Linear, linear, linear

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rolder50

I'd also like to point out that FF14 has cross server markets as well it's just a bit unwieldy because you have to world travel.

---

Hardly a concern to bots who are capable then of autonomously buying out the stock of servers with cheaper products, but... surely we don't have bots, right? Nor RMT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

We've also seen even simpler ideas like "forks" or "larger sub-zones/rooms" (where, yes, one route may end up preferred over the others, but at least the dungeon is thereby aesthetically more varied all without needing to cause any backtracking or even conflict between speed-of-run (favors quicker queues/non-DPS) and reward-per-run (favors slower queues/DPS).

And then there's the simple matter of more apparent variation --just along that route-- to alter the "Just hold W; wall-to-wall" pace of the dungeon and thereby make it feel less linear, be that the likes of the occasional defense segment, scattered mini-objectives, or whatever else.

---

Look at what Alfheim is on a map:
https://mapgenie.io/god-of-war-2018/maps/alfheim

Pretty much a straight line.

But in the game? You go through tunnels to unlock bridges, or move platforms up and down. You go to the temple, which curves into itself and has numerous branching paths. And as you leave the temple, many things shift; formerly accessible routes become inaccessible, and vice versa.

GoW designed straight lines far better than FF14 and FF16. It made linear corridors feel non-linear and feel much vaster than they actually are. Why can't CBU3 learn from them?

It originally seemed like FF14's dungeons were extreme linear corridors because it was an MMO and they wanted to streamline the process. But now that FF16 is out, I have the feeling that it's simply because they don't know how to design anything else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

That... is a multi-path dungeon. If you can go 1234, 2314, 3214, etc.... that's... already multiple paths available. And that's all WoW has ever had within Vanilla, either, so there's been no "stop" there; it's the same capacity (though expanded, in some cases). And well beyond even 1.x outside of old Totorak (3 exits, with the furthest one giving more rewards, but increasingly risking death to the gasses inside [timer mechanic]).

---

And what did the player base decide about those dungeons? Since the rewards and bosses would be the same regardless of what order you did them in, the player base decided that the 3214 order was the most efficient route so every group would automatically go 3214. The occasional random player who wanted to go 1324 would get left for dead at best if they didn't rejoin the rest of the group or kicked out of the group at worst.

At that point, the dungeon might as well be linear when groups are going to follow the same route every time regardless. There's nothing gained (or lost) by going a different route outside of an extra minute of time.

Variant has a nice concept that's the start to making multi-path dungeons interesting but there's still a lot of room for improvement. Imagine alternate paths that lead to altars that grant a group buffs, with those buffs granting different benefits to the group at the same time they subtly alter boss mechanics (as we see in the current Variant based on route choice or interaction with various objects). Groups would could choose their route depending on which buff would be most beneficial to the group comp's strengths and weaknesses since the Variant actions make the usual T-H-D-D comp unnecessary. Or perhaps route choice would change what the boss loot drops are. Defeating optional bosses could make the final boss harder with better rewards or weaker with lesser rewards.

There's no point in making multi-path dungeons if the choice of route doesn't have the potential to impact the overall experience in some meaningful way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

And what did the player base decide about those dungeons? Since the rewards and bosses would be the same regardless of what order you did them in, the player base decided that the 3214 order was the most efficient route so every group would automatically go 3214. The occasional random player who wanted to go 1324 would get left for dead at best if they didn't rejoin the rest of the group or kicked out of the group at worst.

At that point, the dungeon might as well be linear when groups are going to follow the same route every time regardless. There's nothing gained (or lost) by going a different route outside of an extra minute of time.

Variant has a nice concept that's the start to making multi-path dungeons interesting but there's still a lot of room for improvement. Imagine alternate paths that lead to altars that grant a group buffs, with those buffs granting different benefits to the group at the same time they subtly alter boss mechanics (as we see in the current Variant based on route choice or interaction with various objects). Groups would could choose their route depending on which buff would be most beneficial to the group comp's strengths and weaknesses since the Variant actions make the usual T-H-D-D comp unnecessary. Or perhaps route choice would change what the boss loot drops are. Defeating optional bosses could make the final boss harder with better rewards or weaker with lesser rewards.

There's no point in making multi-path dungeons if the choice of route doesn't have the potential to impact the overall experience in some meaningful way.

---

Do you have some more mental gymnastics why Square putting 0 effort into the dungeons is actually a good thing? Lmao. Imagine paying a monthly sub and then doing unpaid shill work. 7000 Posts in 5 years, man the game must have so much content.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

<snip>

---

So, the problem of Blizzard's modern dungeons is that "stopped" having multiple paths... despite their coming to actually have more and freer paths (up to and including being a literal whole zone) and being better able to select which mobs one actually wants to fight...

...and even the old pre-ruined dungeons were also not enough, because they weren't Variant (gimmicky overstuffed combat hallways with regularly placed forks with less aesthetic identity than most games' procedurally generated instance environments)?

Quote:

---

There's no point in making multi-path dungeons if the choice of route doesn't have the potential to impact the overall experience in some meaningful way.

---

Honestly, I could agree with this. But that's just the thing: I absolutely feel like M+ pathing choice in De Other Side (especially under Prideful), Siege of Boralus (especially under Nzoth affix), Azure Vault, Brakenhide, etc. still allowed for far more impact on the overall experience than did hitting the Left/Right switch in X particular combination in Variant dungeons.

To me, you're pointing at some fresh woodwork and calling it stinky only to stick your nose in some dank mold and declare "Ahh, yes, this would be better."

Your preferring every pathing option to solely be a choice marked by an external mechanic, over any of various granular-but-cumulative differences is... a preference. Subjective. It's not something objectively superior.


Edit:

Again, I don't think making each and every dungeon especially allow for multiple paths is likely to be a worthwhile expense and my main concern is in ways of just at least feeling less linear and feeling like a novel experience... but for dungeons to feel diverse and fleshed out, even just along that primary route, it will often be worthwhile for the art to at least hint at other routes and to flesh out more than just the pathable hallway... at which point particularly pretty dungeons are very likely to be worth adding additional pathing options to, which might in turn incentivize other little additions that would from there seem like low-hanging fruit.

