Personally I feel that the class quests in FFXIV are the best storyline-based content included in the game, even better than the main story (not to mention some of the best quests I played in any MMORPG).
To improve the game, IMHO, the dev team needs not only to revamp what doesn't work perfectly, but also to expand and put in evidence what works very well, in order to play on the strong points of the game.
First of all, the class quests are not very visible. My girlfriend just started the game recently, and she didn't notice her story quest until I told her. I'm quite sure she's not the only one.
That's why i would mark the class quests with the (!) marker exactly like sidequests when they get available.
In addition to this, I think class quests start too late in a player's career, and there are too few of them.
I would move the quests (currently at level 20, 30 and 36), to level 10, 18 and 26.
Then I would add another three for each class to expand further on the story of each guild, reaching more epic proportions as the level grows. I'd locate them around level 34, 42 and 50.
I would also revamp rewards:
each quest shouldn't give just the guild marks (that at the moment are a bit overabundant anyway), but should award skill points for their specific class (I'm actually of the opinion that every quest and sidequest should *without fail* always reward skill points. Quests being part of the leveling process is now an expected and solidiefied staple of any MMORPG, and people get disappointed and annoyed when they finish a quest witout receiving a reward that contributes to their level progression. Currency is too low-value to be considered worthwile).
I would award, with every quest the following prizes:
2000 guild marks
15% of the SP necessary to level up from the rank at which the quest becomes available.
The level 50 quest should be more challenging and epic than the previous ones, and (since SP rewards aren't valuable anymore), should give a special and prized reward. I would say somethig equivalent to the Artifact Armor of FFXIV, warable only by the specific class and only at level 50. It would also serve as an incentive to reach level 50.
If artifact armors are already planned as prizes for other areas of content, then I would reward the player for the level 50 class quest with an "artifact weapon" of appropriate power.
Having an extensive and rewarding questline to look forward to for every class would also encourage players to play different classes more, as just three quests that give only a few gil and guild marks as a reward might not be seen by many as worthwile.
Finally, I would involve in the final three quests (the ones to be implemented anew) each player's path companion. As I feel that the path companion is an extremely valuable idea and asset to the game, and should be considerably expanded upon (as explained in this thread).
Thank you for reading.
[suggestion] expand the class quest system
Printable View
-
04-11-2011, 01:30 PMAbriael[suggestion] expand the class quest system
-
04-12-2011, 07:40 AMfredtma
there are class quest :confused:
where? -
04-12-2011, 08:29 AMDragonhandThese... lol... balls to me -.-"Quote:
Originally Posted by fredtma
Now after learning that there are class quests... I really have to agree with op. -
04-12-2011, 01:38 PMAbriael
level 20, 30 and 36 of each class, you get them at the leftmost NPC of the three at the counter of each guild.
-
04-17-2011, 09:42 PMBetelgeuzahI agree. I think that there should be a visible notification when you rank up that the class quest has become available. Perhaps it should also be mentioned in the tutorials that you may want to check on the guild at different ranks to see if quests have become available, starting at X rank.Quote:
First of all, the class quests are not very visible. My girlfriend just started the game recently, and she didn't notice her story quest until I told her. I'm quite sure she's not the only one.
That's why i would mark the class quests with the (!) marker exactly like sidequests when they get available.
I don't see the logic in this. There is no need to have the class quests so close during the early ranks, especially 1-24. The leveling process is so fast as-is that it is more reasonable to set the majority of class quests to the higher end of the scale where leveling takes longer. 20, 25, 30, (34, 38, 42, (44, 46, 48)) sounds like a more reasonable progression.Quote:
I would move the quests (currently at level 20, 30 and 36), to level 10, 18 and 26.
Then I would add another three for each class to expand further on the story of each guild, reaching more epic proportions as the level grows. I'd locate them around level 34, 42 and 50.
I don't agree with this. First of all, when the economy is stagnant currency is not going to be considered worthwhile. This is something they will address, and these are the first steps to stimulate the economy [important]. Secondly, the quests in this game are not considered the same as the quests in any other game. They are not used as a means to progress (even if you can get SP from the mobs). This game is not the same as any other game, even if there are similarities. That should be emphasized. Also, its not hard to make guild marks matter.Quote:
I would also revamp rewards:
each quest shouldn't give just the guild marks (that at the moment are a bit overabundant anyway), but should award skill points for their specific class (I'm actually of the opinion that every quest and sidequest should *without fail* always reward skill points. Quests being part of the leveling process is now an expected and solidiefied staple of any MMORPG, and people get disappointed and annoyed when they finish a quest witout receiving a reward that contributes to their level progression. Currency is too low-value to be considered worthwile).
-
04-17-2011, 10:44 PMAbriaelThe problem with that is that for the first 20 levels people have no idea of who they are, what is their profession in the world? Why they are even pursuing that profession? Did it drop it on their head? It's been evidenced quite well by this massively article.Quote:
Originally Posted by Betelgeuzah
Even if they stimulate the economy, the gil rewards will always be rather much a pittance. The fact that Final Fantasy XIV is "different" from other MMORPGs doesn't mean it doesn't need alternate ways of progressing. Character progression should always be offered in as many flavors and means as possible, allowing people to rank up in as many ways as possible.Quote:
I don't agree with this. First of all, when the economy is stagnant currency is not going to be considered worthwhile. This is something they will address, and these are the first steps to stimulate the economy [important]. Secondly, the quests in this game are not considered the same as the quests in any other game. They are not used as a means to progress (even if you can get SP from the mobs). This game is not the same as any other game, even if there are similarities. That should be emphasized. Also, its not hard to make guild marks matter.
