewarded with what may be thought of as rift tokens, which can be turned in for good gear at a vendor, as well as other things like gold, items, potions, etc. Rifts also give quite a bit of exp; having a rift suddenly appear in your questing hub and having to kill it is never going to slow you down. The way rifts automatically group players up is ingenious as well, as it sets up for a group of rift-slaughtering heroes. Any time you walk near a rift you're asked if you want to join the "Public Group" that's comprised of anyone else in the area fighting the rift, and then you and your raid buddies, whether it's just you and one other guy or you and ten other guys, fight together anything that comes out of the rift. After you kill the rift the group is not automatically disbanded, thereby providing a convenient, prepared group just ready for the next rift. Because rifts show up on your map, you can simply hit M, check it out, and if there's a rift nearby more likely than not your whole raid group will roll on over to it for some more good times.



And this is where I simply cannot understand the big deal. Just because they can appear ANYWHERE (which they cannot as far as I've seen, I have yet to see a fire or a life rift drop on or near the Marsh near the frogloks or the Dark elves) doesn't make them better than a WAR PQ (since that is what they are best compared too, I'm not saying WAR's PQ's were amazing). When you stepped into a PQ in WAR there was a story to hear (Chaos Knights storming the beach), and various objectives (carry those barrels, light that kindle, kill those mobs, launch that catapult). When a RIFT drops it becomes a matter of protecting the wardstone and eventually closing the breach. Unless your first on the scene there will be a large group all ready zerging down the non-descript mobs. Even the invasions become completely non-descript to the point that I won't even bother unless there is a named NPC leading the attack.

It's been 2 (3?) years since I played WAR and I still remember when the Giant burst through the tree to attack my group. I can't remember anything of description of that Fire Rift I helped zerg west of Sanctum 20 minutes ago.

Edited, Jan 27th 2011 8:23pm by Wloire
#119 Jan 27 2011 at 8:07 PM Rating: Decent
13 posts
I found the WAR PQs interesting the first time. And then 2 hours later a group of bored levelers would show up and farm them, and then 2 hours later another group of bored levelers would show up and farm them, and each time the encounters were you do A, then you do B, then you do C and you won, see you again in 2 hours to harvest your exp and loots. PQs very quickly became something you had to do to advance faster, a repetitive drag that was a good source of loot. It was a good idea, just not implemented very well.

While the rifts generally don't have individual stories they do really bring to life the perception that there's another world actively trying to destroy your own, especially if you log on earlier than most, and there are rifts and invasions stomping various towns.

Aside from the story the chaos of the rifts is great fun, especially the most challenging ones. It's not like a WoW raid where everyone suits up, flasks and eats, has a five minute review of the fight, then makes the pull and carefully responds to everything the boss does, it's a challenging, impromptu raid where people and mobs are streaming in constantly, new mobs have to be picked up and tanked or CC'd, etc. I find it strange that you say you're not being challenged by the rifts you come across, that sounds like it might be a problem with your rifts not scaling with your server population. I've only rolled a few rifts when I was playing with some of the skilled guys from my WoW guild, usually they're a challenge for a pack of not necessarily epic players.
#120 Jan 27 2011 at 8:44 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
278 posts
Sententia wrote:
I found the WAR PQs interesting the first time. And then 2 hours later a group of bored levelers would show up and farm them, and then 2 hours later another group of bored levelers would show up and farm them, and each time the encounters were you do A, then you do B, then you do C and you won, see you again in 2 hours to harvest your exp and loots. PQs very quickly became something you had to do to advance faster, a repetitive drag that was a good source of loot. It was a good idea, just not implemented very well.

While the rifts generally don't have individual stories they do really bring to life the perception that there's another world actively trying to destroy your own, especially if you log on earlier than most, and there are rifts and invasions stomping various towns.

Aside from the story the chaos of the rifts is great fun, especially the most challenging ones. It's not like a WoW raid where everyone suits up, flasks and eats, has a five minute review of the fight, then makes the pull and carefully responds to everything the boss does, it's a challenging, impromptu raid where people and mobs are streaming in constantly, new mobs have to be picked up and tanked or CC'd, etc. I find it strange that you say you're not being challenged by the rifts you come across, that sounds like it might be a problem with your rifts not scaling with your server population. I've only rolled a few rifts when I was playing with some of the skilled guys from my WoW guild, usually they're a challenge for a pack of not necessarily epic players.


I've only gone so far as level 18 and I've just uninstalled so take what I say with a grain of salt. I played a lot since Tuesday, tried to experience as many Rifts as possible. In the end though I just can't justify giving my time to a game that really only has one bright spot, and one that I just cannot experience myself.

