+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8
Results 106 to 112 of 112

Thread: Rift: Free to Play?

  1. #106
    Ascendant the_real_seebs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    16,859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nagennif View Post
    Let Trion reinstall the AFK policy first off, and then wait till most of the people who were going to try it did, and then wait six months and you'll see what the population is going to be like.
    At what point in WoW's history would you say that most of the people who were going to try it did?

    I ask because I don't see an obvious upper bound looming in the next year or two.
    You can play WoW in any MMO. You don't have to play WoW in RIFT. Oh, and no, RIFT is not a WoW clone. Not having fun any more? Learn to play, noob! I don't speak for Riftui, but I moderate stuff there. Just came back? Welcome back! Here's what's changed. (Updated for 2.5!)

  2. #107
    Ascendant Laeris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,873

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nagennif View Post

    In the original Guild Wars people met in towns and teamed up together, then ventured into the world. Each area of the world was instanced. In Guild Wars 2, there is a persistent world. The model has changed. When you play Guild Wars 2 at any of the shows, it quite clearly shows a persistent, large, multiplayer world. If there is another definition of MMO besides massive, multiplayer online game, you haven't shown it.

    Your math is pure invention. You don't work for Anet, you don't have numbers. You don't know how often major content releases will come, or what will be included in them. I don't either (but I don't pretend to).

    I do pretend to know this however. From the Guild Wars 2 website:

    Will Guild Wars 2 be a true MMO?

    Answer: Yes.

    You were saying something about reading comprehension?

    Earlier, you said that the game will have a rich, in-depth storyline and setting unique to every player that they create. Now, you're saying it will have a persistent world. Which is it? Can it have both?

    I will answer this for you. Yes, it does have a little of both. The overwhelming majority of the content you have in GW2 is single-player and small-group focused. For example, in your version of the story, things will look different than they will in mine. Under no circumstances can mine and yours exist on the same screen. This is because the model has not changed in this regard. That is not the definition of persistent.

    Just like GW1, I have to invite you to my world, and vis versa. So, as I said, the huge overwhelming majority of the game is the same. The ranked guild PvP matches even match up using the same methods. Now, does it have some persistence?

    Ya, it does have some purely optional zones you can go to that are highly instanced with relatively low player counts per zone. Again, this is not a persistent world. It is actually just like TOR's model. It's a small collection of standalone zones that enhance the main single-player/uniquely generated world. Players will spend the majority of their time in their own version of the game while randomly venturing to the community zones.

    To the Anet employee:

    I like tedium, so long as it feels meaningful. There is a fine line though between tedium and sheer boredom. As I said, I haven't personally followed TOR because I want to make up my own mind when I play it. I am the type of person who likes tedium... and since most people don't then most reviews don't speak to my concerns. Still, even I know that tedium can sometimes be too much. For example, if I'm putting down a prison uprising... killing 180 prisoners is something that needs to be done if there's that many. However, if I have to kill 180 prisoners and then get a follow-on quest to kill 60 rats in a sewer just to fill time in between quest hubs.... then you're border lining on forcing boredom. Tedium is about doing something meaningful and rewarding in the end. Boredom comes when games force you to do trivial things too often.

  3. #108
    Soulwalker Istlyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Siendra View Post
    GW isn't an MMO, despite a lot of players insistence that it is. There's much, much, much lower costs associated with maintaining the game.
    Just an innocent question because I would like to know; how do you consider Guild Wars to not be an MMO?

    ...reply was made while I was typing. Ignore this.
    Last edited by Istlyn; 05-28-2011 at 09:21 PM.

  4. #109
    Soulwalker Pingas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    23

    Default

    Hey lets not forget about Aion folks

  5. #110
    Ascendant
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,771

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Laeris View Post
    Earlier, you said that the game will have a rich, in-depth storyline and setting unique to every player that they create. Now, you're saying it will have a persistent world. Which is it? Can it have both?

    I will answer this for you. Yes, it does have a little of both. The overwhelming majority of the content you have in GW2 is single-player and small-group focused. For example, in your version of the story, things will look different than they will in mine. Under no circumstances can mine and yours exist on the same screen. This is because the model has not changed in this regard. That is not the definition of persistent.

    Just like GW1, I have to invite you to my world, and vis versa. So, as I said, the huge overwhelming majority of the game is the same. The ranked guild PvP matches even match up using the same methods. Now, does it have some persistence?

