---

Originally posted by Yamota
I hear a lot of Rift either being awesome on one side and the other side it is the same old, same old. But instead of using these statements, that does not really say much, why not actually list why this game will be so awesome, or not.
From what I have gathered the pros are:

• Soul system which allows for great customization and replay value
• Rifts which introduces a, somewhat, fresh and dynamic element to the game
• PvP with both open world and instanced elements
• Nice gfx/sound Cons:
• Small and very linear "world", remiscent of WAR. Only two factions and only starting zones Generic quests Pointless PvP (?) as you really cant conquer much of anything, just temporarily disturb quest hubs (I dont consider gear rewards as meaningful PvP) Same auto-target, click 1,2,3 combat system that have been seen before. No dodging or using the environment to your advantage (?).

So I really only see two elements that seems to make the game stand out, rifts and the soul system. Everything else seems kinda generic.

 

PS. I dont consider polish/bug free etc. to be a pro, I take that for granted for any game that wants me to pay for it.

---

Originally posted by Xasapis

Originally posted by JLVDB

After Cataclysm, I changed my mind about SW:TOR. I think the huge questing lines with the personal story telling will supplement the standard MMO features in future years. Oblivion meets MMO worlds. It all depends how you implement it and you should always motivate some grouping of course (I think the NPC henchman in SW are NOT good in this respect - both for PVE and PVP)..

The story telling to level up, group in controlled party play (to control the challenge/gameplay) is far better suited to satisfy the needs for most of the players. In the - free to choose - end game, the standard group MMO play will be included, but this technique caters for both kind of players.

-

I don't believe the so called "world" events like Rift or the upcoming events in GW2 will be popular after a few days/weeks.

The first times you are thrilled but after a few recycles the bottom line with these rather uncontrolled events (player wise) is that they pass along and players no longer are interested in doing them since they can't find themselves in the zerg fests that surround these events.

You don't have to agree, but I've seen enough in the last 10 years to know that these PVE kind of events are "over the heads" of the individual players and so they feel disconnected in the M A S S E S pretty soon.

So I hope for the fans of Rifts, it is really a side thing instead of a main feature.

 

You're arguing that a straight as an arrow linear questing that was introduced with Cataclysm has more repleability than Rift's or GW2 (attempt on) dynamic content?

Yes because that "dynamic" spawning of Rifts  - PVE - content is far more repetitive than most people want to believe now.

Potential is always there, it is delivering the goods that ask effort.

It lacks the individual player incensitive and takes place "over the heads" of the players. I could point out to any of the previous world events shown in pre Cata launch. Boring as hell after participating in it for 2 times. Deleted after 7 days by Blizzard, thank God for that.

The group plays for you whether you do something or not and that makes hardly a difference in those zerg fests in which everyone or no one comes in.

It is a side show. if you would include it as a main feature, you end up running from world event to world event. Completely destroying the individual incensitve to play a video game.

I do think the Rifts will be considered a side effect in this game and a good lesson for GW2 in the planning stages.

Originally posted by JLVDB

Originally posted by Xasapis

Originally posted by JLVDB

After Cataclysm, I changed my mind about SW:TOR. I think the huge questing lines with the personal story telling will supplement the standard MMO features in future years. Oblivion meets MMO worlds. It all depends how you implement it and you should always motivate some grouping of course (I think the NPC henchman in SW are NOT good in this respect - both for PVE and PVP)..

The story telling to level up, group in controlled party play (to control the challenge/gameplay) is far better suited to satisfy the needs for most of the players. In the - free to choose - end game, the standard group MMO play will be included, but this technique caters for both kind of players.

-

I don't believe the so called "world" events like Rift or the upcoming events in GW2 will be popular after a few days/weeks.

The first times you are thrilled but after a few recycles the bottom line with these rather uncontrolled events (player wise) is that they pass along and players no longer are interested in doing them since they can't find themselves in the zerg fests that surround these events.

You don't have to agree, but I've seen enough in the last 10 years to know that these PVE kind of events are "over the heads" of the individual players and so they feel disconnected in the M A S S E S pretty soon.

So I hope for the fans of Rifts, it is really a side thing instead of a main feature.

 

You're arguing that a straight as an arrow linear questing that was introduced with Cataclysm has more repleability than Rift's or GW2 (attempt on) dynamic content?

Yes because that "dynamic" spawning of Rifts  - PVE - content is far more repetitive than most people want to believe now.

Potential is always there, it is delivering the goods that ask effort.

