Well, if you're gonna clone something...

[Kesqui]

Actualy Romi, there IS another MMO where you can play as a dragon, but I have to say after playing it, it`s still not as cool as Istaria, the dragon designs are meh..., and the camera angle royaly sucks! only nice difference is dragons can craft/wear visible armor. othrwize Istaria will win it over every time!
Foundations of Hope is this other game btw :P

Thanks for the name on that one, Darkwing. The models really are ... meh... but the "dragons grow based on level and visually change in size" is kinda cool.

[Akrion]

This whole 'cloning' thing some people are talking about is generally why I dislike WoW. Not because of the game its self, but because of the way people look at it.

WoW has done so many things right, and at near perfection, and are continuing to improve on these things. When you have a UI, for example, that to many may consider 'one of the best' in terms of how it's handled, then any other UI from any other MMO these days are now doomed to either be compared as "Just like WoW" or "Not as good as WoW".

When you have a game that so many consider to do most everything extremely well, what do you think is going to happen? Good ideas get reused. And just about any new MMO released today is going to have to choose "Am I going to be considered 'Just like WoW' or 'Not as good as WoW'" Because many people don't bother to consider things any other way. Show me a fantasy based MMO released in the past few years that hasn't been compared to WoW in some way.

Here's a more clear cut example of what I'm trying to point out: Say WoW has created the perfect UI. You can't make a UI any better for that type of game. It's the best of the best. At this point, any other game that has a play style similar to WoW, will either have to adopt a UI that people will say is a copy, or a UI that people will say is worse. There's nothing else you can do.

While the above is an extreme of an example, it's almost all I hear about when people talk about another MMOs. "This is just a copy of *Thing* in WoW" or "WoW does *thing* better"

Well, I could do the same with WoW. WoW copies from Ultima Online as it adopts the same Massively Multiplayer strategy. WoW copies from Lord of the Rings because it has Elves and Dwarves.

Sounds silly, doesn't it? You can't really make many changes to "Massively Multiplayer" to set it noticely apart from the Massively Multiplayer of Ultima Online, or any other pre-WoW MMORPG. And similarly, when you have a system that works extremely well in WoW, as a development company, you can drop a bunch of money into figuring out a completely new design of that system at the risk it will be considered "Not as good as WoW", or you can spend very little money using a system that's already really good and be considered "A copy of WoW".

And it gets so bad that there are some things that people seem to believe WoW did first. Like the dual faction system. WWII Online beat them to that punch by a few years. Or that MMO's that aren't even in the same genre of WoW wind up getting compared to WoW.

I really think the WoW comparisons just need to go away.

[Dhalin]

I get your point Akrion, but honestly..

Have you played WoW and seen screenshots of, or played Rift?

They could have at least attempted to make the UI look a little different. But no, they copied it right down to the Talent... errr... Soul Thingie screen. If it weren't for the small additions (like the arrows pointing to stuff in the middle), I would have thought I was looking at some early beta WoW screenshots instead or something.

I don't mind borrowing ideas, but they could at least try to put some originality into it. Yes, WoW copied some ideas from, say, Everquest or Ultima Online, but you don't look at a screenshot of WoW's UI and mistake it for EQ or UO, do you?

I guess what I'm trying to say here, is that WoW : Rift :: Fallout 3 : Fallout NV.

At least, in Fallout's case, there's a reason why: Same engine used in both games. What's Rift's excuse?

[Frith-Rae]

I get your Point Akrion - but it is the nature of the beast that is comparison discussion and with this genre, MMORPG.

WoW absolutely was based on everything that came before, they did nothing particular original that I'm aware of - they just did it "better." Instances better, death runs better, mechanics more polished - whatever. Just improved on what came before in many ways (despite wether you like the game or not - whichis a pet peeve of mine - pepole who are unwilling or unable to see the positives or contributions of something even if they don't like tha tsomething - and its not just MMORPGS lol)

For ME, when a new mmorpg rolls out the gate - I expect "Better" than what is out currently. I dont' want to see the same thing with different graphics, I want the same thing improved, taqken to the next level, progressed somehow. I do see how Rift has taken the same ideas that have been around in the genre for a decade now, and tweaked and polished and taken a FEW to the next level.