The main thing for me isn't whether they're linear or not --that's just a iconic characteristic that's synecdochal for so many other problems, too-- but rather that they're so unambitious and unvaried in their mechanics and especially their layouts, practically wasting their differences in the art itself. I really want more (and more engaging) light party content, rather than just to feel like I'm getting reskins of the same things that's been run 1000 times instead of actually new dungeons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDecay

Look at what Alfheim is on a map:
https://mapgenie.io/god-of-war-2018/maps/alfheim

Pretty much a straight line.

But in the game? You go through tunnels to unlock bridges, or move platforms up and down. You go to the temple, which curves into itself and has numerous branching paths. And as you leave the temple, many things shift; formerly accessible routes become inaccessible, and vice versa.

GoW designed straight lines far better than FF14 and FF16. It made linear corridors feel non-linear and feel much vaster than they actually are. Why can't CBU3 learn from them?

It originally seemed like FF14's dungeons were extreme linear corridors because it was an MMO and they wanted to streamline the process. But now that FF16 is out, I have the feeling that it's simply because they don't know how to design anything else.

---

Yet...they DID designs something else years ago and the playebase disliked it. It's been said here many times. If GoW does it that much better go play that. I personally don't need every game of mine to emulate another. That's how you get samey garbage down the road. You dislike 16 (Cool) and felt the need to tell us...in a XIV forum. NEXT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IkaraGreydancer

Yet...they DID designs something else years ago and the playebase disliked it. It's been said here many times. If GoW does it that much better go play that. I personally don't need every game of mine to emulate another. That's how you get samey garbage down the road. You dislike 16 (Cool) and felt the need to tell us...in a XIV forum. NEXT

---

FF16 emulating corridors of FF14 = good

FF16 emulating other games = would be bad cause copying other games is bad

what a flawless logic you got there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IkaraGreydancer

Yet...they DID designs something else years ago and the playebase disliked it. It's been said here many times. If GoW does it that much better go play that. I personally don't need every game of mine to emulate another. That's how you get samey garbage down the road. You dislike 16 (Cool) and felt the need to tell us...in a XIV forum. NEXT

---

hmm, you people always seem to forget that ff14 literally copied from wow

Game with one major linear system/element is tolerable. It's when you have linear story, linear map progression(ff13 corridors), and give players barely any creativity in their character's build, when it becomes way too much and the game turns into a TV show.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deo14

Game with one major linear system/element is tolerable. It's when you have linear story, linear map progression(ff13 corridors), and give players barely any creativity in their character's build, when it becomes way too much and the game turns into a TV show.

---

Exactly. I'm not sure what FF14 even did well on a gameplay level.

Is it a good action game? No it isn't as deep as Dark Souls or GoW, there's barely any way for you to customize your build like in Souls.

Is it a good hack-n-slash? No it isn't as fast-paced as DMC.

Is it a good RPG? No it somehow has even less RPG elements than GOW which did not describe itself as an RPG. Just linearly railroads you into a set path.

Is it a good story-based game? I think this is the only thing FF16 is good at, sadly. So why is it a video game and not a movie?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDecay

Is it a good action game? No it isn't as deep as Dark Souls or GoW, there's barely any way for you to customize your build like in Souls

---

Souls isn’t a good example here because the difference between strength, dexterity and balance build is the stat. The majority of their gameplay can be summarized as R1(light attack), R1, Dodge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thevanguard

hmm, you people always seem to forget that ff14 literally copied from wow

---

FFXIV took some very specific elements from WoW, namely things like having a "badge" system for purchasing gear (tomestones) rather than it being purely RNG. Most other aspects of FFXIV are very distinct from WoW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Striker44

FFXIV took some very specific elements from WoW, namely things like having a "badge" system for purchasing gear (tomestones) rather than it being purely RNG. Most other aspects of FFXIV are very distinct from WoW.

---

You are here since 2022, what do you know how FFXIV used to be in its early days when the dev teams were told to copy WoW?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

And what did the player base decide about those dungeons? Since the rewards and bosses would be the same regardless of what order you did them in, the player base decided that the 3214 order was the most efficient route so every group would automatically go 3214. The occasional random player who wanted to go 1324 would get left for dead at best if they didn't rejoin the rest of the group or kicked out of the group at worst.

At that point, the dungeon might as well be linear when groups are going to follow the same route every time regardless. There's nothing gained (or lost) by going a different route outside of an extra minute of time.

Variant has a nice concept that's the start to making multi-path dungeons interesting but there's still a lot of room for improvement. Imagine alternate paths that lead to altars that grant a group buffs, with those buffs granting different benefits to the group at the same time they subtly alter boss mechanics (as we see in the current Variant based on route choice or interaction with various objects). Groups would could choose their route depending on which buff would be most beneficial to the group comp's strengths and weaknesses since the Variant actions make the usual T-H-D-D comp unnecessary. Or perhaps route choice would change what the boss loot drops are. Defeating optional bosses could make the final boss harder with better rewards or weaker with lesser rewards.

There's no point in making multi-path dungeons if the choice of route doesn't have the potential to impact the overall experience in some meaningful way.

---

So the logic is because it'll get eventually boring don't try to change that and make it boring from the beginning.

Why have interesting abilities when someone will do the math and figure out the exact best rotation. Why figure out a boss fight yourself when you can watch a YT video.

The answer is always the same. Because some people enjoy it and play for fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Payadopa

So the logic is because it'll get eventually boring don't try to change that and make it boring from the beginning.

Why have interesting abilities when someone will do the math and figure out the exact best rotation. Why figure out a boss fight yourself when you can watch a YT video.

The answer is always the same. Because some people enjoy it and play for fun.

---

The people that argue "but someone will figure out the best path!" are strangely often the ones pressing random buttons instead of the objectively mathed out best rotation *think emoji* They can freestyle their own "rotation" but somehow a multiple path dungeon is bad

It's linear by design, not incompetence.

And linear games aren't worse, just different. If you want a world full of choices and paths, don't play Final Fantasy. There are other games you can play like TOTK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDecay

Is it a good story-based game? I think this is the only thing FF16 is good at, sadly. So why is it a video game and not a movie?