Don't get me wrong the game is polished beyond belief. At certain points I took the bug hunting to heart and actively tried to break the game and still found almost nothing to complain about. Everything just "works" which is a great lesson Trion could teach to some other (*ahem*) MMO developers.

The on rails quest grind was just boring beyond belief. Assuming I did enjoy the rift's beyond all else I would still need alternative content every once in a while to keep things fresh and that's just not present in Rift. Every quest is the same especially since they only give you ~6 per quest hub and send you forward. Also there is almost no point moving off the road. I as many caves as I could find in the silverwood area, there just wasn't anything to see.

The rift's finally just didn't meet my expectations. I wasn't expecting anything ground breaking but more than a simple terain change with "unique" mob spawns. I want a challenge and not the type where you simply up the mob's level. Multiple objectives, strategic implementation unique attacks. Anything. Here I'l admit maybe I'm blind. After each attack there was always quite a few people in chat cheering on Trion, wondering what other game can offer such awesome PVE, so perhaps I kept missing the point.

In the end I hope the game succeeds and offers people a game they will enjoy for a long time. I'm a little disappointed it hasen't worked out for me like it has for others. I wish you all the best of luck (in game and out).

P.S. (Aurelius notice how I'm not going to stick around these forums after deciding the game wasn't for me? Yeaaaa.... see you later buddy)



Edited, Jan 27th 2011 9:45pm by Wloire
#121 Jan 27 2011 at 10:24 PM Rating: Decent
*****
11,576 posts
Wloire wrote:
I've only gone so far as level 18 and I've just uninstalled so take what I say with a grain of salt. I played a lot since Tuesday, tried to experience as many Rifts as possible. In the end though I just can't justify giving my time to a game that really only has one bright spot, and one that I just cannot experience myself.

Don't get me wrong the game is polished beyond belief. At certain points I took the bug hunting to heart and actively tried to break the game and still found almost nothing to complain about. Everything just "works" which is a great lesson Trion could teach to some other (*ahem*) MMO developers.

The on rails quest grind was just boring beyond belief. Assuming I did enjoy the rift's beyond all else I would still need alternative content every once in a while to keep things fresh and that's just not present in Rift. Every quest is the same especially since they only give you ~6 per quest hub and send you forward. Also there is almost no point moving off the road. I as many caves as I could find in the silverwood area, there just wasn't anything to see.

The rift's finally just didn't meet my expectations. I wasn't expecting anything ground breaking but more than a simple terain change with "unique" mob spawns. I want a challenge and not the type where you simply up the mob's level. Multiple objectives, strategic implementation unique attacks. Anything. Here I'l admit maybe I'm blind. After each attack there was always quite a few people in chat cheering on Trion, wondering what other game can offer such awesome PVE, so perhaps I kept missing the point.

In the end I hope the game succeeds and offers people a game they will enjoy for a long time. I'm a little disappointed it hasen't worked out for me like it has for others. I wish you all the best of luck (in game and out).

P.S. (Aurelius notice how I'm not going to stick around these forums after deciding the game wasn't for me? Yeaaaa.... see you later buddy)


If it's not for you, it's not for you. I just can't help but think you don't know what you're looking for, you just show up to criticize. I take it you didn't like the final quests out of Overwatch Keep. Although I'd have to say that if you threw in the towel at level 18, you may not have seen all of it. Which is a shame, really, because you're talking about lore this and story that and that's where you find it. Prince Hylas is one twisted fellow, and the quest series through that area was one of the better ones I've experienced in an MMO in a long time.

I'm not sure what it is you're looking for. As I said, I'm not sure you know, either. And that's fine. While people are sitting around the chat channels trying to sound knowledgeable and important comparing this feature to this game and that feature to that game, I'm out playing the game. With the announcement that the beta has been extended by a day, I plan on trying to get through the two dungeons I've yet to see (Guardian side) and maybe try to PvP the rest of my way to 30. I ran out of quests in Scarlet Gorge at level 29 and would like to be squared away for beta 6 so I can finally stop playing catchup and help test the newer stuff they're pushing out, even though I know the lion's share of the content we're seeing in beta has already been one and tested on the alpha servers.

If you ever figure out just what it is you're looking for an MMO, I hope you find an MMO that has it.
#122 Jan 27 2011 at 10:36 PM Rating: Decent
13 posts
I think you may be judging a bit hastily - betas are really for game bug testing and feedback on a large level that the company couldn't provide by professional testers, they're not really for new players deciding whether to buy. Even if you don't like it now, you may want to give it a shot at launch, in a little over a month. I'm sure they'll have some sort of free-trial or free-month deal.