That's the thing - NO mmorpg will come out that takes EVERY ASPECT to the next level, the next gen, better, whatever. (without Blizz funding out of the gate anyway lol) The best we can hope for or expect is that each new game will take one or two things from all the games before it and just tweak up those one or two aspects.

That's the only thing I ever hope for - is that this "new beta" will take just one thing, ONE THING, and make it a bit better/more polished/more "fun" and less "grind". To me Rift does that with their "Public Quest" system, which to me is several steps above what Warhammer did, which did it "first" so to speak in the US anyway. (For an example of one mechanic they improved upon, IMO).

Now as to the "WoW comparison" Issue. Well, sorry, but when you're the most popular of the genre (wether its MMO or motorcycles or movies or music or whatever) then that's people's "most common norm" to use in the conversation.

For example - on the "forum that will not be named" we often compare many things to Istaria simply because 95% of the peole on that board have PLAYED Istaria and so we know its a "common" language that everyone can use to understand where everyone is coming from - a perspective point.

iIs not because its the "Best of the Best", or that its the "most popular" its just that with the population on the forum - its a common denominator we can all relate to. MOre people on that board have played Istaria than WoW.

But that doesn't mean we don't use other games to compare - it just becomes less useful when its not the "common denominator" everyone can relate to.

"12 million people can't be wrong" - when its the most seen/played/viewed/whatever MMORPG then its the most likely the most "comnon denomintor" to have these conversatiosn around because the fact is, chances are, people at least somewhat understand what you're trying to relate to.

To me its got nothing to do with "Best" (because as myuch as I enjoy WoW I'll never just say YES ITS THE BEST EVEAH!), it has to do with the "agreed upon terms" that you have to use when having a discussion.

I hope that made sense lol.

[Akrion]

The problem with that reasoning, Frith, is people don't just use WoW as a reference point. They use it as a gauge on if a game is worth playing or not. "Well this game just copies *X, Y and Z* from WoW, don't bother playing it."

You have to understand that there's a limit to perfection. You can't improve a UI to an infinite degree. There's a point that's reached where the frequency of found improvements will decrease, and the significance of those improvements will also decrease. WoW is quite likely going to be on the frontier of improvements for a very very long time. They have the size, and they have the money. Anybody else is going to have to either get lucky, or manage to out-fund WoW in a particular area if they hope to improve on that area, and again that's a lot of money to risk being considered 'not as good as WoW' just because they didn't want to be 'A copy of WoW'.

How long has Istaria been out with playable Dragons and Bipeds? And how long has Cataclysm been out? Despite Istaria's time in the realm of a playable Dragon exceeding WoW's new Dragon potion by almost a decade, WoW has achieved Player Biped riding Player Dragon before Istaria. So now, if Istaria ever finally manages to accomplish this, Istaria will just be "copying the idea from WoW".

Money is everything in the MMO industry, and being on the top doesn't hurt either. The age of a nice variety of MMOs to choose between is gone. It's now either WoW, or a game that is good in some areas, but over all not as good as WoW. Why would the majority of people want to play any other MMO when WoW generally does everything better? This is the general mentality new MMO developers have to deal with, and MMOs are extremely expensive investments. Honestly, I'm surprised people are still trying at this point. Most new MMOs these days are just able to hang on, or have already died out.

[Chasing]

How long has Istaria been out with playable Dragons and Bipeds? And how long has Cataclysm been out? Despite Istaria's time in the realm of a playable Dragon exceeding WoW's new Dragon potion by almost a decade, WoW has achieved Player Biped riding Player Dragon before Istaria. So now, if Istaria ever finally manages to accomplish this, Istaria will just be "copying the idea from WoW".

The concept/idea of dragon riding has been with Istaria/Horizons since the beginning. How do we know that Blizzard didn't just copy the idea from suggestions that were made by Horizons players? I've seen at least one dev from another MMO (not WoW) make a character in Istaria, wouldnt surprise me if others have made characters/read the forums.