---

I'm not really going to defend FF16 here (from what I've seen it's not a game I'm in a hurry to play), but this sentiment of "why is it not a movie?" pisses me off. Games are more that the sun of the parts, and I've enjoyed otherwise mediocre systems because of the relationship with the story and game experience as a whole.

The story game is not a movie because it is best experienced as a game.

Who in this thread is actually playing XVI? It sounds like a lot of people aren't, and you're kinda just talking to talk. Because yeah it's linear. But it's more like old FF linear, not XIV linear.

Some of the 'dungeons' are mostly just DMC linear, not really designed like XIV linearity. Most dungeons have small branches, and some secrets. So it definitely doesn't feel like I'm just auto-running forward like XIV. Mob placement isn't 2 pulls > boss > 2 pulls > boss.. It's more chaotic than that, but it DOES have DMC style 'rooms' and corridors. It's not all string to circle.

If you also open the Location Map, you'll see everything is connected, so it kinda feels like Dark Souls in that way (not Elden Ring).

https://www.gameshub.com/wp-content/...meshub-02.jpeg

https://assets.rpgsite.net/images/im...rious-mark.png


ALSO - For anyone looking at the main world map and thinking it's all 'Teleport here for small zone' It's also not that. It's more like a bunch of very large areas with multiple Aetherytes. Every teleport option you have on the map goes to an Aetheryte in open world basically. You can see in the second pic it has 3 Aetherytes just in that area. And those are large exploration areas. There's so much misinformation. lol

Anyway - I have my XVI criticisms, but I'm not gonna pretend what it is or isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Payadopa

So the logic is because it'll get eventually boring don't try to change that and make it boring from the beginning.

Why have interesting abilities when someone will do the math and figure out the exact best rotation. Why figure out a boss fight yourself when you can watch a YT video.

The answer is always the same. Because some people enjoy it and play for fun.

---

Oh, I would love to have some serious choices when it comes to picking what abilities my character has available. Some of the best fun I had in WoW was playing my dorky bank alt mage in the open world with a really crazy set of talents back in Wrath. Couldn't deviate from the acceptable talent builds for my raiding characters but since my bank alt didn't raid and rarely did normal dungeons, I could get away with anything I wanted.

But I know why choice gets sacrificed - most players demand balance and the more variables involved, the harder it is to achieve that balance. The devs already have to try to find a balance for 19 jobs that the player base will consider acceptable. Now imagine if each of those 19 jobs had a dozen different builds available that also required balancing.

It would be great if SE simply told players "We've devoted a decade of job design to those of you who want jobs to be balanced. Now we're going to devote the next decade to those who want job customization and unique actions." I've been around MMOs long enough to know I'd rather have someone who knows what they're doing with their underperforming job in my party than someone who playing the current FotM but can barely get a base combo done and constantly has to be scraped off the floor. I'm a lot more likely to get the clear with the former.

The interests of players like you and me unfortunately get overshadowed by the vocal optimization crowd that will only choose their party comp based on numbers generated by players they'll never play with instead of including/excluding players based on their personal merit. I bet those who work on job design would likewise love the chance to incorporate some original ideas into jobs instead of having to worry about getting the job balanced compared to the others.

There are always the single player RPGs for creating fun builds. No need to worry about balance because aren't competing against others for a raid spot. If someone manages to come up with a ridiculously OP build, they don't have to worry about it getting nerfed into the ground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinkuno

The people that argue "but someone will figure out the best path!" are strangely often the ones pressing random buttons instead of the objectively mathed out best rotation *think emoji* They can freestyle their own "rotation" but somehow a multiple path dungeon is bad

---

Again, dungeons end up linear because of players. Players are the ones who want to get in and out of dungeons as fast as possible. Multiple paths are meaningless if the player base decides on a most efficient route and sticks to using it every time. There's no point in creating multiple paths if players aren't going to deviate from the optimal route. It's just a waste of developer time that could be spent on other projects.

Developers are usually more than happy to get the opportunity to flex their creative skills. It's the budget allocation given to a project that holds those opportunities in check.

Variant was a nice step toward creating meaningful multiple path dungeons but they still need a lot of work before they'll get there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Striker44

This is, frankly, entirely an "us" issue (as in the players). They used to create dungeons with multiple paths, optional side areas, etc.. What did we the playerbase do? Find which path was "optimal" for the fastest clear, and completely ignore anything that was optional. Case in point - every single ARR dungeon I played, the only way I ever got the map completion achievements for them (which involves exploring all of those side paths) was to queue as the tank and insist on going to them. This isn't about SE. This is what we did as players when they created non-linear content. I'm not surprised at all that SE simply started designing the content the way we insisted on playing it anyway.

---

For MMO / dungeons I'm not entirely surprised, though I feel there might be some ideas that could fly with the culture (just probably not in a standard concept).

However, given a single player RPG.... I mean.. clearly No? There are a lot of non-linear dungeons in absolutely famous, profitable, games. There is also linearly non-linear designs, which I just made up the wording, but take those dungeons where they have puzzles and wrap arounds that you're mostly supposed to go through by a particular path, with some branching, and as you explore via metroid-like/castlevania-like unlocks the place gets larger and fuller while also unlocking QoL. Souls, GoW, and even sometimes Bethesda games have this. I would be disappointed if someone tries to argue a hub in a zone in FFXVI counts as that since you start at the hub and branch out in one direction, just cause that hub ends up with multiple branches imo doesn't compare to a game that is wrapping around itself like a key ladder kicked down in a Souls game (I think traversing through the space vs using it like a train station might be one of the reasons why it doesn't, imo, apply).

Because it's a negative comment I have to remind that I do like FFXVI, but if someone was like 'quickly pick something you think they need to do better next time' I would definitely say level design is one of them, at least in gameplay regions. Not visually, but mechanically. The level design is just simple, it's not cleverly simple, or open and free, it's constricted and simple. Hilariously, in non-combat regions they have many layered multiple pathed areas, many town / airship spaces are very non-linear (and took me a little bit to explore, like Lostwing lol).

