Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Reply To Thread

I think ARR will succeed.Follow

#1 Feb 27 2013 at 3:06 AM Rating: Excellent
***
3,416 posts
The thing is, when people look at ARR, they can't see the forest from the trees.

They define ARR as an MMORPG, first and foremost. Second, they (might) define ARR as a Final Fantasy game.
The implications from this are: 1) ARR is in direct competition with other MMO's and 2) ARR players are MMO players.

This might very well be the case. However, I have to ask you a question.

What does ARR not have that single player FF games have?

There is a strong setting with a main story supporting it, with cutscenes that already in 1.0 could compare to that of other FF's. There are side scenarios with their own cutscenes and flow. Unique characters accompany you during said stories.
There is a solid soundtrack creating an ambience for every situation be it battling or witnessing a sad scene.
The graphics are top-of-line and the art style is in line with Final Fantasy traditions.
The game is full of the series staples, moogles chocobos and summons, which all serve a major role in the game.
The world is basically a complete opposite of XIII tunnels. It is the world FF fans have been hoping for ever since PSX FF's.
The gameplay represents FF staples gameplay as well as an MMO could. GCD is basically an ATB gauge.
The game will be released on consoles, where there are millions of FF fans.

Now, with all this said - there really is little reason to put the MMO aspect of ARR ahead of the FF of ARR.
In fact, it would be far more beneficial for the game and it's players to identify the game as a Final Fantasy in an MMO setting, rather than an MMO in a Final Fantasy setting. This is not at all inaccurate, unless the game for some reason can't stand on it's own legs. However, with what was said above, I hardly see this being the case.

In the end, even if other aspects of the game end up being similar to other MMO's, no one can copy the FFness of the game. And this game has a lot of it.

Lastly, MMO's such as XI and WoW all created their playerbases out of people not having played MMO's before. FF in particular probably had a lot of people coming from the single player series to try it out. Thus to me, it is a bit silly to think that this game has to scrap its playerbase out of other MMO and XI players. As if everyone else is excluded.

SE has a huge task ahead of them, but at this point it could be said that it is mostly marketing related. There is no reason for the game to not appeal to all FF fans, once they realize that the stigma of MMO is largely unwarranted. This is a Final Fantasy game.

Edited, Feb 27th 2013 12:19pm by Hyanmen
#2 Feb 27 2013 at 3:24 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
What does ARR not have that single player FF games have?


Let me flip that on you. It's not what ARR doesn't have that other FF games have, it's one thing that it DOES have that other FF games don't:

The expectation that you'll play it for more than 50-100 hours, and plenty of filler and timesinks watering it down to help ensure that you do.
____________________________
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.
#3 Feb 27 2013 at 3:26 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
And though I probably don't need to expound on that, the point being, if people leave your game even after 200 hours of play, it will be completely dead within a few months. So converting most Final Fantasy games to an MMO would not be a prudent business strategy.
____________________________
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.
#4 Feb 27 2013 at 3:43 AM Rating: Good
***
3,416 posts
Kachi wrote:
Let me flip that on you. It's not what ARR doesn't have that other FF games have, it's one thing that it DOES have that other FF games don't:

The expectation that you'll play it for more than 50-100 hours, and plenty of filler and timesinks watering it down to help ensure that you do.


Modern MMO's add filler and timesinks to the endgame, not the way there.

And so do single player FF games, only on a smaller scale.

The point being, it's entirely up to the player at that point as to whether to continue playing or not. It doesn't take away from the game living up to par of single player games.
____________________________
SE:
Quote:
We really want to compete against World of Warcraft and for example the new Star Wars MMO.

#5 Feb 27 2013 at 4:54 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
And Modern MMO's struggle to maintain subscribers. If the game is boring at the end, players will still leave after a few months. But most MMO's manage to be boring on the way to the endgame. ****, a few years ago, even WoW was reporting that 70% of the people who created an account with them never made it to level 10 before quitting.

You don't have a lot of time to hook new players, and if you throw almost all of your content at them in the early game like GW2 did, you'll probably have a dead game in a few months. As for Final Fantasy games, an incredibly small percentage of players will give them more than 100 hours, so I'm still going to disagree with your main point--a successful Final Fantasy as an MMO means nothing given a subscription service model.
____________________________
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.
#6 Feb 27 2013 at 5:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Guru
***
1,310 posts
I think ARR will succeed, but not everyone will sing its praises. There's three main camps to consider:

1. The MMO crowd
2. The FFXI crowd
3. Final Fantasy fans and former FFXI players

The MMO crowd won't be cruel to FFXIV anymore, but the only thing that will really impress them about ARR is that FFXIV is not dead. FFXIV simply doesn't offer the innovation they like to see compared to what's on the market. Heck, it's not even the first Final Fantasy Online game. I predict a mediocre response that's right down the middle between bad and great (but while nominating FFXIV for the Most Improved MMO award).

The FFXI crowd who are still into FFXI also aren't likely to switch, but for the very opposite reason: there's altogether too much innovation compared to FFXI. They'll be hoping for something where everything about the game is hardcore (maybe even more than FFXI is right now, clamoring for the old days where it took a year or so to level to endgame), and FFXIV just can't accommodate that. I'd expect a lot of resentful derision at the game's casual elements (a la "it breaks my immersion") and not much support let alone permanent converts.

Which leaves Final Fantasy fans and former FFXI players who are looking for a more casual pace. I think you'll find, if not wholehearted acceptance, that they'll tolerate what few flaws that irk them (even while posting a thousand complaints on the Lodestone--they are Final Fantasy fans after all). I think if a lot of Final Fantasy fans who passed on FFXI but would still consider a casual FF MMO were to show up, FFXIV could be a big success. More likely, however, is that it will draw upon a modest crowd that will earn SE a profit someday, though probably not as quickly as FFXI did. And that will be enough. Smiley: nod
#7 Feb 27 2013 at 5:31 AM Rating: Good
***
3,416 posts
ARR has everything to not make it boring for an average FF player. In addition, ARR has everything no other MMO can replace for an average FF player.

Further, an average FF player may not have been there, done that in regards to MMO's. Especially on the console platform. This is a huge advantage. Suddenly borrowing aspects from other MMO's is not a disadvantage, quite the opposite.

There is simply no question about the fact that the FF demographic holds significantly more potential as a playerbase in comparison to the MMO demographic. And as explained above SE has taken the necessary steps to penetrate that demographic. Their challenge lies in marketing.

A small percentage of the FF demographic will stick around. However, a small percentage of what, 20 million plus people around the world? The game will sit comfortably on the silver throne for years to come with only <10% of that.

Edit: excellent post, Xoie.