Why is that? Because the more and varied means of leveling there are, the less tedious the leveling process is. In a game, Tedious = bad. -
04-17-2011, 11:39 PMBetelgeuzahHuh? People play those classes because the classes appeal to them. Why are they pursuing those professions? I'm sure they know why, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it in the first place. Lore is not the defining factor for choosing a class, it is the supporting factor. The job lore in XI opened up only after lvl42 (50+ really), and somehow we all ended up picking a job we liked and leveling it. Afterwards the lore attached us to the job even more, but it was never the decisive factor in picking up a job or not. Leveling to 20 in this game doesn't take more than few hours in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Abriael
With your suggestion the problem is that at first we have an abundance of quests that we may end up even skipping since leveling is so fast, and later on the quests are nowhere to be seen for many ranks at time (while leveling takes longer and longer). Where exactly is the sense in that? Consistency is important, instead of putting most of the content in the low and high end while having nothing to do in-between.
Quests are not "alternate ways of progressing (=leveling)". That doesn't mean there won't be any. It means that quests aren't. Character progression does not translate to only "getting levels" either. There are many ways to progress your character- by becoming richer, by getting better equipment, by getting more skills, by getting titles, by clearing the story missions, by getting an airship pass, or chocobo licence, et cetera.Quote:
Even if they stimulate the economy, the gil rewards will always be rather much a pittance. The fact that Final Fantasy XIV is "different" from other MMORPGs doesn't mean it doesn't need alternate ways of progressing. Character progression should always be offered in as many flavors and means as possible, allowing people to rank up in as many ways as possible.
And why can not leveling be just one aspect of raising your character, instead of making it so everything you do in-game is tailored for only that purpose? Variety is the spice of life, not just in the objectives you do but in the rewards as well. Not everything in the game must be designed specifically for one single purpose- leveling. By doing other tasks that reward you with other ways to progress your character, the actual leveling process becomes more fun as well. Even if you are doing one/two tasks for leveling up, that's irrelevant as long as those two activities are not the only thing you ever do.Quote:
Why is that? Because the more and varied means of leveling there are, the less tedious the leveling process is. In a game, Tedious = bad.
-
04-18-2011, 12:10 AMAbriaelActually I'm advocating a rather regular distribution of the quests, instead of having very little to do for the first levels and everything focused in the mid-to-high ones. It's also a matter how hooking new players to the game. If all a new player has to do is grind guildleves he may become bored before he gets to the good part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Betelgeuzah
And why exactly they shouldn't be?Quote:
Quests are not "alternate ways of progressing (=leveling)". That doesn't mean there won't be any. It means that quests aren't.
There's absolutely no reason for them not to contribute *any* to the character leveling, especially considerig that it's a market standard that people have come to expect from MMORPGs, and that is in no way detrimental to other systems. -
04-18-2011, 12:16 AMBetelgeuzahIt's not a horizontal curve. Ranks 1-25 =/= ranks 26-50. There doesn't have to be much to do for the first levels because they're not going to take long time to clear anyway.Quote:
Actually I'm advocating a rather regular distribution of the quests, instead of having very little to do for the first levels and everything focused in the mid-to-high ones.
Because like I said, not everything has to be designed for leveling up. It lengthens the experience in a good way too. The longer it takes to get to the cap, and the more stuff you can do during the process, the better. At the cap nothing helps you level up anyway. Why the rush to get there? It's why Rift is failing as we speak. "Journey was better than the destination", oh really? The developers ought to keep that in mind as they keep developing the game.Quote:
And why exactly they shouldn't be?
-
04-18-2011, 12:24 AMAbriaelMost content from now on will be added to high and mid levels. That's how the norm goes in MMORPGs, with dungeon and such. I seriously doubt, as the game progresses, that people at mid to high levels will find themselves with nothing to do. On the other hand, I find that the low levels are rather empty, and unless they add dedicated content (which I find doubtful) they may remain that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Betelgeuzah
Remember that in a MMORPG the first impression is *very* important. At the moment the low level first impression of FFXIV is a tad weak, IMHO.
It's not a matter of rushing. The kind of SP rewards i hypotesized would speed up leveling very, very slightly. Besides, questing takes time (lotsa running, at the moment). It's just a matter of balancing time spent with rewards.Quote:
Because like I said, not everything has to be designed for leveling up. It lengthens the experience in a good way too. The longer it takes to get to the cap, and the more stuff you can do during the process, the better. At the cap nothing helps you level up anyway. Why the rush to get there? It's why Rift is failing as we speak. "Journey was better than the destination", oh really? The developers ought to keep that in mind as they keep developing the game.
-
04-18-2011, 12:35 AMBetelgeuzahThere are main scenario quests for every 5 ranks from 1 to at least 20. That's already too much at least for 1-10 since you level so damn fast. There are also a good bit of quests to do for those ranks as well. There is simply no reason to add anything else for pre-20. And like in my example, there are three class quests for ranks 20 to 30. That is plenty, and more will be implemented with the sidequests in patches.Quote:
Most content from now on will be added to high and mid levels. That's how the norm goes in MMORPGs, with dungeon and such. I seriously doubt, as the game progresses, that people at mid to high levels will find themselves with nothing to do. On the other hand, I find that the low levels are rather empty, and unless they add dedicated content (which I find doubtful) they may remain that way.
