Got into the game, saw I was still getting 15 FPS on a system which exceeds recommended specs.
Logged out, deleted game, and am now attempting to get a refund through Green Man Gaming. Should that fail, I'll go through my credit card company.
No reason for this game to run so poorly, at all. SWTOR and Rift, two games which are well known for having terribly optimized engines, both run better than this. FFXIV runs better than this. Hell, TERA online runs far better (and looks phenomenal) on max settings than this. Not paying $55 for a slideshow.
I do wish Carbine the best of luck though, and hope those without problems enjoy the game. I won't be one of them.
The green part describes my experience for 2 beta-weekends and today. Logged in, checked fps, made 2 screenshots, logged out.
To the rest i agree and again predict that the game will fall over its engine and bad performance. The tone on that subject already changed from "it's still a month until release, Carbine will vastly improve performance until then." to "optimization is a long ongoing process, don't expect double FPS any time soon".
I read somewhere that GMG has a no refund attitude, so i wish you the best of luck getting your money back. You can still check out the game in a couple of month, probably at a discount then.
3/10 for being a solid WoW Clone. Quality game with lots of features at release.
Utterly ruined by the cash for gold pay 2 win via CREDD.
You cannot call your game a premium game when it includes pay 2 win.
I wouldn't call it more of the same with a subscription because most WoW cloned failures don't do blatant RMT-like cheating IN THE GAME with garbage like CREDD's cash for gold, something you usually only find in the lowest of the low in F2P trash.
Somehow we've gone from RMT being bannable cheating in quality MMORPGs to having it provided by the hosting company (as they skim extra profits on top of the 15/mo sub and 60 box cost). And so few seem to care, which is the real sickening part.
Boring forgettable solo questing, solid instance bosses mired in tedious trash, zerg-like adventures one step above FFXIV's fate xp giveaway, typical instanced/fake/meaningless pvp minigames - we've seen it all before, really.
What we haven't seen before is a sub-based MMORPG that includes pay 2 win vis cash for gold.
For the record, I don't consider EVE to be an MMORPG, not like a WildStar or a WoW or EQ, or DAoC, it's more of just an online game with a lot of players, you hardly do similar stuff in EVE that you do in more true to form MMORPGs, so the fact that EVE has pay to win cheating in it means nothing to me, and if you wanna cite GW2, then of course, GW2 isn't a sub-based game and also is barely an MMORPG - more of a single player game online with crappy pseudo grouping - and has a cash shop and has had cash for gold since day one.
Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.
I originally pre-purchased this game but after continuing to struggle with the idea of playing a game that features cheating, I got a refund.
As a gamer with integrity I simply have no desire to play a game that has built in, for profit, cheating like CREDD's pay 2 win gold for cash. Just not happening.
It's sad that so many losers want to cheat at MMORPGs/games/life. It's sad that a company like Carbine has no integrity and built cheating into their game. It's sad that the gaming press is not slamming Carbine thru the ground over this.
Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.
I cant wait for non mmorpg players to finally realize this isn't their genre. Maybe then it can get back to something that actually works.
This is the only genre I know of that's being forced to evolve unnaturally, and it's clear that's not working.
This genre is what it is. I don't understand this idea of an old or tired design. That's what this genre's identity is. If players don't like that.............
I player ESO and Wildstar and Wildstar is far from a quest hub game. Much like ESO you get 50-75% of your quest out in a field of mobs. Unlike ESO who often has you return to where you get the quest, Wildstar keeps you moving forward most times and handing in, in another area. Wildstar is as quest hubish as ESOm if not less so then ESO.
Eh, I found WS to be a bit more quest hubish personally. I will say you do find some quests out in the field, but a majority of the game is moving from town to town and picking up 4-6 quests then heading into the wilderness. Either way I still enjoy it, but I believe it's a little dishonest to say WS has the open world questing the same way ESO has. It's not a weakness, it's just different /shrug.
Nope... there were times I walked into a new town to only find 2 quests and I was wondering what was gona happen, only to get another 15 quests while doing the 2 I found in town. How happy I was that the two I finished did not send me to where I got them but sent me to a new area to be greeted with again 1-2 quests. Heck in the opening city in ESO took me 30-60 min of running around town just to pick up all the quests. Wildstar on the other hand had me back out in the action in a few min. I would call ESO much more quest hubish. I would agree with one thing, ESO is more of a listen to the story kinda game. I liked that but telling lies about another game does not make another look better. I played both and liked both. ESO would have my money now if they didnt make the game mostly about playing solo.
