Where you looking for a game that was the exact same that you played before?
Tera's combat is different, alot of people really love it (i personally find it ok but not very challenging and surprisingly stiff ), it's a different game it will have different gameplay.
Now if you don't like the gameplay you really can see it from youtube or you could have used one of the betas.
EVERY ANIMATION IS LOCKED... period. The bottom line they did not have the ingenuity or intelligence to include something more action paced. Casting a simple fire spell should not take 4 seconds or more especially if it is not a AOE... The spells are horrible...
The fireball animation in particular takes about 0.5 seconds and roots you for a second. The reason that it felt like 4 seconds to you was because you chose to cast it at the wrong time and got pressured by what you were fighting, which is the principle that the game was founded on. The gameplay simply isn't for you, which is probably a good thing since no one is eager to play a game with someone incapable of addressing issues outside of hyperbole, and who is so uncomposed that a 1 second casting animation causes them to writhe in their seat and suffer the consequence of their poorly timed attack.
Also, there are a number of attacks that can be used on the move or that generate forward and backward motion through their execution. The fact that you're unaware of this tells me that you barely played the game, or were so incompetent in playing the game, that you didn't have the presence of mind to fully understand what tools were at your disposal, and how to use them effectively. That being said, it's not hard to see why you personally hate this game.
Haha, BeenGaming, you're like an adult who has stumbled into a daycare facility and is trying to rationalize with the children running amok.
Can't take anyone seriously when they log out after 5 minutes, sounds like a person who has a "wants it all right now" attitude.
I cant tell if a game is good in the first five minutes, but I sure can tell if im not gonna like it.
I wonder why more gaming publications don't just save their time by doing what you did?
They can just spend 5 minutes with the game, then determine if it is "good" or "bad" on a scale from 1-10.
That would make complete sense.
Your sarcasm being duly noted, you should realize that what he's saying is that he can tell within the first 5 minutes of gameplay whether or not it is for him. He states, literally in the quote itself, that it isn't grounds to judge the game's prospective worth on the whole. It's a fairly reasonable sentiment. I actually feel the same way. In my case after 5 minutes of playing Tera specifically, I decided that it was a game I enjoyed. To each their own, guy.
Can't take anyone seriously when they log out after 5 minutes, sounds like a person who has a "wants it all right now" attitude.
I cant tell if a game is good in the first five minutes, but I sure can tell if im not gonna like it.
I wonder why more gaming publications don't just save their time by doing what you did?
They can just spend 5 minutes with the game, then determine if it is "good" or "bad" on a scale from 1-10.
That would make complete sense.
Your sarcasm being duly noted, you should realize that what he's saying is that he can tell within the first 5 minutes of gameplay whether or not it is for him. He states, literally in the quote itself, that it isn't grounds to judge the game's prospective worth on the whole. It's a fairly reasonable sentiment. I actually feel the same way. In my case after 5 minutes of playing Tera specifically, I decided that it was a game I enjoyed. To each their own, guy.
This is true for all gaming companies (especially if you work for one ;P) if you can not grab a gamers attention within the first five minutes of playing you lost all hope of that player coming back... period. P.S Why do you think Tera added that prologue game play at the start at the very last moment of betta ending? Unfortunately it's too late for them,,, execution you can rate that on a scale... 0...
Can't take anyone seriously when they log out after 5 minutes, sounds like a person who has a "wants it all right now" attitude.
I cant tell if a game is good in the first five minutes, but I sure can tell if im not gonna like it.
I wonder why more gaming publications don't just save their time by doing what you did?
They can just spend 5 minutes with the game, then determine if it is "good" or "bad" on a scale from 1-10.
That would make complete sense.
Your sarcasm being duly noted, you should realize that what he's saying is that he can tell within the first 5 minutes of gameplay whether or not it is for him. He states, literally in the quote itself, that it isn't grounds to judge the game's prospective worth on the whole. It's a fairly reasonable sentiment. I actually feel the same way. In my case after 5 minutes of playing Tera specifically, I decided that it was a game I enjoyed. To each their own, guy.
I'm not your guy, buddy!