I wouldn't say simply having loop backs or useless multi-paths makes it exciting, as that might be a take away and that's not the point, but I would personally lean to either open and freeing (doesn't mean purely open world but, not feeling like I'm on strict rails) or cleverly linear (like GoW). Currently it's neither freeing (loads of invisible walls) nor feels very clever, that sounds like an insult and is not intended as one (opposite of clever might sound like a pejorative, I am NOT saying that but probably am saying 'simple / straight forward' feeling).

There are a lot of games with good level design but some things that stick out to me are some of the Souls games (in general, but like Sens fortress maybe), GoW (new ones), Dishonoured (especially that mansion, may look at Hitmans or Deus Ex for multi-approach as well), Prey, Metroid and Castlevanyia (but keep in mind it's 2d... doesn't translate as smoothly), perhaps Portal for puzzles that unfold themselves yet don't make you feel handheld, etc. Lots of good examples but those ones popped into my mind at first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R041

Who in this thread is actually playing XVI? It sounds like a lot of people aren't, and you're kinda just talking to talk. Because yeah it's linear. But it's more like old FF linear, not XIV linear.

Some of the 'dungeons' are mostly just DMC linear, not really designed like XIV linearity. Most dungeons have small branches, and some secrets. So it definitely doesn't feel like I'm just auto-running forward like XIV. Mob placement isn't 2 pulls > boss > 2 pulls > boss.. It's more chaotic than that, but it DOES have DMC style 'rooms' and corridors. It's not all string to circle.

If you also open the Location Map, you'll see everything is connected, so it kinda feels like Dark Souls in that way (not Elden Ring).

https://www.gameshub.com/wp-content/...meshub-02.jpeg

https://assets.rpgsite.net/images/im...rious-mark.png


ALSO - For anyone looking at the main world map and thinking it's all 'Teleport here for small zone' It's also not that. It's more like a bunch of very large areas with multiple Aetherytes. Every teleport option you have on the map goes to an Aetheryte in open world basically. You can see in the second pic it has 3 Aetherytes just in that area. And those are large exploration areas. There's so much misinformation. lol

Anyway - I have my XVI criticisms, but I'm not gonna pretend what it is or isn't.

---

I usually play in a assuming design sweeping pattern by that I mean I assume the developer's thoughts and work through the space in an attempted efficiency (you can see the design decisions that guide players, lights, shapes, halls, etc, sometimes literally if a marker system is in place, and choose to go the other direction and often be rewarded), and imo the level design feels really simple and not Dark Souls in comparable level design tier.

Opinions are like chocobo butts though and we all have one so we can agree to disagree and that be fine, but my sweeping pattern for this game felt like I was using really simple mental algorithm and no 'exploration'. Vs some of the other games I listed, or Dark Souls as you referenced.

As posted above though I would caution simply responding to the feedback with 'make it more convoluted', or that it has visual issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Striker44

This is, frankly, entirely an "us" issue (as in the players). They used to create dungeons with multiple paths, optional side areas, etc.. What did we the playerbase do? Find which path was "optimal" for the fastest clear, and completely ignore anything that was optional. Case in point - every single ARR dungeon I played, the only way I ever got the map completion achievements for them (which involves exploring all of those side paths) was to queue as the tank and insist on going to them. This isn't about SE. This is what we did as players when they created non-linear content. I'm not surprised at all that SE simply started designing the content the way we insisted on playing it anyway.

---

And here comes the self-flagellation. Never blame the multi-billion dollar corporation for making dismal games. Always blame the player, for they're the ones making the games, right?

https://files.catbox.moe/u8kyub.gif

I was a tank main during ARR and had to drag all of y'all through those non-linear dungeons. Yes, we always took the "proper" path. But with more nuance, mechanics, enemy variety, challenges, and puzzles(!) in each dungeon, everything felt more fun. It was actually fun doing your daily roulettes. Nowadays it's a chore.

No wonder people have given up on gameplay and instead use this game as a Second Life clone. There's nothing else to do here.

P.S. It's repulsive that the attitude of the FFXIV community is to blame the common man for what a wealthy corporation is doing. Brands have hypnotized the people.

https://files.catbox.moe/jd0tzb.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

Again, dungeons end up linear because of players. Players are the ones who want to get in and out of dungeons as fast as possible. Multiple paths are meaningless if the player base decides on a most efficient route and sticks to using it every time. There's no point in creating multiple paths if players aren't going to deviate from the optimal route. It's just a waste of developer time that could be spent on other projects.

Developers are usually more than happy to get the opportunity to flex their creative skills. It's the budget allocation given to a project that holds those opportunities in check.

Variant was a nice step toward creating meaningful multiple path dungeons but they still need a lot of work before they'll get there.

---

So why arent rotations 1 button yet that automatically cycle through the objectively best rotation? No, they design linear dungeons because its easy and cost-effective. Maybe other devs like the flex, square definitely doesnt. Stop excusing their lazyness with "but its the players fault :("

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinkuno

So why arent rotations 1 button yet that automatically cycle through the objectively best rotation? No, they design linear dungeons because its easy and cost-effective. Maybe other devs like the flex, square definitely doesnt. Stop excusing their lazyness with "but its the players fault :("

---

Uh... someone managed to make a working 1 button rotation macro for SMN.

Jobs are already slowly approaching to that point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caffe_macchiato

And here comes the self-flagellation. Never blame the multi-billion dollar corporation for making dismal games. Always blame the player, for they're the ones making the games, right?

---

Seriously, this is where the non-stop negativity just makes certain people's opinions not worth developers listening to. The point I made is straight-up reality. Apparently your approach is never take any blame for anything, always blame others (even when you're responsible)...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shougun

I usually play in a assuming design sweeping pattern by that I mean I assume the developer's thoughts and work through the space in an attempted efficiency (you can see the design decisions that guide players, lights, shapes, halls, etc, sometimes literally if a marker system is in place, and choose to go the other direction and often be rewarded), and imo the level design feels really simple and not Dark Souls in comparable level design tier.

Opinions are like chocobo butts though and we all have one so we can agree to disagree and that be fine, but my sweeping pattern for this game felt like I was using really simple mental algorithm and no 'exploration'. Vs some of the other games I listed, or Dark Souls as you referenced.

As posted above though I would caution simply responding to the feedback with 'make it more convoluted', or that it has visual issues.

---

No you're right - It's not exactly level design like Dark Souls. Just that the levels themselves aren't directly hallways, and have more general freedom. But if you just follow MSQ - You'll be going along a set direction. There's a lot of freedom to stop and look around, and walk in a different direction to check stuff out, do side quests, whatever. And it's not like the MSQ itself discards an area entirely when you walk through it. You go through it multiple times, talk to different people, do different things.

MSQ Dungeons are more like DMC dungeons, not XIV. Where there's some open-ness to them at times, but it's ultimately a few chunks dedicated to mobs, and bosses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R041

No you're right - It's not exactly level design like Dark Souls. Just that the levels themselves aren't directly hallways, and have more general freedom. But if you just follow MSQ - You'll be going along a set direction. There's a lot of freedom to stop and look around, and walk in a different direction to check stuff out, do side quests, whatever. And it's not like the MSQ itself discards an area entirely when you walk through it. You go through it multiple times, talk to different people, do different things.

MSQ Dungeons are more like DMC dungeons, not XIV. Where there's some open-ness to them at times, but it's ultimately a few chunks dedicated to mobs, and bosses.

---

I find your statements agreeable. It is also is probably person perspective particular, like I would 'want' something more cleverly looped and puzzled like GoW or near Souls tier pinnacle design or alternatively more extreme the other direction (at least for open world); however, yeah when we think of DMC design.. pretty much that's the exact design style lol. I wouldn't attribute DMC to fantastic level design either; however, those games make plenty of money and many like it (and the combat arenas are the focus). So definitely not saying it's a garbage fire haha, just that it wasn't really what I thought it might have been if it was existing in a pinnacle form.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Striker44

Seriously, this is where the non-stop negativity just makes certain people's opinions not worth developers listening to. The point I made is straight-up reality. Apparently your approach is never take any blame for anything, always blame others (even when you're responsible)...

---

I am not responsible!

I didn't do anything except disagree with design/dungeon/job decisions and support/compliment things I liked! I've always said that fights should not be nerfed, that dungeons should not be in this straight line, or at least have the illusion of being more than just a straight hallway. I didn't insist, nor did I force SE to do dumb things that blow up in their faces later on, like Variants, which they STILL fumbled.

What is your endgame here? Are players who really want additional complexity simultaneously a minority that doesn't matter ergo shouldn't be listened to by developers AND the speed runner people responsible for killing more unique dungeons because Square Enix HAD to acquiesce to popular trends? "The enemy is too weak to acknowledge, but also so strong we need to allocate resources to resist them." We have Trusts now in almost all 4-man dungeon content going forward, players who want to explore HAVE that option without any judgement, and even now, with content like Deep Dungeons, full clears/exploration for silvers is far from uncommon. Yet the linearity, and simplicity continues. Why are WE getting blamed for Square Enix's choices, the ones they have barely ever added any transparency on? I don't appreciate being seen as a scapegoat! "Oh no, the players did what players do in every popular game ever made, no way we could have ever seen this coming, and designed for it accordingly."

??????????????????????????????????????????????????

Streamlining things down to a main scenario tunnel is another big part of the problem. At their peak, the FF games were accompanied by thick strategy guides full of secrets, some of them so obtuse that it made you think "how the f**k was I supposed to know that?", but it was all part of the series identity. There was a very unique style that separated the series from just any other story-based games out there.

FF XVI doesn't really have any puzzles, any fun minigames, any large cities that can be fully explored with events other than battles, any significant optional/secret zones to discover, any big mysteries to discuss. It's not a terrible game in its own right, but we feel strongly about it because it replaced the old FF signature style. They killed the series people loved and replaced it with a linear story action series.

Yoshida felt S-E needed to regain trust after XV, but XVI is his solution? Funnily enough XV began as a spin-off title because it was too different. They were to brand it Versus XIII until development hell and sunken cost forced them to position it as a mainline title to boost sales. Action games are supposed to be spin-offs like Crisis Core. The core series was what we called JRPG. Then they went from the 4-man action of XV to the 1-man army XVI. No party, no airship, no strategy, no meaningful stats, no RPG, no Final Fantasy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shougun

I find your statements agreeable. It is also is probably person perspective particular, like I would 'want' something more cleverly looped and puzzled like GoW or near Souls tier pinnacle design or alternatively more extreme the other direction (at least for open world); however, yeah when we think of DMC design.. pretty much that's the exact design style lol. I wouldn't attribute DMC to fantastic level design either; however, those games make plenty of money and many like it (and the combat arenas are the focus). So definitely not saying it's a garbage fire haha, just that it wasn't really what I thought it might have been if it was existing in a pinnacle form.

---

It's funny when you actually sit and think about it - Because we have these ideas in our head before the game is released. We want to believe they can do all sorts of crazy shit right. But it's clear DMC combat wouldn't work in a Souls map, and XIV dungeons also don't really work because you don't 'pull' mobs. So it's very obvious they had to conform the dungeon areas into what DMC did. After-all, that's what they'd be comfortable with, and all games of this type do that.

You kinda have to expect the tropes to all fall into place when given chunks of the same pieces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rufalus

Streamlining things down to a main scenario tunnel is another big part of the problem. At their peak, the FF games were accompanied by thick strategy guides full of secrets, some of them so obtuse that it made you think "how the f**k was I supposed to know that?", but it was all part of the series identity. There was a very unique style that separated the series from just any other story-based games out there.

FF XVI doesn't really have any puzzles, any fun minigames, any large cities that can be fully explored with events other than battles, any significant optional/secret zones to discover, any big mysteries to discuss. It's not a terrible game in its own right, but we feel strongly about it because it replaced the old FF signature style. They killed the series people loved and replaced it with a linear story action series.

Yoshida felt S-E needed to regain trust after XV, but XVI is his solution? Funnily enough XV began as a spin-off title because it was too different. They were to brand it Versus XIII until development hell and sunken cost forced them to position it as a mainline title to boost sales. Action games are supposed to be spin-offs like Crisis Core. The core series was what we called JRPG. Then they went from the 4-man action of XV to the 1-man army XVI. No party, no airship, no strategy, no meaningful stats, no RPG, no Final Fantasy.