Remember that in a MMORPG the first impression is *very* important. At the moment the low level first impression of FFXIV is a tad weak, IMHO.
Actually, none of the content added since December has been for the higher level people. The NM's are for ranks 25 to 35. The quests range from ranks 5 to 30 or so. You have no basis for thinking that they will ignore the lower ranks (especially when they haven't even implemented the tutorial quests yet, who knows how good those are and for what level range).
You are making up excuses for your idea to be viable, but there is nothing that suggests that SE is going to ignore lower levels in the future. With leves, main scenario quests, tutorials and sidequests newbs will have a busy time until rank 20 and beyond where the mid-ranks begin and the class quests among other features are presented to the player.
You can't talk about balance before we see where the game is headed. You don't know how valuable the gil and other rewards will be when the time comes. Your thought process is way too narrow and focused in the present, when the present is irrelevant.Quote:
It's not a matter of rushing. The kind of SP rewards i hypotesized would speed up leveling very, very slightly. Besides, questing takes time (lotsa running, at the moment). It's just a matter of balancing time spent with rewards.
-
04-18-2011, 01:06 AMAbriaelIt's a lot, LOT less than the quest content basically every other game has to offer in the same timeframe. Again, first impression. New players come in expecting to find quest content comparable to other games they're used to, and they don't during the game's beginning. Getting turned off by consequence. That's one of the factors that determined the rocky start of this game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Betelgeuzah
Actually, you seem to be making up excuses in order to oppose the idea for some reason. "NO! PLEASE don't give us more and more varied things to do at low levels!" (like it was a bad thing).Quote:
Actually, none of the content added since December has been for the higher level people. The NM's are for ranks 25 to 35. The quests range from ranks 5 to 30 or so. You have no basis for thinking that they will ignore the lower ranks (especially when they haven't even implemented the tutorial quests yet, who knows how good those are and for what level range).
You are making up excuses for your idea to be viable, but there is nothing that suggests that SE is going to ignore lower levels in the future. With leves, main scenario quests, tutorials and sidequests newbs will have a busy time until rank 20 and beyond where the mid-ranks begin and the class quests among other features are presented to the player.
Every MMORPG developer always focuses more and more on higher level content as development progresses. The new NMs are mid-level content, not low-level.
Remember that this game is going to have a fresh relaunch with the PS3 version. When that happens the low level content will have to be VERY solid if the relaunch is to be successful.
Changing an economy radically isn't something that can be easily done, and most probably won't happen. It might be adjusted, but not really revolutioned.Quote:
You can't talk about balance before we see where the game is headed. You don't know how valuable the gil and other rewards will be when the time comes. Your thought process is way too narrow and focused in the present, when the present is irrelevant.
-
04-18-2011, 01:18 AMBetelgeuzahYet they have a better quality. Or you saying the starting quests in any other MMO are like the main scenario quests in XIV? First impression is that a massive seadragon/goobbue/treant attacks you, shit goes down and epic stuff happens. Then you get to dive deeper into the story of the game every 5 ranks (which, as was said, are easy to acquire. I think the tutorial levequest got me to rank 4).Quote:
It's a lot, LOT less than the quest content basically every other game has to offer in the same timeframe.
What the hell are you talking about? People expect to find themselves in a game with "ho ho ho adventurer, my soup needs 5 bat wings!"-quests and instead a massive dragonzoid attacks your ship. Later you are presented with more cutscenes that rival that of single player games, and you get to do your normal sidequests and guildleves as well while meeting other people. And it only gets better (not worse [important]) as time goes on and you unlock class quests. If the new combat system is any fun, that will keep people playing as well.Quote:
New players come in expecting to find quest content comparable to other games they're used to, and they don't during the game's beginning.
"For some reason"? I just told you it is bad design to focus your content on the ranks where you level up fast as-is, while making the higher ranks more barren. You saying that isn't a bad thing? To hell with consistency, must get the newbs hooked so that they can quit in the later levels when the content dries up!Quote:
Actually, you seem to be making up excuses in order to oppose the idea for some reason. "NO! PLEASE don't give us more and more varied things to do at low levels!" (like it was a bad thing).
You can't talk about balance before we see where the game is headed. You don't know how valuable the gil and other rewards will be when the time comes.Quote:
Changing an economy radically isn't something that can be easily done, and most probably won't happen. It might be adjusted, but not really revolutioned.
But, but, "maybe" "it might", "most probably", "I study teh ecanomix", blah blah.
You don't know, period. -
04-18-2011, 01:28 AMAbriaelThe "better quality" part is debatable. The density, is a lot lower and underwhelming to people used to other MMOs. It's one of the main points of criticism to the game for a reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Betelgeuzah
I'm afraid you're quite behind in times, quests in other games evolved a LOT compared to the "oh oh, my soup needs 5 bat wings". Final Fantasy isn't the only game with good story-driven quests anymore.Quote:
What the hell are you talking about? People expect to find themselves in a game with "ho ho ho adventurer, my soup needs 5 bat wings!"-quests and instead a massive dragonzoid attacks your ship. Later you are presented with more cutscenes that rival that of single player games, and you get to do your normal sidequests and guildleves as well while meeting other people. And it only gets better (not worse [important]) as time goes on and you unlock class quests. If the new combat system is any fun, that will keep people playing as well.