I digress. The point I was trying to make is that one should not judge a book by its cover. I wouldn't judge ANY activity based on 5 minutes of play time.
If you played 5 minutes of baseball, would you really get a feel for the game?
Maybe 5 minutes of tic-tac-toe. Menial tasks such as this are the only exceptions I can think of.
Can't take anyone seriously when they log out after 5 minutes, sounds like a person who has a "wants it all right now" attitude.
I cant tell if a game is good in the first five minutes, but I sure can tell if im not gonna like it.
I wonder why more gaming publications don't just save their time by doing what you did?
They can just spend 5 minutes with the game, then determine if it is "good" or "bad" on a scale from 1-10.
That would make complete sense.
Your sarcasm being duly noted, you should realize that what he's saying is that he can tell within the first 5 minutes of gameplay whether or not it is for him. He states, literally in the quote itself, that it isn't grounds to judge the game's prospective worth on the whole. It's a fairly reasonable sentiment. I actually feel the same way. In my case after 5 minutes of playing Tera specifically, I decided that it was a game I enjoyed. To each their own, guy.
I'm not your guy, buddy!
I digress. The point I was trying to make is that one should not judge a book by its cover. I wouldn't judge ANY activity based on 5 minutes of play time.
If you played 5 minutes of baseball, would you really get a feel for the game?
Maybe 5 minutes of tic-tac-toe. Menial tasks such as this are the only exceptions I can think of.
You won't get an overall feel for baseball after 5 minutes of pitch and catch, but you'll probably garner considerable insight into your potential interest in the game if the act of pitch and catch is in no way fun for you. Such is often true in video games. Rift is a good example of a game that I tried to play for a month, but ultimately I finished with the same impression that I had after 5 minutes of gameplay. Some of the core mechanics of the game didn't suit me, and so the game itself could never suit me.
The same is true for Tera's gameplay (that you can get a feel for it in 5 minutes of constructive gameplay), but that doesn't excuse the amount of wildly inaccurate descriptions of the game that seem to be floating around in this thread particularly. It's not hard to differentiate the informed posters who gave the game a shot but just didn't find it appealing, from the reactionary sophomoric posts chocked full of hyperbole and a strong indication that they never tried the game at all. Unfortunately, the latter seems to occupy the role for the majority of naysaying posts in this case.
Can't take anyone seriously when they log out after 5 minutes, sounds like a person who has a "wants it all right now" attitude.
I cant tell if a game is good in the first five minutes, but I sure can tell if im not gonna like it.
I wonder why more gaming publications don't just save their time by doing what you did?
They can just spend 5 minutes with the game, then determine if it is "good" or "bad" on a scale from 1-10.
That would make complete sense.
Your sarcasm being duly noted, you should realize that what he's saying is that he can tell within the first 5 minutes of gameplay whether or not it is for him. He states, literally in the quote itself, that it isn't grounds to judge the game's prospective worth on the whole. It's a fairly reasonable sentiment. I actually feel the same way. In my case after 5 minutes of playing Tera specifically, I decided that it was a game I enjoyed. To each their own, guy.
I'm not your guy, buddy!
I digress. The point I was trying to make is that one should not judge a book by its cover. I wouldn't judge ANY activity based on 5 minutes of play time.
If you played 5 minutes of baseball, would you really get a feel for the game?
Maybe 5 minutes of tic-tac-toe. Menial tasks such as this are the only exceptions I can think of.
You won't get an overall feel for baseball after 5 minutes of pitch and catch, but you'll probably garner considerable insight into your potential interest in the game if the act of pitch and catch is in no way fun for you. Such is often true in video games. Rift is a good example of a game that I tried to play for a month, but ultimately I finished with the same impression that I had after 5 minutes of gameplay. Some of the core mechanics of the game didn't suit me, and so the game itself could never suit me.
The same is true for Tera's gameplay (that you can get a feel for it in 5 minutes of constructive gameplay), but that doesn't excuse the amount of wildly inaccurate descriptions of the game that seem to be floating around in this thread particularly. It's not hard to differentiate the informed posters who gave the game a shot but just didn't find it appealing, from the reactionary sophomoric posts chocked full of hyperbole and a strong indication that they never tried the game at all. Unfortunately, the latter seems to occupy the role for the majority of naysaying posts in this case.
