What is this I don't even...

[Andrell]

[Kallera]

Let's hunt us some more data!

[Abriael]

I'm glad GW2 is used for comparaison. Wow is behind now. New bars have been set. We must criticize XIV for any lacks under new standards and direction.

Wow is behind what? GW2 is already well on its way to decline (even thanks to the attempt to break the mold in a rather clumsy way only for the sake of having more bullet points to write behind the box), while wow, as much as I personally dislike it, is still sitting nicely on top of the hill, by far and still happily asking for subscriptions to boot.

No new bars have been set. Especally not by GW2. It doesn't matter anyway, as good writers preview and review games on their own pros, cons and values, not compared to others.

[Mitsuhide]

Wow is behind what? GW2 is already well on its way to decline (even thanks to the attempt to break the mold in a rather clumsy way only for the sake of having more bullet points to write behind the box), while wow, as much as I personally dislike it, is still sitting nicely on top of the hill, by far and still happily asking for subscriptions to boot.

No new bars have been set. Especally not by GW2. It doesn't matter anyway, as good writers preview and review games on their own pros, cons and values, not compared to others.

I have to half disagree.
GW2 threw out the holy trinity and it does work, not perfectly but it works.
Tried some WvWvW?...also not perfect because if more than 120+ players are on screen its the invisible death but with that scale itr still runs good and its fun.
It does have alot of content from the beginning, while this isnt something special (at least it shouldnt be) everything without the monthly fees.
And thats the point, if something like GW2 does not have monthly fees and still offers so much content why bothering with others?
As much as i love FF and hope it will succeed, what offers FFARR in comparision with monthly fees?
Of course we dont know yet but its an important question in my opinion.

The writer's the one that brought up GW2 actually, and in a quite improper way at it.

So thats an invitation to act like a little child?
The only thing which the article has proven, is how immature the community can be or is.
And thats a very important point in MMOs, of course you cant judge the whole community because of a few...but people still do it.

[Powercow]

while wow, as much as I personally dislike it, is still sitting nicely on top of the hill, by far and still happily asking for subscriptions to boot.

Well they are down to... heh, 9.6 million subscribers. But hey, the subscription model must be dead because people say it is, right?

Honestly her article came off like a person who played a small segment of the game and decided to compare it against their favorite game in the same genre... which is exactly what happened. I didn't care for the wording used in the article and she seems to have missed the point on nearly every problem she encountered. Anybody who can think about game design for a moment can spot these issues.

For example, not giving rewards to high-level players doing a low-level FATE. The reason for this is incredibly obvious to all of us, since you would spend time gearing up your alts by smashing through the low-level FATEs, which makes them incredibly boring for the newer players. Anyone who's played a game with a system like that (RIFT, for example) knows that you might be having a ton of fun with a couple other low-level people, then some level-capped epic-geared guy comes in and just kills everything instantly. He may be well-intentioned, but he ruined the fun everyone else was having.

Remember: anything that's not clearly an oversight or bug was put into the game on purpose. If you look at a game and see something in it that doesn't make sense to you or seems really stupid, try to think for a moment about why it might have been put in there. Try to guess the thought process of the developer, and if you can discern a reason or two about why they may have made that decision and you still think the thing in question is stupid despite their reasons, THEN you can say it's stupid and explain why their thought process is faulty.

This is what annoys me about this article. The author didn't even try to use critical reasoning to figure out what the intention was before jumping to a conclusion that it was wrong.

Here's an example with handing over quest items:
The article (paraphrasing):
"Handing over quest items is a pain in the ass."

How a good article would phrase it:
"Handing over quest items is intended to slow down questing and force people to read the quest dialogue. I didn't find the quests interesting enough to warrant reading them, and forcing every player to have to stop and hand over the X Bear Asses to the NPC every time I just wanted the EXP and the new shirt felt like it was dragging the pace of the game to a halt. People who are interested in reading the quest dialogue can stop and read it, the rest of us should be able to just get on with the game."
(Note: THIS EXAMPLE IS NOT MY OPINION. This is simply an example of how an opinion should be phrased if it's meant to invite discussion or give off any sort of impression that it's a reasonable statement.)

