Genuinely surprised this game is not more popular..

I have been only playing MMOs this SWTOR came out, then switched to The Secret World, then GW2, and now here and feel like this is way better than the others. That may sound like a fan boy or whatever, but just being honest this game sort of fits everyhting I like...a RPG-MMO shooter hybrid. I get to do all the things I like..PVP like COD (sort of), go on missions and world events to get more loot (sort of like Borderlands), and my one of my favorite parts of a mmo kill mobs(trash). I get, people are frustrated with the bugs. They say there is no end-game. But for me, personally, talk about no end-game..GW2 was lame on the PVE side. The Secret World has a cool story and PVE, but the PVP is terrible. SWTOR is the next best thing for me, but still prefer this as a shooter.

This game has some many different things to do, I'm not sure how it can be considered so bad by so many. Is it just the bugs that make it bad or people just prepfer fantasy enviroments? I don't get it.

I will say I am disappointed there was a lot of hype from the devs and community managers including blog posts and update previews, but not much now. I always check for blogs in the community blog section, but lately, only tutorials. I feel like if they pushed it more, the devs, people would see this and feel better about the future.

It was extremely buggy when it came out, that lead to very negative reviews thus to a low player count.

Now most them (at least the gamebreaking ones) are fixed and we finally have a real Defiance 1.0 to begin with.

The only thing this game still lacks is PvP balancing and PvE Endgame content.

For those of us who have been here from the very beginning (prior to Alpha/beta testing) and followed it from the start, the end result is a monotonous grind through the same instances over and over. I think the major gripe is that this was so overhyped, and had SO much potential to be a true success.

It could have been the expedited timeline they had to meet in order for the game/show to coincide as SiFi wanted. It could be that Trion simply does not take community feedback into account as much as they should be. But the end result is the same, people waiting on "DLC which will redeem Trions prior follies" and fixes to issues which have existed since launch (chat system..., PvP is an absolute joke, broken pricing system in in-game store, disconnection issues, etc).

Im still at that point where I start up my 360/Defiance.... then sit there and try to figure out what there is to do, if anything... Sieges have helped somewhat, providing something new/fun... but in the process, my drive to hit ANY arkfalls has dissapeared. This new DLC is needed badly

The hear what people say about PVP balance, but feel like GW2 was worse in terms of premades ganging up on people and certain classes being OP. The mesmer in GW2 became crazy OP at one point, plus the healing knight (forgot the name) wa sOP from the beginning. I think FY is a very good PVP map with various styles that work.

I'm not disagreeing with what you guys are saying, just trying to see a perspective outside my own.

As good as it seems at the start, is as good as it gets. Where as you start out shallow and delve deeper into other games, the depth of this game is consistent. Even worse is that actual content progression is surprisingly short. Gameplay is fun, and that in itself sustains some re-playability, but ultimately the game world is just so small.

If you want a shallow game world you should try DCU, it had the potential, but after exploring two cardboard cities I got a little tired. I'll agree with OP on just about everything he has to say about GW2, great potential, hell great execution of the PvE elements until level 80. Terrible sPvP, and while I love WvW I also love the chaos of running with a zerg taking out a tower hitting another zerg and then everything falling to pieces on both sides. This game has some decent mechanics and as most people learn them all it will even out and you'll see it take off, but the beginning of any PvP is unbalanced. Just ask anyone who thought their keep was safe only to have a Mesmer port 20 people inside the walls, and the guardian. Dear god the guardian...

Sure this game is small, and buggy. But it is nowhere near what DCU was at launch in terms of system crashing bugs. And this is a game that not only runs on one console, but all consoles. (well the ones that matter anyway.)

I'm not. This game doesn't do anything better than other titles out there. Nobody is gonna leave CoD to play this awful pvp. Borderlands is superior in damn every aspect such as characters, loot, environment, mobs, sidequest, skilltrees and has a class system which extends replay value immensely. The content in this game doesn't come close to possessing the quality that could bait large groups away from content heavy games (Wow, GW2). This total lack of quality kills the whole "potential" theory. I could understand if it was content starved but had bits & pieces of potent content. Then you could feel as if the future was really bright. Being that there isn't any standout content, or any areas that could truly thrive with improvement, there really is nothing to attract or maintain a healthy sized community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JonDav

I'm not. This game doesn't do anything better than other titles out there. Nobody is gonna leave CoD to play this awful pvp.

---

why do people have to leave a game to play another?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JonDav

Borderlands is superior in damn every aspect such as characters, loot, environment, mobs, sidequest, skilltrees and has a class system which extends replay value immensely.

---

I've never understood why playing a game again, as a different class, would change anything, especially in a shooter. You're still just shooting everything; the story doesn't change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ironhands

why do people have to leave a game to play another?



I've never understood why playing a game again, as a different class, would change anything, especially in a shooter. You're still just shooting everything; the story doesn't change.

---

I didn't mean leave as in permanent. I meant leave as in take time off. The OP said he could PvP like in CoD which is hilariously false. There is no "like" or "sort of like" when you compare the two component's pvp. One is the biggest pvp shooter around because it offers a number of important aspects that other titles either don't or to a much lesser extent. You in no way get that in Defiance's pvp which is the reason for its lack of success. Why would anyone take time off from high quality (with issues) to dabble in low quality (with issues)? Lastly, if you don't understand how a class system in shooters such as Borderlands, Mass Effect or even the co-op in Resistance 2 changes the experience, I honestly do not know what to tell you. If the change in characters was simply cosmetic, like in defiance, then I would agree. However, being that it's not nearly the case in the games mentioned prior, I'm confused as to how it's not obvious to you.

The game is two months past its release and is finally nearing the point where it genuinely cannot be considered a beta. The release was incredibly buggy and Trion's patches have caused as much harm as good in many cases. Sure the game has potential, but without a true end-game, the lack of required player involvement, no economy system to speak of, and Trion being entirely silent regarding many promosed changes (such as the removal of region lock on consoles), the game is nothing but mediocre at this point. Maybe in 6 months this will change but the next generation games will probably have pulled any remaining or potential players away by then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JonDav

Why would anyone take time off from high quality (with issues) to dabble in low quality (with issues)?

---

you can't have chocolate for dinner every night, no matter how good a game is, taking a break to try something else is usually a good thing. It can give you new insight and tactics that can be applied to whatever other game you may play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JonDav

Lastly, if you don't understand how a class system in shooters such as Borderlands, Mass Effect or even the co-op in Resistance 2 changes the experience, I honestly do not know what to tell you. If the change in characters was simply cosmetic, like in defiance, then I would agree. However, being that it's not nearly the case in the games mentioned prior, I'm confused as to how it's not obvious to you.

---

Differing characters in Mass Effect doesn't really change the experience much - especially in ME2 - when you're only talking about the game play, and not the story. The ME trilogy offers much much more replayability, not because of the class system, but because of the differing story threads. Borderlands is virtually the same no matter what character you use, the only difference being how aggressively you rush forward, or hold back, and when you activate your special attack. The change in characters, yes, is more than cosmetic, but the gameplay changes aren't that dramatic, when compared to the difference you'd get in a full-out RPG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JonDav

I didn't mean leave as in permanent. I meant leave as in take time off. The OP said he could PvP like in CoD which is hilariously false. There is no "like" or "sort of like" when you compare the two component's pvp. One is the biggest pvp shooter around because it offers a number of important aspects that other titles either don't or to a much lesser extent. You in no way get that in Defiance's pvp which is the reason for its lack of success. Why would anyone take time off from high quality (with issues) to dabble in low quality (with issues)? Lastly, if you don't understand how a class system in shooters such as Borderlands, Mass Effect or even the co-op in Resistance 2 changes the experience, I honestly do not know what to tell you. If the change in characters was simply cosmetic, like in defiance, then I would agree. However, being that it's not nearly the case in the games mentioned prior, I'm confused as to how it's not obvious to you.

---

It's funny how in one post I get flamed saying this game's PVP should take some ideas from COD, and now this poster says COD is way superior. Of course it is. I love COD and played it for years from Modern Warfare to World at War to BO2. But when I get bored with COD multipler, that was it, play Fallout 3. Now, I play the same game, with the same character, and do some PVE. I think that is cool...that is my personal taste and believe at least some others feel the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coolrockski

...and now here and feel like this is way better than the others. That may sound like a fan boy or whatever, but just being honest this game sort of fits everyhting I like...a RPG-MMO shooter hybrid. I get to do all the things I like..PVP like COD (sort of), go on missions and world events to get more loot (sort of like Borderlands), and my one of my favorite parts of a mmo kill mobs(trash)...

...This game has some many different things to do, I'm not sure how it can be considered so bad by so many. Is it just the bugs that make it bad or people just prepfer fantasy enviroments? I don't get it...

---

I totally agree. I've been playing MMOs since Ultima Online, and shooters (less regularly) since Duke Nukem and Unreal. I think this game really feels the best so far. The progressive RPG-like shooter with customizable loadouts, nano effects, gradually strengthening gear, fun cars on a fun to drive on wasteland, co-op missions, pvp, and dynamic world events. It really hit my personal tastes right on the nose. I could care less about the low budget TV show, but the game's elements were spot on.

However, I agree with most people on the things that the game is lacking, and that it should have been released with, and I find that it's missing a lot of things that just make an MMO or shooter a little more user friendly and complete, like say an auction house for example. Welll I don't miss them so much now that I'm used it it. I guess it leaves me in a position of thinking the game has serious potential with all of the DLC. Those that have jumped ship wanted a lot more from release, and rightfully so, but personally, I still think it has potential.

If you remember how cleanly The Secret World released, you should know how smooth an MMO can release nowadays. Defiance was pretty much the opposite of that. There was constant server down-time, tons of bugs, never ending patch cycles, elements of the game being removed and replaced and removed again, you name it. If you haven't seen the Angry Joe review on Youtube for Defiance, that'll give you an idea of what drove a lot of angry gamers away from the game at release.

i think the days of mmo's where you have to grind your way up to participate in endgame are pretty much over. the industry changed and i personally (probably a lot of others as well) played world of warcraft for several years and we are just looking for something different. something where you don't have to spend hours and hours to get to a point where you feel like you're doing something important.

my mentality changed in the sense that i just want to jump into a game and do whatever. a sense of progression is nice as well but shouldn't be required. gameplay variety is key and i want this variety from the start. i don't want to grind my way up to endgame.

however, specifically in defiance i would like to have some more challenging encounters. like maybe "elite" coop mission variants of the existing coop missions with tougher enemies and an actual challenge. or a selective difficulty level for my missions and for coop missions. stuff like that.

about the bugs... i only have notices minor bugs like perks missing after loading the game, some glitched out npc's and some phasing glitches with npc's and other players. i didn't encounter any crashes or game breaking bugs.

i'm still very satisfied with defiance and i'm looking into a bright future.