It lacks the individual player incensitive and takes place "over the heads" of the players. I could point out to any of the previous world events shown in pre Cata launch. Boring as hell after participating in it for 2 times. Deleted after 7 days by Blizzard, thank God for that.

The group plays for you whether you do something or not and that makes hardly a difference in those zerg fests in which everyone or no one comes in.

It is a side show. if you would include it as a main feature, you end up running from world event to world event. Completely destroying the individual incensitve to play a video game.

I do think the Rifts will be considered a side effect and a good lesson for GW2 in the planning stages.

Yes, but we're talking about repetition here. The Cataclysm style of questing you can do it once. That's it. Anything there was to see you saw it that one time. It's like watching a movie, sure it looks great the first time you see it. How many times you can watch the exact same movie with zero variations though?

Aren't you a bit biased towards the (can't do wrong) WoW? If SW:TOR will be the same, and in all probability for Blizzard to go towards that direction it will be, it'll be a disaster. Who exactly wants to play Dragon Age with a chat channel, because that's all it boils down to.

Personally I saw everything Cataclysm had to offer minus the raiding in under a month. And since there was zero incentive to go through the same single player experience, I quit. It basically boils down to the game design and to the player. If you're an explorer you'll hate the pulling by the nose everywhere introduced in LK and gone to overdrive in Cataclysm. I fear that we'll see a similar approach by SW:TOR, since after all that's where Blizzard probably got their latest single line quest ideas.

I was willing to spend hours or days at the same camp in EQ1... and I actually kind of enjoyed it. So chasing rifts is a moving camp. At least the scenery changes. 

Originally posted by Xasapis

Originally posted by JLVDB

Originally posted by Xasapis

Originally posted by JLVDB

After Cataclysm, I changed my mind about SW:TOR. I think the huge questing lines with the personal story telling will supplement the standard MMO features in future years. Oblivion meets MMO worlds. It all depends how you implement it and you should always motivate some grouping of course (I think the NPC henchman in SW are NOT good in this respect - both for PVE and PVP)..

The story telling to level up, group in controlled party play (to control the challenge/gameplay) is far better suited to satisfy the needs for most of the players. In the - free to choose - end game, the standard group MMO play will be included, but this technique caters for both kind of players.

-

I don't believe the so called "world" events like Rift or the upcoming events in GW2 will be popular after a few days/weeks.

The first times you are thrilled but after a few recycles the bottom line with these rather uncontrolled events (player wise) is that they pass along and players no longer are interested in doing them since they can't find themselves in the zerg fests that surround these events.

You don't have to agree, but I've seen enough in the last 10 years to know that these PVE kind of events are "over the heads" of the individual players and so they feel disconnected in the M A S S E S pretty soon.

So I hope for the fans of Rifts, it is really a side thing instead of a main feature.

 

You're arguing that a straight as an arrow linear questing that was introduced with Cataclysm has more repleability than Rift's or GW2 (attempt on) dynamic content?

Yes because that "dynamic" spawning of Rifts  - PVE - content is far more repetitive than most people want to believe now.

Potential is always there, it is delivering the goods that ask effort.

It lacks the individual player incensitive and takes place "over the heads" of the players. I could point out to any of the previous world events shown in pre Cata launch. Boring as hell after participating in it for 2 times. Deleted after 7 days by Blizzard, thank God for that.

The group plays for you whether you do something or not and that makes hardly a difference in those zerg fests in which everyone or no one comes in.

It is a side show. if you would include it as a main feature, you end up running from world event to world event. Completely destroying the individual incensitve to play a video game.

I do think the Rifts will be considered a side effect and a good lesson for GW2 in the planning stages.

Yes, but we're talking about repetition here. The Cataclysm style of questing you can do it once. That's it. Anything there was to see you saw it that one time. It's like watching a movie, sure it looks great the first time you see it. How many times you can watch the exact same movie with zero variations though?

Aren't you a bit biased towards the (can't do wrong) WoW? If SW:TOR will be the same, and in all probability for Blizzard to go towards that direction it will be, it'll be a disaster. Who exactly wants to play Dragon Age with a chat channel, because that's all it boils down to.

Personally I saw everything Cataclysm had to offer minus the raiding in under a month. And since there was zero incentive to go through the same single player experience, I quit. It basically boils down to the game design and to the player. If you're an explorer you'll hate the pulling by the nose everywhere introduced in LK and gone to overdrive in Cataclysm. I fear that we'll see a similar approach by SW:TOR, since after all that's where Blizzard probably got their latest single line quest ideas.

 Ok rifts are nothing more then random public quests of War, and everyone nows where they went, there not a bad idea but it shouldnt be a main feature.