Edited, Feb 27th 2013 2:34pm by Hyanmen

Edited, Feb 27th 2013 2:36pm by Hyanmen
____________________________
SE:
Quote:
We really want to compete against World of Warcraft and for example the new Star Wars MMO.

#8 Feb 27 2013 at 5:49 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
I don't think it's impossible for it to be a success, but to keep things in perspective, they're going to need at least 200k subscribers to be even possibly, maybe, sort of successful, and within two or three months of the first release, they were estimated to have about 12,000 subscribers. That's a lot of burned fans, many of whom were already disappointed after XI, then XII, then XIII. These are people who are going to have to be courted hard to come back, and they'll settle for nothing less than very strong word of mouth praise. It's going to be even harder to get them in the door for the relaunch than it was for the initial launch.

When you figure that less than 700k boxes even sold (and those aren't necessarily players), and take for instance the figure from WoW, maybe 30% of players who try the game out will stick around, you're looking at a strong possibility of hitting barely 200k subs. For most triple-A MMOs, that's considered a failure. And if they don't have a certain measure of success right out of the gate, then they'll be pegged a failure yet again.

I'm rooting for FFXIV as much as the next guy, don't get me wrong. But they are the definition of the underdog right now. They make David v. Goliath look like a fair fight. There is great potential for legendary failure, here, no matter how hard they want to win. Sometimes wanting it just isn't enough.
____________________________
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.
#9 Feb 27 2013 at 5:53 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
ARR has everything to not make it boring for an average FF player. In addition, ARR has everything no other MMO can replace for an average FF player.

Further, an average FF player may not have been there, done that in regards to MMO's. Especially on the console platform. This is a huge advantage. Suddenly borrowing aspects from other MMO's is not a disadvantage, quite the opposite.


That's quite a series of assumptions you have there. The majority of FF fans have already whetted their tongues on an MMO-- if not FFXI, some other game. The novelty is not in any way guaranteed to be there. As for not being boring, that's not something you can predict, even if you've been playing it in beta. Whether or not the game is boring depends too heavily on the way challenge scales throughout the game and the incentive structures it uses. Those won't be seen until endgame, and my guess is that even if FF provides a perfectly defensible early-mid game experience, it will still be lucky to retain 25% of the people who come back to give it a shot.
____________________________
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.
#10 Feb 27 2013 at 7:16 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,416 posts
Nothing without basis. The OP has all the reasons to believe what I described in the first paragraph to be the case.

It is not boring because the crucial elements that players have always praised in ff games are all there.
#11 Feb 27 2013 at 7:30 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
At best, you would have an idea of what playing the game is like for a couple of weeks, so yeah, it's entirely without basis. Until you know the longevity that the gameplay offers (as a function of novelty and balance) and the integrity of the incentive structures (which are entirely unknown to all), you have no idea how successful the game will be after 2-4 months of release, which is the point at which it is most likely to start failing, if it survives the launch at all.

The alternative is that you're forming some kind of no true Scottsman fallacy, in which you're defining a FF fan as someone who likes FFXIV, in which case, you've formed a perfect argument, albeit a meaningless semantic one.
____________________________
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.
#12 Feb 27 2013 at 7:32 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Or if your argument is that people will enjoy it for a few months, fine. But that doesn't support your argument that the game will succeed as a result.
____________________________
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.
#13 Feb 27 2013 at 10:55 AM Rating: Good
***
1,313 posts
Very insightful Hyanmen, rate up.
____________________________
Eithne Draocht
My IG: archaicmachinery - Friend me!
#14 Feb 27 2013 at 12:02 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
Quote:
The FFXI crowd who are still into FFXI also aren't likely to switch, but for the very opposite reason: there's altogether too much innovation compared to FFXI. They'll be hoping for something where everything about the game is hardcore (maybe even more than FFXI is right now, clamoring for the old days where it took a year or so to level to endgame), and FFXIV just can't accommodate that. I'd expect a lot of resentful derision at the game's casual elements (a la "it breaks my immersion") and not much support let alone permanent converts.


On the innovation I'd somewhat agree, but for different reasons. I'm going to give ARR a really fair shake, because Yoshi-P has put his heart and soul into this rebuild and frankly, he deserves that much from me and others, but it's going to hinge more on how FFXI-ish the gameplay is rather than whether they go TOAH vs Abyssea. I just want to walk into the world and feel like I'm back in Final Fantasy.

I'll admit though that I looked at their webpage and the information on jobs, and got "that feeling" again looking at Dragoon. That's what I'm talking about, and what was missing when I first ventured out into Eorzea and found that equipping a lance didn't make my character a dragoon, it made her a generic hume-like shadow of the former Torrence and Cerulean, longing for a return to her days of glory.

That's the biggest thing that XIV needs to recapture - our hearts. It's easy to put an NM on a lottery pop with a 24 hour timer and give it a .001% chance to drop a sidegrade. What's hard is capturing the magic that leads to the feeling that going after that drop is worth investing the time, because we are genuinely in love with our characters and the world they live in.

Edited, Feb 27th 2013 1:03pm by Torrence
#15 Feb 27 2013 at 12:09 PM Rating: Good
***
3,177 posts
It also shows that FFXIV is giving a FFIX-like nostalgic throwback at the series. After FFXIII killing off a lot of beloved FF-traditions, I welcome this wholeheartedly.

Even if it's an average MMO compared to the rivals, I'm expecting this to be a great Final Fantasy game in itself.
____________________________
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
#16 Feb 27 2013 at 12:39 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,652 posts
Torrence wrote:
Quote:
The FFXI crowd who are still into FFXI also aren't likely to switch, but for the very opposite reason: there's altogether too much innovation compared to FFXI. They'll be hoping for something where everything about the game is hardcore (maybe even more than FFXI is right now, clamoring for the old days where it took a year or so to level to endgame), and FFXIV just can't accommodate that. I'd expect a lot of resentful derision at the game's casual elements (a la "it breaks my immersion") and not much support let alone permanent converts.


On the innovation I'd somewhat agree, but for different reasons. I'm going to give ARR a really fair shake, because Yoshi-P has put his heart and soul into this rebuild and frankly, he deserves that much from me and others, but it's going to hinge more on how FFXI-ish the gameplay is rather than whether they go TOAH vs Abyssea. I just want to walk into the world and feel like I'm back in Final Fantasy.

I'll admit though that I looked at their webpage and the information on jobs, and got "that feeling" again looking at Dragoon. That's what I'm talking about, and what was missing when I first ventured out into Eorzea and found that equipping a lance didn't make my character a dragoon, it made her a generic hume-like shadow of the former Torrence and Cerulean, longing for a return to her days of glory.

