Thread: Reintroduce Maat in 2.0

Originally Posted by Rokien

Well, you could say the same thing with the crystal tower, golden saucer, and whatever else they wanna add~ Shouldn't those stay in their own games? Those are not icons those memorable areas.

They are memoriable areas Rokien, the question is are they going to be exactly as they were in the previous games. The goldsaucer will it be surrounded by an uncrossable desert only accesable through a shit what the word ... cable car system to get to it or even a certain car we have to drive. Are they going to change it and make it like a gold saucer only in name. Also with the crystal tower are they going to make it where (I've played the ds version of III) where there's a wall surrounding the area that you have to pass through to get to it.

The gold saucer has memoriable areas in our mind like the crystal tower does, they are not makiing them in the same way. We can't even say for 100% that that is what they will be called. Atleast I won't call those areas that until they are actually implemented and it says those are the names for it in the game. But It still can't be compared to mogs, chocobos, cid, biggs and wedge which are true icons that have standed the test of time and have beeen through multiple games and not just one.

Originally Posted by Rokien

They don't have to make maat the same way, just like they are not going to make the goldensaucer or crystal tower.

no they don't nor do they have to name him the same but it should be across the board not just for certain classes/jobs or even as a fight for that matter as i have been saying. ^_^

Originally Posted by indira

well damn near every game SE/square has made has been pertty much the same, 99% of there games are even called finalfantasy and were up to FFXIV and theres a missing third FFXIII. why break tradition?
the only thing that changes is the story. so far its all they can come up with.

There is no tradition to Maat nor is there a tradition when in comparison to all the other final fantasy games out there. The only one that every had a limit cap quests was final fastansy 11 which was their first mmorpg so they tried something different from the other games (which with most of them was you just had to grind enough to get to level 99 and then you hit max level) it was a concept that some people enjoyed while others didn't. The other changes is the story is what setting the final fantasies where in not the major plot out line. Each final fantasy carries the same story something evil breaks free or starts rising to power a group of heroes form to destroy said evil. It's the same concept in 11 as well you're fighting as a group even if it consists as an alliance to destroy what evil that threatens that world. The only difference with 11 is it's a group of different human players doing it together than a party controlled by ones self. And the reason why they call the games Final Fantasy was because it was a division of Square Soft's last ditch effort to make a game that could sell to the mass markets to keep them in the business and that original one succeeded so they continued with the title but making each background story different but the theme the same.

Originally Posted by Grimwald

God forbid we install a system that teaches players how to prepare themselves for the endgame content and how to play their jobs. OH GOD THAT WOULD BE HORRIBLE, HOW EVER WOULD WE LIVE WITH OURSELVES. ONLY TERRIBLE HUMAN BEINGS WOULD WANT SUCH A THING

Seriously, I'd like to see a good and logical argument as to why a fight like that is a bad idea.

Hint: 16 pages and there hasn't been one so far.

Because fighting Maat didn't teach you how to do endgame? And if it's anything similar (a solo fight) then it's not going to teach you anything either.

The Maat fight was a roadblock and that's it. It taught you how to follow a specific strategy that was used no-where else in the game.