To clarify, I personally liked Tera .
Well, to play devil's advocate, how many games have you played that initially you thought (in the first 5 minutes, say) were terrible, but then ended up being AWESOME?
I can name a few: Tenchu Z, Demon Souls, Burrito Bison...
There are also many games I thought I loved in the first 5 minutes, but ended up hating... I'm looking especially hard at SKYRIM (such a failure on many counts, I was so saddened)...
Can't take anyone seriously when they log out after 5 minutes, sounds like a person who has a "wants it all right now" attitude.
I cant tell if a game is good in the first five minutes, but I sure can tell if im not gonna like it.
I wonder why more gaming publications don't just save their time by doing what you did?
They can just spend 5 minutes with the game, then determine if it is "good" or "bad" on a scale from 1-10.
That would make complete sense.
Your sarcasm being duly noted, you should realize that what he's saying is that he can tell within the first 5 minutes of gameplay whether or not it is for him. He states, literally in the quote itself, that it isn't grounds to judge the game's prospective worth on the whole. It's a fairly reasonable sentiment. I actually feel the same way. In my case after 5 minutes of playing Tera specifically, I decided that it was a game I enjoyed. To each their own, guy.
I'm not your guy, buddy!
I digress. The point I was trying to make is that one should not judge a book by its cover. I wouldn't judge ANY activity based on 5 minutes of play time.
If you played 5 minutes of baseball, would you really get a feel for the game?
Maybe 5 minutes of tic-tac-toe. Menial tasks such as this are the only exceptions I can think of.
You won't get an overall feel for baseball after 5 minutes of pitch and catch, but you'll probably garner considerable insight into your potential interest in the game if the act of pitch and catch is in no way fun for you. Such is often true in video games. Rift is a good example of a game that I tried to play for a month, but ultimately I finished with the same impression that I had after 5 minutes of gameplay. Some of the core mechanics of the game didn't suit me, and so the game itself could never suit me.
The same is true for Tera's gameplay (that you can get a feel for it in 5 minutes of constructive gameplay), but that doesn't excuse the amount of wildly inaccurate descriptions of the game that seem to be floating around in this thread particularly. It's not hard to differentiate the informed posters who gave the game a shot but just didn't find it appealing, from the reactionary sophomoric posts chocked full of hyperbole and a strong indication that they never tried the game at all. Unfortunately, the latter seems to occupy the role for the majority of naysaying posts in this case.
To clarify, I personally liked Tera .
Well, to play devil's advocate, how many games have you played that initially you thought (in the first 5 minutes, say) were terrible, but then ended up being AWESOME?
I can name a few: Tenchu Z, Demon Souls, Burrito Bison...
There are also many games I thought I loved in the first 5 minutes, but ended up hating... I'm looking especially hard at SKYRIM (such a failure on many counts, I was so saddened)...
The primary differentiation I make is what* exactly it is that I dislike in those first 5 minutes. If I think the story is dumb, or the graphics are poor, or the art direction is lacking etc. those are all things that can be overcome as a game progresses. Okami is a good example of a game that I didn't enjoy in the first 5 minutes and grew to enjoy as it progressed.
However, if I dislike something as rudimentary as basic character motion and control, such as with Rift, I can never overcome that kind of shortcoming. It's one of those things that undermines the game's potential in an irreparable way. Important to note though, is that Tera does not suffer from something like lacking character controls. The controls are actually as fluid as WoW's which I think is the key to success for any MMO. The animation locking feels natural, but more importantly the act of running around and jumping feels decidedly smooth, which is where Tera departs from a game that was inherently dysfunctional in those regards such as Rift.
Can't take anyone seriously when they log out after 5 minutes, sounds like a person who has a "wants it all right now" attitude.
I cant tell if a game is good in the first five minutes, but I sure can tell if im not gonna like it.
I wonder why more gaming publications don't just save their time by doing what you did?
They can just spend 5 minutes with the game, then determine if it is "good" or "bad" on a scale from 1-10.
That would make complete sense.