---

It would be fine if it fully committed to being the best action game it could be. But it's also linear in the dimensions where action games don't want to be linear in, such as enemy combat, skill choices, weapon customization etc.

Yoshi P said this game is like a rollercoaster. Indeed it is, because you have to ride the rollercoaster on a fixed path designed for you and cannot make any of your own choices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caffe_macchiato

I was a tank main during ARR and had to drag all of y'all through those non-linear dungeons. Yes, we always took the "proper" path. But with more nuance, mechanics, enemy variety, challenges, and puzzles(!) in each dungeon, everything felt more fun. It was actually fun doing your daily roulettes. Nowadays it's a chore.

---

Wanderer's Palace is a prime example of good non-linear dungeon design for FF14. In the room where multiple large Tonberries are chasing you, you could take multiple paths to get to your destination. And at the same time you want to avoid those large Tonberries. It meant that depending on your team's DPS and ability, there could be an organically different route to take each time (such as needing to double back and hide for a while if your team is really slow). Of course, this can only be experienced back in ARR and HW when these actually posed any threat whatsoever. Doing Wanderer's Palace now would not give people a good idea of what it was like back in the day, though I expect the same WoWfugee contrarians to pipe up and disagree despite never having done these dungeons when they were relevant, because they did it in a roulette in 2023 and disregarded all the mechanics and survived once.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDecay

Wanderer's Palace is a prime example of good non-linear dungeon design for FF14. In the room where multiple large Tonberries are chasing you, you could take multiple paths to get to your destination.

---

No you could not. The Tonberries with the oil are in specific places and the levers you need the oil for are also in set places, this creates an optimal path through the area.

Go in, hit the first one right infront of you, go right, up the slope, left into the middle room, pull the mobs through and to the right (hope someone remembers to pull the lever in the middle). The big Tonberry doesn't follow you in this area, as long as people don't stand on the main path. You can choose to pull the Tonberries from below as well, Provoke reaches after all. From there, you go down the left staircase, go right, flip the switch, tank runs up and aggros everything, someone flips the switch at the end in the corner, everyone runs back and hope people know about locking out mobs from the boss room so you don't have to deal with them.

That was the strat from the first months of the game's release. Trust me, I done it plenty of times as a tank, 10 times a week to cap tomes believe it or not as this was before roulettes and the cap was still 300.

That room alone proves that people will optimise something completely, that was done within a month. It is a complete illusion of choice.

Other cases are Toto Rak. There is technically split paths, in that dungeon, however, there is one optimal route through, which everyone does. Sunkern Temple? You used to solve the puzzle, but then the community decided that it wasn't worth solving, despite the puzzle being the same every time. 2 mob packs to solve the puzzle or, just 1 if you fail which also doesn't require you to deviate from the direct route.

However, this all comes back to what do people actually want in an optional area in a dungeon to make it worth it for everyone in the group? In a random party, not everyone is necessarily going to want to go to the side path to get an item that potentially has a large Gil selling potential (which wouldn't hold it's value), unique minion/mount? Doesn't matter if someone already has it, which then turns it into a Gil item, assuming it isn't a unique item. Some sort of gear reward? Not everyone is going to care and they aren't going to make them equal to raid or tome gear. Even tomes isn't going to necessarily be something everyone wants. Point being, there is no universal reward that will entice everyone into that area, every time.

A potential solution, if you really want split routes, is to give the dungeon split routes, but the game forces you one way or another randomly. This could cause different bosses, or the same boss with different mechanics. Since dungeons now have a narrative inside them, the last boss has to be the same, but again, you can change things dependant on the route you had to take. Is the dungeon still linear? Yes, but at least it isn't the same every time. Not that I personally really care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDecay

It would be fine if it fully committed to being the best action game it could be. But it's also linear in the dimensions where action games don't want to be linear in, such as enemy combat, skill choices, weapon customization etc.

---

This. An Action game having little customization among its RPG elements is potentially... totally fine. But then it actually needs to have, to satisfying degree, the kinds of nuances and depth we'd expect from an Action game, rather than trash just being a carpet rolled out for their 'and then they all spontaneously combust' near-CS via Eikon skill.

If the game had difficulty modes, from the start, beyond just Easy, Easier, and Easiest, trash wasn't just a joke, and what few systems it carries for depth and skill-gap actually mattered... sure, that'd be fine.



And analogs abound in XIV itself: What is the point of Materia, if the only stat with gameplay ramifications is, 90+% of the time, to be avoided? What is the point of having all jobs available on a single job, if lockouts force you onto a single armor class when it matters and the jobs of any given role (and perhaps the roles themselves), apart from a 'flavor' and 'loser' of a given patch, play increasingly similar to one another?

It's fine to prioritize different things. I'd just rather the product of those shifted priorities not be half-assed thereafter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

No you could not. The Tonberries with the oil are in specific places and the levers you need the oil for are also in set places, this creates an optimal path through the area.

---

To be fair, the larger factor was in the very next sentence that you left out: in non-optimal situations, the contextually optimal path shifted, because you'd arrive at different times relative to the Tonberry's patroling position.

And they could easily force variance (rotating which path is essentially barred, which will proportionately often include the path that'd be most time-efficient if the patrol did not exist) by just varying the patrol's starting position on dungeon start.

They could also have just had more opportunities for the oils to drop (with still only the original number being required, and no further drops occurring after you had acquired enough). The means of creating non-linear pathing in that dungeon were right there, even if they weren't yet implemented in a way that'd last through wholly optimized play.

In short, I don't think you guys are in as great of disagreement as you seem to think, Mikey?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

To be fair, the larger factor was in the very next sentence that you left out: in non-optimal situations, the contextually optimal path shifted, because you'd arrive at different times relative to the Tonberry's patroling position.

And they could easily force variance (rotating which path is essentially barred, which will proportionately often include the path that'd be most time-efficient if the patrol did not exist) by just varying the patrol's starting position on dungeon start.

They could also have just had more opportunities for the oils to drop (with still only the original number being required, and no further drops occurring after you had acquired enough). The means of creating non-linear pathing in that dungeon were right there, even if they weren't yet implemented in a way that'd last through wholly optimized play.

In short, I don't think you guys are in as great of disagreement as you seem to think, Mikey?