Yes, *must get the newbs hooked*, because if you don't *get the newbs hookes* they won't even have a chance to *get* to high levels. Every single MMO developer nowadays know that, and focuses a lot on that. Starting experience is *crucial* to the success of a MMO.Quote:
"For some reason"? I just told you it is bad design to focus your content on the ranks where you level up fast as-is, while making the higher ranks more barren. You saying that isn't a bad thing? To hell with consistency, must get the newbs hooked so that they can quit in the later levels when the content dries up!
And you do?Quote:
You can't talk about balance before we see where the game is headed. You don't know how valuable the gil and other rewards will be when the time comes.
But, but, "maybe" "it might", "most probably", "I study teh ecanomix", blah blah.
You don't know, period.
-
04-18-2011, 01:47 AMBetelgeuzahI don't really know why that matters as long as the curve is designed to work with a lower density and offers similar progression. Further, if they can give GL system some character that will interest people in itself. They see that "hey, there are normal quests, but there are these main scenario quests and guildleves that are quite a bit different and interesting too, that's cool". After the "tutorial" (that they are designing the first 20 ranks to be), the game opens up even more. Not all at once, but little by little. While getting them hooked is important, keeping them interested is even more important. They must have something new to look forward to, and while "progressing the story", "getting new equipment", "doing more raids" are acceptable ways to do that, what really keeps people interested are new things to do. "Class quests and chocobo pass are waiting for me at rank 20, the first raid and the hamlet battles are waiting for me at rank 25, I can join a Grand Company and choose my job at rank 30, I can participate in PvP and PvE between Companies at rank 35"- that's what keeps people going forward.Quote:
The "better quality" part is debatable. The density, is a lot lower and underwhelming to people used to other MMOs. It's one of the main points of criticism to the game for a reason.
Too bad the story is lame and unimportant in those games, not to mention too individualized. Yes, I played Rift and can't remember anything that was said in the "tutorial". Sure, epic shit was happening, but it was all without context. Other MMO's simply don't care enough to build an interesting lore from the ground up and a story to go with it.Quote:
I'm afraid you're quite behind in times, quests in other games evolved a LOT compared to the "oh oh, my soup needs 5 bat wings". Final Fantasy isn't the only game with good story-driven quests anymore.
The game is *new*, and if there is anything *new* about it that will keep the newbs hooked and wanting more. But yes, if the game is "yet another clone" with lore made of shades of gray, they gotta do something else to attempt to keep people playing. XIV does not have to resort to that, since they have systems in place that, when properly fleshed out, offer something novel to people. The sidequests are there to simply flesh out the lore background and offer filler in between the good stuff. It's not meant to be anything more.Quote:
Yes, *must get the newbs hooked*, because if you don't *get the newbs hookes* they won't even have a chance to *get* to high levels. Every single MMO developer nowadays know that, and focuses a lot on that. Starting experience is *crucial* to the success of a MMO.
Hey, I'm not the one talking like I know what the economy will end up being like. But I sure as hell know the developers have a better idea than you do.Quote:
And you do?
-
04-18-2011, 01:55 AMAbriael
The problem is that to get in line with the story-based experience at low levels in other major MMORPGs nowadays, SE has a LOT to add before the PS3 rerelease.
As I said other games have evolved a lot from the "go gather 40 bear pelts". Even games that are considered average like Warhammer Online or Age of Conan offer very compelling story-based experiences at low level, with a lot more density than FFXIV does.
Increasing density during the initial levels (which is absolutely crucial to actually create a customerbase) doesn't mean neglecting the high levels. In fact the idea is exactly to increase the density of lower level content AND to add more at higher levels. -
04-18-2011, 01:58 AMBetelgeuzahIt is good that you mention those games, as everyone I know has said that the first 20 levels of AoC were brilliant while the rest was horrible. A classic case of putting all your attention to hook people and not thinking about how to keep them hooked as well. It's not the first 20 levels that matter, it's the whole package. And if the whole package is solid, people will keep going. AoC didn't have to make the tutorial as good as it was, they could have easily balanced it out with the rest of the game and people would have liked it a lot more.Quote:
Even games that are considered average like Warhammer Online or Age of Conan offer very compelling story-based experiences at low level, with a lot more density than FFXIV does.
What you say and what your examples are do not go hand-in-hand. To AoC, to WAR, to Aion, increasing density in the lower levels did mean neglecting the higher levels. What you are proposing here is the same thing. "Put most quests in the lower levels, ignore the higher levels for the most part." If that isn't decreasing density, I don't know what is.
I edited my post above. -
04-18-2011, 02:09 AMAbriael
You seem to be assuming that since another developer didn't use enough resources to flesh out the story of their MMORPG at medium levels, SE should neglect the low levels. Sorry but it doesn't work like that.
SE has a LOT more resources than Funcom, and while AoC hasn't been massively successful, it's already been (and still is) MUCH more successful than FFXIV, even thanks to it's better newbie experience.
And LOL at other MMORPG not having a good lore. Final Fantasy isn't the only good lore out there. The conan lore is great, and the warhammer lore is one of the best fantasy settings even created. Let's not even get into looking at Lord of the Rings and the upcoming star wars.