That's the biggest thing that XIV needs to recapture - our hearts. It's easy to put an NM on a lottery pop with a 24 hour timer and give it a .001% chance to drop a sidegrade. What's hard is capturing the magic that leads to the feeling that going after that drop is worth investing the time, because we are genuinely in love with our characters and the world they live in.

Edited, Feb 27th 2013 1:03pm by Torrence


Really good points... Funny thing is when FFXIV first launched a ton of my friends left FFXI for FFXIV, They all came back. You what though?. Most of my friends play on the xbox so they bought pc to play it. Everyone was so excited about the game. I decided to wait till the xbox version came out.They were so burned they wont go back right now. This game will have to really be good for them to go back.


FFXI has become pretty easy in some aspects too... You can level from 0 to 99 in less than a week. It is not the game of old.

Also I dont think SE wants people leaving FFXI ..It is still profitable.


Edited, Feb 27th 2013 1:54pm by Nashred
____________________________
FFXI: Nashred
Server: Phoenix

FFXIV : Sir Nashred
server: Ultros
#17 Feb 27 2013 at 1:00 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
3,599 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
What does ARR not have that single player FF games have?


Let me flip that on you. It's not what ARR doesn't have that other FF games have, it's one thing that it DOES have that other FF games don't:

The expectation that you'll play it for more than 50-100 hours, and plenty of filler and timesinks watering it down to help ensure that you do.


The last 3 Final Fantasies took over 70 hours to complete on average...
____________________________


#18 Feb 27 2013 at 1:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
15 posts
Yoshida has repeatedly stated that XIV will draw upon many previous editions of the series. What this means to me is that, along with everything the OP said, this game will have the ability to revive old content like Magitek. I'm guessing that fans of Final Fantasy all over the world will at least look in on the game to see these elements modernized and many of them will think hard about whether or not they can resist the urge to play. It's almost like a living anthology of Final Fantasy lore. Heck by the end of XIV we may very well have our own submarines, flying black chocobos or even FAT chocobos for storage.
#19 Feb 27 2013 at 1:15 PM Rating: Good
Sage
Avatar
**
325 posts
My personal opinion is the game is what you make of it. Going in with a negative view on it will not help in you liking it. I might be the only person in the world that thought 1.0 wasn't THAT bad. I mean it was ok and there was definitely areas for improvement but I think I could have dealt with it, but hey maybe my standards are low lol! One thing I did learn was constant reading of how bad a game is will start making you believe it. I try to stay clear of the negativity and come up with my own opinion when the time comes.

I'm personally excited for 2.0, if I felt 1.0 was ok then I'm sure 2.0 will be great!

Edited, Feb 27th 2013 11:15am by Veagan
____________________________
FFXIV
Name: Z'veagan Brolz
Server: Ultros
Linkshell/FC: Lootwhorindramafest
#20 Feb 27 2013 at 1:30 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
DanforthWright wrote:
Yoshida has repeatedly stated that XIV will draw upon many previous editions of the series. What this means to me is that, along with everything the OP said, this game will have the ability to revive old content like Magitek. I'm guessing that fans of Final Fantasy all over the world will at least look in on the game to see these elements modernized and many of them will think hard about whether or not they can resist the urge to play. It's almost like a living anthology of Final Fantasy lore. Heck by the end of XIV we may very well have our own submarines, flying black chocobos or even FAT chocobos for storage.


If this had been the initial release, maybe. That's likely the reason that most folks bought XIV, and those same reasons aren't going to be what draws people into the game this time. Yoshi-P has a lot more to answer for.

That's why I agree with the OP to a point in regards to seeing the forest for the trees - but you can't divorce the game from mmo scrutiny and expect that everyone will just "get" and appreciate what YoshiP is trying to accomplish here. That's like divorcing from the reality that despite having craptacular graphics, what is largely considered an abyssmal and obnoxious general community, and other games with really solid and awesome concepts (Rift, TSW, not to mention XI itself) as competition, WoW is still on top. Why? It does mmo well.

Quote:
There is no reason for the game to not appeal to all FF fans, once they realize that the stigma of MMO is largely unwarranted. This is a Final Fantasy game.


In particular, this is what I disagree with. The stigma isn't that it's an mmo for this particular game. The stigma is that it did mmo AND Final Fantasy so badly the first time around, people need a super good reason to give it another chance. The Final Fantasy name doesn't garner the same respect it once did, so however strongly you personally may feel about what's in the name, it has to do mmo and do it extremely well to succeed this time around. Otherwise it might as well just be offline.
#21 Feb 27 2013 at 3:01 PM Rating: Decent
**
793 posts
I think we need a editorial along the same tone of Hyanmen's post.

____________________________
I might be an onion thief, but I'm still a thief.™





#22 Feb 27 2013 at 3:13 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
**
931 posts
I think the most telling and interesting opinions on ARR come from those who didn't play 1.0. They are judging ARR as a totally independent game which is what SE wants.

... so far, those people have posted lukewarm opinions. Not the worst game they've ever played, but not something they would pay for when there are similar options for free.

This is why I think the FFXIV:ARR community is mostly going to be the people who were already subscribing to FFXIV in 2012.

and no I think the last thing ZAM should do is post an editorial saying "ARR will succeed", they already only look slightly less biased than that guy at Massively.

Edited, Feb 27th 2013 4:14pm by Poubelle
____________________________
MUTED
#23Louiscool, Posted: Feb 27 2013 at 3:16 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) And there goes the NDA again.
#24 Feb 27 2013 at 3:18 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
**
931 posts
Uh, there was a press event for the game. Not sure but I think ZAM even attended.

Edited, Feb 27th 2013 4:18pm by Poubelle
____________________________
MUTED
#25 Feb 27 2013 at 3:22 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
*****
12,658 posts
Louiscool wrote:
Poubelle wrote:
I think the most telling and interesting opinions on ARR come from those who didn't play 1.0. They are judging ARR as a totally independent game which is what SE wants.

... so far, those people have posted lukewarm opinions. Not the worst game they've ever played, but not something they would pay for when there are similar options for free.

This is why I think the FFXIV:ARR community is mostly going to be the people who were already subscribing to FFXIV in 2012.

and no I think the last thing ZAM should do is post an editorial saying "ARR will succeed", they already only look slightly less biased than that guy at Massively.

Edited, Feb 27th 2013 4:14pm by Poubelle


And there goes the NDA again.


No. Nothing in the NDA was broken as those "Luke warm opinions" came from those who attended the Media Tour which, as stated by SE, were allowed to release information all in one go.

Let's face it:

View FFXIV ARR as a 1.0 player, you're drooling over it because of how improved it is over 1.0.