If you still don't like it, might I suggest The Old Republic? It's supposed to be an epic story-based MMO, and being that it's made by Bioware I'm sure it's going to be great at story and gameplay; everything those guys touch turns to gold.
#123 Jan 28 2011 at 4:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Inkie in Disguise
*
239 posts
Aren't you guys tired yet? Smiley: snore
____________________________
Creepy Girl Extraordinaire
#124 Jan 28 2011 at 6:13 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,908 posts
Kaasha wrote:
Aren't you guys tired yet? Smiley: snore

There wouldn't be people on this forum with 30k+ posts if they tired easily.
#125 Jan 30 2011 at 5:09 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
29 posts
Well as an FFXI and currently playing FFXIV fan... I wanted something to play while they was fixing FFXIV. A change of pace, where as ffxiv is mainly craft, craft, craft, fight, rift is mainly fight, fight, fight, craft and very quest intensive.

negative points

The world itself is pretty , but the graphics are poor compared to Aion and FFXIV. Its makes the game look Dull, after having Hd quality going backwards to 2004 analogue style graphics.

Wow people will most probably think the graphics are good, but they must remember WoW is an old game and not the latest graphically speaking... and yes i have played WoW up to catalysm. Rift is Wow clone, with a bit of Warhammer,and Rifts invasion are the only thing thats different, but even they get boring after being constantly bombared with them.

Linear questing, not good if you want to play more than one char.

Good points
However saying all that, yes the UI is WoWs, and the Ah is also WoW, but its a dream compared to FFXIV. Instant response, and ease of use. Delivery boxes to send mail to friends.

Search functions and easy to find friends, and invite them from anywhere, as well as u can be in a party and yet fight in different areas without having to be on top of one another.

You can switch off the quest helper if you want to just explore and grind or find the quest mobs yourself. that way it allows for more versatility.

Crafting system is a mix of Warhammer and Wow, but its simple and fun, the things you craft are good for the level and better than some drops.as well as you dont have to have materials way above your level to make an item so it gives a feeling of satisfaction.

The instances and dungeons are good, and Battlegrounds (again copied off wow) are great fun to do.

Love the way people can mix and match spells. hopefully has enough points to add to the build fully or ar least 80% at max level.

conclusion

Will i play it at launch, hmm..maybe. GW2 looks a better game. but i want something to run along FFXIV for now. Will rift have a long shelf life...I dont think so, sorry to say. Probabaly 4-6 months before players are maxed and moved on, however the Devs of Rift really want to make this game suceed so if they could bring the graphics up to HD quality, even as good as Aion, would do, and give the players a more personal storyline that goes throughout the games progression , it might help to feel more a sense of belonging, intead of just go here fight those, come back rinse wipe repeat..

Then yeah it would have been an interesting game to play.. so if i was scoring I would give it an 7/10. With better quality graphics, personalised storyline, and housing and a bigger main city would have given it a 9/10.

Edited, Jan 30th 2011 6:29am by isania
#126 Jan 30 2011 at 3:15 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,153 posts
I actually signed up for the beta. The graphics may look dated in comparison to FFXIV,
but at least it looks like I don't have to wait another 5 months to get some substantial
action.

It'll possibly carry my over until FFXIV is re-launched sometime down the road; and if not -
well, nothing is lost, I guess ^.^/
#127 Jan 30 2011 at 3:55 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,104 posts
I'm considering it. I played the beta for a few hours, and while it was better than I expected, it's still more of the same. Still it's a solid game so I see it holding a decent population. A confirmed released for TOR would make this decision easier.

And RIFT and FFXIV are such different games I don't see the point in comparing the two.

Edited, Jan 30th 2011 5:04pm by BrokenFox
#128 Jan 30 2011 at 4:17 PM Rating: Decent
13 posts
I think some people are comparing Rift to FFXIV because XIV brought many new FF players to the market, and those guys got a taste of the MMO genre and are liking it whether or not they like XIV, so now we have a large number of FF fans looking for a new MMO.

Just my theory anyways.

On the graphics: yes XIV looks great, but the sacrifices they had to make for that were not worth it, namely copy-pasting height maps.
#129 Jan 30 2011 at 4:23 PM Rating: Decent
*****
11,576 posts
BrokenFox wrote:
I'm considering it. I played the beta for a few hours, and while it was better than I expected, it's still more of the same. Still it's a solid game so I see it holding a decent population. A confirmed released for TOR would make this decision easier.

And RIFT and FFXIV are such different games I don't see the point in comparing the two.


This thread was originally posted on the XIV boards where a lot of people are playing XIV but are not at all happy with it and it naturally leads to discussion about what other games are coming soon that might provide more entertainment value than SE's latest train wreck.
#130 Jan 30 2011 at 7:19 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,104 posts
Ah I see. That makes sense then.
1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 19 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (19)