There are PLENTY other MMOs in the market with a good story and good/complex lore, and a way more solid newbie experience than FFXIV. SE needs to get on a competitive level on that as well, or the relaunch will fail. It's that simple. -
04-18-2011, 02:30 AMBetelgeuzahNobody is neglecting the lower levels, as like I said, there is plenty to do in the lower levels and more is coming. I'm saying that they should not repeat what other developers did, what you are suggesting, because it has always ended in a failure. They should spread the content among all levels, without neglecting any level range. Naturally for that to happen the level range that takes longer to complete needs more content for the spread to be considered "even". That's a nobrainer.Quote:
You seem to be assuming that since another developer didn't use enough resources to flesh out the story of their MMORPG at medium levels, SE should neglect the low levels. Sorry but it doesn't work like that.
It gets easier when you can use pre-existing lore, but those games have already failed or are past their time. No game with lack of pre-existing lore has achieved a good standard, and that is what keeps pulling them down. Conan may have a good lore, but the game sure failed in presenting it to the player in an interesting way beyond the first 20 levels. The point is to make people interested about the lore. The better the lore is, the easier it gets, but simply being able to use pre-existing lore doesn't mean the end result is good. In those games, maybe LOTR aside, it wasn't.Quote:
And LOL at other MMORPG not having a good lore. Final Fantasy isn't the only good lore out there. The conan lore is great, and the warhammer lore is one of the best fantasy settings even created. Let's not even get into looking at Lord of the Rings and the upcoming star wars.
Frankly, it was incredibly hard to care about the lore of Conan without having read the books. The game should be able to make good use of the lore without me having to introduce myself to it first, and Conan didn't do a good job at it. Where was the enemy that was approaching? Who were the protagonists? Where is the mystery? At least LOTR gave us the basic "evil is approaching hurrdurr" talk (...I think?)
No, there aren't, and if there are, they are few and far between as well as old, or failures that didn't succeed in using the lore to their advantage.Quote:
There are PLENTY other MMOs in the market with a good story and good/complex lore, and a way more solid newbie experience than FFXIV. SE needs to get on a competitive level on that as well, or the relaunch will fail. It's that simple.
-
04-18-2011, 02:58 AMAbriaelIt's not nearly comparable to the low level experience in other games, sorry. Not even on the same planet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Betelgeuzah
LOL. Any MMORPG (or any kind of game actually) developer will tell you that working with a pre-existing lore is *much* harder than working with an original lore. Not only you are subject to a lot more restrictions on what you can and cannot do, with that lore, but also you have to cope with the *established* image of that existing lore the fans have, and the fans are even more demanding and unforgiving than the actual owners of an IP. Final Fantasy XIV suffers partly from that problem because even if it's an original lore, it's still part of an established IP.Quote:
It gets easier when you can use pre-existing lore
ALL of them are more successful than FFXIV at the moment. LOTRO is nowhere near a failure, and Star Wars Galaxies still has to be released.Quote:
but those games have already failed or are past their time.
This game has plenty competition, on every level, lore included. So it needs to gain a competitive edge on every level, lowbie experience included. At the moment, that's lacking. Sorely. -
04-18-2011, 03:33 AMBetelgeuzahYes, the guildleve system needs work and combat is not fun, the tutorials are missing and there is not much to look forward to. Although that's not even a bad thing- it shouldn't be comparable, because that's away from the rest of the game. The content needs to be balanced, and if that means the quality of start is slightly lower, that's fine.Quote:
It's not nearly comparable to the low level experience in other games, sorry. Not even on the same planet.
Yet a) you listed games with pre-existing lore instead of original lore, and b) games with no pre-existing lore tend to suck hard. So what can we take from this? It's easier to fail when you make a game based on pre-existing lore (and I agree, AoC, WAR and others didn't do that good of a job at presenting it to the player. I mean hell, you had gandalfs and gimlis and whatever in LOTRO but there was, again, no context to them. They were fanservice) and when you don't focus on creating a good lore for your unique IP, the end result is no better- actually worse. Even if they could make a better lore, they simply don't bother.Quote:
LOL. Any MMORPG (or any kind of game actually) developer will tell you that working with a pre-existing lore is *much* harder than working with an original lore. Not only you are subject to a lot more restrictions on what you can and cannot do, with that lore, but also you have to cope with the *established* image of that existing lore the fans have, and the fans are even more demanding and unforgiving than the actual owners of an IP. Final Fantasy XIV suffers partly from that problem because even if it's an original lore, it's still part of an established IP.
This game has several interesting lore- and story-aspects to it already, and they have only a loose, original connection to FF-lore at worst. Garlean empire (with hi-tech setting to make it even more interesting), the Primal beastmen and how the Summons connect to them, Ishgard and their struggle with dragons, the new coming of legendary Archons and how their story ties up to the ancient ruins found in the Thanalan region (which may also explain to us why Thanalan became a barren wasteland), and the inner conflicts in the city-states themselves. Each city-state has their own mysterious protagonists, and the antagonist makes his appearance in the later quests, yet not everything is revealed about him at first glance, including his intentions. In Rift the very first cutscene reveals the bland antagonist and I can bet my hat that he is the bad guy and he is who the players are going to end up fighting, why... Well, because he's a big bad evil boss terrorizing the neighborhood (because he's EEVIIIL) of course!
If you think this setting doesn't beat what other games have to offer (especially those with no pre-existing lore), I'd really like to hear examples. Only WoW comes close and beats it, but when you use the pre-existing lore that has been built up over the years efficiently it's no wonder you can get ahead. Everyone knows what's going to happen in general tho. We fight Lich King? I did not see that coming!
