Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
This Forum is Read Only

If XIV went all Star Wars Galaxies on usFollow

#52 Jan 02 2011 at 12:13 AM Rating: Decent
**
269 posts
They dont need to overhaul just add **** to do. Really do you haters want this game to tank so bad you are screaming for them to SWG the game?
____________________________
MUTED
#53 Jan 02 2011 at 12:39 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
322 posts
BartelX wrote:
tylerbee wrote:
How could this game possibly get any worse

I'm just not seeing it


says the physical level 47 player who's levels seem to keep rising... >.>

Edited, Jan 2nd 2011 12:00am by BartelX


I haven't logged in for a month, actually :(
____________________________


#54 Jan 02 2011 at 12:46 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,576 posts
thehellfire wrote:
They dont need to overhaul just add sh*t to do. Really do you haters want this game to tank so bad you are screaming for them to SWG the game?


They can't just add stuff to a broken system and expect it to make people happy. There's not a single aspect of the game right now that is earning high praise. Not one. And if gutting the game is what it takes to fix that, then that's what SE has to do. It's not about being a "hater". It's about being realistic and acknowledging that SE released a product that is an embarrassment to the company and to the genre as a whole. You don't encourage one of your most long-standing employees to resign from their position as producer and then bring in a new guy to just add stuff and tweak.
#55 Jan 02 2011 at 1:03 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:

There's just no way to transplant a fresh soul into an existing game. If FFXIV was made properly, then all the art, the interface, the design of the world, etc are all part of a whole, designed purposely to fit together. They can't simply be pulled apart and reconstructed like Frankenstein's monster.


Strongly disagree. Games don't have souls. They have features and content. If the features and content suck, the game will suck. They can most certainly be rearranged to improve the game.

Right now, FFXIV is a game with elbows for hands and an *** for a head. A little (a lot of) surgery is exactly what this game calls for.
____________________________
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.
#56 Jan 02 2011 at 1:16 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
386 posts
I supposed just be careful what you wish for. If they "overhaul" this game and it still turns into something players don't like, we'll have no one to blame but ourselves for asking them to strip the game down and rebuild from scratch, as that's what it sounds like some people are implying.

Edited, Jan 2nd 2011 2:17am by ThePacster
#57 Jan 02 2011 at 1:40 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,576 posts
ThePacster wrote:
I supposed just be careful what you wish for. If they "overhaul" this game and it still turns into something players don't like, we'll have no one to blame but ourselves for asking them to strip the game down and rebuild from scratch, as that's what it sounds like some people are implying.


Nobody was careful in what they were asking for pre-alpha and throughout the testing. When people were singing the praises of the Rolanberry bazaar farms I wonder if they ever thought that's that's pretty much exactly what we were going to get at launch and look at how that went over. For all those folks who happily looked down their nose at anyone who denounced the early days of XI and the "grind and only grind" approach to character progression, I wonder if they ever thought they'd find themselves in the position of looking at XIV now and proclaiming that the grind is too steep and too dull. When they talked about wanting mini-games for crafting and gathering I wonder if they realized just who they were asking this sort of thing from and exactly how it would work out in the game if SE opted to go that route. Now we know.

No, I think that there are a certain group of people who are already almost as much to blame for the state of XIV as Tanaka, and as I said in another recent post it just goes to show that ooo-ing and ahhh-ing over **** mechanics for years can turn around and bite you in the ***. SE spent 8 years getting mixed messages from their fans to the point where they thought they had it all figured out. They thought they knew what it would take to create a next-gen MMO that would be worthy of the label "best FF title in the franchise".

And if nothing else, this survey is an opportunity for SE to cut through all the double-talk and brown-nosing and get to the heart of what people really want. And for all the people who got what they asked for and don't like it, go sit in the back and shhhhhh.
#58 Jan 02 2011 at 1:43 AM Rating: Good
**
429 posts
A complete overhaul is pretty much the only way to fix FFXIV at this point. Almost all of the mechanics in this game are designed to be as unintuitive, slow, and agonizing as possible; and it doesn't even try to mask them. Small SP tweaks or failure/success rate tweaks for crafting are not enough, and adding content when the core mechanics are a mangled mess will not help in the least.
#59 Jan 02 2011 at 1:47 AM Rating: Good
**
429 posts
ThePacster wrote:
I supposed just be careful what you wish for. If they "overhaul" this game and it still turns into something players don't like, we'll have no one to blame but ourselves for asking them to strip the game down and rebuild from scratch, as that's what it sounds like some people are implying.