Your sarcasm being duly noted, you should realize that what he's saying is that he can tell within the first 5 minutes of gameplay whether or not it is for him. He states, literally in the quote itself, that it isn't grounds to judge the game's prospective worth on the whole. It's a fairly reasonable sentiment. I actually feel the same way. In my case after 5 minutes of playing Tera specifically, I decided that it was a game I enjoyed. To each their own, guy.
I'm not your guy, buddy!
I digress. The point I was trying to make is that one should not judge a book by its cover. I wouldn't judge ANY activity based on 5 minutes of play time.
If you played 5 minutes of baseball, would you really get a feel for the game?
Maybe 5 minutes of tic-tac-toe. Menial tasks such as this are the only exceptions I can think of.
You won't get an overall feel for baseball after 5 minutes of pitch and catch, but you'll probably garner considerable insight into your potential interest in the game if the act of pitch and catch is in no way fun for you. Such is often true in video games. Rift is a good example of a game that I tried to play for a month, but ultimately I finished with the same impression that I had after 5 minutes of gameplay. Some of the core mechanics of the game didn't suit me, and so the game itself could never suit me.
The same is true for Tera's gameplay (that you can get a feel for it in 5 minutes of constructive gameplay), but that doesn't excuse the amount of wildly inaccurate descriptions of the game that seem to be floating around in this thread particularly. It's not hard to differentiate the informed posters who gave the game a shot but just didn't find it appealing, from the reactionary sophomoric posts chocked full of hyperbole and a strong indication that they never tried the game at all. Unfortunately, the latter seems to occupy the role for the majority of naysaying posts in this case.
To clarify, I personally liked Tera .
Well, to play devil's advocate, how many games have you played that initially you thought (in the first 5 minutes, say) were terrible, but then ended up being AWESOME?
I can name a few: Tenchu Z, Demon Souls, Burrito Bison...
There are also many games I thought I loved in the first 5 minutes, but ended up hating... I'm looking especially hard at SKYRIM (such a failure on many counts, I was so saddened)...
The primary differentiation I make is what* exactly it is that I dislike in those first 5 minutes. If I think the story is dumb, or the graphics are poor, or the art direction is lacking etc. those are all things that can be overcome as a game progresses. Okami is a good example of a game that I didn't enjoy in the first 5 minutes and grew to enjoy as it progressed.
However, if I dislike something as rudimentary as basic character motion and control, such as with Rift, I can never overcome that kind of shortcoming. It's one of those things that undermines the game's potential in an irreparable way. Important to note though, is that Tera does not suffer from something like lacking character controls. The controls are actually as fluid as WoW's which I think is the key to success for any MMO. The animation locking feels natural, but more importantly the act of running around and jumping feels decidedly smooth, which is where Tera departs from a game that was inherently dysfunctional in those regards such as Rift.
Hopefully that clarifies my position more.
I think I understand. Sounds like there are a few "critical" issues that might "flag" a game for you as being "unplayable".
And now that I think about it, I do believe there are a few games I've tried that are like this. However, I think my opinion of certain games changed the more I was willing to "try" a game despite having initial reservations.
Portal comes to mind. I always thought an FPS where you don't kill stuff would be pointless... boy was I WRONG! I guess I'm trying to say it can't hurt to really try something out because it might turn out to be something great!
This is true for all gaming companies (especially if you work for one ;P) if you can not grab a gamers attention within the first five minutes of playing you lost all hope of that player coming back... period. P.S Why do you think Tera added that prologue game play at the start at the very last moment of betta ending? Unfortunately it's too late for them,,, execution you can rate that on a scale... 0...
When I played for the beta weekend, I was immediately impressed by the visuals of the environment. It is a beautiful landscape. Then I encountered the first quest giver and did fetch quests running from "!" to "?" to "!". It was at that point that I thought "I've done this before". Yet I kept playing a sorcerer to level 16 or 17, I don't know how many hours, working my way through the first island to the city after the pegasus and probably the second or third quest hub there.
The game advertises itself as "True. Action. Combat". People mention a long history of games that share this design, none of which I have played, so I did not know what to expect when I started other than the demo videos I saw looked terrific. MY definition of "true action combat" is quite different from what this game does.