And none of that has to do with how the lower levels are set-up. You are coming into conclusions based on factors that have nothing to do with the success or lack of success for this game. You also can't speak for SW:TOR as it has not been released yet, and frankly it looks horrible.Quote:
ALL of them are more successful than FFXIV at the moment. LOTRO is nowhere near a failure, and Star Wars Galaxies still has to be released.
No other game is FINAL FANTASY. No other game is putting emphasis on sandbox-like features nor community, aside from TERA with it's politics, while, again, it has things it lacks just like any other game. SE needs to sell this game to their target audience, and offer things their competitors can not. Community is one of them. An original lore that is interesting is another. "The Exiled Realm of Arborea"? "Rift: Planes of Telara"? "Aion: The Tower of Eternity"? In other wordsQuote:
This game has plenty competition, on every level, lore included. So it needs to gain a competitive edge on every level, lowbie experience included. At the moment, that's lacking. Sorely.
"Generic: The X of Y:
-because we had to make up something fast to justify our "new" gameplay mechanic-"-the game -
04-18-2011, 03:49 AMAbriaelLol. Combat has nothing to do with this. Competing on the combat aspect is a completely different pair of sleeves. Guildleves are just a repeatable quest system, it can't get much deeper than this. People expect story-based experiences. Guildleves are a good filler, but will never be more than filler.Quote:
Originally Posted by Betelgeuzah
It's never fine to have a lower quality lowbie game. First impressions in MMORPGs have been demonstrated over and over to be critical.
City of heroes has an original lore. EVE online has an original lore, Both are compelling and deep. BEsides, "tend to suck hard" is an entirely debatable and arbitrary evaluation of yours.Quote:
Yet a) you listed games with pre-existing lore instead of original lore, and b) games with no pre-existing lore tend to suck hard.
The lore is interesting but it's presented in a WAY too diluted way towards the beginning of the game. The same comes for the guilds. You're simply thrown into a world of which you know basically nothing (and your character decidedly isn't a kid), and remain blindfolded for a long time before you start to even see a bit of light. That's way too little too late and fails at keeping new players hooked until the "good stuff" comes.Quote:
This game has several interesting lore- and story-aspects to it already, and they have only a loose, original connection to FF-lore at worst. Garlean empire (with hi-tech setting to make it even more interesting), the Primal beastmen and how the Summons connect to them, Ishgard and their struggle with dragons, the new coming of legendary Archons and how their story ties up to the ancient ruins found in the Thanalan region (which may also explain to us why Thanalan became a barren wasteland), and the inner conflicts in the city-states themselves. Each city-state has their own mysterious protagonists, and the antagonist makes his appearance in the later quests, yet not everything is revealed about him at first glance, including his intentions. In Rift the very first cutscene reveals the bland antagonist and I can bet my hat that he is the bad guy and he is who the players are going to end up fighting, why... Well, because he's a big bad evil boss terrorizing the neighborhood (because he's EEVIIIL) of course!
I already gave plenty. This game may beat them from my personal point of view, but it's doubtless that many other MMORPGs in the markets have a very good lore, that definitely is on par, competition-wise with this.Quote:
If you think this setting doesn't beat what other games have to offer (especially those with no pre-existing lore), I'd really like to hear examples.
Sorry but "it has a better lore" doesn't make a very compelling asset in a commercial competition between games nowadays.
Actually, since one of the most criticized aspect of the game in reviews is the very weak lowbie content (which is the only thing most reviewers play, by the way), and reviews DO influence a game's success, yes, it's fairly safe to say that it had a LOT to do with how the lower levels are setup.Quote:
And none of that has to do with how the lower levels are set-up. You are coming into conclusions based on factors that have nothing to do with the success or lack of success for this game.
I know how bioware operates. It'll have a very compelling lore, and a very strong game start.Quote:
You also can't speak for SW:TOR as it has not been released yet, and frankly it looks horrible.
LOL. There's no audience that's LESS appropriate to a sandbox environment than the Final Fantasy one, that comes from SINGLE PLAYER games on consoles.Quote:
No other game is FINAL FANTASY. No other game is putting emphasis on sandbox-like features nor community, aside from TERA with it's politics, while, again, it has things it lacks just like any other game. SE needs to sell this game to their target audience, and offer things their competitors can not. Community is one of them. An original lore that is interesting is another. "The Exiled Realm of Arborea"? "Rift: Planes of Telara"? "Aion: The Tower of Eternity"? In other words
"Generic: The X of Y:
-because we had to make up something fast to justify our "new" gameplay mechanic-"-the game
Selling the game to the Final Fantasy target audience means selling a strong, dense story-driven product. Not a sandbox with repeatable miniquests. -
04-18-2011, 04:12 AMBetelgeuzahFirstly, Guildleves can be randomized like in Nyzul. They can implement a ladder-style progression to it (like progressing in the ranks of the three factions), where you get to fight bigger monsters and tougher(looking) bosses. They can be made a part of the garlean invasion by having your performance judged by the game and making the garleans either defend or attack accordingly dynamically. More objectives can be implemented. Random events between NPC's or even humanoid mobs can be implemented that flesh out the story in the leves. Efficiency can be made more rewarding, giving people a reason to try to get "a high score" during the leve, like more SP. Random buffs and debuffs can be added to make things more interesting. And that's just what my imagination can come up with.Quote:
Lol. Combat has nothing to do with this. Competing on the combat aspect is a completely different pair of sleeves. Guildleves are just a repeatable quest system, it can't get much deeper than this. People expect story-based experiences. Guildleves are a good filler, but will never be more than filler.