View FFXIV ARR as a gamer who've been around the MMO blocked numerous time, you're asking yourself: "What is new and unique about ARR? Why should I play it? What will keep me playing it?" Some comments also talk about how ARR is finally a standard MMORPG, which is SE's goal. However, do we really forget how many MMOs have come and gone in very quick successions the past few years?


#26 Feb 27 2013 at 3:40 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
31 posts
I played FFXI at 3 different times over the first few years, each time starting over and making it to about lev45 before getting distracted by another mmo shiny but it was and still is my favorite mmo even though I never made it to end game (I like to play slow and enjoy the trip and never had very good luck with ls's, always seemed to find the ones with too many children lol). I like the dificulty and I was starting to like FFXIV 1.0 but there was soo much negativeness going around I couldn't stand it no moars. I left and figured if they keep fixing and updating it eventually the complainers would leave and I'd start playin again, but alas the end came. The last few months I've been checkin out info about ARR through email links I got and now I'm getting very excited again! I have tried almost all of the new mmo's that have come out the last couple of years and much like most people, I play for 2 or 3 months and realize it's just the same crap over and over or there just isn't any substance to it and I drop it. I can't wait for ARR, I will be playing slow and savoring every single minute because I know from past FF games that it will be the best game available to play at this time in space.
____________________________






#27 Feb 27 2013 at 3:59 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,416 posts
Thanks for the replies everyone.

One thing I'd like to add, is that most FF players probably feel indifferent towards the game. They might be skeptical, but I don't see why it would be something a positive comment or two post-release wouldn't change.

Truly, the 600k or so fans got burned hard few years ago, and some of them still hold a grudge. All I'm saying is that the number is a drop in the ocean as long as SE keeps taking the right steps in reaching out for their huge demographic with this game.

Like Kachi said that doesn't guarantee success, but what it does guarantee is a solid shot at it.

Quote:
View FFXIV ARR as a gamer who've been around the MMO blocked numerous time, you're asking yourself: "What is new and unique about ARR? Why should I play it? What will keep me playing it?" Some comments also talk about how ARR is finally a standard MMORPG, which is SE's goal. However, do we really forget how many MMOs have come and gone in very quick successions the past few years?


The whole thread is about why those people are largely irrelevant beyond the fact that they won't trash the game anymore.

Not even TOR had what ARR has. A main fanbase consisting of gamers, being targeted with a game that meets the standards of a mainline title in the franchise. TOR was a spinoff at best.

Edited, Feb 28th 2013 1:07am by Hyanmen
____________________________
SE:
Quote:
We really want to compete against World of Warcraft and for example the new Star Wars MMO.

#28 Feb 27 2013 at 4:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
View FFXIV ARR as a gamer who've been around the MMO blocked numerous time, you're asking yourself: "What is new and unique about ARR? Why should I play it? What will keep me playing it?" Some comments also talk about how ARR is finally a standard MMORPG, which is SE's goal. However, do we really forget how many MMOs have come and gone in very quick successions the past few years?


Intense FF storyline, elements of past FF titles, the added social structure of free companies, shared player housing, chocobos that you can customize to fight alongside of you in various roles, a scalable graphics engine to keep the game current with the latest graphic card technology, etc...

There are plenty of things that make ARR stand out, but it will take some time for these elements to stand out among gamers.
____________________________
Thayos Redblade
Jormungandr
Hyperion
#29 Feb 27 2013 at 5:30 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
3,599 posts
Thayos wrote:
Quote:
View FFXIV ARR as a gamer who've been around the MMO blocked numerous time, you're asking yourself: "What is new and unique about ARR? Why should I play it? What will keep me playing it?" Some comments also talk about how ARR is finally a standard MMORPG, which is SE's goal. However, do we really forget how many MMOs have come and gone in very quick successions the past few years?


Intense FF storyline, elements of past FF titles, the added social structure of free companies, shared player housing, chocobos that you can customize to fight alongside of you in various roles, a scalable graphics engine to keep the game current with the latest graphic card technology, etc...

There are plenty of things that make ARR stand out, but it will take some time for these elements to stand out among gamers.


Well said.

The rash of mmos that came and went had the same base structure, without the FF elements and without something to keep players involved at max level. So they run off to the next one. If Y-P does HALF of the things he's "confirmed" in various interviews, player involvement in the world will not be an issue.

I think a lot has to be said for the 1 character, all classes formula as well. That stands out right there, like FFXI. You don't need to create 5 characters and refriend your friends other characters and call up your ls leader to have your 20th character added, or have total jerkwads trolling on their other class because who cares about rep, right?

Community, involvement, and endgame activities that are challenging and tiered. You have to complete the Crystal Tower to access The Labrynth of Bahamut or whatever.

Lastly, 1.0 (and hopefully 2.0) and FFXI do not support the throwaway gear mentality, which is a major factor in jading players in other mmos. You got a new shiny? It will stay shiny for a long time, not just replaced in the next patch, or find a new one with a different randomized stat on it that's slightly better.

/rant
____________________________


#30 Feb 27 2013 at 5:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
I think a lot has to be said for the 1 character, all classes formula as well. That stands out right there, like FFXI.


Very, very, very well said.

I remember seeing an interview with a GW2 developer who was talking about the attractiveness of being able to play through the game on different characters.

Uh, no.

Having to play through the game multiple times just to experience the different jobs is a HORRIBLE feature of every MMO on the market except for FFXIV and FFXI.
____________________________
Thayos Redblade
Jormungandr
Hyperion
#31 Feb 27 2013 at 6:15 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
588 posts
Not enough attention is being given to, what I believe will be the largest differentiating points of this game. If Yoshi could share more about the free company system and the housing system it would make a big difference to those who enjoy spending time crafting in a MMOs. To my knowledge no other games have a housing system as elaborate as what Yoshi has planned. This is something to celebrate. It's taking a current standard for MMOs and adding a level of customization and personalization that's never existed in an game, save to a lesser degree FFXI and maybe Ultima Online.

Edited, Feb 27th 2013 7:42pm by kainsilv
____________________________



#32 Feb 27 2013 at 7:45 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Louiscool wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
What does ARR not have that single player FF games have?


Let me flip that on you. It's not what ARR doesn't have that other FF games have, it's one thing that it DOES have that other FF games don't:

The expectation that you'll play it for more than 50-100 hours, and plenty of filler and timesinks watering it down to help ensure that you do.


The last 3 Final Fantasies took over 70 hours to complete on average...


70 is between 50-100, yes? I think you missed my point. It's much easier to design a game that players can enjoy for that length of time than one that is intended to hold them for years. As much as I've enjoyed many of the FF games, transferring them to an MMO does not automatically expand their lifespan by a hundred times. Maybe two or three time as much, at best.

Thayos wrote:
Quote:
View FFXIV ARR as a gamer who've been around the MMO blocked numerous time, you're asking yourself: "What is new and unique about ARR? Why should I play it? What will keep me playing it?" Some comments also talk about how ARR is finally a standard MMORPG, which is SE's goal. However, do we really forget how many MMOs have come and gone in very quick successions the past few years?


Intense FF storyline, elements of past FF titles, the added social structure of free companies, shared player housing, chocobos that you can customize to fight alongside of you in various roles, a scalable graphics engine to keep the game current with the latest graphic card technology, etc...

There are plenty of things that make ARR stand out, but it will take some time for these elements to stand out among gamers.


These are just features, though, and features by and large do not determine a game's success. They are simply an aspect of the content, and any content which doesn't fulfill the three cardinal elements of effective game design is just a waste of development resources (remember the big Pankration update in FFXI? lol)

The content has to provide a novel gameplay experience, it has to be balanced to an appropriate level of challenge, and it has to be properly incentivized. None of these are checklist items that the designer can simply decide to include. They're intangibles that require very tough judgment calls by skilled designers. And though they're probably the most important elements of good game design, they're also the main reasons that games fail, even when it seems like everything else was done right! A game can copy all the features of a successful game, even add new ones, and it will still fail for lack of these things. And most people will be left looking at the features and saying, "Why?"

So the question isn't, "What unique features does FFXIV have that will allow it to succeed?" but "Why should FFXIV be expected to succeed when it has no more unique features than the other games that recently failed?"


Thayos wrote:
Quote:
I think a lot has to be said for the 1 character, all classes formula as well. That stands out right there, like FFXI.


Very, very, very well said.

I remember seeing an interview with a GW2 developer who was talking about the attractiveness of being able to play through the game on different characters.

Uh, no.

Having to play through the game multiple times just to experience the different jobs is a HORRIBLE feature of every MMO on the market except for FFXIV and FFXI.


This, I agree with. This is a good design element, and games that don't have it are hurting themselves unnecessarily. But this again, is not just a feature, but a component of an incentive structure that is capitalizing on player investment in their character. It enables incentives to be maximized. There is much more incentive to be milked in creating one very diverse and powerful character than in creating a few that you can't even access simultaneously.
____________________________
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.
#33 Feb 27 2013 at 9:11 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
Thayos wrote:

I remember seeing an interview with a GW2 developer who was talking about the attractiveness of being able to play through the game on different characters.

Uh, no.

Having to play through the game multiple times just to experience the different jobs is a HORRIBLE feature of every MMO on the market except for FFXIV and FFXI.


Well, you do still have to play through the game on all those jobs. It's not like you level once and magically you have all the jobs at your disposal. So this comment is largely irrelevant.

That point aside, what the developer was referring to was experiencing the unique storylines (and this is ESPECIALLY true in GW2, which I take it you never played) and playing through the game to learn about the characters and their respective races. Each is unique, and there was nothing horrible about the feature. In fact, I did just what was suggested and tried out all the races and classes. Believe me, that was one aspect that was very well done. Each time it's like playing a new game, as opposed to... crab crab crab worm worm worm fly fly fly crab crab crab etc.

That's not to say I think it's a superior model - it's just a different one, and one that shouldn't be dismissed just because you don't understand it.

As an aside, achievements were made account wide in WoW. Just sayin.

Edited, Feb 27th 2013 10:12pm by Torrence
#34 Feb 27 2013 at 9:55 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Torrence wrote:
Thayos wrote:

I remember seeing an interview with a GW2 developer who was talking about the attractiveness of being able to play through the game on different characters.

Uh, no.

Having to play through the game multiple times just to experience the different jobs is a HORRIBLE feature of every MMO on the market except for FFXIV and FFXI.


Well, you do still have to play through the game on all those jobs. It's not like you level once and magically you have all the jobs at your disposal. So this comment is largely irrelevant.

That point aside, what the developer was referring to was experiencing the unique storylines (and this is ESPECIALLY true in GW2, which I take it you never played) and playing through the game to learn about the characters and their respective races. Each is unique, and there was nothing horrible about the feature. In fact, I did just what was suggested and tried out all the races and classes. Believe me, that was one aspect that was very well done. Each time it's like playing a new game, as opposed to... crab crab crab worm worm worm fly fly fly crab crab crab etc.

That's not to say I think it's a superior model - it's just a different one, and one that shouldn't be dismissed just because you don't understand it.

As an aside, achievements were made account wide in WoW. Just sayin.

Edited, Feb 27th 2013 10:12pm by Torrence


Personally I thought this feature was very poorly implemented in GW2 (Edit: not really poorly implemented, just a poor design decision). What it meant was that there was a lot of content that one character could never experience. None of that content actually changes the outcome of the game, either. So that's just wasted content. And if you have any interest in completing ANY of your characters, you're going to do pretty much everything else in the game at least once -anyway-, because you have to to complete all the areas. So what this means is that 99% of the game is actually completely redundant on a new character, and most players don't want to go and do it all again just to play around with a new class and see some new missions. They got the gist of it the first time around.

Same thing happened in SWTOR.

To me, it's almost always better to allow your players to become invested in a single character and experience the entire game through them. Otherwise you're fragmenting their attachment to the game. When players finally finish a character and find that there really wasn't some deeply rewarding feeling to it, their instinct isn't likely to be to start the process over again.

The main problem with additional characters is that by design, they don't do anything to enhance one another. If I have a maxed out warrior character, he might be able to mail some stuff my way, but he doesn't actually help my new wizard in any way. I'm still starting over from scratch. But my maxed out warrior who -becomes- a wizard reflects the growth of my character. Starting over vs. growth. I'll take growth any day.

Edited, Feb 27th 2013 7:56pm by Kachi
____________________________
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.
#35 Feb 27 2013 at 10:37 PM Rating: Good
***
2,120 posts
Kachi wrote:

Same thing happened in SWTOR.

To me, it's almost always better to allow your players to become invested in a single character and experience the entire game through them. Otherwise you're fragmenting their attachment to the game. When players finally finish a character and find that there really wasn't some deeply rewarding feeling to it, their instinct isn't likely to be to start the process over again.

The main problem with additional characters is that by design, they don't do anything to enhance one another. If I have a maxed out warrior character, he might be able to mail some stuff my way, but he doesn't actually help my new wizard in any way. I'm still starting over from scratch. But my maxed out warrior who -becomes- a wizard reflects the growth of my character. Starting over vs. growth. I'll take growth any day.

I can't comment on GW2, but the idea of making a bunch of alts quickly got old for me in SWTOR. Even with their legacy system that seemed like a nice touch at first. I started missing the 1 character changing jobs style of XI & XIV.

