Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

What A Change a Few Years Can MakeFollow

#1 Jul 23 2013 at 11:29 AM Rating: Good
*
153 posts
http://dorkutopia.com/the-first-five-review-ffxiv-a-realm-reborn-beta-impressions/

Can any of us even fathom 1.0 turning into a game that is receiving a score of 85%? Granted this is just a preview, however this type of publicity is going to make this game huge.

It's funny how naysayers are few and far between these days. I remember just several months ago, about 50% of XIVs forum population was made up of trolls who just wanted to bash the game.
#2 Jul 23 2013 at 11:32 AM Rating: Good
**
383 posts
ClydesShadow wrote:
It's funny how naysayers are few and far between these days. I remember just several months ago, about 50% of XIVs forum population was made up of trolls who just wanted to bash the game.

There's still a pretty vocal minority on the beta forums who absolutely hate this game and everything it stands for. Personally, I really like the game; don't feel like it's any worse than anything that's currently on the market.

I think the real test is endgame; that's where you end up keeping the bulk of your subscribers. If SE can make good content and the correct pace, this game will have a very bright future ahead of it.
____________________________
This is my sig; Enjoy.
FFXIV: Tom Carroll - Excalibur
FC: Sitzkireg (www.sitzkrieg.guildwork.com)
#3 Jul 23 2013 at 11:35 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
1,208 posts
ClydesShadow wrote:
http://dorkutopia.com/the-first-five-review-ffxiv-a-realm-reborn-beta-impressions/

Can any of us even fathom 1.0 turning into a game that is receiving a score of 85%? Granted this is just a preview, however this type of publicity is going to make this game huge.

It's funny how naysayers are few and far between these days. I remember just several months ago, about 50% of XIVs forum population was made up of trolls who just wanted to bash the game.


The readers of the blog gave it a 95%...

Kind of like looking at Rotten Tomatoes to see if I'll like a movie, I go with the audience numbers... critics are paid to be critical... so 85% is a bit low IMHO.

____________________________
The Kraken Club - (Ultros FC)
Character Name: Meat Mithkabob
#4 Jul 23 2013 at 11:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
Kind of like looking at Rotten Tomatoes to see if I'll like a movie, I go with the audience numbers... critics are paid to be critical... so 85% is a bit low IMHO.


I always ignore the audience numbers. Too often, people will give movies high marks simply because they are fans of whichever franchises they are seeing. A great example is the audience rating for just about any Twilight movie, as opposed to the critical ratings.

That said, I also ignore the early critical ratings. Seems that the most "franchise-friendly" critics usually see the movies right away. The critical scores tend to drop a bit over time as more objective critics file their reviews. With good movies, though, the critical ratings don't move.

Just my two cents.
____________________________
Thayos Redblade
Jormungandr
Hyperion
#5 Jul 23 2013 at 11:52 AM Rating: Good
I ignore both critics and audience numbers. Like people have said, critics are paid to be critical. Audience numbers I ignore because a lot of people just have horrible taste in movies, so those numbers are skewed IMHO. I'm a big believer in try something for yourself before bashing it, otherwise just line up with the rest of the lemmings and jump off a cliff.
#6 Jul 23 2013 at 11:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
Like people have said, critics are paid to be critical.


That's exactly why I pay attention when critics (by consensus, not individual reviewers) actually give something a good rating.
____________________________
Thayos Redblade
Jormungandr
Hyperion
#7 Jul 23 2013 at 12:03 PM Rating: Good
***
3,386 posts
Quote:
critics are paid to be critical


You're saying that like it's a bad thing. Critical thinking is an important skill, one that needs to be used MORE often, not less. Having someone who's able to separate themselves from their personal opinion to give a truly objective evaluation of something is SUPER valuable.

Now, it's fair to argue that a lot of so-called critics can't do that. But then the trick becomes finding one who can, or at least one you agree with more often than not.
____________________________
svlyons wrote:
If random outcomes aren't acceptable to you, then don't play with random people.
#8 Jul 23 2013 at 12:07 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,134 posts
TurboTom wrote:
I think the real test is endgame; that's where you end up keeping the bulk of your subscribers. If SE can make good content and the correct pace, this game will have a very bright future ahead of it.

I agree. I think endgame will be the true test for two reasons:

1) Most people will spend the majority of their time playing characters at level cap
2) A large part of the population that carries over from 1.0 will have characters capped or very close

The first reason kinda goes without saying, but the second reason is the exclamation point on why I think level cap content will be so important to ARR on re-launch. I had hoped that players would be reset completely to level 1(at least soft capped down to something relatively low like 15 or so), but if ARR isn't coming out of the gate with a lot to see and do at level cap it will probably even deter legacy players from even starting from the beginning for lulz. I can't see what the draw would be if you had a capped character and knew that even if you did enjoy the new and improved journey to level cap; there would be nothing shiny waiting for you at the end of that journey.

I had originally planned on sitting out until ARR launched since I wanted to give it a fair shake before making a judgment about it until that point. Depending on how much of the later stages of the game are available in the last beta phase, I may have to rethink that. I think I read somewhere that the trial period for people who already have accounts is 2 weeks? I don't think that's enough time to experience enough of what there is at endgame to come to any real conclusion on whether or not I'd enjoy it enough to sub. Not certain why they wouldn't give everyone the same trial period. Can anyone confirm that?




Edited, Jul 23rd 2013 2:09pm by FilthMcNasty
____________________________
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.
#9 Jul 23 2013 at 12:13 PM Rating: Good
Party Pooper
*****
12,232 posts
Thayos wrote:
[quote]
I always ignore the audience numbers. Too often, people will give movies high marks simply because they are fans of whichever franchises they are seeing. A great example is the audience rating for just about any Twilight movie, as opposed to the critical ratings.



Example A: The countless 5 star reviews for PS4/Xbone for systems that aren't even released yet.

____________________________
[sm]FFXI: Flix 75THF/RNG/NIN/WAR/MNK/DRK/SAM/DRG/BLM Retired: Sept 2009.
SW:TOR Maim (Assassin) Sai'kou (Sniper) GM: Ultimatum. Retired: When 1.2 failed miserably.
FFXIV: Flix Skyfall (Behemoth) 50BRD: River of Blood for dayzzzzzz


#10 Jul 23 2013 at 12:33 PM Rating: Good
******
48,472 posts
Archmage Callinon wrote:
But then the trick becomes finding one who can, or at least one you agree with more often than not.
I've found the best method was to look for opposing opinions. For instance, if you go to a fansite, and find the opinion of the latest product is overall negative, then chances are good that the product is below average and probably not worth your time. Likewise, a site that is an outspoken detractor of a product suddenly likes the newest one? Probably a good idea to check it out. After all, fans are going to be fans, and detractors are going to be detractors, so it's difficult to take their opinions serious when fans are positive and detractors are negative due to their confirmation bias.

