Stop the Grind-to-the-Endgame madness!

[Reyko]

I would love to know why everyone is so against a slower leveling pace akin to FFXI. Correct me if I'm wrong but FFXI still has a much larger population and imo FFXIV would have a population similar if they had simply taken the "Archaic" Mechanics that the new ADHD players don't want and put them into this game. I know that SE was going for a larger player-base but realistically they could at least get the amount of subs that FFXI had or close to if they had not gone the ADHD route for this game and you can argue that its not current MMO mechanics but i think what most of us wanted was an FF MMO not necessarily a "Current" MMO. Sorry thats my 2 cents.

[Hyrist]

I would love to know why everyone is so against a slower leveling pace akin to FFXI. Correct me if I'm wrong but FFXI still has a much larger population and imo FFXIV would have a population similar if they had simply taken the "Archaic" Mechanics that the new ADHD players don't want and put them into this game. I know that SE was going for a larger player-base but realistically they could at least get the amount of subs that FFXI had or close to if they had not gone the ADHD route for this game and you can argue that its not current MMO mechanics but i think what most of us wanted was an FF MMO not necessarily a "Current" MMO. Sorry thats my 2 cents.

You're arguing on a matter of personal preference, and assuming your stance is a majority.

Final Fantasy is a subjective experience to begin with. In fact, a defining factor of Final Fantasy is that it's numerals differ from one another with each iteration. A person who likes six, might not like seven, might like eight, might think two was dumb, etc. But the point of the matter is, no system was a duplication of the other.

So why are FFXI romanticists insistent in forcing such a thing? The answer is personal preference. My issue against them is - they're not looking for alternatives. They want leveling slow to the point of exhaustion to others and they fail to acknowledge the reasons why that would be considered a bad mechanic by their intellectual opponents - even though I've listed the primary reason as plain as I possibly could.

There are other means of progression the Developers could instill in this game that does not enforce a sense of separation in the base.

There are other means of creating a sense of journey and development without attaching it to some arbitrary number system.

[Elexia]

So why are FFXI romanticists insistent in forcing.

The same reason you "WoW Romanticists" are forcing your ideals on everyone? If "FFXI romanticists" aren't allowed to force ideals (even though they aren't) why can the other side force ideals?

It's fine to dislike FFXI, but be real here.

[Velhart]

The same reason you "WoW Romanticists" are forcing your ideals on everyone? If "FFXI romanticists" aren't allowed to force ideals (even though they aren't) why can the other side force ideals?

It's fine to dislike FFXI, but be real here.

I never understand people's logic on "WoW clone", its setup became a standard for the genre itself. Would you say that other RPG's are clones of Final Fantasy/Dragon Quest because they use a similar interface? "Ohh this game is a turned based battle system? Its obviously a FF clone.". Chrono Trigger use the same ATB gauge system as FFIV and still considered one of the greatest RPG's of all time. Sure created by the same company, but it's RPG concepts are not completely original, interface wise. What truly makes a game of that genre good is creating your own unique twist to it. Bring people in with the sense of familiarity, and then "BAM!", give them something original feeling.

Chrono Trigger used basic RPG concepts and interface, what made it unique was it's Dual/Triple Tech system and it's time travel method on conveying a story, not to mention multiple endings and new game+. I believe FFXIV 2.0 is the same way. MMO players will come in with that sense of familiarity, then SE will slap something at them that makes the game unique compared to other MMO's. Can compare it to FPS's also, they all use the same/similar interface, but its what they bring in the game's concepts that makes it unique. Bioshock was able to use basic FPS UI concepts, and at the same time, made a very original feeling game.

FFXI purist do need to realize, while it was a great game at it's time, a lot of it's concepts are outdated and will never bring in it's large audience. SE aims at getting the big audience, not just a niche audience like FFXI. The common MMO player does not want to grind on the same monster all day, they want a fun way of progressing their character. The best solution I see to this is questing.

[Hyrist]

The same reason you "WoW Romanticists" are forcing your ideals on everyone? If "FFXI romanticists" aren't allowed to force ideals (even though they aren't) why can the other side force ideals?

It's fine to dislike FFXI, but be real here.

I am being real. Compromise is the solution here, one you're refuting wholesale.

Secondary, I am not a WoW Player, nor do I appeal to it. However, even if FFXI is Square Enix's most profitable game, those profits dwarfed to inconsequential size by the success of WoW, which you seem to be venomously disapproving of.

