| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (22)

Posted: Dec 29th 2010 3:32PM TheSinisterOne said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm in the beta for this one, it's a really fun game. People will, of course, compare this to WoW, and with good reason. It does feel a lot like WoW...just a more polished, much more beautiful version of WoW.

Posted: Dec 29th 2010 3:36PM misterorff said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
IMHO: Silverwood>Freemarch... BUT Defiant>Guardian.

Also, Beta 3 has been great so far. Leaving the tutorial zone with 3 souls makes such a difference.

Posted: Dec 30th 2010 5:52PM Sharuk said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@misterorff Weird for me Freemarch > Silverwood but Guardian > Defiant.
Reply

Posted: Dec 29th 2010 4:11PM Ragefathaa said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
@TheSinisterOne

You can't compare this game to WoW at all really...WoW is a polished and enjoyable experience, whereas Rift is just another rushed "me too" MMO. This game doesn't have anything like the polish of World of Warcraft, and you frankly must be on crack to even write that down. As for it being much more beautiful...again I disagree. For sure Rift can take a nice screenshot, but then any game can...in motion its a different animal. The world is dull and lifeless, the animation is choppy and lacking compared to WoW which is absolutely silky smooth and the scale and scope pales in comparison to games 10 years old. To say its much more beautiful is rubbish...6 years ago it would have been impressive...today it isn't.

Posted: Dec 29th 2010 4:16PM chum said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Ragefathaa Agree with the polish remark, no way Rift has the polish of WoW and rightly so. As for beauty- it's in the eye of the beholder. I much prefer the look of Rift over WoW myself.
Reply

Posted: Dec 29th 2010 4:34PM Ragefathaa said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
It is in the eye of the beholder I agree, but I am saying its all to easy to look at stills of Rift and say how beautiful it looks...in motion thats not how it is. The shortcomings of the Gamebryo engine are there for all to see...its not made for MMO's. AoC destroys Rift graphically and that games getting on now, and is runs much better. I wasn't impressed with Rift as you can tell.

Posted: Dec 29th 2010 5:19PM Dril said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Ragefathaa

Played Cata? I'll defend WoW with all my heart, but Cata is in no way polished. A whole big feature of the expansion, Tol Barad, is broken; the "cutscenes" look awful because Blizzard couldn't be arsed to make them feel heroic, they simply took the game engine and filmed it from a different angle, and all the shortcomings are visible, loud and clear. Hell, some cutscenes break if you've still got a quest-based buff on. On top of all that, I sometimes can't get back on my mount because I'm in combat with no mobs for no reason for at least 10 seconds. Polished, you say? It's Blizzard's worst showing yet on that front.

If you have crap animations: your rig can't handle it. Tone the graphics down a notch and the animations are beautiful and silky smooth. Half of the performance issues with Rift are caused by morons with fairly standard (compared to current actual gaming PCs) rigs trying to run it on Ultra. If you want to go down that route good for you, but without the tech to back it up you'll be stuck with choppy animations.
Reply

Posted: Dec 29th 2010 5:53PM Ragefathaa said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@Dril

Yeah I've played Cata...I'm actually waiting in a dungeon queue while im typing this. I haven't been to Tol Barad yet, I only hit 85 on my first char this afternoon, but I can see it being broken after the mess that Wintergrasp was. The cutscenes aren't great I agree but then was the engine ever meant for that and should we expect more really? I don't think its been Blizzards worst showing yet...I think its gradually gotten to the way it is now over the last couple of years, but the game is polished to within an inch of its life in comparison to ANY other MMO out there and that simply cannot be disputed.

My rig can more than handle Rift, and if you took the time to trawl the official forums you will see people with MONSTER PC's that could handle a space launch have similar issues. I run it on High with the shadows and AF turned down a few notches, and it starts of well enough and degrades badly after a couple of hours play. Warhammer was the same at the time on a different PC to what I have now...the Gamrbryo engine is just absolute dogsh*t for MMO's, plain and simple. Don't assume what tech I have because you read a short post I made? How does that work? The animations are beautiful? Half of them are missing in the first place. Not good enough
Reply

Posted: Dec 29th 2010 7:02PM Dril said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Ragefathaa

What can I expect? I'd expect Blizzard to at least make an effort with the cutscenes and not just feed me trashy, half-arsed immersion-breaking crap. Seeing Deathwing take forever and a day to fly down onto a small ledge with half his body and wings in the side of a cliff was really quite annoying.

Well, what can I say? Playing on my piss-poor second PC with the settings around Medium the animations were smooth as butter for a good 6-hour play session. I'll try it on High/Ultra on my good PC to see if it deteriorates but I really cannot sympathise with the engine complaints. Also: what animations are missing?
Reply

Posted: Dec 29th 2010 7:13PM darrenkitlor said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Ragefathaa Did you know the Gamebryo engine has many iterations?

It has powered:
Dark Age of Camelot - which definitely an MMO and one that worked as an MMO.
Warhammer Online - not a great game but there's no doubt this could've been as polished as WoW had they had as massive a pile of cash lying around as Blizzard.

Not to mention these non-MMOs which were still good games:
Morrowind
Oblivion
Fallout 3

It's fairly obvious that you're not a professional programmer. When a company like Emergent Game Technologies (formerly NDL) makes an engine, they're making something extensible and open to many types of games. Third-party engines are generally agnostic to genre.

