Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

Stop Hating on WoWFollow

#52 Jul 08 2009 at 10:09 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
I agree, and there's a very distinct reason for the homogenization: "Bring the player, not the class."


I agree with this as well as pretty much everything after it.

Anyone ever play Merentha? Text-based MUD. Really, I don't think any other game compares in awful. But if you're a hardcore player who loves the grind, then this is the game for you!
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#53 Jul 08 2009 at 10:18 AM Rating: Good
***
3,416 posts
Quote:
Is there any reason really to prevent a new player from being able to participate with others in the "New and Exciting" content which is an improvement over the older outdated stuff?


Not at all. What would prevent them from doing so though? I mean, if the loot isn't significantly better in the new content than the old, new players could do both? This isn't the case in WoW though from what I've heard.. so I don't think it's that bad approach to take.

About the wall of content thing, I think this actually was close to happening in FFXI (I don't know, since I was already done with many of the older events). But yeah, if you needed lots of stuff from different events, it'd get overwhelming for those who just arrived at level cap and they had to prioritize what to do without getting burned out. But I'm not sure if it was a wall... I don't know what to describe it really. I mean it wasn't so that you Had to clear dynamis to progress to Limbus or anything.

Edited, Jul 8th 2009 6:20pm by Hyanmen
____________________________
SE:
Quote:
We really want to compete against World of Warcraft and for example the new Star Wars MMO.

#54 Jul 08 2009 at 10:47 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
Hyanmen wrote:

About the wall of content thing, I think this actually was close to happening in FFXI (I don't know, since I was already done with many of the older events). But yeah, if you needed lots of stuff from different events, it'd get overwhelming for those who just arrived at level cap and they had to prioritize what to do without getting burned out. But I'm not sure if it was a wall... I don't know what to describe it really. I mean it wasn't so that you Had to clear dynamis to progress to Limbus or anything.


It sure does get overwhelming, and not just for newly minted 75's. The problem with these events is that they are such massive things that require a huge time commitment and organization, so you find that you are kind of *stuck* in one almost eternally. If a player wants to level several jobs and there are dynamis pieces he/she wants for each job, well she is committed to taking a large chunk of time out of a day, twice a week, for years. It's not easy to just leave an event and come back after you have earned x points and etc, and you can realistically only commit to x amount of events per week.

It's great to have a lot of end game events, but a good example of something that should not make it into the next mmo is a 4-5 hour event like Dynamis. No event should be longer than typical time between restroom breaks....
#55 Jul 08 2009 at 10:50 AM Rating: Good
***
3,416 posts
Quote:
It's great to have a lot of end game events, but a good example of something that should not make it into the next mmo is a 4-5 hour event like Dynamis. No event should be longer than typical time between restroom breaks....


I personally thought that Salvage length was quite perfect (without the stupidly long waiting times for members...)

Einherjar is a bit too short imo for such a large scale event, but 30mins for a normal event should be the norm I think ;)
____________________________
SE:
Quote:
We really want to compete against World of Warcraft and for example the new Star Wars MMO.

#56 Jul 08 2009 at 10:58 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
Hyanmen wrote:

I personally thought that Salvage length was quite perfect (without the stupidly long waiting times for members...)

Einherjar is a bit too short imo for such a large scale event, but 30mins for a normal event should be the norm I think ;)


Einherjar is way too short. No event should be creeping up on the 5 hour mark, but by the same token no event should be shorter than your gather together period.

1-2 hours really is a good amount of time for events. People don't get burned, and max you are looking at a three hour session with gather together and entrance time.
#57 Jul 08 2009 at 3:29 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,576 posts
Calispel wrote:
I hate WoW because of what it has done to the MMO genre. It focuses so much on the end game that it practically ignores the RPG aspect of leveling (you know, the journey that MMO's used to be all about), and does everything it can to help players skip through it as fast as possible. Blizzard may as well just do away with leveling altogether to focus on pointless item collection and those gimicky raids, because that's what WoW is.


Content is content. It doesn't really matter what level shows up on your character sheet. It's just a reality that over a certain span of time, most players will reach the level cap. Do you then continue to add content at the level cap, or do you try to come up with spiffy ways to add content in the mid-ranges and implement game mechanics that let players at the level cap voluntarily gimp themselves to take part in it?

Every new MMO is typically released with a full array of content from beginning to cap. In the first year or two, you'll often see new content added to that initial offering throughout various different progression ranges. In a perfect world, MMO developers would have unlimited time and funds to produce new content between expansions/major patches. They don't. As a result, they have to decide where to focus their time and money, and that quite often translates into content for the level capped players because those represent not only the majority, but also those who have been playing the game the longest. The old content is still there for new players to experience.

I know the typical response to that is, "Well, what about those of us leveling new jobs/characters who have already seen all the beginner/mid-level content and want a change this time around?" The answer? Tough. Harsh, I now, but stop and think about how much new content would have to be added to make leveling a new job/character unique in any significant way. A new zone here or there that lasts you for a small segment of the progression process typically isn't worth the development time to implement when you've got the vast majority of your players scratching at the gates of Level Capdom wanting something more. The beginner/middle content was enough to keep you entertained your first time through...it'll be enough for the new players, too.

And the truly crazy thing is, even before the nerfs to xp requirements between levels and the buff to quest xp that have come in the last couple of years from Blizzard, you can still level at least 2-4 different characters without ever doing the same quest twice...there are that many zones and that many quests for those level ranges that you can have a fully unique experience up to level 60 without any difficulty at all.

Endgame doesn't mean the game is over. It just means the game has shifted to a different kind of progression. If you like to take your time, take your time. Nobody is stopping you. At all.
#58 Jul 08 2009 at 11:38 PM Rating: Decent
**
424 posts
Quote:

Content is content. It doesn't really matter what level shows up on your character sheet. It's just a reality that over a certain span of time, most players will reach the level cap. Do you then continue to add content at the level cap, or do you try to come up with spiffy ways to add content in the mid-ranges and implement game mechanics that let players at the level cap voluntarily gimp themselves to take part in it?


This. That new content in mid-ranges is something more than every other MMO offers. Going back and re-experiencing the world not only gives the developers more license to make a truly engaging mid-game, but also opens up the gamer to the idea of dealing with limitations, which is a very fun idea in many RPGs.

It just keeps the game fresh, and it is a very nice option. Once you grind endgame for a few months, you know you forgot how it felt to be at midgame, and how it used to require a different skill set.

Of course there should be endgame content, but being able to go back to voluntary midgame content after maxxing out your level not only keeps the game fresh, but allows newer players the opportunity to play with end-gamers, and branches out the social aspect of the game.

If there is ONE thing FFXI did better than any other MMO, it was encouraging the idea of social interaction and experience through gameplay.

Quote:
nd the truly crazy thing is, even before the nerfs to xp requirements between levels and the buff to quest xp that have come in the last couple of years from Blizzard, you can still level at least 2-4 different characters without ever doing the same quest twice..


Yeah, but quest A in stormwind requiring me to kill 3 cows was the same as quest B in Durotar requiring me to kill 3 scorpids. Which is unfair to say, because almost every starter quests in every MMO pretty much goes that way.
But I think you will agree with me that the quests in FFXI were far more interesting storywise than the quests in WoW. Not necessarily because of lore or storyline, but because you could actually watch the characters interact and have a mini-CS for completing FFXI quests... instead of reading a boring text box. Even completing 'Hero of the Mag'har' was less interesting to me than one of the opening san d'oria quests with a little boy and his brother.

I guess I would rather do one INTERESTING quest 10 times than do 10 boring text boxes one time each.
It is unlikely we will be repeating quests in FFXIV tho, unless you want to make a new race character for ***** and giggles.

Edited, Jul 9th 2009 3:44am by Shazaamemt

Edited, Jul 9th 2009 3:46am by Shazaamemt
____________________________
Administrator Kaolian:
"Quote it correctly or don't quote it. That's called "how people get banned"..."

Actually it's called "Libel"... and only if it is fabricated, but hey, you are the admin.

AureliusSir the Irrelevant:
"They're on a tangent, but they aren't off topic."
#59 Jul 08 2009 at 11:49 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
***
1,569 posts
Hyanmen wrote:
I only think that it takes away from the innovation, if players are given what they want. Usually it means bigger and better of the same..

Plus, from what I've seen, players themselves are quite biased at times. It can be dangerous to implement class fixes as suggested, so imo they should still think it a little bit even then.
To add to the comment on WoW's current approach to design, they don't listen to all suggestions, and outright ignore several outright. My main is a warrior, but the character I raid on is a ret paladin. There's been tons of threads asking for ret paladins to get interrupts (a la Kick, Pummel, Shield Bash) to be able to deal with casters in PvP. Every time it's been brought up. Blizz either ignores it or the developers simply say "we don't feel ret paladins need an interrupt". They do keep some semblance of game balance overall, even if you'll have the random whiners.

Quote:
The problem is very gimmicky fights, where everyone has to do thing A at the same time or the raid wipes, or stand in spot B all at once or everybody wipes. If bosses were just fearsome and powerful and used scary abilities at random times, DBM would have absolutely no effect, no its just to ease the very gimmicky fights. Blame Blizzard for making mobs that do abilities like clockwork and require gimmicky actions instead of just tough fights.
"Tough" fights have a tendency to reduce people to menial tasks that use only a fraction of what the entire class has to offer (Chi-blast ***** MNKs, anyone?). I wouldn't call the fights gimmicky, given that each have situations that require certain reactions to beat the boss or mitigate damage. I personally loved stuff like the class call-outs for Nefarian in BWL, since the encounter itself is reacting to who you brought with you to the raid.

While there's a certain methodology to beating certain bosses (Vashj in SSC, Illidan pre-Shear nerf, Thaddius and Iron Council come to mind), you're not severely favoring one class while handycapping another. That, as far as I can tell, is a good thing.

Quote:
As far as class homogenization, its actually not a bad thing. Classes still have trees that give them unique roles, but with more varied characters people spend more time on one character and identify more with it, like you should in an MMORPG.
I'll agree here. There's only so much you can do to make a class unique. When class performance suffers and it is unable to meet its concept, you don't go out of your way or leave the class gimped for the sake of it being a unique snowflake.

So far, Blizz has done a decent job at maintaining the classes' flavor while spreading stuff out to give everyone a chance. When I play on my ret paladin, I can feel like I'm playing a ret paladin (2-handed hammer swinging, armed with the power of the Light et al). When my warrior is specced arms, despite also using a 2-hander, I can tell I'm playing an arms warrior. Same thing on my death knight, yet another class that uses a 2-hander that retains its flavor. It's really more than I could have ever asked for, specially in the case of the paladin, the class that at one point was only used as a healer despite wearing heavy armor.
____________________________
Products of boredom: 1 2 3 4 5
Besieged
Hopes for FFXIV: Fencer | Red Mage
#60 Jul 08 2009 at 11:56 PM Rating: Default
**
424 posts
Isn't ironic that the OP was 'Stop Hating on WoW' yet the post was full of things about WoW/blizzard that the OP disliked?

As to the last poster... that is exactly why people get so upset about WoW in this forum. Nobody wants to read whining about ret paladins and their history in a thread about FFXIV.

There won't be any ret paladins in FFXIV. Of that I can be sure.

____________________________
Administrator Kaolian:
"Quote it correctly or don't quote it. That's called "how people get banned"..."

Actually it's called "Libel"... and only if it is fabricated, but hey, you are the admin.

AureliusSir the Irrelevant:
"They're on a tangent, but they aren't off topic."
#61 Jul 09 2009 at 1:15 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,814 posts
Shazaamemt wrote:
Isn't ironic that the OP was 'Stop Hating on WoW' yet the post was full of things about WoW/blizzard that the OP disliked?

Not at all. The intelligent criticism and then there is ignorant hatred. WoW is full of flaws, and it is fully possible to point one out. The problem is that there are some posters here who automatically associate anything that is WoW with the devil. Seriously, how childish is it to pretend that because a feature was in WoW it is automatically a bad idea?
#62 Jul 09 2009 at 1:25 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,814 posts
Shazaamemt wrote:
If there is ONE thing FFXI did better than any other MMO, it was encouraging the idea of social interaction and experience through gameplay.

What? FFXI did a terrible job at that. There was no encouragement, you were forced.

I agree that FFXI had very strong social interaction and allowed for a lot of shared experiences. But it was in no way an encouraged option; you were forced. Slavery is still slavery, even if you enjoy your work.
Shazaamemt wrote:
But I think you will agree with me that the quests in FFXI were far more interesting storywise than the quests in WoW.

Shazaamemt wrote:
I guess I would rather do one INTERESTING quest 10 times than do 10 boring text boxes one time each.

The quests in FFXI weren't more interesting than WoW story wise (except for missions). You still had to collect Crawler vomit in Windurst just like you collect scorpid legs in WoW.

Even if you include mission it's still a tough statement to make. If you include missions I'll give you that the average FFXI quest was more interesting, but that has a lot to do with there being so few quests to do at all.

I'd rather have 20 interesting quests and 100 mediocre ones than 5 interesting quests and 10 mediocre ones.
#63 Jul 09 2009 at 1:41 AM Rating: Default
Baby I've been here before
I've seen this room and I've walked this floor, (You know)
I used to live alone before I knew ya
And I've seen your flag on the marble arch
and love is not a victory march
It's a cold and it's a broken Hallelujah


And then he went and drowned in a river. God damnit, jeff you *******. You would.
____________________________
Die! Die die die. die die die die, die die. - Scarlet Briar
#64 Jul 09 2009 at 1:48 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,416 posts
Quote:
The quests in FFXI weren't more interesting than WoW story wise (except for missions). You still had to collect Crawler vomit in Windurst just like you collect scorpid legs in WoW.

Even if you include mission it's still a tough statement to make. If you include missions I'll give you that the average FFXI quest was more interesting, but that has a lot to do with there being so few quests to do at all.

I'd rather have 20 interesting quests and 100 mediocre ones than 5 interesting quests and 10 mediocre ones.


At least they were presented in a more interesting way, imo.

And the later expansion's quests were some quality stuff, so I can't really agree with WoW quests being as interesting (although that statement does apply to quests from first 2 expansions).

Edited, Jul 9th 2009 9:48am by Hyanmen
____________________________
SE:
Quote:
We really want to compete against World of Warcraft and for example the new Star Wars MMO.

#65 Jul 09 2009 at 11:35 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
***
1,569 posts
Hyanmen wrote:
At least they were presented in a more interesting way, imo.

And the later expansion's quests were some quality stuff, so I can't really agree with WoW quests being as interesting (although that statement does apply to quests from first 2 expansions).
Depends on what you find appealing. FFXIs quests treated you as a random person with nothing better to do. Because of the "open adventure" approach the game took to quest design, there was little direction and meaning in the things you did. It's one thing for one to curb crawler/goblin presence outside of windy to help travellers. It's another to randomly kill **** hoping it drops the *right* type of stone for chamama to use for her pickles.

Granted, because of missions and how future quests were designed, there is more to quests in FFXI, but collecting crawler calculi and random rocks when you're getting started gives a very bad first impression.
____________________________
Products of boredom: 1 2 3 4 5
Besieged
Hopes for FFXIV: Fencer | Red Mage
#66 Jul 09 2009 at 11:56 AM Rating: Decent
*
230 posts
Quote:
Not at all. The intelligent criticism and then there is ignorant hatred. WoW is full of flaws, and it is fully possible to point one out. The problem is that there are some posters here who automatically associate anything that is WoW with the devil. Seriously, how childish is it to pretend that because a feature was in WoW it is automatically a bad idea?


This is exactly why I don't care how many times I got down-voted for this topic. I didn't blindly criticize WoW, I pointed out how its mistakes has bettered the MMO community, and pointed out a couple things it really nailed. It was a serious attempt at stopping mindless WoW-bashing.
____________________________
Future FFXIV Player
Anguish - 80 Death Knight (Retired)
Vor - 60 Warlock (pre-BC) (Retired)
#67 Jul 09 2009 at 3:10 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
42 posts
First, the discussion that this thread has lead too is well and good, but I'm a little concerned about the opening post.


Dear OP. Your post is highly confusing.
You start out pointing out several flaws that are in WoW, and, for the point you are making, exclusive to WoW.
It's one thing to be able to rationally criticize a game and still support it, but so far you're just pointing out flaws in a totally unrelated game.

Next you oooh and aaah about things that work well in WoW, as if WoW was the first game to implement such things. Most of the stuff you bring up that WoW does well at, FFXI also does well at, and was released first, AND, is a previous game in the series, making it FAR more relevant to consider as a benchmark for what we can/cannot expect in the upcoming game.

Quote:
But all these “PLZ DON’T TALK ABOUT WOW” and “I DON’T LIKE WOW” posts are retarded. WOW is literally schooling other developers in how to properly create a persistent online world. It’s a test bench. WoW has taught developers how to properly structure a thriving economy. WoW made all the mistakes other developers now won’t have to. Do we link auction houses or not? Do we allow players to link items in chat or not? How should trade work? How should players earn money? How strong should crafted items be compared to raided ones? How do we distribute loot tables among lowbie zones versus high-end zones? These are all standards new games are going to go by. Why? Because WoW, after 7 years, has provided tons of valuable, visible data on a MASSIVE scale. Will these things be tuned to newer games? Sure, but the underlying fundamentals are still there, and they came from WoW.


FFXI dealt with all of these issues. Before WoW even. The only one that is N/A is linking items in chat, but it's also a console game, and there would be no reasonable way to implement that.
WoW is certainly not schooling the FFXI and FFXIV dev team in how to make their game. The dev team has 7 years of live content that they have learned from. Some stuff they got right, some stuff was horrible. To assume they are going to just copy WoW and discard their own knowledge and learning history is, well, stupid.

WoW homogenized classes. FFXI has individually specialized classes. Why then, are we to consider FFXIVs yet unreleased job system to be plagued with homogenization?

Quote:

Now, before you rip me a new hole by saying “we all know Blizzard took the AH from FFXI,” I already know that. In fact, when I was beta testing WoW, I was one of the players who made the big push for the auction house system. FFXI’s AH system was, and as far as I know still IS absolute trash. The *only* good thing about it as far as I’m concerned is a price history, which is modifiable in WoW. Also, the economic player-created mods in WoW are beyond superb, and should be taken note of in every game.


Weren't you also saying how player made mods ruined other aspects of the game?

Quote:
On the forefront of PvP, no game has more options than WoW. And while many of these options suck, no one can deny that they are valid attempts at creating goal-oriented PvP. And while balancing classes for both PvP and PvE is a nightmare – as discussed above – no one can deny that it needed to be tried relentlessly to be proven.


This is the most valid aspect of your post IMO. WoW has the most fleshed out PvP content of any online rpg as far as I am aware of, but, again, the topic in question (FFXIV) isn't concerned with PvP.

Quote:
My overall point is this; why the @#%^ are you hating on WoW? The things it does so wrong are very important to its contribution to the gaming world. You can’t say you don’t like a game just because it’s become a major reference to its industry, especially when other developers (SQUARE ENIX) are OPENLY using it for reference. Yeah, I get it. I like Final Fantasy just as much as the next guy. I grew up on FF6-10, just like the next guy. I played FFXI, just like the next guy and I know a bunch of people who left it for WoW, just like the next guy. Stop being so bitter and arrogant about a game that’s doing well just because it’s not one you play.


Show me where SE said they were using WOW as a reference in the development of their game, and tell me what they were implying. Then tell me where else in the interview they referenced their previous game, FFXI.
Unless you've got some other quote, the E3 interview mentioned in one response that they wanted to make game content more accessible for casual players, similar to wow. They want to expand their playerbase, not by making their game similar to WoW, but making the accessability on par with wow.

I don't see as many people flat out hating on WoW as I see people hating on people who post here assuming FFXIV will be some sort of final fantasy flavored WoW.

You're seeing people hate on WoW not because they have an irrational hatred for it (most of the time anyway) but because people like you keep bringing it up on a Final Fantasy forum. Get the idea OUT of your head that FFXIV will have any similarities to WoW. Sure, it will have them, and WoW players transitioning to FFXIV will be able to draw similarities with lots of mechanics, I'm sure. But the reason there's a lot of ill words toward wow around here is because we're tired of people posting here about how such and such part of FFXIV will be like wow. So your closing statement applies to you too. Chill out and stop bringing it up in an unrelated forum. Reference wow when appropriate, but realize that there's almost always going to be a more applicable FFXI reference to build on already.

Quote:
Stop being so bitter and arrogant about a game that’s doing well just because it’s not one you play.
It's statements like this that single you out as an obvious fanboy, so, stop being a hypocrite.
#68 Jul 09 2009 at 8:21 PM Rating: Good
*
215 posts
Calispel wrote:


I hope FFXIV is nothing like WoW.

Edited, Jul 8th 2009 2:04pm by Calispel


Your wish is granted.

FFXIV is no longer online.
FFXIV no longer has battles, or any killing for that matter.
FFXIV has no crafting.
FFXIV has no items.
FFXIV has no text.
FFXIV has no polygons.
FFXIV is actually not a game at all.

Anyone else want to make silly remarks? Your comparing Apples...with Apples.

I mean really you like the level grind? I hope you quit FFXI years ago then. Because they cut the experience points needed to level up a billion times now. Its soooo easy to level now then what it use to be.

And WoW is just raiding and item collection? What is FFXI???? The whole purpose of DOING ANYTHING in FFXI is to get the new and biggest gear. May it be relic, artifact or what not.

And lets see, we got Dynamis, Salvage and Limbus which mys well ALL be raids. At least in WoW You dont have to book an appointment and take off work to do them.

OH but could say - FFXI has a community!!!? What WOW doesnt? It has 11 million players and your saying it doesnt have a community?

I'm not saying they don't have their differences they do- graphic style being one of them. But people entirely over estimate the difference.

I love the style of FF11 and I hope they keep with that theme. WoW was too simple looking for me. And you know I do like the challenge in FF11 alot too. But there was challenges in FF11 and just plain crap in FF11 also.
On top of that my favorite part of FF11 was the Promathia missions. Which people in FF11 always complained about how hard they were. I thought they were awesome. Many of them were pretty short and only long because it was hard to get people together to actually do them since everyone was a wuss about them.
So i love how now everyone is talking about how they love the work ethic of ff11...when most people are too big of wusses to even complete the most challenging expansion.


#69 Jul 10 2009 at 12:10 AM Rating: Default
**
424 posts
Quote:
I'd rather have 20 interesting quests and 100 mediocre ones than 5 interesting quests and 10 mediocre ones


That is the greatest 'pro-timesink' argument ever made on this board.
____________________________
Administrator Kaolian:
"Quote it correctly or don't quote it. That's called "how people get banned"..."

Actually it's called "Libel"... and only if it is fabricated, but hey, you are the admin.

AureliusSir the Irrelevant:
"They're on a tangent, but they aren't off topic."
#70 Jul 10 2009 at 12:29 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,218 posts
Allegory wrote:


I'd rather have 20 interesting quests and 100 mediocre ones than 5 interesting quests and 10 mediocre ones.


Sure, but given a choice, would you rather have 20 interesting ones or 100 mediocre ones? Because to some of us, that is the choice.

I'd rather have fewer quests, but for each of them to have a cut scene and a meaningful reward, than to spend all of my time clicking on people just because they have a yellow mark over their head for some task that I definitely don't want to do, just because the XP and trivial reward is required to make the level grind move faster.
#71 Jul 10 2009 at 1:02 AM Rating: Default
Repressed Memories
******
20,814 posts
Shazaamemt wrote:
That is the greatest 'pro-timesink' argument ever made on this board.

I suppose if you're deliberately choosing to see it that way. Any normal person would realize that it involves no more time sink, only a vastly greater choice. Who would interpret that as "you must complete every quest in the game?" I don't. Any one who has played WoW, Lotro, Warhammer, or any other MMORPG with a large number of quests wouldn't. I suppose it's just you, and it's still a wrong interpretation, as more quests doesn't equal more timesink. It only means more options, which in nearly all games is a good idea.
Karlhungis wrote:
Sure, but given a choice, would you rather have 20 interesting ones or 100 mediocre ones? Because to some of us, that is the choice.

That isn't the choice. WoW has vastly more quests than FFXI (at least up tot he first two expansions, at least up to CoP, I didn't play beyond that). This means WoW has a lot of mediocre quests about collecting 10 bear claws or killing named gorillas. It also has many good quests lines. At least as many as the good ones in FFXI. I'm not going to go through every single quest and each game and count it up.

If you decided to take only the good quests from each game, you'd most probably end up doing more good quests in WoW, simply because of the sheer volume provided. More good quests, but more dilute. However since all quests are optional the situation of being dilute is irrelevant.

But my main point is that it isn't and either-or choice between a few good quests or a large number of mediocre quests. You're creating a false dilemma. The developers aren't forced to choose; it all depends on their creativity.

Edited, Jul 10th 2009 4:15am by Allegory
#72 Jul 10 2009 at 1:35 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
372 posts
Quote:
I suppose if you're deliberately choosing to see it that way. Any normal person would realize that it involves no more time sink, only a vastly greater choice. Who would interpret that as "you must complete every quest in the game?" I don't. Any one who has played WoW, Lotro, Warhammer, or any other MMORPG with a large number of quests wouldn't. I suppose it's just you, and it's still a wrong interpretation, as more quests doesn't equal more timesink. It only means more options, which in nearly all games is a good idea.


Sorry Shazaamemt but I don't consider what he said would indicate a time-sink. If anything the shorter/boring quests in WoW, WAR and LOTRO are easilly completed and offer an exp spike and you don't have to do one at a time, in some cases you can complete three of these quests by killing X amount of the same mob and get 3x exp-spike for doing so, not to mention the exp from the kills themselves.

But you are right about this. They are boring and implimented in an uniteresting and unimaginative way. Click on NPC one, read or don't read the dialog, follow map markers to target. I always feel lost in the sheer amount of them too, like I'm being pulled in so many different directions at once and because I tend to have so many, I find myself referring back to the quest log far too many times. Its this kind of system that prevents me from sympathising with the NPCs plight. In FFXI I wanted to help them! In every other game since then I've just groaned inwardly as the same quests are regurgitated in a different scenario. Kill boars so we can feed the coloney. Kill wolves so we can keep the colony warm.

Although FFXI didn't have as many little quests the ones they did have really captivated my interest. The dialog was 'acted' out by the NPC, not stuffed into a time and money saving box. This made it interesting and I always read the dialog.

So quests like those ease on the grind, but I find because of the way most games utalise them, they can become just as monotonous as the grind.

Edited, Jul 10th 2009 5:37am by akelah
#73 Jul 10 2009 at 1:51 AM Rating: Good
**
424 posts
Quote:

I'd rather have 20 interesting quests and 100 mediocre ones than 5 interesting quests and 10 mediocre ones.


Well, one is a ratio of 2 good quests for every 10 bad ones, and the other is a ratio of 1 good quest for every 2 bad ones.

Seems like an argument for wasting time with crappy quests to me.

Quote:
That isn't the choice. WoW has vastly more quests than FFXI (at least up tot he first two expansions, at least up to CoP, I didn't play beyond that).


If you only played up to CoP then you probably missed the really good quests in FFXI with storyline and only experienced the 'starter quests' to a big extent. Like gathering crawler puke or scorpid tails.

That would be like a WoW player saying they only played through vanilla content and never saw the storyline unfold.

MMOs get better with expansions. WoW did. So did FFXI.

Quote:
So quests like those ease on the grind, but I find because of the way most games utalise them, they can become just as monotonous as the grind.


I agree with you on that, but in all fairness, Allegory did have a point about certain starter quests in FFXI. Some of them were just 'fetch object A for reward B'.

But as I said earlier, starting quests are probably all going to be simple and relatively uninvolved because they are part of the learning curve. Yet in WoW you are still (literally) collecting piles of crap and turning them in to a NPC you couldn't give a rat's *** about. (literally, you collect piles of crap in some of them) Whereas in FFXI you will have NPCs with quests that reveal the backstory and give you nice little cutscenes. (the history of the generals in Al Zhabi were some of my favorite quests, I would wait for an update just to get a new quest there.. even if it only rewarded me with about 10 gil.)

I am not 'hating on WoW' there, just pointing out something that was done much better in another game (FFXI), and hope that the developers maintain that aspect.

As for something good from WoW? Daily quests, even if they are boring and a grind, at least they were a reliable source of income, and gave you something to do if nothing else was going on.

Edited, Jul 10th 2009 6:03am by Shazaamemt
____________________________
Administrator Kaolian:
"Quote it correctly or don't quote it. That's called "how people get banned"..."

Actually it's called "Libel"... and only if it is fabricated, but hey, you are the admin.

AureliusSir the Irrelevant:
"They're on a tangent, but they aren't off topic."
#74 Jul 10 2009 at 2:00 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
372 posts
Quote:
Seems like an argument for wasting time with crappy quests to me.


Crap that they were, yes. However they always paid out better rewards than FFXIs did which is why people put up with them. They make leveling go a bit faster without having to grind or LFG but they were, crap. LOL!
#75Hyanmen, Posted: Jul 10 2009 at 2:02 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) FFXI actually only got less ****** with expansions :<. Blame RoTZ.
#76 Jul 10 2009 at 2:18 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
777 posts
Quote:
I'd rather have 20 interesting quests and 100 mediocre ones than 5 interesting quests and 10 mediocre ones

I would rather have all my quests be deep and meaningful, even if they are not frequent. These quests would be supplemented with grinding where I want, instead of being funneled through a long series of meaningless quests which are ultimately still grinding, but not giving me the option of what to grind on.

Edited, Jul 10th 2009 6:19am by Karelyn
____________________________
KUMQUATS
#77 Jul 10 2009 at 2:54 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,814 posts
Shazaament wrote:
Well, one is a ratio of 2 good quests for every 10 bad ones, and the other is a ratio of 1 good quest for every 2 bad ones.

Seems like an argument for wasting time with crappy quests to me.

Allegory wrote:
If you decided to take only the good quests from each game, you'd most probably end up doing more good quests in WoW, simply because of the sheer volume provided. More good quests, but more dilute. However since all quests are optional the situation of being dilute is irrelevant.

Allegory wrote:
Any normal person would realize that it involves no more time sink, only a vastly greater choice. Who would interpret that as "you must complete every quest in the game?" I don't.

Karelyn wrote:
I would rather have all my quests be deep and meaningful, even if they are not frequent.

Allegory wrote:
But my main point is that it isn't and either-or choice between a few good quests or a large number of mediocre quests. You're creating a false dilemma. The developers aren't forced to choose; it all depends on their creativity.


Edited, Jul 10th 2009 5:54am by Allegory
#78 Jul 10 2009 at 4:23 AM Rating: Decent
*
102 posts
WoW didn't have any good quests though.
#79 Jul 10 2009 at 5:53 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
372 posts
Quote:
I agree with you on that, but in all fairness, Allegory did have a point about certain starter quests in FFXI. Some of them were just 'fetch object A for reward B'.


Agree! But then as you pointed out, they were starter quests and were there to point a way to another location, one that later on became a big part of the game for those levels. Like getting the Crawler Calculi Stone-thingies, just a way of urging you onto the harder mobs and a bit further afield. Then came farming Wild Onions from the Goblins in the ruins and later on you find that those runis are tied in with some of the early Windy missions, so those starter quests had a purpose, the ones in the likes of WAR and LOTRO while done the same (pointing the way to new places) there really is no progression in their situations. You will always come across some guy who needs the steaming entrails of a boar while the guy you only just previously helped needs the hooves of the same creature to make a medicine. The only difference would be the level of the mob.

FFXI repeatable quests were a bit of a bore and some times annoying because in order to get the fame level required to unlock 'that' certain quest you had to do them over and over. I hope they don't make a return. But if they must, then I hope quest items will be stackable, no matter what they are.

I have nothing against these kinds of quests, they do offer an alternative to a grind or something to do while LFG, so I hope FFXIV can include more this time around, but it would be nice to see them work their usual magic and make them as charming as some of the FFXI ones too. Personally I'm sick of reading pages of dialog :(
#80 Jul 10 2009 at 12:56 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
777 posts
Allegory wrote:
Karelyn wrote:
I would rather have all my quests be deep and meaningful, even if they are not frequent.

But my main point is that it isn't and either-or choice between a few good quests or a large number of mediocre quests. You're creating a false dilemma. The developers aren't forced to choose; it all depends on their creativity.

There was a dilemma Allegory.

Typically in WoW? If you have a quest to "kill 10 wolves" and you turn that quest in? The amount of EXP from that quest is worth killing 20 wolves. Meaning you got a grand total of 30 wolves worth of EXP from doing the quest.

Leveling in WoW virtually demands that you complete quests.

And I'm not exaggerating on the 2:1 ratio of EXP. I was leveling an alt recently in WoW, and I distinctly noticed that every quest gave me nearly twice as much EXP when I turned it in, as it did to kill the things necessary for the quest.

That's just ridiculous.

Jobangles wrote:
WoW didn't have any good quests at low levels though.

Fix't.

There were some very good quest chains in WoW, of the quality of missions in FFXI. Unfortunately, most of the good quest chains are less efficient for EXP than the "kill 10 wolves" quests, which means most players never do them.

Edited, Jul 10th 2009 4:58pm by Karelyn
____________________________
KUMQUATS
#81 Jul 10 2009 at 1:49 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,814 posts
Karelyn wrote:
Typically in WoW? If you have a quest to "kill 10 wolves" and you turn that quest in? The amount of EXP from that quest is worth killing 20 wolves. Meaning you got a grand total of 30 wolves worth of EXP from doing the quest.

That's somewhat of a non sequitur, because we were discussing the the alleged choice between many mediocre quests and a few good quest, not the choice between questing an grinding. If you want to discuss the issue of questing versus grinding then we can do that, but it becomes confusing when you try to link it to the current discussion.

I agree that quests are a very big part of leveling in WoW. However, You aren't taking into account several factors. The first being that quests involve travel time, which eats away at their efficiency if all you only kill the quest mobs. The second is that you can grind while questing; you often have to kill unrelated quest mobs or redundant quest mobs to clear a path for those you need to kill, and you can kill while while traveling to a location or searching for a quest objective. Third, straight grinding can also offer framing or crafting benefits, such as stocking up on leather for crafting. Fourth, many of the benefits of questing also require that you know the correct quests to pick, as not every quest is time efficient.

The disparity between questing and grinding in WoW isn't enormous. It's there, but it's nowhere near the gap that existed in FFXI.

I'm also not certain what your complaint is. What is wrong with quest grinds? They may not be the super fun quests, but when the alternative is straight grinding on a single mob for 4 hours why would you not want quest grinds?
#82 Jul 10 2009 at 2:50 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
777 posts
Allegory wrote:
I'm also not certain what your complaint is. What is wrong with quest grinds? They may not be the super fun quests, but when the alternative is straight grinding on a single mob for 4 hours why would you not want quest grinds?

The alternative is being able to grind on what mobs you want to, as well as being able to party with people while you grind.

The core problem with quest based grinding, like WoW uses, is there is no reason to party with someone else while leveling unless they are on the same step of a quest as you.

Actually, for the most part, that is true of any quest, whether a game uses them frequently or infrequently. Unless you are helping a person on a quest out of charity and friendship. But the apathy of people towards assisting in a quest they have already completed inversely correlates with the frequency of quests.

...

Actually, the same is true of partying while questing. The tendency of people to party in order to complete a quest inversely correlates to the density of quests in a game.

...

That sounds so delightfully smug. Didn't mean it to. But the point is, yeah, even if you could make meaningful story based quests with the frequency of WoW's quest based grinding, it would still result in a declining tendency of people to party to complete those quests.

If you required people to party to complete those quests, there is a good chance that nobody would do them at all.

...

EDIT: This is one of those "Idealism vs Realism sliding scale of humanity" posts.

Edited, Jul 10th 2009 6:51pm by Karelyn
____________________________
KUMQUATS
#83 Jul 10 2009 at 3:02 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,824 posts
People grouping in WoW has nothing to do with the quests in game and everything to do with the lack of a decent party exp modifier.

For wow it is:

1 person group = 1.0
2 person group = 1.0
3 person group = 1.166
4 person group = 1.3
5 person group = 1.4

Don't you automatically go up to 1.2 for 2 people in FFXI? It's not hard to see why in WoW no one wants to group when adding a buddy makes you work twice as hard for the same exp.


Edit - Haha I have an old BST guide on my desktop still and I have 1.0 1.2 1.35 1.6 1.85 as the first 5 levels of modifier for XI. No idea if that's right or not anymore (or ever was).


Edited, Jul 10th 2009 5:04pm by baelnic
#84 Jul 10 2009 at 3:11 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,814 posts
Karelyn wrote:
The alternative is being able to grind on what mobs you want to, as well as being able to party with people while you grind.

Well, not necessarily with a party. Yes, in FFXI a party is more efficient to grind with, but that doesn't mean in every game grinding allows for party play. Most asian MMORPGs involve heavy solo grinding. There is also no reason an MMORPG can't be designed with group questing as a focus. The element of party play is completely independent here.

I'm not sure why you consider grinding on the mob of your choice to be any sort of benefit. Is it really that much more fun killing 2000 wolves than it is killing 2000 crabs?
Karelyn wrote:
The core problem with quest based grinding, like WoW uses, is there is no reason to party with someone else while leveling unless they are on the same step of a quest as you.

That is not a core problem at all. That is simply how questing was implemented in WoW. You're conflating a design choice by the WoW dev team with being a fundamental feature of questing systems. There is absolutely no reason a game cannot be built around group quest grinding. In fact, that is exactly what Public Quests in Warhammer were.
Karelyn wrote:
Actually, the same is true of partying while questing. The tendency of people to party in order to complete a quest inversely correlates to the density of quests in a game.

Not at all; that is a ridiculous extrapolation. It's entirely dependent on the viability and necessity of grouping.

Edited, Jul 10th 2009 6:15pm by Allegory
#85 Jul 10 2009 at 3:39 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
777 posts
Allegory wrote:
I'm not sure why you consider grinding on the mob of your choice to be any sort of benefit. Is it really that much more fun killing 2000 wolves than it is killing 2000 crabs?

Yes, it's more fun grinding whatever I want to, than being funneled through a series of quests where I am told what to grind on. I have the power of choice. And parties are more flexible as a result.

Instead of having to find a few people who all want to work on a specific quest, all you have to do is find a few people who want to go grind in a location. Much more conductive to actually gaining a party.

Allegory wrote:
Something Allegory claimed a few posts back but I'm going to be too lazy to locate, sorry hun :(

I question your position that there is a capacity in a quest-based leveling grind to be designed wherein all the quests are meaningful.

Even if it only takes a relatively small amount of time to reach level cap like in WoW (roughly 200 hours), I question if it is possible to make 200 hours of plot related grinding. Most single player games cannot even manage 20 hours of gameplay without devolving into several meaningless sidequests.

In the interest of not diluting plot with meaningless quests, it seems almost obligatory to not have a quest-based grind.

Edited, Jul 10th 2009 7:41pm by Karelyn
____________________________
KUMQUATS
#86 Jul 10 2009 at 4:08 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,814 posts
Karelyn wrote:
Yes, it's more fun grinding whatever I want to, than being funneled through a series of quests where I am told what to grind on.

But... you can choose the quests too. Have you not thought this through at all?

Ok so you want to grind on wolves instead of crabs. You can do that. But what exactly is stopping you from taking the "collect 30 wolf paws," quest over the "collect 30 crab legs" quest? How do you have any less of a choice with quests?
Karelyn wrote:
And parties are more flexible as a result.

I thought I had clearly established that parties were a independent factor. Clearly not.
Karelyn wrote:
Instead of having to find a few people who all want to work on a specific quest, all you have to do is find a few people who want to go grind in a location. Much more conductive to actually gaining a party.

You can do the same with quests. I don't know if you've played Warhammer, but that is EXACTLY what Public Quests are. You get a bunch of people together and do the public quest grind as many times as you want for as long as you want. Since there are many public quests in a single zone you get to choose exactly the type of mob you want to grind on. It's everything you want, and it is in quest form.

Again, you're conflating WoW's implementation of questing with questing as a whole. It doesn't HAVE to be done the way it was done in WoW, stop pretending that it does.


Karelyn wrote:
I question your position that there is a capacity in a quest-based leveling grind to be designed wherein all the quests are meaningful.

Sure it's possible. It'd be difficult to make EVERY single quest awesometacular, but my point is that it's dependent on developer creativity and drive.

There's no magic quest quality limit. "Ok team, we only have 1,000 units of quest quality to spend. We can either make 10 quests at 100 quality units each or a 100 quests at 10 quality units each." That is not how it works.

Saying quest quality varies inversely to quest volume is like saying the quality of a book varies inversely to the number of pages.

The developer chooses how much effort they want to put into questing and how they want to apply that effort. RF Online has only a few quests, and they are all really terrible. Having fewer quests didn't help that game at all, because the developers decided it wasn't their priority. I've heard age of Conan actually has a very strong beginning story for the first 20 levels, because the developers decided they wanted to make that part of the game special for the players.

It has a lot more to do with whether the developer decides to make quests a design priority than it does with how many quests they choose to create.
Karelyn wrote:
In the interest of not diluting plot with meaningless quests, it seems almost obligatory to not have a quest-based grind.

But then you have nothing else. That's like stating "If you're not going to have caviar you might as well not eat." Not every quest has to blow your mind. I'd rather have something mediocre than starve.

The alternative to mediocre quests is mindless and repetitive grinding. Some players have been trained to find that acceptable. I'm not one of those players.

And for Christ sake, no one is forcing you to take the quests. If you don't like them, then don't do them. You're complaining that your free ice cream sample isn't your favorite flavor. Well then don't eat the free sample?

Yeah a lot of analogies, I'm sorry.

Edited, Jul 10th 2009 7:15pm by Allegory
#87 Jul 10 2009 at 4:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
**
777 posts
Allegory wrote:
Karelyn wrote:
And parties are more flexible as a result.

I thought I had clearly established that parties were a independent factor. Clearly not.

I strongly disagree with your position and feel that you are wrong and are not taking into account human nature.

I didn't feel like arguing with you on the subject, as it is sure to be a fruitless argument.

Allegory wrote:
There's no magic quest quality limit. "Ok team, we only have 1,000 units of quest quality to spend. We can either make 10 quests at 100 quality units each or a 100 quests at 10 quality units each." That is not how it works.

Saying quest quality varies inversely to quest volume is like saying the quality of a book varies inversely to the number of pages.

You are pretending there is a hard limit. There is not a set limit. There is a soft limit, wherein the tendency for something to get worse and more meaningless the more you inflate it in an attempt to reach an arbitrary goalpoint.

In MMOs, that arbitrary point is "Wherein a person never has to grind on anything that they did not have a quest telling them to do so."

The closer an MMO approaches that point, the greater tendency for filler to be added.

This is true of anytime you seek to achieve an arbitrary goal-point instead of simply doing the best you can.

See: Moby ****

That's what happens when an author is more concerned about page count than quality.

Edited, Jul 10th 2009 8:21pm by Karelyn

Edited, Jul 10th 2009 8:23pm by Karelyn
____________________________
KUMQUATS
#88 Jul 10 2009 at 4:25 PM Rating: Good
***
2,824 posts
WAR's Public Quest system is great, total forgot about those. It added story elements to the zone and helped explain a lot of the random infestations that dot zones (complete with a 3-5 part story that was logged in your Lore Book that you could reread at a later date). They were tuned to require a fair number of players and they gave rewards based on participation (which was goofed up at first but the idea was still there).

Unfortunately RL trauma has blocked out many of my memories of WAR. Too bad too, because I loved that game.

Quote:
See: Moby ****

That's what happens when an author is more concerned about page count than quality.


Huh? It's widely considered one of the greatest novels in the last several hundred years. Guess you're not fond of American or English Romanticism.

Edited, Jul 10th 2009 6:48pm by baelnic
#89 Jul 10 2009 at 4:45 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,814 posts
Karelyn wrote:
I strongly disagree with your position and feel that you are wrong and are not taking into account human nature.

I didn't feel like arguing with you on the subject, as it is sure to be a fruitless argument.

Well you are right that it would be a fruitless endeavor, because I don't see anyway you could possibly demonstrate. I'm also not understanding why you don't see how it is possible simply by shifting coefficients on party multipliers and quest rewards around. It would be ridiculous to do, but I can design a game where group questing is 1000 times more efficient for leveling than any other method, and people will do it all the time because of it is so vastly more efficient regardless of what human nature may be.

You can have group grinding, as in FFXI. You can have group questing, such as WAR Public quests. You can have solo grinding, as is done in many asian MMORPGs. You can have solo questing, as there is in WoW.

It's completely independent of whether you're questing or grinding. It's fully possible to design a game where any of those 4 possible situations nets the optimal reward.

You can make a game where mob exp scales up greatly with the number of people in a party and quests give very little exp, so that group grinding is the best option. You can make a game where mob exp scales very poorly with the number of people in a party and quest give very little exp, so solo grinding is best for leveling. You can make a game where the quests give a huge amount of exp but require a full party to complete, so group questing is the best option. You can make a game where quests give a huge amount of exp but the quests are easy and the exp is split between group members, so solo questing is the best option.

I strongly believe you're confusing what you've seen implemented with what is possible. Yes, in WoW people don't group quest very much. That doesn't mean that there can never be a questing game focused on grouping; it means that WoW specifically is not designed that way.

Karelyn wrote:

You are pretending there is a hard limit. There is not a set limit. There is a soft limit, wherein the tendency for something to get worse and more meaningless the more you inflate it in an attempt to reach an arbitrary goalpoint.

In MMOs, that arbitrary point is "Wherein a person never has to grind on anything that they did not have a quest telling them to do so."

The closer an MMO approaches that point, the greater tendency for filler to be added.

This is true of anytime you seek to achieve an arbitrary goal-point instead of simply doing the best you can.

I don't believe I correctly understand what you're trying to say here, so correct me if I am wrong in how I interpret these paragraphs.

If you're trying to say that, ceteris paribus, as people try to produce more their works tend to decrease in quality, then yes that is typically true. An artist who spends all of his effort on a single painting will probably produce a better individual piece than one who spreads his effort to a thousand.

However, "ceteris paribus," doesn't apply. If I focus all of my effort into a single painting I will never produce anything close to the many works of Rembrandt. He's a better painter than I am, and he made painting a priority in his life while I choose to do over activities. This priority matters far more than the volume of work either of us produces.

A developer who decides quests are a major priority for their game will produce far better quests than a developer who decides quests don't matter, regardless of the volume each chooses to output.
#90 Jul 10 2009 at 4:48 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,814 posts
baelnic wrote:
Huh? It's widely considered one of the greatest novels in the last several hundred years.

Yeah... a lot of books are considered great that aren't.

Rear Window and Do the Right thing are both considered classic films and fall into many "top 100 films of all time," lists. Rear Window is mediocre and Do the Right Thing is perhaps the worst critically acclaimed film ever made.
#91 Jul 10 2009 at 4:50 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
777 posts
baelnic wrote:
Quote:
See: Moby ****

That's what happens when an author is more concerned about page count than quality.


Huh? It's widely considered one of the greatest novels in the last several hundred years. Guess you're not fond of American or English Romanticism.

It's a great story.

It's also 90-95% filler. And it would have been better for the lack of that filler.

I take it you've never actually read it?

Edited, Jul 10th 2009 8:51pm by Karelyn
____________________________
KUMQUATS
#92 Jul 10 2009 at 4:54 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,824 posts
Quote:
Yeah... a lot of books are considered great that aren't.


I just think that's a poor example. Mainly because I love the Romantics :P

I would have picked a pulp writer that was writing on a per word basis. Lovecraft or Howard phoned in some stories and fluffed them simply so they'd pad the paycheck.

Quote:
It's also 90-95% filler. And it would have been better for the lack of that filler.

I take it you've never actually read it?


It's 90% filler because that's what the romantics did. He was emulating Shelley most likely on some level. And no, I don't think it would have been better without it. My opinion of course.

Edited, Jul 10th 2009 6:56pm by baelnic
#93 Jul 10 2009 at 5:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
**
777 posts
baelnic wrote:
It's 90% filler because that's what the romantics did.

It's 90% filler because he was paid by the page.
____________________________
KUMQUATS
#94 Jul 10 2009 at 10:20 PM Rating: Good
**
424 posts
Quote:

There were some very good quest chains in WoW, of the quality of missions in FFXI. Unfortunately, most of the good quest chains are less efficient for EXP than the "kill 10 wolves" quests, which means most players never do them.


Gotta agree with Kare there, the 'Hero of the Mag'har' quest in particular was excellent, and so was the Wrathgate questline.

But I also gotta agree with Kare that those quests seemed to be far and few between. A quest in WOW was created as a way to level up and gain EXP, even past the starter quests. *for the majority of quests* A quest in FFXI (again past the starter quests) usually didn't grant you much aside from a trivial amount of gil/items but rewarded you with a very rich storyline.

I would rather be rewarded by having a rich storyline than by being granted exp/gold/items from droll questing. I think part of the reason FFXI players are seen as 'hardcore' (even though they really aren't compared to other MMOs at the time of it's inception) is because the quests were almost entirely optional. There was no real need to accomplish the majority of quests to further your game. (The missions however are a different story, required to get to endgame).

It was nice, if you wanted the story, you could go do the quests and watch the missions. If you didn't care then you would be frustrated for a few minutes while you hit enter to skip the cutscenes and waited for the rest to finish.
____________________________
Administrator Kaolian:
"Quote it correctly or don't quote it. That's called "how people get banned"..."

Actually it's called "Libel"... and only if it is fabricated, but hey, you are the admin.

AureliusSir the Irrelevant:
"They're on a tangent, but they aren't off topic."
#95 Jul 10 2009 at 10:21 PM Rating: Decent
**
424 posts
Quote:

It's 90% filler because that's what the romantics did. He was emulating Shelley most likely on some level. And no, I don't think it would have been better without it. My opinion of course.


Which Shelly? And yes, he was paid by the page. If it could have been longer by any means it would have been.

Quote:

Rear Window and Do the Right thing are both considered classic films and fall into many "top 100 films of all time," lists. Rear Window is mediocre and Do the Right Thing is perhaps the worst critically acclaimed film ever made.


You are comparing apples and oranges there. The written word has been along far longer than the moving picture, and has a far far far far far richer history and context. (it's just an age thing)

You don't see people arguing that the quests in FFXI or WOW had crappy graphics (the moving picture). What they argue is that WoW didn't reach the same depth of character in the presentation of it's quests. The majority of WoW quests are crap and nobody would ever touch them if it wasn't for the gold and the items and the exp. I think almost every other WoW player will agree with me on that. Allegory being one of the exceptions.


Edited, Jul 11th 2009 2:27am by Shazaamemt
____________________________
Administrator Kaolian:
"Quote it correctly or don't quote it. That's called "how people get banned"..."

Actually it's called "Libel"... and only if it is fabricated, but hey, you are the admin.

AureliusSir the Irrelevant:
"They're on a tangent, but they aren't off topic."
#96 Jul 10 2009 at 11:56 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,218 posts
Allegory wrote:


But my main point is that it isn't and either-or choice between a few good quests or a large number of mediocre quests. You're creating a false dilemma. The developers aren't forced to choose; it all depends on their creativity.

Edited, Jul 10th 2009 4:15am by Allegory


There are only so many resources to go around. If you want to do a short cut scene for each quest, for example (something that I think adds to the quality of the experience) then each quest costs you more to make than if you simply provide a text box for some one to read.

The cost can go up even further if you add voice acting, unique music, quest rewards that are truly unique, and so on.

Then of course you have to look at the quest givers. There is some aesthetic value in not having a bunch of quest givers clustered together, and having multiple NPCs per quest as opposed to multiple quests per NPC. If you can only place so many quest givers before things start to feel crowded, then you need to make them count. Of course you are free to implement as many NPCs as you want, but you may decrease the game experience in doing so.

So in the end, no, it is not a false dilemma. You have a range of possibilities, but on one extreme end of your scale is "very few quests, with very high quality" and on the other hand is "lots of quests of relatively low quality." Once you've established a criteria for what the quality of your quests is going to be, the only way to reliably increase the quantity is to spend more time and money (and due to the nature of these things, deal with diminishing returns while you do it)>
#97 Jul 11 2009 at 12:32 AM Rating: Good
***
2,824 posts
Quote:
Which Shelley?


Mary. I've read a couple of articles that link the framing techniques in Frankenstein and in Moby ****.

Sorry for the derail.



Edited, Jul 11th 2009 2:33am by baelnic
#98 Jul 11 2009 at 12:59 AM Rating: Good
**
424 posts
Any derail involving classic literature is fine by me.

Please derail more, especially if the topic is anything other than speculation about FFXIV's mechanics and is an obvious invite for a flame war. (like something called 'stop hating on Wow' for example).
____________________________
Administrator Kaolian:
"Quote it correctly or don't quote it. That's called "how people get banned"..."

Actually it's called "Libel"... and only if it is fabricated, but hey, you are the admin.

AureliusSir the Irrelevant:
"They're on a tangent, but they aren't off topic."
#99 Jul 11 2009 at 3:37 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,814 posts
KarlHungis wrote:
So in the end, no, it is not a false dilemma.

It is. Everything you've said is correct. You're not wrong, but your statements lack completeness. I already addressed this when I addressed Karelyn when she made the same point.

You're assuming there is some finite and constant amount of resources that can be pumped into quests.
KarlHungis wrote:
There are only so many resources to go around.

Here is you're mistake. There are as many resources for a particular aspect of the game the as the developer is willing to spend on a particular aspect of the game.

The amount of money for a given project might be fixed, but the amount of money allocated to varying parts of that project are not.

There are two developers. One decides that quests don't matter very much and focuses all of their time on graphics, they create two quests. The other decides to blow their entire budget on questing and ignores graphics, they decide to have 100 quests. Each of those of those 100 quests can easily be better than the 2 quests from the first developer.
Shazaamemt wrote:
I think almost every other WoW player will agree with me on that. Allegory being one of the exceptions.

Please, please don't just imagine people's positions the way you want them to be. Please actually base your comments on reality.

I've said numerous times that the majority of WoW quests are entirely mediocre. I've described them numerous times as "go fetch 10 bear claws." I know you want to pretend I'm this big bad WoW fanboy who thinks every quest in WoW is amazing, but I'm not.

Edited, Jul 11th 2009 6:42am by Allegory
#100 Jul 11 2009 at 5:33 AM Rating: Good
***
2,010 posts
Allegory wrote:

I've said numerous times that the majority of WoW quests are entirely mediocre. I've described them numerous times as "go fetch 10 bear claws." I know you want to pretend I'm this big bad WoW fanboy who thinks every quest in WoW is amazing, but I'm not.


I'll agree that some of them are mediocre, but we're conveniently forgetting that leveling in XI is pretty mediocre as well. The one saving grace about leveling in WoW with the questing method as opposed to XI and the partying method is that you don't have to wait around for people and you can go out and do it whenever you want. An added plus is that your skills don't fall behind because you can actually kill the equivalent of T monsters without too much trouble.

Which is the better system? I can't really say. They both have their merits.

I would also like to point out that XI did copy that *questing for xp* method from WoW with FoV, and it was a huge success. So knock WoW all you want, but apparently it's a system that even XI players enjoy.
#101 Jul 11 2009 at 6:00 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
349 posts
Quote:
Mary. I've read a couple of articles that link the framing techniques in Frankenstein and in Moby ****.

Sorry for the derail.
What a brilliant author. I never get tired of reading Frankenstein.

As for questing. There's not going to be any levels which leads me to believe skill points are going to be the measure of your progress. I doubt quests will award you skill points but you never know the devs did mention story as a method of "growing" your character. Either way I doubt you'll be penalized for grouping you'll probably just wind up using and leveling different skills then while soloing.

Edited, Jul 11th 2009 10:01am by mezlabor
____________________________
That was no hemroid doctor. That was an alien hoobajoob
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 12 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (12)