Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

Happy About Death PenaltyFollow

#52 May 04 2010 at 6:19 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
441 posts
Death penalties in FFXI were good to a certain degree. Like how you got sweaty palms even at level 75 exploring an area filled with ordinary mobs which could eat you for breakfast. Or how it encouraged you and your party members to work better as a team so you wouldn't cop a massive exp (and time) loss.

But it did get a little ridiculous when you wanted to solo. You could spend a good hour getting 3-4k/hr with your exp bands, and lose most of it with a single KO. As a beastmaster, the number of times you felt this pain was multiplied (kind of like when you play the tank position in a party and things go wrong).

If there is a penalty, it needs to be well implemented. It could be in the form of a weakened state, or slower exp gain or damage, but to penalise by wiping out an hour of hard work is a bit harsh.
____________________________
War 75 Nin75 Sam75
#53 May 04 2010 at 7:10 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
597 posts
Slower exp gain is probably the only other form of death penalty I'd be cool with (aside from durability loss) since it only slows you down rather than stopping you dead in your tracks or making you progress backwards.
____________________________
WoW - Andorhal
Darkkiwi - 85 Gnome Unholy Death Knight - <Flaming Bunnies>
Lightkiwi - 72 Gnome Disc Priest - <Flaming Bunnies>
Kwanita - 82 Gnome Frost Mage - <Flaming Bunnies>
Maglyn - 81 Gnome Protection Warrior - <Flaming Bunnies>


Don't play that game anymore. :P
#54 May 04 2010 at 8:09 AM Rating: Good
***
2,890 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
thorazinekizzez wrote:
Go to dude with yellow exclamation point get quest, don't read quest, look at map and it shows where to go, kill 5 wild boars come back to quest giver, select reward then get xp and gold. Movement is the same. Mounts are pretty much identical... The world looks the same. Hud elements look the same... THE TALENT TREES LOOK THE SAME.... The class system is the same... They even charge gold for respecs the same exact **** way...


Which would all be better or worse than...

Talk to NPC. Maybe they have a quest, maybe they don't. If they do, read quest description. Find out that it tells you next to nothing. Ignore quest for the time being. Sit around waiting for a group (or take the initiative and form your own). Go where everyone else goes. Kill hundreds of crabs/goblins/colibri. Use action bars that aren't quite action bars to activate abilities, or select them from scrolling menus. Leave party. Look up quest online. If it requires a group, ask around for someone to do it with you. Repeat for hours/days/weeks/months until you finally get a group to do it. If it doesn't require a group, get on chocobo/airship. Run for a while. Maybe sneak/invis. Run a bit more. Talk to NPC or tab around for invisible interface node. Return home. Talk to NPC quest giver. Gawk in disappointment at the trivial reward. Repeat.

Ya, I'll take the first option.


Or you can have an entirely new system tied into campaign battle making every quest given by regional npcs and the objectives actually change depending on things that go on in the battlefield. Streamline the Fields of valor system and the campaign questing system with better, completely new hud elements and literally add something bold and new to the genre. My questing and leveling up is having a greater effect on the world around me. Locations are taken over and lost while I am leveling..

I would LOVE IT if all the quests in the world were somehow tied in with a dynamic system and even at level one I was participating and helping out on the front lines of giant battles as a means to actually level up... FFXI almost had it they just needed to streamline things and base the game around it more. Doing supply runs at level 5 and actually contributing to help out the battles for higher level players trying their best to fend off beastmen armies..

Or you know, we can just put icons over the heads of static quest givers and do it the old way if you like that sort of thing. having people kill the quest giver and not be able to turn it in ect.... MEH!!

Edited, May 4th 2010 10:12am by thorazinekizzez
#55 May 04 2010 at 9:49 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
597 posts
thorazinekizzez wrote:
Or you can have an entirely new system tied into campaign battle making every quest given by regional npcs and the objectives actually change depending on things that go on in the battlefield. Streamline the Fields of valor system and the campaign questing system with better, completely new hud elements and literally add something bold and new to the genre. My questing and leveling up is having a greater effect on the world around me. Locations are taken over and lost while I am leveling..


The only game I can think of that has a dynamic quest system is Star Trek Online, and probably Champions Online as well, and it's ****. The script they use for the quests, iirc, looks something like this:

Quote:
Greetings, <CaptainName>.
We just received a message from <RandomStarSystem>. They need help with <RandomProblem>. Could you look after it? Thanks.

<NPCName> out.


And it just goes downhill from there because, in order to make this **** work, it needs to be as generic as possible. So when you arrive at the randomly-generated star system, they give you a randomly-generated distress call, talking about their randomly-generated problem, which requires you to beam down to a randomly-generated battlefield and deal with a bunch of randomly-generated enemies. No life can possibly be breathed into these randomly-generated situations, or you run the risk of creating a randomly-generated inconsistency when the system decides that the peace-loving aliens you helped out earlier should now be a warmongering horde. "Gee guys, the last time I was here, you just needed farming equipment. Now you want to declare war on the Federation? What gives?"

So your proposed system is basically asking for Square-Enix to remove the story-telling elements. From a Final Fantasy game. So you can do randomly-generated generic quests issued by an NPC. See the problem yet?

Quote:
I would LOVE IT if all the quests in the world were somehow tied in with a dynamic system and even at level one I was participating and helping out on the front lines of giant battles as a means to actually level up... FFXI almost had it they just needed to streamline things and base the game around it more. Doing supply runs at level 5 and actually contributing to help out the battles for higher level players trying their best to fend off beastmen armies..


You're assuming that there's front lines of giant battles to support, and I doubt that's going to be the case in a PvE game based on the Final Fantasy franchise. Maybe you could rework the systems to fit more with peacetime, which makes a lot more sense for a Final Fantasy game.

Quote:
Or you know, we can just put icons over the heads of static quest givers and do it the old way if you like that sort of thing. having people kill the quest giver and not be able to turn it in ect.... MEH!!


Yes, I like it when NPCs can be given personality when they ask me to do **** they could easily do if they walked 5 feet out of town; it makes me feel like I'm a character in a fantasy world and not just some dude staring at a catgirl's *** the whole time. If I wanted to do generic quests given by generic NPCs who all sound like robots, I'd play Star Trek Online.

Actually, some of the NPCs probably are robots...
____________________________
WoW - Andorhal
Darkkiwi - 85 Gnome Unholy Death Knight - <Flaming Bunnies>
Lightkiwi - 72 Gnome Disc Priest - <Flaming Bunnies>
Kwanita - 82 Gnome Frost Mage - <Flaming Bunnies>
Maglyn - 81 Gnome Protection Warrior - <Flaming Bunnies>


Don't play that game anymore. :P
#56The One and Only Aurelius, Posted: May 04 2010 at 9:58 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I just find it odd that you'll pick apart the quest system in one game and gloss over the dated quest system in another. Okay, maybe not odd. More...typical. The FFXI quest system in terms of immersion was horrible. Icons of any kind over NPC heads still detracts somewhat from the sense of immersion...I know when I've got something I need done at work I don't get a yellow exclamation point appearing over my head. It was highly functional, however.
#57 May 04 2010 at 10:42 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
180 posts
Allegory wrote:
Calispel wrote:
Development studios these days look at WoW's millions of subscribers and hope to achieve similar success by recycling the same gameplay with a new skin and story, hence the term "WoW clone".

And that's a totally inaccurate assessment.

Let's look at Lotro and Warhammer, since these two were some of the earliest alleged clones and ones which I am familair with having played them. Neither of them are clones.

None of the classes have counterparts in any of the games, beyond the general tropes found in all MORPGs. A Lotro Burglar is nothing like a WoW rogue, it's actually a lot more comparable to FFXI's thief because both classes are built around using their allies to fulfill their party role and neither does considerable direct damage. A Lotro hunter isn't at all like a WoW hunter; it doesn't even have a pet. The WAR white lion class is a melee pet class (which doesn't exists in either WoW or Lotro) and has more similarities with FFXI's beast and a class in EQ than anyhting in the supposed clone games.

What exactly is similar about Lotro's story to that of WoW beyond that of any western fantasy story? I'd really love to see you demonstrate this.

You're trying to simplify it down to all clones, but that argument falls flat out its face the second you try to point out any specific instances of cloning.


I said aside from the content, so that excludes the story... although LOTRO and WAR borrow heavily from existing material. Obviously any MMO is going to at least try to come up with its own lore. If the best differences you can come up with between those games are the classes and story, then you're not refuting my point at all. There are drastic differences between classes even in the SAME game.

Again, FFXI felt nothing like EQ. The battle system, the environment, the story and mission structure... nothing like EQ at all. On the other hand, when you play a 'modern' MMO with gameplay and an interface that feels exactly like WoW, well the term clone comes to mind. That doesn't happen because WoW is the holy grail of MMO's, it happens because they have millions of subscribers and everyone wants to cash in on that. Look at all the terrible free-to-play MMOs that have come out since then.

Not to get off topic, but I'm tired of the lack of originality in the genre currently. I don't like WoW, and since then it's been more of the same. I'm all for acessibility, but there are certain things in past MMO's that served more of a purpose than to inflict punishment or create time sinks. They created immersion and a sense of achievement that is lost in the current generation of MMO's.
#58 May 04 2010 at 10:50 AM Rating: Good
*
223 posts
Lubriderm the Hand wrote:
I've cited several EQ2 ways of doing things here on this board and I have absolutely no plan on going back to that game, nor do I want to see FFXIV just be an EQ2 clone.. Just because someone says they like a certain aspect of WoW, doesn't mean they want FFXIV to be an EQ2 clone. Most people aren't even saying 'OMGZ FFXIV needz to implement [insert subject here] just like WoW did!!!' They are typically just positing how it worked in that particular game.

It's called adding to the conversation in a constructive way. They will throw something out there, and typically, three or four people will say what they like about it or what they don't like about, or give a modified version of it.

One could ask, fairly, if you like FFXI so much, why don't you keep playing it?


I don't really know where this argument is coming from because I wasn't defending FFXI and tearing down WoW in any way. I tried to leave my posts as neutral as possible while simply getting across the point that when people say "WoW clone" it is not meant to be taken as literally as everything seems to be ignorantly doing. I also did NOT refer to WoW as a "cloned game" literally in my post, but rather figuratively to show an example. I'm guessing my post got defaulted because people failed to notice that and took my post as just another "WoW clone" rant, but it really wasn't. I was adding to the conversation in a constructive way so that, instead of focusing on the idiocy of creating an argument that is off-topic about whether or not "WoW clone" is politically correct, we should see the REAL ISSUE behind such comments and address them which is a **** of a lot more constructive than a one-sentence post saying "I really hate it when people say WoW clone." It's not that hard to understand what people are trying to get across with the term, even if you don't like it. They're not even necessarily saying anything bad about WoW with the term, but trying to say that don't want to see the same game, which is perfectly acceptable. It's just a term, everyone has their own to define things and it's just as ignorant to assume they're using WoW as the example because they don't know anything about other games. I compare the situations to WoW because it is the most popular MMO out there and people have a higher chance of understanding the reference as opposed to if I use Age of Conan which many people never played. And fyi, I have seen posts here saying "OMGZ FFXIV needz to do dis becuz WoW did it and it's da bestest!" I've equally seen posts saying that "FFXI did this the best and WoW should burn" as well, but that's really beyond the point of my argument. If they're going to posit how it works in the game, they have to actually do that in the post.

Last but not least, I didn't take any sides as to whether I like WoW or FFXI, nor imply that I "like FFXI so much." I actually want to see a new MMO that fits my playing tastes without it having to be incredibly similar to ANY other popular MMO. I realize many people think this is impossible, but I do not. That's my optimism for you, which also attributes to why I thought people would understand what I was trying to say in my first few posts.
#59 May 04 2010 at 11:45 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
597 posts
Calispel wrote:
Look at all the terrible free-to-play MMOs that have come out since then.


Key phrase there. Think that might have something to do with it?

Quote:
Not to get off topic, but I'm tired of the lack of originality in the genre currently. I don't like WoW, and since then it's been more of the same.


Be specific, please. The only game I've played after WoW is Aion, and I didn't consider it to be too similar to WoW aside from common interface elements and the fact that you do quests and kill monsters, and the endgame focus certainly seems to be different (PvP as opposed to PvE, though I never reached endgame so I'm not 100% certain). Warhammer, from what I've heard, is mostly focused on large-scale PvP battles, aka RvR/BGs, which flies in the face of WoW's more PvE-driven gameplay. AoC has open PvP, enabling you to kill anybody just because they looked at you funny; none of this faction garbage. Darkfall also has open PvP, with full looting, no tab-targetting, and a skill system that requires you to actually do **** to train your skills; in other words, it's a love letter to old-school Ultima Online.

Next time, look harder.

Quote:
I'm all for acessibility, but there are certain things in past MMO's that served more of a purpose than to inflict punishment or create time sinks. They created immersion and a sense of achievement that is lost in the current generation of MMO's.


Yes, because nothing says "immersion and achievement" like a crippling loss.
____________________________
WoW - Andorhal
Darkkiwi - 85 Gnome Unholy Death Knight - <Flaming Bunnies>
Lightkiwi - 72 Gnome Disc Priest - <Flaming Bunnies>
Kwanita - 82 Gnome Frost Mage - <Flaming Bunnies>
Maglyn - 81 Gnome Protection Warrior - <Flaming Bunnies>


Don't play that game anymore. :P
#60 May 04 2010 at 12:01 PM Rating: Decent
*
64 posts
the point of playing a game is to stimulate the reward center in the brain. wow stimulates until the brain goes numb and nothing really feels like an achievement anymore (trivializes content faster than it is cleared). ffxi was a great game because of the steep difficulty curve. staying alive meant more than just a few minutes timesink. it also kept allot of children from playing it since they do not like pain. i like pain. please bring the pain to ffxiv!
#61 May 04 2010 at 10:57 PM Rating: Default
Repressed Memories
******
20,808 posts
thorazinekizzez You're just so utterly. entirely wrong.
thorazinekizzez wrote:
Go to dude with yellow exclamation point get quest, don't read quest, look at map and it shows where to go, kill 5 wild boars come back to quest giver, select reward then get xp and gold.

This is pretty much every MMORPG ever. MMORPGS were doing this long before WoW. WoW might have popularized the question mark and exclamation point, but that's a general improvement to the system that any game with quests could use. Also your snide little comment about all games using the same marks is also wrong, because for example Lotro uses rings.

Having quests with rewards--or even quest based leveling is nothing that WoW invented--nor does its presence make a game any more a clone than all grind based based are clones of each other.
thorazinekizzez wrote:
Movement is the same.

That you run around and can jump? Again, nothing new to MMORPGs here.
thorazinekizzez wrote:
Mounts are pretty much identical...

Just flat out wrong. There isn't anything identical about the mounts between Lotro, WoW, and WAR.
thorazinekizzez wrote:
The world looks the same.

Wrong again. Lotro's world is without argument completely different in both aesthetic and story than WoW. WAR shares a few similarities, but that has more to do with Warcraft borrowing from Warhammer long before either MMORPG was conceived.
thorazinekizzez wrote:
Hud elements look the same...

A minimap is standard in most MMORPGs. Macro/Actions bars are standard now as well; you've had them in FFXI for a long time (they jsut aren't always displayed). Nothing is more similar between the games than anything that isn't similar across nearly all MMORPGs.
thorazinekizzez wrote:
THE TALENT TREES LOOK THE SAME....

Lotro doesn't even have talent trees; it's system is far more similar to FFXI merit points. WAR doesn't have any branches or choices other than just spending points in a particular area. The ability to customize your character is yet again not a new feature WoW invented.
thorazinekizzez wrote:
The class system is the same...

Nope, unless you mean in the most generic sense. I guess WOW is just a clone of FFXI though because WoW paladins cast heals and holy moves and tank and so do FFXI paladins, zomg?


You're the one grasping at straws. You pick at generic similarities that are present in all MMORPGs or you are outright dishonest about some aspects.

Edited, May 5th 2010 12:01am by Allegory
#62 May 05 2010 at 5:17 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
279 posts
outzaidurz wrote:
the point of playing a game is to stimulate the reward center in the brain. wow stimulates until the brain goes numb and nothing really feels like an achievement anymore (trivializes content faster than it is cleared). ffxi was a great game because of the steep difficulty curve. staying alive meant more than just a few minutes timesink. it also kept allot of children from playing it since they do not like pain. i like pain. please bring the pain to ffxiv!


I'll agree with the first part. WoW could overstimulate at time. ut FFXI understimulated until half it's players were compatose and quit. 'Pain' does not appeal to a lot of people. Something in the middle would be better. Have soem really hardcore stuff too, but not everything.
____________________________
WoW - Quel'dorei <ON HOLD>

Main: Tancoo (80 Tauren Enhance Shaman)
Other: Saraah (63 BE Paladin)
Raymund (47 Troll Hunter)

FFXI - Carbuncle <RETIRED>
Raymund - 45 DRG, 42 PLD, 26 BLU, 30 RNG, 1 NIN <- I miss you Buster!
#63 May 05 2010 at 12:14 PM Rating: Good
***
2,890 posts
Allegory wrote:
Nope, unless you mean in the most generic sense. I guess WOW is just a clone of FFXI though because WoW paladins cast heals and holy moves and tank and so do FFXI paladins, zomg?


You're the one grasping at straws


FFXI and WoWs class systems are extremely different. Forcing you to level a new character every time you want to play a new class. WoW most certainly did copy the concept of the paladin from FFXI and EQ though. Much in the same way warriors are pretty common among all MMOs.

Your idea of different is new icons and rearranged class abilities which is a flimsy stance... Yes moving on simple terrain mesh and jumping around with the exact same floaty jump mechanic and taking the same style of falling damage. When combat feels exactly the same and questing/progression feels exactly the same. Its close enough to be exactly the same to me. OH NOES LOTR DIDNT HAVE TALENT TREES.... -_- whatever, its still WoW...

And for the record, FFXI is significantly different from wow even when performing the same basic actions.
I am getting allot of this criticism based on "That can never work because its never been done right before" which is the short version of the response to my above points. Give me a break, the campaign system in FFXI was completely fresh idea and the spec ops quests it offered only needed more verity and tuning to be the core progression model for a completely new mmo... ( Its probably exactly what they are going to do... )
#64 May 05 2010 at 1:03 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
597 posts
thorazinekizzez wrote:
FFXI and WoWs class systems are extremely different. Forcing you to level a new character every time you want to play a new class.


FFXI does that too; you just don't have to log out and switch. That's the only difference.

Quote:
WoW most certainly did copy the concept of the paladin from FFXI and EQ though. Much in the same way warriors are pretty common among all MMOs.


Perhaps. Or maybe they copied the concept from the RTS series, which has been around for years. Or, you know, they've played D&D at least once, something Square is no stranger to, seeing as FF1 is basically "D&D First Edition: The Videogame".

Quote:
Your idea of different is new icons and rearranged class abilities which is a flimsy stance... Yes moving on simple terrain mesh and jumping around with the exact same floaty jump mechanic and taking the same style of falling damage. When combat feels exactly the same and questing/progression feels exactly the same. Its close enough to be exactly the same to me. OH NOES LOTR DIDNT HAVE TALENT TREES.... -_- whatever, its still WoW...


Nothing you've said can be attributed to WoW itself. I can just as easily attribute all of this to DAoC.

Quote:
And for the record, FFXI is significantly different from wow even when performing the same basic actions.
I am getting allot of this criticism based on "That can never work because its never been done right before" which is the short version of the response to my above points. Give me a break, the campaign system in FFXI was completely fresh idea and the spec ops quests it offered only needed more verity and tuning to be the core progression model for a completely new mmo... ( Its probably exactly what they are going to do... )


Correct me if I'm wrong, but Campaign sounds like RvR, only you're fighting mobs instead of players in order to control territory. Care to explain how something that was introduced in another game in 2001 is supposedly new and fresh 9 years after the fact?

I'm starting to get the impression that WoW is actually a DAoC clone, and that all of our ire should be redirected towards it as the true enemy of innovative MMO gaming.
____________________________
WoW - Andorhal
Darkkiwi - 85 Gnome Unholy Death Knight - <Flaming Bunnies>
Lightkiwi - 72 Gnome Disc Priest - <Flaming Bunnies>
Kwanita - 82 Gnome Frost Mage - <Flaming Bunnies>
Maglyn - 81 Gnome Protection Warrior - <Flaming Bunnies>


Don't play that game anymore. :P
#65 May 05 2010 at 5:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
**
441 posts
With all things in life, there will always be people who are too happy to chime in "it's already been done before". Obviously, if it works well, why wouldn't you want to copy a competitor's best practices?

Rather than focusing on how concepts are carried over from successful enterprises, we should be more concerned about how developers plan to evolve and innovate our gaming experiences.

So far everyone has talked about death penalties which have already been implemented in other games (myself included). What about something new, and specific to FFXIV? It could be something as silly as having random dark spots appear on your screen, which could mimick a character's confusion from getting KO'd...or having flying moogles kupo'ing around in circles over your head.
____________________________
War 75 Nin75 Sam75
#66 May 05 2010 at 5:11 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,808 posts
thorazinekizzez wrote:
FFXI and WoWs class systems are extremely different. Forcing you to level a new character every time you want to play a new class. WoW most certainly did copy the concept of the paladin from FFXI and EQ though. Much in the same way warriors are pretty common among all MMOs.

You kind of just tripped over the point without realizing it. Paladins in WoW, FFXI, EQ, D&D, and many other games are all fairly similar. They follow the same tropes and the same framework. But no one would argue that an FFXI paladin is a clone of an EQ paladin ,or that the WoW paladin is a clone of the D&D paladin.

You're taking any and all broad similarities between games with similar frameworks to WoW and reducing them down to clones of each other. Very little in any media is entirely unique or original. Lotro and WAR are similar to WoW, because they're all part of the same casual friendly set of MMORPGs; but that's not enough to call them clones. If you compare EQ and FFXI against an MMORPG that is vastly different, such as Maple Story, then you can easily make all the same arguments that FFXI is just a clone of EQ.

Hearts and Spades are two card games that are fairly similar, but they aren't clones. Badminton and Tennis are similar games, but they aren't clones. Star Wars monopoly and Simpsons monopoly are clones. Storm Troopers are clones.
#67 May 05 2010 at 8:26 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,890 posts
so kids what we are learning here today is that War, LOTR, and Conan are not wow clones... Even though Blizzard themselves have said in reference to these titles that a future mmo should be something other than a WoW clone to have a chance at being successful..

Things that make you go DERP!
#68 May 05 2010 at 8:37 PM Rating: Decent
**
736 posts
Because Blizzard obviously doesn't have any ulterior motives in a PR tactic that highlights their market dominance.
Nope, I'm sure they're handing out advice to their competitors out of the saintly goodness of their hearts.


Edited, May 5th 2010 10:38pm by Zemzelette
#69 May 05 2010 at 8:38 PM Rating: Default
thorazinekizzez wrote:
so kids what we are learning here today is that War, LOTR, and Conan are not wow clones... Even though Blizzard themselves have said in reference to these titles that a future mmo should be something other than a WoW clone to have a chance at being successful..

Things that make you go DERP!


No, it seems like what we've got here is a poster name thorazinekizzez who is not so bright and voluntarily dense. It's been explained to you fairly clearly by at least a couple of people. If you can't grasp it, that's your issue. Don't make it ours.
#70 May 05 2010 at 8:45 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,890 posts
So what term would you use instead to describe LOTR, war, and Conan?
Heavily inspired?
Completely unique?
Total coincidences? Whoops?

And you of all people calling someone voluntarily dense? This is rich...

Edited, May 5th 2010 10:46pm by thorazinekizzez
#71 May 05 2010 at 8:48 PM Rating: Decent
thorazinekizzez wrote:
So what term would you use instead to describe LOTR, war, and Conan?
Heavily inspired?
Completely unique?
Total coincidences? Whoops?

And you of all people calling someone voluntarily dense? This is rich...


Why aren't you refering to FFXI as an EQ/UO clone? Why aren't you refering to all MMOs as MUD clones? If you're gonig to apply the term, apply it across the board...not selectively because it suits your argument.
#72 May 05 2010 at 9:08 PM Rating: Good
***
2,890 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
thorazinekizzez wrote:
So what term would you use instead to describe LOTR, war, and Conan?
Heavily inspired?
Completely unique?
Total coincidences? Whoops?

And you of all people calling someone voluntarily dense? This is rich...


Why aren't you refering to FFXI as an EQ/UO clone? Why aren't you refering to all MMOs as MUD clones? If you're gonig to apply the term, apply it across the board...not selectively because it suits your argument.


Actually FFXI was designed around the EverQuest design model as was World of Warcraft.
The only reason they are not referred to as Everquest clones is that enough people agreed that they brought something new enough to the table.

If its not a significant step up from its predecessor its considered a clone.
Quake is not a Doom clone because it was a significant step up in terms of technology.
Everquest is not an Ultima clone because it is a fully 3d environment and played significantly different.
Ultima is not a MUD clone because it had graphics and it played significantly different.
Call of duty is not a counter strike clone because of presentation and features that make it play very different...
Halo is.. Half life + Quake 1 lol barely different enough to make it not really a Quake clone.... taking out vehicles and shield/heal system would probably tip the scales....

The only way to NOT be a clone of a predecessor is to significantly move the genre itself forward. And thus the term clone is used to call warhammer, LOTR, Conan, Aion wow clones... They dont really move the genre forward in a significant way. Such as what Doom was to Quake 1.

Edited, May 5th 2010 11:19pm by thorazinekizzez
#73 May 05 2010 at 9:21 PM Rating: Default
thorazinekizzez wrote:
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
thorazinekizzez wrote:
So what term would you use instead to describe LOTR, war, and Conan?
Heavily inspired?
Completely unique?
Total coincidences? Whoops?

And you of all people calling someone voluntarily dense? This is rich...


Why aren't you refering to FFXI as an EQ/UO clone? Why aren't you refering to all MMOs as MUD clones? If you're gonig to apply the term, apply it across the board...not selectively because it suits your argument.


Actually FFXI was designed around the EverQuest design model as was World of Warcraft.


I stopped reading after that. It's really the only thing you've said so far that has made sense and I was afraid if I read any further, you'd let me down.

Thanks for coming out.
#74 May 05 2010 at 9:26 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,890 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:

I stopped reading after that. It's really the only thing you've said so far that has made sense and I was afraid if I read any further, you'd let me down.

Thanks for coming out.


Thats an awesome response!
here let me explain it simple. The term "WoW clone" is in fact not overused and fits the above titles perfectly.
#75 May 05 2010 at 10:39 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,808 posts
thorazinekizzez wrote:
The term "WoW clone" is in fact not overused and fits the above titles perfectly.

Which is fine so long as you admit that this is solely based upon your own opinion. So far, you have failed to demonstrate this beyond your personal feeling that the games are too similar.

If it makes you happy to call any MMORPG that has quests, movement, mounts, a medieval fantasy world, a HUD, character customization, and classes a WoW clone then that is just dandy. Realize though that it makes me happy to point out how ridiculous this is.

Edited, May 5th 2010 11:49pm by Allegory
#76 May 05 2010 at 10:42 PM Rating: Good
**
736 posts
Quote:
The only reason they are not referred to as Everquest clones is that enough people agreed that they brought something new enough to the table.


You mean the forums full of people who are largely composed of loyal customers don't want to belittle via association the product they've invested hundreds of dollars and years of their lives into? I'm going to start being a even more of a smartass about this ulterior motive thing if I have to point it out a third time :p

If you've never played old school MUDs or UO, it's easy to look back at Everquest and XI and think 'those don't seem too similar, the things they have in common are basic MMO stuff, surely all the extra things XI does makes it very different'. Except, Everquest is where most of the conventions we take for granted as 'standard' were originally formed. Once upon a time, those were 'Everquest's features'.




Edited, May 6th 2010 12:55am by Zemzelette
#77 May 06 2010 at 10:34 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
180 posts
Allegory wrote:

...
Lotro and WAR are similar to WoW, because they're all part of the same casual friendly set of MMORPGs; but that's not enough to call them clones. If you compare EQ and FFXI against an MMORPG that is vastly different, such as Maple Story, then you can easily make all the same arguments that FFXI is just a clone of EQ.
...


What people are referring to when they use the term "WoW' clone, is that casual friendly set of MMORPGs you mentioned, which just about every MMO since WoW has been a part of. All of us can debate the meaning of the word 'clone' and whether it applies to these games forever and we aren't going to agree, however I think everyone understands what those who use the term are trying to say. Basically they want an MMO outside that set, of which WoW was the key founder, and since then there has been nothing available. Some in that set play more similarly to WoW than others, with just a different story and theme/classes to set them apart. Whether they are close enough to be labeled as a clone, or advance the genre enough to avoid the label, is a matter of personal opinion.
#78 May 06 2010 at 11:01 AM Rating: Decent
Calispel wrote:
Allegory wrote:

...
Lotro and WAR are similar to WoW, because they're all part of the same casual friendly set of MMORPGs; but that's not enough to call them clones. If you compare EQ and FFXI against an MMORPG that is vastly different, such as Maple Story, then you can easily make all the same arguments that FFXI is just a clone of EQ.
...


What people are referring to when they use the term "WoW' clone, is that casual friendly set of MMORPGs you mentioned, which just about every MMO since WoW has been a part of. All of us can debate the meaning of the word 'clone' and whether it applies to these games forever and we aren't going to agree, however I think everyone understands what those who use the term are trying to say. Basically they want an MMO outside that set, of which WoW was the key founder, and since then there has been nothing available. Some in that set play more similarly to WoW than others, with just a different story and theme/classes to set them apart. Whether they are close enough to be labeled as a clone, or advance the genre enough to avoid the label, is a matter of personal opinion.


If that's the common meaning behind the term "WoW clone"...a casual friendly MMO...then we can settle this long-standing argument once and for all: FFXIV will be a WoW clone.

Whew...glad to finally have that out of the way. Those strongly opposed to the idea of playing a WoW clone...sorry. Blame Wada, I guess. The FFXI and EQ boards here are still showing signs of life. Thanks for stopping by.
#79 May 06 2010 at 11:20 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,523 posts
Quote:
WoW clone


Meh FFXIV's UI is almost exactly the same as what WoW has as a standard (though a lot of people overwrite it with their own tweaked UI). Do I have a problem with that? Nope, because it works.
____________________________
____(>°°)D_->__(O°°)>-_<(;,,;)>_C-(°°Q)__O~~_t(°°<)_(;o0)___<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_____

#80 May 06 2010 at 11:28 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
180 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:

If that's the common meaning behind the term "WoW clone"...a casual friendly MMO...then we can settle this long-standing argument once and for all: FFXIV will be a WoW clone.

Whew...glad to finally have that out of the way. Those strongly opposed to the idea of playing a WoW clone...sorry. Blame Wada, I guess. The FFXI and EQ boards here are still showing signs of life. Thanks for stopping by.


Well I suppose I should have said "casual focused" rather than "casual friendly", but I was just quoting Allegory. Has the FFXIV team defined their core audience as the casual gamer yet? I don't believe we've seen enough to say one way or another, though each new piece of information seems to indicate that it is (hence the dissapointment from those who don't enjoy playing WoW).

Your comment about the EQ and FFXI boards was unneccesary though, and is along the same lines as someone saying "Go back to WoW'. People who enjoyed EQ and FFXI are just as entitled to want a fresh MMO to play as those who enjoyed WoW, however the latter already have plenty of options available to them today. Being a member of the former group, I see that as genre stagnation, but if you enjoy WoW I can see how you might feel it's a good thing.


Edited, May 6th 2010 1:30pm by Calispel
#81The One and Only Aurelius, Posted: May 06 2010 at 11:51 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) For people who have been harshly opposed to the idea of a casual-friendly MMO, it's put up or shut up time. With the information already out about FFXIV, it's pretty obvious that it's going to be very casual friendly. Accessable rapid travel, scaleable difficulty on guildleves, viable solo play...all things that lend themselves very handily to suit the needs of a casual player. One of the interesting things about MMOs is that you can have a casual friendly MMO with abundant elements suited towards the more dedicated/hardcore, but it's pretty tough to have a hardcore MMO with enough casual elements to keep casual players happy. And so knowing that...and having repeated that countless times in the last 10-11 months to people who just refuse to nab a clue, it's time to see who meant what they said and who was just talking out of their *** to suit their ego.
#82 May 06 2010 at 1:20 PM Rating: Good
***
2,890 posts
Allegory wrote:
thorazinekizzez wrote:
The term "WoW clone" is in fact not overused and fits the above titles perfectly.

Which is fine so long as you admit that this is solely based upon your own opinion.


well..
I am explaining in my opinion as to why so many MMOs are widely accepted by the majority of people who play MMOs to be WoW clones. And why the vast majority of people do use the term WoW clone to describe games such as Warhammer, LOTR, Aion and Conan with perfect justification. Basically I am attempting to alleviate your confusion about the topic at hand.

This is also why these games are considered to have such lackluster success compared to WoW.. There intentions where to copy wow closely as possible and thus siphon from its success without thinking about how the game would then fall short of the things that make WoW such a good, feature rich game. Great starting sales with no staying power. Because WoW is the better game. Im just breaking it down for you guys here. This is not just my opinion.

You guys can go ahead and kill the messenger all you want. Feet on ground please, your living outside of reality....

Edited, May 6th 2010 3:20pm by thorazinekizzez
#83 May 06 2010 at 1:29 PM Rating: Default
thorazinekizzez wrote:

well..
I am explaining in my opinion as to why so many MMOs are widely accepted by the majority of people who play MMOs to be WoW clones. And why the vast majority of people do use the term WoW clone to describe games such as Warhammer, LOTR, Aion and Conan with perfect justification. Basically I am attempting to alleviate your confusion about the topic at hand.

This is also why these games are considered to have such lackluster success compared to WoW.. There intentions where to copy wow closely as possible and thus siphon from its success without thinking about how the game would then fall short of the things that make WoW such a good, feature rich game. Great starting sales with no staying power. Because WoW is the better game. Im just breaking it down for you guys here. This is not just my opinion.


No, no. It's your opinion. The devs of your so-called WoW clones didn't intend to "copy WoW closely as possible." I have no doubt they intended to implement concepts and features they saw in other games...including WoW...that they felt were functional. That doesn't mean they were going out of their way to make a copy.
#84 May 06 2010 at 1:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
*
180 posts
I hardly consider myself hardcore. I'm somewhere inbetween. I never participated in the FFXI end game. I never did dynamis, sea, sky, never finished CoP (not for lack of trying) or achieved rank 10 - in five years of playing. Yet I enjoyed the game and managed to level most all jobs to at least 37. Where does that leave someone like me in a game where levels 1-engame are essentially an extensive tutorial? Extreme casual friendly works in WoW where that part of the game is essentially throw-away, but I think it'd be a huge mistake in a successor to FFXI... which had a ton of challenging and meaningful content throughout the leveling process.

I'm still following FFXIV because it's still unclear how far they are pushing it toward the casual extreme. There's still hope because Square-Enix is not known for completely compromising their vision for a quick gil. I'm not opposed to casual elements as long as they don't make the game shallow and repetitive, which has been the case with every 'modern' MMO and the reason why they haven't held my interest for more than few months. I'm going to give this one a try regardless and hope it fares better. There's nothing else even remotely interesting on the horizon anyway.

Aurelius, I swear you purposefully provoke those you respond to because a post made out of frustration or anger is easier to rip apart. ;) ...or at least that's the impression I've had over the past few months of reading. I don't think we've agreed on anything other than the fact that your new machine looks sweet.
#85 May 06 2010 at 1:52 PM Rating: Default
Calispel wrote:
I hardly consider myself hardcore. I'm somewhere inbetween. I never participated in the FFXI end game. I never did dynamis, sea, sky, never finished CoP (not for lack of trying) or achieved rank 10 - in five years of playing. Yet I enjoyed the game and managed to level most all jobs to at least 37. Where does that leave someone like me in a game where levels 1-engame are essentially an extensive tutorial? Extreme casual friendly works in WoW where that part of the game is essentially throw-away, but I think it'd be a huge mistake in a successor to FFXI... which had a ton of challenging and meaningful content throughout the leveling process.


So in other words, your concern has nothing to do with whether or not the game is casual friendly and everything to do with whether or not there's going to be enough content in the game to keep you occupied and entertained, yes?

My interpretation of casual friendly is a game where you can log in and no matter what anyone else is doing, you can still plunk yourself down and get down to the business of progressing your character in a way that's entertaining and meaningful to you. That's it. It says nothing to the speed of progression, the ease of earning an income, accessibilty of good gear, or anything of the sort. It means what it means...that you can be casual and still find consistent entertainment value in the game you're paying a monthly fee to play.

If that's the case, I'm sure you can pause for a few moments and figure out how it would be entirely possible to have a casual friendly game without shorting players on things to do to keep them happily engaged for a good long time.

Quote:
Aurelius, I swear you purposefully provoke those you respond to because a post made out of frustration or anger is easier to rip apart. ;) ...or at least that's the impression I've had over the past few months of reading. I don't think we've agreed on anything other than the fact that your new machine looks sweet.


I challenge ideas. Some people can handle it and carry on an intelligent discussion. Other people melt down, get defensive, and make themselves into mockery fodder. It's just another win-win for me. People may hate me for it, but there's rarely a dull moment to be had when I'm stirring things up.
#86 May 06 2010 at 2:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
***
1,523 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:

WoW isn't casual focused. It's casual friendly. Competitive arena and top tier raiding in WoW are not casual focused and aren't intended to be, and like most MMOs that have been out for longer than a year or two, the developers efforts are focused around endgame (ie. the focus is not on the process that gets you from level 1 -> endgame). You can still raid in WoW if you are casual, and there is nothing stopping you from playing on an arena team as a casual player, but your end results will be quite limited.


I'm baffled.

So far every expansion has added extra solo grinding of new zones for 10 more levels. In the next expansion the old world is being torn apart and replaced by new/updated zones to get people to grind yet again.

Sure the focus right now has been more about endgame, but that's kind of natural right?
-Blizzard brings out new expansion with new ways to level, first raid.
-Blizzard focuses on endgame to keep players at max level from becoming bored.
-Blizzard brings out next expansion...

When you can do almost everything with casual play (far more then other play styles), how can you deny that casual play is not dominating.
____________________________
____(>°°)D_->__(O°°)>-_<(;,,;)>_C-(°°Q)__O~~_t(°°<)_(;o0)___<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_____

#87 May 06 2010 at 2:21 PM Rating: Default
***
2,890 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:

No, no. It's your opinion. The devs of your so-called WoW clones didn't intend to "copy WoW closely as possible." I have no doubt they intended to implement concepts and features they saw in other games...including WoW...that they felt were functional. That doesn't mean they were going out of their way to make a copy.


I am the only person huh.. Even though the devs themselves had many times admitted it themselves that their intentions where to make wow with a new skin..
Fail troll...
#88 May 06 2010 at 2:35 PM Rating: Decent
RedGalka wrote:
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:

WoW isn't casual focused. It's casual friendly. Competitive arena and top tier raiding in WoW are not casual focused and aren't intended to be, and like most MMOs that have been out for longer than a year or two, the developers efforts are focused around endgame (ie. the focus is not on the process that gets you from level 1 -> endgame). You can still raid in WoW if you are casual, and there is nothing stopping you from playing on an arena team as a casual player, but your end results will be quite limited.


I'm baffled.

So far every expansion has added extra solo grinding of new zones for 10 more levels. In the next expansion the old world is being torn apart and replaced by new/updated zones to get people to grind yet again.

Sure the focus right now has been more about endgame, but that's kind of natural right?
-Blizzard brings out new expansion with new ways to level, first raid.
-Blizzard focuses on endgame to keep players at max level from becoming bored.
-Blizzard brings out next expansion...

When you can do almost everything with casual play (far more then other play styles), how can you deny that casual play is not dominating.


You can't do "almost everything" with casual play. You can PUG raids with casual play. You can muddle your way through those same raids in a casual/social guild. You're going to miss out on a very large chunk of content that way, but that doesn't mean you can't raid. See the difference? You still have things to do as a casual player. You can still experience a large amount of the content, but you're not going to experience it all. At least, not until the next expansion when the step up in levels and gear makes older raid content substantially easier, and there are a lot of people who take advantage of that in order to see content that owuld have otherwise been inaccessible to them. A miniscule number of players (relaitvely speaking) can play WoW with casual time constraints and see the entire scope of the content, but that's because they're **** good players. For Joe Average casual player, there are a significant number of restrictions at play that prevent them from getting the full experience. The difference is, there are a lot of other things that Joe Average can do to occupy his time. Casual friendly. Not casual focused.
#89 May 06 2010 at 2:41 PM Rating: Decent
thorazinekizzez wrote:
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:

No, no. It's your opinion. The devs of your so-called WoW clones didn't intend to "copy WoW closely as possible." I have no doubt they intended to implement concepts and features they saw in other games...including WoW...that they felt were functional. That doesn't mean they were going out of their way to make a copy.


I am the only person huh.. Even though the devs themselves had many times admitted it themselves that their intentions where to make wow with a new skin..
Fail troll...


Ya, for someone who claimed it was impossible to detect third party apps, I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're pulling that out of your ***, too. Links or it didn't happen.

You might also want to learn what a troll is with regards to discussion forums.

****, just get a little less dumb in general, k?
#90 May 06 2010 at 3:27 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
180 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:

So in other words, your concern has nothing to do with whether or not the game is casual friendly and everything to do with whether or not there's going to be enough content in the game to keep you occupied and entertained, yes?

My interpretation of casual friendly is a game where you can log in and no matter what anyone else is doing, you can still plunk yourself down and get down to the business of progressing your character in a way that's entertaining and meaningful to you. That's it. It says nothing to the speed of progression, the ease of earning an income, accessibilty of good gear, or anything of the sort. It means what it means...that you can be casual and still find consistent entertainment value in the game you're paying a monthly fee to play.

If that's the case, I'm sure you can pause for a few moments and figure out how it would be entirely possible to have a casual friendly game without shorting players on things to do to keep them happily engaged for a good long time.


I agree it is possible, though I've yet to see one come out. If anyone can do it, Square-Enix can.

Casual friendly in practice though almost always means increasing the rates of all those things you mentioned in order to make the person who has one hour of game time a week feel like they're making decent progress. The pool of potential players goes way up when they can market to those people but it lessens the lasting appeal of the game to everyone else. From what I hear, WoW just periodically releases new sets of gear to serve as the carrot on the stick to keep the rest paying. WoW has its place, but I'd like to play something a little more involved than that.

That's why when I hear the words 'casual friendly' I cringe and assume the worst. If they can make a casual friendly game with meaningful content that can't be summarized with a formula like: complete random quests 1-10 at quest hub A, then move onto quest hub B and complete variations of the same, then repeat ad-nauseum for two months until end-game (which I have no interest in), then I might actually stick around for awhile. Announcements of casual friendly elements like the leve system have me worried though, especially if the entire game is built around them. That kind of system results in a forgettable game experience full of random content designed to funnel you to the end as quickly as possible. When I think of 'WoW clone', I think of a game that plays and looks similar to WoW and follows this pattern. Most modern MMO's that I've played do, but I'm still holding out hope that FFXIV has some depth and excitement to it despite the implementation of certain modern 'enhancements' that I disagree with.
#91 May 06 2010 at 4:15 PM Rating: Default
Calispel wrote:
Casual friendly in practice though almost always means increasing the rates of all those things you mentioned in order to make the person who has one hour of game time a week feel like they're making decent progress. The pool of potential players goes way up when they can market to those people but it lessens the lasting appeal of the game to everyone else. From what I hear, WoW just periodically releases new sets of gear to serve as the carrot on the stick to keep the rest paying. WoW has its place, but I'd like to play something a little more involved than that.


Casual friendly in practice is largely accomplished by ensuring that there is ample content that can be approached as a solo player and in small groups. On my most recent "main" character in WoW, it took me 8 days, 22 hours to go from level 1-80. 214 hours. Keep in mind that this was by no means my first character to level. I knew all of the zones, all of the quest hubs, and all of the quests necessary to make an extremely expeditious trip through all 80 of those levels. I didn't have to take time out to farm for gold to fund mounts, or materials/gold to level crafting professions. I leveled that character specifically for the purpose of filling a spot in the only half-decent raiding guild left on my realm at that time. So in other words, for a new player leveling to the cap for the first time it would take substantially longer.

That's a fair bit of time to keep someone occupied. And that's just leveling. Throw in gathering to level professions (or farming/questing to pay for the materials) which can be done solo, rep grinds (most of which can be done solo), and working on achievements (also most of which can be done solo) and the scope of content is vast. I don't really put much stock in the commentary from people who rushed rushed rushed to the cap and then complained that they were bored. If you skip the lion's share of the content in the game, does that mean there is no content?

Blizzard doesn't just "release new gear". They release new content, and then by taking part in that content you can earn new gear. (With the most recent expansion, you can get the bottom-tier pieces of those new gear sets just by running old 5-man content over and over again, but it's an extremely drawn out process if you approach it that way, and there will still be certain things that are inaccessible.)

And SE can do exactly the same thing quite handily with FFXIV. Guildleves are shaping up to be a very powerful tool for allowing them to create abundant, diverse content. SE is still experimenting with the rate of progression in the alpha and how long it will take to move from one physical level/class rank to the next is yet to be seen. How entertaining solo content will be beyond a certain level is yet to be seen. And really, none of that matters. What matters is that people can log in and play. If you took all of the artificial timesinks out of FFXI (ie. waiting for a group), you'd probably find that the pacing of progression isn't so different between FFXI and WoW. I'd say FFXI would most likely still require more time for some of the top rewards, but a funny thing would happen. If you took the LFG wait times out of FFXI and tweaked the travel system to be more efficient, it would qualify as casual friendly.
#92 May 06 2010 at 4:18 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,808 posts
thorazinekizzez wrote:
I am explaining in my opinion as to why so many MMOs are widely accepted by the majority of people who play MMOs to be WoW clones. And why the vast majority of people do use the term WoW clone to describe games such as Warhammer, LOTR, Aion and Conan with perfect justification.

Yeah, you claiming things just doesn't make them true. The overwhelming majority of people don't believe these games are WoW clones. See how easy it is to just say things? The majority of people believe you're incorrect and disagree with you. See, I did it again.

Don't build your arguments upon evidences you can't prove.
thorazinekizzez wrote:
Great starting sales with no staying power.

You mean most every MMORPG ever? This isn't unique to games similar to WoW. Most MMORPGs see a significant drop after release. IT happened to Vangaurd. It happened to Star Trek. It happens to most games. This has almost nothing to do with the style of the games and almost everything to do with the games being horribly incimplete and buggy. Warhammer straight up cut 4 of the major cities and 2 of the classes that were supposed to be released so it could ship in time, and much of the higher level content was incomplete and buggy. Vanguard is well known for shipping incomplete.

Notably one of the most recently successful games is Aion--which surprises me honestly because that game seemed terrible--which is one of the alleged "WoW clones." It's sitting pretty with around 4 million subscribers.

Edited, May 6th 2010 5:21pm by Allegory
#93 May 06 2010 at 5:05 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
180 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:

Casual friendly in practice is largely accomplished by ensuring that there is ample content that can be approached as a solo player and in small groups. On my most recent "main" character in WoW, it took me 8 days, 22 hours to go from level 1-80. 214 hours. Keep in mind that this was by no means my first character to level. I knew all of the zones, all of the quest hubs, and all of the quests necessary to make an extremely expeditious trip through all 80 of those levels. I didn't have to take time out to farm for gold to fund mounts, or materials/gold to level crafting professions. I leveled that character specifically for the purpose of filling a spot in the only half-decent raiding guild left on my realm at that time. So in other words, for a new player leveling to the cap for the first time it would take substantially longer.

That's a fair bit of time to keep someone occupied. And that's just leveling. Throw in gathering to level professions (or farming/questing to pay for the materials) which can be done solo, rep grinds (most of which can be done solo), and working on achievements (also most of which can be done solo) and the scope of content is vast. I don't really put much stock in the commentary from people who rushed rushed rushed to the cap and then complained that they were bored. If you skip the lion's share of the content in the game, does that mean there is no content?

Blizzard doesn't just "release new gear". They release new content, and then by taking part in that content you can earn new gear. (With the most recent expansion, you can get the bottom-tier pieces of those new gear sets just by running old 5-man content over and over again, but it's an extremely drawn out process if you approach it that way, and there will still be certain things that are inaccessible.)

And SE can do exactly the same thing quite handily with FFXIV. Guildleves are shaping up to be a very powerful tool for allowing them to create abundant, diverse content. SE is still experimenting with the rate of progression in the alpha and how long it will take to move from one physical level/class rank to the next is yet to be seen. How entertaining solo content will be beyond a certain level is yet to be seen. And really, none of that matters. What matters is that people can log in and play. If you took all of the artificial timesinks out of FFXI (ie. waiting for a group), you'd probably find that the pacing of progression isn't so different between FFXI and WoW. I'd say FFXI would most likely still require more time for some of the top rewards, but a funny thing would happen. If you took the LFG wait times out of FFXI and tweaked the travel system to be more efficient, it would qualify as casual friendly.


I'll have to take your word for it, since your WoW experience is much more extensive than mine. However, all of my friends that played WoW for any great length of time haved told me that the game basically begins at level 80, and that any content before that is simply filler just to get you to 80 more quickly. Haven't they implemented numerous exp rate increases over the years? I believe they even allowed you to start a new class at 50 when it was introduced. Correct me if I'm wrong. Given those stats, even in the best case scenario I'd be done with the game in six months, but most likely less.

Abundant content is meaningless if it is also generic. Yeah you can log in and play immediately, but how exciting or rewarding is the nth variation of kill 10 rats going to be a year after the game launches? Especially if you end up doing it by yourself. I think it's fine to have that as long as it isn't the main method of advancement. Most modern MMO's I've played rely solely on this pattern to move players quickly through the game in a streamlined repetitive fashion because it's easier to satisfy the casual player this way.
#94 May 06 2010 at 5:33 PM Rating: Decent
**
562 posts
Quote:

My interpretation of casual friendly is a game where you can log in and no matter what anyone else is doing, you can still plunk yourself down and get down to the business of progressing your character in a way that's entertaining and meaningful to you. That's it. It says nothing to the speed of progression, the ease of earning an income, accessibilty of good gear, or anything of the sort. It means what it means...that you can be casual and still find consistent entertainment value in the game you're paying a monthly fee to play.


Agreed. When I hear that this game is going to be "casual friendly" I think that if I only have an hour to log in and play I'll be able to something done. Where as if I have a nice chunk of time I'll be able to do things on a larger scale.


As for the issue of clone/not clone... I don't really care what anyone calls it as long as it's fun to play. If it's "just Final Fantasy XI-2" but is just as much (or even more) fun, I'm in. I'll be playing for a good long time. That's how I feel. So far, I'm very interested and excited. Calling it a copy, a clone, or just like ______ isn't going to change what I'm excited for already.
____________________________
The more I train, the harder I get. The harder I get, the more lethal I am. The more lethal I am, the fewer opponents. The fewer opponents, the less to lose. The less to lose, the more I let up. The more I let up, the more room for mistakes. The more room for mistakes, the more I train.