People who like Tera will justify the combat as being traditional for games like this, and say that it helps you be strategic rather than spamming abilities. In my experience it just meant me standing in one place, casting a spell, hitting the spacebar a few times for combos, the right clicking the mouse to jump back. I don't fault people for enjoying the combat as is, I just expected something differen given I have no history with this genre (though I have plenty of MMO experience).
What I was left with was a questing system that had me do things like killing the same mob of trees three separate times. You don't have to read the quests to know what to do because the map just shows you what to kill. And it was just rinse repeat in every area. Some people say that you can go off the raids and just level up through farming BAMs. That's fine, though I imagine this getting boring fast. Some people say well this is how MMOs have traditionally worked so why are you complaining. Fair enough.
If people like and want to play and enjoy this game that's great. I don't see why so many forum posts turn into a chance to compare it to GW2 or bash GW2. People should play what they like and stop acting as "If you don't like what I like then you're wrong." A game should be able to stand on its own merits, not because they think another game sucks.
"Loading screens" are not "instances". Your personal efforts to troll any game will not, in fact, impact the success or failure of said game.
Can't take anyone seriously when they log out after 5 minutes, sounds like a person who has a "wants it all right now" attitude.
I cant tell if a game is good in the first five minutes, but I sure can tell if im not gonna like it.
I wonder why more gaming publications don't just save their time by doing what you did?
They can just spend 5 minutes with the game, then determine if it is "good" or "bad" on a scale from 1-10.
That would make complete sense.
Your sarcasm being duly noted, you should realize that what he's saying is that he can tell within the first 5 minutes of gameplay whether or not it is for him. He states, literally in the quote itself, that it isn't grounds to judge the game's prospective worth on the whole. It's a fairly reasonable sentiment. I actually feel the same way. In my case after 5 minutes of playing Tera specifically, I decided that it was a game I enjoyed. To each their own, guy.
I'm not your guy, buddy!
I digress. The point I was trying to make is that one should not judge a book by its cover. I wouldn't judge ANY activity based on 5 minutes of play time.
If you played 5 minutes of baseball, would you really get a feel for the game?
Maybe 5 minutes of tic-tac-toe. Menial tasks such as this are the only exceptions I can think of.
You won't get an overall feel for baseball after 5 minutes of pitch and catch, but you'll probably garner considerable insight into your potential interest in the game if the act of pitch and catch is in no way fun for you. Such is often true in video games. Rift is a good example of a game that I tried to play for a month, but ultimately I finished with the same impression that I had after 5 minutes of gameplay. Some of the core mechanics of the game didn't suit me, and so the game itself could never suit me.
The same is true for Tera's gameplay (that you can get a feel for it in 5 minutes of constructive gameplay), but that doesn't excuse the amount of wildly inaccurate descriptions of the game that seem to be floating around in this thread particularly. It's not hard to differentiate the informed posters who gave the game a shot but just didn't find it appealing, from the reactionary sophomoric posts chocked full of hyperbole and a strong indication that they never tried the game at all. Unfortunately, the latter seems to occupy the role for the majority of naysaying posts in this case.
To clarify, I personally liked Tera .
Well, to play devil's advocate, how many games have you played that initially you thought (in the first 5 minutes, say) were terrible, but then ended up being AWESOME?
I can name a few: Tenchu Z, Demon Souls, Burrito Bison...
There are also many games I thought I loved in the first 5 minutes, but ended up hating... I'm looking especially hard at SKYRIM (such a failure on many counts, I was so saddened)...
The primary differentiation I make is what* exactly it is that I dislike in those first 5 minutes. If I think the story is dumb, or the graphics are poor, or the art direction is lacking etc. those are all things that can be overcome as a game progresses. Okami is a good example of a game that I didn't enjoy in the first 5 minutes and grew to enjoy as it progressed.
However, if I dislike something as rudimentary as basic character motion and control, such as with Rift, I can never overcome that kind of shortcoming. It's one of those things that undermines the game's potential in an irreparable way. Important to note though, is that Tera does not suffer from something like lacking character controls. The controls are actually as fluid as WoW's which I think is the key to success for any MMO. The animation locking feels natural, but more importantly the act of running around and jumping feels decidedly smooth, which is where Tera departs from a game that was inherently dysfunctional in those regards such as Rift.