---

The next sentence doesn't do anything of the sort, as I implied, you done the same thing every single time. There was no 'organically different route' based on team DPS, as the route was the same every time, it did not change.

As for the Tonberries, their locations were very predictable, which leads me to believe they do not even spawn until you are close, likely when you open the door and step into the room itself. If you want to start playing around with different spawn locations and different routes for the large Tonberries, you have to take into account that there are fixed locations you need to go to. Right at the start, the middle, by the exit door and in the NE corner is the locations for all the switches. You get enough oil for 2 switches from the room prior, so you have 2 switches left, and 2 Tonberries to kill in the room. Unless you want to start moving the locations of the little Tonberries, you will still take the same route. However, if you do start moving the spawn locations of the small Tonberries, forcing people to have to look around for them, I suspect that will just be frustrating to people rather than something people will take a liking to.

As for RNG drops to progress, you either get lucky and you can progress quicker or you get unlucky and it takes a bit longer. It is, again, going to feel frustrating when the run is going to take longer just because RNG screwed with you for no reason.

And no, it is definitely a disagreement. Their claim was you can take multiple routes based on the Tonberries, so it isn't the same every time, and I completely disagreed with that claim. That is never how the dungeon was run (baring maybe week 1 when people were learning it, but I wasn't at that point at that time) but as soon as people found the fastest route, that is the one they will take and I guarantee, after 1 week, that route would have been the standard.

The rest of my post is just about trying to make a linear dungeon seem non-linear whilst still being linear. Whether that solution will please people who wanted a non linear dungeon, who knows (probably not), however, it is still something that can make each run of the same dungeon different, to a point. Only so many routes you can make after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

The next sentence doesn't do anything of the sort, as I implied, you done the same thing every single time. There was no 'organically different route' based on team DPS, as the route was the same every time, it did not change.

As for the Tonberries, their locations were very predictable, which leads me to believe they do not even spawn until you are close, likely when you open the door and step into the room itself. If you want to start playing around with different spawn locations and different routes for the large Tonberries, you have to take into account that there are fixed locations you need to go to. Right at the start, the middle, by the exit door and in the NE corner is the locations for all the switches. You get enough oil for 2 switches from the room prior, so you have 2 switches left, and 2 Tonberries to kill in the room. Unless you want to start moving the locations of the little Tonberries, you will still take the same route. However, if you do start moving the spawn locations of the small Tonberries, forcing people to have to look around for them, I suspect that will just be frustrating to people rather than something people will take a liking to.

As for RNG drops to progress, you either get lucky and you can progress quicker or you get unlucky and it takes a bit longer. It is, again, going to feel frustrating when the run is going to take longer just because RNG screwed with you for no reason.

And no, it is definitely a disagreement. Their claim was you can take multiple routes based on the Tonberries, so it isn't the same every time, and I completely disagreed with that claim.

---

You... did, though, unless you were just going to stand around waiting for the patrol to pass, you may well start on one side or the other. Additionally, a WHM could solo the central winch (Holy was a 5s stun at the time) while the rest of the party went left, right, or through (if pat didn't block it or one had a PLD to tank it) to grab the oils and winches from East to West or West to East by just nuking down the oil-bearer and then Sprinting onward, outranging the mobs where possible and using the boss wall to hold them in place where not. We had that shit down to a science, but it still technically had some variation.

Yes, it could have been better balanced for variety and some 80% of runs, so long as they were done at full speed, all took the same route. In the remaining 20%, though, yeah, variations happened to recover or to better make use of BLM's AoE Sleep/Blizzard II (or Holy/Miasma II) and potentially Sprint w/ Paeon.

Quote:

---

The rest of my post is just about trying to make a linear dungeon seem non-linear whilst still being linear. Whether that solution will please people who wanted a non linear dungeon, who knows (probably not), however, it is still something that can make each run of the same dungeon different, to a point. Only so many routes you can make after all.

---

To my mind, it's just a matter of the added initial extent of, and the added longevity of, the dungeon's novelty vs. those obviously diminishing returns. Honestly, though, in terms of 'dungeon content novelty/longevity per hour of development time' would already seem to incentivize spending a bit more time on each dungeon (and systems encapsulating them).

In terms of varying up pathing slightly (again, less important to me than shaking up the pacing, flow, and encounters, but still worthwhile)... plopping mobs on the map doesn't take up much more time. Nor is pathable ground so much more time-intensive than making an equally interesting path or slope leading (inaccessibly) off the main trail for purely visual purposes. So, if the dungeon seems like it should look that large (even if just for visual purposes) already, then... yeah, some more paths would be cool and probably a slight net increase to value for the dungeon's distinction and longevity.

Ultimately, though, a lot of the benefit of making more interesting dungeons depends on the amount of interest that can be generated from the differences and agency within the party members' respective kits, which it turn requires that the dungeons not just be a steamroll. So... also really hoping that minimum item level difficulty would actually be worth speaking of and that the ilvl caps would fall far closer to merely the ilvl the dungeon rewards OR a real Expert Roulette (dungeons upscaled to level cap and to the party's average ilvl).

(No, I see absolutely no reason why Savage gear would "need" to "reward" players with a gutted dungeon-running experience from steamrolling the whole thing. Frankly, I'd be fine with most content having a maximum item level barely over what they reward, and just reducing the weekly grind requirements in exchange, or having the amount by which ilvl has been synced down increase rewards near-proportionately.)


EDIT: Now, if we REALLY want to incentivize more varied layouts for dungeons, then there'd simply have to be further use for those variations, even if that might not be for "Dungeons" themselves -- and instead some new content type (I used the term "Delves" before) that borrows from those prior "Dungeon" assets (to perhaps less of a visual rehaul than Hard Modes, but still likely significant).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OdinelStarrei

I am not responsible!

I didn't do anything except disagree with design/dungeon/job decisions and support/compliment things I liked! I've always said that fights should not be nerfed, that dungeons should not be in this straight line, or at least have the illusion of being more than just a straight hallway. I didn't insist, nor did I force SE to do dumb things that blow up in their faces later on, like Variants, which they STILL fumbled.

---

Umm...I wasn't referring to you. Notice how the post you quoted has me talking about "your approach" - meaning the person who I was directly quoting and responding to.

