Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

A Scary Thought...Follow

#1 Jul 17 2009 at 3:27 PM Rating: Default
**
370 posts
I keep thinking how SE said they want to make this game just as good for casual players as hardcore. I remember a game acclaimed for doing such a thing. The game is called Guildwars. In case you never heard of it, in this game you can choose to start at the top level and be provided with average gear and jump right in to end-game stuff or you could choose to start at level one and go through the game regularly. I hope SE doesn't do anything like this. I don't want my levels handed to me. I hope SE realizes how important the sense of accomplishment means in a game like this.
____________________________
Thaumaturge/Archer/Marauder
http://xivpads.viion.co.uk/?id=1847776
Moogle Inc linkshell
http://www.moogleinc.com
Stand in front of me fool...I am a Thaumaturge
#2 Jul 17 2009 at 3:40 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
777 posts
It's been a long time, but I swear I remember in guild wars that you could only participate in PvP with a "pre-level capped character"

And could not improve your gear or get new skills like a character that started from level 1.

So it was a PvP-only character which was mediocre in every way. Good for experimenting with different classes. Not a substitute for normal gameplay.
____________________________
KUMQUATS
#3 Jul 17 2009 at 7:27 PM Rating: Default
*
89 posts
I think Guild Wars is not really a MMORPG, and therefor cannot be compared to FFXIV. the gameplay differs too much.

at least, when i play guild wars, i dont feel like im playing a MMORPG like if i play FFXI or any other MMORPG for that matter.

Edited, Jul 17th 2009 11:29pm by Akkio
____________________________
There is nothing either good or bad.
But thinking makes it so.
William Shakespeare
#4 Jul 17 2009 at 7:33 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,804 posts
I'm fairly certain Karelyn is correct. The isntantly level 20 characters were nothing you'd play longer term. Not that it mattered since it was so very easy to reach level cap in Guildwars anyway.

Akkio, yes Guildwars is an MMORPG. A different sort than FFXI, but still an MMORPG.
#5 Jul 17 2009 at 8:57 PM Rating: Default
**
424 posts
It really walks the thin line of wire over the fence between single player and MMORPG.

We might as well acknowledge Monster Hunter or the Diablo series as MMORPGs if we are counting Guild Wars.
____________________________
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."
#6 Jul 17 2009 at 10:34 PM Rating: Decent
*
89 posts
Allegory wrote:
I'm fairly certain Karelyn is correct. The isntantly level 20 characters were nothing you'd play longer term. Not that it mattered since it was so very easy to reach level cap in Guildwars anyway.

Akkio, yes Guildwars is an MMORPG. A different sort than FFXI, but still an MMORPG.


exactly my point. its acknowledged as a MMORRPG, but doesnt play like one. thatswhy you cant really compare both of them. Ofoucrse the DEV team of FFXIV took a close look at some other MMORPG's like WoW or loTR maybe, but i doubt they have looked at guild wars.

and shazaament is right. if we count GW as an MMORPG, we should count diablo as mmorpg as well ... because the cities where the MMO takes place in GW are just for chatting and trading etc ... like the chatbox on D3, which is also MMO.
____________________________
There is nothing either good or bad.
But thinking makes it so.
William Shakespeare
#7 Jul 17 2009 at 11:42 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,804 posts
Guildwars does play like an MMORPG. Yes it has a large amount of instanced content, but it isn't only instanced. You could almost say the same of WoW. Even though there is non-instanced zones, people still spend much of their time in cities chatting and trading or in instanced dungeons. It's not all that different from Guildwars.

Diablo somewhat pushes the line, but the presence of a single player mode, the fact that the game is entirely instanced (you can do nothing besides chat outside of a "game"), and that the game play is more akin to a hack n slash action game with rpg elements than a true rpg keeps it fairly far away from the MMORPG line.

And yes this is largely arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm fine with that.

Edited, Jul 18th 2009 2:43am by Allegory
#8 Jul 18 2009 at 5:26 PM Rating: Decent
*
177 posts
I always figured Guild Wars was an ORPG or MORPG, like Diablo, but assumed the "Massively" meant you had one big world that everyone is in at the same time.
____________________________
People don't accept the truth if it's typed in a tone unsympathetic to them. It doesn't make something any less true if someone you don't like is the one to enlighten you.
#9 Jul 18 2009 at 5:34 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
777 posts
ihatetaru wrote:
I always figured Guild Wars was an ORPG or MORPG, like Diablo, but assumed the "Massively" meant you had one big world that everyone is in at the same time.

Massive does not describe the world. Massive describes the number of players.

Massively-Multiplayer
Online Roleplaying Game
____________________________
KUMQUATS
#10 Jul 18 2009 at 5:37 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
185 posts
Guild Wars is a CORPG not an MMORPG
____________________________

Dranio - FFXI Tarutaru BLM/BLU

#11 Jul 18 2009 at 6:21 PM Rating: Decent
*
89 posts
CORPG is cooperative RPG?
____________________________
There is nothing either good or bad.
But thinking makes it so.
William Shakespeare
#12 Jul 19 2009 at 2:04 PM Rating: Decent
*
177 posts
Karelyn wrote:
ihatetaru wrote:
I always figured Guild Wars was an ORPG or MORPG, like Diablo, but assumed the "Massively" meant you had one big world that everyone is in at the same time.

Massive does not describe the world. Massive describes the number of players.