If we are to be truely netural here, you need to first acknolege that WoW beats FFXI by an approximate factor of twenty four in terms of peak subscriptions. That is not something you ignore because you have a preference to a personal memory. That is when you sit up straight and look at seriously at the differences.

Even ignoring WoW, SWTOR, Rift, Aion, Tera: Their initial subscriptions alone doubled our highest number in FFXI at its peak. Guild Wars 2 is poised to do the same. Yet you scoff at these titles. Even as many of them drop large numbers of subscriptions, they're still pulling higher numbers than FFXI is currently.

You tote around that sign, but I don't believe you follow its lesson.

It is time to stop with the accusatory tones and work towards solutions that appeal to a wide base, not a niche audience. That means putting down the pitchforks and torches saying that the world will burn if leveling is faster than what you want it to be, and start working on other ways that would make content attractive, especially throughout the level span.

Personally, rather than sit and try to stretch out the content by enforcing areas with level caps. I'd rather see them simply add more depth and replay-ability to content and have it be widely accessible.

There are many paths to go about this at variable level speeds. But FFXI is a very, very poor example of good leveling speed. They continually, constantly tried to improve the system and the playerbase was never satisfied with it until after the fact, on the outside looking in. They tend to forget the six hours shouting for a party outside Quifim, or the entire day's worth of XP lost due to a train at Selbina entrance. They overlook the Princess RDMs and BRDs, and the fact that WHM's got pretty much forced out of XP/Merit parties for the duration of an entire expansion.

There are so many incredible flaws in making a stretched out leveling system that do not need to be in this game, and FFXI embodied many of them.

That is not to say that FFXIV's leveling speed needs to be lightening quick. But keep in mind this is a multiple-job system so if it's going to be similar to other MMOs on the market, the leveling speed does have to be a tad faster than those, if Yoshi is to encourage players to play multiple classes per character.

Idealy, the quest and storyline content should support this, so that the player does not feel either rushed nor pushed down. That's a delicate balance to create - one that we will NOT be able to properly measure sitting here on the forums complaining at each other. Especially given everyone's differing playstyles.

Now I've already listed several alternatives, from an optional XP trade for a differing currency, to quested skills, to level-capped dungeons. (And to add an alternative to that, instead of level capping, how about damage capping? So that those of higher level can still use their full skillset, but the effectiveness of those skills is reduced to compensate for the difference.)

I'd like it if you'd attempt to meet me halfway here and come of with a few ideas that would satisfy more than your own ideal.

[Rutelor]

I am not a WoW Player, nor do I appeal to it. However, even if FFXI is Square Enix's most profitable game, those profits dwarfed to inconsequential size by the success of WoW, which you seem to be venomously disapproving of.

If we are to be truely netural here, you need to first acknolege that WoW beats FFXI by an approximate factor of twenty four in terms of peak subscriptions. That is not something you ignore because you have a preference to a personal memory. That is when you sit up straight and look at seriously at the differences.

Even ignoring WoW, SWTOR, Rift, Aion, Tera: Their initial subscriptions alone doubled our highest number in FFXI at its peak. Guild Wars 2 is poised to do the same. Yet you scoff at these titles. Even as many of them drop large numbers of subscriptions, they're still pulling higher numbers than FFXI is currently.

One point most modern audiences have trouble navigating through is how the loud voice of the gigantic financial and demographic success of popular products seems to obliterate the voice of less successful options; the less numerous popularity and inferior financial earnings of more demanding and perhaps less terse material always lose when people go out of their way to determine what's best. It's an argument that most of the time does not include considerations of real quality in its scope.

This is one of the inherent issues with markets, and democracy, as regulating structures: Despite their enormous virtues, and the fact that, no doubt, we lack better options, they do tend to push the notion that popularity equals quality. And who can argue against the mighty push of a big bank account?

The notion that the taste or the preferences of the lesser numbers are equal to elitism, and are therefore perverse, is so profoundly ingrained in our culture--because it's so horrendously exploited and abused, both politically and commercially--that it's difficult even to argue against its blatant incorrectness and demagogical bias.

Mozart has become inferior to Michael Jackson, McDonald's and Subway superior to nutritive home cooking or fine dining, Coca-Cola better than water or wine, Rothko and Pollock lesser than Rockwell, Lucas inherently better than Antonioni or Bergman, and stretching the issue, FFXI markedly inferior to World of Warcraft or Rift, which easily "beat" it by high number factors.