The Gamebryo Engine has worked for MMOs: DAoC was a great MMO in its time and definitely succeeded in living up to the MMO moniker.
Reply

Posted: Dec 29th 2010 7:51PM Ragefathaa said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Dril

I'm not calling you a liar mate, but you are cleatly having a very different experience than I am when it comes to performance. My PC can destroy a game like Age of Conan at its max settings and crushes the likes of Final Fantasy XIV (both better lookers than Rift), and yet on this game its like a dogs dinner. It seems to be split between the Nvidia and Ati cards from what I can make out on the forums, but 3 betas later and driver upgrades from Ati and theres still no difference. As for what animations are missing, half the emotes in the game have no animation to them at all...things like sheathing/unsheathing weapons have no animation to them...see a guy 40 yards away and you can see the frames being cut right there in front of you. It was the same in WAR and its the same in Rift.

@Darrenkitlor

I am aware of the gamebryos back catalogue of games mate, but linking 3 offline single player games has absolutely no relevance to Rift whatsoever as to how it perfoms online in a real playing situation. Neither does Dark Age of Camelot...a game which was released almost 10 years ago have any relevance or reflection on how a modern day MMO should look or run. Thats like making a game using Asherons Calls' engine, trying to spruce it up and then when it looks and runs like sh*t in this day and age, turning around and saying "Well AC1 did it!". As for saying how good WAR could have been with the right funds...don't be fooled by that. Mythic had a massive budget for Warhammer...what they didnt have was the talent to see it through, and thats what Blizzard have over these other companies (on top of self made millions)

You're right I am not a professional programmer, but if I was and I worked at Trion as soon as the decision was made to use the Gamebryo engine was made I would have laughed and walked out. This game is going to fade into insignificance before even getting a glimpse of the big time...you can quote me on that one, because I am 100% confident that I am right!
Reply

Posted: Dec 29th 2010 5:51PM werewood said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I am the last one to defend RIFT on its level 1 - 17 quest / theme-park quality. And on the dullness of the Guardian side.
But I can say that with all of my criticism this time around when I just returned to my Difiant toon, I had a very nice 36 hours leveling 17-20 and then inside the instance.
The 17-20 quests became more interesting since the theme-park suddenly became challenging. Its a drastic change from a POOR grade quests to a hub that is like VERY GOOD.
The instance is nice. I still think that they should have created a Skirmish like system for solo and teams of 2/3. But the instance is not great ... just nice and I liked it.
Graphics are amazing - have a new Dell XPS and I tell you - its runs perfectly on top / max graphics and the view is breathtaking in a virtual way naturally.
The class system is challenging. I play a mage healer and its not like I can be the best healer - thus usually being a secondary - but its definitely breaking the molds. And its GREAT.
The team is listening to people and adjust which is admirable.
Overall I prefer it over WoW. Overall it is still a bit dull. But its always about options - and till GW2 / TOR its the best thing out there ... for sure for me.
If they will only make sure that anything past 20 is NOT getting back to the POOR theme-park / questing of pre-17 - it would be great. And also what is missing is as mentioned a Skirmsh like system!

Posted: Dec 29th 2010 8:53PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This isnt Closed Beta 3..........TRION just opened its servers for us to be able to play during Xmas holidays..

Closed Beta 3 will be later....

Posted: Dec 29th 2010 8:56PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Thats about the stupidest comment ive read......WOW is cartoony graphics that cater to tweens.......Its graphics and mechanics are close to a decade old..

And you want to say RIFTs graphics/playability isnt better? /facepalm.....

You are one silly little kid...............

Posted: Dec 31st 2010 9:07AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)
Not every step forward is an improvement.
In fact, the cartoony style of WoW and other games has an advantage over games that attempt a realistic style: They will never be realistic enough. There will always be imperfections that bother the eye.
Cartoony games do not have that problem, as the brain isn't attuned to look for them in a cartoony style.

Also, when going for realism the graphics easily become dull, flat and sterile compared to the cartoony style, that can exaggerate to enhance colors and dynamic designs.

I'm not criticizing Rift, nor am I hailing WoW. Just making the observation that there is more to graphics than the number of polygons.
Reply

Posted: Dec 30th 2010 2:01AM Valdur said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The thing is that rift is more polish than vanilla wow was at release and they also made it as polish as they could to stand up to a 6 years old MMO but some people seems to forget that as they've become so jaded since the last 6 years.

The game is what it is and I take it as it is and I'm having fun despite the oversimplified/linear questing.

Posted: Dec 30th 2010 3:44AM Aenedor said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I wonder if it is a compliment to Rift that is has got the WoW players so rattled?

Saying that WoW GFXs are as good as Rifts is a joke as others have said.

I am playing on a 3.5 year old PC and I was doing rifts with 20+ players last night on Ultra GFX settings with AA enabled in the config text file.

People get too hung up with the FPS numbers.

Posted: Dec 30th 2010 9:26AM xuiton said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I didn't realise Rift is using the same engine as WAR..... In my opinion, one of the core problems with WAR was the shitty engine.

Posted: Dec 30th 2010 1:13PM Vegetta said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@xuiton
Not really appicable here is a quote about that from Scott Hartsman @ Trion

Also - I'd recommend against the line of thinking that goes like this: "WAR used Gamebryo, RIFT uses Gamebryo, therefore, they must be the same!"

Remember - Gamebryo is just a graphics toolset, not a gameplay or MMO toolset.

The only things the two games have in common would be a couple elements in the art pipeline, and some limited amount of client display code.

The gameplay layers and server backends (the things that make the game...a game) were built from scratch for both games, and really don't have anything to do with client rendering.

On top of that, there's very little of the original Gamebryo left in RIFT. It was a good jumpstart, but it's mostly be replaced with custom code as well.
Reply

Posted: Dec 30th 2010 3:43PM xuiton said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Vegetta Well thanks for clearing that up, It would be a shame if it were true. WAR's engine really did suck so bad.
Reply

Featured Stories

The Daily Grind: Should museums preserve MMOs?

Posted on Oct 1st 2014 8:00AM

Global Chat: Through a monitor, darkly

Posted on Sep 30th 2014 8:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW