Dungeons have been on a decline for over a decade at this point (Even prior in ARR, they weren't always good, a handful were, but just as many others were slop), and they weren't making reference to picking quality dungeons over quantity dungeons, but rather just that they felt curbing the dungeons from 3 per patch to just 1 would allow them to focus on other content. Now before this gets sidetracked to "What content" - They have released content, it just hasn't been as replayable as it should have been, e.g., Variant/Criterion/Duels/CE/Fully-flushed out DoH/L relics/IR/Resplendents, for example, all of which deviated outside of the content scope from ARR/SB (Where exploratory was just FATEs rebranded as NMs). Any drab changes in design that has occurred on dungeons have literally been as a result of how the majority of people actually interacted with dungeons. Because let's face it even before they decided to rework EXP, you certainly weren't bothering to do optional rooms in Haukke Manor, or Sunken Temple for example. If people treated them like corridor simulators (Which they did) then they are going to give you just that.
Yes, there are problems with the game, and I am just going to simply disagree when people think it is because we have 1 dungeon instead of 3, or because we got 1 Hildibrand quest instead of 2 on an occasion for example. You voice your opinion, I voice mine, that's all there is to it.
Edit: Like I said to someone else, given the choice between a second ARR, and a second ShB, I am picking ShB 99% of the time, and the other 1% just comes from the fact I miss how you could gear crafters and gatherers back then.



引用して返信