The full philosophical argument against this view is perhaps not within the scope of a forum like this one, but the questioning of it definitely fits here.

Let's not yield so easily to the tyranny of the majority, and the rule of the minimum common denominator, which is inherent complexity-phobic and unaware of quality. And let's remember that the truly great democracies of the world institutionalize opposition to the majority rule, and subject said rule to checks and balances.

R

[Hyrist]

The full philosophical argument against this view is perhaps not within the scope of a forum like this one, but the questioning of it definitely fits here.

Let's not yield so easily to the tyranny of the majority, and the rule of the minimum common denominator, which is inherent complexity-phobic and unaware of quality. And let's remember that the truly great democracies of the world institutionalize opposition to the majority rule, and subject said rule to checks and balances.

R

There are two very pointiest responses to this that we need to address very quickly before your approach is spread without proper context, lest it be misconstruted.

In the concept of McDonalds vs Healthy food, etc. We are talking matters of health care vs capitalistic pursuit - in which there is a clear moral right to weigh against the concept of convenience.

But we are talking about the field of recreation, a subjective art, at best. And the only true measurement of success really is the number of people who enjoy it. In which case this is a matter of 'majority rules' in spite of other examples you would compare with other factors to consider.

To draw an example parallel, this would be like comparing Coke to say Pepsi or some other off-brand rather than trying to compare it to water.


The second major point that must be addressed immediately here is that your statement implies that the because the minority and the majority opinions conflict, that the solution must be exclusive to one or the other, as if neither camp could be satisfied while any amount of the other is.

This is simply not true.

While there is a fringe of players who enjoy a specific type of content and will be inflexible to the point of quitting over it, the ideal solution is to appeal to as broad as an audiance as possible - this includes more hardcore perspectives such as enjoying a longer grind.

But as a minority, it must be stated that the concept of compromise may come greater on that part than on the part of the majority, because the end goal is commercial success. It really is the only way you can truly measure this kind of success objectively.

[Elexia]

The second major point that must be addressed immediately here is that your statement implies that the because the minority and the majority opinions conflict, that the solution must be exclusive to one or the other, as if neither camp could be satisfied while any amount of the other is.

This is simply not true.

Yet basically stating 'you FFXI (insert) are wrong and should realize it's just full of flawed designs and therefore shouldn't be suggesting anything from that outdated period even though WoW released 2 years after it and therfore is just as outdated so you should stop forcing your views on us, FFXI (insert)."

You do realize that's essentially the conflict being stated, right?

[Jynx]

The second major point that must be addressed immediately here is that your statement implies that the because the minority and the majority opinions conflict, that the solution must be exclusive to one or the other, as if neither camp could be satisfied while any amount of the other is.

To say there is no middle ground would be foolish but at the end of the day a wise man once said.

"If you chase two rabbits both will escape."

You can try to appeal to as broad of a audience as possible but in the end you will alienate another segment of the market. There is no such thing as a game that appeals to everyone and obviously the proponents of one side of the fence is going to want things to mainly swing in their favor.

I may be in a minority segment of the market, it's easy to see on paper what segment of the market is ripe for the picking but that's it on paper. FFXI as "Grindfest terribad" that it was still had hundreds of thousands of active subscribers, many of them were long term die-hard fans that were with the game from release to pretty much it's end of times when SE started to spread itself across all demographics with the level cap raise and all of it's casual friendly systems that alienated long time players.

You hear people all the time saying "I played WoW for a couple of months it was fun but it's over now" because it's what WoW is, it's a game designed around mass consumption of easy content with bits of challenge strewn about to appease it's hardcore audience. The customer retention numbers must be mind boggling to see how many accounts are created and never get past that free trial level cap.

Commercial success of a single product will only take you so far. I'll be interested to see what Blizzard does with Titan to differentiate it from WoW. Diablo III has been a harsh lesson for Blizzard as well, despite breaking PC sales records the game itself is hemoraging players because of design choices that made the game more "Convient" to play and took out alot of the long term goals that people played Diablo I-II for years to accomplish.

At the end of the day what I'm trying to point out is that while the "Minority" may not seem like the best market to appeal to, at times they are the guys who save your bacon when things are hard up. Your fans that hold you up under a shoddy foundation while you work to lay the ground work of a more stable game system. Leaving the fans out to dry has shown to have disastrous effect on many companies looking at the 3 large consol hardware manufacturers you can see this as plain as day.