Edited, Jan 2nd 2011 2:17am by ThePacster


This is tickling my inner troll. I gotta ask, what players? I logged in a few times this last week and the game is near desolate.
#60 Jan 02 2011 at 2:05 AM Rating: Good
***
1,218 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:

There's just no way to transplant a fresh soul into an existing game. If FFXIV was made properly, then all the art, the interface, the design of the world, etc are all part of a whole, designed purposely to fit together. They can't simply be pulled apart and reconstructed like Frankenstein's monster.


Strongly disagree. Games don't have souls. They have features and content. If the features and content suck, the game will suck. They can most certainly be rearranged to improve the game.


As the legions of failed WoW clones have taught us, you also can't just slap a bunch of successful features together, call it a game, and expect any one to actually play it.

FFXIV either has a kernel of greatness at its core, or it doesn't. If it does, then whatever changes are made have to be focused on bringing out that greatness, and if it doesn't, well, it's going to fail no matter what.

Apart from being called "Final Fantasy" what is it that makes people *want* to save the game? What is it that will make people who have never played the game want to try it? Just saying "better features" means nothing. Age of Conan has decent features, and it looks nice too. Warhammer Online has decent features, and it's a widely known and loved setting and IP. Both of those games are (relatively speaking) failures.

A soul is just a metaphor for what makes some thing special. What makes FFXIV special? How are you going to completely change the game without changing that? If the game doesn't have any special spark about it, then what are you even trying to save?
#61 Jan 02 2011 at 2:38 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
You think that the game has a soul now, and that major changes will be some kind of soul transplant? To me, you have not adequately defended such a vague and nigh meaningless assertion enough so to warrant a rebuttal.

Enough people want to like a Final Fantasy game that it will succeed mostly relative to how likable the game actually is, especially with it getting a second launch.
____________________________
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.
#62 Jan 02 2011 at 2:39 AM Rating: Good
*****
11,576 posts
KarlHungis wrote:
As the legions of failed WoW clones have taught us, you also can't just slap a bunch of successful features together, call it a game, and expect any one to actually play it.


Emm...all of those "failed" WoW clones are generating monthly subscriptions from their players and have been since they launched. And if you took away the JP and PS2 population of FFXI, it would probably have fewer subscribers than the "failed WoW clones" you mentioned. Which is not to say I think SE should buckle and make a "WoW clone", but I do think that if they're going to try and innovate they need to stick to certain core fundamentals that they chose not to with the first incarnation of FFXIV.

Quote:
FFXIV either has a kernel of greatness at its core, or it doesn't. If it does, then whatever changes are made have to be focused on bringing out that greatness, and if it doesn't, well, it's going to fail no matter what.


At this point, FFXIV's best hope is to be another niche game. It's one thing to release a game that people are kind of luke-warm about that gets mediocre reviews and generally just kind of gives people a "meh" impression until they move on to something new. In that case, it's usually not hard to bring them back at some point in the future and if you've done a good job between launch and the time they come back you can convert them into subscribers. XIV has none of that going for them. They launched to horrible reviews and horrible player sentiments. People didn't walk away saying, "meh"...they walked away saying, "bleh." SE can do all the marketing in the world once they get things sorted out to their liking and the bitter taste is still going to be lingering in the mouths of a lot of people who left.

Even strong reviews six months/a year from now aren't going to bring a ton of people back. A lot of them trust the people who have positive things to say about the game about as much as they trust SE. Without trying to invalidate the changes SE has made or the positive opinions some people have of them, I still cringe when I see people saying SE has made great strides towards improving the game. They've streamlined some UI processes, reduced a lot of lag, and added a basic search feature to the market wards. Or to put it differently, they made some beta fixes, made some more beta fixes, and incorporated a very small aspect of beta feedback. They could get rid of ALL the lag, eliminate ALL the glitchy animations, implement an "industry standard" auction house (ie. ideally something better than the XI AH) and it would still be the kind of game that would draw heavy criticism and horrible reviews.
#63 Jan 02 2011 at 4:00 AM Rating: Excellent
*
154 posts
PerrinofSylph, ****** Superhero wrote:
...but I wouldn't be upset starting from scratch if the aknowledged the fact with a special item or two.