    Ya, it does have some purely optional zones you can go to that are highly instanced with relatively low player counts per zone. Again, this is not a persistent world. It is actually just like TOR's model. It's a small collection of standalone zones that enhance the main single-player/uniquely generated world. Players will spend the majority of their time in their own version of the game while randomly venturing to the community zones.

    To the Anet employee:

    I like tedium, so long as it feels meaningful. There is a fine line though between tedium and sheer boredom. As I said, I haven't personally followed TOR because I want to make up my own mind when I play it. I am the type of person who likes tedium... and since most people don't then most reviews don't speak to my concerns. Still, even I know that tedium can sometimes be too much. For example, if I'm putting down a prison uprising... killing 180 prisoners is something that needs to be done if there's that many. However, if I have to kill 180 prisoners and then get a follow-on quest to kill 60 rats in a sewer just to fill time in between quest hubs.... then you're border lining on forcing boredom. Tedium is about doing something meaningful and rewarding in the end. Boredom comes when games force you to do trivial things too often.
    I see where your confusion comes from and it is just that. Confusion.

    The personal storyline interacts with the persistent world. It doesn't change the actual world. The instanced content you're experiencing often takes place in the persistent world, it's just that your goals in that world differ from the goals of a person who has a different story line.

    There are over a thousand in world dynamic events in Guild Wars 2, in a persistent world larger than all of Telara. There is no questing in this world, but the range of dynamic events is far wider than the range of dynamic events (ie Rifts and invasions) in Rift. |

    So what you're saying is, and correct me if I'm wrong, if a game has a HUGE persistent world, and also adds the element of a personal storyline, even if that persistent world is bigger than Telera, it's not an MMO? Even if your personal storyline sends you out into the persistent world to accomplish objectives?

    I think you'll find that Guild Wars 2 is an MMO, that also has some instanced content, but the MMO side of it is a big huge area, bigger than what you have in Telara, and probably with around as many players per shard, give or take. Since Guild Wars 2 has 25 individual zones, each around the size of the ten or so zones Rift has, I'd say you don't actually know what an MMO is.

    All MMOs have instanced content. All the battlegrounds in Rift are instanced. All the dungeons and raids (except for raid rifts) are instanced. Even the 10 man raid content is instanced. Does that mean Rift isn't an MMO.

    Furthermore you can max out your level and get to end game content in Guild Wars 2 without ever touching your personal storyline. It's there as an option for people who want personalization for their character, but it's only one way to play the game. Much as a person in Rift who doesn't PVP or doesn't do invasions.

    So, yes, I'd say either you're completely uniformed, or Rift itself isn't an MMO, since Guild Wars 2 gives you a world filled with dynamic events, a massive multiplayer world, that's bigger than Telara. If giving me yet another play option instead of questing makes it not an MMO, shrugs. Then your definition needs adjusting.

    As for the PVP, I see your problem there as well. There is no in world PVP in Guild Wars 2, which makes sense because there are no factions in Guild Wars 2. This means when you want to group for dungeons and stuff like that, you aren't immediately limited to half the people on your shard.

    However, I haven't seen all that much in world PVP action in Rift anyway. Some, yes, but most people are complaining that running around looking for people to fight in world is more of a chore than a vital part of this game. Almost everyone I've spoken to who world PVPs in Rift is disappointed.

    So yes, Guild Wars creates a playground of four zones and in these four zones, three entire servers can battle it out. Technically you could call this an instance, except that it's massive multiplayer on it's own. Three servers, hundreds of people, each with their own starting area and each vying to control the center area. With choke points and supply lines to cut off and sieges.

    It's not world PVP, that's true. You won't get the stupid ganking and griefing, that's true. And it's voluntary participation, that's true.

    But it doesn't take place in the world of Tyria, but in an area called the Mists.

    So what, may I ask you, makes an instance, an instance. What percentage of PVP is instanced in Rift? What is the most number of people you can have in a Rift PVP battle?

    If Guild Wars offers a larger area, containing more players, for better, more tactical PVP, is that in fact just instanced?

    I don't know. If anyone from any of the three servers pitted against each other can come in at will and play, I'd say that's not instanced. But even if it is, instanced is a word. Hundreds of people fighting a huge PVP war against each other is massive multiplayer, even if it's technically an instance. From my point of view, it's meaningful PVP that isn't just a battleground and doesn't end in ten minutes.

    You throw around words like instanced a lot, giving people the idea that an instance is 5 on 5 or 10 on 10. But server vs server vs server, even if it is instanced, is going to be an amazing PVP experience.