Sony's PS3 launched at a staggering 600.00 price point with a array of issues but their fans from the PS2 held the system aloft long enough for it to start out the gate and be only a scant behind Microsoft in terms of hardware sales. Nintendo completly took their fans for granted and while the Wii sold like hot-cakes to the market the fans themselves had little motivation to purchase the system. Now that the Wii-U has been announced it's been almost panned in the scene with a giant "Meh" and it has yet to show that the mass market is even chomping at the bit to get at it.

There is no way to please everyone, and SE obviously are the ones who have to make the choice about who they aim for. Many comapnies have tried to appeal to everyone and failed misserably you can't please everyone it's a fact of life. You can give everyone a sack of money and there would still be people who spit in your face and say they don't want your charity.

SE needs to strike a balance that is for sure, but one way or another someone is going to get the favorable side of the development team while the other is left to wither on the vine thrown a few bones here and there to keep interest alive.

[Rutelor]

But we are talking about the field of recreation, a subjective art, at best. And the only true measurement of success really is the number of people who enjoy it. In which case this is a matter of 'majority rules' in spite of other examples you would compare with other factors to consider.

To draw an example parallel, this would be like comparing Coke to say Pepsi or some other off-brand rather than trying to compare it to water.

I fundamentally and absolutely don't agree with any of the above. I firmly believe, with many philosophers and thinkers within the fields of psychology of pleasure, and aesthetics, that taste is part of the language of gratification which is essential to art, but it's not its subject. I believe emphasis in subjectivity is both just a market ploy, and a very popular political platform. Again, the full-fledged reasoning behind this, alas, is way too far outside the nature and tone of these forums. Just let it be enough to state that there is at least one person here that does not think that artistic quality is solely determined by subjective standards. That would render all art theory, and the efforts of anthological history of the arts, bogus. Which would make our discussion and these forums irrelevant. They might happen to be that, for reasons more related to the quality of our reasoning than to the subjectivity of our positions.

Subjectivity sways perception of the arts, and our opinion of them, but does not define them solely. There's plenty of objective territory, and room for argument.

BTW, I didn't intend to make Wow the Coke to FFXI's Pepsi. I didn't mean for the parallel to work that way. But you are correct in your criticism. Coke vs. water does not cut it. May I suggest then sugared soda drinks vs. bottled mineral carbonated water? Not as zippy, but perhaps more valid.

The second major point that must be addressed immediately here is that your statement implies that the because the minority and the majority opinions conflict, that the solution must be exclusive to one or the other, as if neither camp could be satisfied while any amount of the other is.

This is simply not true.

You do wrong to your own carefully expressed reasoning, Hyrst, when you state that implication is obvious in my statement. I never implied it, nor does my text express that idea. As a matter of fact, the whole point is that there's a majority, and then there must be an opposition to balance it. To state that the unfettered opposition should rule is, beyond ludicrous, a fallacious corollary, if ever there was one. The obvious corollary is one much closer to your own conclusion of compromise, which is what is exemplified in a correctly-functioning democratic government. To assert that I implied the contrary to the logical conclusion of my own argument is absurd.

I just wanted to dispel the notion that it is an absolute notion that FFXI and its qualities are completely excluded from all possible consideration in our argument because it was way outsold by WoW. Which is something you did seem to imply.

While there is a fringe of players who enjoy a specific type of content and will be inflexible to the point of quitting over it, the ideal solution is to appeal to as broad as an audiance as possible - this includes more hardcore perspectives such as enjoying a longer grind.

But as a minority, it must be stated that the concept of compromise may come greater on that part than on the part of the majority, because the end goal is commercial success. It really is the only way you can truly measure this kind of success objectively.

The implication I refer to above, however, does seem to dissipate when you speak of compromise. This I do agree with. What I don't agree with is the concept that commercial success is tantamount to beating WoW numbers, or even reaching them. That simplifies the situation far too much, and puts it in an unrealistically binary plane. I want a game that by definition will be more rarified, and therefore less populated than WoW was. Viable, and profitable, yes... self-sustainable, absolutely! But in my compromise I wouldn't sacrifice concepts that I consider important just to ensure the numbers match or exceed WoW's. It's obvious, however, that this point won't be subject to my call, since this is a private commercial venture, and I'm not a part of decision-making team. What I can do, however, is honestly and clearly try to express my position to see if it gains traction within the community; because as a collective within the player-base, we can make a difference in the outcome.