A wearable fire suit with the mouse over text: "I survived the FFXIV Zam forums in 2010!"

I see no reason to immediately quit if they should "New Game Experience" XIV, they're keeping it free to play till it's "fixed," so why not take some time to try it out again? I kept my SWG account for about a month after the NGE to see if I could deal with my neutered character (my rifleman/engineer was more or less no longer a job possibility, I had to pick one or the other) before I finally gave it up and closed my Sony Station Pass account.
____________________________
Shinalia Wynne Durstian, boat addict, poker of taru and lalafel.

FFXI: Kujata Server (I'm NOT in denial, really!)
Rank 10 Windurstian
FFXIV: Besaid Server Shinalia Durstian
#64 Jan 02 2011 at 4:05 AM Rating: Default
**
269 posts
Shinalia wrote:
PerrinofSylph, ****** Superhero wrote:
...but I wouldn't be upset starting from scratch if the aknowledged the fact with a special item or two.


A wearable fire suit with the mouse over text: "I survived the FFXIV Zam forums in 2010!"

I see no reason to immediately quit if they should "New Game Experience" XIV, they're keeping it free to play till it's "fixed," so why not take some time to try it out again? I kept my SWG account for about a month after the NGE to see if I could deal with my neutered character (my rifleman/engineer was more or less no longer a job possibility, I had to pick one or the other) before I finally gave it up and closed my Sony Station Pass account.

Well Im not waiting, the game mechanics work fine, they only need content. If they **** off this game by NGEing it I'll quit.
____________________________
MUTED
#65 Jan 02 2011 at 4:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
Avatar
***
2,536 posts
I wouldn't mind a re-haul of the system as long as we get to keep at least some of our character progression.

The only thing I fear is that an entirely new system could mean another 6 months of just weeding out bugs without any real content progression.

____________________________
FF11 Server: Caitsith
Kalyna (retired, 2008)
100 Goldsmith
75 Rng, Brd
Main/Acc
Exp/Hybrid
Str/Attk
Spam/Others
#66 Jan 02 2011 at 4:20 AM Rating: Decent
40 posts
SE needs to wake up and realize that most of the older long-term fans don't care about graphics. By having high PC requirements, they alienated a lot of the potential fans that could have played, and instead geared it toward eye-candy seeking gamers that will probably quit after a few weeks once they get used to the graphics. If anyone has the CE bonus disk, you can find that most of the content is about glorifying the graphics that I personally don't care about.

One thing that deeply concerns me that I don't think SE is even thinking about is the in-game economics. Even though its only been a couple of months since launch, there is no sign of market stability and inflation isn't in check. With so much currency being thrown around, I'm not sure how viable this game will be in say 2-3 years realistically. At least in FF11, there was less actual gil dumped into the market, with inflation being somewhat kept in check (for an MMO) with auction house transactions, chocobo fees, and RMT accounts being banned with large amounts of gil. I hope that FF14 doesn't turn out to be like a f2p korean grinder that lasts only a few years at most.
____________________________
!!KEEP THE CHATLOG CLEAN CAMPAIGN!!
Don't trade with shout spammers.

Raphael Hosokawa
Hotel Moscow LS
Wutai
#67 Jan 02 2011 at 4:22 AM Rating: Decent
**
269 posts
theredchaser wrote:
SE needs to wake up and realize that most of the older long-term fans don't care about graphics. By having high PC requirements, they alienated a lot of the potential fans that could have played, and instead geared it toward eye-candy seeking gamers that will probably quit after a few weeks once they get used to the graphics. If anyone has the CE bonus disk, you can find that most of the content is about glorifying the graphics that I personally don't care about.

One thing that deeply concerns me that I don't think SE is even thinking about is the in-game economics. Even though its only been a couple of months since launch, there is no sign of market stability and inflation isn't in check. With so much currency being thrown around, I'm not sure how viable this game will be in say 2-3 years realistically. At least in FF11, there was less actual gil dumped into the market, with inflation being somewhat kept in check (for an MMO) with auction house transactions, chocobo fees, and RMT accounts being banned with large amounts of gil. I hope that FF14 doesn't turn out to be like a f2p korean grinder that lasts only a few years at most.

Im older and I care about good graphics, my machine can handle them fine.
____________________________
MUTED
#68 Jan 02 2011 at 5:25 AM Rating: Excellent
***
3,177 posts
theredchaser wrote:
SE needs to wake up and realize that most of the older long-term fans don't care about graphics. By having high PC requirements, they alienated a lot of the potential fans that could have played, and instead geared it toward eye-candy seeking gamers that will probably quit after a few weeks once they get used to the graphics. If anyone has the CE bonus disk, you can find that most of the content is about glorifying the graphics that I personally don't care about.


I respectfully disagree with this above paragraph. One thing about the Final Fantasy series as a whole is that it gives a beautiful fantasy world and tries to top itself with every installment. I do agree with your point though, that gameplay should not have to be sacrificed for graphics. They go hand in hand. Square-Enix did ***** up by not including enough gameplay. Square-Enix wanted the game to withstand the graphics progression of the decade, something Final Fantasy XI suffered through as it aged.

The game as a whole was rushed, and it should have been postponed, but I just don't see how scaling back the graphics means much of anything, they could have just held it back, worked on more gameplay elements, and they would have been fine.
____________________________
Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Grover Eyeveen - Hyperion Server
Viva Eorzea Free Company/Linkshell Leader - Hyperion Server

Aegis Server (2012-2013)
Figaro Server (2010-2012)

Final Fantasy XI:
Retired

Blog
#69 Jan 02 2011 at 6:35 AM Rating: Good
***
1,218 posts
Kachi wrote:
You think that the game has a soul now,


Actually, I have no idea if it does or doesn't.
Quote:

and that major changes will be some kind of soul transplant?


No, I stated that such a thing is impossible. There is either a winning framework or there isn't. If not, it will fail no matter what. If so, it will fail if you change things so radically that they no longer fit the foundation. I've asked you once and I'll ask you again: Do *YOU* think there's anything fundamentally appealing about FFXIV other than the Final Fantasy name? If so, what?

Quote:

To me, you have not adequately defended such a vague and nigh meaningless assertion enough so to warrant a rebuttal.


To me, it's such a blindingly obvious concept, that for you to seek defense smacks of ignorance. A game is not just a collection of raw materials, it's a thing that is designed down to the last detail according to a plan. Every thing serves the plan, so that everything fits together. The concept holds for a movie, a painting, a house, a car, or any thing else that man makes and appreciates. Everything must first have a function, then a form to fit its function, and how well form follows function determines its value.

The function of FFXIV is that it's a fun diversion. What makes it FUN? If there isn't some core concept that makes it fun as part of the basic design then it's not going to succeed no matter how you tweak this or that. What is the fundamental difference in FFXIV that makes it different and better than, say, Everquest 2? What does it deliver that FFXI doesn't? If you're talking about changing literally everything about it then you're talking about making a completely new game.

Making up a completely new game with nothing but the existing IP, re using the existing art assets, has been tried once. It was called Star Wars Galaxies, and it failed in a huge way, because art assets and IP are not the soul of a game.
#70 Jan 02 2011 at 6:48 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,218 posts
Aurelius wrote:
KarlHungis wrote:
As the legions of failed WoW clones have taught us, you also can't just slap a bunch of successful features together, call it a game, and expect any one to actually play it.


Emm...all of those "failed" WoW clones are generating monthly subscriptions from their players and have been since they launched.


... and still haven't even come close to recouping their development costs, and are no longer growing, which is why they're failed.

Quote:

And if you took away the JP and PS2 population of FFXI, it would probably have fewer subscribers than the "failed WoW clones" you mentioned


If you took away my uncle's ***** and gave him a ******, he'd be my aunt. What's your point? FFXI *does* have those subscribers, but more importantly, FFXI is almost 10 years old. Whether or not it fails at this point, it has already succeeded in giving people almost a decade worth of enjoyment, and it's made a boatload of money for S-E. The goal that every one wants is for FFXIV to reach such lofty heights, as those WoW clones have not.

Quote:

. Which is not to say I think SE should buckle and make a "WoW clone", but I do think that if they're going to try and innovate they need to stick to certain core fundamentals that they chose not to with the first incarnation of FFXIV.


If you're going to start over, including the fundementals, then you're making a completely new game, and that's going to take years, because that's how long it takes to make a quality MMO. At that point, is it even the same MMO?