You are making yourself look more and more ridiculous by saying "guildleves can't be more than they are". It's like you are looking at the world through your own narrow glasses that only see what's in front of you, not what could be. Guildleves are a template, a Tabula Rasa, and SE can do anything they want with the system. It is simply full of possibilities. Full of them.
Excel Online has original, good lore? Was it behind all the math and technical info the game throws at you?Quote:
EVE online has an original lore, Both are compelling and deep. BEsides, "tend to suck hard" is an entirely debatable and arbitrary evaluation of yours.
Those who don't think the lore sucks live in a denial or are fanboys. Simple.
Hell, I don't know about you but I was presented with background info about Archons and the coming invasion of Garlean empire at rank 5. It will only get better once they add more to it.Quote:
The lore is interesting but it's presented in a WAY too diluted way towards the beginning of the game. The same comes for the guilds. You're simply thrown into a world of which you know basically nothing (and your character decidedly isn't a kid), and remain blindfolded for a long time before you start to even see a bit of light. That's way too little too late and fails at keeping new players hooked until the "good stuff" comes.
Well, why aren't we getting any examples? Excel Online? LOTR "HEY LOOK, OUR GAME HAS GANDALF" Online? Rift "Our game is named after our novel new gameplay feature, see how serious we are about the lore? LOL!"? Age of "Hey isnt this world cool? Not that there's anything to really look forward to, but HEY LOOK IT'S" Conan? Aside from WoW, every game fails hard lorewise, one way or the other.Quote:
I already gave plenty. This game may beat them from my personal point of view, but it's doubtless that many other MMORPGs in the markets have a very good lore, that definitely is on par, competition-wise with this.
Which is why a) tutorials and b) guild"this system can't be made any better"leves must be implemented and fleshed out. But because we can only look at the present situation (where there are a lot of sidequests to do already), we can not figure out a situation where things would be different without doing exactly what the OP proposes to do. Oh wait, that's not "we", that's just you.Quote:
Actually, since one of the most criticized aspect of the game in reviews is the very weak lowbie content (which is the only thing most reviewers play, by the way), and reviews DO influence a game's success, yes, it's fairly safe to say that it had a LOT to do with how the lower levels are setup.
Yet the FINAL FANTASY audience has been craving for all things sandboxy since what, FFX?Quote:
LOL. There's no audience that's LESS appropriate to a sandbox environment than the Final Fantasy one, that comes from SINGLE PLAYER games on consoles.
Just like "there is no less appropriate audience for FPS games than the console audience". "There's no less appropriate audience for MMO's than the RTS audience". Oh wait, how'd that go? But yes, keep LOLing all you want.
Cities! Open world you can explore! Sidequests! Towns full of NPC's! Did you not hear about the criticism of XIII? That game can't get any more dense storywise, yet somehow the audience was asking for the aforementioned things. Hmm.Quote:
Selling the game to the Final Fantasy target audience means selling a strong, dense story-driven product. Not a sandbox with repeatable miniquests.
-
04-18-2011, 03:06 PMAbriael
I will skip the petty personal attacks you seem to be so fond of, and I'll just respond to the arguments, if you don't mind.
You seem not to have noticed what guildleves are intended to be. A quick and dirty repeatable leveling medium. You can easily bet your monthly wage that no further storyline elements will be added to them, simply because that would defeat the purpose of their quickness. Besides, the fact that they're repeatable would lead people to simply skip the story part even if it was implemented.Quote:
Originally Posted by Betelgeuzah
Shallow content doesn't make for deep storylines, and guildleves are just that, utility-oriented but quite shallow content.
"I'm right because I'm right!". Sorry mate, but I'm afraid that tastes different than yours are still valid, as much as you don't seem to accept that.Quote:
Excel Online has original, good lore? Was it behind all the math and technical info the game throws at you?
Those who don't think the lore sucks live in a denial or are fanboys. Simple.
Disagreeing with you != Being fanboys or in denial.
That's all nice and fun, but it's *text*. While It's definitely a nice read, it doesn't exactly equate to something that can get a new player hooked in nowadays' market. You need the fireworks to do that, and the fireworks are missing.Quote:
Hell, I don't know about you but I was presented with background info about Archons and the coming invasion of Garlean empire at rank 5. It will only get better once they add more to it.
You got the examples. The fact that you don't *personally* like them (since it seems that for you FFXIV is the only game with a cool lore out there, lol). doesn't make less valid examples.Quote:
Well, why aren't we getting any examples? Excel Online? LOTR "HEY LOOK, OUR GAME HAS GANDALF" Online? Rift "Our game is named after our novel new gameplay feature, see how serious we are about the lore? LOL!"? Age of "Hey isnt this world cool? Not that there's anything to really look forward to, but HEY LOOK IT'S" Conan?
You mean that childish, messy, half-copied cauldron of cheap pop culture and sad comic relief? Quite refined... :rolleyes:Quote:
Aside from WoW, every game fails hard lorewise, one way or the other.
Yep, of course you think they're gonna add the world to low levels in a few months. Funny how you were the one talking about finite resources.Quote:
Which is why a) tutorials and b) guild"this system can't be made any better"leves must be implemented and fleshed out. But because we can only look at the present situation (where there are a lot of sidequests to do already), we can not figure out a situation where things would be different without doing exactly what the OP proposes to do. Oh wait, that's not "we", that's just you.