The first is just saying "X sucks." The second is saying "X was meant to do Y, but it still sucks because Z."

[Xatsh]

GW2 is fun for some not for others.

Without a doubt the PvP in GW2 is really good. One of the best pvp games made in awhile.

I say GW2 falls very very short on PvE though. It is primarily solo outside dungons. The Dynamic events are not really that fun at least no more then questing. The lack of holy trinity works wonders for pvp balancing but is very anti group again. There are no defined roles. Crafting is sorta bad. Weak story.

GW2 isn't a bad game for PvPers but for those who hate PvP honestly I would say GW2 is the worst mmo made since the original launch of XIV 1.0. XIV right before shutdown was a far better mmo then GW2 PvE wise.

At the absolute max GW2 should get a C or C- for a grade.

[Maxwell]

Lets not get into a "which mmo is better" fight here, that is not what i meant to argue within my side notes. I simply meant to acknowlege that pitting FFXIV against its competition is valid and ultimately beneficial to us players as a way to drive the improvement of the game.

The number of subscriptions/players on a game has no bearing on my appreciation of a game.

[Andrien]

she solo'd a monster that is designed for groups in FATE, but then she realized her level was to high and, then complains about it?

[Preypacer]

she solo'd a monster that is designed for groups in FATE, but then she realized her level was to high and, then complains about it?

People have become used to being rewarded for everything anymore, thanks to devs continuously increasing the reward given for even the most menial of tasks. They even feel entitled to it in many cases. So, it doesn't surprise me at all that she assumed that to be the case with the FATE she did.

[Abriael]

I have to half disagree.
GW2 threw out the holy trinity and it does work, not perfectly but it works.

Which is exactly what turned it into a boring game on the long run and one of the elements causing its decline that is already very visible. Again, reinventing the wheel for the sake of it. MMORPG players *like* to have a role and take pride in being the best they can at it. Removing roles only lowers the tactical value of encounters and gives players nothing to be proud of.

And thats the point, if something like GW2 does not have monthly fees and still offers so much content why bothering with others?

Because GW2 is one of the most generic MMOs out there, with badly written lore and storylines, made with an engine that was already obsolete five years ago, and the gameplay is tactically flat and boring on the long run.

As much as i love FF and hope it will succeed, what offers FFARR in comparision with monthly fees?

Top notch visuals and art direction, great writing, production values that surpass GW2 in every single aspect that can be seen and not just by a little bit. As for the gameplay, we'll have to see how all the elements will fit together, which is the real crucial aspect of a MMO (and a LOT more important than "waaah innovatonz!").

Let's add the fact that Free to Play is not, has never been and will never be the be all and all of MMO business models.

Pay to play ensures that the developer will dedicate all the resources it can to keep the community engaged with fast paced releases of high quality content.

Free to play ensures that the developer will dedicate a large part of its resources to push people into buying crap in the cash shop.

So thats an invitation to act like a little child?
The only thing which the article has proven, is how immature the community can be or is.
And thats a very important point in MMOs, of course you cant judge the whole community because of a few...but people still do it.

Oh please, you're not making the slightest sense. Every community has its hotheads.

besides, I'm sorry to burst a big bubble here, but telling a writer that he sounds biased and that his article is bad does not equate to act like a "Little kid". It equates to expressing a perfectly valid opinion. No matter where they write, journalists aren't above criticism, and they aren't entitled to complex explanations on why people think their article is bad. It's primarily *their* responsibility to understand why people feel that they did a bad job.

That's what you call professionality.

Lets not get into a "which mmo is better" fight here, that is not what i meant to argue within my side notes. I simply meant to acknowlege that pitting FFXIV against its competition is valid and ultimately beneficial to us players as a way to drive the improvement of the game.

As a matter of fact it's not. Good writers judge games on their own values and flaws, not making comparisons with other products.

A writer that can't make his point without drawing direct comparisons simply is a weak writer, lacking in expertise and competence.