Why not use it as a reference point? or any other MMO for that matter? Most if not all MMO's are based on some type of gear check, especially if there is time investment involved. Most of the EXP grind in XI was based on how fast you could EXP chain, well geared groups would take down mobs fast enough to where you can get atleast to chain #4 or #5. In WoW, gear dictated how fast and efficient you would get through an instance/raid. No matter what, gear checking will be involved.
Edited, Jan 4th 2013 2:03pm by balishag
Because skill should be the most important element in your victory--not things that happened before the battle even began--because that's what makes games fun.
Execution, not skill. The 'skill debate' has been had too many times, but I guess people just use the word skill because it's common. Also, you don't win tough encounters without planning and prep. Finding strategies to overcome obstacles would be a big part of 'fun' for a lot of people, myself included, so it should stand that things that happen prior to engaging do contribute.
Obviously most MMOs are centered on the idea of getting stronger and gaining better gear. That should be an important element, but games that rely too heavily on that by creating must-have items and large discrepancies between bonuses rather than incremental improvements are using an approach with a very limited appeal.
WoW uses the same approach and doesn't have limited appeal. Actually, most popular MMOs use the same or similar approach so I'm not sure where you're getting that idea from.
Execution is a part of skill. I'm not going to break off into a semantic debate because they're stupid, but skill is an apt word choice which encompasses execution. It's not that prep work doesn't contribute, but "set it and forget it" games readily demonstrate that it is not sufficient on its own. Meanwhile, games without prepwork demonstrate how vital engagement during the battle is.
As for WoW, it absolutely has limited appeal. You're confusing "small" with "limited." The fact is, there is a limit to the WoW market, and it's already been filled for many years... by WoW (not to mention dozens of other games that copied it). Novelty plays a powerful role in enjoyment, and that means that something with a limited appeal can be extremely successful over a short time. WoW is very accessible and scratches that itch, but it lacks the depth that would make the appeal last, and most importantly, it's appeal is waning because players are increasingly bored with it.
So, referencing previous successful MMO's can teach us about what went right and what went wrong, or what we want and what we dont. And from there, we as XIV gamers can help figure out how to right the wrongs of the previous 1.0 version.
See above for why that isn't necessarily true. If you play for 3-4 years, that's really a small portion of your lifetime as a gamer. It's fine to reference and learn from, but to take any successful aspect as a given that it should be retained is entirely fallacious. Just because something works well for a while doesn't mean it will maintain interest. That's one of the main reasons why all these WoW clones fail, and even games which try to build upon the WoW formula with significant improvements STILL fail.
What we like and don't like exist in systems, not individual features that can be easily assessed at face value. It's the interplay between features that matters, and more often it isn't even these "qualities" but the simple balance of "quantities" which both players and designers overlook. Most don't notice that "Oh hey, when I turn this 90 into a 70, the battle is more fun." They just notice the superficial mechanics of the game without respect to their interaction or numerical balance.
Just a few reasons why it isn't necessarily valuable or desirable to work from existing games as a template. The number of successful MMOs is incredibly small. To think that any game has crafted something even close to optimal is plainly absurd.
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.