Edited, Jul 23rd 2013 2:34pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#11 Jul 23 2013 at 12:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Guru
***
1,310 posts
FilthMcNasty wrote:
TurboTom wrote:
I think the real test is endgame; that's where you end up keeping the bulk of your subscribers. If SE can make good content and the correct pace, this game will have a very bright future ahead of it.

I agree. I think endgame will be the true test for two reasons:

1) Most people will spend the majority of their time playing characters at level cap
2) A large part of the population that carries over from 1.0 will have characters capped or very close


There's no doubt in my mind that the focus is correctly on new players right now. No new players = game is dead = no endgame even if it was utterly brilliant.

But at the same time, you're right in reminding us that it's too soon to uncork the champagne just yet. I can recognize that SE has potentially triumphed in pulling FFXIV out of the fire, and it's very encouraging that people are excited about what they see. This is an essential first step and it looks like it will be achieved.

However, the question remains is will that make any difference once 2014 rolls around and we've had our fill of leveling a few characters and classes? Are the tools going to be there to get players to take up the mantle and work together to play long term? Or will this go the way of so many SWtORs before it and dwindle rapidly after a few months? Before the end of the year, there will be an inevitable transition where long term play does make or break FFXIV. This is really only something we can know for sure after release when the net is removed from Yoshida's tightrope act.
#12 Jul 23 2013 at 1:00 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*
124 posts
So far I think they have done very well.

As for endgame they must keep in mind that there are solo players, small group players and raiders in any game.
All are equally important to make any game successful, all are equally long time subscribers so everyones style must be touched on., never focus on raiding only or it will fall into the trap that many mmo are at now, never gaining anywhere near the playerbase they could and I dont want to see that for this one, its simply too beautiful and they put alot of work into it so far :o)

Offer good rewards for all playstyles!! have many crafted gear sets that are very good at the trainers, only some in dungeons/raids.
Dont make raiding so vastly far better then small groups can get (dont make the same mistake that 11 recently has and divide the playerbase so far that the game is at a standstill) Please SE think out of the box 14 will thrive!!

Offer excellent options for all , they dont need to be equal, of course not!!
But not vastly more powerful compared to crafted, quested, small group etc.

Keep all happy and ffxiv will do extremely well, if not it will end up like 11 with a set number of subs, never increasing over 10 years. Strive for more, alot more, 14 deserves this chance to.

Im completely happy so far though, vast improvements from original launch !!!
____________________________
http://i.imgur.com/FokEtHo.png
#13 Jul 23 2013 at 1:25 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,652 posts
Allestra wrote:
So far I think they have done very well.

As for endgame they must keep in mind that there are solo players, small group players and raiders in any game.
All are equally important to make any game successful, all are equally long time subscribers so everyones style must be touched on., never focus on raiding only or it will fall into the trap that many mmo are at now, never gaining anywhere near the playerbase they could and I dont want to see that for this one, its simply too beautiful and they put alot of work into it so far :o)

Offer good rewards for all playstyles!! have many crafted gear sets that are very good at the trainers, only some in dungeons/raids.
Dont make raiding so vastly far better then small groups can get (dont make the same mistake that 11 recently has and divide the playerbase so far that the game is at a standstill) Please SE think out of the box 14 will thrive!!

Offer excellent options for all , they dont need to be equal, of course not!!
But not vastly more powerful compared to crafted, quested, small group etc.

Keep all happy and ffxiv will do extremely well, if not it will end up like 11 with a set number of subs, never increasing over 10 years. Strive for more, alot more, 14 deserves this chance to.

Im completely happy so far though, vast improvements from original launch !!!



Amen brother amen... You are exactly right.. Two thumbs up..
____________________________
FFXI: Nashred
Server: Phoenix

FFXIV : Sir Nashred
server: Ultros
#14 Jul 23 2013 at 2:16 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,134 posts
Xoie wrote:
FilthMcNasty wrote:
TurboTom wrote:
I think the real test is endgame; that's where you end up keeping the bulk of your subscribers. If SE can make good content and the correct pace, this game will have a very bright future ahead of it.

I agree. I think endgame will be the true test for two reasons:

1) Most people will spend the majority of their time playing characters at level cap
2) A large part of the population that carries over from 1.0 will have characters capped or very close


There's no doubt in my mind that the focus is correctly on new players right now. No new players = game is dead = no endgame even if it was utterly brilliant.

I still think it's extremely important to have a somewhat established endgame. With new games you can ignore endgame for the most part and work on that after you get your release stabilized because your entire playerbase started at level 1, but that isn't the case with ARR. That's why I stressed the second point. I think that it's a double-edged blade in that regard.

I completely agree with you that ignoring new players is a death sentence. It might seem like it would be more important to focus on them at first glance because we all expect that the larger group will be the new players and not the returning legacy crew. However, if level capped players bow out quickly and directly link a lack of endgame content as the reason; what's to keep the new players around beyond their free trial if they're led to believe(by vets) that endgame is non-existent?

rockYoshihardplace Smiley: frown
____________________________
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.
#15 Jul 23 2013 at 2:25 PM Rating: Good
*
153 posts
FilthMcNasty wrote:
Xoie wrote:
FilthMcNasty wrote:
TurboTom wrote:
I think the real test is endgame; that's where you end up keeping the bulk of your subscribers. If SE can make good content and the correct pace, this game will have a very bright future ahead of it.

I agree. I think endgame will be the true test for two reasons:

1) Most people will spend the majority of their time playing characters at level cap
2) A large part of the population that carries over from 1.0 will have characters capped or very close


There's no doubt in my mind that the focus is correctly on new players right now. No new players = game is dead = no endgame even if it was utterly brilliant.

I still think it's extremely important to have a somewhat established endgame. With new games you can ignore endgame for the most part and work on that after you get your release stabilized because your entire playerbase started at level 1, but that isn't the case with ARR. That's why I stressed the second point. I think that it's a double-edged blade in that regard.

