Its ffxiv combat really so slow and boring?

[Kirsten_Rev]

Who says it can't be both? RPG just means Role Playing Game. Basically a persona living in an imaginary world starting out as whatever, and facing all sorts of trials and tribulations. Peaks of high moments, peaks of low moments. Friends and enemies you make along your way. All leading up to an end goal in the games world. There's no written rule that says RPG must mean poking bad things with a stick once every couple minutes and going to make a snack while waiting for your next stick poking turn is the right way to RPG vs a world where that same character can move as greased lightning. The world, the setup, the story, the situations are what make an RPG an RPG, not the combat. Hence the genre "Action RPG" was born.

Just to play devil's advocate though, I'd also point out that FFXIV can barely be called an RPG (most FF games are what I'd term 'adventure games' rather than 'role-playing games'). There's no meaningful dialogue options; no meaningful character growth choice; no skill trees or specialties.

That's not to say that the games aren't fun - they are - but it's a far cry from the role-playing options available in true RPGs like Divinity, Deus Ex, or going back further, titles like Baldur's Gate.

[Berethos]

I don't find it slow or boring, but that may be due to my perspective - most of my time is spent as a Bard. Being a proc heavier, priority-based job does change how the combat in this game feels, in my opinion.

[Aylis]

Just to play devil's advocate though, I'd also point out that FFXIV can barely be called an RPG (most FF games are what I'd term 'adventure games' rather than 'role-playing games'). There's no meaningful dialogue options; no meaningful character growth choice; no skill trees or specialties.

That's not to say that the games aren't fun - they are - but it's a far cry from the role-playing options available in true RPGs like Divinity, Deus Ex, or going back further, titles like Baldur's Gate.

I deffo get that completely and to be honest yes I do kinda put adventure games and RPG games for the most part in the same boat and the line between the two gets further blurred each new generation of games. A lot of it I think since you brought up Baldur's Gate has a lot to do with just how drastic the difference between consoles and PC's were at the time. Due to that difference in hardware and tech PC's often wre the source of what I would consider an RPG in terms of character growth, dialogue options and everything in between. The most important part being the ability to make your own story as you saw fit. Granted yes the games had their own story going on, but the freedom on how you tackled it was what made them shine. Want to play nice with the people at an inn? Okay. Want to rob them blind? Okay. Want to get drunk and decide to set off a fireball on the inn keep? Okay, and so on. I do consider games like Baulder's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Icewind Dale and more modern games like The Elder Scrolls series to be where RPG's are at. I could even say Grand Theft Auto is RPG like, just because the freedom of choice on how you take on situations is there. In MMO terms I'd say the closest ones to an RPG that I've played would be SWTOR and GW2 since there was a degree of choices in story situations.

Enter consoles which I feel created a not necessarily right or wrong view of RPG's, just a different one. Since most (at least of those I knew) had a console over a PC just because they were cheaper, more easily available and easy to maintain and quite fun. However due to hardware limitations no way they could cram a world full of infinite choices a player could come up with on a single 8 bit or 16 bit cartridge. They had to make drastic changes to get an RPG game to fit. This is where I agree that most RPG's are adventure games, or more or less the Adventure RPG genre. Games that do have an RPG element in terms of leveling up, getting new abilities and new equipment, interaction with NPC's, and some hidden paths to find. However they're very linear and most of the time spent is just going from point A to point B with no real way to break free and have the story change based on things you do and your choices on interacting with people.

Granted some modern games have gotten better with this and allowing more choices in customizing a games story, but well past experiences and thoughts are hard to change as people get older and are set in their ways.

[OurMom]

I'd just like to ask people who play other MMOs how "build-based" systems are better than this. Because, from what I've heard of these "build-based" MMOs like WoW (which you get one class per character and from what I've heard you have to uproot everything to re-build), if you are not the optimal build people refuse to play with you essentially.

One class per character doesn't really bother me, I don't have everything to 70 and I don't see the need in leveling things I don't plan on playing.

Also the whole "People wont play with you if you aren't cookie cutter" is over exaggeration. If you can pull it off, do it well and not be a complete leech most people don't care. Or they may ask you to swap builds for one particular thing a week.

[Aylis]

I'd just like to ask people who play other MMOs how "build-based" systems are better than this. Because, from what I've heard of these "build-based" MMOs like WoW (which you get one class per character and from what I've heard you have to uproot everything to re-build), if you are not the optimal build people refuse to play with you essentially. So, essentially everyone is optimal build all the time so how in the world is a "build-based" system where everyone has THE EXACT SAME BUILD any more "various" than Scholar has this, dragoon has this, paladin has this, end of story. In fact, it sounds like the PLAYERBASE is doing what the devs of this game have done in that respect, which is limit everybody to having the exact same "build".