[Dhalin]

The MMORPGs that succeed for any period of time, end up being MMORPGs that actually:

A). Give players something NEW
B). Give players something to DO
C). Be rather stable/playable (and not releasing a Beta on opening day, Mr. FFXIV)

The problem with some of these MMORPGs is that they feel just like WoW or other RPGs.

You log on, oh look, the UI is exactly like WoW's. The character movement is just like WoW's. The combat system is just like WoW's. The entire game seems like WoW in a different game world.

Players need to see something NEW and fresh. Rift has a good chance at doing this. Yes, its UI looks similar to WoW's, but yet they have the WA Anchor-type thing that WoW doesn't, and they seemingly have better grouping and such from what I hear. They might just make it.

Some of the failed MMORPGs in the past, didn't make it because they didn't have enough new stuff. Players like/need to see familiar ground, but yet they want enough fresh stuff that it feels like a NEW game to them, instead of an old game set in a different world.

If I log onto a game and it feels exactly like WoW set in another world, I'm probably not going to stay. Why? If I wanted to play WoW, I'd log onto WoW.

Rift sounds like it does indeed offer things that WoW doesn't, and that's great. If I ever log onto Rift (I've pondered trying it), I'll do so, because I'm seeking something new, fresh, different.

[Akrion]

The concept/idea of dragon riding has been with Istaria/Horizons since the beginning. How do we know that Blizzard didn't just copy the idea from suggestions that were made by Horizons players? I've seen at least one dev from another MMO (not WoW) make a character in Istaria, wouldnt surprise me if others have made characters/read the forums.

You missed the point. The point is, it doesn't matter if the idea was with Istaria first. WoW made it happen first. And because of this, many people will just assume that if Istaria also does it, they're just copying the idea from WoW. Regardless of anything else.

The MMORPGs that succeed for any period of time, end up being MMORPGs that actually:

A). Give players something NEW
B). Give players something to DO
C). Be rather stable/playable (and not releasing a Beta on opening day, Mr. FFXIV)

The problem with some of these MMORPGs is that they feel just like WoW or other RPGs.

You log on, oh look, the UI is exactly like WoW's. The character movement is just like WoW's. The combat system is just like WoW's. The entire game seems like WoW in a different game world.

Players need to see something NEW and fresh. Rift has a good chance at doing this. Yes, its UI looks similar to WoW's, but yet they have the WA Anchor-type thing that WoW doesn't, and they seemingly have better grouping and such from what I hear. They might just make it.

Some of the failed MMORPGs in the past, didn't make it because they didn't have enough new stuff. Players like/need to see familiar ground, but yet they want enough fresh stuff that it feels like a NEW game to them, instead of an old game set in a different world.

If I log onto a game and it feels exactly like WoW set in another world, I'm probably not going to stay. Why? If I wanted to play WoW, I'd log onto WoW.

Rift sounds like it does indeed offer things that WoW doesn't, and that's great. If I ever log onto Rift (I've pondered trying it), I'll do so, because I'm seeking something new, fresh, different.

Problem is, though, there's a conflict between your examples A, B, and C.

A: Give players something new. Alright, but it will not be very well refined at launch. This conflicts with C. People will actually have to stick with the game in order for it to improve, and this really just doesn't happen. ((See: Istaria))

B: Give players something to do. Alright, focus on making the gameplay really good. This conflicts with either A, or C. In order to make it well refined at launch, it can't jump off into a bunch of new ideas and concepts from the get go, thus conflicting with A. Or give players things to do while at the same time delving into new concepts and ideas. This will conflict with C in the same way that A does, just to a larger extent.

C: Be rather stable/playable. This will ultimately be the reverse of A and B.

Sure, Rift may be a lot like WoW now, but do you honestly think enough people will stick by it long enough to actually make the money to become different? Most MMOs these days just aren't really given a chance. Either a chance to separate itself from WoW, or a chance to refine its self.

[Dhalin]

Problem is, though, there's a conflict between your examples A, B, and C.

A: Give players something new. Alright, but it will not be very well refined at launch. This conflicts with C. People will actually have to stick with the game in order for it to improve, and this really just doesn't happen. ((See: Istaria))

Not necessarily.

Rift is giving us "something like WoW with something new", IE, the Rifts. I'd say they are "new", even though Istaria did something similar, but how many people have actually played Istaria? No offense meant.

When I say something "new", I mean, some new mechanic, or activity within a game, or something entirely different we've either yet to see, or something that is uncommon in games, such as a multi-class/school system like Istaria, or even FFXI had.

B: Give players something to do. Alright, focus on making the gameplay really good. This conflicts with either A, or C. In order to make it well refined at launch, it can't jump off into a bunch of new ideas and concepts from the get go, thus conflicting with A. Or give players things to do while at the same time delving into new concepts and ideas. This will conflict with C in the same way that A does, just to a larger extent.

I'm talking about games that are released with only a little bit of content -- players reach max levels in days, and there's no "endgame" planned at the game's release or near it. When WoW came out, the max level was 60 and the game was designed in such a way that it took players awhile to get up that high. By the time players started reaching 60, there were Level 60 things to do, that kept players playing. I've heard of a few newer MMORPGs being released with no endgame, no repeatable activities to do for gear/progression/whatever, players reach max level and it is "PvP or make another character" while they wait for new content to get released.

FFXI is also a good example; the "Endgame" was Level 50 after it first came out. That doesn't sound very high, until you take a moment to realize that leveling is *slow* in that game.

C: Be rather stable/playable. This will ultimately be the reverse of A and B.

Again, not necessarily. As long as I can log into a game and it not CTD every 30min, and I don't see glaring bugs that should have been fixed a long time ago, and as long as the lag isn't so horrible that the game is unplayable, it is usually OK. But I've seen/heard about games that got released where you'd CTD constantly, or the game would lag up to the point it was unplayable, or you'd have total server crashes every other day that'd take 15+ minutes to restart the servers, etc etc.

Sure, Rift may be a lot like WoW now, but do you honestly think enough people will stick by it long enough to actually make the money to become different? Most MMOs these days just aren't really given a chance. Either a chance to separate itself from WoW, or a chance to refine its self.

I think Rift has a shot. Like I said, it has familiar territory (the WoW-like gameplay and UI), but yet should have enough different stuff to keep people interested in (hopefully).

[Frith-Rae]

You have to understand that there's a limit to perfection. You can't improve a UI to an infinite degree. There's a point that's reached where the frequency of found improvements will decrease, and the significance of those improvements will also decrease. WoW is quite likely going to be on the frontier of improvements for a very very long time. They have the size, and they have the money. Anybody else is going to have to either get lucky, or manage to out-fund WoW in a particular area if they hope to improve on that area, and again that's a lot of money to risk being considered 'not as good as WoW' just because they didn't want to be 'A copy of WoW'.

OK so now I'm confused - you seem to have been saying that you wish WOW wasn't aroudn to make comparisons with, but now you're saying "they do it well adn they will continue to do it well.."

So why should WoW be blamed because other companies are not achieving? Saying that you'd prefer a gamer world without WoW to me seems to be saying "I'd prefer it where noone had such tough competition because they all fall short."

Meh to me, if they fall short - they need to BE BETTER and TRY HARDER. Its not WoW's fault that everyoen copies them, its everyone else choosing to copy instead of improving.

Now I say that full well agreeing with you that you are right - there is only so many things you can tweak when it comes to combat, or UI, and such as that. To me Rift isn't a Clone at all of WoW - its a growth of the genre, building on what WoW does right and tweaking/adding some other things.

To me the RIFT UI is NOT a WoW Clone anymore than the WoW Ui was a EQ or Istaria Clone (or that EQII UI was a clone of Istaria UI - cuz they are very similiar lol). Its a frickin UI What the heck do you think its going to look like? LOL. And I can give you many many (Dhalin) examples of how the RIFT UI is actualy differnt from the base WoW Ui if you wish to discuss that .

And I too lament the lack of variety in the genre - but to me that is not Blizzard Fault. That's the fault of game company humans thinking they can just design a "fast track to money" and then failing (because it doesn't work!). They COULD give more variety and honestly they woudl SUCCEED if they provided (quality) variety (I know tons of gamers begging for it right now lol) - but they choose not to because they faultily think they can just "clone wow" and make money.

EVENTUALLY I'm hoping the game companies figure out this formula is NOT working and we will see originality again. No, we won't see it in UIs (seriously?), we won't see it in never-before-seen-questing, we probalyu wn't even see it in mobs - but in settings and other game mechanics. I see plenty of things that a company could take from EQII, WoW, LOTR, RIFT, AoC, War, Second Life, SW:TOR (yea I do) etc. and improve upon without needing 200 milllion dollars.

Once the money makers realize that the clone formula isn't going to cut it anymore, hopefully, they'll go back to the drawing board.

Cuz yea, I am one of those players - I won't play WoW via another company. Its why I dont sub to LOTR, AoC, or WAR. Why would I do that? But I wouldn't play Istaria over again in another setting either. Taht's not because WoW means noone can do anything innovative - it means noone's choosing to BE different. And by different I dont mean in the basics as mentioned above, but putting something a bit better on the table.

I wouldn't play WoW through another company, through a "clone" but I sure as hell would play "WoW II" if some company brought that to the table. (and I put WoW II in quotes meaning the idea of an overalll step forward, not Warcraft II itself per say).

[Akrion]

OK so now I'm confused - you seem to have been saying that you wish WOW wasn't aroudn to make comparisons with, but now you're saying "they do it well adn they will continue to do it well.."

So why should WoW be blamed because other companies are not achieving? Saying that you'd prefer a gamer world without WoW to me seems to be saying "I'd prefer it where noone had such tough competition because they all fall short."

I want to know how you gathered that from what you quoted from me. Or hell, from everything I posted here even. At no point did I ever state that WoW or Blizzard is to blame, or that I wish that WoW wasn't around. I don't have any idea how you came to that conclusion without either twisting what I said or just not even reading what I said.

Everything I talk about rests on the people that blindly use WoW as a benchmark for things that have been done (regardless if WoW was the first to do it), and as such use it to decide/dictate if another MMO is worth playing. WoW is on the top of almost everything when it comes to the MMO world, and as such it is very expensive to come up with a design that can top WoW, or be as good as WoW but not considered a copy of WoW, and thus unrealistic to expect a new MMO to either do things significantly better than WoW, or significantly different shortly after its release when they're not backed by a multi-billion dollar company. You have to actually give the new MMO's a chance. But they're rarely given that chance because people just compare it to WoW, see that it's not notably better than WoW, and just opt to keep playing WoW.

[Guaran]

I'm liking Rift so far. The UI and soul trees look alot like wow, but it has community raids on towns like istaria used to do.

Grouping is the best I've ever seen. People can walk up and join a group with you by default (unless you set yourself to private only). You can walk up to a raid event, click the "Join Public Group" button that appears, and jump right in. Loot is automatically granted based on how much damage/healing you do. Items use the need/greed/pass system followed by automatic random-ing.

Interface, inventory are alot like wow. Items are handled the way wow did it. You have very limited inventory slots, as you find new gear you pawn off the old pieces. Pretty much anything you equip becomes soul bound and may only be pawned.

There are instances as well. Lots of mmos do this. Mmo's did this before wow. Probably an idea from eq1 or something else equally old.

Only 11 schools (I think) per class family. 4 class families. Mage, Warrior, Rogue, (forget last one). 3 races. Human, Elf, Dwarf.

NPC sells armor dye which reminds me alot of Istaria's equipment customization.

No plots.

Crafting I have not delved into much, but seems more like wow's. But there are customizing options at creation (add ingredients which add bonuses, sorta like applying techs). So I would say it's definately an improvement on wow's crafting. But it is not a crafters game primarily. (See no plots)

There are seperate PVP instances, like wow's battlegrounds. You do not have to go into them if you do not want.

There are servers that are PvE only, which is just like Istaria's gameplay.

There's also PVP and RP variations.

Thinks that remind me of Istaria: Rift has Wisps, Satyrs, and Treants (Which used to be Hz only mobs). Public Raids/World Events. These are automatically generated on the fly by the server. NPC's can run off to fight or be killed. (They come back pretty quickly tho once invaders are defeated.). Rift's are like blight anchors, spawning mobs but also blighting the land. Teleporters (no having to fly to your destination), although this might be common in other mmo's. Limited multiclassing (up to 3 active schools at any one time). No equipment decay, but there is death penalty that is only removed by paying a Healer NPC. (So its kinda like wow's equipment repair, you only have to pay if you die in PvE fight.) But if you don't die, no equipment decay or repair costs.

[joemarra052075]

I play rift as well and I have to say that I do enjoy it. I agree with everything Guaran said but would like to clairify somthing about the soul system.

Each of the four archtypes has 8 souls (9 if you count the supposed PvP soul). You can have 3 of these souls active at any one time. Their trees look alot like WoW's talents but looks is where the similiarity ends, where'as WoW's talents amplify your class, the souls define your class entirely. Then there is the combinations of souls. If we were to just consider that you can have 3 souls at a time that would effictivly give you 84 classes per build, however since you tend to make your first soul your primary soul, the second secondary and the third tetritary we find that order does matter and that give you a total of 504 possible character classes...per archtype!!!! (yes most will be VERY similar...but each will play different)

Also as you spend points in each soul on the parts you defiently want, you get further bonus abilities for spending points in that soul.

[Guaran]

Yeah I wasnt sure about the number of classes (souls) per family.

Cleric is the 4th family.

Also, the Defiant side (opposing faction) is 3 different races. Ethian (Human copy), Kelari (Elf copy), and Bhami (probably a dwarf copy) that likely have different racial abilities, but are basically re-skins of existing models.

Joe is right I forgot to mention that the soul tree (talent window) looks like wows, but you have alot more customization, and gain automatically granted abilities as you spend more points on a particular soul. So kinda like level granted abilities.

[Frith-Rae]

(sigh) I had this lovely long post all written up discussing what is same and what is DIFFERENT really (including the "talent" trees) from WoW and EQII and other games with Rift and all.

Including pros and such that Rift has improved upon from other games (not just WoW).

But it got ate and I just don't have the heart right now to retype it all. If you are really REALLY interested let me know and I can get up the gumption again. But I somehow suspect its not that huge of a deal .

Nededless to say having played almost every major release in the last 7 years, and playing RIFT through 3 betas and Open - its not as clone as you think it is. Its no more clone than anything else has ever been on what came before, ultimately. They are all D&D Clones at the heart..

IF you want tit for tat specifics, then I can go there too ...again..lol.

[Dhalin]

(sigh) I had this lovely long post all written up discussing what is same and what is DIFFERENT really (including the "talent" trees) from WoW and EQII and other games with Rift and all.

Including pros and such that Rift has improved upon from other games (not just WoW).

But it got ate and I just don't have the heart right now to retype it all.

I have made it a habit to right-click and do Copy and paste into a notepad window just for this reason.

Sometimes, posts get eaten, and not only on this board (WoW's o-boards are *lousy* for this, zam.com does it too).

Now, sometimes I forget and I hate hate hate hate it.

That's why I'm starting to dislike all of this java/flash scripting crap everywhere on the internet (can't anyone make a NORMAL and PLAIN website anymore, esp with all of the vulnerabilities? I hate having to tell NoScript to allow nearly every website I go to, just because I can't see the freaking website for all the scripts) -- normal text boxes with CGI scripts retain their contents if you click the BACK button on your browser.

Sadly, a lot of time, Java and Flash scripts don't. You hit the back button, and the box is blank.