What you brought up there has a lot to do with it. I'm not changing to a brand new entity disconnected from my main, I'm strengthening my 1 character. Either acquiring more abilities my main job can use or increasing my versatility in group roles. Continuously adding to the strength and accomplishments of the 1 character. I like that. Not having to log in & out, mail crap back & forth, and take up multiple guild slots are nice bonuses on top of it.
#36 Feb 28 2013 at 12:18 AM Rating: Decent
****
4,134 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
What does ARR not have that single player FF games have?


Let me flip that on you. It's not what ARR doesn't have that other FF games have, it's one thing that it DOES have that other FF games don't:

The expectation that you'll play it for more than 50-100 hours, and plenty of filler and timesinks watering it down to help ensure that you do.

I see your flip and raise you... What will ARR have that other MMOs don't?




____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
#37 Feb 28 2013 at 12:31 AM Rating: Decent
*
88 posts
Is it even possible to answer that at the moment without breaking the NDA?
#38 Feb 28 2013 at 12:34 AM Rating: Good
**
383 posts
Wyldkat wrote:
Is it even possible to answer that at the moment without breaking the NDA?

Yes, because they've announced pretty much everything they're going to include.

Having said that, I don't think the game offers much of anything that other games haven't already offered. Maybe the "Gold Saucer" area.

The biggest difference is that it'll be packaged as Final Fantasy, and I personally have no problem with that.
____________________________
This is my sig; Enjoy.
FFXIV: Tom Carroll - Excalibur
FC: Sitzkireg (www.sitzkrieg.guildwork.com)
#39 Feb 28 2013 at 7:19 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
3,599 posts
Kachi wrote:
Louiscool wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
What does ARR not have that single player FF games have?


Let me flip that on you. It's not what ARR doesn't have that other FF games have, it's one thing that it DOES have that other FF games don't:

The expectation that you'll play it for more than 50-100 hours, and plenty of filler and timesinks watering it down to help ensure that you do.


The last 3 Final Fantasies took over 70 hours to complete on average...


70 is between 50-100, yes? I think you missed my point. It's much easier to design a game that players can enjoy for that length of time than one that is intended to hold them for years. As much as I've enjoyed many of the FF games, transferring them to an MMO does not automatically expand their lifespan by a hundred times. Maybe two or three time as much, at best.


Uhh. yes I did miss your point then. I thought you were saying that the difference between ff mmos and other final fantasies was the length. Carry on.

Quote:
So the question isn't, "What unique features does FFXIV have that will allow it to succeed?" but "Why should FFXIV be expected to succeed when it has no more unique features than the other games that recently failed?"


Well, what's a unique feature in your eyes? Can you give some examples? I'm just failing to see how advanced player housing and deep social structures aren't features.
____________________________


#40 Feb 28 2013 at 7:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Anterograde Amnesia
Avatar
*****
12,363 posts
A lot of people complain that they aren't innovating, but they have no suggestions on how to do so effectively. 1.0 tried to innovate and fell flat on its face, I'll take traditional elements over that any day.
____________________________
"Choosy MMO's choose Wint." - Louiscool
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist.
Keyser Soze - Ultros
Guide to Setting Up Mumble on a Raspberry Pi
#41 Feb 28 2013 at 9:10 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Well, what's a unique feature in your eyes? Can you give some examples? I'm just failing to see how advanced player housing and deep social structures aren't features.


My point was that the unique features aren't really that important. They won't contribute significantly to the game's success. Features, as they are thought of by gamers, are relatively unimportant. A game can be in most ways a standard, unoriginal ripoff, and still be highly successful... this has been true of many games throughout history. The most important elements deal with execution of the basic game, not the features that embellish it.

/engage psychobabble: a game is ultimately a modulation of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is sustained by novel challenges that are well-balanced against the player's skill level, such that there is a realistic risk of loss and success depending upon the level of effort given. Extrinsic motivation is sustained by properly rewarding the player for participating in the content which is itself the most intrinsically motivating, ensuring that the player's achievement goals are consistent with their desires for play. In this way, a game capitalizes on player motivation.

And when you get right down to it, examining games for what they are--a psychological construct--there are no rules about good features or bad features. However, you can say that interesting, challenging gameplay that is well-balanced, and rewarding players for participating in the content that is fun for them, will definitively allow a game to be successful. That's because these qualities are distilled from what a game actually is. Basically, it's the same reason that the best way to get a good glass of orange juice is to juice oranges.

I think some of the features they're talking about sound really cool. But they'll have to be executed well following the same principles as the core game, and it's how well the core game executes those principles that will determine its success or failure. As I'm quick to point out, game designers don't understand these principles--most of them have never even had an opportunity to learn them. So you really have to rely on their luck, or optimistically, some sort of intuition to carry them through. But the odds are against them.

When I taught education pedagogy at the college level, I regularly had my students design simple games for learning and physical activity, and they were regularly horrible at creating original games (they did okay if they ripped off another game). That was fine, since we were doing it as a workshop, but consider that we're talking about games with depth akin to Duck, Duck, Goose, and they would crash and burn all the time. I wouldn't trust the average game designer to do much better. Designing games is really difficult because it's ultimately a very abstract and subjective balancing act. When you have a -huge- game system like in an MMO, there are so many variables to consider in the system that it really becomes impossible to comprehend all at once.

So at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what cool features you decide to add, it doesn't matter how hard you work and how passionate you are-- if you don't know how to do it, then you just don't. And game designers as a profession accept that they don't know how to do it--they use a design methodology called the iterative process for that reason. The idea, literally, is that they don't know what they're doing, so they're better off with a trial-and-error approach. And that's the design engine behind this game and most every other--a team of gamers working from their own, individual theories about game design, figuring it out as they go.

Smiley: schooled


Edited, Feb 28th 2013 7:11am by Kachi
____________________________
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.
#42 Feb 28 2013 at 9:15 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Wint wrote:
A lot of people complain that they aren't innovating, but they have no suggestions on how to do so effectively. 1.0 tried to innovate and fell flat on its face, I'll take traditional elements over that any day.


I have plenty of suggestions for them. I'm not going to waste my breath over it, because ultimately they need to do game design well more than reinvent the wheel, and they wouldn't hear me in the sea of BAWWW anyway.

But if they need to innovate in any way, it's simply to make combat interesting, which is not hard. You can look to any number of single player games, but ****, they don't even keep up with their own FF games with it. Consider that you're controlling only one character, where in almost any other FF, you'd be controlling 3-6 independent elements (party members). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why combat isn't that engaging.
____________________________
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.
#43 Feb 28 2013 at 9:43 AM Rating: Good
***
1,004 posts
Louiscool wrote:
I think a lot has to be said for the 1 character, all classes formula as well. That stands out right there, like FFXI. You don't need to create 5 characters and refriend your friends other characters and call up your ls leader to have your 20th character added, or have total jerkwads trolling on their other class because who cares about rep, right?