I completely agree with you that ignoring new players is a death sentence. It might seem like it would be more important to focus on them at first glance because we all expect that the larger group will be the new players and not the returning legacy crew. However, if level capped players bow out quickly and directly link a lack of endgame content as the reason; what's to keep the new players around beyond their free trial if they're led to believe(by vets) that endgame is non-existent?

rockYoshihardplace Smiley: frown



This whole endgame content conversation that keeps popping up seems rather irrelevant to me... We won't exactly know what there is until the game is released. It seems people are getting worked up about the issue as if they've already released the game devoid of endgame content.

I'll also guarantee that there is at least a decent amount of endgame at release, with more to come within the coming months. They are certainly not going to take a risk of ******* off all the legacy players.

Has the Yosh not done enough yet to prove he knows what the **** he's doing?

Edit: Also, why are people acting like it is only physically possible to work on a. New gamer content or b. end game content? These aren't mutually exclusive, and the development teams can be divided to work on different aspects.

Edited, Jul 23rd 2013 4:26pm by ClydesShadow
#16Ehllfire, Posted: Jul 23 2013 at 2:53 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) One, you cant review something not released. That would be a preview. Although the game is loads better than that pile of steaming horse dung called 1.0, I seriously doubt it will get over 80 on metacritic as there is nothing original or gamechanging in its design. Basically not having gimmicks and being a wow clone (dont ban me its the truth not trolling) will keep its score modest. The made a safe game and it will get a safe score.
#17 Jul 23 2013 at 3:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
***
1,675 posts
ClydesShadow wrote:
FilthMcNasty wrote:
Xoie wrote:
FilthMcNasty wrote:
TurboTom wrote:
I think the real test is endgame; that's where you end up keeping the bulk of your subscribers. If SE can make good content and the correct pace, this game will have a very bright future ahead of it.

I agree. I think endgame will be the true test for two reasons:

1) Most people will spend the majority of their time playing characters at level cap
2) A large part of the population that carries over from 1.0 will have characters capped or very close


There's no doubt in my mind that the focus is correctly on new players right now. No new players = game is dead = no endgame even if it was utterly brilliant.

I still think it's extremely important to have a somewhat established endgame. With new games you can ignore endgame for the most part and work on that after you get your release stabilized because your entire playerbase started at level 1, but that isn't the case with ARR. That's why I stressed the second point. I think that it's a double-edged blade in that regard.

I completely agree with you that ignoring new players is a death sentence. It might seem like it would be more important to focus on them at first glance because we all expect that the larger group will be the new players and not the returning legacy crew. However, if level capped players bow out quickly and directly link a lack of endgame content as the reason; what's to keep the new players around beyond their free trial if they're led to believe(by vets) that endgame is non-existent?

rockYoshihardplace Smiley: frown



This whole endgame content conversation that keeps popping up seems rather irrelevant to me... We won't exactly know what there is until the game is released. It seems people are getting worked up about the issue as if they've already released the game devoid of endgame content.

I'll also guarantee that there is at least a decent amount of endgame at release, with more to come within the coming months. They are certainly not going to take a risk of ******* off all the legacy players.

Has the Yosh not done enough yet to prove he knows what the **** he's doing?

Edit: Also, why are people acting like it is only physically possible to work on a. New gamer content or b. end game content? These aren't mutually exclusive, and the development teams can be divided to work on different aspects.

Edited, Jul 23rd 2013 4:26pm by ClydesShadow


I agree.

It seems only logical that given what Yoshi has done so far, it would only follow that he'd anticipate endgame "problems" and the number of players at cap.

Nothing in all of the dev letters/communications and what I've seen in beta suggest that he would be incompetent in that regard.

I think it's safe to say Yoshi knows what he's doing.

----

Now endgame can mean a lot of things, and I think in this case it means high level dungeons and raids. Yes there will be housing and crafting and companies, high level FATES and all of the other "theme park" stuff, but let's not kid ourselves when the focus will be on raiding.

So what are Yoshi's choices? To have several endgame dungeons and raids, and to up their difficulty to nigh impossible until more people get to cap. (which was hinted at, although I don't remember the source). Then continue on working on patches and expansions.

Personally I hope the cap is raised sooner than later, and that there are more "required" quests, like Genkai/and higher level company/missions when the level cap is raised.
#18 Jul 23 2013 at 3:39 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
970 posts
You don't have to break new ground to get a 80-85% on review sites. You just have to have content for different playstyles and be polished to the tee and very accessible.

01-49%= Bad design and unplayable
50-59%= Mediocre
60-79%= Above average
80-89%= A cut above the rest, has one or two unique things, standard but polished.
90-100%= Best in the genre, breaking new ground, highly polished, almost perfect but no game is absolutely perfect.

The majority of readers perception is that if it isn't at least 80% the game is a pile of **** usually. But that's not how critics do it.

WoW= 93%
GW2= 90%
EQ2= 83%
EQ= 85%
FFXI= 85%
SWTOR= 85%
Planetside 2= 84%
TERA= 77%
TSW= 73%
DCUO= 72%
APB reloaded= 56%
FFXIV original= 49%

I'd say an 80% or above would put ARR in pretty good company, FFXI their most profitable game to date scored an 85%.



Edited, Jul 23rd 2013 5:57pm by sandpark
#19 Jul 23 2013 at 3:57 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
4,755 posts
The magic number here is 3. We seem to keep 3 of them around at all times - never fewer.

Anyways -

Glad positive impressions are being publicized. It's been trending that way for a while now and it's good that it maintains. I dare say the safe approach is the right approach here. As far as what it scores in metacritic? I've stopped considering Metacritic as a reliable source of info.

#20 Jul 23 2013 at 3:59 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
970 posts
No, metacritic is as reliable as scores can get. Regardless of the score some people prefer lower scored games over others though.
#21 Jul 23 2013 at 4:04 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
972 posts
For me, the first five (seconds, minutes, hours) are the absolute WORST of ARR.

The intro scenes are all totally lackluster in comparison to 1.0's and make you want to take a nice nap. There's no drama and no interesting characters are introduced. When you're finally out of that long boring cut scene you're going to be doing an hour of fetch quests because the lady needs a napkin from the man across the way before you can even enter combat.
#22 Jul 23 2013 at 4:08 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
970 posts
Killua125 wrote:
For me, the first five (seconds, minutes, hours) are the absolute WORST of ARR.

The intro scenes are all totally lackluster in comparison to 1.0's and make you want to take a nice nap. There's no drama and no interesting characters are introduced. When you're finally out of that long boring cut scene you're going to be doing an hour of fetch quests because the lady needs a napkin from the man across the way before you can even enter combat.