To each their own, your mileage may vary, etc etc
When it comes to games, we all spinning our wheels lol
If you think WS is open I'd really like for you to play a truly open world, seamless, exploration centric game like Asheron's Call. It would blow your mind at the sheer scope of openness and you'd never ever ever in a million years call a game like Wildstar open or non-hubish.
IMO that's the problem with the newer generation of MMO players. they think a few quests sprinkled out in the open world gives the game elements of open world. When in all actuality it is nothing of the sort. Like ESO and like every Themepark game developed the last 7 years, the very nature of the designs of the Themepark lend itself t not being open. And no amount of wishful thinking will tell it is otherwise.
Swing and a miss. First off they were talking about quest being in the open world, second WS is a open world in the terms you are talking. You can walk from one end to the other and never get a loading screen. There is some things instanced like dungeons and battlegrounds but 90% of the game is pure open world.
what about archeage... i paid for alpha and at first i felt as if I had made a stupid choice. I even ask for a refund a few days in, but got a mail rejecting the claim. Thinking i wasted my money; I gave the game another go.
One advice... before you judge get pass level 15-25, because around that level you could just ignore every quest.... also teso level 50 (imperial edition <-fucking joke you can now find the motiff and the horse DLC is 14$) and was in wildstar alpha (Freaking wow clone... deny all you want, but it is fun....)<--- all these game are base on taste, but compare to teso and wildstar, archeage is by far not a casual game. Well i take that back. Wildstar is complex too, but teso.. is a casual game
3/10 for being a solid WoW Clone. Quality game with lots of features at release.
Utterly ruined by the cash for gold pay 2 win via CREDD.
You cannot call your game a premium game when it includes pay 2 win.
I wouldn't call it more of the same with a subscription because most WoW cloned failures don't do blatant RMT-like cheating IN THE GAME with garbage like CREDD's cash for gold, something you usually only find in the lowest of the low in F2P trash.
Somehow we've gone from RMT being bannable cheating in quality MMORPGs to having it provided by the hosting company (as they skim extra profits on top of the 15/mo sub and 60 box cost). And so few seem to care, which is the real sickening part.
Boring forgettable solo questing, solid instance bosses mired in tedious trash, zerg-like adventures one step above FFXIV's fate xp giveaway, typical instanced/fake/meaningless pvp minigames - we've seen it all before, really.
What we haven't seen before is a sub-based MMORPG that includes pay 2 win vis cash for gold.
MMO's are RPG's. RPG's are consistently rated five or ten points under comparable games of other categories. When's the last time a MMO has launched with a 90 average or better?
For those who enjoy this have fun. I'll be playing ArcheAge, I just can't go back to a standard A-Z quester/real game starts at endgame raider.
The future is sandboxes, point blank period. The internal player politics and RTS elements of a sandbox simply blow away their competition, even in a sandpark like AA.
Sorry but no go for this one. I can't bear to play another railroaded single player combat grinder quest hopper anymore.
Any mmo worth its salt should be like a good prostitute when it comes to its game world- One hell of a faker, and a damn good shaker!
I understand the difficulties in rating a game. The games become more and more extensive but usually are a sum of features well known. So, the game might be good and enjoyable, but to MMO veterans it potentially feels just like another copycat.
Personally, I enjoyed the approach Bill took when rating TESO. He counted in a "Polish-Rating" and rated it 6, leading to a lower average score. It is a clear signal for both, developers and gamers.
A similar rating could be applied for innovative game design. Add a class for innovation and let it influence the overall rating.
However, both systems, polish rating and innovation rating require the reviewer to review the game not only once, but at least twice. Maybe 6 months after the games release, because polish and innovation can be done after release. If the developer listens!
For those who enjoy this have fun. I'll be playing ArcheAge, I just can't go back to a standard A-Z quester/real game starts at endgame raider.
The future is sandboxes, point blank period. The internal player politics and RTS elements of a sandbox simply blow away their competition, even in a sandpark like AA.
Sorry but no go for this one. I can't bear to play another railroaded single player combat grinder quest hopper anymore.
I disagree.
Even though the content of a Theme Park is limited, these types of MMOs offer quick fun. And that's what the gamer in the end is looking for. You should also consider that MMOs usually are targetted towards a younger audience. This means, what is known to us is unknown to the latest audience.
Sandboxes are really great games and I very much enjoyed by years playing EvE Online. The reason why I believe them not being able to become the next big thing is, because these games require the player a lot of time investment. The invested time in for example building something can then usually be easily destroyed by others.
This alone is enough to push sandbox game into a niche that is prefered by hardcore gamers.
Maqui, Since the majority of players are pve and the majority do not see crafting and gathering as the core game element that pills a player into a game each day Sandboxes are not the future period. You don't like questing but you do like sandbox which is cool, but then assuming your niche preferences are shared is not valid.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Originally posted by Bladestrom Maqui, Since the majority of players are pve and the majority do not see crafting and gathering as the core game element that pills a player into a game each day Sandboxes are not the future period. You don't like questing but you do like sandbox which is cool, but then assuming your niche preferences are shared is not valid.
Wait, you're going to assume a majority of PvE players view questing as essential because they reluctantly tolerate it to get to the parts of the game they actually enjoy?
I'm going to go with somewhere around 85 because I hear that it's very much like WoW but better. The fact that it's very much like WoW is the main reason I won't be playing.
Getting a good review rating is one thing, being financially succesfull is another. I see little reason for people to give it a really low score. It's not like Carbine is trying to deceive anyone.
Hah, I wonder whose fault it is, that scores are understood as they are? Who gives crap games scores 8+? I'm very very hard pressed to remember a critic score of 1 (user score 1 is np).
Well, at least there's a gaming magazine in our country that actually gives scores from 1-100 (such fun reading reviews for the games with score under 50...altho only select few can pride themselves with a score of 1). I guess they can afford giving objective reviews, noone is giving them free stuff or other more direct benefits, coz it's such a small country that even Microsoft doesn't want our moneyz (can't play online on xbone lol, on xbox at least fake adress worked)...and we're in EU for nearly 10 years. Ah well, that's topic another rant I guess :P
Comments
The green part describes my experience for 2 beta-weekends and today. Logged in, checked fps, made 2 screenshots, logged out.
To the rest i agree and again predict that the game will fall over its engine and bad performance. The tone on that subject already changed from "it's still a month until release, Carbine will vastly improve performance until then." to "optimization is a long ongoing process, don't expect double FPS any time soon".
I read somewhere that GMG has a no refund attitude, so i wish you the best of luck getting your money back. You can still check out the game in a couple of month, probably at a discount then.
3/10 for being a solid WoW Clone. Quality game with lots of features at release.
Utterly ruined by the cash for gold pay 2 win via CREDD.
You cannot call your game a premium game when it includes pay 2 win.
I wouldn't call it more of the same with a subscription because most WoW cloned failures don't do blatant RMT-like cheating IN THE GAME with garbage like CREDD's cash for gold, something you usually only find in the lowest of the low in F2P trash.
Somehow we've gone from RMT being bannable cheating in quality MMORPGs to having it provided by the hosting company (as they skim extra profits on top of the 15/mo sub and 60 box cost). And so few seem to care, which is the real sickening part.
Boring forgettable solo questing, solid instance bosses mired in tedious trash, zerg-like adventures one step above FFXIV's fate xp giveaway, typical instanced/fake/meaningless pvp minigames - we've seen it all before, really.
What we haven't seen before is a sub-based MMORPG that includes pay 2 win vis cash for gold.
For the record, I don't consider EVE to be an MMORPG, not like a WildStar or a WoW or EQ, or DAoC, it's more of just an online game with a lot of players, you hardly do similar stuff in EVE that you do in more true to form MMORPGs, so the fact that EVE has pay to win cheating in it means nothing to me, and if you wanna cite GW2, then of course, GW2 isn't a sub-based game and also is barely an MMORPG - more of a single player game online with crappy pseudo grouping - and has a cash shop and has had cash for gold since day one.
Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.
I originally pre-purchased this game but after continuing to struggle with the idea of playing a game that features cheating, I got a refund.
As a gamer with integrity I simply have no desire to play a game that has built in, for profit, cheating like CREDD's pay 2 win gold for cash. Just not happening.
It's sad that so many losers want to cheat at MMORPGs/games/life. It's sad that a company like Carbine has no integrity and built cheating into their game. It's sad that the gaming press is not slamming Carbine thru the ground over this.
Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.
hahahahah! Awesome.
So... we know he can be bought... maybe Carbine/NCSoft can start haggling the price now! :P
They have yet to make an offer. I'm waiting.
Twitter Facebook RantOnRob Youtube
I agree with this, I tried this game and felt the same thing.
Swing and a miss. First off they were talking about quest being in the open world, second WS is a open world in the terms you are talking. You can walk from one end to the other and never get a loading screen. There is some things instanced like dungeons and battlegrounds but 90% of the game is pure open world.
Played 3 betas...and uninstalled the client just before the Open Beta announcement.
Not even desire to re-install it again.
Not impressed at all by what i saw.
Passing on this game
i see a loophole -you didnt state US dollars. Im sure i can count on your word when i get back to you with
zimbabwean dollars right?
Pi*1337/100 = 42
what about archeage... i paid for alpha and at first i felt as if I had made a stupid choice. I even ask for a refund a few days in, but got a mail rejecting the claim. Thinking i wasted my money; I gave the game another go.
One advice... before you judge get pass level 15-25, because around that level you could just ignore every quest.... also teso level 50 (imperial edition <-fucking joke you can now find the motiff and the horse DLC is 14$) and was in wildstar alpha (Freaking wow clone... deny all you want, but it is fun....)<--- all these game are base on taste, but compare to teso and wildstar, archeage is by far not a casual game. Well i take that back. Wildstar is complex too, but teso.. is a casual game
How is CREDD pay for win?
How is it a wow-clone?
Have you even played it?
Have you even read what CREDD is?
..Cake..
Once launch hype dies down I see this game sitting sub-80.
I've tried Wildstar and really why not just play -insert f2p game here- and keep your cash? It doesn't offer anything you won't find elsewhere.
For those who enjoy this have fun. I'll be playing ArcheAge, I just can't go back to a standard A-Z quester/real game starts at endgame raider.
The future is sandboxes, point blank period. The internal player politics and RTS elements of a sandbox simply blow away their competition, even in a sandpark like AA.
Sorry but no go for this one. I can't bear to play another railroaded single player combat grinder quest hopper anymore.
Any mmo worth its salt should be like a good prostitute when it comes to its game world- One hell of a faker, and a damn good shaker!
I understand the difficulties in rating a game. The games become more and more extensive but usually are a sum of features well known. So, the game might be good and enjoyable, but to MMO veterans it potentially feels just like another copycat.
Personally, I enjoyed the approach Bill took when rating TESO. He counted in a "Polish-Rating" and rated it 6, leading to a lower average score. It is a clear signal for both, developers and gamers.
A similar rating could be applied for innovative game design. Add a class for innovation and let it influence the overall rating.
However, both systems, polish rating and innovation rating require the reviewer to review the game not only once, but at least twice. Maybe 6 months after the games release, because polish and innovation can be done after release. If the developer listens!
I disagree.
Even though the content of a Theme Park is limited, these types of MMOs offer quick fun. And that's what the gamer in the end is looking for. You should also consider that MMOs usually are targetted towards a younger audience. This means, what is known to us is unknown to the latest audience.
Sandboxes are really great games and I very much enjoyed by years playing EvE Online. The reason why I believe them not being able to become the next big thing is, because these games require the player a lot of time investment. The invested time in for example building something can then usually be easily destroyed by others.
This alone is enough to push sandbox game into a niche that is prefered by hardcore gamers.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Wait, you're going to assume a majority of PvE players view questing as essential because they reluctantly tolerate it to get to the parts of the game they actually enjoy?
Where can I find housing like that, fun moba-style combat, questing variety and actually challenging dungeons/raids all in one game?
I'd love to play it for free.
..Cake..
Just as long as it isn't sand dollars.
Twitter Facebook RantOnRob Youtube
I'm going to go with somewhere around 85 because I hear that it's very much like WoW but better. The fact that it's very much like WoW is the main reason I won't be playing.
Getting a good review rating is one thing, being financially succesfull is another. I see little reason for people to give it a really low score. It's not like Carbine is trying to deceive anyone.
Hah, I wonder whose fault it is, that scores are understood as they are? Who gives crap games scores 8+? I'm very very hard pressed to remember a critic score of 1 (user score 1 is np).
Well, at least there's a gaming magazine in our country that actually gives scores from 1-100 (such fun reading reviews for the games with score under 50...altho only select few can pride themselves with a score of 1). I guess they can afford giving objective reviews, noone is giving them free stuff or other more direct benefits, coz it's such a small country that even Microsoft doesn't want our moneyz (can't play online on xbone lol, on xbox at least fake adress worked)...and we're in EU for nearly 10 years. Ah well, that's topic another rant I guess :P
totally agree
new game should not be like a stranger from 2000