Is FFXIV viable as an MMORPG without doing end-game & raiding?

[Alahra]

Indeed, I think FFXIV delivers a lot outside of raiding, and in my opinion it's mostly terrible. So in that sense, I don't think it's viable outside of raiding. However, some people enjoy it, and it's there, so in that sense it is viable.

I'm relatively sure it's that second sense the OP was getting at, at least going by context. Who knows why they thought to ask the question. Maybe it was a thought prompted by an in-game discussion with someone, or whatever else.

Overall, though, I think you're actually answering a different question than the one the OP asked, at least in the full context of their longer answer. They weren't necessarily asking "could raiders have fun in this game if they didn't raid?" but more "can a non-raider enjoy this game?" since they specifically bring up the fact that raiding players probably wouldn't enjoy the game without raiding.

I think it may also come down to the definition of "viable," though. You seem to be using it in a different sense than I am. If someone asks me "Is this viable?" that, to me is the same question as "Can this work?" whereas you seem to be answering a question that is more "Would you like this?" Viability isn't generally something determined based on subjective values.

At the post cap again. *sigh*

Indeed, I may have misunderstood the post due to my perception of the question I was reading being too obvious. I wasn't answering, "could raiders have fun in this game if they didn't raid?". I was answering, "If I do not enjoy raiding, is this the right game for me?"

Looks like I edited a bit more as you were responding: but essentially, the question you're answering isn't one of viability but rather one of subjective preference. Whether someone will like a game comes down to a ton of stuff that doesn't have much to do with the game's viability i.e., its potential to be successful or functional.

Put another way, asking if the game is "viable" for non-raiders is the same as asking whether it is feasible (or possible) that a non-raider could enjoy it. Again, the answer to that question is yes. An option can be feasible or possible even if another option might in some ways be better.

For sure, sorry for draining your posts! I think that I just assumed viable wasn't really the word the OP meant to be using, as again the answer to that is obvious.

Well, what's obvious to one person may not be obvious to another. The OP seems to have put a lot of thought into it—maybe it was a thought experiment, maybe they were wondering about whether they should recommend the game to someone, or whatever else. I'm sure you know the old adage about what happens when one assumes, after all.

[Kaurie]

I'm relatively sure it's that second sense the OP was getting at, at least going by context. Who knows why they thought to ask the question. Maybe it was a thought prompted by an in-game discussion with someone, or whatever else.

Overall, though, I think you're actually answering a different question than the one the OP asked, at least in the full context of their longer answer. They weren't necessarily asking "could raiders have fun in this game if they didn't raid?" but more "can a non-raider enjoy this game?" since they specifically bring up the fact that raiding players probably wouldn't enjoy the game without raiding.

Indeed, I may have misunderstood the post due to my perception of the question I was reading being too obvious. I wasn't answering, "could raiders have fun in this game if they didn't raid?". I was answering, "If I do not enjoy raiding, is this the right game for me?"

I think it may also come down to the definition of "viable," though. You seem to be using it in a different sense than I am. If someone asks me "Is this viable?" that, to me is the same question as "Can this work?" whereas you seem to be answering a question that is more "Would you like this?" Viability isn't generally something determined based on subjective values.

For sure, sorry for draining your posts! I think that I just assumed viable wasn't really the word the OP meant to be using, as again the answer to that is obvious. It's like asking if it's viable to listen to Justin Bieber if you don't attend concerts. Of course you can still listen to him without attending his concerts - Personally, I hate Justin Bieber, so it's not very viable :P but yes, you can. It's a non question. It's asking, "can you enjoy something that was specifically made so you can enjoy it?". Yes. Why are you asking us this?

Well, what's obvious to one person may not be obvious to another. The OP seems to have put a lot of thought into it—maybe it was a thought experiment, maybe they were wondering about whether they should recommend the game to someone, or whatever else. I'm sure you know the old adage about what happens when one assumes, after all.

I guess.

I'll just assume I misunderstood the post and bow out, as the post as you are describing is a conversation I don't really feel I want to contribute to