I agree with this, but one thing to note, a key element that stands out here along with this, is how gear is itemized. I don't mean in the "sidegrade/sidegrade/sidegrade" itemization mentality I see overdone in FFXI (which I hate, I also don't think you should be able to swap gear mid combat, aside from weapons & shields). I mean the fact that the "best gear" isn't just "the tier set for your class" that we see in games like WoW and other misc MMOs. Part of what made FFXI unique was that to be geared "the best way possible", you needed a complete mess of gear, BUT, if you wore the class specific gear (at least post abyssea) and or complete sets of event gear (I.E. stuff from Nyzul and other misc events ) you'd be pretty well off. You can stand in FFXI and look into the masses and see 3000 different outfits because everyone has a mix of something different, where when you stand in WoW and look into the masses, you only see the "newest tier" of gear, or "worthless greens from leveling" for the most part. Even the gear that isn't set gear that is good in wow 'looks' like set gear. When we speak of immersion being killed, this is the core problem I think of, there's no uniqueness to anything. I haven't seen anything in FFXIV that indicates there will be the flexibility of FFXI's gearing customization either, it'd be nice if they'd give us like 1000 outfits to look at, so far I think we've been shown like 10? And they are pretty much job specific gear?
____________________________
Posting from just above the generator.
#44 Feb 28 2013 at 9:55 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,004 posts
Now that I got the gear rant out of the way...

Here is what I believe will make FFXIV a success or failure, the one thing that an MMO needs more than anything else: A solid combat system. It's the one thing I'm hoping they have completely, entirely, 100% revamped from 1.0, because if they haven't, we'll end up with the same exact scenario we did in 1.0 - a really pretty game that no one wants to play because the mechanic you are forced to use in nearly 100% of situations where you are not idling in town or talking with friends is Combat. An MMO with a bad combat system is a bad MMO, Period.

I really liked FFXI's combat, it was relaxing, but complex enough to keep me interested. A large part of this came from enemies that had known resistances, different strengths and weaknesses, and "leveled" right along with players, so several enemies gained new abilities at later levels despite being the same model/style of "crab/flytrap/whatever" family of monsters we saw at low levels, but the core of it came from each individual ability being tweaked and tuned to do "just the right amount" of whatever it is they did (with the exception of some de-buffs that to this day need adjusting). I think I had 16 jobs at level cap when I last played, and all of them were fun in their own right. I loved how jumps played into Dragoon's timing and TP generation, resulting in a sort of ghetto meditate. I loved how dancer had instant cures but left you lower on TP, forcing you to choose between not only stances and sambas, but also weather it was better to WS or Heal yourself in a critical moment. I loved how BLM was the iconic glass-canon, but other classes like SCH, RDM, and BLU could perform similar playstyles but survive like a brick wall... but somehow BLM managed to stay very desirable and powerful because the way things were tweaked kept everything in line. I REALLY don't see any game just "popping up" and being able to do any of that, it's going to take a LOT of time and effort.

Basically, if the same or similar battle system from 1.0 makes it into 2.0, I won't be playing after the trial... same as 1.0.

However, I have faith that Yoshi would not be so ignorant as to ignore the failings of the first combat system and would never attempt to implement the same mechanics in such an important project, so I think we've got nothing to worry about and 2.0 will succeed!
____________________________
Posting from just above the generator.
#45 Feb 28 2013 at 9:58 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
FUJILIVES wrote:
Louiscool wrote:
I think a lot has to be said for the 1 character, all classes formula as well. That stands out right there, like FFXI. You don't need to create 5 characters and refriend your friends other characters and call up your ls leader to have your 20th character added, or have total jerkwads trolling on their other class because who cares about rep, right?


I agree with this, but one thing to note, a key element that stands out here along with this, is how gear is itemized. I don't mean in the "sidegrade/sidegrade/sidegrade" itemization mentality I see overdone in FFXI (which I hate, I also don't think you should be able to swap gear mid combat, aside from weapons & shields). I mean the fact that the "best gear" isn't just "the tier set for your class" that we see in games like WoW and other misc MMOs. Part of what made FFXI unique was that to be geared "the best way possible", you needed a complete mess of gear, BUT, if you wore the class specific gear (at least post abyssea) and or complete sets of event gear (I.E. stuff from Nyzul and other misc events ) you'd be pretty well off. You can stand in FFXI and look into the masses and see 3000 different outfits because everyone has a mix of something different, where when you stand in WoW and look into the masses, you only see the "newest tier" of gear, or "worthless greens from leveling" for the most part. Even the gear that isn't set gear that is good in wow 'looks' like set gear. When we speak of immersion being killed, this is the core problem I think of, there's no uniqueness to anything. I haven't seen anything in FFXIV that indicates there will be the flexibility of FFXI's gearing customization either, it'd be nice if they'd give us like 1000 outfits to look at, so far I think we've been shown like 10? And they are pretty much job specific gear?


Personally I liked all the sidegrades, though I didn't like the gearswapping per se. It was the only -good- contributor to the diversity of equipment you'd see, imo. The other major factor was the bottlenecking of content and drop rates... people would have a unique piece because no one else was lucky or dedicated enough to get one. Not a good thing, in my book.

Sidegrades allow you to keep developing your character while not undermining your previous accomplishments. If I had to choose, I'd take a game that was all sidegrades over one that was all upgrades.
____________________________
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.
#46 Feb 28 2013 at 10:08 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
3,599 posts
FUJILIVES wrote:
You can stand in FFXI and look into the masses and see 3000 different outfits because everyone has a mix of something different, where when you stand in WoW and look into the masses, you only see the "newest tier" of gear, or "worthless greens from leveling" for the most part. Even the gear that isn't set gear that is good in wow 'looks' like set gear. When we speak of immersion being killed, this is the core problem I think of, there's no uniqueness to anything. I haven't seen anything in FFXIV that indicates there will be the flexibility of FFXI's gearing customization either, it'd be nice if they'd give us like 1000 outfits to look at, so far I think we've been shown like 10? And they are pretty much job specific gear?


The dye system helped, and the BEST gear in 1.0 was not AF. Af was a good start, and better than FFXI, but your best gear was double-triple socketed materia gear, which left a lot of possibilities in gear look and options.

My 2 friends and I wore very similar Warrior gear, but we color-coordinated, so I wore red, another wore blue, another wore white armor and that was some of the most fun I had gearing up, finding dye materials, and throwing away money to try and double meld. Heck, I had a separate gearset for tanking and dps, and they were the some of the same looking gear, socketed differently, and dyed a different color. There are options galore.