Hopefully that clarifies my position more.
I think I understand. Sounds like there are a few "critical" issues that might "flag" a game for you as being "unplayable".
And now that I think about it, I do believe there are a few games I've tried that are like this. However, I think my opinion of certain games changed the more I was willing to "try" a game despite having initial reservations.
Portal comes to mind. I always thought an FPS where you don't kill stuff would be pointless... boy was I WRONG! I guess I'm trying to say it can't hurt to really try something out because it might turn out to be something great!
Tera being one of these things haha.
Yes exactly. And for me, Portal fits into that same mold as Okami, where I had reservations that were overcome by a game that played competently and became intriguing as it progressed. Fortunately, the only negative thing I could say for Portal was that there is a certain amount of cynicism that you have to overcome to be willing to try it, but the control scheme and gameplay was all finely crafted and provides the foundation for a solid game.
This is true for all gaming companies (especially if you work for one ;P) if you can not grab a gamers attention within the first five minutes of playing you lost all hope of that player coming back... period. P.S Why do you think Tera added that prologue game play at the start at the very last moment of betta ending? Unfortunately it's too late for them,,, execution you can rate that on a scale... 0...
When I played for the beta weekend, I was immediately impressed by the visuals of the environment. It is a beautiful landscape. Then I encountered the first quest giver and did fetch quests running from "!" to "?" to "!". It was at that point that I thought "I've done this before". Yet I kept playing a sorcerer to level 16 or 17, I don't know how many hours, working my way through the first island to the city after the pegasus and probably the second or third quest hub there.
The game advertises itself as "True. Action. Combat". People mention a long history of games that share this design, none of which I have played, so I did not know what to expect when I started other than the demo videos I saw looked terrific. MY definition of "true action combat" is quite different from what this game does.
People who like Tera will justify the combat as being traditional for games like this, and say that it helps you be strategic rather than spamming abilities. In my experience it just meant me standing in one place, casting a spell, hitting the spacebar a few times for combos, the right clicking the mouse to jump back. I don't fault people for enjoying the combat as is, I just expected something differen given I have no history with this genre (though I have plenty of MMO experience).
What I was left with was a questing system that had me do things like killing the same mob of trees three separate times. You don't have to read the quests to know what to do because the map just shows you what to kill. And it was just rinse repeat in every area. Some people say that you can go off the raids and just level up through farming BAMs. That's fine, though I imagine this getting boring fast. Some people say well this is how MMOs have traditionally worked so why are you complaining. Fair enough.
If people like and want to play and enjoy this game that's great. I don't see why so many forum posts turn into a chance to compare it to GW2 or bash GW2. People should play what they like and stop acting as "If you don't like what I like then you're wrong." A game should be able to stand on its own merits, not because they think another game sucks.
In a normal MMO classes play by the exact same design. You have block, dodge(miss), and resists, or you take damage. This is a completely gear/class based system which has nothing to do with player skill. In TERA you have block and ways to evade attacks either manually or by using evade skills. You will never randomly miss an attack because of a random stat. This is only part of what makes TERA combat an action game, the lack of excessive random mods outside the players control that determine the result of combat.
You mentioned combo chains and standing still but have you considered that standing like a stone pillar is the worse thing you can do in pvp? Considering everything is manually aimed, you are just making yourself a very easy target to hit.
Combo chains can be used, if setup correctly, to lower the amount of hotkeys you need to spam in pve by large amount. Combo chains in pvp will oftern be broken because of the chaotic nature of the fighting. Combo chains are in the game because of how movement intensive the combat can be even in pve vs various BAMs and bosses. Have you tried playing a zerker in TERA and holding the 6 key to charge your ability while moving into range so that your skill hits?
The rating sytem in TERA should not be ignored. When a class is low rated such as 2 star sorc, it often means for those looking for fast and difficult combat.... this class is more than likely to be boring. The class is very simple and easy to play. The same can not be said about classes like the 5 star warrior.
I have no beef with people not liking the game but I do not understand people with little to no understanding of action games bashing it or stating that it isn't one.
Originally posted by Fuggly read just because it wasnt a GW2 thread.....................But yeah, Tera is terrable.........only thoise with very little gaming experience seem to like it imho.
My experience seems to disagree with you sir.
Enjoying it very much. I can't go back to traditional tab-targetting mmo's anymore because of Tera.
Comments
I fail to see the OPs problem.
Where you looking for a game that was the exact same that you played before?
Tera's combat is different, alot of people really love it (i personally find it ok but not very challenging and surprisingly stiff ), it's a different game it will have different gameplay.
Now if you don't like the gameplay you really can see it from youtube or you could have used one of the betas.
Being uninformed is your own fault.
I got a really hard laugh out of this.
Your sarcasm being duly noted, you should realize that what he's saying is that he can tell within the first 5 minutes of gameplay whether or not it is for him. He states, literally in the quote itself, that it isn't grounds to judge the game's prospective worth on the whole. It's a fairly reasonable sentiment. I actually feel the same way. In my case after 5 minutes of playing Tera specifically, I decided that it was a game I enjoyed. To each their own, guy.
This is true for all gaming companies (especially if you work for one ;P) if you can not grab a gamers attention within the first five minutes of playing you lost all hope of that player coming back... period. P.S Why do you think Tera added that prologue game play at the start at the very last moment of betta ending? Unfortunately it's too late for them,,, execution you can rate that on a scale... 0...
I'm not your guy, buddy!
I digress. The point I was trying to make is that one should not judge a book by its cover. I wouldn't judge ANY activity based on 5 minutes of play time.
If you played 5 minutes of baseball, would you really get a feel for the game?
Maybe 5 minutes of tic-tac-toe. Menial tasks such as this are the only exceptions I can think of.
You won't get an overall feel for baseball after 5 minutes of pitch and catch, but you'll probably garner considerable insight into your potential interest in the game if the act of pitch and catch is in no way fun for you. Such is often true in video games. Rift is a good example of a game that I tried to play for a month, but ultimately I finished with the same impression that I had after 5 minutes of gameplay. Some of the core mechanics of the game didn't suit me, and so the game itself could never suit me.
The same is true for Tera's gameplay (that you can get a feel for it in 5 minutes of constructive gameplay), but that doesn't excuse the amount of wildly inaccurate descriptions of the game that seem to be floating around in this thread particularly. It's not hard to differentiate the informed posters who gave the game a shot but just didn't find it appealing, from the reactionary sophomoric posts chocked full of hyperbole and a strong indication that they never tried the game at all. Unfortunately, the latter seems to occupy the role for the majority of naysaying posts in this case.
To clarify, I personally liked Tera
.
Well, to play devil's advocate, how many games have you played that initially you thought (in the first 5 minutes, say) were terrible, but then ended up being AWESOME?
I can name a few: Tenchu Z, Demon Souls, Burrito Bison...
There are also many games I thought I loved in the first 5 minutes, but ended up hating... I'm looking especially hard at SKYRIM (such a failure on many counts, I was so saddened)...
The primary differentiation I make is what* exactly it is that I dislike in those first 5 minutes. If I think the story is dumb, or the graphics are poor, or the art direction is lacking etc. those are all things that can be overcome as a game progresses. Okami is a good example of a game that I didn't enjoy in the first 5 minutes and grew to enjoy as it progressed.
However, if I dislike something as rudimentary as basic character motion and control, such as with Rift, I can never overcome that kind of shortcoming. It's one of those things that undermines the game's potential in an irreparable way. Important to note though, is that Tera does not suffer from something like lacking character controls. The controls are actually as fluid as WoW's which I think is the key to success for any MMO. The animation locking feels natural, but more importantly the act of running around and jumping feels decidedly smooth, which is where Tera departs from a game that was inherently dysfunctional in those regards such as Rift.
Hopefully that clarifies my position more.
I think I understand. Sounds like there are a few "critical" issues that might "flag" a game for you as being "unplayable".
And now that I think about it, I do believe there are a few games I've tried that are like this. However, I think my opinion of certain games changed the more I was willing to "try" a game despite having initial reservations.