    And if they also include Guild Ladder matchs for the hard core PVPers, who don't want to play premades against a bunch of R1 guys just to face roll them, maybe that will be a plus as well.

    Your knowledge however, of the world itself, needs some updating. The world is bigger than Rift and persistent. If half the content is then instanced, it simply means that Guild Wars 2 will offer a larger persistent world than Rift and still offer more options for people who want a different playing experience.

    In case you haven't noticed, the world of Telara is persistent, but pretty small.
    Last edited by nagennif; 05-28-2011 at 11:51 PM.

  6. #111
    Ascendant
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,771

    Default Instanced Vs. Persistent

    Let's clarify something.

    Rift takes place in a persistent world, except for dungeons and raids other than raids Rifts and the PVP battlegrounds.

    The major way to advance through those zones is questing. Questing has been at the heart of adventure games and MMOs for years.

    The problem with questing is that you can't change the world. Why? Because it's persistent. If you kill a boss in the world, the boss is back in five minutes, or less, for the next person to kill. How many people have complained about killing a boss and then getting a quest to kill him again?

    The problem with a FULLY persistent world is that nothing you do ever really matters. That's one of the reason people like instances in games. If you down a boss in an instance, he stays down. But that, of course, doesn't affect the persistent world.

    The aim of the Guild Wars 2 model is to make a game with a persistent world, that still shows some effect for each character. This means that there is a persistent world but about 20% of each city is set aside as your characters neighborhood and this neighborhood can change based on, not only what you do in your personal storyline, but what you do in the real world. Note that 80% of each city is still persistent, only your home area is changing, so you still have persistent cities. And not just one city but six of them, one for each of the five races and one where the five races come together.

    This addresses the problems with a persistent world game, while still giving you a persistent world. The world itself is big. There are more dynamic events in Guild Wars 2 at launch than the are quests in Rift, and there's still a personal storyline above and beyond that.

    Does this mean Guild Wars 2 will be a better game than Rift. Nope. Not at all.

    Rift is geared toward and aimed at raiders, and Guild Wars 2 won't be. If you're into raiding, you'll be much better off in a game like Rift.

    It strikes me odd though, that people talk out about instanced content all the time, and yet the most popular content in a game like Rift ends up being instances. Dungeons and Raids.

    I want a big world to explore. Rift gives me a world to explore, but it's not big. But I also want to see a difference when I do something and in a competely persistent world that's not possible.

    Will the Guild Wars 2 model work? No one can say. I can't say. I can say the Rift model works, though. And that it's a fun game.

    It's simply not the ONLY way to program a game.

    Because Guild Wars 2 has no monthly fee, it's entirely possible I'll be keeping my Rift account even after it comes out. After all, if I enjoy Rift, why would I cancel my account? These games are not mutually exclusive.

    However, Arena net in designing Guild Wars 2 has taken several chances that may or may not work out. In my mind, at least they're taking those chances and trying to move the genre forward.

    Trion took less chances, which is no doubt a smarter investment and a better business move. They know this model works. No one can say if Guild Wars 2 will work, or if it will be the biggest bomb in gaming history.

    But the argument about the game being an MMO or not is just silly. It has a large, persistent world, as well as instances. It may have more instances, but it also has more persistent world.

    That's irrelevant to me, however. What's more relevant is that persistence in the world is one of the big things that holds MMOs back from moving onto the next stage.

    The first game company that can integrate instances into the persistent world, so that you can have a changing landscape to grow your character, while still playing with hundreds of other players is going to make a killing.

    How many people play Rift and just do dungeons or instances? Or battlegrounds? How many people in this forum complain that the cities will become waiting rooms for people waiting for queues to pop? Have you never seen this complaint?

    Instanced content in MMOs is very popular, whether we like this or not. Providing both a persistent world and a personal storyline is at least one way to move a genre forward.
    Last edited by nagennif; 05-29-2011 at 12:28 AM.

  7. #112
    Ascendant
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,771

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by the_real_seebs View Post
    At what point in WoW's history would you say that most of the people who were going to try it did?

    I ask because I don't see an obvious upper bound looming in the next year or two.
    WoW came out when the genre was new and the competition was less. How many F2P MMOs were around back then? How many B2P? How many P2P?

    Just because 6 years ago the landscape was different, doesn't mean any company can pull that off now. WoW was in the right place at the right time. No game coming out today can recapture a game being there at the birth of a genre.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts