Ryzom Re-review on mmorpg.com

[meryan]

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cf...-ReReview.html

Not a horrible review, but we could certainly put in a few more positive comments.

[lancelot76]

Review was average. I didn't get the impression the reviewer was really trying to review the game so much as either find a reason to like it, or dislike it. He seemed conflicted.

Anyway, I have to somewhat agree, low population is something of a self fulfilling prophecy. It doesn't have to spell doom for an MMO though. There are some MMOs that keep on going, year after year even with low or lower populations: Ultima Online, Everquest, DAoC, etc. Ryzom is what it is and generally this game depends more on its players being involved to a degree than many cookie cutter quest games. That can be both a blessing and a curse, because populations fluctuate, and Ryzom has had its troubles staying online.

I was attracted to Ryzom even though I typically prefer more quest type theme park games (LoTRO.) Who knows how many others like me are out there.

I think if the developers stay committed (which they seem to be) and the community stays passionate (which it generally is) the game will grow, but only a little. That's not a bad thing at all.

Just my opinion. :-)

[jwenting]

The crowd on that site is typically more interested in pure pvp grinders than games with any depth whatsoever, so anything they write about Ryzom that's not utterly negative is a departure from the norm.
Of course that could be both good (their interests shifting) or bad (Ryzom turning into a pure pvp grinder).

[ghostflame]

Originally Posted by jwenting

The crowd on that site is typically more interested in pure pvp grinders than games with any depth whatsoever, so anything they write about Ryzom that's not utterly negative is a departure from the norm.
Of course that could be both good (their interests shifting) or bad (Ryzom turning into a pure pvp grinder).

That's not really my impression. A lot of people there speak highly of old school, sandbox games.

However, that review will most likely not bring a lot more people to Ryzom. Low pop and poor performance isn't exactly good PR.

[velogfx]

hmmm i just don't understand the performance problems. i'm running ryzom on my 2x quadcore, dualcore and my macbook pro machines without ANY problems. i think it's the classical PEBKAC problem :P

[jwenting]

yah. Running it on an older Core 2 Duo with 2GB RAM with no problems.
Occasional lagspike when my virusscanner pops in and starts updating itself, but that's about it and has nothing to do with Ryzom.

Most likely the reviewer has something running that's gobbling up system resources and needed something to complain about.

[memiki]

I agree with jwenting. I run Ryzom on several machines. One older (has to be at least 6 years old) Pentium 4 with 1 gig Ram, and it runs fine, course I did have to up ram from its 512 range. Tho it can't seem to multi task so scans are set for other times. But I do have several other online games loaded on it so it is pretty full.
Plus my main is a older 4 yr old or older dual core with 2 gig ram also running several other games. It works great or I would get a new machine. (But I am getting that new computer itch, but not due to any problems)

But I do agree that the reviewer was not to bad, it wasn't good but it wasn't bad. It was kind of in between. Kind of like he wanted to like it but was not real sure.

[khandoma]

I manage quite well on 1 gig and 2 accounts some times depending on the amount of people online in the same place as my self i lag a bit but not enough to stop me playing or looking else were i love ryzom

[rikutatis]

I happen to think the review tended more towards the bad than the good. When a reviewer finishes his text by saying he cannot recommend a product it's not a good sign. =P

However I think that while it's not gonna draw crowds, there's enough info in there to lure a few curious souls looking for a different experience. And I know it has already.

While I agree with some of his criticisms, one point that bugged me a bit was the whole "there's no point to the mindless grinding" argument. That's the whole idea of what a sandbox is supposed to be. You have to come up with your own goals and aspirations. The game won't hand it to you.

There was a player on Uni some days/weeks ago stating the same opinions (it could very well be the reviewer). I didn't think that player got the concept of a sandbox then, and I don't think this reviewer gets it now. He wants some sort of goal laid in front of him. It won't happen. You have to come up with your own. I suppose it does take some creativity though...

[angus858]

The reviewer said lots of true things but fell down on three issues:

1) He can't see past the holy trinity of tank/healer/dps so he didn't give proper credit to the flexibility of the skill system in Ryzom.

2) He had performance issues. Nothing wrong with mentioning that but he should have checked with the community thoroughly before blaming the game for problems that are related to his hardware.

3) He noted that most people would play a crappy game with a big population rather than a good game with a low population. That is a sad fact but is not a valid criticism of Ryzom. The game can't be blamed for people being stupid sheep.

Ryzom certainly has its flaws but the reviewer never got deep enough into the game to notice any of them.