Rifts should be Rare like once a week or twice week.

Cataclysm is basicly end game content and there trying to tell a story, but if you start fresh from level 1 you can do what you want to get there. lots of zones and different quests.

Originally posted by Yamota

I hear a lot of Rift either being awesome on one side and the other side it is the same old, same old. But instead of using these statements, that does not really say much, why not actually list why this game will be so awesome, or not.

From what I have gathered the pros are:

• Soul system which allows for great customization and replay value
• Rifts which introduces a, somewhat, fresh and dynamic element to the game
• PvP with both open world and instanced elements
• Nice gfx/sound

Cons:

• Small and very linear "world", remiscent of WAR.
• Only two factions and only starting zones
• Generic quests
• Pointless PvP (?) as you really cant conquer much of anything, just temporarily disturb quest hubs (I dont consider gear rewards as meaningful PvP)
• Same auto-target, click 1,2,3 combat system that have been seen before. No dodging or using the environment to your advantage (?).

So I really only see two elements that seems to make the game stand out, rifts and the soul system. Everything else seems kinda generic.

 

PS. I dont consider polish/bug free etc. to be a pro, I take that for granted for any game that wants me to pay for it.

I have to agree with some others, this is not very objective.

For instance, the questing system is generic but some might actually like the quests. Remember, some actually do read them. Pointless pvp? Subjective. I would say any pvp where you are enjoying yourself is not pointless. You have essentially applied your criteria for what makes "good pvp". Nothing wrong with that but subjective.

I don't accept the auto target argument because if they made it like an fps game then one could say "same fps shooting style that other games have". Incidentally, I don't recall players of fps games ever complaining that they don't have tab targeting and that their system is "same old same old".

Two factions and starting zones? One could say that other than the need to make an alt the soul system allows a player a lot of flexibility in their characters therefore making an alt is needed less if they want to experience a different type of class in the same discipline. Other than that, some people don't care if there are two factions. Some don't care about their being two starting zones. Subjective.

Nice graphics and sound is also subjective.

It's no biggie but you are not applying a really objective eye.

Yamota pretty much summed up my feelings and I think it's a fair analysis, and yes, I have played it.  I think in normal times this game wouldn't even be a blip on anyones radar, but 2010 was so terrible that people are starving for something new.   For PvP focused players, Rift will be a disappointment, but I can see what some PvE people might like it.

Cataclysm was 80 to 85 for most old timers like me. So I believe my description of the movie style one time questing is accurate. The rest of the game is a huge instance. You leave one and enter the next. That and dailies.

For me (and that's a personal and subjective assessment) Rift in its current incarnation feels like a living world again. The way vanilla felt like a living world, when you were roaming the world and you got to meet other people from your own server. I don't know if this feeling will last, but for now it's there.

I've also played War and they didn't gave me the feeling of public quests at all. Maybe due to the random factor and the unpredictability of the rifts positions and the roaming mobs. I'll tell you what though, if they follow your suggestion and Trion makes rifts rare, we'll end up wth something that will (in my eyes) be less appealing that what I've experienced in beta 4.

Originally posted by pmaura

 Ok rifts are nothing more then random public quests of War, and everyone nows where they went, there not a bad idea but it shouldnt be a main feature.

Rifts should be Rare like once a week or twice week.

Cataclysm is basicly end game content and there trying to tell a story, but if you start fresh from level 1 you can do what you want to get there. lots of zones and different quests.

I agree. Every few days a world event could come to shake up things. But if you would spwan it every few hours in ANY form you are creating a hectic massive zerg fest in which no one will participate except a few braindead who want to level fast and bashing anything in red.

Also: the individual story is rather important if you want the player to get hooked. There are many stories and many possibilites to level post Cata. But this is not a discussion about that game, it is a discussion about those world events.

Putting out ONLY main world events is not going to shake it. Players need to stay on top.

The world changes, so ... the world changes with or without my effort. So in the long run, what's in there for me?