Quote:
At this point, FFXIV's best hope is to be another niche game. It's one thing to release a game that people are kind of luke-warm about that gets mediocre reviews and generally just kind of gives people a "meh" impression until they move on to something new. In that case, it's usually not hard to bring them back at some point in the future and if you've done a good job between launch and the time they come back you can convert them into subscribers. XIV has none of that going for them. They launched to horrible reviews and horrible player sentiments. People didn't walk away saying, "meh"...they walked away saying, "bleh." SE can do all the marketing in the world once they get things sorted out to their liking and the bitter taste is still going to be lingering in the mouths of a lot of people who left.


Then it's entirely possible that FFXIV has simply failed. Assuming it's so irredeemable, why is it that they/you would want to try to redeem it? if the formula can simply be reinvented easily on the fly, then why wasn't it invented properly in the first place?

Quote:

Even strong reviews six months/a year from now aren't going to bring a ton of people back. A lot of them trust the people who have positive things to say about the game about as much as they trust SE. Without trying to invalidate the changes SE has made or the positive opinions some people have of them, I still cringe when I see people saying SE has made great strides towards improving the game. They've streamlined some UI processes, reduced a lot of lag, and added a basic search feature to the market wards. Or to put it differently, they made some beta fixes, made some more beta fixes, and incorporated a very small aspect of beta feedback. They could get rid of ALL the lag, eliminate ALL the glitchy animations, implement an "industry standard" auction house (ie. ideally something better than the XI AH) and it would still be the kind of game that would draw heavy criticism and horrible reviews.


Okay then, there's nothing good about the game. It can't be saved, only scrapped, and a new game made instead. That doesn't contradict any thing I said, since all I said is that if you *are* going to revive the patient, you're not going to do it by replacing his brain.
#71 Jan 02 2011 at 2:22 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,576 posts
KarlHungis wrote:
Aurelius wrote:
KarlHungis wrote:
As the legions of failed WoW clones have taught us, you also can't just slap a bunch of successful features together, call it a game, and expect any one to actually play it.


Emm...all of those "failed" WoW clones are generating monthly subscriptions from their players and have been since they launched.


... and still haven't even come close to recouping their development costs,



Source?

XIV is nowhere near recovering its development costs either, and it never will recover them unless they get the game straightened out. And again...there's not a single aspect of the game that is getting such high praise from any source that SE can't afford to scrap it if they need to in order to address player concerns.
#72 Jan 02 2011 at 2:50 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
691 posts
KarlHungis wrote:
Aurelius wrote:
KarlHungis wrote:
As the legions of failed WoW clones have taught us, you also can't just slap a bunch of successful features together, call it a game, and expect any one to actually play it.


Emm...all of those "failed" WoW clones are generating monthly subscriptions from their players and have been since they launched.


... and still haven't even come close to recouping their development costs, and are no longer growing, which is why they're failed.



Wait, what? You obviously haven't done your research on their development costs then. Or for that matter, how good the games were...

Warhammer Online has received the following awards:[28]
2008

* IGN PC: Best of E3 2008-Best MMO
* IGN PC: 2008 Best Persistent World Game
* IGN PC: 2008 Reader's Choice
* Game Focus – Best MMO Game/ Expansion
* GameSpy: Best of E3 2008
* GameSpy: Best Use of License
* GameSpy: Top 10 PC Games – Ranked #2
* GameStooge – Best Massively Multiplayer Roleplaying Game
* G4TV: Best of E3 – PC
* Massively – Favorite New MMO of 2008
* MMORPG.com – Reader's Choice Awards – Best New Game of 2008
* MMORPG.com – Reader's Choice Awards – Most Innovative Feature
* MSNBC – Best PC games of 2008
* Voodoo Extreme: E3 2008 – Best MMO
* Warcry's Editor's Choice: Most Anticipated of 2008
* X-Play: Best MMO

2007

* Ten Ton Hammer: Best Fantasy MMOG
* Ten Ton Hammer: Best of Show
* Beckett Massive Online Game Reader's Choice Award: Most Anticipated MMO
* Warcry's Editor's Choice: 2007's Most Anticipated
* MMORPG.com Readers Choice: Most Anticipated

E3 2006

* MMORPG.com: Best Use Of A License
* Game Amp: Best of Show
* Game Amp: Best Loot
* Game Daily Nod Award
* Voodoo Extreme: Best Massively Multiplayer Game
* Gamespot Editor's Choice: Best Stage Demo
* Ten Ton Hammer Editor's Choice Award

As of September 30, 2008, WAR had sold 1.2 million copies and had 800,000 registered users.
Now its at 300k subscribers and an unknown amount of non-paying perpetual trials.