Spill the beans. How is it lackluster compared to 1.0? I'm not in beta.
#23 Jul 23 2013 at 4:10 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
972 posts
It's just this super long cutscene with the camera looming on your character's blank face as you ride in a van.

It's basically the same for each town, but a boat for Limsa...etc. Looming camera on blank faces of you (and the other passengers) and just talking about nothing. I literally wanted to fall asleep.

Each 1.0 had drama, cool cutscenes, introduced characters, and really sucked you into the world (of course, everything in 1.0 went downhill after the intros, but still.)
#24 Jul 23 2013 at 4:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
**
970 posts
Killua125 wrote:
It's just this super long cutscene with the camera looming on your character's blank face as you ride in a van.

It's basically the same for each town, but a boat for Limsa...etc. Looming camera on blank faces of you (and the other passengers) and just talking about nothing. I literally wanted to fall asleep.

Each 1.0 had drama, cool cutscenes, introduced characters, and really sucked you into the world (of course, everything in 1.0 went downhill after the intros, but still.)

You mean sort of like this? That does kind of suck. Well I'm not going to judge a whole game on an intro anyhow.
I did like the 1.0 cutscenes better if that video below is how they are now. I guess SE had a good reason.



Edited, Jul 23rd 2013 6:25pm by sandpark
#25 Jul 23 2013 at 4:26 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,386 posts
Quote:
It's just this super long cutscene with the camera looming on your character's blank face as you ride in a van.


Ok.. that lasts like 2 minutes. During which, you get some backstory both on yourself (where the **** DID you come from?) and the city you're going to. The original intro had Leviathan... and pretty much nothing else worth caring about.
____________________________
svlyons wrote:
If random outcomes aren't acceptable to you, then don't play with random people.
#26 Jul 23 2013 at 4:30 PM Rating: Default
**
487 posts
Archmage Callinon wrote:
Quote:
It's just this super long cutscene with the camera looming on your character's blank face as you ride in a van.


Ok.. that lasts like 2 minutes. During which, you get some backstory both on yourself (where the **** DID you come from?) and the city you're going to. The original intro had Leviathan... and pretty much nothing else worth caring about.


It also had a rampaging goobue and mogs depending on which city
____________________________
BANNED
#27 Jul 23 2013 at 4:30 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
970 posts
Archmage Callinon wrote:
Quote:
It's just this super long cutscene with the camera looming on your character's blank face as you ride in a van.


Ok.. that lasts like 2 minutes. During which, you get some backstory both on yourself (where the **** DID you come from?) and the city you're going to. The original intro had Leviathan... and pretty much nothing else worth caring about.

I get what you're saying Callinon. I think Killua means they could have kept the cooler cutscenes and added that info you mentioned sort of like the intro of this movie.
#28 Jul 23 2013 at 4:45 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,386 posts
sandpark wrote:
Archmage Callinon wrote:
Quote:
It's just this super long cutscene with the camera looming on your character's blank face as you ride in a van.


Ok.. that lasts like 2 minutes. During which, you get some backstory both on yourself (where the **** DID you come from?) and the city you're going to. The original intro had Leviathan... and pretty much nothing else worth caring about.

I get what you're saying Callinon. I think Killua means they could have kept the cooler cutscenes and added that info you mentioned sort of like the intro of this movie.


Seems a bit dark...

I get what you're saying and that would have been pretty cool. Honestly though, I think SE did fine for the opening moments of the game. And there are certainly no shortage of awesome cutscenes in the early parts of the main story.
____________________________
svlyons wrote:
If random outcomes aren't acceptable to you, then don't play with random people.
#29 Jul 23 2013 at 4:46 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
4,755 posts
Perhaps my wording is bit harsh. I take Metacritic with a large helping of salt, mainly because all it takes is a dark horse looking for attention to skew the ratings. The number rating is not universal across all reviewers and Metacritic tries to beleive that the law of averages can appropriately control this, where I feel as if it compounds the problem - creating a more homogenized viewpoint of games rather than creating a variant perspective.

#30 Jul 23 2013 at 4:47 PM Rating: Good
**
259 posts
Like every MMO, the real test will come 3 months after launch. Every MMO when its fresh and new seems very positive. But like SWTOR and GW2 have shown, initial hype and impressions don't mean much if the games have no lasting appeal. Is there going to be enough endgame and enough meaningful endgame that people will want to keep repeating?

SWTOR launched with 1 raid and a 2nd soon after. Plus a number of lv50 flashpoints and PvP. So the quantity of endgame wasn't bad. What hurt it is was the ease of endgame and how quickly you could gear up. Within 3-4 week of hitting lv50 you could have the best in slot gear. The 2 raids could be completed within 2 hours each in a matter of weeks. And I'm not talking about just the hardcore progression raiding guilds. A bunch of casual MMO players could clear EV and KP after just a handful of wipes. And the raids themselves were quite short. FFXIV needs to avoid that pitfall. Its nice to hear about the quantity of endgame they have planned, but quality is still to be determined.
#31 Jul 23 2013 at 4:59 PM Rating: Default
**
487 posts
Arjuncorpse wrote:
Like every MMO, the real test will come 3 months after launch. Every MMO when its fresh and new seems very positive. But like SWTOR and GW2 have shown, initial hype and impressions don't mean much if the games have no lasting appeal. Is there going to be enough endgame and enough meaningful endgame that people will want to keep repeating?

SWTOR launched with 1 raid and a 2nd soon after. Plus a number of lv50 flashpoints and PvP. So the quantity of endgame wasn't bad. What hurt it is was the ease of endgame and how quickly you could gear up. Within 3-4 week of hitting lv50 you could have the best in slot gear. The 2 raids could be completed within 2 hours each in a matter of weeks. And I'm not talking about just the hardcore progression raiding guilds. A bunch of casual MMO players could clear EV and KP after just a handful of wipes. And the raids themselves were quite short. FFXIV needs to avoid that pitfall. Its nice to hear about the quantity of endgame they have planned, but quality is still to be determined.