To your larger point, it's not a matter of simply "popular" trends, but an immense majority. Think about how many ARR dungeons back in the pre-revamp time actually saw parties you were in do anything but the most effective linear path (and if a group actually did anything off the direct path, were you the tank prompting it). It's not that a simple "majority" did something; it's that practically everyone did. It's just simple reality that allocating time and resources to something that very few people will see just isn't worth it from a production standpoint.

Remember, SE has engagement metrics that we don't have. If they continue designing and expanding on things like Variant Dungeons, it's because they didn't fumble them, and people by and large are enjoying and playing them. So overall, yes, if you have what amounts to a very niche take on a major part of a game, it's unfortunate but reality that you're likely going to be left disappointed. That's not a question of what "should" be, but just a mature realization of what "is."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R041

It's funny when you actually sit and think about it - Because we have these ideas in our head before the game is released. We want to believe they can do all sorts of crazy shit right. But it's clear DMC combat wouldn't work in a Souls map, and XIV dungeons also don't really work because you don't 'pull' mobs. So it's very obvious they had to conform the dungeon areas into what DMC did. After-all, that's what they'd be comfortable with, and all games of this type do that.

You kinda have to expect the tropes to all fall into place when given chunks of the same pieces.

---

I don't hate them (zone level designs), just surprised at some of the simplicity or lack of exploration / 'gameplay' wonderment. I say wonderment because sometimes it's a puzzle or some backtrack that makes you go "ah-ha!". I always considered the environment as a non-verbal character of the game, so interacting with it should be a deep conversation- Souls like games have good practice at silent conversations (including environment). I just felt the gameplay elements of the zones in FFXVI didn't really 'silently' talk to me. Visually, including the visual design not just 'graphic quality' of the landscapes talk very well though- I am often pleased with the visual layouts.

I do think comparing GoW in this situation makes it easier to point out they 'could' have been different, though that doesn't mean they had to be (GoW combat is vaguely similar).

Personally I think what bothers me about the open world, and is also just probably a pet-peeve in general which makes it further personal lol, is that there are so many invisible walls. I see a small rock and think I'll hop up on it and the game is like NAH, YOU GO LEFT, OR YOU GO RIGHT, AND IT GOES TO THE SAME SPOT. Me: "how about this cliff". Game: "YOU GO LEFT OR YOU GO RIGHT- YOU GO TO SAME PLACE I TELL YOU, YOU TWIT". Also probably with a preconceived notion on top of that which was they would improve FFXV's open world exploration which did have some stronger movement controls- so I was pre-hoping for smoother environment interactions. The blending from running to hoping over fences is nice, but the jump is uh.. not very useful and you can imagine most of the game as a 2d isometric (in terms of movement, not visuals obviously). Something about being stuck on the ground, essentially, in a 3d world space, really gets to my monkey brain- 404s and dial up noises right away lol.

So I had visual exploration, but I felt I didn't have much tactical exploration. I think this is made a bit worse by the fact that, and you pointed this out I believe, the general rewards for exploring is like 2 gil and some wyrite lol. Doesn't really feel worth it and doesn't really feel like exploring anyways. I do appreciate that chests get their pop-up icon though, otherwise chests would be invisible lol. Next time I hope they can try to add some more interesting rewards, recipes, music rolls, etc. Probably similar to my feeling on quests, most are fairly straight forward (mechanically- tasks/rewards), but when I did the herbal quest that rewards you better potions I was like "now that's cool, worth".

Dungeons usually have a imperative to them so it's generally okay they're linear (funny thing in Fallout 4 where you are told to save your son and you spend the next 100 hours doing anything but that), and you don't really visit those instances again.. which would be unfortunate if they were loaded with miss-ables, but maybe there should be a few instance spaces that can take more time with you lol. Nearing the end but haven't quite seen one that isn't a sort of FFXIV dungeon path.

I already thought "hm, this is fun" in the beginning but as you get the other primals and the story continues to be (imo) great, game continues to feel better and better from there. Not that I had any major negatives anyways. I think my first thought "plz think of next time" is perhaps some sort of color coded telegraphs like GoW has, I use the focus ring because some enemies are not as communicative as I would wish on their telegraph (and also more importantly I cannot see a freaking thing when I use garuda's tornado, it's awesome looking but gameplay impossible to see lol- some sort of color seeping through the noise to help you would be nice). Then perhaps the exploration with thoughts on a more rewarding (doesn't mean larger amounts of gil) experience, and potentially either more free (less walls) or more structured (like GoW). Next one would be probably making the side quests have a stronger presentation when in casual conversation, lots of nice stories and some have great presentation in action like moments, but the camera work in non-intense moments (especially side quests) reminds me strongly of FFXIV's which is a bit jarring when you go from A+ cinematography to semi-awkward fade to blacks and simple pans. Maybe as an aside but Ramuh's O constantly messes me up as my brain is trained O is for movement and then it pulls me into a HUD and makes me really slow instead lol, would replace it with something else if I could (Ramuh with lightning rod and ignition is a bit hilarious to watch).

Just finished up a few more hours of play after some MSQ and was like damn, have to wait to do more (till next available time to play).. So that's a pretty good :).

Funny I said I didn't intend to comment much, but it was nice enough to talk to you that I couldn't help have small thoughts while playing XD.

This misconception that non-linear is somehow always superior to a linear game needs to die. There are plenty of linear games that have proven to be masterpieces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CerusSerenade

This misconception that non-linear is somehow always superior to a linear game needs to die. There are plenty of linear games that have proven to be masterpieces.

---

I don't think anyone's conflating it with some sort of irredeemable problem so much as just an opportunity not taken (it's more just a... salient symptom, so to speak), in the same way that having no customization, or having little combat depth, or little available range in difficulty, or not having a well-crafted learning curve, or not having a responsive and intuitive UI, or having little story coherence, or having little explorable worldstory or backstory, would all be wasted opportunities that could otherwise positively affect a game's apparent quality.

It seems the overall direction to make sure every "required" dungeon needs to be possible to beat with NPC parties, they had to dumb-down everything.
However, even then it seems even the non-required dungeons are largely linear these days.