The present situation is what we have in front of our eyes, and the easiest solution to the absolute lack of start game content is to condense what we have towards lower levels and add to it. The rest is wishful thinking, blind faith and rosy tinted glasses.
Suggestions are, obviously, to be based on the present situation, not on what santa claus will bring.
[UOTE]Yet the FINAL FANTASY audience has been craving for all things sandboxy since what, FFX? [/QUOTE]
Oh, and where exactly did you get that?
Actually the main points of criticism to FFXIII are that the characters are shallow, there's little involvement and character progression, and the story is too simplistic. Things that you seem to really enjoy, considering how you seem to be so adamantly resistant to any deepening of the story and it's characters.Quote:
Cities! Open world you can explore! Sidequests! Towns full of NPC's! Did you not hear about the criticism of XIII? That game can't get any more dense storywise, yet somehow the audience was asking for the aforementioned things. Hmm.
-
04-18-2011, 03:11 PMzaviermhigo
I guess there are new players if people didn't know there was any class quests lol. This was like major content for those of use who played since release (<- sucker who played beta [i feel for you alpha folk] and still bought CE to play one week early for no reason)
-
04-19-2011, 02:51 AMBetelgeuzahNothing I said or suggested goes against that concept. You simply want to live in denial, and that's okay, but I hope you won't base your suggestions on your twisted views of what can or can't be done to a game system in the future.Quote:
You seem not to have noticed what guildleves are intended to be. A quick and dirty repeatable leveling medium.
They may be valid, but they are still not objectively any better because of it. That's what matters here. I'm not saying someone can't like a poorly constructed and presented lore, that simply doesn't make the lore any better.Quote:
Sorry mate, but I'm afraid that tastes different than yours are still valid, as much as you don't seem to accept that.
Thus the Garleans are about to attack, and the lore makes it quite obvious.Quote:
That's all nice and fun, but it's *text*. While It's definitely a nice read, it doesn't exactly equate to something that can get a new player hooked in nowadays' market. You need the fireworks to do that, and the fireworks are missing.
Oh, but they are not attacking *now*, so they will never attack.
Valid, bad examples. FFXIV is not the only game with cool lore out there, but those games are few and far between. Blizzard managed to build their game on the Warcraft lore (while it is not by any means perfect illustration of the lore, it is good) so hats off to them. XI, while started off mediocre, also succeeded in creating an interesting lore, if only through the story, from the ground-up. There are not many games with objectively good lore that is well presented, and they all have some flaws, but it is a huge appeal nonetheless. If everything in the game is designed as "hay dis boss looks cool and should be fun to fight" instead of "this boss is a part of the background story and an important part of the overall storyline" the game comes off as shallow at best. It's like a series of fights, areas and text without context or it is simply an afterthought (that shows).Quote:
You got the examples. The fact that you don't *personally* like them (since it seems that for you FFXIV is the only game with a cool lore out there, lol). doesn't make less valid examples.
Some may like it, I don't doubt that at all, but that doesn't make them any better.
Well, it's not without its faults, but all those things fit the game's overall style. It is not classy like XI and XIV try to be, and that's kinda the point. The important thing is to make everything fit to the style you want to present to the players. I can see why you wouldn't like how they do things (hell, I don't find it appealing either) but it all makes sense from their PoV and those who like that style also find pop culture references and comic relief entertaining.Quote:
You mean that childish, messy, half-copied cauldron of cheap pop culture and sad comic relief? Quite refined...
Some other games with similar style often try to be way too serious, and the whole presentation falls on it's face. It's a delicate road, and even if you can try to mimic the art style and gameplay, you can't really imitate the lore. You need to make it fit your own game. That's harder than it sounds. For example, I think AoC would have benefited from a more classy approach to the lore and over-all style but I think they didn't quite make it. LOTRO also feels like they try to make the lore and presentation of it more cartoonish and "silly", but is that what you'd expect from a game based on the Tolkien classic? Maybe, maybe not. There's definitely an appeal for both, but personally I think that they should have taken the background their game is built on a bit more seriously than they did. It does have it's merits though, and I think aside from WoW and XI/V, it succeeds better than most other games.
The present situation is that they have added to the low levels and they have stated that they add to the low levels in the future as well, at the very least tutorials and such. Even if you think about the present, you need to take into account what they are already doing in the future, things we are aware of, and build from there. You can't simply ignore what they've said and only look at the present situation, because what you are suggesting is coming with said other changes.Quote:
Yep, of course you think they're gonna add the world to low levels in a few months.
Actually you are pulling these "main points of criticism" out of your arse. Where is the source stating that these are the main points of criticism? Or is this only some attempt to make up info to make your opinion about the criticism of XIII feel more valid and important? Because I ain't buying it. Source or it didn't happen.Quote:
Actually the main points of criticism to FFXIII are that the characters are shallow, there's little involvement and character progression, and the story is too simplistic.
And if you think that what I described as the criticism for XIII doesnt apply, do say so. People do want open world, cities, sidequests to do and towns full of NPC's. It may not be the only criticism, but that doesn't change the fact that these criticisms are things that sandboxish games have and what the target audience wants, among other things. And you should know that the opposite of a dense, story-driven game is a sandbox game. The audience can't want two different things at once. Further, what this games story lacks it makes up for it in lore and, as was said, the personal story you make for yourself, which is pretty much one of the main appeals of MMO's even if people have a hard time trying to pinpoint it.