Also, Warcraft is a clone of the original Warhammer books and tabletop game. ^^

1.2m x 40 + (800k x15) +(300k x Y x 15)= b
Y is equal to number of months running after launch.
It is where a MMORPG should be in terms of subscribers, just above a quarter mil. It may have started out at 800k, probably has over 1.5 million copies sold at 40 USD each by now. It has easily recouped development costs.
Kinda sad that it didn't do so well, especially considering that it launched the same as all other MMORPGS (you know, buggy and only partly finished.)

As far as AoC goes, it launched for a niche audience: Adults who grew up watching/reading/playing Conan.
It had an expansion in the first quarter of 2010 and is still getting content updates.



Edited, Jan 2nd 2011 2:55pm by Uryuu
#73 Jan 02 2011 at 6:59 PM Rating: Good
***
1,218 posts
Uryuu, I'll try to address your post the best I can without doing a quote/reply format, since that gets too long.

Regarding WAR, development costs, and subscription numbers:

We know the game topped out at around 300k subscribers in December of 2008, rebounded back to that high in May of 2009, and then declined again. We know this because these are the only two times that Mythic announced their subscription numbers, and because of the timing of various server mergers and the unlimited free trial offer. The game which had 63 servers at launch to serve a maximum population of ~800,000 players now has 9 servers.

Mark Jacobs, who was the CEO and President at Mythic while WAR was being developed, stated that they probably needed 500k subscribers to be considered a success, and that 250k would almost certainly be considered a failure given the greater than 50 million dollar development cost of the game. Given that Mr Jacobs was fired only a few months after the launch of the game, when the numbers were at their height of 300k, and given the various layoffs and restructurings that have occurred since then, we can safely deduce that subscription numbers have been shrinking.

It's *possible* they've recouped their costs, but extremely unlikely. It would be nice if they really did make 40 dollars per box sold retail, but a more realistic projection is maybe 10-15 dollars a box. Most of the retail price of any game is eaten up by distribution costs and retailer margins. MMO makers expect to make their money on subscription fees, not box sales.

As for the rest, well, I don't really care how many awards WAR won. I played WAR in beta and it was *OKAY*. I felt like it had the potential to grow into a strong game if they got their PvP woes straightened out and focused on the PvP market, but unfortunately they did just the opposite: Large scale battles are still unmanageable lagfests, and the majority of development time and effort went into making PvE instances and content. Basically, for all their bluster about not wanting to be like WoW, they did every thing they could to try (and fail) to be WoW.

As for AoC, it had a similar budget to WAR, so if it was a "niche" game, it certainly didn't have a niche budget. IMO it's a much worse game than WAR, with much prettier graphics (and customizable boobies!). I don't know what their sub numbers are, but I know that by the time WAR came out they were struggling to keep 100k, so in spite of the expansion, I can't imagine they're doing much better than that now.

Edited, Jan 2nd 2011 8:23pm by KarlHungis
#74 Jan 02 2011 at 7:04 PM Rating: Good
***
1,218 posts
Aurelius wrote:
KarlHungis wrote:
Aurelius wrote:
KarlHungis wrote:
As the legions of failed WoW clones have taught us, you also can't just slap a bunch of successful features together, call it a game, and expect any one to actually play it.


Emm...all of those "failed" WoW clones are generating monthly subscriptions from their players and have been since they launched.


... and still haven't even come close to recouping their development costs,



Source?

XIV is nowhere near recovering its development costs either, and it never will recover them unless they get the game straightened out. And again...there's not a single aspect of the game that is getting such high praise from any source that SE can't afford to scrap it if they need to in order to address player concerns.


Just to be clear, my position is that they can't scrap it and address player concerns. They can do one or the other, and if player concerns can't be addressed, then it can only be scrapped, period (as in, it no longer exists). In no way and at no time have I said the game is awesome and must be kept, only that you can't built a completely different game on the same foundation, and the cost to change the foundation would be the same as making a new game.

If the problems with the game are still deeper than simply adding an AH, cleaning up combat a little, and adding content, then there's probably nothing they can do to save it as a viable, money making MMO.
#75 Jan 02 2011 at 7:13 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,576 posts
UltKnightGrover wrote:
theredchaser wrote:
SE needs to wake up and realize that most of the older long-term fans don't care about graphics. By having high PC requirements, they alienated a lot of the potential fans that could have played, and instead geared it toward eye-candy seeking gamers that will probably quit after a few weeks once they get used to the graphics. If anyone has the CE bonus disk, you can find that most of the content is about glorifying the graphics that I personally don't care about.


