Does instant transportation effect game immersion?

[Bled]

I don't conveniently glance over anything. It's not a restriction.

"Guildleves also grant use of aetheryte portals, ensuring quick travel about the region."

how do you interpret this then? As i am seeing it aetheryte portals are the means to teleport and Guildleves grant use, thus if you do not have a guildleve you should not be able to teleport based on lore.

Yet we can teleport regardless.

in order to grant someone with something one must first not have said thing thus need to be granted the ability to do so. With a presence of power granting use one might think that there is a restriction to said ability.

[Rhomagus]

"Guildleves also grant use of aetheryte portals, ensuring quick travel about the region."

how do you interpret this then? As i am seeing it aetheryte portals are the means to teleport and Guildleves grant use, thus if you do not have a guildleve you should not be able to teleport based on lore.

Yet we can teleport regardless.

in order to grant some one with some thing one must first not have said thing thus need to be granted the ability to do so.

I don't see it as a constraint. I can be granted permission to pass regardless of whether I can actually pass or not. I can be granted permission to continue regardless of whether or not I could actually "continue". Granting something only opens up opportunity, it doesn't restrict it. It's semantics that have nothing to do with the design philosophy of accessibility and whether or not that should be diminished arbitrarily.

Besides, in one of my other replies I stated that game mechanics trumps immersion.

The storyline doesn't matter to me when it comes to explaining game mechanics as my level of immersion is satiated and deep enough to the point that my suspension of disbelief isn't so shallow as to try to explain away instant travel as a threat to immersion.

It is a worse threat to immersion when the storyline advocates something you should be able to do in game. The introduction to XI was notorious with this. Or when the storyline explains an old feature and said feature is pulled out from the game.

That and retcons introduced by multiple writers.

[Bled]

I don't see it as a constraint. I can be granted permission to pass regardless of whether I can actually pass or not. I can be granted permission to continue regardless of whether or not I could actually "continue". Granting something only opens up opportunity, it doesn't restrict it. It's semantics that have nothing to do with the design philosophy of accessibility and whether or not that should be diminished arbitrarily.

You decided to "dissect" my post based on lore, and i feel the lore dose not match up. Please don't turn around and then try and claim its semantics and play it off like your last posts were troll posts.

a video game even given less restrictions in no way compares to actual design philosophy of accessibility, we the customers have no ability to be inventive that only falls to the developers running the game.

[Rhomagus]

You decided to "dissect" my post based on lore, and i feel the lore dose not match up. Please don't turn around and then try and claim its semantics and play it off like your last posts were troll posts.

a video game even given less restrictions in no way compares to actual design philosophy of accessibility, we the customers have no ability to be inventive that only falls to the developers running the game.

No but we can add suggestions and promote particular design philosophies. An open "laissez faire" design philosophy opens up the game to a wider audience rather than a restricted one in the MMO genre. If you're able to attract more demographic areas, you're better suited for sales and retention of customers.

I specifically said they were not troll posts.

I did say I'm not serious. That doesn't mean I'm a troll. What timezone are you in btw, maybe you should get some sleep.

And it really is getting down to semantics. To the point where my interpretation of a word is different than yours. That's an uncrossable valley. There's no point in continuing with that aspect of the conversation considering that's not what the thread is about anyways.

And I only "dissected" your post because you got snarky and said my Star Trek metaphor didn't apply when it totally did. You then continued to post false information by your own incapability to follow directions and tried to make a point that I didn't link you to the right area.

I'm happy to converse about other subject matter.

[Bled]

I specifically said they were not troll posts.

I did say I'm not serious. That doesn't mean I'm a troll. What timezone are you in btw, maybe you should get some sleep.

And it really is getting down to semantics. To the point where my interpretation of a word is different than yours. That's an uncrossable valley. There's no point in continuing with that aspect of the conversation considering that's not what the thread is about anyways.

And I only "dissected" you post because you got snarky as said my Star Trek metaphor didn't apply when it totally did. You then continued to post false information by your own incapability to follow directions and tried to make a point that I didn't link you to the right area.

I'm happy to converse about other subject matter.

I see because you stated they were not troll posts that must be true!