Massively-Multiplayer
Online Roleplaying Game


Yeah, like I said, I thought it was having a persistent, heavily populated world. When you hear "MMO" isn't that what you assume? ANY online game, such as Halo, could be called an "MMO" if all MMO stands for is "online multiplayer game with a massive number of players".

Edited, Jul 19th 2009 6:08pm by ihatetaru
____________________________
People don't accept the truth if it's typed in a tone unsympathetic to them. It doesn't make something any less true if someone you don't like is the one to enlighten you.
#13 Jul 19 2009 at 3:42 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
777 posts
ihatetaru wrote:
Karelyn wrote:
ihatetaru wrote:
I always figured Guild Wars was an ORPG or MORPG, like Diablo, but assumed the "Massively" meant you had one big world that everyone is in at the same time.

Massive does not describe the world. Massive describes the number of players.

Massively-Multiplayer
Online Roleplaying Game

Yeah, like I said, I thought it was having a persistent, heavily populated world. When you hear "MMO" isn't that what you assume? ANY online game, such as Halo, could be called an "MMO" if all MMO stands for is "online multiplayer game with a massive number of players".

You are nit picking. If you say Guild Wars isn't an MMO for that argument, you would also have to say D&D Online and EVE Online aren't MMOs.

Which would be two pills that are much harder to swallow.

Just because most of the game is instanced, or the game has no world at all, doesn't disqualify the game from being an MMO.
____________________________
KUMQUATS
#14 Jul 19 2009 at 8:30 PM Rating: Default
**
424 posts
Quote:

Massive does not describe the world. Massive describes the number of players.

Massively-Multiplayer
Online Roleplaying Game


Well, by that same reasoning, me playing Crystal Chronicles with a buddy online over the Wii counts as a MMORPG.

(the number of players is massive)
(we are playing multiplayer)
(we are playing online)
(it is a RPG)
(yes that is extreme nit-picking)

Yet we still need to include the Diabolo series in the 'MMORPG' genre if your interpretation of MMORPG is what holds true.

If FFXIV ends up being a game like Diabolo then I think we will all be disappointed. (Yeah I will play that game, and so will almost everyone else, and we will like)

I just won't pay a subscription fee for that. And I don't think a game like that will hold a candle in longevity to a game like FFXI or WoW or DAoCamelot or Ultima Online.
____________________________
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."
#15 Jul 19 2009 at 8:56 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,159 posts
Obiar wrote:
I keep thinking how SE said they want to make this game just as good for casual players as hardcore. I remember a game acclaimed for doing such a thing. The game is called Guildwars. In case you never heard of it, in this game you can choose to start at the top level and be provided with average gear and jump right in to end-game stuff or you could choose to start at level one and go through the game regularly. I hope SE doesn't do anything like this. I don't want my levels handed to me. I hope SE realizes how important the sense of accomplishment means in a game like this.


Breath. My goodness...just because SE says they want the game to have accessibility for casual players doesn't mean they'll go as far casual as you can get. You're creating horror stories with no good reason to.

With that said, also keep in mind SE has said they plan on making FFXIV the best FF ever. That means a good story with characters you can connect with. You can't have a good story or connect with anything if you skip to the end.
#16 Jul 19 2009 at 10:46 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
13 posts
Quote:
We might as well acknowledge Monster Hunter or the Diablo series as MMORPGs if we are counting Guild Wars.


Well, technically there IS a Monster Hunter MMO, its JPN only though :-P

Edited, Jul 20th 2009 2:47am by Shadowsongsix
#17 Jul 20 2009 at 8:50 AM Rating: Decent
**
879 posts
Starting from the max level? That's so stupid. I hope they don't do that.
____________________________
Spiderpalm, level 32 Undead Warlock of the server Lightbringer.
#18 Jul 25 2009 at 9:47 AM Rating: Decent
*
237 posts
What Makes ffxi an mmo is due to its consistence in large instanced areas where the majority of all zones you can interact with MORE than 4-6 players in most of the zones. MH and GW you are ONLY playing with 4 or 6 players and no more, the indicators are the players you can play with, not how many you can see in town. playing with 6 players is hardly "massive" when you can play with up to 64 players in dynamis. you will never breal the 4 or 6 player caps in MH or GW in actually play of the game.

MH and GW are Multi-player Online Games (MOGs :P) that will never go outside the 4 or 6 player caps in the parts of the games that matter. "Wow I can chat with hundreds of these other players" doesn't make the games massive, its the amount you can actually play with.

MH is a "Online Action Adventure Game" and GW is an "Online Fantasy Adventure Games" (You have the option to add "Multi-player" after the word Online to indicate the game isn't "Massive").

Peeps tend to always have some obscure and unsubstantiated reasoning behind why they refer to almost every online adventure game as an MMO (even "professional" game editors are guilty of this). "You can associate with hundreds of players in the towns!", All you do is chat in town.. thats not substantial. "The zones you visit are massive!", yeah and you're running around these big zones where you and you're party are the only player-characters allowed in your private instance.. not substantial.

Someone mentioned that Monster Hunter Frontier Online is "technically" an MMO, but They are technically wrong. These days people refer to as any online adventure game as an MMO indiscriminately. Its like one of those lame buzzwords like "hardcore" when referring to the types of gamers that play games. Where its used as a means of sensationalism and/or grandstanding without considering the merits.
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 31 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (31)