That and endgame was buggy as **** for TOR. It is not a good indicator with the ease of leveling and dungeons of this being a long term game (yet). Im not saying we go back to 1.0 or XI grind which was awful. But people will burn through all the content quickly I fear, and you would need some solid gold endgame to keep them playing. If they get the RvRvR pvp up and going before three months that will help immensely with retention. They will need a Rift style content release schedule of new raids every couple of months as well. Bringing out new jobs/classes will help, but if people get bored it wont be enough. So yes 2.0 is in a precarious situation that every other wow style themepark puts itself in, balancing accessibility with content generation. To this date only rift has been able to keep up with its lofty goals (somewhat). Others like TSW failed miserably (they got what 3 monthly expacs out before reversing course and then ending up f2p?). If it takes 6 months for the next raid to come out/RvRvR, then yes 2.0 will have a retention problem.
____________________________
BANNED
#32 Jul 23 2013 at 5:03 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
970 posts
Archmage Callinon wrote:
sandpark wrote:
Archmage Callinon wrote:
Quote:
It's just this super long cutscene with the camera looming on your character's blank face as you ride in a van.


Ok.. that lasts like 2 minutes. During which, you get some backstory both on yourself (where the **** DID you come from?) and the city you're going to. The original intro had Leviathan... and pretty much nothing else worth caring about.

I get what you're saying Callinon. I think Killua means they could have kept the cooler cutscenes and added that info you mentioned sort of like the intro of this movie.


Seems a bit dark...

I get what you're saying and that would have been pretty cool. Honestly though, I think SE did fine for the opening moments of the game. And there are certainly no shortage of awesome cutscenes in the early parts of the main story.

Yeah that is a bit dark, that opening kind of reminds me of some of the cutscenes in Final Fantasy Tactics lol. Well, no shortage of awesome cutscenes in the early parts of the main story sounds good.
#33 Jul 23 2013 at 5:11 PM Rating: Excellent
*
138 posts
Arjuncorpse wrote:
Like every MMO, the real test will come 3 months after launch. Every MMO when its fresh and new seems very positive. But like SWTOR and GW2 have shown, initial hype and impressions don't mean much if the games have no lasting appeal. Is there going to be enough endgame and enough meaningful endgame that people will want to keep repeating?

SWTOR launched with 1 raid and a 2nd soon after. Plus a number of lv50 flashpoints and PvP. So the quantity of endgame wasn't bad. What hurt it is was the ease of endgame and how quickly you could gear up. Within 3-4 week of hitting lv50 you could have the best in slot gear. The 2 raids could be completed within 2 hours each in a matter of weeks. And I'm not talking about just the hardcore progression raiding guilds. A bunch of casual MMO players could clear EV and KP after just a handful of wipes. And the raids themselves were quite short. FFXIV needs to avoid that pitfall. Its nice to hear about the quantity of endgame they have planned, but quality is still to be determined.



True, about SWTOR. But please add...

  • Horrible project management: They never did anything right, delayed absolutely everything, and took several weeks to even patch game-breaking bugs
  • Worst QA in MMO history: We cleared all the end-game content in our guild. But the amount of bugs found in the **** TWO raids (EV ought to be the worst, that was the one with Soa, wasn't it?) was stupendously high. And the bugs were getting more and more / worse and worse as the difficulty climbed up. It's as if the QA never bothered to enter these instances at Hard / Nightmare in the first place.
  • Poor implementation decisions: So, you are Bioware / EA, have spent an obscene amount of money making this game, and then go and use an unknown HeroForge engine, which a) is free b) has never been used in anything of scale before and c) cannot sustain more than 10-12 fps on very high end computers when crowd gathers. You then make Ilum a desert because the "mass PVP" you wanted can't work at 2 fps.


Um, profit?

It takes considerable effort to take a game which had a solid concept, nice leveling and all, and perhaps the strongest brand on Earth, and ruin it so profoundly.

I speak from experience, of course.
#34 Jul 23 2013 at 5:15 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,649 posts
Archmage Callinon wrote:
Quote:
It's just this super long cutscene with the camera looming on your character's blank face as you ride in a van.


Ok.. that lasts like 2 minutes. During which, you get some backstory both on yourself (where the **** DID you come from?) and the city you're going to. The original intro had Leviathan... and pretty much nothing else worth caring about.


I'm actually gonna have to side with 1.0's intros here. Not only were they all unique in comparison to 2.0, but they also immediately put you into a situation that you had to resolve. You got immediately involved in a conflict and it was the perfect time to show you the controls. 2.0 on the other hand is an absolute drag. It would've been a lot better if the cutscene with you vs the masked mage was an actual tutorial fight with all your abilities unlocked. Would've been a great way to have a nibble with endgame abilities.
____________________________

#35 Jul 23 2013 at 5:21 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
970 posts
HeroMystic wrote:
Archmage Callinon wrote:
Quote:
It's just this super long cutscene with the camera looming on your character's blank face as you ride in a van.


Ok.. that lasts like 2 minutes. During which, you get some backstory both on yourself (where the **** DID you come from?) and the city you're going to. The original intro had Leviathan... and pretty much nothing else worth caring about.


I'm actually gonna have to side with 1.0's intros here. Not only were they all unique in comparison to 2.0, but they also immediately put you into a situation that you had to resolve. You got immediately involved in a conflict and it was the perfect time to show you the controls. 2.0 on the other hand is an absolute drag. It would've been a lot better if the cutscene with you vs the masked mage was an actual tutorial fight with all your abilities unlocked. Would've been a great way to have a nibble with endgame abilities.

Yes I love this.

This would also allow players to get a sneak peak/hands on with a class before having to invest hours to see if a certain class was what they wanted.
#36 Jul 23 2013 at 5:36 PM Rating: Good
*
153 posts
Ehllfire wrote:
ClydesShadow wrote:
http://dorkutopia.com/the-first-five-review-ffxiv-a-realm-reborn-beta-impressions/

Can any of us even fathom 1.0 turning into a game that is receiving a score of 85%? Granted this is just a preview, however this type of publicity is going to make this game huge.

It's funny how naysayers are few and far between these days. I remember just several months ago, about 50% of XIVs forum population was made up of trolls who just wanted to bash the game.


One, you cant review something not released. That would be a preview. Although the game is loads better than that pile of steaming horse dung called 1.0, I seriously doubt it will get over 80 on metacritic as there is nothing original or gamechanging in its design. Basically not having gimmicks and being a wow clone (dont ban me its the truth not trolling) will keep its score modest. The made a safe game and it will get a safe score.


Actually it's a review of the beta. Smiley: rolleyes

And what's more... to highlight your hypocrisy, how can you POSSIBLY make the statement there is nothing "original or gamechanging" in a game which has yet to be released? Sounds like a review.

Anyways, stroll along little troll. Stroll along.

Oh and P.s. you forgot two and three.

Edited, Jul 23rd 2013 7:38pm by ClydesShadow
#37 Jul 23 2013 at 6:07 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,386 posts
sandpark wrote:
HeroMystic wrote:
Archmage Callinon wrote:
Quote:
It's just this super long cutscene with the camera looming on your character's blank face as you ride in a van.


Ok.. that lasts like 2 minutes. During which, you get some backstory both on yourself (where the **** DID you come from?) and the city you're going to. The original intro had Leviathan... and pretty much nothing else worth caring about.


I'm actually gonna have to side with 1.0's intros here. Not only were they all unique in comparison to 2.0, but they also immediately put you into a situation that you had to resolve. You got immediately involved in a conflict and it was the perfect time to show you the controls. 2.0 on the other hand is an absolute drag. It would've been a lot better if the cutscene with you vs the masked mage was an actual tutorial fight with all your abilities unlocked. Would've been a great way to have a nibble with endgame abilities.

Yes I love this.

This would also allow players to get a sneak peak/hands on with a class before having to invest hours to see if a certain class was what they wanted.


While that probably would be cool for us, there's a very real possibility of overwhelming a completely new player. Far from being a cool experience at full power, it'd be a mass confusion of buttons that a lot of new players would sit and read first. So then your first few minutes of cool gameplay turn into your first few minutes of reading tooltips for skills you aren't going to have again for 40 levels.

I certainly see your point about putting the player right into some combat, and other MMOs would probably do exactly that. But I think it's ok for a Final Fantasy game to lean a little more heavily on the story aspect and then ease players into the combat.

I can say that, personally, I wasn't bored in either the Gridania or Ul'Dah opening sequences. Haven't tried Limsa, that one might suck, don't know.
____________________________
svlyons wrote:
If random outcomes aren't acceptable to you, then don't play with random people.
#38 Jul 23 2013 at 6:34 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
*
56 posts
ClydesShadow wrote:
FilthMcNasty wrote:
Xoie wrote:
FilthMcNasty wrote:
TurboTom wrote:
I think the real test is endgame; that's where you end up keeping the bulk of your subscribers. If SE can make good content and the correct pace, this game will have a very bright future ahead of it.

I agree. I think endgame will be the true test for two reasons:

1) Most people will spend the majority of their time playing characters at level cap
2) A large part of the population that carries over from 1.0 will have characters capped or very close


There's no doubt in my mind that the focus is correctly on new players right now. No new players = game is dead = no endgame even if it was utterly brilliant.

I still think it's extremely important to have a somewhat established endgame. With new games you can ignore endgame for the most part and work on that after you get your release stabilized because your entire playerbase started at level 1, but that isn't the case with ARR. That's why I stressed the second point. I think that it's a double-edged blade in that regard.

I completely agree with you that ignoring new players is a death sentence. It might seem like it would be more important to focus on them at first glance because we all expect that the larger group will be the new players and not the returning legacy crew. However, if level capped players bow out quickly and directly link a lack of endgame content as the reason; what's to keep the new players around beyond their free trial if they're led to believe(by vets) that endgame is non-existent?

rockYoshihardplace Smiley: frown



This whole endgame content conversation that keeps popping up seems rather irrelevant to me... We won't exactly know what there is until the game is released. It seems people are getting worked up about the issue as if they've already released the game devoid of endgame content.

I'll also guarantee that there is at least a decent amount of endgame at release, with more to come within the coming months. They are certainly not going to take a risk of ******* off all the legacy players.

Has the Yosh not done enough yet to prove he knows what the **** he's doing?

Edit: Also, why are people acting like it is only physically possible to work on a. New gamer content or b. end game content? These aren't mutually exclusive, and the development teams can be divided to work on different aspects.

Edited, Jul 23rd 2013 4:26pm by ClydesShadow


To say that the end-game argument is irrelevant would be incorrect. To fix your statement, you should change your phrasing to "these arguments are unfounded and mere speculation"-- unless, of course, you were Yoshi-P or the dev. team. The topics of end-game content and the long-run success of the game couldn't be any more interrelated. To disagree with this is unintelligible. I have seen you make this claim in these forums before (that the end-game argument is irrelevant) and I could not disagree with you any more.

Also, how could you possibly guarantee that there is going to be a "decent amount of endgame content at release"? You can't. In fact, that paragraph of yours directly contradicts your first paragraph in that post. More-so it would be reasonable to assume that there would be a decent amount of end-game content.

ClydesShadow wrote:
Ehllfire wrote:
ClydesShadow wrote:
http://dorkutopia.com/the-first-five-review-ffxiv-a-realm-reborn-beta-impressions/

Can any of us even fathom 1.0 turning into a game that is receiving a score of 85%? Granted this is just a preview, however this type of publicity is going to make this game huge.

It's funny how naysayers are few and far between these days. I remember just several months ago, about 50% of XIVs forum population was made up of trolls who just wanted to bash the game.


One, you cant review something not released. That would be a preview. Although the game is loads better than that pile of steaming horse dung called 1.0, I seriously doubt it will get over 80 on metacritic as there is nothing original or gamechanging in its design. Basically not having gimmicks and being a wow clone (dont ban me its the truth not trolling) will keep its score modest. The made a safe game and it will get a safe score.


Actually it's a review of the beta. Smiley: rolleyes

And what's more... to highlight your hypocrisy, how can you POSSIBLY make the statement there is nothing "original or gamechanging" in a game which has yet to be released? Sounds like a review.

Anyways, stroll along little troll. Stroll along.

Oh and P.s. you forgot two and three.

Edited, Jul 23rd 2013 7:38pm by ClydesShadow


To even call this article a review is painful for me for several reasons. But because the technical definition of a review it cannot be argued that it isn't. The site itself is in beta and I have never seen it before-- it's lacking in reputability. The author's only credential is being an "avid gamer for years". He, the author, even admits that he only played the game for an estimated 8-10 hours. This is in no way an adequate amount of time to spend playing this game to give a review, especially a rating. It's astonishing that anyone would even give this review any credit whatsoever.

Edited, Jul 23rd 2013 8:38pm by kwenzeler

Edited, Jul 23rd 2013 8:40pm by kwenzeler
#39 Jul 23 2013 at 8:16 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,134 posts
ClydesShadow wrote:
This whole endgame content conversation that keeps popping up seems rather irrelevant to me... We won't exactly know what there is until the game is released. It seems people are getting worked up about the issue as if they've already released the game devoid of endgame content.

Nearly everything discussed here since the NDA was lifted is about a game that has yet to be released and is subject to change. Forum is irrelevant? I don't think so. It's just discussion and given that it's based in what most people would consider valid concern, I feel it has as much place here as any.

It's completely possible that there will be people that will play through to cap and it'll be good enough to hook them. Not as likely, but still possible I guess that there will be legacy players or other 1.0 players returning that will stick around and pay until endgame content arrives. No one is saying that there is no endgame content, but no one expects to see any of it prior to launch so... valid concern is valid. Take it as you will, but if you follow XIV or any other games recently released since then; you'll see people asking specifically "What is there to do at endgame?".

ClydesShadow wrote:
Has the Yosh not done enough yet to prove he knows what the **** he's doing?

Call me a heathen, but I place faith in no one. I'm a 'believe it when I see it' kind of person. That's not to say that I refuse to accept any optimism at all, but to be fair; Yoshi is only doing what should have been done the first time around. Credit where due, no doubt.

ClydesShadow wrote:
Edit: Also, why are people acting like it is only physically possible to work on a. New gamer content or b. end game content? These aren't mutually exclusive, and the development teams can be divided to work on different aspects.

Your observation is pretty extreme. No one has said it's not possible.

Yoshi is in the unique situation of having to develop content for both new and established players. Considering the overhaul, this is no easy task. No one is dismissing him or his effort to make it happen, just recognizing that it's going to be a more difficult task and acknowledging that it's probably not something we'll see until release(as you'll remember it was too late by then last time around).
____________________________
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.
#40 Jul 23 2013 at 9:01 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
**
491 posts
Archmage Callinon wrote:
Quote:
critics are paid to be critical


You're saying that like it's a bad thing. Critical thinking is an important skill, one that needs to be used MORE often, not less. Having someone who's able to separate themselves from their personal opinion to give a truly objective evaluation of something is SUPER valuable.

Now, it's fair to argue that a lot of so-called critics can't do that. But then the trick becomes finding one who can, or at least one you agree with more often than not.


I like your posts. Just wanted to point that out. :D
#41 Jul 23 2013 at 9:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
1,330 posts
For those who didn't want to pick through every single video out there to compare, it looks like someone put up the original opening cutscenes back in 2010.

Note that the parts where you fight in between cutscenes has been removed.

They are actually pretty interesting -- well maybe not Gridania, to me. The CNJ Guildmaster also has a far deeper voice than I'd expect, given his appearance.

Original Limsa intro cutscene (Attack of the killer jellyfish...and Leviathan)

Original Ul'dah intro cutscene (Goobbue Gone Wild) (Note: I wouldn't be surprised if Thancred sounds the same in ARR too.)

Original Gridania intro cutscene (Wolves and Trees and Moogles, oh my.)
#42 Jul 23 2013 at 10:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
***
1,675 posts
Yes, the old intro cutscenes in 1.0 were better.

2.0's are lack luster in comparison. The fact that you couldn't skip them in beta, made them pretty tiring.

However, 2.0's intros aren't unwatchable, should be voiced over (that will make them a bit better) and really, you should only be watching them once or twice, ever.

Not to mention 2.0 is better in every other way (I'm assuming in later cutscenes as well) than 1.0 so again, this is making a mountain out of a molehill...again.
#43 Jul 23 2013 at 11:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
1,330 posts
Kierk wrote:
Yes, the old intro cutscenes in 1.0 were better.

2.0's are lack luster in comparison. The fact that you couldn't skip them in beta, made them pretty tiring.

However, 2.0's intros aren't unwatchable, should be voiced over (that will make them a bit better) and really, you should only be watching them once or twice, ever.

Not to mention 2.0 is better in every other way (I'm assuming in later cutscenes as well) than 1.0 so again, this is making a mountain out of a molehill...again.


I think the 2.0 cutscene pacing and introduction is actually a lot better. Like I mentioned, these 6 minute cutscenes also included a fight in the middle of the cutscene.

So for the Limsa version who started as a GLD (Goldsmith, NOT Gladiator, which is GLA), throwing rocks for 1-2 HP and then winning the fight...yeaah...
#44Killua125, Posted: Jul 24 2013 at 5:36 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) It's actually massively important that the first few minutes of a game be exciting so that the player wants to keep going.
#45 Jul 24 2013 at 7:32 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,674 posts
Killua125 wrote:
same with how they went the route of forcing you to do a bunch of lame fetch delivery quests before you even get to do a battle. Horrible move.

Edited, Jul 24th 2013 7:37am by Killua125


Um. No they don't? Once you finish talking to Momodi, Mioune, or Baderon, you're more than free to just go outside and kill stuff without ever (a) touching an aetheryte, (b) going to the market district, or (c) going to your guild. The game doesn't force you to do any of that before you can just do your own thing, or keep you inside of an instanced zone like it does before you talk to the proprietor of each respective Adventurer's Guild.

Additionally, most every class's guild's first quest is for you to go outside of the city you're in and, you know, kill stuff.

Edited, Jul 24th 2013 9:35am by Satisiun
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI Character(s)
Name: Satisiun
Server: Carbuncle (RIP Gilgamesh)
Jobs: 99DRG, 99PLD, 99RDM, 99WHM | Everything else: 50-60
~Retired.~

Final Fantasy XIV Character(s)
Name: Satisiun Desain
Server(s): Sargantas (primary)
DoW/DoM/DoH/DoL: 50
#46 Jul 24 2013 at 8:26 AM Rating: Excellent
***
3,386 posts
Killua125 wrote:
Kierk wrote:
Yes, the old intro cutscenes in 1.0 were better.

2.0's are lack luster in comparison. The fact that you couldn't skip them in beta, made them pretty tiring.

However, 2.0's intros aren't unwatchable, should be voiced over (that will make them a bit better) and really, you should only be watching them once or twice, ever.

Not to mention 2.0 is better in every other way (I'm assuming in later cutscenes as well) than 1.0 so again, this is making a mountain out of a molehill...again.


It's actually massively important that the first few minutes of a game be exciting so that the player wants to keep going.

if the very first cutscene to welcome you to the game is a silent boring wagon ride which is boring enough to make you fall asleep, that just indicates to people that the later cutscenes will suck just as much.

same with how they went the route of forcing you to do a bunch of lame fetch delivery quests before you even get to do a battle. Horrible move.

Edited, Jul 24th 2013 7:37am by Killua125


The only one of those you really HAVE to do is the class guild quest, since you need the guild to unlock things for you. The rest of them can be skipped and are just there to familiarize you with the city and get you some free exp.