I am talking PVE here. PvP is another story but another angle too.

well lets look at the last several titles or all previous mmos and you tell me one, just one that released in the condition rift is in right now.  i cant think of, not free to play, pay to play, freemium,  or anything else, lotro is the only one that came close. 

aion was a horrible piece of crap.

war was a horrible piece of crap.

age of conan was a horrible piece of crap

wow the big granddaddy of them all was a horrible piece of crap. hell wow to this day every single patch breaks their game and introduces game altering bugs, reason i took a break from wow is the pre cataclysm update ruined the game play for me and i got sick of that with wow, 6 years of them being too stupid to patch their own code without breaking it. 

every game released in the last ten years was horrible at launch, and people are saying the one game that releases in a playable state and as polished as this one is isnt a pro for the game when no other game has ever done it, to me that is a big pro and one of the reasons i bought it.  i dont know if its gonna be a great game or even a good game but i had fun playing it in the beta events so i decided to get it, i might get bored with it in six months, i might not, i hope not, but i dont understand why people are bashing the game, if you dont like it, dont play it and leave those of us that do like it alone but to me the facts will speak for themselves about this game if you play it.  it is a very well done mmo, and btw i havent seen a generic mmo yet, i dont even know what that means because in my opinion there have only been 6 mmos ever and each was different.  ultima, eq, asherons call, city of heroes, wow, and lotro, and each was different, all this other crap you see on the market are just trying to cash in on those titles.  rifts is different from all of those but with the same basic background so that is not generic imo.

Originally posted by Yamota

I hear a lot of Rift either being awesome on one side and the other side it is the same old, same old. But instead of using these statements, that does not really say much, why not actually list why this game will be so awesome, or not.

From what I have gathered the pros are:

• Soul system which allows for great customization and replay value
• Rifts which introduces a, somewhat, fresh and dynamic element to the game
• PvP with both open world and instanced elements
• Nice gfx/sound
• Untill now the best costumer service ever
• More polished game in beta then 99% of the mmorpgs on the market.
• Does what wow did, grabs everything that is good in other mmorpgs and does it with quality in a single game, if something works dont try to reinvent the weel.

Cons:

• Small and very linear "world", remiscent of WAR. The world is by no means small where did you come up with that one? Quests are linear like in all mmorpgs.
• Only two factions and only starting zones
• Generic quests All mmorpgs in the world are made with generic quests this one included
• Pointless PvP (?) as you really cant conquer much of anything, just temporarily disturb quest hubs (I dont consider gear rewards as meaningful PvP) No pvp is pointless, its suposed to entertain me and make me have fun getting better gear improving my stats, thats what all mmorpgs ever made are about some more some less.
• Same auto-target, click 1,2,3 combat system that have been seen before. No dodging or using the environment to your advantage (?). This is considered a pros not a cons, almost all humans are lazy including most mmorpg players and prefer this type of combat me included, all games in the market that make action targeting systems or combos like AOC, Darkfall are almost dead.

So I really only see two elements that seems to make the game stand out, rifts and the soul system. Everything else seems kinda generic.

 

PS. I dont consider polish/bug free etc. to be a pro, I take that for granted for any game that wants me to pay for it.

Originally posted by hardicon

well lets look at the last several titles or all previous mmos and you tell me one, just one that released in the condition rift is in right now.  i cant think of, not free to play, pay to play, freemium,  or anything else, lotro is the only one that came close. 

aion was a horrible piece of crap.

war was a horrible piece of crap.

age of conan was a horrible piece of crap

Aion was very polished, if you didnt' like it fine but it was fine other than the issues it had with gold sellers and the popularity that caused long queues.

Warhammer was a lot of fun though was a bit buggy so I'll give you the quality on that.

Conan was also buggy and I think suffered in its execution. 1-20 really set up one type of game and then it sort of fell apart for many.

Of the three, Aion was very polished so I think, once again, we are talking "subjective" here as far as being "crap".

Originally posted by hardicon

well lets look at the last several titles or all previous mmos and you tell me one, just one that released in the condition rift is in right now.  i cant think of, not free to play, pay to play, freemium,  or anything else, lotro is the only one that came close. 

aion was a horrible piece of crap.

war was a horrible piece of crap.

age of conan was a horrible piece of crap

wow the big granddaddy of them all was a horrible piece of crap.

Stopped reading right there.

Sorry dude, but when are you coming out of this mentality.

wow all the cons listed is basicly the same as all other mmos has... grats....

Cons of the thread: Generic

Personally, I found Rift rather boring. Now, you should know that WoW wasn't my cup of tea, so for me to dislike Rift isn't a very huge leap. I also didn't find very much fun in the first Tier of Warhammer Online (arguably the most entertaining part of WAR).

When Rift chasing, I felt they were nothing more than rinse & repeat Public Quests, with very little deviation. My major gripe with the Rift PQ's was that having too many players on-site made it a cakewalk, and too few players made it a battle of attrition--if not impossible. These Rifts were essentially the game's meat and potatoes; the soul system was the creamy gravey that tasted oddly familiar. I'm not going to touch on the Soul system though. Anyhow, so Rift PQ's just felt a little forced and conflicted with the open-world; it didn't adapt well to the number of players partaking and intruded on any casual quest grinder's gaming time. Now, if Rift were able to better coordinate and reward Rift chasing, as well as scale to player population in a region and player participation per rift, then it wouldn't feel quite so intrusive, but--as it stands--I mostly dislike the Rifts.