I respectfully disagree with this above paragraph. One thing about the Final Fantasy series as a whole is that it gives a beautiful fantasy world and tries to top itself with every installment. I do agree with your point though, that gameplay should not have to be sacrificed for graphics. They go hand in hand. Square-Enix did ***** up by not including enough gameplay. Square-Enix wanted the game to withstand the graphics progression of the decade, something Final Fantasy XI suffered through as it aged.

The game as a whole was rushed, and it should have been postponed, but I just don't see how scaling back the graphics means much of anything, they could have just held it back, worked on more gameplay elements, and they would have been fine.


I think that SE blew it with the graphics, personally. It's not just the copy-pasta bits throughout the zones...that didn't really bother me. But in addition to that and also in conjunction with their insistence on making it available on a hardware limited console, they sacrificed diversity for detail. Visually the graphics are fantastic if you're standing in one spot taking a look around. But from a point of view of actually running around and playing the game, it's just really bland and repetitious after a while.
#76 Jan 02 2011 at 7:26 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
No, I stated that such a thing is impossible. There is either a winning framework or there isn't. If not, it will fail no matter what. If so, it will fail if you change things so radically that they no longer fit the foundation. I've asked you once and I'll ask you again: Do *YOU* think there's anything fundamentally appealing about FFXIV other than the Final Fantasy name? If so, what?


An MMMO is not a house. It doesn't have a foundation per se, and as such there is no way to identify what is "fundamental" to the game. In this state, virtually everything can be changed.


Quote:
To me, it's such a blindingly obvious concept, that for you to seek defense smacks of ignorance. A game is not just a collection of raw materials, it's a thing that is designed down to the last detail according to a plan. Every thing serves the plan, so that everything fits together. The concept holds for a movie, a painting, a house, a car, or any thing else that man makes and appreciates. Everything must first have a function, then a form to fit its function, and how well form follows function determines its value.


No, not really. Features are often designed more or less independently of one another and of the framework (at least insomuch as the programming is still feasible), especially in MMOs. Just like how SE changed the battle system to FFXIV overnight.

Take your example of a car. Many parts of a car can be interchangeable, and often simply changing one part out with a better part will result in a better car.

Quote:
The function of FFXIV is that it's a fun diversion. What makes it FUN? If there isn't some core concept that makes it fun as part of the basic design then it's not going to succeed no matter how you tweak this or that. What is the fundamental difference in FFXIV that makes it different and better than, say, Everquest 2? What does it deliver that FFXI doesn't? If you're talking about changing literally everything about it then you're talking about making a completely new game.


If you're asking me what makes it fun, you're asking the wrong person. I don't think it's fun. I think it needs significant changes to be made fun. Are these changes tantamount to creating a completely new game? Not even close. If you were to sincerely ask me what would make it fun, I could tell you what most people would enjoy as a matter of general recreation psychology.

Quote:
Making up a completely new game with nothing but the existing IP, re using the existing art assets, has been tried once. It was called Star Wars Galaxies, and it failed in a huge way, because art assets and IP are not the soul of a game.


This is the kind of assertion that needs to be adequately defended before it can be presumed true. Was the recreation of the game the only cause for failure? That's a strong claim with not a lot to back it up. There are numerous other potential factors, like the actual changes to the game, the marketing of those changes, and the circumstances of the release climate, that would all greatly impact the reception of the game.
____________________________
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.
#77 Jan 02 2011 at 8:35 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
295 posts
Wloire wrote:
Contrary to what the trolls believe the game has good foundations to work with. The whole game does not need to be overhauled. Let them move forward from here instead of having to rebuild the entire thing from the ground up.



I said something like this in another thread and got rated down. I need to learn to articulate better :P


As said in another thread with a less specific title, As long as they fix the major issues with the game, Auction House, Game content, Adjustments to how XP is gained, and possibly giving jobs more unique roles, or more defined sets of abilities that sync well together but clash with others, etc, that the game will be pretty solid. This doesn't require any major engine changes, simply adjusting how the game works with the current tools it has.