You stated that you did not post to incite negative responses yet you then say Mechanics > Immersion, which illuminates your true feelings on the topic. you then continue with "It's semantics that have nothing to do with the design philosophy of accessibility and whether or not that should be diminished arbitrarily." which does nothing more but attempt to subject my opinion to nothing more then semantics.

and i still say your star trek analogy does not apply nothing snarky about that just a disagreement.

agree to disagree on this topic i have no problem discussing others either.

[Rhomagus]

I see because you stated they were not troll posts that must be true!

You stated that you did not post to incite negative responses yet you then say Mechanics > Immersion, which illuminates your true feelings on the topicYes it does. Which is why I said it. The original topic is about immersion being destroyed by game mechanics and I personally believe game mechanics, specifically those tied to accessibility for large demographics, trumps immersion because immersion is ultimately a personal endeavor.. you then continue with "It's semantics that have nothing to do with the design philosophy of accessibility and whether or not that should be diminished arbitrarily." which does nothing more but attempt to subject my opinion to nothing more then semanticsIt subjects the argument, not the opinion..

and i still say your star trek analogy does not applyI can understand the disagreement. It's wrong, but okay. nothing snarkyThis post no. That post yes. about that just a disagreement.

agree to disagree on this topic i have no problem discussing others either.

Ya they really aren't troll posts. It's not because I say they aren't it's because they just aren't. We must have a different definition of troll. I'm not trying to instigate aggression. I call out the arguments, not the people. If the argument was one of semantics then that is what it is. I try not to leave room for interpretation and when arguments get down to that there's nowhere to go. I legitimately disagree, I'm not just disagreeing just to disagree. I actually prefer to be proven wrong. I'm no stranger to being humbled. It just hasn't happened in this thread yet is all.

I'd also rather discuss the intended topic at hand rather than just some random topic. I apologize if that's how that came across, but I won't be staying on after this as it is late over here an I should be getting some sleep, but I do pick up from posts where I left off.

[Bled]

Ya they really aren't troll posts. It's not because I say they aren't it's because they just aren't. We must have a different definition of troll. I'm not trying to instigate aggression. I call out the arguments, not the people. If the argument was one of semantics then that is what it is. I try not to leave room for interpretation and when arguments get down to that there's nowhere to go. I legitimately disagree, I'm not just disagreeing just to disagree. I actually prefer to be proven wrong. I'm no stranger to being humbled. It just hasn't happened in this thread yet is all.

I'd also rather discuss the intended topic at hand rather than just some random topic. I apologize if that's how that came across, but I won't be staying on after this as it is late over here an I should be getting some sleep, but I do pick up from posts where I left off.

Your view is Mechanics > Immersion, my view Mechanics need to be balanced properly with Immersion. You talk of balance here and there but as you said it in your main view you truly don't believe in balance between the two at all, you want it your way just as i want it my way. So please again stop trying to play your posts off like your being the neutral party and the victim of my "snarky" attitude when you are just as guilty.

To further expand again with your view point being Mechanics > Immersion relating to the topic of airships and instant travel, i would venture to say you betray your own view. In the case of this airship discussion if we were to put both a qualitative and quantitative value to mechanics, more immersion = more mechanics. If you were to just have instant airship travel that would be the only said mechanic, not only lacking in quantity but also id say quality. Now looking on the flip side increasing immersion would increase the mechanics so having an airship ride where you have to participate in dynamic content would only be increasing immersion and mechanics together.

"It subjects the argument, not the opinion.." my argument is based and supported by my opinion the two are synonyms in this respect, thus you are in fact subjecting my opinion to nothing more then semantics whether you meant to or not.

You are missing the big picture everything i have been discussing plays into: the lack of immersion being FF14's major problem. Instant teleport, instancing all content, instant airship rides, and so on are all parts of what i view as FF14's main problems.

No but we can add suggestions and promote particular design philosophies. An open "laissez faire" design philosophy opens up the game to a wider audience rather than a restricted one in the MMO genre. If you're able to attract more demographic areas, you're better suited for sales and retention of customers. I noticed you updated your post with this and in rebuttal i state: "You can not please all of the people all of the time". No matter how hard you try you can not make everyone happy that is why video games focus on target demographics. When you focus on all demographics or to many, you create a half assed product and look at what we got.

Probably when you pick this back up i wont be online, but i too pick up my posts from where i left off so post away when you come back if you so feel inclined.