Also someone up there posted a clip of Skyrim's opening sequence, which is a wagon ride where people talk to you for a few minutes. That game isn't exactly boring. I think you may be underestimating the attention span of the average player (certainly the average Final Fantasy player who is no stranger to long cutscenes).
____________________________
svlyons wrote:
If random outcomes aren't acceptable to you, then don't play with random people.
#47 Jul 24 2013 at 8:30 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,218 posts
sandpark wrote:
Killua125 wrote:
For me, the first five (seconds, minutes, hours) are the absolute WORST of ARR.

The intro scenes are all totally lackluster in comparison to 1.0's and make you want to take a nice nap. There's no drama and no interesting characters are introduced. When you're finally out of that long boring cut scene you're going to be doing an hour of fetch quests because the lady needs a napkin from the man across the way before you can even enter combat.

Spill the beans. How is it lackluster compared to 1.0? I'm not in beta.


In 1.0, Leviathan showed up and tried to sink the ship you were sailing on. In 2.0, you talk to a friendly merchant and are shown that the beastmen are on the warpath. This is after seeing a vision of "future you" having some sort of confrontation with a masked, mysterious villain.

Like most things ARR, Killua is over critical, but it is fair to say that 2.0 does not have the jaw dropping scale to the opening cut scene that 1.0 had.
____________________________
"I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

Gen. Jack D. Ripper, General, USAF
#48 Jul 24 2013 at 8:59 AM Rating: Decent
*
153 posts
Kwensomethingorother wrote:
To say that the end-game argument is irrelevant would be incorrect. To fix your statement, you should change your phrasing to "these arguments are unfounded and mere speculation"-- unless, of course, you were Yoshi-P or the dev. team. The topics of end-game content and the long-run success of the game couldn't be any more interrelated. To disagree with this is unintelligible. I have seen you make this claim in these forums before (that the end-game argument is irrelevant) and I could not disagree with you any more.

Also, how could you possibly guarantee that there is going to be a "decent amount of endgame content at release"? You can't. In fact, that paragraph of yours directly contradicts your first paragraph in that post. More-so it would be reasonable to assume that there would be a decent amount of end-game content.


"To fix your statement," really? Seriously, where do people like you come from?

You would get ******* slapped in about 10 seconds if you ever said something like that in real life. What are you going to do though, internet tough guys, meh.

I made the statement there will be endgame content because Yoshi has delivered on everything he's said so far. When someone backs up their word time and time again, you tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. You on the other hand, come onto a fan site and can't wait to start **** with people who are saying good things about the game... Next perhaps you need to think a bit more before you open your mouth. I said the conversation is irrelevant, which it is, because there will either be endgame content or there won't. Naysaying before we even know the result makes absolutely no sense, an exercise in futility.

Let's see... what other drivel do you have for me...

CondescendingDBag wrote:
To even call this article a review is painful for me for several reasons. But because the technical definition of a review it cannot be argued that it isn't. The site itself is in beta and I have never seen it before-- it's lacking in reputability. The author's only credential is being an "avid gamer for years". He, the author, even admits that he only played the game for an estimated 8-10 hours. This is in no way an adequate amount of time to spend playing this game to give a review, especially a rating. It's astonishing that anyone would even give this review any credit whatsoever.


And the credentials of a writer at a corporate gaming magazine are??? Oh that's right, I forgot the guy who is just a fan of video games is clearly less qualified to right an unbiased review than the corporate reviewers who give ratings based on advertising and corporate partnerships.

So please, I'll give you the same advice I gave to your other account... Troll on trolly, troll the f on.
#49 Jul 24 2013 at 9:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Anterograde Amnesia
Avatar
*****
12,363 posts
Chill out folks, or I'll start stepping on necks.
____________________________
"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
#50 Jul 24 2013 at 9:04 AM Rating: Good
*
153 posts
Satisiun wrote:
Killua125 wrote:
same with how they went the route of forcing you to do a bunch of lame fetch delivery quests before you even get to do a battle. Horrible move.

Edited, Jul 24th 2013 7:37am by Killua125


Um. No they don't? Once you finish talking to Momodi, Mioune, or Baderon, you're more than free to just go outside and kill stuff without ever (a) touching an aetheryte, (b) going to the market district, or (c) going to your guild. The game doesn't force you to do any of that before you can just do your own thing, or keep you inside of an instanced zone like it does before you talk to the proprietor of each respective Adventurer's Guild.

Additionally, most every class's guild's first quest is for you to go outside of the city you're in and, you know, kill stuff.

Edited, Jul 24th 2013 9:35am by Satisiun


I think he meant to imply the game sends you on fetch quests (if you choose the natural order of things, to follow the opening quest line) before it sends you on a battle quest.

I tend to agree here, I found it odd that the first few quests sent you through the city, before one asks you to go out and kill something.
#51 Jul 24 2013 at 9:07 AM Rating: Good
*
153 posts
Archmage Callinon wrote:
Killua125 wrote:
Kierk wrote:
Yes, the old intro cutscenes in 1.0 were better.

2.0's are lack luster in comparison. The fact that you couldn't skip them in beta, made them pretty tiring.

However, 2.0's intros aren't unwatchable, should be voiced over (that will make them a bit better) and really, you should only be watching them once or twice, ever.

Not to mention 2.0 is better in every other way (I'm assuming in later cutscenes as well) than 1.0 so again, this is making a mountain out of a molehill...again.


It's actually massively important that the first few minutes of a game be exciting so that the player wants to keep going.

if the very first cutscene to welcome you to the game is a silent boring wagon ride which is boring enough to make you fall asleep, that just indicates to people that the later cutscenes will suck just as much.

same with how they went the route of forcing you to do a bunch of lame fetch delivery quests before you even get to do a battle. Horrible move.

Edited, Jul 24th 2013 7:37am by Killua125


The only one of those you really HAVE to do is the class guild quest, since you need the guild to unlock things for you. The rest of them can be skipped and are just there to familiarize you with the city and get you some free exp.

Also someone up there posted a clip of Skyrim's opening sequence, which is a wagon ride where people talk to you for a few minutes. That game isn't exactly boring. I think you may be underestimating the attention span of the average player (certainly the average Final Fantasy player who is no stranger to long cutscenes).


I'm not agreeing about the opening being bad in XIV, but just to play devil's advocate here... in Skyrim, let us remember that the opening scene also includes a first person viewing of a beheading and then a dragon comes in and destroys a town lol.

Edited, Jul 24th 2013 11:07am by ClydesShadow
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 74 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (74)