The only game that I can think of where builds really make a difference and actually are various and changed things is Warframe... but that's not really an MMORPG, but an MMO

Honestly, I'd rather NOT have a build-based system in FFXIV if it allows players to discriminate against others for dumb reasons.

I tend to prefer build games and one character one class games just for the sole reason of stopping a very good chuck of loot arguments at the end of a run. Anyway while I'm sure build discrimination happens even if I've never or known anyone to be a victim of it. FFXIV may not have build discrimination, it does however have meta discrimination as I've seen people talk about it. The whole "No! Ninja stinks for this fight! You play bard or get ou!" instead.

[Risvertasashi]

That's not to say that the games aren't fun - they are - but it's a far cry from the role-playing options available in true RPGs like Divinity, Deus Ex, or going back further, titles like Baldur's Gate.

A lot of what you call true RPGs... aren't super traditional themselves, and might be called "action RPGs" instead. Of course we could argue over definitions till we're blue in the face, but an elaborate skill tree system isn't particularly integral to the definition and wasn't in quite a few older RPGs.

[LauraAdalena]

I tend to prefer build games and one character one class games just for the sole reason of stopping a very good chuck of loot arguments at the end of a run. Anyway while I'm sure build discrimination happens even if I've never or known anyone to be a victim of it. FFXIV may not have build discrimination, it does however have meta discrimination as I've seen people talk about it. The whole "No! Ninja stinks for this fight! You play bard or get ou!" instead.

And just like how you don't see build discrimination, I don't see too much "meta" discrimination. I see people who prefer meta, I see people complain about those people and I acknowledge it exists. But not kick because they aren't. (Also melee to ranged phys because of a specific fight is a bad example. And if someone is claiming that's meta they should be shunned).

[LauraAdalena]

One class per character doesn't really bother me, I don't have everything to 70 and I don't see the need in leveling things I don't plan on playing.

Also the whole "People wont play with you if you aren't cookie cutter" is over exaggeration. If you can pull it off, do it well and not be a complete leech most people don't care. Or they may ask you to swap builds for one particular thing a week.

The one class per character thing was not really an important part of my comment? I personally don't enjoy being limited on what I can explore with one character, but that's just personal. I was just mentioning it because it tied into the build stuff.

The "people won't play with you if you aren't cookie cutter" might be an over exaggeration, just like how some people claim about XIV that there are a lot of players who won't play with you if you aren't meta. I was just asking if it was or if there was something I was missing on the "build style." (And maybe it's because I'm a Scholar, but I don't see too many. Most of my groups have been joking about meta and what they prefer.)

I also personally don't enjoy spending long hours on a specific "build". And maybe it's because 90% of the RPGs I've played are JRPGs and don't have those long skill trees and stuff.

[Kirsten_Rev]

A lot of what you call true RPGs... aren't super traditional themselves, and might be called "action RPGs" instead. Of course we could argue over definitions till we're blue in the face, but an elaborate skill tree system isn't particularly integral to the definition and wasn't in quite a few older RPGs.

Personally I define them as games in which I have meaningful choice about how to progress through the story, how to grow my character. Those features are the difference, for me, between watching a story play out (most video games), and stepping into the story myself (RPGs). Obviously they're not unique to one genre of game. They're also things that XIV sadly lacks, hence my comment.

Anyway, apologies for taking the thread off-topic. Regardless of what type of game we want to call XIV, my opinion on its combat remains unchanged: it's shallow, predictable, and in dire need of an overhaul. Whether it stays at the same speed or not is of far less relevance to me.

[Dualgunner]

I tend to prefer build games and one character one class games just for the sole reason of stopping a very good chuck of loot arguments at the end of a run. Anyway while I'm sure build discrimination happens even if I've never or known anyone to be a victim of it. FFXIV may not have build discrimination, it does however have meta discrimination as I've seen people talk about it. The whole "No! Ninja stinks for this fight! You play bard or get ou!" instead.

I rather like XIV for letting me level everything on one character. If I have to or want to play something else for a tier, I don't have to level an entirely new character for it; yes I need to level the job itself up, but that's a one-and-done thing. I don't have to repeat MSQ again, I have several XP buffs for leveling up, as well as crafted gear that I can make myself. Then I can switch back and forth pretty freely any time I want.

Also, lol you couldn't have picked a worse job for this hypothetical. If you said "Samurai" or "Black Mage," maybe.