Portal comes to mind. I always thought an FPS where you don't kill stuff would be pointless... boy was I WRONG! I guess I'm trying to say it can't hurt to really try something out because it might turn out to be something great!
Tera being one of these things haha.
When I played for the beta weekend, I was immediately impressed by the visuals of the environment. It is a beautiful landscape. Then I encountered the first quest giver and did fetch quests running from "!" to "?" to "!". It was at that point that I thought "I've done this before". Yet I kept playing a sorcerer to level 16 or 17, I don't know how many hours, working my way through the first island to the city after the pegasus and probably the second or third quest hub there.
The game advertises itself as "True. Action. Combat". People mention a long history of games that share this design, none of which I have played, so I did not know what to expect when I started other than the demo videos I saw looked terrific. MY definition of "true action combat" is quite different from what this game does.
People who like Tera will justify the combat as being traditional for games like this, and say that it helps you be strategic rather than spamming abilities. In my experience it just meant me standing in one place, casting a spell, hitting the spacebar a few times for combos, the right clicking the mouse to jump back. I don't fault people for enjoying the combat as is, I just expected something differen given I have no history with this genre (though I have plenty of MMO experience).
What I was left with was a questing system that had me do things like killing the same mob of trees three separate times. You don't have to read the quests to know what to do because the map just shows you what to kill. And it was just rinse repeat in every area. Some people say that you can go off the raids and just level up through farming BAMs. That's fine, though I imagine this getting boring fast. Some people say well this is how MMOs have traditionally worked so why are you complaining. Fair enough.
If people like and want to play and enjoy this game that's great. I don't see why so many forum posts turn into a chance to compare it to GW2 or bash GW2. People should play what they like and stop acting as "If you don't like what I like then you're wrong." A game should be able to stand on its own merits, not because they think another game sucks.
"Loading screens" are not "instances".
Your personal efforts to troll any game will not, in fact, impact the success or failure of said game.
Yes exactly. And for me, Portal fits into that same mold as Okami, where I had reservations that were overcome by a game that played competently and became intriguing as it progressed. Fortunately, the only negative thing I could say for Portal was that there is a certain amount of cynicism that you have to overcome to be willing to try it, but the control scheme and gameplay was all finely crafted and provides the foundation for a solid game.
In a normal MMO classes play by the exact same design. You have block, dodge(miss), and resists, or you take damage. This is a completely gear/class based system which has nothing to do with player skill. In TERA you have block and ways to evade attacks either manually or by using evade skills. You will never randomly miss an attack because of a random stat. This is only part of what makes TERA combat an action game, the lack of excessive random mods outside the players control that determine the result of combat.
You mentioned combo chains and standing still but have you considered that standing like a stone pillar is the worse thing you can do in pvp? Considering everything is manually aimed, you are just making yourself a very easy target to hit.
Combo chains can be used, if setup correctly, to lower the amount of hotkeys you need to spam in pve by large amount. Combo chains in pvp will oftern be broken because of the chaotic nature of the fighting. Combo chains are in the game because of how movement intensive the combat can be even in pve vs various BAMs and bosses. Have you tried playing a zerker in TERA and holding the 6 key to charge your ability while moving into range so that your skill hits?
The rating sytem in TERA should not be ignored. When a class is low rated such as 2 star sorc, it often means for those looking for fast and difficult combat.... this class is more than likely to be boring. The class is very simple and easy to play. The same can not be said about classes like the 5 star warrior.
I have no beef with people not liking the game but I do not understand people with little to no understanding of action games bashing it or stating that it isn't one.
My experience seems to disagree with you sir.
Enjoying it very much. I can't go back to traditional tab-targetting mmo's anymore because of Tera.
Playing: WF
Played: WoW, GW2, L2, WAR, AoC, DnL (2005), GW, LotRO, EQ2, TOR, CoH (RIP), STO, TSW, TERA, EVE, ESO, BDO
Tried: EQ, UO, AO, EnB, TCoS, Fury, Ryzom, EU, DDO, TR, RF, CO, Aion, VG, DN, Vindictus, AA