Wint wrote:
A lot of people complain that they aren't innovating, but they have no suggestions on how to do so effectively. 1.0 tried to innovate and fell flat on its face, I'll take traditional elements over that any day.


This is what boggles me. They can't win. 1.0 was a massive "original" invention and we hated it. I really, truly, just want Swtor with FF elements and al lthe lore/world/touches that SE can do. But again, I was a FFXI and XIV faithful, so to me these are fairly fresh designs.

Kachi wrote:
A bunch of psychobabble


I knew you had more to say, thanks! It's an interesting perspective. But, by your own babble, it sounds like copying WoW WILL make 14 successful. SE is iterating on what works and making it their own, right?

Edited, Feb 28th 2013 11:09am by Louiscool
____________________________


#47 Feb 28 2013 at 10:23 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
I knew you had more to say, thanks! It's an interesting perspective. But, by your own babble, it sounds like copying WoW WILL make 14 successful. SE is iterating on what works and making it their own, right?


Always happy to babble.

Regarding your question, unfortunately, not at all, because here's the trick of it: Developers go out and look at what a game like WoW does, and they say, "We need to make our game like this if we're going to be competitive/successful." But what do they do? They try to copy the features, which as I just explained, do not determine the game's success. The stuff that they are wanting to copy is basically invisible. It includes things like, "How high/low should the stats be on this particular monster/class?" and "Which -specific- item should drop from which -specific- monster?" And obviously, those are the sorts of things that are not and cannot be copied over directly from another game. Edit: and lest I forget, trying to copy a novel challenge is a recipe for failure, because once another game has done it, it's not novel anymore.

This is also part of the reason why most game designers don't understand what makes a good game. It's because they do the same thing we all did as we grew up playing games--form opinions, observe, and then they try to attribute what they liked or didn't like about a game to its features (interesting note, we also do this with our emotions--we feel them first, then try to explain them afterwards). If they're on the ball, they might notice that a game was too easy, too hard, or didn't reward you intelligently, but they're still going to mix those observations in with a bunch of theories about which features work well and which don't. Then when it comes time to design a game, they lose sight of how important things like the invisible numbers are, and they're really not sure how to do that anyway, because nobody ever stops to notice what it looks like. I mean, it's no surprise that we try to reduce our observations to something simple and sensible like how great this feature was, and then we ignore things like how perfectly balanced the player:enemy statistical algorithms were. We can't even see the latter as we're playing the game.

So SE is nearly starting from scratch. And there's more. When you have a game system that works, it's like building a car. If I copy your car that runs well, but I make just a couple of changes by adding my own custom parts, then I could easily end up with a car that doesn't run at all. That's how systems work-- lots of moving parts that depend on one another to be working in perfect unison. So often times, making that copy and putting your own touch on it ends up breaking the system altogether.

Edited, Feb 28th 2013 8:25am by Kachi

Edited, Feb 28th 2013 8:26am by Kachi
____________________________
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.
#48 Feb 28 2013 at 10:48 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
**
931 posts
Wint wrote:
A lot of people complain that they aren't innovating, but they have no suggestions on how to do so effectively. 1.0 tried to innovate and fell flat on its face, I'll take traditional elements over that any day.


You act like 1.0's features were bad BECAUSE they were innovative. Just because those specific features were terrible (and terribly implemented) doesn't mean innovation is bad and Square Enix should sink down to making reskinned versions of free-to-play Korean games.


Edited, Feb 28th 2013 11:49am by Poubelle
____________________________
MUTED
#49 Feb 28 2013 at 11:05 AM Rating: Good
***
2,010 posts
Poubelle wrote:
Wint wrote:
A lot of people complain that they aren't innovating, but they have no suggestions on how to do so effectively. 1.0 tried to innovate and fell flat on its face, I'll take traditional elements over that any day.


You act like 1.0's features were bad BECAUSE they were innovative. Just because those specific features were terrible (and terribly implemented) doesn't mean innovation is bad and Square Enix should sink down to making reskinned versions of free-to-play Korean games.




I don't think that's what he is saying at all. He's saying that their "innovations" weren't "innovations" at all, and Yoshi-P himself has made statements agreeing that in their quest to just be "different from XI" they ended up being so different from ANY recognizable game that "innovation" became synonymous with "wtf". So what's the solution? Either continue to wear blinders and pretend that good design means alienating users, or put their big dev panties on and accept the reality that the industry improved the experience all on its own and the same standards as ten years ago no longer apply.

They can use elements that make sense while still keeping their sense of individuality. Innovation is only innovation when it brings something new to the table that players can get hold of and say, "yea, this is awesome! Super fun stuff, let's go play it!" Innovation is not a lagfest followed by JP midnight and "surplus XP". They couldn't just reverse Rested XP and expect players to not see it for what it was. So that's why Yoshi-P sat down with his team and said, "ok, go check this other games out and come back with what you think is coolest and we can see how to make this game much cooler."
#50 Feb 28 2013 at 11:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
562 posts
I don't think MMORPG developers should be discouraged from attempting to innovate, but it is true that innovating simply because you want to be different is a bad game design strategy.

FFXIV 1.0 tried to take the worst elements of other MMORPGs, couple those with it's own unique spin on 'things', and make that their game. There's being different, then there's being good. FFXIV 1.0 did the first one but not the second.

I'd much rather these companies try to break the mold but in a way that's not just being different for different's sake and I'm more than willing to give a game a chance that tries to do this, as I'm rather sick of the traditional modern MMORPG design by now. If I play another cookie-cutter modern MMORPG with fast, mindless solo leveling via questhubs and non-strategic button mashing combat, I'm simply going to give up on the genre completely. Where this philosophy started that MMORPGs can only start at endgame and maxlevel, and thus you have to rush the player to it as fast as possible through forgettable content, I'll never know.
____________________________
FFXIV - Fellows - Fabul
FFXI - Fellows - Gilgamesh


#51 Feb 28 2013 at 11:37 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
2,153 posts
Quote:
Intrinsic motivation is sustained by novel challenges that are well-balanced against the player's skill level

Unless, of course, you are talking about social gamers who are just there to to enjoy the community aspects... or to roleplay... or to find a girlfriend... or to enjoy the graphics... or because their friends invited them... or because it's the only MMO on the PS3... or because they like the franchise... or the storyline... or hope to date Yuna... or brag about learning Japanese while playing...

That's quite a part about motivation one should not overlook when talking about game design: motivation, even the intrinsic type, depends a lot on the audience you are targeting. Your principles certainly apply to many, but just as certainly there are many a narrow focus on the reward mechanics you consider pivotal does not apply to. Just my 2C.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 100 All times are in CDT
Callinon, Anonymous Guests (99)