Considering that Rift is essentially your standard MMORPG affair with high levels, meaningless and bountiful quest grinding, end-game raids, and arena-based PVP, with an unhealthy helping of--and forceful take on--Public Quests, I feel more inclined to wait for a game that aims to do a bit better. I'll go ahead and put it out there; my eyes are set on Guild Wars 2 taking the MMO cake. With a release date that looks set on mid-late 2011, GW2 isn't asking too much in terms of "wait and see". Granted, my rough description of Rift can also be loosely applied to GW2, but I think Guild Wars just holds so much more character AND it has a history of being a solid game as well.

Just my two cents.

Originally posted by Yamota

I hear a lot of Rift either being awesome on one side and the other side it is the same old, same old. But instead of using these statements, that does not really say much, why not actually list why this game will be so awesome, or not.

From what I have gathered the pros are:

• Soul system which allows for great customization and replay value
• Rifts which introduces a, somewhat, fresh and dynamic element to the game
• PvP with both open world and instanced elements
• Nice gfx/sound

Cons:

• Small and very linear "world", remiscent of WAR.
• Only two factions and only starting zones
• Generic quests
• Pointless PvP (?) as you really cant conquer much of anything, just temporarily disturb quest hubs (I dont consider gear rewards as meaningful PvP)
• Same auto-target, click 1,2,3 combat system that have been seen before. No dodging or using the environment to your advantage (?).

So I really only see two elements that seems to make the game stand out, rifts and the soul system. Everything else seems kinda generic.

 

PS. I dont consider polish/bug free etc. to be a pro, I take that for granted for any game that wants me to pay for it.

Actually that is any6hing but objective. All of your pros and cons are opinionated and leave it up to the player to decide if its a good or abd thing - you use your opion to say its good or bad based on what you think.

The most objective way to look at Rift is to simple say "This is Rift. It offers x, y, and z. Play it if you like that, don't play it if you do not.".

... and arena-based PVP....

Just my two cents.

You are certainly entitled to your two cents even though I don't agree.  However, just to clarify, there are no arenas in Rift.  The first warfront is 10 vs 10, and the second is 15 vs 15.  We have not seen any of the others yet.  There is open PvP on a PvP server after you leave Freemarch or Silverwood.  And you can always flag yourself for PvP on any server in any zone.

Aditionally I believe the Port Scion zone will be for open PvP on all servers although that is not confirmed and won't happen at launch from what I've heard unofficially.

i dont know, probably when people quit bashing every new game that comes out and lets things fall where they may when a new game comes out, doesnt matter i was still correct in those games about their state of release.  aion was unplayable because they allowed goldfarmers and botters in the game at first and did nothing to stop them until they realized they were losing more paying customers than the botters in the game.  yes other than that aion was a good enough asian grinder with less bugs than all those others so i guess we can sort of take it off that list but the rest of the games were horrible at launch with wow i think being the worst so i cant come off that mentality on those games, i was there i played wow and still did up until november when i couldnt take re downloading my game every other patch any more.  but that is when ill get off my attitude when people quit complaining about every single game out there, sound worse than my wife, gets on my nerves.

Game rocks! I preordered :)

Originally posted by Ironclad

... and arena-based PVP....

Just my two cents.

You are certainly entitled to your two cents even though I don't agree.  However, just to clarify, there are no arenas in Rift.  The first warfront is 10 vs 10, and the second is 15 vs 15.  We have not seen any of the others yet.  There is open PvP on a PvP server after you leave Freemarch or Silverwood.  And you can always flag yourself for PvP on any server in any zone.

 

Aditionally I believe the Port Scion zone will be for open PvP on all servers although that is not confirmed and won't happen at launch from what I've heard unofficially.

But those are essentially arenas; it was a combination CTF/King of the Hill 10v10 structured match. I did notice the open PVP option too, but the problem there is that the difference in power as you climb in levels is so great that it just doesn't seem very practical. Granted, I didn't partake in Rift's open PVP because I only managed to reach level 15 or so in the short time I had to play, but I did see WoW's open PVP early on, which was pretty disappointing, and I can't imagine it would be too different for Rift, but I could be wrong.

Edit: I'd like to add that the warfronts just didn't feel very engaging; it lacked a certain excitement... Maybe it was the lack of risk vs. reward, but it just didn't feel like it mattered at all.