Another thing:

No one is paying a subscription at the moment. Until they have the changes decided and everyone is told about them and has decided to or not to play, they probably won't charge for the game.
#78 Jan 02 2011 at 9:14 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
You know what I'd like to see SE do... I mean, we do it around here, but this isn't a big enough sample size like what SE could get...

One week after every major content patch, ask the question "Would you be willing to pay for the game in its current state?" and "If not, what would you want to see before you would be willing to pay for it?" And track these answers over time. I think the data would be interesting.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#79 Jan 02 2011 at 9:34 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,218 posts
Kachi wrote:


No, not really. Features are often designed more or less independently of one another and of the framework (at least insomuch as the programming is still feasible), especially in MMOs. Just like how SE changed the battle system to FFXIV overnight.


And how's that working out?

Quote:

Take your example of a car. Many parts of a car can be interchangeable, and often simply changing one part out with a better part will result in a better car.


If the engine, transmission and the frame suck, then the car sucks, period. No matter what shocks or headlights or paint job you put on it, the soul of an automobile is in the engine, transmission and the frame. You can't turn a bad car into a good car unless you change the foundation of what makes it a car. If you change that stuff, then it's a completely different car.

Quote:
This is the kind of assertion that needs to be adequately defended before it can be presumed true. Was the recreation of the game the only cause for failure?


The game that existed in the first place had a long list of flaws, but it was inherently fun for many people. The game that replaced it followed a more conventional formula, but largely sucked, despite having the same art, music and IP. My assertion is that it was inevitable that the result would suck, because it was half baked. If there was any evidence that you could slap an entirely new game into existing assets and have success, then every one whose game failed would try it. It shouldn't surprise any one that it failed because it flies in the face of thousands of years of human design experience. Good things rarely come from a hasty redesign, and when they do, it's generally considered lucky.

Quote:

That's a strong claim with not a lot to back it up. There are numerous other potential factors, like the actual changes to the game, the marketing of those changes, and the circumstances of the release climate, that would all greatly impact the reception of the game.


There's a ton of evidence, but you won't see it if you restrict yourself to the narrow sample of "MMOs that have been redesigned after release." In that case you'll find only one example, which did fail, but you'll do exactly what you are doing, which is cast doubt on any conclusion that is drawn. So you must either accept that the examples you're looking for fall outside the realm of MMOs, or assert that the result is unknowable. I assert that people are people, the works of man follow a general pattern, and that you can learn from the way that any thing else is engineered and created to see that changing the plan halfway through is inevitably a risky, low odds maneuver.
#80 Jan 03 2011 at 3:09 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
And how's that working out?


It was a dramatic improvement from the system in the alpha. The changes that were made could be mostly retained while making further additions and adjustments to the battle system. So by my assessment, it's working out pretty well.

Quote:
If the engine, transmission and the frame suck, then the car sucks, period. No matter what shocks or headlights or paint job you put on it, the soul of an automobile is in the engine, transmission and the frame. You can't turn a bad car into a good car unless you change the foundation of what makes it a car. If you change that stuff, then it's a completely different car.


Nah, frequently one of those parts are changed. My brother just got a new transmission put in his car not long ago. As long as it's compatible, it works.

Quote:
The game that existed in the first place had a long list of flaws, but it was inherently fun for many people. The game that replaced it followed a more conventional formula, but largely sucked, despite having the same art, music and IP.


It seemed like the main flaw with the "new" game was that players who initially were enjoying it lost all of their progress, thereby ******* off all of the customers who would have told their friends to come back to the game. That one disastrously bad decision says nothing about the viability of the game itself.

Quote:

There's a ton of evidence, but you won't see it if you restrict yourself to the narrow sample of "MMOs that have been redesigned after release." In that case you'll find only one example, which did fail, but you'll do exactly what you are doing, which is cast doubt on any conclusion that is drawn. So you must either accept that the examples you're looking for fall outside the realm of MMOs, or assert that the result is unknowable. I assert that people are people, the works of man follow a general pattern, and that you can learn from the way that any thing else is engineered and created to see that changing the plan halfway through is inevitably a risky, low odds maneuver.


And I assert that through the history of human design, things are constantly being changed at varying levels of depth and complexity with varying levels of success, not due to any fundamental laws of human design, but because some designs work, and others don't. Sometimes a small change can fix or destroy everything, and sometimes a huge change can fix or destroy everything. Your statement is an enormous generalization, which virtually dooms itself to allow for many exceptions.
____________________________
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.
1 2 Next »
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 16 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (16)