#95 May 06 2010 at 6:20 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,808 posts
Calispel wrote:
I'll have to take your word for it, since your WoW experience is much more extensive than mine. However, all of my friends that played WoW for any great length of time haved told me that the game basically begins at level 80, and that any content before that is simply filler just to get you to 80 more quickly. Haven't they implemented numerous exp rate increases over the years? I believe they even allowed you to start a new class at 50 when it was introduced. Correct me if I'm wrong. Given those stats, even in the best case scenario I'd be done with the game in six months, but most likely less.

You've got the general idea and points correct. Achieving max level in WoW is both easy and fast, whereas I say achieving max level in FFXI is easy but not so very fast.

The idea that the game begins at 80 is perhaps something very subjective. I think that the same comment could be said about FFXI or most any other MMORPG. Any content before max level in WoW is full of equipment that you will eventually discard (like most equipment in FFXI, EQ, etc). You spend most of your time leveling, raising craft skills, and exploring; that seems to be what most MMORPGs offer before max level. WoW quest grinding to max level is as much filler as FFXI grinding to max level, and with a little more variety I'd say.

The new Death Knight class was introduced at level 55, but it makes a lot of sense. First you need to have reached level 55 with another class, so you must go through all the starting stuff at least once. The question is, why go through all the starting stuff again? Since the Death Knight had been introduced so late into the game, most players had been through the first 30 levels or so of the game dozens of times over. There really is no reason to force them to repeat it.
Calispel wrote:
Abundant content is meaningless if it is also generic. Yeah you can log in and play immediately, but how exciting or rewarding is the nth variation of kill 10 rats going to be a year after the game launches? Especially if you end up doing it by yourself. I think it's fine to have that as long as it isn't the main method of advancement. Most modern MMO's I've played rely solely on this pattern to move players quickly through the game in a streamlined repetitive fashion because it's easier to satisfy the casual player this way.

Well I agree in an absolute sense; that is, most of the quests follow a set of templates (kill x mobs, collect x items, kill special named guy, find treasure) which aren't particular interesting done over and over again. But I disagree in a relative sense. Compared to the other options out there, this is honestly a huge improvement. Before this many MMORPGs forced you to group or solo grind on the same mob repeatedly. There was far, far less variety in FFXI at NA release and still is comparatively very little today. You can always grind in WoW, but many people choose not to because quests are slightly--if only slightly--more novel and fun. Instanced dungeons for low levels is pretty neat and adds a lot of novelty.

A huge flaw of the entire MMORPG genre is just how much repetitive crap you have to do, but out of all your options I think WoW is one of the least offending perpetrators.




I think a lot of the complaints made you said about WoW are true, but that most other MMORPGs are far worse offenders. And if for some reason you are able to "finish" WoW quickly then it's not because of lack of content or interesting things to do, but because Blizzard didn't water down their content into taking years to finish. I think other games might take you longer to complete, but that overall you're getting less content.
#96 May 06 2010 at 7:13 PM Rating: Default
Calispel wrote:
I'll have to take your word for it, since your WoW experience is much more extensive than mine. However, all of my friends that played WoW for any great length of time haved told me that the game basically begins at level 80, and that any content before that is simply filler just to get you to 80 more quickly. Haven't they implemented numerous exp rate increases over the years? I believe they even allowed you to start a new class at 50 when it was introduced. Correct me if I'm wrong. Given those stats, even in the best case scenario I'd be done with the game in six months, but most likely less.


When WoW was first released, the level cap was 50. It was increased to 60 and PvE raiding was introduced before the first expansion. The first expansion increased the level cap to 70, added several new zones and dungeons, and greatly expanded on the raiding. The most recent expansion did the same thing. So people saying everything from 1-80 was just fluff is exaggerating or uninformed. The game was out for over 3 years before the level cap was even raised to 80 and had over 10 million subscribers by the time it was. Doesn't really make much sense that the game would have drawn that many people if there was nothing to do, does it?
#97 May 06 2010 at 8:01 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
279 posts
True, but then in the past it was 'the game starts at 60' or 'the game starts at 70'. And of course the latter into an expansion you get the more people say stuff like this. Oh, but don't get me wrong, I totally agree with what you and Allegory are saying, just wanted to point this out.
____________________________
WoW - Quel'dorei <ON HOLD>

Main: Tancoo (80 Tauren Enhance Shaman)
Other: Saraah (63 BE Paladin)
Raymund (47 Troll Hunter)

FFXI - Carbuncle <RETIRED>
Raymund - 45 DRG, 42 PLD, 26 BLU, 30 RNG, 1 NIN <- I miss you Buster!
#98 May 06 2010 at 8:58 PM Rating: Default
Raymund wrote:
True, but then in the past it was 'the game starts at 60' or 'the game starts at 70'. And of course the latter into an expansion you get the more people say stuff like this. Oh, but don't get me wrong, I totally agree with what you and Allegory are saying, just wanted to point this out.


I think that comes down to how the players choose to approach it and has almost nothing to do with the amount of content. The devs can only provide the content...they can't really force people to take part in it. There are still dungeons in WoW that I haven't seen all of. Typically, those would be the level 50-60 type dungeons that didn't appeal to me enough to go back through them because I disliked the way pre-TBC dungeons tended to be laid out. But for me to go and suggest that there was no content from level 50-60, for example, would be rather silly. And what you'll find is that a lot of casual WoW players will invest a great deal of time plugging away at vanilla rep grinds and the like for mounts, achievements, etc. They aren't necessarily interested in the aspects of the game that "only start" at the level cap, but they find hours of entertainment elsewhere all the same.

Edited, May 6th 2010 7:59pm by Aurelius
#99 May 06 2010 at 9:41 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,890 posts
Allegory wrote:
Yeah, you claiming things just doesn't make them true. The overwhelming majority of people don't believe these games are WoW clones. See how easy it is to just say things? The majority of people believe you're incorrect and disagree with you. See, I did it again.


Well IMO its I am stating what most people have said before me. It is in fact widely accepted.
Balls in your court to prove otherwise actually. So its pretty easy for me to blow this off at this point. *shrug*
That is unless you can prove that I am also the one who coined the term "WoW clone" and made all this up myself through the use of time magic. :)

/Anyway I guess the derail can end here

edit: Allot of this was aimed at the other guy so don't take it too personally.

Edited, May 6th 2010 11:42pm by thorazinekizzez
#100 May 06 2010 at 10:03 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,808 posts
thorazinekizzez wrote:
Well IMO its I am stating what most people have said before me. It is in fact widely accepted.
Balls in your court to prove otherwise actually.

If I were a nice person, I'd attempt to explain the flaw here, but if I were a funny person I'd just post this:
Screenshot


Edited, May 6th 2010 11:04pm by Allegory
#101 May 06 2010 at 10:30 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
597 posts
thorazinekizzez wrote:
Well IMO its I am stating what most people have said before me. It is in fact widely accepted.
Balls in your court to prove otherwise actually. So its pretty easy for me to blow this off at this point. *shrug*


No. You brought up the idea; the burden of proof is on you to provide reliable data to prove your point. Seeing as plenty of people in this thread have refuted your points with actual facts, you've got your work cut out for you. Or you can choose to remain ignorant; I hear it's bliss, after all.
____________________________
WoW - Andorhal
Darkkiwi - 85 Gnome Unholy Death Knight - <Flaming Bunnies>
Lightkiwi - 72 Gnome Disc Priest - <Flaming Bunnies>
Kwanita - 82 Gnome Frost Mage - <Flaming Bunnies>
Maglyn - 81 Gnome Protection Warrior - <Flaming Bunnies>


Don't play that game anymore. :P
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 15 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (15)